AN INVESTIGATION INTO CODESWITCHING AMONG FRESHMEN AT THE FACULTY OF ENGLISH, HANOI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the people who helped me
accomplish this study.
First and foremost, my deepest appreciation goes to Ms. Dao Bich
Nguyen, M.A from Faculty of English at Hanoi National University of Education
for her careful supervisor, invaluable suggestions and considerable patience
through my study.
I am also grateful to the four trainee teachers and their students of grade
10 and 11 who provided vital information for the data collection process.
My grateful appreciation is owed to my teachers in Faculty of English at
Hanoi National University of Education whose lectures and experience inspired
my thesis.
It is no doubt that I would not be able to finish this study without the great
support from my family and the constructive comments and encouragement from
my friends at Hanoi National University of Education.
Lastly, my thanks go to the authors of the materials used in this study
which widened my vision of the field of language teaching.


2
ABSTRACT
This study attempts to investigate the use of questioning techniques
among last- year students at Faculty of English at Hanoi National University of
Education in their second field trip. To be more specific, the study concentrates
on trainee teachers’ attitudes towards the use of questions in English classrooms,
types of questions and questioning techniques, functions of those questions, and
some suggestions on how to help the trainee teachers use questions more
effectively. In order to achieve that goal, the study uses the integration of
quantitative and qualitative research methods including classroom observations
and individual interviews. The collected data suggest that questions are made for

various functions but to check students’ knowledge of specific data most of the
time. As there is an intimate link the learning objectives and the types of
questions employed, the trainee teachers tend to utilize some types of questions
more regularly. Moreover, when the initial questions fail to elicit the students’
responses, the trainee teachers use a variety of questioning techniques. Among
those, repetition is employed most frequently. Basing on the findings, some
suggestions on how to help trainee teachers improve their questioning techniques
are made.


3
TABLE OF CONTENTS


4
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
I. List of figures:
Figure 4.1: Frequency of higher-level cognitive questions and lower-level
cognitive questions employed by four trainee teachers in four lessons
Figure 4.2: Frequency of open-ended questions and close-ended questions
employed by four trainee teachers in four lessons
Figure 4.3: Frequency of display questions and referential questions
employed by four trainee teachers in four lessons
Figure 4.4: Types of questioning techniques employed by four trainee
teachers
Figure 4.5: Linguistic components that trainee teachers pay attention to
when making questions
Figure 4.6: Frequency of applying types of questioning techniques
II. List of tables:
Table 1: Bloom’s taxonomy: examples of skills and cue words

Table 4.1: The number questions employed by four trainee teachers in
four lessons according to Bloom’s taxonomy of questions
Table 4.2: Purposes of using questions in four lessons


1
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
I.1. Rationale
As English is the official language of over 55 countries and utilized
mostly in transaction and international cooperation, it is considered as the key to
access to human’s scientific and technological advances as well as keeping up
with the world. As a result, globally, the burning desire for learning this
international language is overwhelming. Being aware of this urgency, The
Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) has introduced English into the
national curriculum as a compulsory subject. However, the question of how to
teach English effectively is always a matter for debate. As we have entered the
area of information technology, many educators try to keep up with recent
changes in teaching and learning process. Those can be named as, Nomass B. B.
(2013) discussed the advantages and disadvantages of using technology in
teaching English as a second language, Muhanna (2012) described how to apply
online games to teaching vocabulary. At the same time, others still continue do
researches on traditional techniques and skills such as organizing group work,
designing and piloting games activities. Among those skills teachers need to
master, questioning technique always attracts a lot of attention, because it plays a
vital role in teacher’s talk and directly affects the effectiveness of every lesson.
Many researchers such as Cotton K. (1988) agreed that teacher’s questions are
closely related to classroom participation, student’s performance and academic
achievement. Although a large number of linguists carried out researches related
to this topic, they only addressed the skills of teacher’s questioning (Ma, X,
2008), the way to develop fluency through questioning techniques (Aliponga J.

