Việc sử dụng câu hỏi bởi các giáo viên bản ngữ và giáo viên dạy tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ

VIET NAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES & INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST – GRADUATE STUDIES
*****************

KHUẤT MAI AN

THE USE OF QUESTIONS BY NATIVE AND
NON-NATIVE EFL TEACHERS:
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF FUNCTIONS

VIỆC SỬ DỤNG CÂU HỎI BỞI CÁC GIÁO VIÊN BẢN NGỮ VÀ
GIÁO VIÊN DẠY TIẾNG ANH NHƯ MỘT NGOẠI NGỮ:
MỘT NGHIÊN CỨU SO SÁNH VỀ CHỨC NĂNG

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 60140111

Hà Nội- 2015


VIET NAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES & INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST – GRADUATE STUDIES
*****************

KHUẤT MAI AN

THE USE OF QUESTIONS BY NATIVE AND

NON-NATIVE EFL TEACHERS:
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF FUNCTIONS

VIỆC SỬ DỤNG CÂU HỎI BỞI CÁC GIÁO VIÊN BẢN NGỮ VÀ
GIÁO VIÊN DẠY TIẾNG ANH NHƯ MỘT NGOẠI NGỮ:
MỘT NGHIÊN CỨU SO SÁNH VỀ CHỨC NĂNG

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field

: English Teaching Methodology

Code

: 60140111

Supervisor: Dr. Trần Hoài Phương

Hà Nội- 2015


CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY OF STUDY PROJECT REPORT
I certify my authority of the Study Project Report entitled
The use of questions by native and non-native EFL teachers:
a comparative analysis of functions
To total fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts

Khuất Mai An
2015

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my deepest thanks to Dr. Tran Hoai Phuong for her
assistance, encouragement as well as her guidance she gave me while I was doing
my research.
I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to all my
lecturers at the Faculty of Post-Graduate Studies, University of Languages and
International Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi whose academic
program and support have enabled me to pursue the course.
I would also like to express my thanks to the teachers at Popodoo school
who helped me in providing the materials, taking an active part in interviews and
making constructive comments.
I am also thankful to my students in classes Dopapa 2 and Popodoo 3 at
Popodoo school for their whole-heated participation in the study.
Last but not least, I owe my sincere thanks to my father, my younger
brothers, my husband and my kind-hearted friend – Ms Do An, who have always
inspired and encouraged me to complete this study.

ii


ABSTRACT
A number of young Vietnamese students take extra English lessons at cram
schools where classes are taught in English by native speakers of English; however, not
much has been studied in such settings in previous literature. The research in this minor
thesis was carried out to compare and contrast types of question functions which four
teachers used to teach two classes of EFL students in a private language school during

lessons. The variables include the language backgrounds of the teachers, i.e., NS
teachers and NNS teachers, and the proficiency levels of the students, i.e., high- and
low-proficiency (level D and level B). By recording twenty audio lessons, observing two
classes and interviewing NS and NNS teachers, eight types of question functions used by
teachers were analyzed and compared in terms of the teacher‟s language background and
the students‟ proficiency levels. The study found that the class level and the teacher‟s
language background, influenced how the teachers formed questions. The teachers of
high-level students (level D) used more communicative question types, while the
teachers with low-level students (level B) preferred instructional questions. In addition,
it was found that using the target language as the sole medium in the classroom did not
guarantee a communicative learning environment. When instructional questions
dominated the classroom discourse, the students became passive in the interaction. The
study suggests that both NS teachers and NNS teachers should monitor the functions and
effects of their questioning skills so as to facilitate genuine interaction, even with lowlevel EFL learners.
The thesis consists of three parts. The first part is an introduction to the thesis. The
review of related literature, methodology used in the research study and the findings are
all presented in the second part. The final part is the pedagogical implications and
conclusion of the study, which concurrently concluding remarks and suggests some
solutions for teachers. Moreover, the limitations of the thesis are pointed out and the
areas for further study are put forward in the final part.
It is hoped that this thesis will be useful for teachers at Popodoo school in their
teaching.
iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY OF STUDY PROJECT REPORT ............................................ i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................ ii
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................ vi
LIST OF EXCERPTS ......................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................. vii
PART A: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1
1. Rationale.................................................................................................................. 1
2. The aim of the study ................................................................................................ 3
3. Research questions .................................................................................................. 4
4. Significance of the study ......................................................................................... 4
5. Scope of the study .................................................................................................. 5
6. Organization of the study ........................................................................................ 6
PART B: DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................. 7
Chapter 1: Literature review ............................................................................................... 7
1.1. Native and non- native teachers of English and classroom interaction ........... 7
1.2. Teacher talk and questions ............................................................................... 9
1.3. Studies about EFL teachers‟ and students‟ questioning ................................ 18
Chapter 2: Methodology .................................................................................................... 21
2.1. The aim and research questions ..................................................................... 21
2.2. Background of the research site ..................................................................... 21
2.3. Materials and teaching approaches ................................................................ 22
2.4. The participants .............................................................................................. 23
iv


