Questions and Verbal Feedback and their Implications on Thai Undergraduate Student Participation

Open access

Abstract

This study investigated effects of teachers’ questions and verbal feedback on student participation in three undergraduate English conversation classes. The research instruments were observations, a questionnaire, and interviews. The results showed that for the question types, referential questions were the most frequently asked questions in two classrooms and display questions were more common asked questions in one class. Regarding effects of display and referential questions on student participation, longer student responses were elicited by referential questions (3.6 the average words per a referential question, but about 2 words per a display one). Concerning the verbal feedback types, the results showed the high occurrence of interactional feedback in all classes. For effects of evaluative and interactional feedback on student participation, surprisingly in two classes evaluative feedback was associated with longer statements and answers than interactional one. In terms of student satisfaction on questions and verbal feedback, from the questionnaire results it was seen that the students were satisfied with referential questions and interactional feedback. Another interesting result from the questionnaires was that the students were motivated to participate in classroom discussion by both teachers’ questions and verbal feedback. Regarding the effects of teachers’ questions and verbal feedback on student participation in general, the verbal feedback was associated with a bit longer statements and answers than the questions (3.4 the average words per verbal feedback, but about 3 words per question). It can be concluded that in these classes, both questions and verbal feedback had the potential to be supportive of different aspects of student learning. Since questions and verbal feedback allows teachers to increase or reduce students’ opportunities for discussion, it is necessary to select the appropriate type to support students’ participation. Teachers should develop their use of questions, verbal feedback, and aim for patterns of classroom communication that are appropriate for students’ abilities, interests and motivation.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Abebe D. T. & Deneke D. T. (2015). Causes of students’ limited participation in EFL classroom: Ethiopian public universities in focus. International Journal of Educational Research and Technology 6(1) 74-89. Retrieved from http://soeagra.com/ijert/ijertmarch2015/8.pdf

  • Barlow D. H. & Hersen M. (1984). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behaviour change (2nd ed.). New York: Pergamon Press Inc.

  • Brown H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. Longman. White Plains NY: Pearson Education.

  • Canale M. & Swain M. (1980). Theoretical basis of communicative approaches to second language testing and teaching. Applied Linguistics 1 1–47.

  • Cullen R. (2002). Supportive teacher talk: The importance of the F-move. ELT Journal 56(2) 117-127.

  • Day R. R. (1990). Teacher observation in second language teacher education. In J. C. Richards and D. Nunan (Eds.) Second language teacher education (pp. 43-61). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Dudley-Marling C. & Searle D. (1991). When students have time to talk: Creating contexts for learning language. Portsmouth N.H.: Heinemann.

  • Forman R. (2005). Teaching EFL in Thailand: A bilingual study. Ph.D. Thesis University of Technology Sydney Sydney Australia. Retrieved from http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2100/552/2/02whole.pdf

  • Foster P. (1996). Observational research. In Sapsford R. and Jupp J. (Eds.) Data collection and analysis Part II data collection (pp. 57-93). London: Sage Publications.

  • Garcia A. L. (2005). The effect of teacher feedback on EFL learners’ functional production in classroom discourse. Anglogermanica Online 2005. Retrieved from http://www.uv.es/anglogermanica/2005/Llinares.htm

  • Gay L. R. (1996). Educational research competencies for analysis and application. New York: Macmillan.

  • Hall J. K. & Walsh M. (2002). Teacher-student interaction and language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 22 186-203. Retrieved from http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FAPL%2FAPL22%2FS0267190502000107a.pdf&code=7314ff2644da046f28e851f47f408cbf>

  • Konold K. E. Miller S. P. & Konold K. B. (2004). Using teacher feedback to enhance student learning. Teaching Exceptional Children 36(6) 64-69. Retrieved from http://www.cec.sped.org/Content/NavigationMenu/AboutCEC/International/StepbyStep/ResourceCenter/InstructionalStrategiesCurriculum/VOL.36NO.6JulyAugust2004_TEC_Konald_36-6.pdf

  • Kuutila N. (2014). Teachers’ effect on learners’ willingness to communicate in L2. Bachelor’s Thesis University of Jyväskylä Jyväskylä Finland. Retrieved from https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/bitstream/handle/123456789/44833/URN%3ANBN%3Afi%3Ajyu-201412103458.pdf?sequence=1

  • Larsen-Freeman D. & Long M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition Research. London: Longman.

  • Long M. H. & Sato C. J. (1983). Classroom foreigner talk discourse: forms and functions of teachers’ questions. In Seliger H. W. & Long M. H. (eds.) Classroom-oriented research on second language acquisition (pp. 268-85). Rowley Mass.: Newbury House.

  • Nassaji H. & Wells G. (2000). What’s the use of ‘triadic dialogue’? An investigation of teacher-student interaction. Applied Linguistics 21(3) 376-406.

  • Nunan D. & Lamb C. (1996). The self-directed teacher: Managing the learning process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Qashoa S. H. (2013). Effects of teacher question types and syntactic structures on EFL classroom interaction. The International Journal of Social Sciences 7(1) 52-62. Retrieved from http://www.tijoss.com/7th%20volume/sulaiman.pdf

  • Richards J.C. & Lockhart C. (1996). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Richards J.C. & Rodgers T. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Shomoossi N. (2004). The effect of teachers’ questioning behavior on EFL classroom interaction: a classroom research study. The Reading Matrix 4(2) 96-104. Retrieved from http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/shomoossi/article.pdf

  • Sinclair J. & Coulthard M. (1975). Toward an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Spradley J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.

  • Teng B. & Sinwongsuwat K. (2015). Teaching and learning English in Thailand and the integration of conversation analysis (CA) into the classroom. English Language Teaching 8(3) 13-23. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n3p13

  • Tharawoot Y. (2010). Analysis of Teacher Verbal Feedback in a Thai Postgraduate Classroom. Ph.D. Thesis University of Southampton Southampton England.

  • Tharawoot Y. (2015). The Effect of Teacher Verbal Feedback on Student Participation in English Postgraduate Classrooms: A Classroom Research. Research Report King Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok Bangkok Thailand.

  • Tharawoot Y. (2016). Teacher Questioning and Verbal Feedback and their Implications on Student Participation. Unpublished Manuscript King Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok Bangkok Thailand.

  • Tsui A. B. M. (1995). Introducing Classroom Interaction. London: Penguin.

  • Urano K. (1996). A Comparative Analysis of Questions by Two English-Speaking Teachers in a Kindergarten Immersion Program. Bulletin of the Chubu English Language Education Society 26 235-242.

  • Wells G. (1999). Dialogic Inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Search
Journal information
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 295 149 3
PDF Downloads 124 79 3