In this chapter, a summary of the finding in this study is addressed. Then, pedagogical implications and suggestions for further studies are provided.
Summary of the major findings
The purpose of this study is to explore the teacher‟s use of follow-ups and the students‟ preferences for teacher follow-ups. An experienced female English
teacher and her fourth-grade elementary school students were invited to participate in this study. The data came from the classroom recordings, interviews, and the questionnaire. 18 periods of classroom recordings were transcribed verbatim and analyzed based on Chang‟s (2004), Hsieh‟s (2008), and Yang‟s (2009) coding schemes.
This study investigated the teacher‟s use of follow-ups by examining its functions and forms. Meanwhile, the study examined whether the teacher used follow-ups to promote the students‟ talking chances. Moreover, the study also investigated the students‟ preferences for teacher follow-ups and compared them with the teacher‟s real use of follow-ups. The findings for the three research questions were summarized as below.
The first research question in this study is to examine the functions and forms of teacher follow-ups used by the teacher. The frequencies of the functions and forms were calculated to show the degrees of how the teacher used follow-ups. The results show that acceptance was the most frequently used function, followed by response elicitation, rejection, asking for clarification, and modeling language. The least used one was building-up discourse.
The results show that the teacher mostly used her follow-ups as evaluation by acceptance and rejection. It reveals that the teacher asked display questions, so the teacher had to show her agreement or disagreement with the students‟ responses.
Thus, the teacher seldom modeled language for the students. The teacher always asked the questions about what she had taught and the students could easily give answers. It would be the reason to explain for the teacher‟s limited use of modeling language as teacher follow-ups. The students had few chances to use the target language that they have learned because of the teacher‟s frequent use of display questions. But when the teacher used the function of response elicitation and asking for clarification, the students would have more chances to speak and practice their productive skills of the target language. The least used building-up discourse function of teacher follow-ups shows that the teacher seldom took the discoursal role of teacher follow-ups to create a more communicative classroom. The teacher built
discourse with the students before they went through the textbook. Before the lesson began, the teacher would have short daily conversation with them.
Furthermore, the teacher sometimes used more than one function as teacher follow-ups in one turn. Even though each follow-ups function was used by the teacher to a different degree, she did try to use functions of follow-ups to achieve the pedagogic goal.
In this study, the teacher used sixteen forms to achieve the six functions of teacher follow-ups. By examining the forms of teacher follow-ups, we can better understand how the teacher achieved the functions of teacher follow-ups.
First, in acceptance, the teacher tended to more often use affirmation to show her agreement with the students‟ correct or appropriate answers. Exact repetition, praise, and translation were also the forms the teacher used to achieve the function of acceptance. Second, in response elicitation, the teacher used the forms of demand, giving clues, repetition of the question, completion, and encouragement. The results were not surprising, because the classroom is teacher-centered. The teacher intended to control the flow of the classroom interaction through her follow-ups.
Third, the forms of correction, denial, and rebuke are used by the teacher to reject the students‟ incorrect or unsuitable answers. The teacher did not ignore the students‟
wrong responses. Fourth, check and repetition of a response were used to ask for
clarification. The students needed to speak more clearly and clarify for their responses. Fifth, the teacher demonstrated the target language or translated the students‟ responses into target language to achieve the teacher follow-ups function of modeling language. The students had chances to learn not only what they have learned but also new language input. Sixth, elaborating the students‟ responses or providing comments were the ways the teacher built up the discourse with the students.
The sixteen forms were repetition (including exact repetition, , repetition of the question, and repetition of a response), affirmation, praise, elaboration, translation, demand, rebuke, check, completion, giving clues, encouragement, correction, denial, demonstration, reformulation, and comment. The teacher sometimes used the same form to achieve different functions or different forms to achieve the same function in one turn.
The second research question in this study is to explore whether the teacher increased the students‟ talking opportunity by her follow-ups. The findings show that the teacher did try to promote more students‟ talk, although only few cases were found. It reveals that the teacher seldom asked referential questions to develop the classroom talk with the students. Three reasons for this finding are the limited class time, the students‟ low English proficiency, and the simple content of the textbook.
The third research question in this study is to investigate the students‟
preferences for teacher follow-ups and make a comparison of the teacher‟s actual use with the students‟ preferences for teacher follow-ups. The results reveal that the teacher‟s frequent use of follow-ups and the students‟ preferences for teacher follow-ups were different.
