The aim of the study
This study compares the questioning techniques employed by four teachers in a private language school while teaching two classes of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students It examines the impact of teachers' language backgrounds, specifically native speakers (NS) versus non-native speakers (NNS), alongside the proficiency levels of the students, categorized as high and low proficiency.
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
This study is crucial as it enhances teachers' understanding of how Native Speaker (NS) and Non-Native Speaker (NNS) educators utilize questioning techniques in the classroom Such insights enable English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers to tailor their question types to better suit the learning environment Questioning is a prevalent teaching strategy, often dominating more than half of class time (Gall, 1984; Kerry, 2002) The question-and-answer dynamic transcends mere fact transmission or classroom management; it represents a collaborative interaction where teachers and students co-construct knowledge, building on existing learner understanding and fostering deeper learning through high-level questioning.
Researchers have gained insights into the teaching and learning processes at private English centers However, studies focused on English as a Foreign Language (EFL) instruction in these centers remain limited This scarcity is largely due to the perception that private language lessons are not integral to the mainstream educational system, making it challenging for academics to explore this area comprehensively.
Accessing educational environments like private English centers is crucial for research, particularly as extra English lessons have become a common practice among Vietnamese learners This setting offers valuable insights that are just as significant as studies conducted in traditional school environments.
Scope of the study
When it comes to questions, there are many researchers as Quirk,
In this study, the author adopts Tsui’s classification of questions, categorizing them based on their elicitation functions, which include inform, confirm, agree, commit, repeat, and clarify Elicitation is defined as a discourse category that encompasses any utterance aimed at prompting an obligatory verbal or non-verbal response (Tsui, 1992) Additionally, the author incorporates two other question functions: pseudo questions and understanding check questions, as outlined by Shin-Mei Kao (2012).
In this study comparing native speakers (NS) and non-native speakers (NNS) teachers, the researcher focused on a limited sample due to constraints in ability and time Specifically, the research involved 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 offers a literature review that outlines the theoretical foundations essential for our research Chapter Two elaborates on the methodology utilized in the study, providing an overview of the action research design, the research setting, participants involved, instrumentation used, and the procedures followed in the action research Finally, Chapter Three presents the results of the study.
In the concluding section of this study, we explore the pedagogical implications of the findings for Environmental English studies, highlighting the significance of the results for teaching practices We also address the limitations encountered during the research and offer recommendations for future investigations Additionally, this section includes a list of references utilized in the research and 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 data (Ferguson, 1983) According to Davies (1991), being a native speaker is an inherent trait that one does not choose, highlighting the distinction between native and non-native speakers This distinction is shaped not only by native speakers but also by the perceptions of non-native speakers, as noted by Davies (1991), who emphasizes that the boundary of native speakers is constructed by both groups.
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), primarily due to NS teachers conducting lessons in their mother tongue Previous research has delved into the teaching styles and effectiveness of both NS and NNS educators.
Research by Norton (1997) and Árva and Medgyes (2000) indicates that native speakers (NS) outperform non-native speakers (NNS) in various aspects of English proficiency, including speaking, pronunciation, listening, vocabulary, and reading McNeill (1994) adds that NS teachers are better at providing correct language usage and identifying errors in student language compared to NNS teachers Medgyes (1992) argues that NNS teachers struggle to reach native-level proficiency due to their reliance on norms and imitation of native speakers Overall, these studies highlight the inherent advantages that NS teachers possess over their NNS counterparts in terms of language proficiency.
Research indicates that non-native speaker (NNS) teachers excel in addressing the needs of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners compared to native speaker (NS) teachers According to ĩstỹnlỹoglu (2007), NNS teachers, sharing the same first language (L1) as their students, can effectively clarify abstract concepts and manage classroom dynamics Their similar language learning experiences enable them to empathize with students' challenges, allowing them to recognize structural differences between languages and provide tailored support McNeill (1994) highlights that NNS teachers are particularly adept at identifying vocabulary issues among lower-proficiency EFL students Phillipson (1996) describes NNS teachers as "ideal" language instructors, as their firsthand experience of acquiring English as an additional language equips them with a deeper understanding of their students' linguistic and cultural needs.
Research indicates that native speaker (NS) teachers serve as excellent language models, while non-native speaker (NNS) teachers are more effective in facilitating language learning These findings highlight the distinct advantages each group brings to the teaching process.
