The Effectiveness of Questioning and Wait

8/10/2019 The Effectiveness of Questioning and Wait

1/14

ERNA MUNIR

The Effectiveness of Questioning and Wait-Time to Create Learning

Opportunities For The Second Semester of Makassar Muhammadiyah

University

( Experimental Research Proposal )

by

ERNA MUNIR

10535 4851 11

CLASS VII.B


2/14

ERNA MUNIR

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background to the Study ............................................................................. 2

1.2. Statement of the Problem ............................................................................ 4

1.3. Aim of the Study .......................................................................................... 5

1.4. Research Questions ..................................................................................... 6

1.5. Scope of the study ..................................................................................... 6

CHAPTER II LITERATUREREVIEW

2.1. The Role of Teacher Language and Teacher Talk in Language Learning ... 7

2.2. Questioning ................................................................................................. 8

2.3. Wait-Time .................................................................................................... 9

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY

3.1. Research Design .......................................................................................... 10

3.2. Participants .................................................................................................. 10

3.3. Instrumentation ............................................................................................ 11

3.3.1. Videotape Recording ...................................................................... 113.3.2. Field Notes ..................................................................................... 11

3.3.3. Questionnaire ................................................................................. 11

3.3.4. Semi-structured Interview .............................................................. 12

4. Data Analysis ..................................................................................................

5. Enacting Change ............................................................................................. 12

REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 13


3/14

ERNA MUNIR

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background to the Study

Teaching young adult EFL learners at a university has its

distinct challenges, especially when it is a private university. Consequently,

students selecting such a university not only have gained low scores in the

student selection examination and often possess a certain learner profile

which is strikingly different from that of students entering more

prestigious universities, but also often come with negative attitudes

towards learning English not seldom resulting from a frustrating English

learning experience at secondary and high school.

For these reasons, it is of utmost importance to create a positive

attitude towards English in students. Obviously, there are numerous

factors which play a role in generating such a positive attitude. For the

teacher (and with regard to classroom or action research particularly), the

lesson itself, the interaction in classroom events created by teacher

behaviour, is critical in developing positive student behaviours. This

means, rather than blaming students for their negative feelings towards

English, lack of motivation, or poor performance in exams as well as in

daily classroom work, teachers should constantly question their own

classroom practice as reflective practitioners (Schn, 1991; Bartlett, 1990).

In some teaching practices, I have often noticed that, even if there

is at first sight and in my self-perceptiona good relationship betweenme and my learners, over a period of time bad habitsbreak through, i.e.

part of the learners lose their interest in classes and seem to miss the

trainbeing unable to follow the course of the lesson. Needless to say, this

is a frustrating experience for both the teacher and the learners. It goes

without saying that not all learners in my groups are affected by this

problem in the same way; using the terms students and learners in


4/14

ERNA MUNIR

the following I will therefore refer to those learners whose

participation and performance is not satisfactory for any reason.

Addressing the problem suggested in the previous paragraph I can

speak with some certainty about my own perception: it seems to me that

the students do not accept what I offer in my class (even though I claim

that I give my classes well-prepared, which, of course, does not mean that

all lessons are successful); this feeling of being not accepted is frustrating

and is likely to trigger negative feelings with me towards my students. I

try to give communication- oriented classes, in which students are allowed

and encouraged to bring contents into a personal perspective, i.e. they are

expected to express their own opinions, feelings etc. Since my current

classes are reading skill classes (two groups, each three hours per week), I

do not have to deal with teaching grammar explicitly and intensively,

which gives me the opportunity to focus on content rather than on form.

There are often, especially in pre- and post-reading activities, discussions

(provided by the reading skill book used), which serve my more or less

communicative language teaching. Also in the while-reading stage of a

lesson, I try to give students space to negotiate meaning, believing that if

both teacher and learners are responsible for the classroom interaction,

language acquisition most likely takes place; this assumption is

underpinned by the social constructivist theory of learning (cf. Walsh,

2003, pp.124-5). Even though I have observed that sometimes the

extrovert students dominate the classes, I believe that, generally speaking,

the participation in my classes is satisfactorily spread; however, lessonssometimes seem to lack structure, i.e. parts of a lesson might proceed in

an uncontrolled way.

