台灣技職高等教育中教室互動之研究: 英語會話課中教師問句之使用 - 政大學術集成

全文

(1)國立政治大學英國語文學系博士班博士論文. 指導教授: 尤雪瑛教授 Advisor: Prof. Hsueh-ying Yu. 台灣技職高等教育中教室互動之研究: 英語會話課中教師問句之使用 A Study on Classroom Interaction at Vocational Colleges in Taiwan: The Use of Teacher Questions in English Conversation Courses. 研究生: 潘佳幸撰 Name: Chia-hsing Pan. 中華民國 106 年 6 月 June, 2017.

(2) A STUDY ON CLASSROOM INTERACTION AT VOCATIONAL COLLEGES IN TAIWAN: THE USE OF TEACHER QUESTIONS IN ENGLISH CONVERSATION COURSESS. A Dissertation Submitted to Department of English,. National Chengchi University. In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. by Chia-hsing Pan June 28, 2017.

(3) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. First and foremost, I would like to give my greatest gratitude to my advisor, Prof. Hsueh-ying Yu, who has mentored me through the twelve years’ study and patiently guided me for professional and personal growth. Besides making me more mature and strong-minded, Prof. Yu showed me how to analyze research problems and to present ideas logically and insightfully on my countless drafts. Under her guidance, I have learned how to conduct research and successfully completed my dissertation. I would like to extend my great thanks to my colleagues and friends, Prof. Sidney Huang, Prof. Mei-yu Lu, Prof. Beatrice Ho, Prof. Jay Lee, Prof. Qui-ju Lin, Prof. Zhi-ren Chen, Prof. Yi-ren Wang, Prof. Jack Hsu, Paul Yan, Charlotte Hsiao, Prof. Samantha Liao, and Jennifer Chi for their continued congeniality in participating data collection or data analysis. With their help, I was able to complete this challenging task in my life with perseverance and vitality. Finally, my deepest thanks go to my family, especially my husband, who has supported me all the way and took care of our children, James and Coco while I was occupied with my study. My warmest thanks are also dedicated to my parents and my three sisters. My achievement in the completion of the doctoral program should be accredited to them. This long journey, full of challenges and frustrations, has strengthened my mind and reassured my choice as an English teacher in my whole life. With the expertise I gained from it, I am confident to resume my career in teaching. Thank you all, who have made my life fulfilled and enlightened. iii.

(4) TABLE OF CONTENTS. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................ iii CHINESE ABSTRACT ............................................................................................ viii ENGLISH ABSTRACT................................................................................................x CHAPTER 1 .................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................1 Background ...........................................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem ......................................................................................5 Purpose of the Study .............................................................................................6 Research Questions ...............................................................................................7 Significance of the Study ......................................................................................8 Organization of the Dissertation ...........................................................................9 CHAPTER 2 ............................................................................................................... 11 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................ 11 Organization of the Chapter ................................................................................ 11 Classroom Interaction ......................................................................................... 11 Theoretical Bases of Classroom Interaction .......................................................13 Input Hypothesis .................................................................................14 Interaction Hypothesis ........................................................................16 Output Hypothesis ..............................................................................19 Social-cultural Theory ........................................................................20 Classroom Discourse Patterns....................................................................22 Teacher Talk ........................................................................................................26 Teacher Questions ...............................................................................................28 Taxonomies of Teacher Questions ...............................................................30 Linguistic taxonomies of questions: question forms ..........................30 Functional taxonomies of questions: question functions ....................32 Cognitive taxonomies of questions: levels of thinking .......................36 General Description of Purposes of Teachers’ Questions ..........................38 Research on Learner Responses to Teachers’ Questions ............................41 CHAPTER 3 ...............................................................................................................43 METHODOLOGY .....................................................................................................43 Tentative Frameworks .........................................................................................44 Pilot Study...........................................................................................................48 iv.

(5) Formal Study ...................................................................................................... 50 Research Context ........................................................................................ 51 Participants ......................................................................................... 51 Procedure ............................................................................................ 54 Instruments ................................................................................................. 56 Frameworks for Formal Study ............................................................ 57 Questionnaire ...................................................................................... 60 Interviews ........................................................................................... 62 Videotaping ......................................................................................... 63 Data Analysis .............................................................................................. 64 Transcribing Transcripts, Coding, and Frequency Analysis ............... 65 Analysis of Questionnaire and Interviews .......................................... 67 CHAPTER 4 ............................................................................................................... 69 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ....................................................... 69 Organization of the Chapter................................................................................ 69 Analysis of Question Forms, Functions and Learner Responses ....................... 70 Analysis and Discussion of Question Forms .............................................. 70 Summary of Analysis of Question Forms.................................................... 86 Analysis and Discussion of Question Functions......................................... 88 Summary of Analysis of Question Functions ............................................ 100 Analysis and Discussion of Learner Responses ....................................... 101 Summary of Analysis of Learner Responses ............................................. 110 Analysis of Relations between Question Forms, Functions and Learner Responses ......................................................................................................... 111 Summary of Analysis of Relations between Question Forms, Functions, and Learner Responses ............................................................................................ 120 Results of the Questionnaire ............................................................................. 122 Analysis and Comparison of the Results of Questionnaire, Interview and Transcripts ........................................................................................................ 123 Summary of Analysis and Comparison of Results of Questionnaire, Interviews and Transcripts ................................................................................ 134 CHAPTER 5 ............................................................................................................. 139 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 139 Answers to Research Questions........................................................................ 139 Pedagogical Implications .................................................................................. 144 Limitations of the Study ................................................................................... 149 Directions for Future Research ......................................................................... 150 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 152 v.

(6) Appendix A-1 Questionnaire for Students (Chinese Version) ..........................166 Appendix A-2 Questionnaire for Students (English Version)...........................168 Appendix A-3 List of Student Questionnaire Questions under Four Themes ..170 Appendix B Interview Questions for Students ..............................................172 Appendix C Interview Questions for Teachers .............................................174 Appendix D Transcription notation from Jefferson Transcription System ....176 Appendix E English Proficiency Test Scores Concordance ..........................178 Vita ............................................................................................................................179. vi.

