Keywords
classroom interaction
teacher questions
native speaker
How to Cite
Number of views: 930
Number of downloads: 825
Abstract
Past research has often shown a lack of student output in English medium instruction (EMI) classes (e.g., An et al., 2021; Lo & Macaro, 2012) and this study seeks to identify possible reasons. Guided by literature on wait time (Rowe, 1986) and teacher higher-order thinking questions (Chin, 2007), this study explores whether these two pedagogical moves have the same impact on classroom interaction in EMI science classes. 30 EMI science lessons were recorded from seven EMI high school programs in China, taught by 15 native speakers of English to homogenous groups of Chinese students. Correlation tests showed that when there was more wait time after a teacher question, the students produced lengthier responses with more linguistic complexity, took up more talk time, and asked more questions. However, greater use of teacher higher-order thinking questions, coded by Chin’s (2007) framework of constructivist questions, did not correlate with any student output measures. This suggests that wait time may be a more effective factor leading to more student output in EMI classes than asking higher-order thinking questions. Qualitative analysis showed teachers’ follow-up moves may have also played a role in the limited success of higher-order thinking questions.
References
An, J., Macaro, E., & Childs, A. (2021). Classroom interaction in EMI high schools: Do teachers who are native speakers of English make a difference ? System, 98, 102482. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102482
An, J., & Murphy, V. (2018). English as a medium of instruction in primary schools in South America: A review of the evidence. A report commissioned by the Oxford University Press.
An, J., & Thomas, N. (2021). Students’ beliefs about the role of interaction for science learning and language learning in EMI science classes: Evidence from high schools in China. Linguistics and Education, 65, 100972. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2021.100972
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. King’s College London School of Education.
Borkowska, K. (2011). Approaches to studying classroom discourse: Introduction. In S. Walsh (Ed.), Exploring classroom discourse language in action (pp. 67-89). Routledge.
Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1315-1346. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600621100
Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815-843. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20171
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.20
Erdogan, I., & Campbell, T. (2008). Teacher questioning and interaction patterns in classrooms facilitated with differing levels of constructivist teaching practices. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1891-1914. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701587028
Ingram, J., & Elliott, V. (2016). A critical analysis of the role of wait time in classroom interactions and the effects on student and teacher interactional behaviors. Cambridge Journal of Education, 46(1), 37-53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2015.1009365
Llinares, A., & Pascual Peña, I. (2015). A genre approach to the effect of academic questions on CLIL students’ language production. Language and Education, 29(1), 15-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2014.924964
Lo, Y. Y., & Macaro, E. (2012). The medium of instruction and classroom interaction: Evidence from Hong Kong secondary schools. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(1), 29-52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2011.588307
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). Academic Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012589042-7/50015-3
Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J., & Dearden, J. (2018). A systematic review of English medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching, 51(1), 36-76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444817000350
Macaro, E., Graham, S., & Woore, R. (2016). Improving foreign language teaching: Towards a research-based curriculum and pedagogy. Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315771229
Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: Analyzing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 137-168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.2004.1.2.137
Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Open University Press.
OECD. (2005). Formative assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms. Assessment, 29(November), 282. https://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/19/31/35661078.pdf DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264007413-en
Robson, C. (2002). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers (2nd ed.). Blackwell.
Rowe, M. B. (1974). Pausing phenomena: Influence on the quality of instruction. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 3(3), 203-224. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01069238
Rowe, M. B. (1986). Wait time: Slowing down may be a way of speeding up! Journal of Teacher Education, 37(1), 43-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002248718603700110
Samiroden, W. D. (1983). The effects of higher cognitive level questions wait time ranges by biology student teachers on student achievement and perception of teacher effectiveness. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oregon State University].
Sopia, Y., Ong, T., Hashimah, A., Sadiah, B., & Lai, Y. Y. (2010). Teaching science through English: Engaging pupils cognitively. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(3), 46-59.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Newbury House.