2.5. Data collection ............................................................................................... 24
2.6. Data analysis .................................................................................................. 26
2.7. Coding procedures and reliability .................................................................. 26
Chapter 3: Results .............................................................................................................. 27
PART C: PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION ....................... 39
1. Concluding remarks .............................................................................................. 39

2. Pedagogical Implications ...................................................................................... 41
3. Limitations and suggestions for further research .................................................. 43
3.1. Limitations of the study ................................................................................. 43
3. 2. Suggestions for further research ................................................................... 43
4. References ............................................................................................................. 44

APPENDIX..........................................................................................................................I

v


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
o Class-H: _______High-level class
o Class- L: _______Low-level class
o EFL: __________English as a Foreign Language
o NNS: __________Non-native speaking teacher
o NS: ___________Native speaking teacher
o I-R-F: _________Initiating-responding-feedback
o T: ____________Teacher
o S: _____________Student
o Ss: ____________Students
o L1: ___________First language
LIST OF EXCERPTS
Excerpt 1: Ms Elena-NS (L_voice5) ............................................................... 16
Excerpt 2: Ms Kathy- NNS (L_voice4) .......................................................... 30
Excerpt 3: Ms Elena – NS (H_voice3) ............................................................ 31
Excerpt 4: Ms Nancy- NNS (H_voice6) ......... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Excerpt 5: Ms Elena-NS ( H_voice10) ............ Error! Bookmark not defined.

vi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Communicative levels of the eight question functions ..................... 18
Figure 2: The percentage use of the four teachers‟ question vs. non-question
discourses. .................................................................................................. 28
Figure 3: The four teachers‟ percentage use of the eight question functions ... 29
Figure 4: The distribution of the four teachers‟ instructional vs.
communicative questions ........................................................................... 30
Figure 5: The percentage use of question functions between the NNS
teachers and NS teachers ........................................................................... 32
Figure 6: The percentage use of question functions between the Class-L and
Class-H teachers ......................................................................................... 34
Figure 7: Class-H‟s percentage use of question functions with NNS-H and
NS-H .......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: The Raw Numbers and Percentage Question Use of the Two
Classes with the Four Teachers.................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

vii


PART A: INTRODUCTION
The rationale, the aim of the study, the research questions, the significance
and the scope of the study as well as organization of the study are all dealt with in
this part.

1. Rationale
Nowadays, learning at least a foreign language is necessary in human‟s life:

“Language is arguably the defining characteristic of the human species and
knowledge of language in general, as well as ability to use one‟s first and, at least
one other language, should be one of the defining characteristics of the educated
individual” (Nunan, 1999: 71). The world has become smaller. It is said it has
turned into the size of the so-called “global village”. We are living in the time of
immense technological inventions where communication among people has
expanded way beyond their local speech communities (Ellis, 1997: 3). Today
receiving education, language education not excepting, is not an issue connected
exclusively with schools; the time requires everyone to learn throughout their
lifetimes. Therefore, learning a second language has become a means of keeping up
with the pace of the rapidly changing world.
English language has gained its significance among a number of foreign
languages such as French, Chinese, Russian, Japanese, etc on the world. English is
the official language in fifty three countries as well as in all the major
international organizations, including the United Nations, the European Union
and the International Olympic Committee. It is the most used language on the
Internet, and is currently the language most often taught as a second language
around the world (Shahi & Pang, 2009). Moreover, since Vietnam joined WTO in
2006, English has become very important to Vietnamese people to enrich their
1


