The aim of the study
This study investigates the different question functions employed by four teachers in a private language school while teaching two classes of EFL students It focuses on comparing native speaker (NS) and non-native speaker (NNS) teachers, as well as examining the proficiency levels of the students involved.
Research questions
The study specifically addresses the following research questions:
1 What are the proportions of questions vs non-question discourse in the four teachers‟ classes?
2 What are the general question functions used by the four teachers?
3 What are the types of question functions used by the NS teachers vs NNS teachers?
4 What are the types of question functions used by the teachers with high in level class and in low level class?
Significance of the study
The study is crucial as it enhances teachers' understanding of how Native Speaker (NS) and Non-Native Speaker (NNS) educators utilize questioning techniques in EFL classrooms This knowledge enables EFL teachers to craft suitable question types tailored to their learning environments Questioning is a prevalent teaching strategy, often consuming over half of class time (Gall, 1984; Kerry, 2002) The question-and-answer dynamic transcends mere fact-sharing; it fosters interactive learning between teachers and students, allowing educators to co-construct knowledge by building on students' prior understanding and encouraging deeper thinking through higher-order questions.
Research on English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teaching and learning in private English centers is limited, primarily because these institutions are often overlooked by academics as part of the mainstream educational system Accessing these private language environments for research purposes is also more challenging than studying regular schools However, given that supplementary English lessons have become a widespread experience among Vietnamese learners, investigating the dynamics of learning in private English centers is equally crucial as research conducted in traditional educational settings.
Scope of the study
When it comes to questions, there are many researchers as Quirk,
In their research, Hakansson & Lindberg, Tsui, Lyons, and Gabrielatos proposed various methods for classifying questions, including criteria such as form/function, cognitive level, and communicative value This study specifically adopts Tsui's classification, categorizing questions based on their elicitation functions, which include inform, confirm, agree, commit, repeat, and clarify The term "elicitation" refers to any utterance that aims to prompt a required verbal or non-verbal response, as defined by Tsui (1992) Additionally, the author incorporates two other types of question functions: pseudo questions and understanding check questions, as identified by Shin-Mei Kao (2012).
In this study comparing Native Speaker (NS) and Non-Native Speaker (NNS) teachers, the researcher selected a limited sample due to constraints in ability and time Specifically, the research focuses on two NS teachers and two NNS teachers, along with two classes comprising a total of 24 students.
Organization of the study
This study is divided into three main parts
Part A, INTRODUCTION, presents the rationale for choosing the topic, the aims and objectives, the scope, the significance, the methodology and the design of the study
Part B of the article, titled DEVELOPMENT, consists of three chapters: Chapter One provides a literature review that establishes the theoretical foundation for the research Chapter Two outlines the methodology used in the study, covering the action research design, the setting, participants, instrumentation, and the procedures followed Finally, Chapter Three presents the results of the research.
In the concluding section of this article, we explore the pedagogical implications derived from the findings of our study on Environmental English studies We address the limitations encountered during the research and propose recommendations for future investigations in this field Additionally, we provide a comprehensive list of references that informed our research, along with an appendix for further context.
Literature review
Native and non- native teachers of English and classroom interaction
This article explores the questioning techniques used by both native and non-native English teachers in EFL classroom interactions, highlighting the ongoing debate surrounding the effectiveness of native versus non-native instructors.
The term "native speaker" refers to individuals who possess an innate command of a language, making them reliable sources of linguistic authenticity (Ferguson, 1983) As Davies (1991) notes, being a native speaker is an inherent quality that one does not choose, highlighting the involuntary nature of this identity Furthermore, the distinction between native and non-native speakers is shaped by societal acceptance, with Davies asserting that this boundary is constructed by both native and non-native speakers alike (p 9).
Many Vietnamese individuals perceive native speakers (NS) of English as more authoritative in teaching English as a Foreign Language (EFL) compared to non-native speakers (NNS) This belief stems from the idea that NS teachers utilize their mother tongue in instruction Previous studies have investigated the teaching styles and effectiveness of both NS and NNS educators in this context.