(7) LIST OF TABLES. Table 3. 1 Tentative Classifications of Question Forms ............................. 44 Table 3. 2 Tentative Classifications of Question Functions and Subcategories ...................................................................................... 46 Table 3. 3 Tentative Classifications of Learner Responses......................... 48 Table 3. 4 English Proficiency of the Student Participants ........................ 53 Table 3. 5 Question Forms .......................................................................... 57 Table 3. 6 Classification Scheme of Question Functions and Subcategories ...................................................................................... 58 Table 3. 7 Learner Responses ..................................................................... 60 Table 3. 8 Classifications of Questionnaire Questions ............................... 62 Table 4. 1 Distribution of Question Forms ................................................. 71 Table 4. 2 Distribution of Main Question Functions .................................. 89 Table 4. 3 Distributions of Question Functions and their Subcategories ... 90 Table 4. 4 Distribution of Learner Responses .......................................... 102 Table 4. 5 Descriptive Statistics of Relation between Question Forms and Question Functions .................................................................... 112 Table 4. 6 Chi-square Test for Correlation between Question Functions and Forms ......................................................................................... 114 Table 4. 7 Descriptive Statistics of Relation between Question Forms and Learner Responses ..................................................................... 115 Table 4. 8 Chi-square Test for Correlation between Question Forms and Learner Responses ............................................................................ 117 Table 4. 9 Descriptive Statistics of Relation between Question Functions and Learner Responses ..................................................................... 118 Table 4. 10 Chi-square Test for Correlation between Question Functions and Learner Responses ..................................................................... 120 Table 4. 11 Results of Questionnaire Questions ....................................... 122. Figure 1 Input & Output through Teacher Questioning ................................ 3 Figure 2 Procedure of Data Collection ....................................................... 56. vii.

(8) 國立政治大學英國語文學系博士班博士論文摘要. 論文名稱: 台灣技職高等教育中教室互動之研究-英語會話課中教室問句之使用指導教授: 尤雪瑛. 教授. 研究生: 潘佳幸論文摘要內容: 由於提問為常用的教學策略，也影響了學習者的語言輸入和輸出，教師的提問和學習表現的關係一直是常見的研究主題。本論文針對台灣南部技職大學裡，9 班的英語會話課中教師的所使用問句進行研究，其著重於問句的形式、功能以及學生回應，目的在於了解大學英語教師如何利用問句來維持並且提升師生互動。首先，參與此研究的 224 個英語系學生和 9 個教師為便利抽樣，每班各進行六節課的課室錄影，9 班共錄影 54 節課。之後有 3 組共 6 人的評定者(rater)，針對發現的 1828 個教師問句進行轉碼以及問句類型之評定。本論文的研究結果來自於轉碼檔、學生問卷、44 位抽樣的學生訪談和 9 位老師訪談結果。轉碼檔可得知問句實際的使用狀況，問卷探究學生對於教師問句使用的態度，而最後訪談可以了解教師與學生對於問句使用之偏好或者看法。結果顯示，問句的形式中最常用的是疑問詞問句(Q-word), 片段問句 (Non-clausal) 還有是非問句(Interrogative)三種。疑問詞問句和是非問句類型有明確的用字和文法成分，標示其問句的用途。疑問詞問句有開放性回答的特徵，顯示出教師盡量鼓勵學生有更多語言的輸出。而片段問句由於省時還有不影響句意的優點，為日常會話常用的類型，至於是非問句類型通常導引是(yes)或否(no) 的答案，常用於引導自我糾正或者程度較差的學生。在問句功能的結果中，展示性功能大於參考性和程序性功能。展示性功能雖有鼓勵英文程度較差的學生應答之優點，但長遠來說，參考性功能較能提升學生較高思維層次的回應，應該多予以運用。在問句類型的關聯上，展示性功能大都為片段和直述(declarative)問句類型，程序性功能則是片段問句以及疑問詞問句. 片段、是非還有選擇(alternative)問句與限制性回答(restricted response)有顯著關聯性，疑問詞和片段問句常導致學生無回應(no response)。而問句的功能與回答種類則無關聯性。就問卷和訪談結果而言，大部分的學生都感知教師問句的使用與目的，也偏好開放性的問題。然而從大部分的問句都沒有得到回應而言，教師問句的功用並沒有發揮，師生對於問句的使用以及教師的信念與實際的問句應用顯然有明顯差異。因素如下: 學生的文化背景所致，如擔心犯錯、丟 viii.

(9) 臉或者避免炫耀的背景特質。另外，學生對自己英語能力缺乏自信、老師一連串的提問以及不足的回應等待時間等也是可能的因素。本論文的結果可以看出影響教師問句的效用以及學生回應絕非單一因素可以解釋，教師問句真正的使用情形與學生和教師如何看待問句的態度顯然有所差異。關鍵字: 教師問句、問句形式、問句功能、學習者回應. ix.

(10) ABSTRACT Due to the high frequency of questioning as a teaching strategy and its potential influence on learners’ acquisition of language, the relationship between teacher questioning and students’ performance has been examined. This study investigated teacher questions of nine college classes of English in vocational universities in southern Taiwan in terms of question forms, question functions, and learner responses. The purpose is to see how EFL teachers use questions to maintain or enhance teacher-student interaction in the classroom. After 224 participants and nine teachers were recruited as convenience samples, videotaping of each class for six periods in a row was conducted. After transcription, coding of the question forms, functions and learner responses was made by three pairs of experienced English teachers. Apart from the transcript results, a student questionnaire and interviews for 44 sampled students and for nine teachers supplemented the transcript results to obtain more in-depth discovery and interpretation. While the questionnaire aims to reveal how the students perceive teacher questions, the interviews intends to find out the reasons for the teachers’ choice of questions and for the students’ attitudes toward teacher questions. The results have shown that among 1828 questions found, Q-word (Q) (30.25%), non-clausal (N) (30.14%) and interrogative (I) (27.24%) forms are the most frequently used. The Q and I forms have explicit lexical or morpho-syntactic elements that mark their functions as questions. With an open-ended feature, the use of the Q form indicates the teachers’ intentions of promoting classroom talk. Next, the use of the N form, resembling what is often used in daily conversations, is time-saving without sacrificing clarity of the talk. Finally, the I form, is favored for x.

(11) self-corrections or for low achievers. In the distribution of question functions, display functions (48.14%) outnumbered referential (30.03%) and procedural ones (20.73%). Despite the advantage of using display questions to encourage responses of low achievers, the use of referential questions ought to be increased when fluency is the focus in a speaking class. As for learner responses, most of them are “no response” (66.85%). In addition, a correlation was found between N and D forms, and display functions, Q and N forms and procedural functions. Also N, I and A forms were correlated with restricted responses; Q and N forms were with no response. No correlation was found between any function and response. From the questionnaire and interview results, most of the students were aware of the use of teacher questions and willing to answer them. They preferred open-ended questions as the teachers often did. However, a large number of “no responses” show the teachers’ questioning strategy did not work out effectively partly due to the students’ cultural background, where they fear to make mistakes, lose face, show off in front of others, or challenge teachers’ authority. Besides, the students’ lack of confidence in their English, the teachers’ chaining questions, or insufficient wait-time may be other possible causes. This study shows that there is no single factor of teacher questions that contribute to more and longer student output. There is also a discrepancy between the teachers’ actual use of questions and the perceptions of the students and teachers.. Key words: teacher questions, question forms, question functions, learner responses. xi.