Sweller, J. (1998). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
Swift, J. N., & Gooding, C. (1983). Interaction of wait time feedback and questioning instruction on middle school science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(8), 721-730. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660200803
Tang, K. S. (2021). Discourse strategies for science teaching & learning: Research and practice. Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429352171
Tobin, K. (1987). The role of wait time in higher cognitive level learning. Review of Educational Research, 57(1), 69-95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543057001069
van Zee, E. H., & Minstrell, J. (1997). Reflective discourse: Developing shared understandings in a physics classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 209-228. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069970190206
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). The collected work of L. S. Vygotsky. Volume 1: Thinking and speaking. Plenum.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
Yip, D. Y., Coyle, D., & Tsang, W. (2007). Evaluation of the effects of the medium of instruction on science learning of Hong Kong secondary students: Instructional activities in science lessons. Education Journal, 35(2), 78-107.
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
1.1 The Author hereby warrants that he/she is the owner of all the copyright and other intellectual property rights in the Work and that, within the scope of the present Agreement, the paper does not infringe the legal rights of another person. The owner of the copyright work also warrants that he/she is the sole and original creator thereof and that is not bound by any legal constraints in regard to the use or sale of the work.
1.2. The Publisher warrants that is the owner of the PRESSto platform for open access journals, hereinafter referred to as the PRESSto Platform.
2. The Author grants the Publisher non-exclusive and free of charge license to unlimited use worldwide over an unspecified period of time in the following areas of exploitation:
2.1. production of multiple copies of the Work produced according to the specific application of a given technology, including printing, reproduction of graphics through mechanical or electrical means (reprography) and digital technology;
2.2. marketing authorisation, loan or lease of the original or copies thereof;
2.3. public performance, public performance in the broadcast, video screening, media enhancements as well as broadcasting and rebroadcasting, made available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them;
2.4. inclusion of the Work into a collective work (i.e. with a number of contributions);
2.5. inclusion of the Work in the electronic version to be offered on an electronic platform, or any other conceivable introduction of the Work in its electronic version to the Internet;
2.6. dissemination of electronic versions of the Work in its electronic version online, in a collective work or independently;
2.7. making the Work in the electronic version available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, in particular by making it accessible via the Internet, Intranet, Extranet;
2.8. making the Work available according to appropriate license pattern Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) as well as another language version of this license or any later version published by Creative Commons.
3. The Author grants the Publisher permission to reproduce a single copy (print or download) and royalty-free use and disposal of rights to compilations of the Work and these compilations.
4. The Author grants the Publisher permission to send metadata files related to the Work, including to commercial and non-commercial journal-indexing databases.
5. The Author represents that, on the basis of the license granted in the present Agreement, the Publisher is entitled and obliged to:
5.1. allow third parties to obtain further licenses (sublicenses) to the Work and to other materials, including derivatives thereof or compilations made, based on or including the Work, whereas the provisions of such sub-licenses will be the same as with the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons sub-license or another language version of this license, or any later version of this license published by Creative Commons;
5.2. make the Work available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, without any technological constraints;
5.3. appropriately inform members of the public to whom the Work is to be made available about sublicenses in such a way as to ensure that all parties are properly informed (appropriate informing messages).
6. Because of the royalty-free provision of services of the Author (resulting from the scope of obligations stipulated in the present Agreement), the Author shall not be entitled to any author’s fee due and payable on the part of the Publisher (no fee or royalty is payable by the Publisher to the Author).
7.1. In the case of third party claims or actions for indemnity against the Publisher owing to any infractions related to any form of infringement of intellectual property rights protection, including copyright infringements, the Author is obliged to take all possible measures necessary to protect against these claims and, when as a result of legal action, the Publisher, or any third party licensed by the Publisher to use the Work, will have to abandon using the Work in its entirety or in part or, following a court ruling in a legal challenge, to pay damages to a third party, whatever the legal basis
7.2. The Author will immediately inform the Publisher about any damage claims related to intellectual property infringements, including the author’s proprietary rights pertaining to a copyrighted work, filed against the Author. of liability, the Author is obliged to redress the damage resulting from claims made by third party, including costs and expenditures incurred in the process.
7.3. To all matters not settled herein provisions of the Polish Civil Code and the Polish Copyright and Related Rights Act shall apply.