Research by Norton (1997) and Árva and Medgyes (2000) indicates that native-speaking (NS) teachers outperform non-native speaking (NNS) teachers in various aspects of English proficiency, including speaking, pronunciation, listening, vocabulary, and reading McNeill (1994) further asserts that NS teachers are better equipped to provide correct usage examples and identify acceptable language in student output compared to their NNS counterparts Medgyes (1992) notes that NNS teachers struggle to attain native-level proficiency due to their "norm-dependent" language development processes and their tendency to imitate native speakers Overall, these studies highlight the inherent advantages that NS teachers possess over NNS teachers in terms of language proficiency.
Research indicates that non-native speaker (NNS) teachers often excel over native speaker (NS) teachers in addressing the needs of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners According to ĩstỹnlỹoglu (2007), NNS teachers can effectively explain abstract concepts and manage classrooms due to their shared first language (L1) with students This commonality allows NNS teachers to better understand the challenges their students face, as they have experienced similar language learning journeys themselves McNeill (1994) highlights that NNS teachers are more adept at identifying vocabulary issues among EFL students, particularly those with lower proficiency levels Phillipson (1996) considers NNS teachers as "ideal" language educators because their firsthand experience of learning English as an additional language equips them to recognize and address the linguistic and cultural needs of their students.
Research indicates that native-speaking (NS) teachers serve as excellent language models, whereas non-native-speaking (NNS) teachers are more effective in facilitating language learning This highlights the distinct advantages each group brings to language education.
Tajino and Tajino (2000) suggests that team-teaching conducted by the two groups of teachers may be most effective for an EFL course
Classroom interaction, particularly the language used by teachers, is vital for initiating dialogue, as highlighted by Tsui (2001) Walsh (2011) emphasizes that questioning consumes a significant portion of a language teacher's time, with classroom discourse largely revolving around question-and-answer routines, where teachers predominantly control the conversation Teachers not only guide discussions through their questions but also serve as role models for students Chaudron (1993) supports this notion, stating that interactions between teachers and students create optimal opportunities for learners to practice target language skills, test their language hypotheses, and receive valuable feedback Effective teacher talk, including strategic questioning, is crucial for enhancing language comprehension and encouraging student output.
Teacher talk and questions
Extensive classroom research has investigated various elements of teacher talk that foreign language learners encounter, emphasizing aspects such as speech rate, talk volume, the impact of teacher questioning on student performance, discourse modifications, pauses, types of oral feedback, and changes in syntax and vocabulary Key findings from studies conducted by Almeida (2011), Dashwood (2005), and Hamayan and Tucker (1980) highlight the significance of these features in enhancing language acquisition.
Pica and Long (1986) and Shen (2012)) suggests the following general picture though with some variation (cited by Kayaoğlu, 2013):
Teacher talk occupies the major proportion of a class hour
Teachers use shorter utterances with less proficient learners
Teachers do more repetition with foreign language learners
Teachers use longer pauses with learners
Teachers speak more loudly and make their talk more distinct with learners
Teachers slow down their rate of speech to learners
The significance of questioning in classroom interaction has garnered considerable academic interest, as it serves as a vital pedagogical tool for teachers to assess students' knowledge and stimulate critical thinking The ability to formulate various types of questions is essential in the teaching and learning process, as it enhances language acquisition, encourages student participation, and fosters meaningful interactions Research indicates that the types of questions posed by teachers are closely linked to student achievement and engagement Chaudron (1988) emphasizes that teachers' questions are crucial for capturing learners' attention, eliciting verbal responses, and evaluating their progress.
According to Pawlak (2004), student participation in classroom interactions is vital for enhancing language learning, as teachers can adapt their teaching methods based on student responses Questions play a crucial role by encouraging students to engage, providing feedback for teachers to refine their content and language delivery Additionally, questions help maintain the flow of classroom discussions and correct deviations from planned lessons They also facilitate language production, leading to accurate and meaningful responses The following section will explore the types of questions used by native and non-native speaker teachers in their EFL classrooms.
In an EFL classroom, teachers' questions are crucial for enhancing student engagement, assessing comprehension, and facilitating interactive learning (Shin-Mei Kao, 2012) Questioning serves as a vital tool for EFL teachers to maintain classroom control (Ellis, 1990) and effectively implement instructional materials (Gabrielatos, 1997) However, many EFL teachers often resort to pseudo or display questions, which are inquiries where the answers are already known to both the teacher and some students (Long & Sato, 1983) For instance, when a teacher asks, “What can you see in the picture?” the intent is merely to prompt students to showcase their existing knowledge rather than to explore new information.