(12)

(13) CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background Language teaching and learning are a reciprocal and complex process, each of which affects each other in learning and teaching achievement. Language teachers usually are the ones that create the learning environment to facilitate teaching and learning. One of the most important factors of effective learning environment is that students get actively involved and are willing to talk in class. Unfortunately, in many EFL language classrooms, it is the teacher that does most of the talk whereas students remain silent. Student participation is considered more beneficial if they are productive rather than receptive. In an EFL context, students mostly learn English in the classroom, which is generally the only setting in which students have regular exposure to the target language. Due to the fact, what is made available to the students in the classroom in terms of interaction and input is of crucial importance to stimulate their participation and involvement. English teachers then serve not only as executors of accomplishing teaching goals, but also as a resource for students to attain comprehensible language input. According to Seedhouse (1996), in a language classroom, learning occurs through the interaction co-constructed by both teachers and learners. Moreover, during interaction, learners are obliged to negotiate for meaning to ensure that understanding takes place and thus promote their acquisition of the target language (Walsh, 2002; Xie, 2007). During classroom discourse, a teacher organizes learning, provides meaningful 1.

(14) input, and even constrains what students learn by controlling the topics of conversation and by determining who can enter into the discourse or place, hence monitoring student's progress in expressing themselves. Furthermore, one of the major roles of a teacher, apart from a transmitter of linguistic knowledge, is to detect learners’ difficulty in language use, to provide timely scaffolding, to orchestrate participants’ contributions within a social participation structure, and, most important of all, to acknowledge learners’ interactional space and voice (Xu, 2012). The purpose of classroom interaction is mainly to maximize opportunities for language learning to take place, which is more simplistic and straightforward. Consequently, an understanding of the dynamics of classroom talk is essential for teachers to establish and maintain good communicative practices (Johnson, 1995; Nunan, 1991). In order to facilitate effective communication in the classroom, what teachers frequently do is to ask questions to stimulate students to think and construct knowledge and to connect their prior knowledge and experience (Good & Brophy, 2000; Wilen 2001, 2004; Wong, 2010). Teacher questioning, as indicated in the previous studies (Chaudron, 1988; Tsui, 1995), is frequently used to create opportunities for interaction, making up to 50% of class talk, or 300 to 400 questions per day (Ellis, 1994; Graesser & Person, 1994; Kerry, 1989; Levin & Long, 1981; White & Lightbown, 1984), even 50 to 100 questions on average per class period (Sahin & Kulm, 2008). Questioning seems to be the most frequently used instructional strategy while teachers may not be aware of it all the time (Almeida, 2010). Meanwhile, teacher questions, aside from teacher instructions or any other kinds of activities, are considered as an important input and a major factor for language acquisition to take place by initiating student responses to express their thoughts and feelings (Lee, 2006; Xie, 2007).. 2.

(15) Teacher questions. Input. Student responses/ questions. Students. Intake. Output. Figure 1 Input & Output through Teacher Questioning. As Figure 1 indicates, when teacher questions as input are concerned, intake of students through teacher questioning can facilitate their output in the target language (Xie, 2007). Therefore, teacher questions act as language input for learners particularly in oral participation, and student responses or their questions are viewed as language output, stimulated directly by teacher questions. As Chen & Tseng (2015) indicated, teachers consider classrooms as a miniature social context where students have to perform pragmatic functions of language appropriately and consciously. Therefore, teachers’ roles are to provide oral opportunities for communicative purposes to be achieved. Researchers, over the past fifty years, have been analyzing the questions teachers ask, such as purposes of teacher questions, syntactical or functional taxonomies of questions teachers ask, learner responses, wait time for the responses, or even feedback teachers give to their students’ responses. According to Sisler (2009), three broad purposes of teacher questions are (1) to keep students actively interested or focused in terms of behaviors, (2) to test students’ knowledge of language or learning content, and (3) to engage students in higher level of thinking. 3.

(16) First of all, to direct students’ behavior or attention, questions of teachers are meant to keep students actively engaged or focused. So the questions like those are procedural or managerial. Secondly, for assessment, teachers’ questions that test students’ knowledge of specific content can be used to review previously-discussed content or to gauge students’ possible knowledge from other sources. Even knowledge of grammar, pronunciation or vocabulary are also the domains to be tested. This evaluative function of questions is most commonly used in classrooms. Finally, for broader thinking, teachers’ questions may intend to engage students in broader or higher-level of thinking; that is, beyond simply facts or correct answers. Take Bloom’s taxonomy for example. He classifies six different levels of human cognition: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, in which the first three represent lower levels of learning and cognition and even of questions. On the other hand, the latter three belong to higher levels of thinking. Researchers have found that nearly 75 to 80 % of the questions teachers ask their students are inclined to be knowledge-based questions that have only one single correct answer. However, questions that ask students “Why?” or that require them to demonstrate high levels of thinking are among the least used questions (Sisler, 2009). It is commonly believed that when teachers ask questions effectively, students tend to be more engaged and focused (Sisler, 2013). How to ask right questions determines teaching effectiveness to a large extent. As Cazden (1988) indicates, teacher questions have specific directionality for bringing students’ attention toward teachers’ instruction, in terms of knowledge and concept construction. If the function is to be achieved, learning thus takes place, and teaching is effective.. 4.

(17) Statement of the Problem While many studies have explored teacher questioning in ESL contexts (Andrews, 1980; Aulinas, 2010; Cole & Williams, 1973; Dillon, 1982; Swift & Gooding, 1983; Walsh, 2002), only a handful of them have studied it in EFL contexts (Acar, el, 2011; Aulinas, 2010; Faruji, 2011; Lee, 2015; Meng, et.al, 2012; Qashoa, 2013; Wu, 1993; Wong, 2010; Xie, 2007; Xu, 2012; Yang, 2010). Many of them investigated Asian countries, such as China, Hongkong, or others, with very few about Taiwan. Moreover, very few of the research focus on teacher questioning in EFL contexts in college. In an EFL context, teacher questioning, as a major part of teacher talk, consumes considerable teaching and learning time since teachers still play a pivotal role in managing and organizing teaching and learning processes. In a conversation class, particularly, asking questions to elicit more student responses seems to be a widely-used teaching strategy. However, in the previous studies of teacher questions in EFL contexts like in Taiwan, very few empirical studies (Chang, 2009; Chen, 2008; Lin, 2011; Yang, 2009) have been done to investigate teacher questions in conversation classes to understand the nature of the questions used by teachers. In other words, there is still very little evidence to show how teachers use questions to maximize learning opportunities to facilitate EFL students’ learning. Furthermore, while communication has become the primary goal of English teaching in EFL contexts, college English majors in Taiwan, are required to converse in English in most of their specialized courses. They are aware of the importance of using English during class interaction. In particular, the English majors of vocational universities have to fulfill internship in English-related enterprises before graduation, and will get engaged in English- related occupations after graduation. The curricula 5.