First, in acceptance, the students hoped the teacher could translate their answers when they gave correct responses; however, translation was the least used form by the teacher to show her agreement with the students‟ answers. Besides, the teacher did not use praises very often, but most students expected that the teacher could give them more praise. Second, most students hoped the teacher could ignore their responses when they gave wrong answers. Actually, in this study, the teacher did not ignore any improper or incorrect answers made by the students. Third, the students hoped that the teacher could repeat their responses with varied intonation when the teacher asked for their clarification for previous answers. The findings did not match with the teacher‟s actual use of follow-ups in asking for clarification.
The teacher used check to ask for clarification more often. Fourth, in response elicitation, the teacher frequently used demand to achieve the function than the students expected. Most students hoped the teacher could give them
encouragements when the teacher tried to elicit their responses; however, the teacher
did not use the form, encouragement, very often. Fifth, the students liked the teacher to use demonstration and reformulation as methods to model language for them. The teacher‟s actual use of modeling language corresponded with the
students‟ preferences. Sixth, in building-up discourse, the students‟ preferences and the teacher‟s actual use were shown in different sequences. The students hoped the teacher could use more comment than elaboration to build-up discourse with them.
However, the teacher‟s actual use showed in a reverse sequence.
Pedagogical Implications
Based on the study‟s findings, four pedagogical implications for elementary school English teachers, especially for the novice one, are proposed.
First, based on the findings, the teacher did not often use modeling language as teacher follow-ups function. Teachers are suggested to use more model language as teacher follow-ups function. Since teachers are proficient in the target language, they have the responsibility to provide language models for language learners to learn the target language. In the language classroom, learners, especially beginners, need sufficient and more language input in order to build their target language
knowledge and then form and produce their output later. Therefore, teachers should frequently model the target language for their students.
Second, teachers should balance the use of evaluative and discoursal teacher
follow-ups. If teachers always used the evaluative as teacher follow-ups, it will be hard to build a communicative classroom. Therefore, it would be difficult for students to learn the communicative skill in the classroom. Conversely, it will be difficult for students to notice their own language errors, if the teachers mainly focus on the discoursal role of teacher follow-ups. Language errors should be treated differently. If the errors will influence the communication, it is necessary to be corrected. However, the grammatical errors which will not impede the conversation are not to be corrected every time. Overusing one role, either evaluative or
discoursal, of teacher follow-ups will influence students‟ language learning.
Third, based on the results of the questionnaire, two suggestions are made for teachers. In accepting the responses, the teacher seldom used praise; however, the majority of the students hoped the teacher praised them in a highly percentage.
Praise can be viewed as positive reinforcement, because it can help in building self-esteem, providing encouragement, and creating a close relationship between teachers and students. In addition, the teacher frequently elicited the students‟
responses by demanding. The students did not hope the teacher used demand to elicit their responses. To create a friendly classroom atmosphere, it would be better to use fewer demands as teacher follow-ups to achieve the response elicitation function.
Last but not least, teachers are supposed to be aware of their use of teacher follow-ups. Since the use of teacher follow-ups tended to happen naturally in the classroom context, it would be better to learn how to use it effectively in the teacher training or education program. Understanding the use of teacher follow-ups will provide teachers with a guide to choose more suitable types of teacher follow-ups in helping students‟ language learning.
Suggestions for Further Studies
This study investigated the teacher‟s use of follow-ups in an elementary school English classroom and presented the functions and forms of teacher follow-ups.
Future studies are needed to explore the influence of teacher follow-ups on students‟
language learning. Based on the findings of the present study, suggestions for further studies are provided as follows.
First, future studies are suggested to see which function of teacher follow-ups can increase more students‟ participation and have benefits on students‟ language learning. The study had examined the functions and forms of the teacher
follow-ups used by the teacher in the language classroom, but it is still unclear which type of teacher follow-ups is more useful for students‟ language learning.
Second, examining teachers‟ use of follow-ups toward students of different English levels is recommended in further studies. It is worth exploring the reason
and the situation whether teachers use different types of follow-ups to students with different English proficiency.
Third, it is suggested that future researchers can interview students to explore their thoughts on the teachers‟ use of follow-ups. In this study, the researcher used only a questionnaire to investigate the students‟ preferences for teacher follow-ups.