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 through teacher questioning, is vital for fostering engagement, as highlighted by Tsui (2001) who emphasizes the significance of language used by teachers in initiating discussions (p 120) Walsh (2011) further notes that questioning consumes a significant portion of a language teacher's time (p 52), with classroom discourse often revolving around question-and-answer routines that enable teachers to steer conversations (Walsh, 2006: 8) Teachers serve as role models for students through their inquiries and responses Chaudron (1993) supports this notion, asserting that conversations and instructional exchanges offer learners valuable opportunities to practice language skills, validate their understanding, and receive constructive feedback Effective teacher talk, particularly through questioning, is essential for enhancing both language comprehension and learner output.
Teacher talk and questions
Research on teacher talk in foreign language classrooms has extensively examined various aspects, including speech rate, total talk time, and the impact of teacher questioning on student performance Key features studied include discourse modifications, pauses, types of oral feedback, and adjustments in syntax and vocabulary Significant findings have been reported in studies by Almeida (2011), Dashwood (2005), and Hamayan and Tucker (1980).
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 attention, as it serves as a vital pedagogical tool for teachers to assess students' knowledge and encourage critical thinking The ability to effectively employ various types of questions is essential in the teaching and learning process, as it can enhance language acquisition and foster meaningful interactions Research indicates that students' achievements and engagement levels are closely tied to the questions posed by teachers Chaudron (1988) emphasizes that "teachers' questions constitute a primary means of engaging learners' attention, promoting verbal responses, and evaluating learners' progress" (p 126).
Pawlak (2004) highlights the importance of student participation in classroom interactions, emphasizing that questions play a crucial role in this process By encouraging students to respond, teachers can adapt their teaching methods and content to better suit learners' needs Increased interaction through questioning not only activates students' language competencies but also enhances their overall language learning experience Ultimately, questions compel students to engage actively in class discussions, fostering a more dynamic learning environment.
Teacher feedback is essential for adjusting classroom discussions, and questions play a vital role in guiding interaction and maintaining focus on planned topics They also promote language production, leading to accurate and meaningful student responses The following section will explore the types of questions utilized by native speakers (NS) and non-native speakers (NNS) in their English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms.
In an EFL classroom, teachers' questions are crucial for stimulating student thinking, assessing comprehension, and fostering engagement (Shin-Mei Kao, 2012) Effective questioning not only aids in classroom management (Ellis, 1990) but also facilitates the use of instructional materials (Gabrielatos, 1997) However, many EFL teachers often rely on pseudo or display questions, which are designed to elicit known answers from students rather than to explore genuine curiosity or new information (Long & Sato, 1983) For instance, when a teacher asks, “What can you see in the picture?” they are primarily encouraging students to showcase their existing knowledge rather than fostering deeper understanding.
& 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 they are insincere and may not elicit genuine responses While teachers often use pseudo questions to assess students' understanding in the classroom, these questions typically prompt short and simplistic answers Unlike social interactions, the teacher-student dynamic involves an imbalance of status, leading students to feel compelled to respond However, as students 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, as they aim to gather unknown information from the addressee In educational settings, teachers utilize these questions to encourage students to share their opinions, judgments, and real-life experiences, thereby addressing information gaps Additionally, these questions promote the expression of thoughts and provide insights that the teacher may not possess Research indicates that such questions foster authentic communication, enhancing the learning experience (Long & Sato, 1983; Brock, 1986; Thompson, 1991; Thornbury).
1996 cited in second language classrooms, Chaudron, 1993) The answer to a
13 referential question is usually longer than that to a pseudo question and carries content meanings which help forward the conversation
Long and Sato (1983) revealed a significant disparity in question types during informal conversations between native and non-native speakers (NS-NNS) compared to teacher-learner interactions in second language classrooms, with referential questions making up 76% of NS-NNS conversations but only 14% of teacher questions Shomoossi (2004) corroborated this finding in his observations of university-level EFL classes in Iran, noting that teachers posed pseudo questions 4.4 times more frequently than referential questions He also highlighted that referential questions generated more classroom interaction, as evidenced by increased student speech turns and response quantity Seedhouse (1996) suggested that EFL teachers' superior proficiency often results in a scarcity of genuine questions, as they prioritize pedagogical goals Furthermore, Lynch (1991) pointed out that the communicative use of questioning constitutes a minor aspect of typical classroom activities, emphasizing the need for a shift in questioning strategies.
Tsui (1992), building on Sinclair and Coulthard's (1975) framework, defines "elicitation" as utterances that prompt mandatory verbal or non-verbal responses from students According to Tsui, six distinct elicitation functions are identified: informing, confirming, agreeing, committing, repeating, and clarifying (Janin Jafari, 2013).