& Sato, 1983; Brock, 1986; Thompson, 1991; Thornbury, 1996 cited in second language classrooms, Chaudron, 1993)
In real communication, asking pseudo questions undermines Grice's maxim of quality, as it suggests insincerity and may not yield genuine responses While teachers often use pseudo questions to assess student comprehension, these questions typically prompt simple, low-level answers The unequal status between students and teachers in the classroom leads students to feel compelled to respond, but as they mature, their willingness to engage with pseudo questions diminishes Consequently, poor questioning practices can hinder effective language teaching and learning.
Genuine or referential questions are essential in effective communication, particularly in educational settings, as they seek to uncover unknown information from students Teachers utilize these questions to encourage students to share their opinions, judgments, and real-life experiences, thereby addressing information gaps Unlike pseudo questions, referential questions foster authentic dialogue and enable students to express their thoughts and provide insights that the teacher may not possess Research supports the notion that these questions are vital for promoting meaningful interaction in the classroom (Long & Sato, 1983; Brock, 1986; Thompson, 1991; Thornbury).
1996 cited in second language classrooms, Chaudron, 1993) The answer to a referential question is usually longer than that to a pseudo question and carries content meanings which help forward the conversation
Long and Sato (1983) found a significant difference in questioning styles between native and non-native speakers during informal conversations and in EFL classrooms, with referential questions dominating NS-NNS interactions (76%) compared to only 14% in teacher-learner exchanges Shomoossi (2004) supported this observation, noting that experienced non-native English teachers in Iran used pseudo questions 4.4 times more than referential questions, resulting in greater classroom interaction from referential questions Seedhouse (1996) suggested that EFL teachers' superior language proficiency may lead to a scarcity of genuine questions, particularly when focused on pedagogical goals Lynch (1991) highlighted that the communicative use of questioning constitutes a minor aspect of typical classroom activities, emphasizing the need for improved questioning strategies in EFL contexts.
According to Sinclair and Coulthard (1975), the concept of elicitation in classroom interactions involves teachers prompting students for responses Tsui (1992) defines "elicitation" as utterances that require verbal or non-verbal replies from the listener In her research, Tsui identifies six distinct functions of elicitation: informing, confirming, agreeing, committing, repeating, and clarifying, as referenced by Janin Jafari (2013).
According to Tsui (1992), information questions aim to fill knowledge gaps by eliciting new information from the addressee, without any prior assumptions from the speaker In contrast, confirmation questions reflect an assumption held by the speaker, who seeks validation from the addressee, as seen in inquiries like, “You will go to Taipei tomorrow, right?” Additionally, agreement questions also stem from a speaker's assumption, but their propositions are considered "self-evidently true," relying on shared knowledge to invite the addressee's concurrence This type of questioning is particularly effective in initiating conversations and establishing social connections, such as when one remarks, “It’s a nice day, isn’t it?” to break the ice with a stranger.
A commitment question necessitates not only a verbal response but also further interaction between the speaker and listener For instance, asking, "Can you turn on the light?" requires the listener to take action, rather than simply responding with, "Sure, I can." Additionally, when a question is repeated, it serves to clarify the original statement or specific unclear elements, as seen in phrases like "Pardon?"
Clarification questions, such as “Sorry?”, “Huh?”, or “What did you say?”, are designed to address confusion or uncertainty about a previous statement Unlike repeat questions, these inquiries prompt the speaker to clarify their message, ensuring better understanding in the conversation.
Shin-Mei Kao (2012) critiques Tsui's taxonomy of elicitation functions, arguing that it is not exhaustive and primarily focuses on interactions between speakers with equal authority, which limits its applicability in classroom settings where teachers hold greater control Tsui’s classification of pseudo questions as mere information elicitation fails to recognize their unique role in educational contexts Pseudo questions, typically posed by teachers, serve to assess students' understanding of the material, while understanding check questions aim to confirm whether students are following along Unlike confirmation questions, understanding check questions do not assume prior knowledge, highlighting the distinct purposes these question types serve in classroom interaction This study introduces these two additional categories to enhance the analysis of teacher-student communication.
In Excerpt 1, Turn 17 and Turn 22 illustrate how a native speaker teacher (NS-L) engages low-level EFL students by asking understanding check questions during a game instruction The teacher pauses periodically to ensure the students comprehend the material, demonstrating effective teaching strategies to enhance student participation and learning.