(18) designed for those students are inclined to be occupation-oriented rather than literature- or linguistics- oriented as general universities of Taiwan usually are. How well English majors in vocational universities are able to communicate and even negotiate in English determines their job employability. Therefore, in either required courses, such as speaking classes, or optional courses, such as business English courses, students are aware of and need more opportunities to strengthen their speaking skills. As an English teacher in a technological university for more than 18 years, the researcher has noticed that most students respond briefly or remain silent while being asked questions by their teachers. Students’ reticence to teachers’ questions may imply their learning problems or difficulties. Teachers may easily feel frustrated when their questions are left unanswered. If the problem can be probed into by closely looking into the distribution of forms and functions of teacher questions, and into how learners respond to them, at least there is a possibility that teachers can be offered teaching suggestions of questioning strategies, based on the results of the study. And further students will benefit from responding to their teachers’ questions in English.. Purpose of the Study In Taiwan, there are more than 60 English departments of technological universities alone, regardless of those of general universities. English major is one of the favorite and important options for many undergraduates of vocational universities, where almost each one has an English department. Students of vocational universities have an urgent need to make use of English to fulfill their internship before graduation and to be engaged officially in the workplace after graduation. Therefore, most of their courses are designed to consolidate their English ability and maximize 6.

(19) their opportunities to use the language for both general and specific purposes. How teachers interact with students in class, especially in conversations classes, is crucial to help them prepare for their internship and future career relevant to English speaking skills. After all, the major source of language input takes place in the classes in which teachers offer guidance to enable students to apply in the context outside the classroom. However, it is unclear how teacher-student interaction proceeds in an English language classroom in a technological university. More specifically, how teachers ask questions to trigger teacher-student interactions is in question. As a result, the main purpose of this study is to investigate how Taiwanese EFL teachers in technological universities use questions to maintain or enhance teacher-student interaction in the classroom. Distributions of question types and functions are probed into and student responses elicited by teachers’ questions are also tackled upon to further understand the effectiveness of questions.. Research Questions To understand how teachers in Taiwan interact with their students in EFL college conversation classes through questioning techniques, there are three perspectives of the study to gain full understanding of actual communication between teachers and students in English classes. Each of the perspectives is stated in the following research questions: 1. How do teachers use questions to serve communicative functions in classroom interaction, and how do students respond to them? 2. What is the relation among question forms, question functions, and learner responses? 3. How do the students and teachers perceive teachers’ questions in class? 7.

(20) While Question 1 presents the overall picture of the question use of English teachers in terms of frequencies of question forms and functions, and the responses elicited by the forms and functions. Question 2 addresses how forms, functions and learner responses are inter-related. Finally, the answer to Question 3, which are mainly gained from a student questionnaire, and interviews with students and teachers, can provide supplementary information for the analysis of the transcripts of class videotaping. There are four themes of the questionnaire: (1) learners’ awareness of teachers’ questions, (2) learners’ willingness to answer questions, (3) learners’ preferred question forms, (4) learners’ perceptions of teachers' feedback. Likewise, there are four counterparts of interview questions for teachers and students in terms of the following themes: (1) when and why teachers ask questions, (2) what question strategies are adopted to motivate students to respond or to avoid silence, (3) what question forms are preferred in students’ perceptions and from teachers’ perspectives, and (4) what feedback to learner responses teachers provide. By doing so, it is more likely to find out how students and teachers perceive the use of teachers’ questions and what attitudes they hold towards them.. Significance of the Study This study provides a multi-dimensional analysis of teacher questions in EFL college conversation classes by exploiting both question forms, question functions, and learner responses during classroom interaction. First of all, the analysis of frequencies of question forms, functions and learner responses will reveal what and why college teachers actually ask to facilitate teaching and learning by eliciting the output of their students via questioning strategies. Further, insights into the variations in teachers’ questioning strategies will indicate whether there is a significant relationship among the use of question forms, functions, and learner responses. 8.

(21) Moreover, from interviews and questionnaires, both teachers’ and students’ perceptions and attitudes towards teachers’ questions may further offer complementary evidence. By doing so, any disparity between what they are observed doing and what they think they are doing can be shown and hopefully the possible causes will be found, too. In a broader sense, this study is to investigate what EFL teachers think they can achieve through questioning in speaking classes and what they actually do. The results will inform teachers of the effectiveness of questioning and hopefully help them reexamine what to amend or alter in terms of the use of questions to foster the output of their students. As a consequence, teachers will be in a better position in designing appropriate questions to enhance classroom discussion, a communicative goal general conversation classes are mainly meant to achieve.. Organization of the Dissertation The structure of the dissertation is as follows: In Chapter 2, an overview of the literature on theoretical background of classroom interaction and teacher questions is presented. The nature and importance of classroom interaction or classroom talk is reviewed from linguistic, cognitive and socio-cultural perspectives. And then the patterns of classroom discourse such as IRF/E are provided to an overall structure of common teacher/student talk at discoursal level. The importance of teacher talk as the main source of language input to students in the classroom is highlighted as a factor to success of language learning. Moreover, teacher questions, a part of teacher talk, are examined to understand how they have been studied in the linguistic, functional, and cognitive aspects. In the section, how teacher questions have been analyzed is first presented, followed by classifications of question types and functions, which are the focuses of this study. 9.

(22) Finally, whether teacher questions are effective or not must be supported by how learners respond to questions. A review is done to present different dichotomies of learner responses. The study methodology is portrayed in Chapter 3, including tentative frameworks for data analyses, a pilot study, and a formal study along with research context (participants and a procedure of the study), instruments, and the methods of analyzing the data. First of all, types of frameworks for question forms and functions, and learner responses are presented. After a description of the pilot study, the instruments of the formal study, consisting of formal frameworks, videotaping, a student questionnaire, and interviews with students and teachers, are listed. Finally, from the data collected from videotaping were coded and transcribed for quantitative analyses. The questionnaire for students, and student and teacher interviews are described too to provide supplementary evidence regarding the use of teacher questions. Chapter 4 presents the results and explanations of the transcripts, questionnaires and interviews. First, frequencies of question forms, question functions, learner responses will be described first, followed by an analysis of the relationship between question forms, functions and learner responses. Next, discussions of the results of questionnaires and interviews are shown to offer accounts for how both teachers and students perceive the teachers’ questions and also give supplementary evidence to support explanations of the transcript results. Finally, in Chapter 5, the answers to the three research questions will be shown along with the major findings of this study and pedagogical suggestions will be offered for effective teacher questioning strategies.. 10.

(23) CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Organization of the Chapter An inquiry into the use of teacher questions needs to draw on some theoretical constructs, empirical results, and pedagogical applications that have been established for the past few decades. The aim of this chapter, therefore, is to review the role of teacher questions in classroom interaction, and also to present a conceptual framework in which teacher questions are grounded. First, the nature of classroom interaction in general is explored, including theoretical bases and classroom discourse patterns. Then, teacher talk as an important element of classroom interaction will be reviewed in the aspects of the amount of teacher talk, teacher speech modifications, and the nature of teacher discourse. Next, empirical studies of teacher questions will be introduced in terms of how teacher questions have been analyzed, and further how they have been classified. Question types and functions, which this study focuses on, will be specifically reviewed to provide a basis for establishing the frameworks of teacher questions. Finally, an overview of the previous research pertinent to learner responses will be offered to build up a theoretical construct required to evaluate the effectiveness of teacher questions in a discoursal pattern.. Classroom Interaction Interaction is defined as collaborative exchange of thoughts, feeling, or ideas between two or more people, resulting in a reciprocal effect on each other (Brown, 11.