2002) or suggesting some tips in general. Hardly was a research designed to
discover real situations of questioning techniques employed by trainee teachers
who often lack experience of working with students and do not have many
chances to practice this skill. During my fieldtrip in Yen Hoa High school, by
observing other trainee teachers’ lessons, I realized that the failure of asking
questions likely resulted in student’s inappropriate responses or even student
silence. Hence, this study will focus on investigating the way trainee teachers


2
adopt questioning skills and suggesting some strategies to help them enhance the
effectiveness of questioning techniques.
This topic is worth researching for several reasons. First, it cannot be
denied that asking questions is one of the most common teaching tactics in
classroom context; nevertheless, there is no course in the Faculty of English’s
curriculum designed to equip students with comprehensive knowledge of
questioning techniques. As a result, senior students who are lacking in both
theory and practical experience might get confused and easily make mistakes
when working with learners. Thus, a detailed research is needed to provide them
with some basic knowledge along with solutions to tackle those problems.
Second, because the study‘s subjects are last-year students who will be teachers
in a very soon future, the findings will directly show them their weakness and
how to put it under control in a shorter time.
The data investigated in this graduation thesis will provide an insight into
the application of teachers-to-be’s questioning techniques in the reality. To be
more specific, initially, the trainee teachers’ viewpoints on the use of questioning
techniques in language classrooms and the types as well as functions of those
questions will be revealed. Then, the researcher intends to discuss some factors
that make trainee teachers’ questions inefficient so as to propose some solutions
to tackle the problems.

I.2. Aims of the study
The aim of the study is to examine the current usage of questioning
techniques among senior students at Hanoi National University of Education in
their second fieldtrip. In order to achieve this aim, the study concentrates on four
aspects, namely, trainee teachers’ attitudes towards using questioning techniques
in English classrooms, types of questions and questioning techniques employed,
functions of those questions so as to suggest how to utilize questions effectively .
I.3. Scope of the study
This study focuses on the real situation in which questions are employed
in four English lessons by trainee teachers in their fieldtrip in order to help them
improve their questioning techniques.
I.4. Research questions


3
The study aims to address the following questions:
1. What are trainee teacher’s attitudes towards the use of questions in
English classroom?
2. What questions and questioning techniques do trainee teachers use in
English classes?
3. What are those question’s functions?
4. What other realities about trainee teachers’ questions and questionings
techniques are revealed?
Answers to these questions will contribute to an insight into the real
situation in which trainee teachers apply their questioning skills; thus, some
solutions can be propose to help them improve their technique in a shorter time
than they .
I.5. Methods of the study
This study employs a combination of quantitative and qualitative research
methods. To gain information related to the use of questioning techniques among

last-year students from Faculty of English, Hanoi National University of
Education in their second field trip, two data collected instrument are used,
namely class observations, and individual interviews.
I.6. Overview of the study
This research paper is divided into five chapters, organized as follow:
Chapter I – Introduction: This chapter presents the rationale, the aim and
scope of the study as well as pointing out the organization of the study.
Chapter II – Literature review: In this chapter, some key concepts related
to the study are defined and the findings of other relevant studies are synthesized
so as to provide a deeper insight into the usage of questions and questioning
techniques in English classes.
Chapter III – Methodology: This chapter centers on the research method,
the subjects of the study, the data collection instruments, the data collection
procedures and the data analysis.


4
Chapter IV – Findings and discussions: The data collected are analyzed
and reviewed in this chapter in order to form the hypothesis of the study;
moreover, some predictions related to the problems are also made.
Chapter V – Conclusion: This chapter briefly answers 5 research
questions posed, summarizes the findings of the study and lists a few limitations
to be overcome in further studies on similar topics.


5
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter presents the literature related to the study. The first section
indicates the definition of question. While the second one lists several functions
of questions in a language classroom, three ways of categorizing questions are

focused on the third part of this chapter. The next section provides some criteria
of a good question and a bad question, and the last part centers on questioning
techniques. The results of related studies carried out by other educators are also
synthesized in each section.
II.1. Definition of questions
As a matter of fact, questions are normally asked in both daily
communication and educational settings. A great deal of effort has been devoted
to fully define the linguistic term: question.
According to the Oxford Advanced Learner Dictionary (7 th edition), a
question is “a sentence, phrase or word that asks for information”. The Longman
Dictionary of English language, however, adds that “a sentence or phrase that is
used to ask for information or to test someone's knowledge”. The latter definition
points out the difference in the purpose of questions between the occasions when
the speaker really wants to acquire something (e.g. Where do you live?) or other
circumstances when questions are posed to check whether the listeners know
what the speaker assumes they should know (e.g. What is the synonym of
“important”?). The second purpose mentioned - the potential use of questions to
measure listener’s knowledge rather than learning it - is especially important for
analyzing questions in the classroom context. This is due to the fact that people
in daily conversations rarely pose questions to which they already know the
answers. Indeed, those questions solely happen in special situations like in a
course room court (e.g. What did the defendant do next?), in a quiz contest (e.g.
What is the most densely populated country in the world?). In contrast, in
classrooms, teachers predominantly employ questions to test students’
understanding (Peacock, 1990). Thus, the latter definition is more optimal to this
study, which focuses totally on classroom context.