It could have difficulty in knowing the students‟ real thoughts on teacher follow-ups.
By examining students‟ ideas, the concepts of teacher follow-ups will become more complete. Teachers could have guidelines to choose more appropriate and valid follow-ups for their students.
References
Allwright, R. L. (1984). The importance of interaction in classroom language learning. Applied Linguistics, 5, 2, 156-171.
Allwright, D. & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the language classroom: An introduction to classroom research for language teachers. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Boxer, D. & Cortes-Conde, F. (2000). Identity and ideology: Culture and pragmatics in content-based ESL. In J. K. Hall & L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp.203-220).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Boyd, M. & Maloof, V. M. (2000). How teachers can build upon student-proposed intertextual links to facilitate student talk in the ESL classroom. In J. K. Hall &
L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp.163-182). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Boyd, M. & Rubin, D. L. (2002). Elaborated student talk in an elementary ESoL classroom. Research in the Teaching of English. 36, 4, 495-530.
Brophy, J. (1981). Teacher praise: A functional analysis. Review of Educational Research, 51, 1, 5-32.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language
pedagogy (3rd ed.). English Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
Brown, G. & Wragg, E. C. (1993). Questioning. Longdon: Routledge.
Burnett, P. C. (2002). Teacher praise and feedback and students’ perceptions of the classroom environment. Education Psychology, 22, 2, 5-16.
Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning.
Portsmough, NH: Heinemann.
Christoph, J. N. & Nystrand, M. (2001). Taking risks, negotiating relationships: One teacher’s transition toward a dialogic classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 36, 249-286.
Chang, Y. C. (2004). A study of teacher follow-up to student response in the dialogic interaction in EFL classrooms. Unpublished Master Thesis, National Chung
Cheng University, Taiwan.
Chang, Y. S. (2005). An examination of classroom interactions through teachers’
questioning practices. Unpublished Master Thesis, Ming Chuan University,
Taiwan.
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Consolo, D. (2000). Teachers’ action and student oral participation in classroom interaction. In J. K. Hall & L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign
language learning through classroom interaction (pp.91-108). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Coulthard, M. (1985). An introduction to discourse analysis. London: Longman.
Cullen, R. (1998). Teacher talk and the classroom context. ELT Journal, 52, 3, 179-187.
Cullen, R. (2002). Supportive teacher talk: The importance of the F-move. ELT Journal, 56, 2, 117-127.
Dinsmore, D. (1985). Waiting for Godot in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 39, 4, 225-234.
Duff, P. (2000). Repetition in foreign language classroom interaction. In J. K. Hall &
L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp.109-138). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Edwards, D. & Mercer, N. (1994). Communication and control. In B. Stierer. and J.
Maybin. (Eds.), Language, literacy and learning in educational practice.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fernández Abarca, M. (2004). Interaction in the English classroom: An exploratory study. Revista Electrónica Actualidades Investigativas en Educación, 41, 1,
1-24.
Francis, G. & Hunston, S. (1992). Analysis everyday conversation. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in spoken discourse analysis (pp.123-161). London:
Routledge.
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Garton, S. (2002). Learner initiative in the language classroom. EFL Journal, 56, 1, 47-56.
Hall, J. K. (1993). The role of oral practices in the accomplishment of our everyday lives: The sociocultural dimension of interaction with implications for the learning of another language. Applied Linguistics, 14, 2, 145-166.
Hall, J. K. (1998). Differential teacher attention to student utterances: The construction of different opportunities for learning in the IRF. Linguistics and Education, 9, 3, 287-311.
Hall, J. K. & Walsh, M. (2002). Teacher-student interaction and language learning.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 186-203.
Hsieh, H. J. (2008). Teacher follow-up in elementary school English classes.
Unpublished Master Thesis, National Pingtung University of Education, Taiwan.
Jarvis, J. & Robinson, M. (1997). Analyzing educational discourse: an exploratory study of teacher response and support to pupil’s learning. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 212-228.
Katayama, A. (2007). Learners’ perceptions toward oral error correction. In K.
Bradford-Watts (Ed.), JALT 2006 Conference Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT.
Retrieved March 20, 2013, from http://jalt-publications.org/archive/
proceedings/2006/E117.pdf
Kramsch, C. J. (1987). Interactive discourse in small and large groups. In W. M.
