(Luận văn thạc sĩ) english used in instructions in reading lessons by vietnamese teachers – a case study at faculty of english language teacher education, ULIS, VNU

VIENAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION

PHAN THI TOAN

ENGLISH USED IN INSTRUCTIONS IN READING LESSONS
BY VIETNAMESE TEACHERS – A CASE STUDY AT
FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION,
ULIS, VNU.

Tiếng Anh được sử dụng bởi giáo viên người Việt khi hướng dẫn sinh viên học
kĩ năng đọc – Một “nghiên cứu trường hợp” tại Khoa Sư Phạm Tiếng Anh,
trường Đại học Ngoại Ngữ, Đại học Quốc Gia Hà Nội.
MA THESIS
Major: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60140111
Program: 1

HÀ NỘI – 2014

i


VIENAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION

PHAN THỊ TOÁN

ENGLISH USED IN INSTRUCTIONS IN READING LESSONS BY

VIETNAMESE TEACHERS – A CASE STUDY AT FACULTY OF
ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION, ULIS, VNU.
Tiếng Anh được sử dụng bởi giáo viên người Việt khi hướng dẫn sinh viên học kĩ
năng đọc – Một “nghiên cứu trường hợp” tại Khoa Sư Phạm Tiếng Anh, trường
Đại học Ngoại Ngữ, Đại học Quốc Gia Hà Nội.
MA THESIS

Major: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60140111
Program: 1
Supervisor: Ms. Nguyễn Thị Minh Tâm (PhD)

HÀ NỘI – 2014

i


ACCEPTANCE
I hereby state that I : Phan Thị Toán, English K21D, being a candidate for the degree of
Master of Arts (English Teaching Methodology), accept the requirements of the College
relating to the retention and use of Graduation Paper deposited in the library.

In terms of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my paper deposited in the library
should be accessible for the purposes of study and research, in accordance with the
normal conditions established by the librarian for the care, loan or reproduction of the
paper.

Signature

September 15th, 2014

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper would not have been completed without the support of many people, to all of
whom I am profoundly indebted.
First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Ms.
Nguyen Thi Minh Tam, PhD. for her precious support and insightful comments, which
have always been the decisive factors in the completion of this paper.
Second, I would like to send my heartfelt thanks to the teachers and the students of two
first-year reading classes at Division I, FELTE, who allowed me to administer the
observations and interviews and who have enthusiastically helped me to carry out the
study with ease.
Last but not least, I am truly grateful to my family and my friends for their continual
encouragement and support during the time I conducted the research.

ii


ABSTRACT
This study investigates the support of teacher instructions in academic reading lessons in
two first-year classes at Department I, FELTE, ULIS, VNU. A multiple case study design
and the qualitative approach were applied to take an in-depth investigation into the
problem.
Five observations with a recorder and two observation schemes, one of which based on
the theory by Fairclough and the other is based on the theory of effective instructions,
were conducted in each class to discover the way the teachers guided the students with
the reading exercises. Moreover, the teachers’ and students’ perceptions of the
effectiveness of the instruction giving were measured by their responses in the interviews

after the observation process. The data collected were coded and then decoded and
analyzed under each research question. It was found out from the study that simple
English words and structures were used in almost all the instructions. Moreover, both the
teachers and the students were satisfied with the explicitness of the instructions.
However, it is recommended that teacher instruction should still be improved. More
referential questions should be used to catch the students’ attention and motivate them to
think. More explanation and checking, including understanding checking and result
checking, should be conducted to make sure the effectiveness of the instructions. The
teachers need to pay more attention to the guidance about how to deal with the questions
and the language in the reading texts, as well.

iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACCEPTANCE .................................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................ ii
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... iv
LISTS OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................... ix
PART A: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
1. Statement and rationale of the research ..................................................................... 1
2. Aims of the study ...................................................................................................... 2
3. Research questions .................................................................................................... 2
4. Scope of the study ..................................................................................................... 2
5. Methods of the study ................................................................................................. 3
6. Significance of the study ........................................................................................... 3
7. An overview of the rest of the paper ......................................................................... 3
PART B: DEVELOPMENT................................................................................................ 5
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................... 5

1.1.