Naturally, I cannot be sure of how my students see this issue. I

observe that some students indeed give up following the lessons actively

(and consequently stop working outside the classroom, i.e. they abstain

from doing assignments, reading graded readers, using course book CD-

ROMs, etc.) obviously having the feeling that it is meaningless to try to


5/14

ERNA MUNIR

understand something which is considerably over their level and therefore

an ongoing frustration. From a students point of view, the unfamiliar

communicative focus of my classes as well as my expectation of students

to be active (rather than only receptive) in the classroom might be a

problem if we concede that there is a mismatch to their previous learning

experience.

To get an opinion from outside I asked two colleagues of mine to

observe my classes independently. While one of the observers told me that

the input I gave was not comprehensible (being too much over the

students level), the other observer denied the existence of such a problem.

One observer found that I did not use praise/reward sufficiently. Either

observer pointed out that there was a lot of interaction in my class, but the

thread of the lessons got lost now and then. One of the observers gave an

explanation: He said with great certainty that I did not give enough wait-

time to my students after asking a question. Particularly this observation

gives me a reasonable explanation for the problem complex described

above: Forcing my students to participate actively in the lesson and in

doing so being impatient with them when answers are not provided

immediately, I do not allocate sufficient time to my students for their

answers, particularly to those students who perform weakly. Furthermore,

I possibly repeat questions too fast or reformulate questions without

giving enough time to answer, a strategy which probably confuses the

weaker students, so that they miss the trainin the lesson.

The issue of teacher language and questioning has beendiscussed in ELT methodology, and wait-time has been accepted as an

important factor in effective questioning (for an overview see Nunan,

1991, p. 192-195). For the sake of practicability, this action research is

going to apply the criteria suggested by Ur (1996, p. 230), which

will be explicated in the literature review.


6/14

ERNA MUNIR

1.2. Statement of the Problem

The assumed negative teacher behaviour is located in the area of

teacher language and its effect on language learning. In this context, Walsh

(2002, p. 5) states that the logical extension of the existing body of

research evidence is that teachers engaged in teacher-fronted activities

should be concerned to:

engage learners in the classroom discourse;

encourage interactional adjustments between teacher and learners;

promote opportunities for self-expression;

facilitate and encourage clarification by learners.

Taking Walshs concerns for granted, the problem being dealt with

in the action research is that my teacher language is not (or might not be)

suitable to meet the concerns formulated by Walsh. Since action research

by definition should deal with a narrow problem for practical reasons, I

should like to concentrate on the elements of questioning and wait- time

(which indeed is a part of questioning). Thus, the problem is

formulated as follows: There is an inappropriateness of questioning and

wait-time in my teaching so that SLA is not provided optimally.

1.3. Aim of the Study

Following the path provided by the statement of the problem, the

main purpose of this action research is to find out whether the

questioning, particularly under the aspect of wait time, meets the criteriafor effective questioning suggested in the literature. In scrutinizing this

issue I will also get if not an answer at least strong hints if my teaching is

really grounded on the theoretical background I assume it is based on. In

order to achieve the aim of the action research I will have to look at my

classroom practice, my own (the teachers) perception and the students

views.


7/14

ERNA MUNIR

1.4. Research Questions

The action research will set out the following questions:

1.

Does the teachers questioning create or impede students

opportunities for learning?

2. Is the wait-time appropriate to elicit studentsactive participation?

3. Do students perceive the teachersquestioning as useful for their

own learning?

1.5. Scoope of the study

The research is limited to see the effectiveness of questioning and

Wait-Time to create learning opportunities for the second semester of

Makassar Muhammadiyah University.


8/14

ERNA MUNIR

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. The Role of Teacher Language and Teacher Talk in Language

Learning

Teacher language and teacher talk have been in the focus of a

research for being essential in the language learning process. Recent

research has emphasized that teacher language used in interaction with

learners is likely to elicit learning when it provides an opportunity for

negotiating meaning (Harfitt, 2008; Walsh, 2003, Walsh, 2002);

negotiating meaning is regarded crucial in the social constructivist theory

of learning, a widely accepted approach in foreign language methodology

(Walsh, 2002; Bruner, 1990; Vygotsky, 1978).

In this framework, a shift in the view of teacher talk has occurred:

While (extensive) teacher talk was regarded somehow negative as

hindering students to use language in the classroom and consequently to

be kept at a minimum, it is now accepted (if used properly in accordance

with pedagogic purposes) as a tool for providing learning opportunity in

the classroom: The quality, not the quantity, and its adequateness to its

specific context which is generated by the pedagogic goal, referred to as

mode by Walsh, are essential for eliciting learner participation (Walsh,

2003; Walsh 2006). Furthermore, turn management applied by the teacher

to signal students when to participate, plays an important role inproviding opportunities for learning (Xie, 2011).