(24) 2007). In different contexts, however, interaction takes place in different modes. In natural interactions, roles established through interaction are more fluid, tasks involved encourage equal participation in the negotiation of meaning, and fluency, rather than accuracy, is a focus. On the other hand, in classroom or instructional interactions, the teacher and students act out their institutional roles. The tasks involved are concerned with the transmission and reception of information, and are controlled by the teachers. Besides, there is a focus on knowledge as a product and on accuracy (Ellis, 1999). Interaction in the classroom is an essential part of learning and teaching process, either verbal or nonverbal, by which learning is accomplished in classrooms (Hall, 2002). As Celce-Murcia (2001) has put it, classroom interaction is a system of giving and receiving information. Using the target language in the classroom interaction is treated as a scaffolding talk, which aims at improving students’ language proficiency and at enabling them to use it in the real world. Kelly- Chaudron (1988) also indicates that conversation and instructional exchanges between teachers and students provide the best opportunities for the learners to exercise target language skills. Interaction gives learners the opportunities to incorporate target language structures into their own speech. The meaningfulness for learners of classroom events of any kind, whether thought of as interactive or not, will depend on the extent to which communication has been jointly constructed between the teacher and learners. Given the recognition of the importance of classroom interaction, there have been different views regarding how language learning takes place in classroom interaction. It is common in language classrooms for teachers to assign participation roles to learners and thus teachers need to be aware of when and how to intercede in 12.

(25) interaction, so as not to impede the flow of communication that is occurring (Donald, 2015). The roles and beliefs of teachers regarding classroom interaction, as a result, play a pivotal role in teaching-learning process. It is evident that the focus of language acquisition theories has traditionally been on nature and nurture distinctions, proposed by the cognitivists (or nativists) and social-interactionists respectively. As a matter of fact, a growing interest in classroom interaction has arisen due to a shift of focus from teaching to learning, and a shift from a cognitive or nativist perspective to a social-interactional one. Learning is not only seen as a constructive process taking place in one’s mind, but a process of meaning-making and meaning-negotiation. From a cognitive perspective, learning, an internal process, is an individual competency that takes place in the mind whereas from a sociocultural view of learning, knowledge is jointly constructed in the context of language learning. In other words, nativists or cognitivists perceive language ability as an innate capacity to generate syntactically correct sentences. However, social-interactionists regard language as a rule-governed cultural activity learned in interaction with others. In brief, nativists or cognitivists believe inborn or mental factors are more dominant in language acquisition, while interactionists believe environmental factors are more paramount (Muho & Karani, 2014).. Theoretical Bases of Classroom Interaction In nature, interaction in the second language classroom is co-constructed and often involves greater numbers of interlocutors, unlike conversations in other social settings, such as between friends and acquaintances (Allwright, 1984). A distinctive feature of classroom interaction is that turns-at-talk in the context are asymmetrical as teachers are expected to possess content knowledge related to the subject matter being taught, as well as the ability to communicate information regarding the content. 13.

(26) As mentioned earlier, there are different views about the nature of interaction and how language and interaction need to work in tandem for opportunities for learning to occur (Donald, 2015). The four theories in the following have been pervasive in giving explanations to classroom interaction from the cognitive and socio-cultural perspectives. On the one hand, the input hypothesis, the output hypothesis, and the interaction hypothesis all view language acquisition as a cognitive process and focus on what triggers learners’ mental capacities (i.e. the source of language learning). The process involved include how input or information can be comprehended, how the mind stores and retrieve information, how noticing and hypothesis-testing occurs for output, and so on. Consequently, these three theories are considered cognitive ones of SLA. On the other hand, the socio-cultural theory represents a social-interactive view of learning where learners are social beings, and language learning, as a part of cognitive development, is essentially embedded in social interaction. Input Hypothesis In line with theoretical bases of second language acquisition, classroom interaction is believed to stimulate comprehensible meaning-focused exposure to the target language, as indicated by Krashen’s Input Hypothesis in 1982. As Krashen puts it, acquisition requires meaningful interaction in the target language of natural interaction in which speakers are concerned not with the form of their utterances, but with the message they are conveying and understanding. In other words, learners acquire languages by understanding meaning first, and consequently they acquire structure. The message learners receive, so-called “comprehensible input,” should be one step beyond his or her current stage of linguistic competence; that is, i+1. Learners’ linguistic competence is built up via comprehensible input, and their ability 14.

(27) to produce language is said to emerge naturally, instead of being taught or pushed directly. In a classroom context, teacher talk is usually tuned to the level of students, so the major role of language teachers is to create a learning context abundant with comprehensible input that facilitates learners’ language learning. Comprehensible input goes beyond the choice of words but uses context, visual cues, explanation, rewording of unclear parts, asking for clarification, and negotiation of meanings. Teachers, as a result, must constantly involve students, ask questions, and encourage them to express their ideas and thoughts in the target language. When students understand most aspects of what is required for learning, the learning experience leads them to greater understanding. In a word, the importance of the input hypothesis lies in the meaning-based input given by the teacher to make successful learning possible. However, the hypothesis has been criticized mainly in the following aspects. First, Krashen never defines the formulation and the concept of “comprehensible input” precisely, giving rise to ambiguity of or untestability of the hypothesis. Speaking of the formulation of “i+1,” Krashen first refers “i” as the current level of competence” and then limits the type of competence to grammar alone. However, he still fails to give specific syntactic illustrations of it (Liu, 2015). Moreover, the concept of comprehensible input is not given a clear definition. “Comprehensible” literally means “able to be understood” or “intelligible.” But it can be interpreted differently in terms of “comprehensible” or “comprehended” conditions for language acquisition. Swain (2000) favors the latter one, “comprehended,” since input is understood by the learner. Secondly, another controversy that how input can be simplified to be comprehensible is postulated. Krashen cited examples of comprehensible input as “motherese,” “teacher talk” and “foreigner talk,” which are simplified for 15.