Instruction .............................................................................................................. 5

1.1.1.

Definition of instruction .................................................................................. 5

1.1.2.

The role of teachers’ instructions .................................................................... 6

1.1.3.

Some techniques of instruction giving ............................................................ 6

1.1.4.

Principles of effective instructions .................................................................. 7

1.1.5.

Comprehension instruction in reading lessons................................................ 8

1.2.

Teachers’ language use in instructions in the view of Discourse Analysis ........... 9

1.2.1.

Classroom Discourse ....................................................................................... 9

iv


1.2.2.
1.3.

Classroom Discourse Analysis ...................................................................... 10

Review of the previous studies ............................................................................ 12

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... 15
2.1.

Research approach and Research design ............................................................. 15

2.1.1.

Qualitative approach ..................................................................................... 15

2.1.2.

Multiple-case study design ............................................................................ 15

2.2.

Context of the study ............................................................................................. 16

2.3.

Participant selection ............................................................................................. 16

2.3.1.

Sampling method........................................................................................... 16

2.3.2.

Participants .................................................................................................... 17

2.4.

Data collection methods and procedures ............................................................. 18

2.4.1.

Classroom Observation ................................................................................. 18

2.4.1.1.

Purpose ................................................................................................... 18

2.4.1.2.

Structure ................................................................................................. 19

2.4.1.3.

Procedure ................................................................................................ 20

2.4.1.4.

Coding scheme ....................................................................................... 20

2.4.2.

Interviews ...................................................................................................... 20

2.4.2.1.

Purpose ................................................................................................... 20

2.4.2.2.

Structure ................................................................................................. 21

2.4.2.3.

Procedure ................................................................................................ 21

2.4.2.4.

Coding scheme ....................................................................................... 21

2.4.3.

Data collection procedure ............................................................................. 22

2.4.3.1.

Phase 1 .................................................................................................... 22

2.4.3.2.

Phase 2: ................................................................................................... 22
v


2.5.

Data analysis method and procedure ................................................................... 22

CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................... 23
3.1.

Findings ................................................................................................................ 23

3.1.1.

3.1.1.1.

Vocabulary ............................................................................................. 23

3.1.1.2.

Grammar ................................................................................................. 24

3.1.1.3.

Cohesion ................................................................................................. 25

3.1.1.4.

Structure of text ...................................................................................... 25

3.1.1.5.

Discourse as discursive practice ............................................................. 26

3.1.2.

3.2.

Answer to research question 1: ..................................................................... 23

Answer to research question 2: ..................................................................... 27

3.1.2.1.

Instruction effectiveness in the teachers’ perception ............................. 28

3.1.2.2.

Instruction effectiveness in the students’ perception ............................. 30

3.1.2.3.

Instruction effectiveness under the theory of an effective instruction ... 32

Implications for teaching ..................................................................................... 33

3.2.1.

The patterns of English used ......................................................................... 33

3.2.1.1.

Vocabulary and grammar ....................................................................... 33

3.2.1.2.

Cohesion and structure ........................................................................... 34

3.2.1.3.

Discursive practice ................................................................................. 35

3.2.2.

Techniques of instruction giving ................................................................... 35

3.2.2.1.

Content of instructions ........................................................................... 35

3.2.2.2.

Instruction giving time ........................................................................... 36

3.2.2.3.

Understanding checking ......................................................................... 36

PART C: CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 37
1. Recapitulation .......................................................................................................... 37
vi


1.1.

Major findings .................................................................................................. 37

1.1.1.

Research question 1 ................................................................................... 37

1.1.2.

Research question 2: .................................................................................. 37

1.2.