6
In conclusion, in this study, questions taken into consideration are

utterances in interrogative, imperative, or declarative form addressed by trainee
teachers in order to obtain verbal responses from students for the purpose of
checking students’ knowledge and gaining knowledge.
II.2. Roles of teacher’s questioning
In every lesson, teacher usually poses questions from the beginning until the
end of the lesson. The process in which the teacher asks a question, learners respond
and finally the teacher provides feedback is repeated constantly. In fact, Tsui (1995)
asserts that questions asked by teacher can make up about 70 per cent of classroom
interaction, and it cannot be denied that “questions asked by teachers and answers
by learners, tend to do dominate L2 classroom interaction” (Graham Hall, 2011). In
order to stress the important role of teacher’s questions in class, various functions of
questions have been listed by educators all over the world.
Firstly, it was asserted by Graham Hall (2011) that
“Questions help teachers elicit information, check learner’s understanding
and keep learner’s attention. They also provide learners with language practice
opportunities when they answer. Teacher’s questions, therefore, fulfill a clear
pedagogic purpose and also enable teachers to exert control over learners.”
Secondly, Kauchak and Eggen (1989) mention the functions of teacher
questions according to three groups, including, instructional questions, diagnostic
questions and motivational questions. Initially, instructional questions support
the learning process like helping students gain new knowledge. Then, teacher
uses diagnostic questions to assess whether students know specific knowledge.
Lastly, with teacher questions, students can be encouraged to take part in class
activities, discussion and challenged. The two researchers also noted that one
question can have more than one function.
In addition, other educators have listed several detailed functions of
questions in every class.
“to maintain the flow of the learning within a lesson”
“to engage students with the learning”

7
“to assess what has been learned, and check that what has been learnt is
understood and applied”
“to test student’s memory and comprehension”
“to initiate individual and collaborative thinking in response to new
information”
“ to seek pupils’ views and opinions”
“to provide an opportunity for pupils to share their opinions/views,
seeking responses from their peers”
“to encourage creative thought and imaginative or innovative thinking”
“to foster speculation, hypothesis and idea/opinion forming”
“to create a sense of shared learning and avoid the feel of lecture”
“to challenge the level of thinking and possibly mark a change to a
higher order of thinking”
“to model higher order thinking using examples and building on
students’ responses”
(Retrieved from the website
/>Although teachers’ questions can serve various functions in different
classes with different learners, it is concluded by many researchers such as
Nunan & Lamb (1996), and Peacock (1990) that questions are mostly utilized to
check students’ understanding. To be more specific, Gall (1970) noted that 60
per cent of teacher questions were used to help students recall facts, and only 20
per cent encouraged students to think critically and the remaining 20 per cent
involved procedural matters such as classroom management.
Based on the researches mentioned above and the real situation in which
trainee teachers employ their questioning techniques, this study will indicate
some purposes given by Graham Hall and some that exist in the real situation to
find out what trainee teachers employ questioning techniques for.
II.3. Types of question

Studies on questions and questioning techniques have posed countless
ways of categorizing questions based on varied criteria. First, questions might be
arranged into a hierarchy of cognitive processes that students need to go through