Excerpt 1: Ms Elena-NS (L_voice5)
17 T: ok, we will divide into 2 teams/ ok?/
19 T: ((dividing the class into 2 team))/ok, you are team sun/ you are moon/ok?/
21 T: ok, team sun has to explain a sentence/ the other team has to guess, right/ok/make sentences to describe this word, ok?
22 S: ok/ this fruit is like orange juice/
Pseudo and understanding check questions are infrequently used in social conversations, as highlighted by Long and Sato (1983), who found that adult native speakers rarely employed them with non-native speakers In situations where one speaker holds more power, such as a company leader, they tend to use these questions more often, thereby exerting control over the conversation's direction and the contributions of others Goody (1978) emphasizes that questions serve as speech acts that allow participants to negotiate and assert their status Consequently, using such questions in casual talks can disrupt Grice's (1989) cooperation principle, potentially leading to perceptions of the speaker as "bossy." In contrast, in a classroom setting, the established hierarchical relationship between teachers and students permits teachers to ask pseudo and understanding check questions without facing significant negative reactions from students (van Lier, 1988).
Instructional questions, such as pseudo and understanding check questions, focus on guiding students, while communication-oriented questions, as identified by Tsui (1992), foster a more interactive classroom environment Utilizing a greater variety of communicative questions enhances language teaching and learning by promoting natural interactions Conversely, when instructional questions dominate, the teacher maintains control, leading students to provide predetermined answers that do not advance the conversation In this dynamic, the teacher often offers evaluative feedback, which can stifle student engagement and limit the progression of dialogue.
“feedback” pattern is called the I-R-F interaction by Sinclair and Coulthard
Studies about EFL teachers‟ and students‟ questioning
Many studies point out that questions seeking new information carry more instructional value, both in content and length, than display questions Brock
In 1986, research revealed that referential questions prompted greater student output and higher cognitive responses compared to display questions in language teaching Beardmore (1996) argued that overusing display questions could hinder student output and limit autonomous thinking However, this perspective is not universally supported; Kachur and Prendergast (1997) discovered that students felt less engaged with authentic questions from teachers and were more inclined to respond to pseudo questions.
A study conducted in 1993 revealed that referential questions failed to generate more complex utterances or enhance student-teacher interaction These findings may stem from the comparison of classrooms with varying objectives, teaching styles, techniques, and student proficiency levels Furthermore, the reliance on surveys and interviews as primary research tools could lead to biased perceptions, potentially misrepresenting the actual dynamics of classroom interactions.
Research on the use of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students in classroom settings is less extensive than studies focused on teachers, primarily due to the challenges of collecting data from students Educators generally agree that questions posed by students reflect their engagement in classroom activities Taboada and Guthrie (2006) discovered a correlation between student-generated questions and their prior knowledge of the texts, with the complexity of their questions corresponding to their conceptual understanding Additionally, Skilton and Meyer (1993) found that factors such as gender, nationality, and proficiency, along with participation structures and task types, significantly affected the number and variety of questions students asked Notably, students exhibited greater question-asking behavior during small group work compared to teacher-led activities.
This chapter explores key issues related to native and non-native English teachers and their classroom interactions It provides an overview of teacher talk and questioning techniques, followed by an examination of research on questioning practices among EFL teachers and students The next chapter will focus on the methodology employed in this study.
Methodology
The aim and research questions
The aim of the study:
This study examines the different question functions employed by four teachers in a private language school while instructing two classes of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students It considers the impact of teachers' language backgrounds, differentiating between native speakers (NS) and non-native speakers (NNS), as well as the students' proficiency levels, categorized as high and low.
1 What are the proportions of questions versus non-question discourse in the four teachers‟ classes?
2 What are the general question functions used by the four teachers?
3 What are the types of question functions used by the NS teachers vs NNS teachers?
4 What are the types of question functions used by the teachers with in high level class and in low level class?
Background of the research site
The study took place in a branch of a private English school chain called
Popodoo School in Hanoi caters to students aged 3 to 15, offering tailored classes based on placement test results Students typically attend sessions twice a week, each lasting 90 minutes with a brief intermission Classes are scheduled after regular school hours to accommodate students' schedules.