Pedagogical implications .................................................................................. 37

2. Contributions of the study ....................................................................................... 38
3. Limitations of the study ........................................................................................... 38
4. Suggestions for further studies ................................................................................ 39
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 40
APPENDIX 1A – OBSERVATIONS IN G1 ....................................................................... I

1. Observation scheme 1 ................................................................................................ I
2. Observation scheme 2 ........................................................................................... XII
APPENDIX 1B – OBSERVATIONS IN G2 .............................................................. XVIII
1. Observation scheme 1 ....................................................................................... XVIII
2. Observation scheme 2 ....................................................................................... XXIX
APPENDIX 2A – INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR THE TEACHERS................. XXXV
1. Vietnamese version ......................................................................................... XXXV
2. English version ............................................................................................... XXXVI
APPENDIX 2B – INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR THE STUDENTS ............... XXXVII
1. Vietnamese version ....................................................................................... XXXVII
2. English version ............................................................................................... XXXIX
APPENDIX 3A – INTERVIEW T1 ................................................................................. XL
1. Vietnamese version ................................................................................................ XL
2. English version ................................................................................................... XLIII
APPENDIX 3B – INTERVIEW T2 ............................................................................ XLVI

vii


1. Vietnamese version ........................................................................................... XLVI
2. English version .................................................................................................. XLIX
APPENDIX 4A – INTERVIEW G1 ................................................................................ LII
1. Vietnamese version ................................................................................................ LII
2. English version ..................................................................................................... LVI
APPENDIX 4B – INTERVIEW G2............................................................................... LIX
1. Vietnamese version .............................................................................................. LIX
2. English version .................................................................................................. LXIV
APPENDIX 4C – THE TEST USED IN INTERVIEWS WITH STUDENTS .......... LXIX
APPENDIX 5A – SAMPLE OF T1’S INSTRUCTIONS................................................. CI
APPENDIX 5B – SAMPLE OF T2’S INSTRUCTIONS .............................................. CIII

APPENDIX 6 – SAMPLE OF READING TEXTS USED IN CLASSROOMS ........... CV

viii


LISTS OF ABBREVIATIONS
FELTE

Faculty of English Language Teacher Education

ULIS

University of Languages and International Studies

VNU

Vietnam National University, Hanoi

ix


PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Statement and rationale of the research
In a lesson where English is taught as a second or foreign language (hereafter in this
thesis referred to as L2), the effective academic development of students may require
many elements. Beside the external factors, the successful interaction between the teacher
and the students is clearly essential. Obviously, the efficiency of this communication
serves as a connection between the two, which provides a better atmosphere for the
classroom environment. According to Justice, Hamre and Pianta (2008), it is teachers’
facilitation of learning objectives that determines whether students gain from instructions.

Mashburn et al. (2008) also claims that for students’ academic attainment and social skill
growth, the way teachers guide and connect with students need to be focused on.
Apparently, more effective teacher-student cooperation leads to enhanced students’
outcomes.
Teaching reading skills for first year students at university is not an easy task for every
teacher. The reason is that, most first-year students lack academic reading skills,
especially when “University-level reading greatly differs from High School reading”
(Hermida, 2009, p. 21). Whereas, teachers play a leading role in providing learners with
the knowledge, skills and understanding they need to read, write, speak and listen
effectively (Arkoudis, 2003, p. 162 cited in Uys et al., 2007). Therefore, the instructions
given by the teacher has a dramatic effect on developing students’ academic reading
skills. So far, many authors such as Kamil (2008), Archer and Hughes (2011), Ryder et
al. (n.d), Buckheit (2010), Rubagumya et al. (2010), and Vasilopoulos (2008) have
examined this relationship but they only analyzed the impact of instructions in building
the students’ skills in general.
In Faculty of English Language Teacher Education, English is used as the only medium
of classroom discourse, including instructions. Although the students major English, this
is still a barrier to them in conducting activities in classroom. Sadly, to the best
knowledge of the researcher, there is no standard on how the teachers’ language use
should be for the best sake of the students. There seems hardly to be; moreover, any

1


author having investigated in the English practice in these instructions, especially in
Vietnamese education
This real situation has inspired the researcher to choose the tittle “English used in
instructions in reading lessons by Vietnamese teachers – A case study at Faculty of
English Language Teacher Education, ULIS, VNU.” with the expectation to have a
deeper knowledge of the language use in the instructions given by teachers.