In his studies, Walsh points out that teacher talk is natural in

the EFL classroom, which is a social context in its own right (Walsh,

2002, p. 4); teacher language is dependent on the context the classroom

interaction is directed to and therefore different from real world

language. This view is different from an approach which claims that

teacher talk should not deviate greatly from that likely to be encountered


9/14

ERNA MUNIR

in real life (Crookes and Chaudron, 2001, p. 39). In other words, the

EFL classroom is one discourse setting among others with a specific

choice of language. Thus, the question is not if teacher talk is desirable or

not, but if teacher talk fosters learners engagement and active

participation in classroom interaction so that learning can take place. If

there is a mismatch between language use and pedagogic goal, teacher

language is not likely to generate learning.

2.2. Questioning

Questioning, a specific form of teacher language, is probably the

most frequent kind of teacher talk in the classroom serving a great deal of

functions. Questioning does not have to be done in form of interrogatives

exclusively, but can also occur in form of e.g. statements or imperatives. It

is commonly understood as the first part of the conventional IRF structure

(Initiation Response Feedback); it is distinguished between display

questions, in which the teacher knows the answer, and referential

questions, in which the information to be given in the answer is unknown

to the teacher and which are consequently characterised by a higher

cognitive level (Ur, 1996; Crookes and Chaudron, 2001). Referential

questions, in particular, have been regarded as an effective tool to elicit

greater student participation (Harfitt, 2008) and they are likely, especially

when studentsopinions are asked, to generate a feeling of satisfaction in

students since they allow them to express an opinion that is related to their

own knowledge or experience (Ragawanti, 2009).Ur (1996, p. 230) offered a criteria catalogue for effective questioning. She

proposes

clarity (do the learners understand the meaning of the question?);

learning value (is the question relevant for the learning process?);

interest (is the question interesting for the learners?);

availability (is the question suitable regarding the level of the

learners group or does it only address advanced students?);


10/14

ERNA MUNIR

extension (is the question likely to elicit a variety of answers?);

this criterion might not be valid when display questions are asked;

teacher reaction (can the students be sure that their answers will be

accepted with respect?).

as categories to be used in analysis of effective classroom questioning.

2.3. Wait-Time

Wait-time refers to the length of time teachers give students to

answer a question. It is believed that giving students sufficient time to

answer will have positive effects on the quality of students answers and

consequently contribute to language learning (Nunan, 1991; Ur, 1996;

Crookes and Chaudron, 2001). Nunan (1991) summarizes the research on

wait-time as follows: Teachers generally give less than one second wait

time and even after training they fail to give more than one or two

seconds wait-time; providing three to five seconds wait- time, however,

leads to an increase in the length of student answers, increases the number

of unsolicited answers, decreases the number of failures to respond and

leads to a variety of student responses in terms of extension (cf. Urs

criterion); the literature suggests, however, no unambiguous picture on

how wait-time might affect learning efficiency. Obviously, wait- time is

an issue that deserves study in form of action research, as Crookes and

Chaudron (2001, p. 40) point out: We advance the matter of wait-time here

as an example of a classroom procedure which is easy to manipulate and

which warrants further classroom investigation. Teachers might want totry the effects of simply waiting longer as they interact with their SL

students, knowing that their findings, if communicated, could aid their

colleagues and further substantiate (or perhaps disprove) the potential of

increased wait-time in SL teaching.


11/14

ERNA MUNIR

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

3.1. Research Design

In this action research both qualitative data and quantitative data

will be collected in order to find out if and, if so, to what extent

inappropriateness in questioning and wait-time exist in my teaching.

According to the research questions and in order to warrant

triangulation, different instrumentation tools will be used.

3.2. Participants

This study will be carried out in two reading skill classes with

about 25 students each in the second semester. The sample is selected

conveniently, i.e. the classes I teach are selected. The students have 26-28

hours classes per week, three of them in the skills course I give.