8
to arrive at the answer. Bloom first created a taxonomy of levels of intellectual
behavior important in learning in 1956. It was originally designed to describe the
sequential and cumulative levels of cognitive process, ranging from the simpler
cognitive stages, in which the teacher provides more instruction and dominate
discussion to the increasingly more complex cognition stages, in which students
play more active as well as important roles. The hierarchy consists of six
categories, namely, knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis,
and evaluation, and each depends upon the acquisition of the preceding category.
Second, according to the kind of response received (Tsui, 1995) or the
“content of the question” (Thomson, 1997) questions are divided into open-ended
questions which refer to questions that might have a wide range of possible
acceptable answer and closed-ended questions which

have only a limited

number of acceptable answer
Finally, while Tsui (1995) considered the nature of interaction generated,
Thomson (1997) based on a different dimension- “the purpose of the question”;
they still shared the same idea that the third category of questions is
display/referential questions.
II.3.1. Cognitive questions
According to Bloom (1956)’s taxonomy of educational objectives, not all
questions are on the same level, some of them are easy to answer; meanwhile,
others need deep thinking; therefore, questions can be classified according to the

levels of cognitive thinking that the answerers need. Bloom’s taxonomy was
developed by Benjamin Bloom in 1956 and since that year, it has been applied in
numerous ways in education, especially in assisting teachers to make questions
on different levels of thinking.


9

Higher level
challenge

Lower level
challenge

Figure 2: Bloom’s Taxonomy of Questions
Knowledge, which is the lowest level of the cognitive process, is a
prerequisite for all other higher levels. At the knowledge category, students are
required to exhibit memory of previous learned materials by recalling terms,
details, facts without necessarily fully comprehend the knowledge. In other
words, remembering is the main intellectual activity. As presented by Ornstein
(1987), teachers tend to stop at this type of questions account for its supporting
roles in teaching and testing. He also revealed a common view agreed by most
teachers that a student who can answers a large number of knowledge questions
might be classified as an intelligent one. However, he emphasized that
intelligence is not characterize by the amount of knowledge that a person have
but what can be done with that knowledge. Some of the key verbs can be found
in this type of questions are list, memorize, order and define. Questions can also
start with who, why, what, when, how to verify names of locations, time, and
other information. For example:
“Can you list five animals that can be found in the zoo?”

“What is synonym?”
“Where can you find a whale”


10
The second level of cognitive process - comprehension requires students
not only to have knowledge but also to understand it (Bloom, 1956). In order to
answer comprehensive questions, students need to comprehend the basics facts
and ideas, as well as knowing the way in which the knowledge can be applied in
a certain situation. Some of the key verbs used in comprehensive questions are
explain, describe, discuss and rephrase. For instance:
“How would you describe a cat?”
“Can you write this sentence in your own words?”
“What was the main idea of the first paragraph?”
The third level of questions is application, in which students are required
to apply knowledge that they have gained in previous lessons in different
situations. To be more specific, they adopt the use of previously learned
abstractions (principle, rule, theory) in certain and new situations. Many teachers
agree that application question are really essential, because students only deeply
understand what they have learned when they are capable of applying it in a new
situation. Many educators assume that application is the first stage of the higherlevel cognitive process. Verbs which are usually related to application questions
are choose, apply, use and change. Teachers can design questions such as:
“What would you do to solve this problem?”
“What factors would you change in this situation?”
“How can we apply this structure to this sentence?”
In terms of the analysis level, educators are in agreement that from this
stage, questions are considered higher level challenge. With analysis questions,
students have to break down comprehended knowledge into components like
identifying reasons, finding evidence to reach a logical conclusion. Thus, this
type of questions in classroom often asks students to go beyond knowledge and

application for analyzing the given problem so as to solve it. Verbs that often
appear in analysis questions are analyze, check and distinguish. This can be
illustrated in the following examples:


11
“Can you distinguish between the two grammatical functions of “late”
in the given example?”
“Why can we classify those animals into mammals and reptiles?”
The next cognitive level which requires students‘ ability to combine elements
and parts from various sources to form a new pattern not existing or clearly there
before is synthesis. With this type of questions, students use their own knowledge,
ideas and experiences in the synthesizing process; thus, there may be many potential
answers. Some of the key verbs found in the synthesizing questions are design, create,
plan and construct. Questions can be designed as follow:
“Can you write a new recipe for a tasty dish?”
“Can you create a new situation in which we can use this sentence?”
“What way would you design for your club advertisement?”
The last and highest level is evaluation. In this level, individuals make
judgment of an idea, a solution to a problem, a method or a material. Judgments
are based on criteria which might be determined by themselves or might be given
to them. Bloom places evaluation at the highest place as it requires competence
in all previous categories. However, some educators cast doubt on the relation
between higher-order question asking and higher-order thinking. Others argue
that lower-order questions can have the same effect as the higher-order questions
can. There will be no correct answer for evaluation questions, and verbs often
associated with the evaluation level are judge, predict, believe and argue. Some
examples of evaluation questions will be listed below:
“Do you believe?”
“Do you think his behavior is good or bad?”