2. Aims of the study
The study aims at observing the patterns of English used by the teachers and exploring
the extent to which those patterns make their instructions effective.
3. Research questions
With such aims as mentioned, the study answers the two following questions.
1. What are the patterns of English used in the instructions given by the teachers?
2. To what extent do the patterns of English that the teachers use make their
instructions effective according to the theory, the teachers and the students?
4. Scope of the study
This investigation is taken in academic reading lessons only. That is because these
lessons concern of different kinds of exercises which are totally different from those at
high schools. Therefore, the students do need comprehensive and detailed instructions
from the teachers. As asserted by Boulware et al. (2007), students cannot develop their
reading level with only the exposure to the reading texts. They need the guidance from
the teacher about the effective strategies. Autrey & Demuth (2012) also states that in the
classroom, the teacher should adapt the content, methodology and delivery of instructions
for the success of the lessons, which is partly gained through the teacher’s appropriate
language use.
This study targets at the effectiveness of the teachers’ instructions in the perceptions of
the teachers and the students. Another focus is the teacher’s use of English in their
instructions given to the students before, during and after they do the reading tasks. It is
not only the structures and the vocabulary of English but also the way the teachers deliver
instructions in English. The English used is examined in the perspective of discourse
analysis.
2


5. Methods of the study
The research applies qualitative method in collecting and analyzing data. The participants
of the research are the teachers and the students of two first-year academic reading

mainstream classes. A case study is used to take a deep investigation into the issue. The
data are collected through two instruments: classroom observations (with recordings) and
face-to-face interviews. Initially, through the classroom observations, the language
patterns and instruction giving techniques used by the teachers are recorded with two
observation schemes. Next, the teachers are interviewed for their perception of the
success of their instruction giving. Afterwards, two groups of students from the two
classes are asked about their opinion on the effectiveness of the teachers’ instructions in
helping them deal with the reading texts and exercises. The data; next, are coded and
decoded in the analyzing period.
6. Significance of the study
Among few studies on the English used in teacher’s instructions in academic reading
lessons at first-year ULIS mainstream English majors, the study would be of great benefit
for its target population (mainly the teachers) and other researchers interested in the topic.
For the teachers, the research findings would be a good source for some proposals about
the effective way of using and processing English in their instructions in academic
reading lessons. The recommendations are expected to offer not only short-term but also
life-long suggestions for them in delivering comprehensive and full guidance. For other
researchers, the study could be a reliable source of related literature and a basis to expand
the research scope in the same field, as well.
7. An overview of the rest of the paper
The rest of the paper is comprised of the four following chapters:
Chapter 1 (Theoretical Framework) introduces the theoretical foundation for the whole
study. Besides providing the definitions of key terms like instruction and classroom
discourse, it offers a critical review of studies related to the research problem.
Chapter 2 (Methodology) specifies the participants, the instruments, the two-phase
procedure of collecting data and the procedure of processing data from the observations
and the interviews.
3

Chapter 3 (Findings and Discussion) presents and analyses all the collected data to help
find out the answers to the two research questions. The chapter also provides the
researcher’s suggestions on the use of English in academic reading lessons at first-year
mainstream classes based on the findings and related studies.
The Conclusion summarizes all the major points presented in the findings, the
contributions and limitations of the study as well as some suggestions for further
research.

4


PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This chapter provides an overview on the theoretical framework related to the study.
Beside the definitions of key terms like instruction or classroom discourse, the chapter
provides critical background information to ensure the thorough understanding of the
research matters. Hence, the literature gap and rationales of the study are revealed.
1.1. Instruction
1.1.1. Definition of instruction
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2010) describes instruction as “detailed
information on how to do or use something” (p. 774). In Cambridge Dictionary (2013),
instruction is “something that someone tells you to do” (p. 749). The American Heritage
Dictionary of the English Language (2000) defines instruction as an accurate direction to
follow. Collins English Dictionary (2003), on the other hand, clarifies instruction as the
action of knowledge communicating. Overall, instruction refers to the information
conveyed to a recipient to perform something.
Štalmašková et al. (2006 cited in Nguyen, 2010) says that instruction is the teaching,
education performed by a teacher or the “action, practice, or profession of teaching” (p.
19). Huitt (2003) considers instruction as one of the main teachers’ activities in classroom
(the other two are planning and management). Ur (1996) clarifies instructions as “the

directions that are given to introduce a learning task which entails some measure of
independent student activity” (p. l6). In Housen & Pierrard (2005), L2 instruction is
intentional effort to increase L2 acquisition.
Briefly, instruction can be described in two ways. In a broad sense, it is the common
teaching performed by the teacher during the lesson. In a narrow sense, it is the teacher’s
explanation about an activity or a task.
In the case of this study, instructions are the explanations and the guides from the teacher
during the lessons to help the students read with comprehension and fluency. In the
activity of instruction giving, the teacher imparts the knowledge and especially, the
reading skills and strategies to the students.
5