According to Tsui (1992), information questions are designed to elicit new information from the addressee, addressing gaps in knowledge without prior assumptions from the speaker This aligns with referential questions In contrast, confirmation questions are posed with an assumption by the speaker that requires validation from the addressee, who may also disconfirm the assumption For instance, asking, “You will go to Taipei tomorrow, right?” seeks confirmation of the addressee's travel plans Similarly, agreement questions are based on shared common knowledge, inviting the addressee to concur with the speaker's statements to reinforce existing common ground This is often seen in casual conversations, such as starting with, “It’s a nice day, isn’t it?” to foster social connections with unfamiliar individuals.
A commitment question goes beyond a simple verbal response, necessitating further interaction between the speaker and listener For instance, asking, “Can you turn on the light?” requires the listener to take action by actually turning on the light, rather than just responding with, “Sure, I can.” Additionally, when a question is repeated, it serves to clarify the original statement or specific parts that may have been unclear to the listener, as seen in utterances 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, they prompt the speaker to clarify their message for better understanding.
Shin-Mei Kao (2012) critiques Tsui's taxonomy of elicitation functions, arguing that it is not exhaustive and primarily reflects social interactions among speakers with equal authority This limitation makes it inadequate for analyzing classroom dynamics, where teachers typically hold more power over the interaction For instance, Tsui categorizes pseudo questions as part of information elicitation, failing to recognize their unique role in classroom settings Pseudo questions, often posed by teachers, serve to assess students' comprehension of the material, while understanding check questions are used to confirm students' grasp of instructions or class progress without presuming their understanding In this classroom study, the taxonomy was expanded to include these two additional categories, highlighting their distinct instructional purposes.
In a classroom setting, understanding can be gauged through affirmative responses or follow-up inquiries, such as "Can you explain…more?" In Excerpt 1 of this study, Turn 17 and Turn 22 highlight three comprehension-check questions posed by a native speaker teacher (NS-L) while instructing low-level EFL students During this segment, NS-L intermittently paused her explanation of a game rule to ensure that the students grasped her instructions effectively.
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, particularly among adult native speakers interacting with non-native speakers, as noted by Long and Sato (1983) Typically, individuals in positions of power, such as company leaders or committee chairs, tend to employ these types of questions more frequently, thereby exerting greater control over the conversation and the contributions of others Goody (1978) highlights that questions serve as speech acts that allow participants to negotiate and challenge each other's social status Consequently, using pseudo or understanding check questions can violate Grice's (1989) cooperation principle, potentially leading others to perceive the speaker as domineering However, this dynamic shifts in classroom settings, where unequal speech patterns are more accepted.
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
(1986) observed students‟ responses to teachers‟ questions in terms of
Research on syntactic complexity and mean length of utterance indicates that referential questions promote greater student output and higher cognitive responses compared to display questions Beardmore (1996) argued that an overreliance on display questions could hinder student output and limit autonomous thinking However, this perspective is not universally supported; Kachur and Prendergast (1997) discovered that students reported lower engagement with authentic questions posed by teachers, while they were more inclined to respond to pseudo questions.
A study conducted in 1993 revealed that referential questions did not lead to more complex utterances or enhance student-teacher interaction These findings may be attributed to differences in classroom objectives, teaching styles, techniques, and student proficiency levels Furthermore, the research primarily relied on surveys and interviews, which are based on respondents' perceptions and may not accurately represent the actual interactions occurring in these educational settings.
Research on the use of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students in the classroom is less prevalent than studies focused on teachers, primarily due to the challenges of gathering 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 questions reflecting their conceptual understanding Additionally, Skilton and Meyer (1993) highlighted that factors such as gender, nationality, proficiency, participation structures, and task types significantly affect the quantity and diversity of questions raised by students in adult ESL classes.
20 students It was found that the students were more active in raising questions in small group work than in teacher-fronted 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 the types of questions posed in the classroom Additionally, it examines research on questioning techniques used by EFL teachers and their impact on 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 investigates the question functions employed by four teachers in teaching two classes of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students at a private language school It examines the impact of teachers' language backgrounds, distinguishing 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, placing them in various class levels based on placement test results during registration Classes are held twice a week for 90 minutes each, including a short break, and take place after regular school hours.