The cram school employs a diverse teaching staff, including native speakers (NS) from countries such as Australia, Canada, and the UK, alongside non-native speakers (NNS), all of whom are Vietnamese Each class is co-taught by an NS and an NNS, with each teacher responsible for a 45-minute lesson NNS teachers handle additional tasks such as assigning homework, conducting quizzes, and designing tests The school emphasizes the benefits of exposure to various English accents and cultures to enhance the learning experience All NS teachers hold at least a college degree, while NNS teachers possess degrees in English language teaching or related fields Prior to teaching independently, all teachers must complete training sessions and NNS teachers are required to pass periodic English proficiency exams to maintain their skills Four teachers were specifically assigned to the study by the school's head.
Materials and teaching approaches
The school utilized a standardized series of textbooks titled "Family and Friends" and "Phonics," spanning levels A to F, which were specifically designed for their curriculum Each lesson focused on a distinct topic, featuring dialogues, grammar explanations, sentence pattern drills, and cultural context, complemented by engaging language games The primary variation among the volumes was the linguistic complexity and the topics addressed Teachers were encouraged to incorporate language games and discussions in every class to enhance learning Renowned for its uniform teaching methods across Vietnam, the school mandated that all instructors adhere to established guidelines and procedures during their lessons.
This study involved four teachers: two native speakers (NS) from the United States and two non-native speakers (NNS) from Vietnam The NNS teachers, NNS-H and NNS-L, taught high-level and low-level classes, respectively, and both hold bachelor's degrees from a Vietnamese university In contrast, the NS teachers had degrees outside of English or education All four educators participated in a teacher training program and observed experienced teachers before independently managing their own classrooms.
The study involved two classes, Class-L (low-level) and Class-H (high-level), both taught by the same pair of native speakers (NS) and non-native speakers (NNS) teachers All participants were native Vietnamese speakers, with their English proficiency levels assessed through a placement test administered by the school In Vietnam, children typically start learning English around the ages of 5 or 6, which often results in older students having higher proficiency due to more extended study periods This trend was evident among the learners in this study.
Class-H consisted of 12 students, including 9 boys and 3 girls, with an average age ranging from 9 to 11 years The students typically arranged themselves in a half-circle to facilitate better interaction with each other and the teacher during lessons.
The current study focuses on two main variables: the teachers' language background (native vs non-native English speakers) and the students' proficiency levels (low vs high) Conducted in a classroom setting, the research acknowledges external factors such as variations in teachers' experience and styles, students' age differences, and the specific content taught As van Lier (1988) emphasizes, each language classroom presents unique contexts that are challenging to control, making it difficult to achieve the rigor of a true experimental study Consequently, this discourse-oriented research does not aim for immediate generalization of findings but rather seeks to document and explain the dynamics within these specific classroom environments.
Data collection
This study utilized primary data collected from 20 audio-taped lessons, comprising 10 lessons from each of two classes, instructed by both native-speaking (NS) and non-native-speaking (NNS) teachers In total, five lessons were recorded for each of the four teachers involved in the research.
The researcher conducted observations of two classes prior to the data collection to ensure familiarity among students and teachers During the lesson recording, the researcher remained in the classroom to take field notes and monitor the recording equipment The collected data was then transcribed verbatim for accuracy.
Open observation method and interview
In addition to the audio recordings, the open observation method (Hopkins,
In 2006, a personal shorthand method was utilized in class to document key observations of teachers' reactions and behaviors, focusing on both verbatim and non-verbatim recordings of classroom interactions The primary objective
The study aimed to understand how subjects organized their questions and the intentions behind them, utilizing semi-structured interviews as the preferred method This approach is favored by educational researchers for its ability to facilitate in-depth exploration, allowing interviewers to probe and expand on participants' responses (Hitchcock & Hughes, 1994) The interview questions naturally guided the data analysis, with information collected through careful note-taking during the interviews.
The final step involved conducting semi-structured interviews with informants to gain deeper insights into the pedagogical objectives of each participant They were encouraged to provide detailed elaborations on key questions related to their educational goals.
1 For what purposes do you use questions in the classroom?
2 What are factors that affect your questions in class?
3 What do you do when you feel your question is not understood or is not responded to in class?
Data analysis
The fundamental measurement unit in data analysis is known as the "analysis of speech unit" (AS-unit) This unit is defined as a single speaker's utterance that includes an independent clause or sub-clausal unit, along with any associated subordinate clauses.