1.1.2. The role of teachers’ instructions
Obviously, instructions play an important role in helping the teacher to direct the class
and achieve the lessons’ objectives. Harmer (1998) announces that “The best activity in
the world is a waste of time if the students don’t understand what it is they are supposed
to do” (p. 4). A similar opinion claimed by Nguyen et al. (2003 cited in To et al., 2008)
is: “If students do not know what they are expected to do about the tasks/activities, they
will not be able to perform the tasks successfully” (p. 16). In that point of view, the
students’ clearness of what should be done and what way to do decides the outcomes of
the lessons.
Housen & Pierrard (2005) states that instructions increase learners’ accuracy, complexity
(richness, sophistication) and fluency. On the other hand, they provide crucial exposure
to L2, influence L2 learning propensity and activate language learning mechanisms and
processes. Moreover, they enable internalization of new L2 knowledge, modification of
L2 knowledge and consolidation of L2 knowledge (Housen & Pierrard, 2005). It can be
inferred that the language use in instructions plays a very important role in the
development of students’ L2 acquisition.
In conclusion, instructions are indispensable in L2 learning. They not only give the

students an exact direction in developing their language competence but also strengthen
their skills and confidence. Therefore, the teacher must be really careful and wellprepared in his/her use of language to benefit the students the most.
1.1.3. Some techniques of instruction giving
Nguyen et al. (2003 cited in To et al., 2008) suggests four different techniques for
instructing the students.
 “Step – by – step” or “feed – in” approach: Give one instruction at a time, not a series
of instructions altogether.
 Demonstrate it, “model” it or “show – don’t – tell”: Use transparent demonstrations to
make the instructions simple and understandable.
 Say – do – check: Follow three steps: Say the instruction; Get the students to do the
task; Check whether the students have done it correctly or not.

6


 Students recall: If necessary, get the students to translate instructions into their mother
tongue (Vietnamese).
(p. 16)
In short, giving instructions does not mean giving the students the directions only and let
them find the way themselves. The explanations may become nonsense if the students do
not understand. Therefore, comprehension checking is really crucial. Furthermore,
through the activities, the teacher needs to observe and support the students whenever
they encounter difficulties.
1.1.4. Principles of effective instructions
According to Ur (1996), the principles of effective instruction giving and checking
are: careful preparation, having the class’s attention, presenting information more than
once, being brief, illustrating with examples and getting feedback. On the other hand,
Gower et al. (1995) proposes seven factors which are: attracting students’ attention, using
simple language and short expressions, being consistent, using visual or written clues,
demonstrating, breaking instructions down and targeting the instructions (p. 40). Huitt

(1996) also discusses several principles. They are: active presentation of information;
clear organization of instructions; step-by-step progression from subtopic to subtopic; use
many examples, visual prompts, and demonstrations; constant assessment of students’
understanding; alter pace of instruction based on assessment of students’ understanding;
and effective use of time and maintaining students’ attention. Prozorova and Novikava
(cited

in

Hickey,

2006)

think

that

effective

instructions

should

increase

comprehensibility; interaction; and thinking/study skills.
Generally, the points described in the principles above can be summarized in five critical
elements:
 Attract students’ attention.
 Make the instructions easy to understand.

 Illustrate the instructions with different forms of information.
 Assure students’ understanding.
 Develop students’ interaction and study skills.