“Can you defend your position?”
The following table summarizes some learning and thinking skills related
to each category of Bloom’s taxonomy along with some question cues.
Competence
Knowing

Bloom’s taxonomy
Skills demonstrated
 Observation and recall of

Question cues
List, define, tell,

information

describe, identify, show,


12

Comprehending

 Knowledge of dates, events,

label, collect, examine,

places and major ideas

tabulate, quote, name,

 Mastery of subject matter

who, when, where

 Understanding information
and grasp meaning

Summarize, describe,

 Translating knowledge into

interpret, contrast,

new context

predict, associate,

 Interpreting facts, comparing,

distinguish, estimate,

ordering, grouping, inferring

differentiate, discuss,

causes & predicting

extend.

consequences

Applying

 Using information
 Using methods, concepts,
theories in new situations
 Solving problems using
required skills or knowledge

Analyzing

 Seeing patterns and
organizing of parts
 Recognizing hidden meanings
 Identification of components

Synthesizing

Evaluating

Apply, demonstrate,
calculate, complete,
illustrate, show, solve,
examine, modify, relate,
change, classify,
experiment, discover
Analyze, separate,
order, explain, connect,
classify, arrange, divide,
compare, select, explain,

 Using old ideas to create new

infer
Combine, integrate,

ones

modify, rearrange,

 Generalizing from given facts

substitute, plan, create,

 Relating knowledge from

design, invent, what if,

several areas

compose, formulate,

 Predicting, drawing

prepare, generalize,

conclusions
 Comparing and

rewrite
Assess, decide, rank,

discriminating between ideas

grade, test, measure,

 Assessing value or theories,

recommend, convince,


13
presentations

select, judge, explain,

 Making choices based on

discriminate, support,

reasoned argument
 Verifying value of evidence

conclude, compare,

summarize
 Recognizing subjectivity
Adapted from: Bloom. B.S. (E.d) (1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives:
the classification of educational goals: Handbook I, cognitive domain. New
York; Toronto: Longmans, Green.
Table 1: Bloom’s taxonomy: examples of skills and cue words

Some educators simplified the Bloom’s taxonomy of questions into lower
cognitive questions, which require learners to recall information, demonstrate
their understanding of specific subject matter and higher cognitive questions,
which ask students to use higher cognitive level to produce and support their
answers.
There have been a numbers of researches carried out to investigate the
cognitive level of teacher’s questions in second language teaching. Most of the
researchers arrive at the conclusion that lower-cognitive level questions are used
more frequently in compared with higher-cognitive level ones. For example,
Nunan and Lamb (1996) point out that most questions asked have lower level
challenge, and they also mention that this type of questions is not useful to
stimulate students to think. Besides, Natthanan (2009) indicates that the lowest
cognitive

question-

knowledge

questions

were

predominant.

Then,

comprehension questions, application questions, analysis questions, synthesis
questions and evaluation questions followed respectively, which matches the
order of the Bloom’s taxonomy.
II.3.2. Open-ended questions and closed-ended questions

As stated by Tsui (1995), close-ended questions are defined as questions
that have “only one right answer” or “only one acceptable answer”. On the
contrary, open-ended questions can have a wide range of possible answers or “a
range of possible ways of presenting answers” (Tsui, 1995). These two
definitions are supported by many educators.
However, a closed-ended question can have not only one but a limited
number of acceptable answers. They are used to check facts and leave almost no


14
room for dissent. In a classroom, a teacher normally uses this type of questions to
check whether students have learned or remembered any specific data. Therefore,
students can give short and brief answers that only focus on the information. In
contrast, open-ended questions stimulate discussion and classroom interaction.
To put it simply, students are allowed with freedom to share ideas, draw
inferences and truly explore the question’s content. This type of questions
requires more long as well as complex responses which are based on not only
what students have learned before but also their own past experiences and
viewpoints. As a result, a wide range of possible responses can be received. For
example, when the teacher asks “What is the synonym of happy?”, although
many possible answers can be received like “contented”, “cheerful”, “joyful”, it
is still a close question. This is explained by the fact that this question leaves no
room for students to produce long responses and share their opinions.
Although there have not been any researches that directly show whether
open questions or closed questions are preferred in English classes, many
teachers admit that closed questions are important and used widely, but teachers
should not depend entirely on them as Tsui (1995) points out that closed
questions are more restrictive. As a result, if teachers want to encourage
discussion and class interaction, open questions will be more effective.
II.3.3. Referential questions and display questions