AS-units are essential for analyzing fragment utterances and features typical of non-native speech and teacher communication (Kim & Elder, 2005) In this study, pauses were utilized to segment AS-units, with a cut-off point of 0.7 seconds, slightly exceeding the 0.5 seconds recommended by Foster et al (2000), reflecting the slower speech rate of language teachers compared to native speakers (Ellis, 1990) Additionally, qualitative analyses of classroom observations and teacher interviews were conducted to triangulate and validate the classroom data findings.
Coding procedures and reliability
The transcribed data were segmented into AS-units and coded into eight categories of question functions Two raters, after undergoing training and independently analyzing one lesson, achieved a 0.95 inter-rater reliability during the trial session The average of their coding decisions was then used as the final results for subsequent lessons This allowed for a comparison of the question functions used by teachers and students to address the research questions.
This chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the study's setting, research methodology, and the instruments and procedures employed The detailed description of these elements serves as the foundation for the subsequent analysis and discussion of the major findings, which will be presented in Chapter three.
Results
Concluding remarks
This study investigates the question functions employed by four teachers in two EFL classes at a private language school, focusing on the impact of the teachers' language backgrounds (native speakers vs non-native speakers) and the students' proficiency levels (high vs low) The research involved two native speakers and two non-native speakers teaching two distinct classes, with data collected from 20 audio-taped lessons that were transcribed verbatim Additionally, observations and interviews provided descriptive insights beyond the audio recordings The findings reveal that the use of question functions is influenced by both the teachers' language backgrounds and the students' proficiency levels.
The language backgrounds of the teachers
All four teachers utilized questions extensively, with non-native speaker (NNS) teachers focusing more on instructional questions, while native speaker (NS) teachers employed a mix of instructional and communicative questions The first language of the teachers appeared to influence their questioning styles Observations and interviews revealed that NNS teachers emphasized communication by incorporating daily life scenarios for students to practice English Notably, differences emerged in handling ambiguity during question-answer exchanges; NNS teachers often repeated or translated questions into Vietnamese and used both languages when teaching grammar In contrast, NS teachers typically rephrased unclear questions and adhered to an "English-only" policy in their classes.
The proficiency levels of students
Students across two classes, regardless of their proficiency levels, expressed a strong desire for open communication For high-level students, teachers employed more communicative question types, such as information and confirmation questions, while minimizing instructional questions like pseudo questions Additionally, teachers allocated more class time for discussions As a result, high-level students asked significantly more questions than their low-level counterparts and sought more innovative and challenging activities beyond traditional language games found in textbooks.
Teachers of Class-L often used pseudo and understanding check questions due to the students' limited expression capabilities Despite this, the students expressed interest in engaging in "real" discussions and exploring outside topics To enhance participation and motivation, language games that emphasized physical reactions with minimal verbal output were implemented in the classroom.
Thus, teacher‟s questioning patterns and the quantity of questions asked in the classroom seem to depend on teachers‟ background knowledge and the students‟ proficiency level.
Pedagogical Implications
Asking questions is the second most common strategy employed by EFL instructors, following lecturing, as it serves as essential target language input and fosters classroom interaction Teachers utilize questions to elicit information, assess understanding, and manage student behavior In this study, four teachers demonstrated effective use of questioning techniques in their lessons, although the types of questions varied significantly due to their linguistic backgrounds and the proficiency levels of their students.
While English was the primary medium in the classrooms aimed at teaching conversational skills, the interaction often leaned towards instruction rather than communication, particularly among non-native speaker (NNS) teachers These educators primarily used instructional questions, leading to brief exchanges that adhered to the Initiation-Response-Feedback (I-R-F) pattern, which limited student engagement and opportunities for natural conversation In contrast, native speaker (NS) teachers employed a balance of instructional and communicative questions, facilitating more meaningful interactions and allowing students to practice their language skills in realistic contexts This study highlights the importance of diverse questioning techniques, suggesting that both NNS and NS teachers can enhance classroom communication by incorporating various question types to foster a more interactive learning environment.
The study highlights the risks of enforcing an "English-only" policy in EFL classrooms, particularly for low-level students When interacting with native speakers (NS), students were restricted from using their native language, leading to confusion and silence, as seen with Class-L students This approach can mistakenly equate "English only" with proficiency, causing students to disengage While EFL teachers may choose to use only the target language, incorporating students' native language can enhance communication Teachers should encourage classmates to assist students expressing ideas in their native language through clarifying questions, allowing for a richer learning experience Crucially, language expressions should be taught contextually, addressing students' immediate communication needs.