7


Clearly, English in instructions has been always one of the concerns of the teachers and
experts. However, there have been still no standards for the simplicity of language use as
well as studies on how the good choice of language use can affect the success of the
lessons.
1.1.5. Comprehension instruction in reading lessons
When learning four skills of English (speaking, reading, listening, writing), students seem
to learn reading first. In a publication by Texas Education Agency (2002), it is said that
reading is “central” to learning. Moreover, students’ reading competence decides their
“future success” (p. 3). Bouchard and Sutton (2001) claims that “Teaching children to
read … is the responsibility of every teacher, every administrator and every parent.”(p.
3). Obviously, reading is an essential skill which all students should master.
The question is how to build and develop students’ reading skills. According to Texas
Education Agency (2002), the purpose of reading is “comprehension”. Anderson et al.
(1985) believes without comprehension, reading is a “frustrating, pointless exercise in
word calling (p. 4).” Ontario Ministry of Education (2003) claims that the goal of reading
is to read a diversity of books with “understanding, skill, and confidence (p. 2.4).”
Therefore, comprehension is the final goal of reading instructions (Learning Point
Associates, 2004). Besides, reading instructions are to help students “develop the
knowledge, skills, and experiences they must have if they are to become competent and
enthusiastic readers.” (Texas Education Agency, 2002, p. 30).
Dole (2008) states that students need to be taught a set of strategies and vocabulary
related to important concepts when they read texts, especially when they get confused.
Learning Point Associates (2004) suggests some comprehension strategies which are:

Using prior knowledge; Generating questions; Comprehension monitoring; Cooperative
learning; and Graphic and semantic organizers (p. 31-38). According to that paper, to
instruct students comprehensively, it is necessary that the teacher use direct explanations;
make the strategies perceived useful by the students; give students chances to use the
strategies immediately; repeat the explanations and modeling of how to use the strategies
within the same lesson presentation; gradually transfer responsibility for applying the
strategy to students; assess how well students understand the content and how well they
8


use the strategies; and maintain a focus on the strategies (p. 37-38). Meanwhile, Kamil
(2008)

offers

question

answering;

question

generation;

constructing

maps;

comprehension monitoring; cooperative learning; summarizing; and using graphic
organizers (p. 3-4). The policies mentioned in Texas Education Agency (2002) are
activating and using background knowledge; generating and asking questions; making

inferences; predicting; summarizing; visualizing and comprehension monitoring (p. 911). Moreover, it is also emphasized that comprehension instruction must begin as soon
as students begin to read and it must:
• be explicit, intensive, and persistent;
• help students to become aware of text organization; and
• motivate students to read widely.
(Texas Education Agency, p. 12)
In general, the comprehension strategies are quite the same among the researchers. Those
strategies are also applicable in L2 classrooms. Hence, it is how the teachers really do
with their instructions that matters.
1.2. Teachers’ language use in instructions in the view of Discourse Analysis
1.2.1. Classroom Discourse
According to Henry & Tator (2002), discourse is the way in which language is used
“socially to convey broad historical meanings” (p. 25). It is the language “identified by
the social conditions of its use, by who is using it and under what conditions” (p. 25). In a
more specific definition, Hinkel & Fotos (2002) suggests discourse in context may be one
or two words or a novel.
From the definitions above, it can be seen that discourse can be any piece of language
produced with a purpose. Teachers’ instruction is; therefore, a type of discourse. More
specifically, it is a part of classroom discourse, which happens inside the classroom.
According to Zuengler & Mori (2002), classroom discourse is the classroom interaction
performed between teacher-student and student-student. Nunan (1993) views classroom
discourse as the unique type of discourse that arises in classrooms. Similarly, Behnam &
Pouriran (2009) claims that classroom discourse is distinctive for the features such as
“unequal power relationships; turn-taking at speaking; patterns of interaction, etc.” (p.
9


118). The authors also point out that what really matters in classroom is the way teachers
give questions (p. 118). Two common kinds of questions mentioned in this paper are
Display and Referential questions. While the former is often used for short answers,