knowledge and to contact with people from other countries. Therefore the
teaching and learning of English plays an essential role in the development of this
country.
In Vietnam, in recent years, English as a foreign language has gained
considerable attention. It has become a compulsory subject in the syllabus of
many schools, colleges and universities. It has been taught and learnt throughout
the country, both urban areas and rural (or remote) ones. Even in the countryside,
children now start learning English when they are in grade three or four.

However, Vietnamese people have faced many difficulties in learning English,
although English has become an important requirement both at school and at
work. “Vietnamese students start studying English as early as middle school, with
many even learning it in elementary school or kindergarten – just like many other
countries where it is spoken as a second language – but few of them can speak the
language fluently when they leave high school” (Tuoitrenews, 2013). According
to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Tran Thi Ha - Director, Department of Higher Education Ministry of Education and Training (MOET): “Only 10.5% of universities
conducted survey is to satisfy job requirements for English skills of graduated
students. The results show that about 49.3% of students‟ statistic requirements of
employers, 18.9% of students does not satisfy and 31.8% of students needs more
training.” (Hanoimoi, 2015).
Understanding of the requirements of the society, many parents have
decided to enroll their children in private foreign language centers where native
teachers are teaching. This is because they believe that native English-speaking
teachers can offer authentic language models to their children, so it is more
effective for their children to learn English from native speaking (NS) teachers.
To meet the parents‟ expectation, many English cram schools hire NS teachers to
teach students at all levels, together with Vietnamese English teachers. Hence,

2


this issue of whether there are any differences between native and non- native
speaking (NNS) teachers in their teaching is a topic of much concern.
Furthermore, in any effective language learning environment, the most
important factor is that students are enabled to do most of the talking. An ideal
classroom situation is one in which students are actively involved and both able
and willing to participate in the lesson. Student participation is more beneficial if
the students are productive rather than purely receptive. Nevertheless, in order for
the students to participate actively, they need to be stimulated. This stimulation

can arise as a result of the implementation of appealing activities or through the
use of thought provoking questions. One popular method of involving students in
a lesson and facilitating student participation used by many language teachers is
asking questions. In some classrooms, over half of the class time is taken up with
question-and-answer exchanges (Gall, 1984). Teacher question functions are used
as target language input for the students and form an integral part of classroom
interaction (Ho, 2005). Nunan (2007: 80) suggests that teachers use questions “to
elicit information, to check understanding, and to control behavior.”
Because of all the reasons above, the topic of this thesis is: “The use of
questions by native and non-native EFL teachers: a comparative analysis of
functions”, which took place in a branch of a chain private English school called
Popodoo school.

2. The aim of the study
This study aims to compare and contrast types of question functions which
four teachers used to teach two classes of EFL students in a private language
school during lessons. The variables included the language backgrounds of the
teachers, i.e., NS teachers and NNS teachers, and the proficiency levels of the
students, i.e., high- and low-proficiency.
3


3. Research questions
The study specifically addresses the following research questions:
1. What are the proportions of questions vs. non-question discourse in the four
teachers‟ classes?
2. What are the general question functions used by the four teachers?
3. What are the types of question functions used by the NS teachers vs. NNS
teachers?
4. What are the types of question functions used by the teachers with high in

level class and in low level class?