This study highlights that both teachers' language backgrounds and students' proficiency levels significantly impact the nature of questions posed in EFL classrooms It suggests that the variety and frequency of questions are crucial for fostering interaction among students Proper training for EFL teachers, regardless of their native language, can enhance their ability to formulate engaging questions Given the importance of questioning in teaching, educators must be mindful of how they craft and respond to inquiries in the classroom Additionally, recording one's teaching sessions—either visually or audibly—can serve as an effective tool for analyzing the impact of different questioning techniques, ultimately helping EFL teachers refine their instructional methods and effectiveness.
Limitations and suggestions for further research
Although the study is carefully and clearly designed and based on reliable data, it has the following major limitations:
Firstly, not all teachers and the students at Popodoo school were involved in the study, to some extent; the results may not be generalized for all teachers and students
The study primarily concentrated on examining teachers' questions within the classroom environment as a whole, without delving into the specific use of questions across various classroom activities.
The study's recommendations were exclusively directed at English teachers, emphasizing their questioning techniques in the classroom It did not address other areas for improvement, such as modifications to school policies or enhancements to the curriculum materials.
In spite of the unavoidable limitation, the researcher believes that this study will be beneficial to the teacher when they give questions in the classrooms
Future research should investigate how various classroom activities, including teacher-led discussions, group discussions, and language games, affect participants' questioning patterns This exploration will provide valuable insights into the relationship between classroom dynamics and student engagement in questioning.
References
1 T.M (2015), “Sinh viên Việt Nam đuối vì kém giao tiếp Tiếng Anh”, Hà Nội
1 Árva, V., & Medgyes, P (2000), “Native and non-native teachers in the classroom”, System, (28), pp 355-372
2 Beardmore, H B (1996), “Reconciling content acquisition and language acquisition in bilingual classroom”, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 17(2-4), 114-122
3 Brock, C A (1986), “The effects of referential questions on ESL classroom discourse”, TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), pp 47-59
4 Chaudron, C (1993), Second language classroom: Research on teaching and learning, New York, Cambridge University Press
5 Ellis, R (1990), Instructed second language acquisition: Learning in the classroom, Oxford: Blackwell
6 Ellis, R.(1994), The study of second language acquisition: Classroom interaction and second language acquisition, Oxford University Press
7 Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G (2000), “Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons”, Applied Linguistics, 21(3), pp 354-375
8 Gall, M (1984) Synthesis of research of teachers’ questioning Educational Leadership, 42(3), pp 40-47
9 Grice, H P (1989), Studies in the way of words, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press
10 Gabrielatos, C (1997, April), “A question of function: Teacher questions in the EFL classroom”, TESOL Greece Convention,(18), Glyfada, Greece
11 Hakansson, G & Lindberg, I (1988), “What‟s the question? Investigating questions in second language classroom”, Classroom research, (5), pp.73
12 Hitchcock, G., & Hughes, D (1994), Research and the teacher, London: Routledge
13 Ho, D G E (2005) Why do teacher ask questions they ask? RELC Journal, 36(3), pp 297-310
14 Hopkins, D (2006), teacher’s guide to classroom research, United
Kingdom, UK: Open University Press
15 Jafari, J (2013), “Elicitation Questions in English and Persian Written Texts: A Comparative Study”, World journal of English language, (3), pp 34-44
16 Long, M H., & Sato, C J (1983), “Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and functions of teacher‟s questions”, Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition, (pp.268-286), Rowley, MA: Newbury
17 Kayaoğlu, M N (2013), “Case Study into the Classroom Questions by a Native Speaker and a Non-Native Speaker Teacher in EFL Classes”, Asian
18 Lyons, H (1981) Language and linguistics Cambridge: Cambridge
19 McNeill, A (1994), “Some characteristics of native and non-native speaker teachers of English”, Language and learning, pp 521-532 Hong Kong