which are predictable, the latter is for more “interaction and meaningful negotiation” (p.
118).
Chang (1999, p. 2-3 cited in Behnam & Pouriran, 2009, p. 119) divides classroom
discourse into four categories: IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback), Instruction, Probing
Questions, and Argumentation. From this point of view, instruction is of a quite small
scale. In fact, when giving instructions, teachers often add questions (including probing
(referential) questions) to push the students to raise their voices. Moreover, questioning is
also a method of instruction giving. Therefore, in the case of this study, instruction covers
probing questions and even IRF, where questions are asked in a more traditional way.
Mehan (1979 cited in Behnam & Pouriran, 2009) suggests a structure of the three
component pedagogic discourse which includes: “An opening phase, an instructional
phase where information is exchanged between teacher and students and a closing phase”
(p. 119). This opinion is interesting because Mehan considers the instruction as the main
interaction between teachers and students.
McTear (1975 cited in Behnam & Pouriran, 2009) also proposes four types of language
use in classroom discourse. They are Mechanical (no exchange of meaning), Meaningful
(meaning is contextualized but no new information is conveyed), Pseudo-communication
(new information is conveyed but in a manner unlikely to occur outside the classroom),
and Real communication (spontaneous speech resulting from the exchange of opinions,
jokes, classroom management, etc.) (p. 119-120). Instruction giving, then, often contains
the third and the fourth types.
In short, instruction is an important part of classroom discourse, having clear influence on
the students’ language acquiring process.
1.2.2. Classroom Discourse Analysis
Schiffrin, Tannen, & Hamilton (2001) announces that study of discourse is study of
language use. That means, language examining includes examining its purpose and
effect. Abrams & Harpham (2005) assumes that discourse analysis concerns of the use of
10

language in a “running discourse”, and involves the “interaction of speaker (or writer)
and auditor (or reader) in a specific situational context, and within a framework of social
and cultural conventions" (p. 81). According to Wood & Kroger (2000), discourse
analysis is not only about method; it is also a view on the characters of language and its
link to the key matters of communal arts. Gee (2005) claims that discourse analysis is one
way to join in a very important human task. That is to think more carefully about the
meanings given in people's words to make the world better.
Kumaravadivelu (2008) considers analyzing classroom discourse as “describing certain
verbal behaviors of teachers and students as they interact in the classroom” (p. 455). He
emphasizes the effectiveness of Communicative Orientation of Language Teaching
observation scheme. This scheme, as stated by Kumaravadivelu (2008), is “directly
linked to communicative methods” of language teaching, and designed for “real-time
coding” as well as for “analysis of recordings of classes” (p. 456). On the other hand,
Allwright (1998 cited in Kumaravadivelu, 2008) suggests a three-way analysis in his
observational scheme: a turn-taking analysis, (turn-getting and turn-giving practices); a
topic analysis, (the use of language as instances of linguistic samples); and a task
analysis, (the managerial as well as the cognitive aspects of classroom tasks). (p. 457)
In the view that classroom discourse is also a product of society where the teacher and the
students have specific social roles, some researchers apply the schemes of critical
discourse analysis to describe the discourse used in classrooms (which is called
classroom critical discourse analysis). Critical discourse analysis, according to Fairclough
(1992), is an attempt to synthesize language studies and social theory. As claimed by
Blommaert & Bulcaen (2000), critical discourse analysis looks critically at the nexus of
language and social structure, pursuing to “uncover ways in which social structure
impinges on discourse patterns” and power relations (p. 449). As a result, critical
discourse analysis can look beyond apparent factors of classroom language, and brighten
features of agency and power in the classroom. (Boaler, 2003).
In Fairclough’s point of view (1992), discourse is a mode of both representation and
action. He emphasizes that there is a dialectic relationship between discourse and social
structure, with discourse is on one hand, constrained by social structure, and on the other