3.3. Instrumentation

3.3.1. Videotape Recording

In order to analyze the teachers questioning style and wait-time

allocated a videotape recording will be used. It would be sufficient to use

an audiotape recorder for documenting the questions used by the

teacher. In order to evaluate the wait-time, it seems more appropriateto use a video recorder because nonverbal participation (hand raising of

the students, number of hand raising students) can be documented and set

in relation to wait-time, which would be impossible with audiotape

recording. Transcripts will be made, but for practical reasons only for

those parts which are of relevance for the first research question. In spite

of this restriction transcripts will play an important role in the data

collection since they focus more strongly on classroom language and


12/14

ERNA MUNIR

classroom discourse while video-recordings in fact might distract from

the language and emphasise more observable actions (Harfitt, 2008;

Thornbury, 1996). Moreover, wait-times will be measured.

3.3.2. Field Notes

Field notes will be taken immediately after the lessons so that the

data gained through video recording can be complemented through

general impressions of the classroom interaction for further evaluation.

3.3.3. Questionnaire

A closed-ended questionnaire will be used in order to find out the

students perception of the teachers questioning. The questionnaire will

test if, according to the students, the questioning by the teacher meets the

categories suggested by Ur (1991). Ideally, the questionnaire will be given

twice (or more) to students after an action plan has been applied in order to

evaluate how well the action has worked.

3.3.4. Semi-structured Interview

A sample of the students involved in the action research will be

interviewed by the teacher in order to get a deeper understanding of

the students perceptions. The semi- structured interview will be applied

after the questionnaire results have been gained.

4. Data AnalysisThe obtained data will be analysed differently. While the data

gained through the questionnaire and the measurements for wait-time

will be analyzed statistically, the data gained in the semi-structured

interview and the field notes will be exposed to content analysis. It is

planned to analyse the videotape recordings/transcripts, which are at the

heart of this action research, using an adaptation of SETT (Self-Evaluation

of Teacher Talk) procedures, a model suggested by Walsh (2003 and


13/14

ERNA MUNIR

2006). SETT procedures allow the teacher to analyse part of a lesson by

checking if the teacher language is congruent to the specific classroom

context or mode during which the teacher language occurs; the mode is

defined by the pedagogic goal that underlies it. Walsh distinguishes four

modes: managerial mode (aiming at organizing classroom interaction,

setting up activities), materials mode (aiming at dealing with material

used for language learning), skills and systems mode (aiming at focusing

on meaning, form or skills) and classroom context mode (aiming at

personalizing by making learners express themselves). Ideally, teachers

using SETT procedures are enabled to identify a part of their lesson by

matching it to one of the modes, and then to assess their own teacher

language used in this specific situation in terms of appropriateness to the

mode. A possible result of this analysis might be, for instance, that

referential questions are used in a part of materials mode when actually

display questions might be more suitable.

5. Enacting Change

Action research is interested in trying out an idea. It goes without

saying that, at the current state of formulating a research proposal, it is not

more than speculative to think about an action that serves as a solution to

the problem (e.g. increasing wait-time or modifying questioning). This

will be possible after relevant data has been collected, analysed and

interpreted. It is in the nature of action research that enacting change is an

ongoing process of evaluation of data collected in observation carried outin one or more action cycles (Hopkins, 2002)


14/14

ERNA MUNIR

REFERENCES

Bartlett, L. (1990). Teacher development through reflective teaching. In

J.C. Richards and D.

Nunan (Eds.) Second Language Teacher Education (pp. 202-214).

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bruner, J. (1990). Vygotsky: A historical and conceptual perspective. In

L.C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications

and applications of socio- historical psychology (pp. 179192).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crookes, G. and Chaudron, C. (2001). Guidelines for language classroom

instruction. In M.

Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language

(pp. 29-42). Heinle & Heinle.

Harfitt, G.J. (2008). Exploiting transcription of identical subject content

lessons.ELT Journal62:2, 173-181.

Hopkins, D. (2002) A teachers guide to classroom research. Berkshire:

Open University Press.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher

psychological processes.Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Walsh, S. (2002). Construction or obstruction: teacher talk and learner

involvement in the EFL classroom.Language Teaching Research 6:1,

3-23.

Walsh, S. (2003). Developing interactional awareness in the secondlanguage classroom through teacher self-evaluation. Language

Awareness 12:2, 124-142.

Walsh, S. (2006). Talking the talk of the TESOL classroom. ELT Journal

60:2, 133-141.

Xie, X (2011). Turn allocation patterns and learning opportunities. ELT

Journal 65:3, 240-250.

The Effectiveness of Questioning and Wait

Documents

Transcript of The Effectiveness of Questioning and Wait