4. Significance of the study
The study is significant because it helps teachers understand more about
how NS and NNS teachers used question functions. Such understanding will
helps EFL teachers set appropriate types of questions functions for the learning
context of an EFL classroom. Questioning is one of the most common teaching
techniques employed by teachers. Question and answer exchanges sometimes
occupy more than half of the class time (Gall, 1984; Kerry, 2002). The questionand-answer sequence is not only about the transmission of facts or the
management of classes but is rather the interactions between the teacher and
students in the classroom where the teacher co-constructs learning with students,
building on what learners have already known and extending that by asking highlevel questions.
Furthermore, researchers also have an overview of how teaching and
learning take place in private English centers. There is a fact that studies
regarding EFL teaching and learning at English centers are scarce. The reason for
this is that taking private language lessons has not been considered a part of the
mainstream educational system by academics; moreover, it is more difficult to
4


gain access to such an educational environment than to regular school settings for
research purposes. However, if taking extra English lessons has become a
common experience among Vietnamese English learners, this research in a
private English center setting is as important as research in other research
settings.
5. Scope of the study
When it comes to questions, there are many researchers as Quirk,
Hakansson & Lindberg, Tsui, Lyons, Gabrielatos, etc suggested many ways to
classify questions, which are

form/function, cognitive level, communicative

value, communicative orientation of questions, yes-no, open-ended, convergent,
divergent, etc. However, in this study, the author used Tsui‟s classification. She
categorized questions based on its‟ elicitation functions: inform, confirm, agree,
commit, repeat, and clarify. It is because the term „Elicitation‟ is used as “A
discourse category to describe any utterance, both inside and outside the
classroom which functions to elicit an obligatory verbal or its non-verbal
surrogate.” (Tsui, 1992: 81). Besides, the author also use two more types of
question functions that are pseudo and understanding check question (Shin-Mei
Kao, 2012).
When researching on NS teachers and NNS teachers, other researchers will
ask or compare many teachers. However, in this research, due to the researcher‟s
limited ability, time constraints and narrow-scaled study, the researcher only
choose 4 teachers (2 NS teachers and 2 NNS teachers) and 2 classes with 24
students they teach.

5


6. Organization of the study

This study is divided into three main parts.
Part A, INTRODUCTION, presents the rationale for choosing the topic, the
aims and objectives, the scope, the significance, the methodology and the design
of the study.
Part B, DEVELOPMENT, has three following chapters: Chapter One
presents the literature review which deals with the theoretical background that
precedes and necessitates the formation of our research. Chapter Two details the
methodology applied in the study including, a brief introduction to the action

research design, the setting, participants, instrumentation, and the action research
procedure. Chapter Three presents results.
Part

C,

PEDAGOGICAL

IMPLICATIONS

AND

CONCLUSION,

concluding remarks and implications of the results for the teaching of
Environmental English studies. Limitations of the study and suggestions for
further studies are also discussed in this part. The last part is references which I
read and used in our research and the appendix.

6


PART B: DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 1: Literature review

This chapter briefly covers the theories related to the study: Native and nonnative teachers of English and classroom interaction, teachers talk and questions,
and studies about EFL teachers‟ and students‟ questioning.
1.1. Native and non- native teachers of English and classroom interaction
As this paper deals with questioning techniques employed by native and

non-native teachers of English in EFL classroom interactions, it is important to
review the continuing debate about native and non-native teachers.
It is indeed the case that the notion of native speaker refers to the people
who have natural control over a language and are a reliable source of data for the
truth about the language (Ferguson, 1983). Davies (1991) adds, “There is the
further sense of ascription, that a person does not choose to be, can‟t help being a
native speaker” (p. x). It is interesting to note that native speech is some kind of
acceptance by other people that creates the distinction between native and nonnative speakers. Davies (1991) has a similar comment on the issue: “the native
speaker boundary is one as much created by non-native speakers as by native
speakers themselves” (p. 9).
Many Vietnamese people believe that NS teachers are more authoritative in
teaching EFL students than NNS teachers because NS teachers teach in their
mother tongue. Issues related to the teaching styles and efficiency of these two
groups of teachers have been explored in previous studies.
7