20 Medgyes, P (1992), “Native or non-native: Who‟s worth more?”, ELT Journal, 46(4), pp 340-349
21 Nunan, D (1999), Second language teaching and learning, Cengage Learning
22 Nunan, D (2007), What is this thing called language?, Palgrave Macmillan, pp 80
23 Pawlak, M (2004) “Describing and Researching Interactive Processes in the Foreign Language Classroom” Konin: Państwowa Wyższa Szkoła Zawodowa
24 Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartivk, J (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language London: Longman
25 Rechard, C (1998), “Teacher talk and classroom context”, ELT Journal, pp 179-187
26 Seedhouse, P (1996), “Classroom interaction: Possibilities and impossibilities”, ELT Journal, 50(1), pp 16-24
27 Shahi, G & Pang, E F (2009), Technology in a changing world, Singapore Management University
28 Shomoossi, N (2004), “The effect of teachers‟ questioning behavior on EFL classroom interaction: A classroom research study”, The Reading Matrix,
29 Shin-Mei-Kao (2012), ““Do You Understand?”: An Analysis of Native and Non-native EFL Teachers‟: Questioning Patterns at a Taiwanese Cram School”, The Ansian EFL Journal
30 Sinclair, J M., & Coulthard, M (1975) Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils Oxford: Oxford University Press
31 Tajino, A & Tajino, Y (2000), “Native and non-native: What can they offer?”, ELT Journal, 54(1), pp 3-11
32 Tsui, A M B (1992) A functional description of questions In M
Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in spoken discourse analysis London:
33 ĩstỹnlỹoglu, E (2007), “University students‟ perceptions of native and non- native teachers”, Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 13(1), 63-
34 Viet Toan (2013), “English teaching in Vietnam: Teacher re-education”,
Tuoitrenews.vn, < http://tuoitrenews.vn/education/8231/english-teaching- in-vietnam-teacher-reeducation>
35 Wu, K Y (1993), “Classroom interaction and teacher questions revisited”,
or One dot indicates a pause shorter than 0.3 seconds; two dots indicate a pause between 0.3 and 0.7 seconds
/ A slash indicates a pause longer than 0.7 second, marking the boundary between two AS-units
(( )) Paralinguistic information, such as facial expressions and physical movements, is indicated inside double parenthesis
? A question mark denotes a rising tone
! An exclamation mark denotes a fall tone with emphasis what time is it? No capitalization is used in the transcription, except for “I” and the first letter of a proper noun
WHEN Phonological emphasis is denoted by capitalization
A sample about classroom audio transcription
3 T: first what? what do you want to do?/
5 T: ok, how do you feel today?/
9 T: so, we roll the dice/
12 S: me!/((rolling the dice))/ two/
13 T: ok, how do you celebrate your birthday?/
14 S: my birthday is in December/
15 T: how do you celebrate your birthday?/ do you invite your firend?/
17 T: Messi, hey!/who can? will get stickers from me/do you want to get sticker?/
19 T: ok I celebrate my birthday in the park/ do you make party?/
21 T: so, I make a big party and invite my friends/
23 T: ok who is your favorite singer?/
27 T: ok, do you like drinking tea?/
29 T: you can say I don‟t like drinking tea/
35 T: you like coffee?/can you like bike?/
37 T: when did you start riding bicycle?/ which age?/
38 Ss: biet di xe dap luc may tuoi/
43 T: so I started riding bicycle when I was two/
45 T: six/ do you have brother or sister?/
46 S: no, I don‟t have brother and sister/ I have a baby brother/
47 T: yes, so you have a brother/
49 T: what is your favorite school subject?/
51 T: oh woa, can you ask other members about their school subject?/
53 T: ok come here, ask him/ what is his favorite subject?/
57 T: ok/ what is your mother present to your birthday?/
61 T: do you like reading books?/
63 T: what kind of book do you like?/
66 Ss: la gi?/giay the thao/
69 T: when you go hiking the mountain you have to use special shoes/hinking boots/
71 T: ((showing another picture))/camp fire/
73 T: you go to forest/((showing another picture))/campus/
Repeating time, they use backpack/
81 T: ((showing another picture))/what is this?/
84 S: my mother uses flash light when she go camping/
85 T: when she go camping/ ok?/
86 S: the flash light is yellow/
87 T: so when I go camping I get my backpack and I put my flash light in there/ right?/
89 T: not boring/ I am bored/ok tent/
94 S: I like a ten when I go camping/
95 T: WHEN I GO CAMPING?/I take tent/who can?/
96 S: me!/ I pick off the tent/
106 S: I use hiking boots when I go camping/