Abstract

Recently, missing response in primary school English class has been an universal phenomenon, which has largely impede students linguistic development and teachers successful teaching. In this study, question and answer sequences in primary school English language classes are investigated. By employing the framework of conversation analysis, this study explores cases in which student responses are obviously missing after teacher questions and displays teacher interpretation of the missing responses. This study uses 18h of video-recorded primary school English classes gathered in Ding Lan Primary School in Hangzhou. The analysis displayed that overwhelming teachers attributed students’ missing responses to students’ insufficient linguistic knowledge and such interpretation was discovered to be particular to language classrooms. Besides, in coping with missing responses due to students’ linguistic problems, teachers tended to prefer coping with problems in understanding questions primarily to coping with problems in producing the answers primarily. However, there were also cases in which teachers regarded their failure in producing questions appropriately as the source of the missing responses. In such cases the trajectory of the interaction approximated to that of mundane conversation and other types of institutional interaction. This study hints the significant effects of instantaneous interactive decisions teachers make in classrooms.   

Keywords: question, answer, missing response, interpretation, attribution

Contents

Abstract

摘  要

1. Introduction-1

1.1 Research background-1

    1.2 Significance and aims of the study-1

1.3 Research questions-1

1.4 Structure of the study-2

2. Literature review-2

    2.1 Conversation analysis-2

    2.2 Researches about question-response sequences -3

        2.2.1 Researches about question-response sequencesin quotidian conversation-3

        2.2.2 Researches about question-response sequencesin classroom conversation-3

  3. Methodology-4

    3.1 Data collection-4

    3.2 Study methods-4

    3.3 Data analysis-4

  4. Results and discussions-5

    4.1 Teachers' attribution to students’ problems-5

    4.2 Teachers' attribution to their own problems-11

  5. Conclusion-13

5.1 Major findings-13

    5.2 Suggestions-13

    5.3 Limitations-13

References-14