(28) communication and further help language acquisition. However, the position is disputed on two grounds. First, motherese in L2 acquisition does not always mean simplified speech. Second, comprehensible input does not necessarily mean “syntactically simplified” or “caretaker speech.” For example, Newport et al. (1977) have shown that caretaker speech is not syntactically simpler than adult speech in such aspects as SVO declaratives, questions, and imperatives. Finally, comprehensible input is overemphasized as the single factor in acquisition. Without input, the acquisition of structures can still happen when it comes to children’s learning certain grammatical structures such as the passive voice (Liu, 2015). The passive expressions can only be said to be partly understood and their grammatical formations are considered far beyond children’s current level of competence. Furthermore, how to make input comprehensible should be supplemented with modified interaction proposed by Long (1983), which will be discussed next. In brief, the input hypothesis overemphasized comprehensible input without clear definition of it. Besides, its disregard of the importance of learners’ active participation in second language interactions can be disputed, giving rise to the following interaction hypothesis and output hypothesis (Xie, 2008). Interaction Hypothesis Unlike Krashen, who accorded importance to comprehensible input only, other theorists in the field of SLA all contend that interaction and negotiation facilitates learners’ second language acquisition. That is, the effectiveness of comprehensible input is greatly increased when learners have to negotiate for meaning because learners receive more input or corrective feedback from their interlocutors. The interaction hypothesis (IH) proposed by Long (1983) is a good example to advance the importance of oral interaction in SLA. IH has four major constructs: input, 16.

(29) interaction, feedback and output. “Input” is the language learners are exposed to, which is modified to make language more comprehensible. “Interaction” refers to the conversations learners participate in; “feedback” is information learners receive from other interlocutors regarding the correctness or incorrectness of their utterances. Then “output” is the language learners produce. IH describes the processes related when learners encounter input, are involved in interaction, receive feedback, and produce output. “Conversational interaction facilitates language acquisition because it connects input (what learners hear and read), internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and output (what learners produce) in productive ways (Long, 1996, p. 451- 452).” Although Long embraces the views about the role of comprehensible input suggested by Krashen, there is a difference in the ways they viewed it. As Ellis (1994) comments, to Krashen, input becomes comprehensible thanks to simplification and with the help of contextual and extralinguistic cues, whereas Long argued that interactive input is more important than non-interactive input. IH emphasizes modifications to the input especially those that take place in the process of negotiating a communication problem. The learners comprehend the input, notice new features in it, and compare what is noticed in their output. During the process, modification and restructuring of interaction, which refers to “negotiation of meaning,” occurs when learners and their interlocutors anticipate, perceive, or experience difficulties in message comprehensibility (Pica, 1994). During interaction, learners’ “selective attention” is directed to problematic or new features of language production. So it is vital that learners be offered sufficient opportunities to negotiate meaning when communication breaks down for acquisition to take place. From Long’s view, comprehensible input is necessary but not sufficient for acquisition. Only through interaction, learners are able to receive feedback from interlocutors on 17.

(30) their language output in the forms of comprehension, including “explicit feedback” such as corrections and metalinguistic explanations, or “implicit feedback” (i.e. negotiation strategies) such as check, clarification request and confirmation check (Gass & Varonis, 1985; Doughty, 1991, Foster 1998; Gass et al 1998). From Long’s perspective, what makes input comprehensible is not simply through learners’ existing L2 language and extralinguistic knowledge, but through interactional modifications in the feedback they receive. In other words, interactional adjustments or modifications by more competent interlocutors, such as teachers, facilitate acquisition as it connects input, internal learner capacities, and output. For example, topics in interactional modifications may be signaled by additional stress, left dislocation, inter-sentential pauses, question forms as topic initiators, and frames (e.g. “ok” or “well”) (Ghaemi & Salehi, 2014). In the interaction where learners participate in, they receive information about the correctness as well as the incorrectness of their utterances (Tran, 2009). As a result, from the feedback as an indication for learners to modify their speech, two-way interactions between the teacher and learners occur. While Long proposed IH, Pica (1987) investigates the hypothesis to test it. She emphasizes the importance of the social relationship between participants as a determining factor in interactional modifications. In the social relationship, the learners and the interlocutors are aware of their unequal linguistic proficiencies in L2. But if the conversational partners share a symmetrical role relationship, opportunities of interaction will increase. Therefore, group work is encouraged in L2 classes to promote better opportunities for more interactions. In the mid-1980s, in terms of negotiated interaction, there was even a considerable amount of research to determine which kinds of classroom activities were most productive (Gass and Varonis 1985; Doughty and Pica 1986; Rulon and 18.

(31) McCreary 1986; Pica et al. 1989; Pica 1994). For language teachers, they should adjust the input they provide to learners to suit their students’ needs and levels. At the same time, they should create opportunities of talk for students to practice a wider array of communicative contexts in the target language as they encounter in real-life situations. For instance, tasks where there is a need for participants to exchange information with each other should be provided to promote interactional structuring. Besides, a situation where the conversational partners share a symmetrical role relationship affords more opportunities for interactional structuring. Output Hypothesis In accordance with what has been stated above from the Interaction Hypothesis, Swain (1995) proposes the Output Hypothesis (OH) in that learning takes place when a learner encounters a gap in his or her linguistic knowledge of L2 and becomes aware and able to modify his/her output, showing learning something new about the language. Without denying the role of input, Swain pointed out that the meaningful output is as necessary to language learning as meaningful input. In addition, interaction provides learners with opportunities to receive comprehensible input as well as to make changes in their own linguistic output (Swain, 1995). OH emphasizes three important contributions of learners’ output in enabling language acquisition. The first function is the “noticing” one when learners are aware of the time they cannot say or write exactly what they need to convey meaning. By noticing, learner realize the linguistic problems they have to manage and later to look for adequate knowledge they require to complete the gap. So talk pushes learners to attend not only to what they say but also to how they say it. In other words, they pay attention to both semantic and syntactic processing of the language. Secondly, the “hypothesis-testing” function is manifested when learners are testing their hypotheses 19.

(32) about the target language in talk. When faced with negative feedback, such as clarification request, learners will come up with alternative linguistic forms to make themselves understood. This concept explains that when learning a new language, learners often make mistakes, which, however, can help them understand the language. Finally, talk serves a “metalinguistic” function; learners use language to reflect upon their language use. Language is seen as a tool that is conducive to reflection on the language used by the teacher or other interlocutors. Therefore, learners’ output is not simply an outcome of learning, but a source of learning. A small amount of meaningful output is important to language learning because the experience of producing language leads to more effective processing of input. As mentioned earlier, the input hypothesis postulates that the only one way to language acquisition is through comprehensible input, so acquisition occurs when learners understand input for meaning and when they produce output or focus on form. On the other hand, Swain believes that language in interactions can also help students learn a language. As she pointed out, negotiating meaning needs to incorporate the notion of being pushed toward the delivery of a message that is not only conveyed, but is conveyed precisely, coherently, and appropriately (Swain, 1985). To push for one’s output, teachers’ questions are definitely a frequently-used strategy in class. Pushing for comprehensible output via questioning facilitates learning through learners’ mistakes and by observing or working through collaboration with the expert, such as native speakers, or those whose English proficiencies are higher. Thus, the importance of conscious learning, which is under a learner’s control, should be noted apart from the unconscious acquisition processes. Social-cultural Theory Instead of a cognitive view from the theories above, another viewpoint of 20.