Based on the purposes of questions, questions can be divided into
referential questions and display questions. In social communication, people
normally ask questions that that they do not know the answers, and the meaning
of the utterance can be negotiated by the questioner and the answerer; however,
this does not often happen in the classroom. Teachers tend to address questions
which are already given appropriate answers to in their mind.
As stated by Ellis (1994), referential questions and display questions are
respectively defined as “questions you ask someone because you do not know the
answer” and “questions you ask to see if the person you are talking to knows the
answer”. In an English language classroom, while display questions are often
utilized to check whether students understand or remember knowledge,


15
referential questions require them to provide information, give opinions, explain
or clarify.
A number of studies have been conducted to compare the use of
referential questions and display questions in foreign language classes. It is
uncommon to use display questions outside the classroom (Nunan and Lamb,
1996). Long and Sato (1983), who compare questions made by six teachers in
English classrooms with questions in daily conversations between native
speakers and non-native speakers, concluded that display questions ( questions
that the questioner already knows the answer) were predominant in classrooms.
Similar findings are reported by Tsui (1985) and Lynch (1991), who reached the
conclusion that
“Referential (information seeking) questions, which predominate in native
speaker –non-native speaker conversation outside the classroom (76% of all
questions asked) made up a mere 14% of questions asked by teachers. These
results suggest that contrary to recommendation by many writers on second
language teaching methodologies, the communicative use of the target language

makes up only minor part of typical classroom activities”
Although referential questions are not as frequently used in a second
language classroom as display ones, it is emphasized that when teachers use
referential questions, it is more likely to create genuine communication (Tsui,
1995) and this type of questions also encourage learners to produce more
complex utterances (Nunan, 1987).
In conclusion, this study classifies questions posed by trainee teachers as
lower-level cognitive questions or higher-level cognitive questions, open
questions or closed questions and display questions or referential questions.
II.4. Good questions and bad questions
It cannot be denied that questioning is one of the most popular teaching
method. As stated by Brualdi (1998), despite the fact that teacher questioning can
greatly affect the students’ learning process, it can also lead to the students
‘negative attitude if the teacher pose questions incorrectly. As a result, it is vital


16
for teachers to know characteristics of good questions so as to use them
effectively in language classroom.
In Groisser P. (1964)‘s book “How to use the fine art of questioning”, he
took into his consideration seven criteria that good questions should have.
Firstly, a good question is purposeful. Every question can serve different
functions. For example, teacher can ask question to encourage students get
involved in class activities, other questions make it is possible for the teacher to
increase or slow down the pace of the lesson. Thus, a good question needs to be
posed at the right time for the right reasons.
Secondly, good questions need to be stated clearly, because the simpler
the vocabulary, grammar and content are utilized, the more chances students
have to understand them.
Thirdly, teacher should pose questions as short as possible. This makes

them easier for the students to catch the main content so as to understand and be
able to answer them more quickly.
Moreover, Lewis.G. stated that questions should be posed “simply in
conversational English”.
Despite the fact that each question is used for a specific reason; some are
designed to stimulate students’ thought, others simply repeat the content of the
lecture presented before, it is widely agreed that questions that stimulate critical
thinking are considered better and of greater value.
With regard to the limitation in scope, students should be asked only one
or two points of the lesson.
Lastly, questions should be adapted to the level of the class. It means that
teachers need to pose questions that are suitable for the kinds of students in the
class. In other words, no matter what functions do those questions have, they
should not excess the students ‘competence of thinking. If not, the students can
easily get depressed and students ‘learning can even be de-motivated.
Nevertheless, it does not mean that teachers should only pose easy questions to
low- achieving students.
While good questions play an important role in facilitating students’
learning, bad questions may not only make students hesitate over the way to