The cram school adopted a unique teaching approach by employing both native speaker (NS) and non-native speaker (NNS) teachers to co-teach each class The NS teachers, hailing from countries such as Australia, Canada, and the UK, were responsible for one 45-minute lesson, while the NNS teachers, all of whom were Vietnamese, took charge of assigning and correcting homework, arranging quizzes, and designing tests Notably, all NS teachers held at least a college-level education, and NNS teachers possessed a degree in English language teaching or a related field To ensure teaching quality, all teachers underwent training sessions provided by the school and NNS teachers were required to pass periodic English proficiency exams to maintain their skills.
Materials and teaching approaches
The school utilized a uniform set of textbooks titled "Family and Friends" and "Phonics," which were specifically designed and published for its curriculum This series includes multiple volumes that adhere to standardized class procedures, ranging from Level A to Level F Each lesson within these textbooks is structured to enhance learning and ensure consistency across all classes.
The article discusses a comprehensive educational approach that includes 23 specific topics, featuring dialogues, grammar explanations, sentence pattern drills, cultural insights, and language games Each volume varies in linguistic difficulty and subject matter, with teachers encouraged to incorporate language games and discussions in every class to reinforce the material The school is recognized for its standardized teaching methods across its branches in Vietnam, requiring all teachers to adhere to established guidelines and procedures in their classes.
The participants
This study involved four teachers: two native speakers (NS) from the United States and two non-native speakers (NNS) from Vietnam, specifically NNS-H, who taught a high-level class, and NNS-L, who taught a low-level class Both NNS teachers hold bachelor's degrees from a Vietnamese university, while the NS teachers obtained their degrees in fields unrelated to English or education Prior to teaching independently, all four teachers participated in a school-organized teacher training program and observed experienced educators in various classrooms.
This study involved two classes, Class-L and Class-H, each taught by the same pair of native and non-native English-speaking teachers, with all students being native Vietnamese speakers Student proficiency levels were assessed through a placement test, revealing that older students typically had higher English proficiency due to starting their language education around ages 5 or 6 Class-L consisted of 12 students, including 2 boys and 10 girls, with an average age ranging from 7 to 9 years old.
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 during lessons, allowing for better visibility of both their peers and the teacher.
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) As a classroom-based research, it acknowledges external variability, including differences in teachers' experience and teaching styles, students' ages, and the specific content taught According to van Lier (1988), each language classroom presents a unique context, making it challenging to control certain factors as required in true experimental studies Therefore, this discourse-oriented study aims not to generalize findings immediately but to document and explain the dynamics occurring within these specific classrooms.
Data collection
This study analyzed 20 audio-taped lessons from two classes, featuring 10 lessons taught by a native speaker (NS) teacher and 10 by a non-native speaker (NNS) teacher Each of the four teachers contributed five recorded lessons to the research.
The researcher conducted observations of two classes for several sessions prior to the actual data collection, allowing students and teachers to become accustomed to their presence During the lesson recording, the researcher remained in the classroom to take field notes and monitor the recorder's functionality The collected data were subsequently transcribed verbatim for analysis.
Open observation method and interview
In addition to the audio recordings, the open observation method (Hopkins,
In 2006, a personal shorthand system was utilized in class to document teachers' reactions and behaviors, capturing both verbatim and non-verbatim recordings of classroom interactions The primary objective was to gather factual and descriptive data, focusing on aspects such as blackboard usage, wait-time, feedback provision, speech rate in classroom management, and cognitive strategies like repetition and synonym usage.
The study aimed to understand how subjects organized their questions and the intentions behind them, which led to the selection of semi-structured interviews This interview format is preferred by educational researchers as it allows for in-depth exploration, enabling interviewers to probe and expand on the interviewee's responses (Hitchcock & Hughes, 1994) The questions used in the interviews created natural patterns for data analysis, and data collection was conducted through note-taking during the interviews.
The final step involved conducting semi-structured interviews with the informants to gain deeper insights into their pedagogical objectives Each participant was prompted to elaborate in detail on key questions, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of their individual teaching purposes.
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 for data analysis in speech 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, which encompass fragment utterances and features typical of non-native speech and teacher talk (Kim & Elder, 2005), will be analyzed in this study The researcher will use pauses to delineate AS-units, opting for a 0.7-second threshold, slightly exceeding the 0.5 seconds recommended by Foster et al (2000), due to the slower speech rate of language teachers compared to native speakers in social settings (Ellis, 1990) Additionally, qualitative analyses of classroom observations and teacher interviews will be employed to triangulate and verify the findings from the classroom data.
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, independently analyzed one lesson, achieving a 0.95 inter-rater reliability in their trial session The average of their coding decisions was then used as the final results for subsequent lessons This process 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 methods, instruments, and procedures Key findings will be elaborated upon in Chapter Three.