(33) classroom interaction can be drawn from a sociocultual theory. It was founded by Vygotsky in 1978 by broadening the understanding of SLA from a collaborative perspective. Unlike the cognitive perspective that interaction is the sole mechanism to negotiate meaning when communication breaks down, Vygotsky stated that learning is a socially-mediated process of meaningful interaction. The integrated nature of individual (psychological) and social (environmental) elements is hence emphasized in the learning process. In the process, an expert, who can be referred to a child’s parent or care-taker, assists a child to be socialized via talk for communicative functions. One’s problem-solving ability is enhanced during the process to get closer in the zone of proximal development (ZPD). ZPD refers to the difference between what one can do without help and what he or she can do with help. Once mastering a language, the child develops his/her higher cognitive skills. ZPD is at the heart of the concept of scaffolding, a process by which more capable peers or experts help the less skilled solve problems. Three criteria of a scaffolded help include: (1) enabling learners to carry tasks that they themselves would not have been able to manage, (2) being intended to bring learners to a state of competence that will enable them eventually to complete tasks on their own, and (3) being followed by evidence of learners having achieved some greater level of independent competence as a result of scaffolding (Zhang et al. 2013). Likewise, in the context of a classroom, a teacher facilitates or guides students in their meaning construction through the medium of talk. It is hoped that through increased interaction and involvement, students are able to extend themselves to higher levels of cognition. However, to carry out teacher-student scaffolding particularly, teachers should not interpret scaffolding as direct instruction. A chain of teachers’ questions of the same topic, for example, provides learners more opportunities to get involved and share responsibility for learning. Moreover, language classrooms need to be 21.

(34) learner-centered rather than teacher-centered. Students should be offered more opportunities to interact with the help of their teachers in the initial stage and then carry out tasks on their own. There are still some limitations of the socio-cultural theory above. First, it has been applied to many aspects of SLA but some aspects like inter-language grammar cannot be examined by it. Inter-language grammar remains an abstract process in the heads of individuals rather than concretely available in the social relationships among learners (Zhang et al. 2013). Another limitation is that it says little about biological contributions to children’s development and their capacity to shape their cognitive development. But still collaborative learning as suggested from the theory highlights the importance of teacher-student and student-student interactions in problem solving and knowledge building. In particular, the current study is interested in teacher-student collaboration where the teacher’s job is to assist students’ performance through ZPD. Within ZPD, teachers help regulate students’ behaviors or language (other-regulation) until they become self-regulated and eventually their language performance become automated.. Classroom Discourse Patterns Classroom discourse is an essential process by which students accomplish complicated conceptual and communicative goals. As Cazden (1998) defines it, classroom discourse consists of conversations between participants that may develop different ways of understanding the topic of conversation. Mehan (1979) defines classroom discourse in terms of three components in general subject lessons: (1) an opening phase where the participants inform each other that they are, in fact, going to conduct a lesson as opposed to some other activity, (2) an instructional phase where information is exchanged between teachers and students, and (3) a closing phase 22.

(35) where participants are reminded of what went on in the core of lesson. Classroom discourse involves sequences that occur one after another in between teacher and student interaction, known as turn-taking. Interaction patterns of teacher-student exchanges have been noted and studied for many decades to show common classroom discourse. Sinclair and Coulthard (1975), two of the most celebrated researchers who investigated discourse analysis, analyzed classroom interaction which emphasized not only functions of individual utterances but also how the utterances combined to form larger discoursal units. A triadic initiation-response-feedback pattern (IRF) therefore was proposed as a basic unit of discourse patterns. Questioning, which usually takes place in the initiation phrase of IRF, leads to a sequence of acts which are considered very important processes in encouraging students to apply their cognitive skills to formulate their own responses (Dumbteeb, 2009). In order to realize how teachers use questions to elicit learner responses, it is crucial to take a closer look at the roles questions play in the IRF exchanges. In teacher-pupil communication, a teacher usually initiates an interaction with a question, the student usually responds by providing an answer, and the teacher provides some follow-up or feedback. IRFs are different from daily conversation outside the classroom in terms of teachers’ evaluation (Feedback). The IRF exchange was also called IRE (Initiation-Reply-Evaluation), which is identified by Mehan (1979). An “initiation” by one classroom participant (usually the teacher) is followed by a “reply” act (most often from the student), which, in turn, is followed by an “evaluation” act. When a response does not appear in the next turn after the first initiative move, the teacher has to use additional questioning strategies or modifications of questions such as repetition, rephrasing, simplification, decomposition and probing strategies (Chang, 2006). Xie (2008) and others indicate 23.

(36) that the follow-up move is mostly evaluative, normally taking the form of an explicit acceptance or rejection of student response (e.g. “well done,” “excellent,” or “no”) or an implicit indication that the answer is unacceptable (e.g. full or partial repetition of the response with a rising tone). It has been shown that the teacher-led IRF or IRE exchanges typify the classroom discourse at all levels of education and in all types of classrooms. Usually the teacher regulates students’ participation in the class activities through the management and control of linguistic exchanges. The same exchange pattern is also found in Chinese English classrooms (e.g. Tsui, 1985; Jin & Cortazzi, 1998; Rong, 2000; He, 2001; Yang, 2009). The research on classroom discourse in terms of IRE/IRF has been perpetuated in most research on classroom discourse. Up to date, however, research has examined classroom discourse mostly (e.g. Corden 2000; Cazden, 2001; Christie, 2002; Fitch & Sanders, 2005) in whole-class teaching and learning activities and in sharing or questioning on the basis of IRE/IRF. Teacher questions usually are in the initiation part of the pattern. To analyze teacher talk, much attention has also been paid to teachers’ initiating questions in recent studies on the quality, instead of quantity of teacher-student interaction in the learning and teaching of second and foreign language (e.g. Long & Sato, 1983; Brock, 1986; Carlsen, 1991; Hsu, 2001; Chen, 2004; Chang, 2005). Although the studies of EFL classrooms have followed the SLA and ESL theories and demonstrate some specific findings, both Wu (1993) and Moritoshi (2006) point out that students are sometimes unable to answer the teacher’s questions on their first initiation. Therefore, question strategies (or follow-up strategies) are needed to elicit syntactically more complex and longer output. Besides the IRF pattern mentioned above, the recent studies have considered longer stretches of discourse rather than the three-part exchange alone in order to 24.