In terms of the teachers‟ English proficiency levels, Norton (1997) and Árva
and Medgyes (2000) conclude from the results of their surveys and interviews
that NS teachers were superior to NNS teachers in speaking, pronunciation,
listening, vocabulary, and reading. McNeill (1994) suggests that NS teachers can
offer more correct usage and are more capable than their NNS counterparts in
identifying acceptable and/or unacceptable language produced by their students.
Medgyes (1992) explains that regardless of their effort NNS teachers could not
achieve native-level proficiency because of their “norm -dependent” process of
language development and their imitation intention toward native speakers. The
studies conclude that NS teachers enjoy given superiority over NNS teachers in
language proficiency
However, research also points out that NNS teachers outperform NS
teachers in realizing the needs of EFL learners. Üstünlüoglu (2007) suggests that

sharing the same L1 with their students, NNS teachers can effectively explain
abstract concepts and manage the class. Moreover, NNS teacher can understand
students‟ difficulties because they share similar language learning experience
with students; as a result, NNS teachers can be aware of structural differences
between the two languages, so they can help students deal with these difficulties
better than NS teachers. McNeill (1994) finds that NNS teachers who share the
L1 with the learners are more likely to identify the vocabulary problems of their
EFL students, especially those with low proficiency level. Phillipson (1996)
regards NNS teachers of English as „ideal‟ language teachers since they acquire
English as an additional language; they have first-hand experience in learning and
using language as a second language, thus this experience sensitizes them to the
linguistic and cultural needs of their students.
The studies reviewed above suggested that NS teachers provide ideal
language models, while NNS teachers offer more effective language learning
models. Responding to the given differences between the two groups of teachers,
8


Tajino and Tajino (2000) suggests that team-teaching conducted by the two
groups of teachers may be most effective for an EFL course.
Finally, in term of classroom interaction, Tsui (2001) states “classroom
interaction focused on the language used by the teacher especially teacher
questions” (p. 120) plays a crucial role in initiating interactions in the classroom.
Similarly, Walsh (2011) states “questioning occupies much of a language
teacher‟s time” (p. 52) and “typically, classroom discourse is dominated by
question and answer routines, with teachers asking most of the questions as one of
the principal ways in which they control the discourse” (Walsh, 2006: 8). With
their questions, reactions, and actions, teachers are always the model for learners.
Supporting this idea, Chaudron (1993) adds that conversation and instructional
exchanges between teachers and students provide the best opportunities for

the learners to exercise target language skills, to test out their hypotheses
concerning the target language, and to get useful feedback. Effective teacher talk
including questions may provide essential support to facilitate both language
comprehension and learner production.

1.2. Teacher talk and questions
1.2.1. Teacher talk

A considerable amount of classroom research has focused on different
aspects of teacher talk to which foreign language learners are mainly and
frequently exposed in the classroom. This focus is mostly on rate of speech,
amount of talk, effects of teacher questioning on student performance
modifications in discourse, pauses, types of oral feedback, modification in syntax
and vocabulary, etc. The main conclusions of the studies undertaken on features
of teacher talk (Almeida (2011), Dashwood (2005), Hamayan and Tucker (1980),
9


Pica and Long (1986) and Shen (2012)) suggests the following general picture
though with some variation (cited by Kayaoğlu, 2013):
 Teacher talk occupies the major proportion of a class hour.
 Teachers use shorter utterances with less proficient learners.
 Teachers do more repetition with foreign language learners.
 Teachers use longer pauses with learners.
 Teachers speak more loudly and make their talk more distinct with
learners.
 Teachers slow down their rate of speech to learners.
Given the number of studies on teacher talk and classroom interaction, the
issue of questioning has become a prominent topic of academic interest.
Questions have been considered a valuable pedagogic device for teachers whether

to test students‟ knowledge or to stimulate their thinking. The knowledge and
skills used in asking different types of questions in a classroom is a critical aspect
of the teaching and learning process to the extent that questions can facilitate
language acquisition, production and result in meaningful interaction. Thus,
learners‟ achievement and their degree of engagement are linked to the types of
questions generated and used by teachers in a classroom. In support of this view,
Chaudron (1988) states “teachers‟ questions constitute a primary means of
engaging learners‟ attention, promoting verbal responses, and evaluating learners‟
progress” (p. 126).
According to Pawlak (2004), students are encouraged to participate in the
ongoing interaction through questions, and in return teachers use student
responses to adjust the whole learning and teaching process from the content to
the form of language inputs. An increase in the amount of classroom interaction
through questions is likely to activate learners‟ competence and helps them
improve language learning. First, questions serve as a means of obliging students
to make some kind of contribution to the ongoing interaction in class, and their
10


responses provide the teacher with feedback which he/she can use to adjust the
content and form of his/her talk. Second, questions are also used to control the
progress of classroom interaction and put it back on track in case there are some
major deviations from what the teacher has planned occur. Questions also have a
function of facilitating language production and resulting in correct and
meaningful responses which are crucial in teacher questioning. Therefore, in the
next part, the author will provide some information about the types of question
which NS and NNS teachers use in their two EFL classrooms.