Results
Concluding remarks
This study investigates the question functions employed by four teachers in teaching two classes of EFL students at a private language school, focusing on the influence of the teachers' language backgrounds (native speakers vs non-native speakers) and the students' proficiency levels (high vs low) The research involved two non-native and two native teachers, with data collected from 20 audio-taped lessons, which were transcribed verbatim Additionally, observations and interviews provided descriptive insights beyond the audio recordings The findings reveal that the use of question functions is significantly influenced by both the teachers' backgrounds and the students' proficiency levels.
The language backgrounds of the teachers
All four teachers effectively utilized questions in their teaching, with non-native speakers (NNS) focusing more on instructional inquiries, while native speakers (NS) balanced both instructional and communicative questions This indicates that the teachers' first languages significantly influenced their questioning styles Additionally, observations and interviews revealed that NNS teachers employed questions to enhance students' understanding of topic-related knowledge, contrasting with the approach of NS teachers.
Forty teachers highlighted the importance of communication by providing real-life scenarios for students to practice English Notably, there were differences in the approach to ambiguity in question-answer sequences between non-native speakers (NNS) and native speakers (NS) teachers NNS teachers often repeated or translated questions into Vietnamese and utilized both languages when teaching grammar In contrast, NS teachers typically rephrased questions for clarity and adhered to an "English-only" policy in their instruction across both classes.
The proficiency levels of students
Students in two classes, regardless of their proficiency levels, demonstrated a strong desire for open communication For higher-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 time for discussions, which encouraged high-level students to ask significantly more questions than their lower-level peers These advanced students sought more innovative and challenging activities during class, moving beyond the language games found in textbooks.
Teachers in Class-L primarily used pseudo and understanding check questions due to the students' limited expressive abilities, despite the students' interest in engaging in "real" discussions and outside topics To enhance student participation and motivation, language games that focused on 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 enhances classroom interaction Teachers utilize questions to elicit information, check comprehension, and manage student behavior In this study, four teachers demonstrated effective use of questioning techniques, although the types of questions varied based on their linguistic backgrounds and the proficiency levels of their students.
In classrooms where English was the primary language, the focus on teaching conversational skills was overshadowed by instructional interactions, particularly among non-native speaker (NNS) teachers While NNS teachers employed some information questions, they predominantly utilized instructional questions, resulting in brief question-answer exchanges that followed a typical Initiation-Response-Feedback (I-R-F) pattern, leading to teacher-controlled interactions Consequently, students had limited opportunities to engage in natural conversational exchanges In contrast, native speaker (NS) teachers balanced instructional and communicative questions, fostering a more interactive environment that encouraged students to practice English in real-life contexts This highlights the potential for NNS teachers to adopt strategies from NS teachers to enhance conversational engagement in their classrooms.
This study identifies 42 types of question functions and emphasizes the importance of a teacher's questioning techniques in fostering a communicative environment for target language use, regardless of whether the teacher is a native speaker.
The study highlights the risks of enforcing an "English-only" policy in EFL classrooms, particularly for low-level students who may struggle to express themselves without their native language When interacting with native speakers (NS), students are often discouraged from using their mother tongue, leading to silence and passivity, as observed in Class-L While EFL teachers may opt to use only the target language, incorporating students' native languages can enhance communication Teachers can encourage peer assistance when a student resorts to their native language, using strategies like confirmation or agreement questions to facilitate understanding Moreover, teaching relevant expressions at the moment of need is crucial for effective communication.
This study highlights the significant impact of teachers' language backgrounds and students' proficiency levels on the types of questions posed by educators It suggests that both the nature and frequency of these questions play a crucial role in fostering interaction within an EFL classroom Furthermore, it emphasizes the importance of appropriate teacher training for both native and non-native EFL teachers to enhance their ability to formulate more engaging and interactive questions, as questioning is a vital component of effective teaching.
Teachers at all levels must understand the formation and response to questions in the classroom (Pawlak, 2004) Maintaining visual or audio records of their teaching can effectively reveal the impact of various questioning techniques This insight is crucial for EFL teachers aiming to enhance their teaching methods and overall 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 the need to enhance their questioning techniques in the classroom However, it did not address other crucial areas such as modifications to school disciplines or improvements to textbooks.
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
For future research, it would be interesting to explore the question distribution across different types of classroom activities, such as teacher-led
44 discussion, group discussion, and different types of language games, to verify how classroom activities influence the participants‟ questioning patterns.
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/
79 T: ((showing another picture))/backpack/when they travel for a long
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/