11


hand socially constitutive. For analyzing discourse, he suggests a three-dimension
framework, considering “every discursive event as being simultaneously a piece of text,
an instance of discursive practice and an instance of social practice” (p. 4). The first
dimension is discourse-as-text, i.e. the linguistic features and organization of concrete
instances of discourse (vocabulary, grammar, cohesion and text structure.) The
second dimension is discourse-as-discursive-practice, i.e. discourse as something that is
produced, distributed and consumed in society (force, coherence and intertextuality).
The third dimension is discourse-as-social-practice, drawing on the Marxist concepts of
ideology and hegemony. (p. 100)
In this study, Fairclough’s framework is applied to analyze the discourse of teachers and
students during instruction time. However, because the nature of instruction giving is the
dominance and control from the teachers, the research focuses only on the two first
dimensions: discourse as text and discourse as discursive practice.
1.3. Review of the previous studies
Until now, there have been a lot of studies on classroom discourse in general, on
instruction in specific.
The effectiveness of classroom interaction was studied during the 1980s with the names
of Soar (1973) and Stallings, Robbins & Presbrey (1986). In their investigation, the
researchers focused on academic-engaged time, classroom management and certain
patterns of teacher-student interactions. Some other researchers named Brophy &
Evertson (1978) and Good and Grouws (1975) mentioned the link between explicit
instruction and students’ achievement. However, they did not investigate the effect of
language use on the students’ accomplishment. Later, the experts paid more attention to
the qualitative dimension of instruction and engaged in case studies of exemplary
teachers (Philips, 1972; Au, 1980; Delpit, 1995; Health, 1983 and Goldenberg &
Gallimore, 1991). Nonetheless, what was emphasized was the so-called literature
instruction in classroom, which used authentic literature for independent reading, read

out-loud and collaborative discussions. In other words, the papers in this period
concentrated on methods (literature-based or skills-based) of teaching and learning inside
classrooms only.
12


Recently, there have been many studies on the techniques of giving successful
instructions. Kamil (2008) and Learning Point Associates (2004) directed at the five
essential components of effective reading instructions which are phonemic awareness,
phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension. The investigators, in comprehension
part, stated some general requirements of a comprehensive instruction. Foorman &
Torgesen (2001) and a group of Administrative Literacy Task Force (Ryder et al., n.d)
researched the efficient reading instructions for small group reading. They both targeted
at children. Besides, a publication from Texas Education Agency (2002) and Dole (2008)
also had a look at a useful comprehension instruction and suggested the qualification that
an instruction should meet to be an effective comprehension instruction. On the other
hand, Archer & Hughes (2011) and Rosenshine (2012) concentrated on the steps
(strategies) to deliver successful instructions in classrooms. Both of them discussed the
clearness and explicitness of instructions. However, they did not concern deeply the use
of English by the teachers to make their instructions clear and explicit.
In term of classroom discourse, there has been much interest from the scientists. Many of
the studies on language classroom discourse examined the interaction inside classrooms.
In Allwright and Bailey (1991), Long and Sato compared the teachers’ and native
speakers’ use of display and referential questions, comprehension checks, clarification
checks, and confirmation checks. Pica and Long (as reported by Nunan, 1989, p. 25)
focused on the differences between conversations in and out of classrooms and the
differences between the language of experienced and inexperienced teachers. Swain
(1985) investigated the link between the question types asked by the teachers and the
language acquisition of the students. Suter (2001), on the other hand, studied the link
between the questions and the interactions in classrooms. Oberli (2003) investigated how

an experienced teacher in Seoul, Korea, chose to answer the weak/strong dichotomy with
regard to questioning and feedback strategies. On the contrary, Buzzellia & Johnston
(2001) inspected the practice of authority in classrooms and argued that authority was
best understood in relation to the twin concepts of power and morality. What is more,
Walsh (2006) explored the dynamics of L2 classrooms (mainly from teachers’
perspectives), looked at the relationship between classroom interaction and language
13


acquisition, and reviewed approaches commonly used to analyze L2 class interaction. He
also conducted a fine grained analysis that shed light on why teachers and learners did
what they do in L2 language classrooms. Bloome, Carter, Christian, Otto, & Shuart-Faris
(2005) presented analyses of classroom discourse in relation to language and literacy
events from a microethnographic perspective. It reflected increasingly strong concerns
over issues ranging from gender, race, identity and power relations within and beyond
classrooms.
Shortly, both instruction and classroom discourse are scientific interests and have been
investigated by many researchers all over the world. However, to the best knowledge of
the researcher, there have not been any studies examining deeply the discourse of
instructions by the teachers in reading lessons to see the success of instruction giving
under the perception of the teachers and the students. Therefore, the researcher is
encouraged more to take an examination into this issue.

Summary
The chapter has provided the theoretical background for the whole study through
providing the definitions of key terms and significant background information on
instruction giving and classroom discourse analysis. Moreover, a critical review of
studies related to the research problem is also offered.

14