Rivers (Ed.), Interactive language teaching (pp.17-30). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J. M. (2005). Error correction: Students’ versus teachers’
perceptions. Language Awareness, 14, 2-3, 112-127.
Lee, A. Y. (2007). Third turn position in teacher talk: Contingency and the work of teaching. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 180-206.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex Publishing company.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, Calif.:
Sage.
Lin, F. L. (2006). A study of classroom interaction between native English speaking
teachers and Taiwanese junior high school students. Unpublished Master
Thesis, Tunghai Unviersity, Taiwan.
Liu, Y. B. (2008). Teacher-student talk in Singapore Chinese language classrooms: a case study of initiation/ response/ follow-up (IRF). Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 28, 1, 87-102.
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 1, 37-66.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (2nd ed.). San Francisco: A Wiley Imprint.
Nassaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). What’s the use of ‘triadic dialogue’?: An investigation of teacher-student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21, 3, 376-406.
Newman, D., Griffin, P. & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school. Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (1987). Communicative language teaching: Making it work. ELT Journal.
41, 2, 136-145.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Methodological issues in the content analysis of computer conference transcripts. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 1, 8-22.
Seedhouse, P. (1996). Classroom interaction: possibilities and impossibilities. ELT Jouranl, 50, 116-124.
Shin, S. C. (2003). A study of the teacher talk and interaction in ESL/EFL elementary classrooms. Kaohsiung Normal University Journal, 15, 419-446.
Sinclari, J. & Brazil, D. (1982). Teacher talk. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sinclair, J. & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: the English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford university press.
Sinclair, J. & Coulthard, M. (1992). Towards an analysis of discourse. In M.
Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in spoken discourse analysis (pp.1-34). London:
Routledge.
Sullivan, P. (2000). Spoken artistry: Performance in a foreign language classroom. In J. K. Hall & L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp.73-90). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Ed.), Input in second language acquisition (pp.235-253). Rowley, MA:
Newburry house Publishers.
Thornbury, S. (1996). Teacher research teacher talk. ELT Journal. 50, 4, 279-287.
Thornbury, S., & Slade, D. (2006). Conversation: From Description to Pedagogy.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. London and New York: Longman.
Verplaetse, L. S. (2000). Mr. Wonder-ful: Portrait of a dialogic teacher. In J. K. Hall
& L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp.73-90). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Walsh, S. (2002). Construction or obstruction: Teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research, 6, 1, 3-23.
Wells, G. (1993). Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom. Linguistics and Education, 5, 1-37.
Yang, C. F. (2009). A discourse analysis of the teacher-student interactions between a native and a non-native English teacher: A case study. Unpublished Doctor
Dissertation, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan.
Yeh, Y. W. (2007). Analyzing students’ initiatives in elementary school language classrooms. Unpublished Master Thesis, National Pingtung University of
Education, Taiwan.
Yu, W. (2009). An analysis of college English classroom discourse. Asian Social Science, 5, 7, 152-159.
Appendix A
Sample Transcript of Classroom Observation
Class Time: 2012/05/22, 14:30pm-15:10pm 1 S : Attention. want you make your book disappear. No book on your table. Ok.
Ready! One, two, three. Good job. Ok. Now. Listening. Today, I will show you…我要給你們看四個人。They are my friends ((sticking Michael Jackson’s photo on the board)) First one.
9 SS : Michael Jackson. ((Writing “Michael Jackson” on the board)) So, you know this person, right?
22 T : Take a guess.瑪麗蓮夢露。That’s not Lillian. Who is she? 我給
Yes. This is Lady Gaga. Ok.好。Next one.這是 my friend。
((sticking Mario’s photo on the board)) 25 SS : 馬利歐。 了。((sticking Michael Phelps’ photo on the board)) Who is he?
31 S : Michael Jordern. 我們有兩個 Michael 哦。His name ((writing “Phe” on the board)) Everybody says “phe.” they are so talented. Talented 代表什麼? 他們都很厲害，對不 對?他們有某一個特殊的能力哦。So, if we say he ((writing
“he” on the board))… Everybody says he. 對。You want to do or not.（（writing“意願”on the board））
“he” on the board))… Everybody says he. 對。You want to do or not.（（writing“意願”on the board））