(37) understand more complex, complete relationships emerging between interactions which are jointly constructed (Walsh, 2002). In other words, teachers may be able to create more interaction if they ask meaningful questions in the follow-up slot of the IRF/IRF pattern. Sisler (2013) lists three functions of a teacher’s follow-up questions to students’ responses: (1) prompting, (2) probing, and (3) redirection. Prompting is regarded as clues and leading questions to aid students’ memory recall and understanding, especially when they have difficulty forming a correct answer to the teacher’s questions or when they feel discouraged after giving a wrong answer. Next, probing helps students clarify or justify a response that is almost correct by using questions that allows students to explain an incomplete answer or guide them through further thinking. Finally, questions of redirection allow for participation of more students in the questioning process when a teacher asks a question to multiple students consecutively without responding to any of them and at the end the teacher discusses all responses as a whole. Redirection also occurs when a student asks a question of the teacher. The teacher redirects the question toward another student or the class as a whole, instead of answering the question directly. To be brief, some researchers on classroom discourse argue the IRF exchange is detrimental for fostering meaningful student participation (Lemke, 1990). On the other hand, others see this exchange as a useful tool that teachers can use their status as facilitators to guide a large number of students towards the common goal of dialogic learning (Hellermann, 2003). Van Lier (1996) agrees that the strict IRF/IRE sequence was effective in enabling the teacher to lead students in carefully designed direction and progression, to provide students with immediate feedback on their performances, and to maintain an orderly lesson. Nevertheless, it reduces the students’ initiative, independent thinking, clarity of expression, the development of conversational skills, including turn-taking, planning ahead, negotiation and arguing, and 25.

(38) self-determination. Therefore, although IRF has its place in language classrooms, it should not be made the norm of classroom interaction (Xie, 2008). If teachers want to enhance the quality of teacher-student interaction, a less controlling discourse pattern has to be used.. Teacher Talk Teacher Talk (TT) has been considered crucial by most researchers for the process of acquisition primarily, since in many classrooms it is the only live target input that the students are likely to receive (Özcan, 2010). It is through teacher talk to provide students language input and to implement teaching plans and objectives. According to Chaudron (1988), there are three specific aspects of teacher talk in the second language classroom: (1) the amount of teacher talk, (2) teacher speech modifications, and (3) the nature of teacher discourse. First, in most language classrooms, teacher talk can take up more than 70% of the talk in a language lesson. According to Sahin & Kulm (2008), teachers ask anywhere from 50 questions to more than 100 questions on average per class period. Chang (2009) also points out that two-thirds of class time is attributed to talk, and two-thirds of this talking time is taken by the teacher. This characteristic is found not only in content classrooms but also in ESL or EFL classrooms. Some researchers argue that teacher talk has a negative impact on providing learners more opportunities to talk since the teacher dominates the class talk. However, others, including Nunan (1991), claim that in many foreign language classrooms, teacher talk is important in providing learners with the only substantial live target language input they are likely to receive. Secondly, the speech adjustments of teacher talk are similar to those have been shown in the studies of both motherese, and foreigner talk in order to sustain 26.

(39) communication. In interactions with non-native speakers, native speakers adjust or modify their speech, so-called foreigner talk, in their attempt to make it more comprehensible to the second language listener. So do mothers when they talk to their children. Teachers make modifications to sustain communication as well when they talk to students. The adaptations include a slower speech rate, frequent pauses, clear articulation, simplified vocabulary, and repetition. Finally, teacher talk is full of the discourse of grammar and vocabulary explanations. The features of teacher talk that consist of correction, feedback, and especially the use of questioning have been examined for the roles they play in EFL and/or ESL classrooms. It is assumed that when students are being asked a question, they are responsible for responding. Through questioning, teacher talk contributes to explicitly focusing learner attention on syntactic forms, which in turn facilitates their development of knowledge and linguistic forms in the second or foreign language (Schmidt, 1994). However, the degree to which teachers dominate the talk time in the classroom is still debatable in research since the optimal time length of teacher talk in a class is determined by teaching goals. Nunan (1991) claims how much amount of teacher talk is beneficial to student acquisition of language depends mostly on the objectives of the lesson. For instance, if a lesson is aimed at oral fluency, a teacher is supposed to provide enough oral opportunities and even ask guided questions to students without unnecessary intervention during the talk. But if a lesson demands a lot of grammatical explanations to students, teacher talk definitely takes up more time. As a result, appropriate language use of teachers depends on whether or not their talk matches their teaching plans or objectives at a given moment of a class.. 27.

(40) Teacher Questions “Question” usually refers to a sentence, a phrase, or even just a gesture that indicates the speaker wants the listener to offer them with some information, to perform a task or to satisfy the request. The Longman Dictionary of English language provides the following definition for a question: “a command or interrogative expression used to elicit information or a response, or to test knowledge.” In a classroom, questions are meant to elicit verbal or non-verbal response in a statement or an interrogative for achieving purposes. Lynch (1991), criticizing the last part of the previous definition, “to test knowledge,” characterizes a question as an utterance with a particular illocutionary force. Teacher questions as a big part of classroom discourse can be defined as instructional cues or stimuli that convey to students the content elements to be learned and directions for what and how they are going to do (Andrews, 1980; Barnes, 1983; Carlsen, 1991; Nunn, 1999; Lin, 2011; Patricia, 2012). Questioning has been one of the most widely used techniques in the teachers’ repertoire in classroom teaching. Moreover, Ellis (1994) states that asking questions gives the teacher control over the classroom discourse. Yang (2006) also indicates that teachers’ questions can be considered as the most powerful device to lead, extend and control communication in the classroom. As mentioned earlier in teacher talk, in some classrooms, over half or even more, of class time is taken up by question-answer exchanges. Cotton (1988) states that questioning is second only to lecturing in popularity as a teaching method and that classroom teachers spend anywhere from thirty to fifty percent of their instructional time conducting question sessions. Considering the great quantity of teacher talk in in the class, the vital role of questioning stands for its quality component as a reflection of teaching. In the 28.

(41) classroom setting, Cotton (2003) claims that “teacher questions and student answers are considered a powerful teaching approach if the questions are used to expose contradictions, challenge assumption, and lead to new wisdom and knowledge. By doing so, teacher questions are treated as a stimulus to lead to higher cognition of learners. He (Cotton, 1983) emphasizes that oral questions particularly posed during classroom recitations are more effective in fostering learning than are written questions. Therefore, effective teacher questioning becomes paramount in encouraging students’ participation in the classroom. Effective teacher questioning depends on how the teacher engages learners mostly in their oral presentation of the target language and how the teacher can ask questions at the proper time to involve learners to learn (Xie, 2007). Despite the importance of questioning recognized in a language context, not all questions are of communicative value unless they achieve communicative purposes by filling information gaps between interlocutors, i.e. seeking information unknown. “As language teachers, our motive in questioning is usually to get our students to engage with the language material activity through speech, so an effective questioning technique is one that elicits fairly prompt, motivated, relevant and full responses” (Ur,1996). After all, in reality, no question is asked in vacuums. Only meaning-based questions are worth asking. To top it off, Berci & Griffith (2005) even suggest that in large measure, good teaching is good question asking; this is art every teacher should master. Effective questioning is crucial to increase students’ classroom participation, further their learning motivation, assessing their learning effects, and stimulate their thinking.. 29.