1.2.2. Questions

1.2.2.1. Pseudo and real questions
In an EFL classroom, teachers‟ questions play a significant role in
stimulating thinking, checking student comprehension and progress, gathering
attention, modeling appropriate usages, and creating interactive opportunities
(Shin-Mei Kao, 2012). For EFL teachers, questioning is one of the essential tools
not only for maintaining classroom control (Ellis, 1990), but also for carrying out
instructional materials (Gabrielatos, 1997). Nevertheless, questions asked by EFL
teachers are seldom based on real needs or interest in seeking new information
(Long & Sato, 1983). EFL teachers tend to ask pseudo, or display, questions, of
which the answers are known by the teachers and even by some members of the
class. An example of a pseudo question is: the teacher points at a picture and asks
the class, “What can you see in the picture?” The purpose of such question is to
invite the students to display their knowledge. Pseudo or display questions are
questions to which the teacher knows the answer and which the students are
asked in order to display their knowledge or to check their understanding (Long

11


& Sato, 1983; Brock, 1986; Thompson, 1991; Thornbury, 1996 cited in second
language classrooms, Chaudron, 1993).
In real communication, asking pseudo questions violates the “maxim of
quality”, according to Grice‟s principle of co-operation in conversation (Grice,
1989: 27). Grice points out that the addresser of a question in real social contexts
seeks new and unknown information from the addressee, and so is the addressee
expected to give a true and sincere answer. Therefore, asking pseudo questions
would be considered „insincere‟ and might not receive the desired responses from
the addressee in social talks. However, pseudo questions seem to be used quite
frequently by teachers across subject matters for verifying students‟
comprehension or memory about the taught materials in the classroom (Martin,

2003; Ho, 2005). Pseudo questions normally elicit short, simple, and low-level
answers. Unlike people in social contexts, the students and the teacher do not
speak with an equal status in the classroom. Therefore, the students feel obligated
to answer their teachers‟ pseudo questions. However, as the students‟ ages
increase, their desire of responding to pseudo questions decreases. Thus,
Chaudron

(1993)

points

out

that

poor

questioning

practice

can

be

counterproductive for language teaching and learning.
In contrast to pseudo questions, a genuine, or referential, question, is a
common type of exchange in real communication, which aims to elicit unknown
information from the addressee. In the classroom, teachers use referential
questions to draw answers referring to learners‟ opinions, judgments, and real-life

experiences, with the function of filling information gaps. On the other hand,
these questions are asked to learners to facilitate expression of opinions, or
provision of information that the teacher generally does not have. As stated in
many research articles, these questions are natural and asked to engender genuine
communication (Long & Sato, 1983; Brock, 1986; Thopmson, 1991, Thornbury,
1996 cited in second language classrooms, Chaudron, 1993). The answer to a
12


referential question is usually longer than that to a pseudo question and carries
content meanings which help forward the conversation.
Besides, Long and Sato (1983) compared the questions occurring in
informal conversations between native and non-native speakers (i.e., NS-NNS)
and teacher-learner interaction in second language classrooms. They found that
referential questions predominated in NS-NNS conversation outside classrooms
(up to 76%) while only 14% of the teachers‟ questions were referential.
Shomoossi (2004) confirmed this imbalanced use of question types in EFL
classroom from his observation of a few university level classes conducted by
five experienced non-native teachers of English in Iran. The results show that the
teachers used pseudo questions 4.4 times more than the number of referential
questions. In addition, he also found that the amount of classroom interaction
caused by referential questions is much greater than that caused by pseudo
questions, in terms of the speech turns taken by the students and speech quantity
in the students‟ replies. Seedhouse (1996) explains that, because EFL teachers‟
proficiency in the target language is superior to their students, genuine questions
may be rare, especially when the teachers bear pedagogical objectives in mind.
Lynch (1991) raises the attention of EFL professionals that communicative use of
questioning makes up only a minor part of typical classroom activities.