17
answer the questions, answer them incorrectly but also provoke some negative
attitudes toward study (Brualdi, 1998). Having a full awareness of the adverse
impact of bad questions on students ‘learning process, many researchers have
devoted considerable effort to investigate mistakes that teachers makes when
asking questions. As listed by Arslan M. (2006), they are posing vague questions
like “What do you think of the content of the story?”, using trick questions or
questions whose content is too challenging for the learners. It can be seen when a
kindergarten teacher asks her students to explain what geothermal power is. In

addition, Groisser P. (1964) also mentioned other types of questions that should
be avoided besides vague questions, namely
Yes/No: The type of questions that only requires students to produce
one -word- answer Yes or No, such as “Do you have any brothers?”
Elliptical: It refers to questions which lack grammar elements; however,
those are recoverable from the context. For instance, some teachers often ask
“How about you?”
Tugging: When using this type of questions, teachers stress on the fact that
her students remember the knowledge rather than understand it. For example, a
teacher only requires her student to list without going to specific details.
Guessing: These questions encourage students to guess rather than to
think, for example, “When do you think the writing system was invented?”
Leading: This term relates to questions already mentioning the answer
or a part of it like “Do you go to school by bus or by bike?”
Overall, the criteria mentioned above are used to indentify mistakes that
trainee teachers commit when employing questioning techniques, which might be
possible causes for the silence in language classes so as to propose some solution
to overcome this problem.
II.5. Questioning techniques
As Dumteeb. N (2009) defined; the term “questioning techniques” refers to
“statements which follow initial questions and which teachers use to elicit verbal
responses from students after those initial questions fail to elicit students’
responses.” In his study, two circumstances when questioning techniques used are
mentioned. Firstly, if a teacher poses the first question and students are not able to
answer it, she can immediately employ questioning techniques after the initial


18
question without giving students wait-time (the silent pause between a teacher
posing a question and asking a student to respond it) to respond. The second

situation is when wait-time is given but teacher still does not receive any responses.
In a language classroom, there have been a number of questioning
strategies used to elicit students’ responses and facilitate their studying such as
repetition, rephrasing, simplification or providing extra information. In language
teaching handbooks and researches related to this topic, authors classified
questioning techniques differently; nevertheless, their ideas have similarities. For
example, repetition is an important technique and used more frequently
(Ekasingh (1991) and Morrow (1997)); moreover, five questioning techniques
including

repetition,

rephrasing,

simplification,

probing

along

with

decomposition are often mentioned.
Based on the ideas of other educators, especially Wu’s taxonomy of
questioning techniques (1993) and the researcher’s own experience and
awareness of the real situation of questioning techniques employed by trainee
teachers, this study will focus on the way in which trainee teachers may react to
the silence in classes after raising the first questions in both situations with and
without wait-time. The first technique is repetition with which the teacher repeats
the initial questions with the hope that the students can answer it. Secondly, the

teacher asks the original questions in another way with different vocabulary,
structure while keeping the meaning of the initial question to make it easier for
the students to understand, which is called rephrasing. When the teachers make
the content of the questions more simply, for example, by reducing the scope of
the answer, they are using simplification technique. The next questioning
technique is decomposition in which the original question can be broken down
into smaller ones like short yes/no questions so as to lead students to the correct
answer. The last questioning technique -probing- aims at enhancing the quality
of students ‘answers by making them longer, clearer, more accurate with
supporting ideas and factual information. This encourages the final answers
students given to be close to the expected answers.
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY


19
In this chapter, the author presents information about the methodology
employed in the study to investigate the use of questioning techniques among
last-year students at the Faculty of English, Hanoi National University of
Education. Section III.1 provides a detailed description of the subjects of the
study, section III.2 follows with the descriptions of two data collecting
instruments, including class observations and individual interviews. Data
collection procedure along with data analysis is mentioned in the third and fourth
sections of this chapter, respectively.
III.1. Subjects of the study
The participants of the study are four female trainee teachers who are last
- year students at Faculty of English, Hanoi National University of Education.
All of them speak Vietnamese as their native language and have been trained to
teach English as a foreign language for students.
They have been studying English for over 14 years; moreover, because of the
target of the Faculty of English, Hanoi National University of Education, after

studying for 3 years, they are assumed to achieve B2 level- upper-intermediate
level- corresponding to CEFR – Common European Framework of Reference,
which means they can understand the main ideas of complex text on a variety of
topics even field of specialization, naturally interact with native speakers with a
degree of fluency, and produce clear and detailed utterances on different topics. In
addition, it is reported that their speaking - listening score for the previous semester
were B and B+, which means their average points varied from 7 to 8.4. Therefore,
their listening and speaking skills can be considered as good.
According to the curriculum of their faculty, in the first three years, the four
trainee teachers enrolled on three courses on teaching methodology, namely
“Methodology 1”, “Methodology 2” and “Methodology 3”, they have basic
knowledge of second language teaching methodology, a variety of teaching
approaches, the language acquisition process. However, there are not any courses
designed to provide them with comprehensive knowledge of questioning techniques
or train them how to pose questions effectively in language classrooms.


20
This six-week-field trip is the second field trip that those trainee teachers
take part in. During the second field trip, each trainee teacher is required to
conduct at least six lessons.
Overall, the trainee teachers participating in this study are chose on the
basis of 3 criteria. Initially, all of them have been studying for at least 14 years;
furthermore, their linguistic competence reach B2 level- upper-intermediatelevel corresponding to CEFR – Common European Framework of Reference.
They have not joined any courses which focus on questioning techniques. The
last factor is the trainee teachers’ availability to take part in the study.
III.2. Data collection instruments
A combination of quantitative and qualitative approach in the forms of
individual interviews and class observations is employed to investigate the real
situations in which trainee teachers used questioning techniques in their field trip

in Cau Giay high school and Xuan Dinh high school. This combination helps
increase the validity and reliability of the statistics collected.
The first data collection instrument is class observation which is carried out
in the three first weeks of the field trip in Cau Giay high school and Xuan Dinh high
school. 4 trainee teachers and 168 students of four classes are observed in four
lessons (two reading and two speaking lessons) from unit 11 Sources of energy
(Tieng Anh 11). To collect the data, the researcher asks four trainee teachers to
record their lesson. After the recordings are transcribed for the questions and
questioning techniques utilized in the language classroom, the researcher sends the
transcripts to the trainee teachers for cross-checking. Names of the participants are
anonymously coded in the transcripts. Finally, the transcriptions are used to identify
the types of questions and questioning techniques that are often used by the trainee
teachers in their second field trip. This data collecting method offers many
opportunities for the researcher to gain information related to class interaction,
students and trainee teachers ‘actual behavior or things that participants may be
unwilling to talk about. As a result, the use of questioning techniques among trainee
teachers is assessed not only by the trainee teachers themselves but the researcher,
which helps increase the objectiveness of the study.


21
In addition, a semi-structured interview is conducted with four trainee
teachers to gain data concerning the way trainee teachers use questions and
questioning techniques in real English language classrooms (SEE APPENDIX
1). The questions are translated into Vietnamese and names of types of questions
and questioning techniques are attached with brief description to avoid
misunderstanding. (SEE APPENDIX 2)
The interview is divided into three parts.
The first part includes 4 basic questions about the trainee teachers’
personal information, their English competence in general and their field trips.

The researcher designs the second part with 7 questions to gain in-depth
information about the frequency of posing English questions in each English
lesson, the trainee teachers’ satisfaction with their questioning techniques, the
purposes of questions and some habits when the trainee teachers posing
questions. Although each question has its suggested answers to save time, the
participants are still provided extra time to add their own opinions.
After, the participants complete the first and second parts by themselves in
about 10 minutes and they go to the last part, which aims to investigate the
trainee teachers’ difficulties when they pose questions and the potential solutions
to increase the effectiveness of trainee teachers’ question.
This data collecting method brings three major advantages. Firstly, it equips
the interviewer with a degree of control over the topic and the course of the
interview. The interviewer has the general ideas of how the interview would be
carried out and what might be possible results. It also offers interviewer a great deal
of flexibility to follow responses of the interviewees. Lastly, this type of interview
can provide an in-depth sight into others’ lives as Dowett ( 1986) stated “ (the semistructured interview) is quite extraordinary- the interactions are incredibly rich and
the data indicate that you can produce extraordinary evidence about life that you
don’t get in structured interviews or questionnaire methodology- no matter how
open ended and qualitative you think your questionnaires are attempting to be. It is
not only qualitative research technique that will produce rich information about
social relationships but it does give you access to social relationships in a quite
profound way”.