1.2.2.2. Taxonomy of question functions

Following Sinclair and Coulthard‟s (1975) ideology of elicitations between
teachers and pupils in the classroom, Tsui (1992) uses the term “elicitation” to
describe

the

utterances which

invite

obligatory

verbal

or

non-verbal

responses from the addressee (p. 101). Six elicitation functions have been
identified by Tsui (1992) as cited by Janin Jafari (2013) including: informing,
confirming, agreeing, committing, repeating, and clarifying.
13


According to Tsui (1992), an information question requires the addressee to
provide new information, with the function of bridging information gaps. There is
no speaker assumption involved from the addresser and the expected information
is unknown before the elicitation is made. This function coincides with referential
questions. A confirmation question is raised by the addresser with an assumption
in mind about the question, but confirmation on the assumption is needed from

the addressee. In many cases, the addressee can disconfirm the assumption in the
reply. For example, when a speaker asks, “You will go to Taipei tomorrow,
right?”, the speaker wants the addressee to confirm the assumption about the
addressee‟s trip to Taipei. Similarly, when asking an agreement question, the
speaker also holds an assumption in mind, but the proposition of an agreement
question is “self-evidently true” (p. 107). In other words, the elicitation is based
on common knowledge shared by the addresser and the addressee. The function
of such a question is to invite the addressee to concur with the speaker‟s previous
utterances and to establish “the existing common ground” (p. 107). It can be best
realized when people try to begin a conversation for establishing social mutuality
with strangers, such as asking about the weather, “It‟s a nice day, isn‟t it?”, in the
opening of a conversation with unfamiliar interlocutors.
A commitment question not only invites an obligatory verbal response but
also requires further interaction or a verbal exchange from both the addresser and
the addressee. For example, a question like, “Can you turn on the light?” would
require an action of switching the light on, rather than just a verbal reply, “Sure, I
can.” A repeat question brings forth the repetition of the preceding utterance from
the addresser to clarify the entire utterance or certain elements in the utterance
that are acoustically unclear to the addressee. Utterances such as “Pardon?”,
“Sorry?”, “Huh?”, or “What did you say?” belong to this type. A clarification
question, slightly different from a repeat question, requires the addressee to
straighten out content confusion or uncertainty of a preceding utterance.
14


However, according to Shin-Mei Kao (2012), Tsui‟s taxonomy of elicitation
functions is not finite. In addition, Tsui‟s taxonomy was originally based on social
interactions between speakers with equal speaking right; therefore, it is not
sufficient for analyzing classroom interaction, in which the teacher has higher
authority in controlling the interaction than the students. For example, Tsui

classifies pseudo questions under information elicitation, suggesting no
differentiation between these two types of questions in nature. However, asking
pseudo questions is a distinct feature in classroom interaction, and carries
different purposes from an information question from the view point of
instruction (van Lier, 1988). In the taxonomy used in this classroom study, two
additional categories were included: pseudo questions and understanding check
questions. A pseudo question is raised, usually by the teacher, to evaluate the
students‟ knowledge about the presented materials. An understanding check
question is used by the teacher to verify if the students follow the instructions or
the progress of the class. It is different from a confirmation question or an
agreement question in that the teacher does not bear any assumption in mind
about the students‟ understanding. The reply to an understanding check question,
“Do you understand?”, may be a positive “Yes”, or a follow-up question related
to the content mentioned, “Can you explain…more?” Turn 17 and Turn 22 in
Excerpt 1, taken from the data of this study, present three understanding check
questions raised by an NS teacher (i.e., NS-L) while teaching a group of low-level
EFL students. In this short segment, NS-L was explaining the rule of a game to
the class. She stopped from time to time to check if the students followed her
instruction (See Appendix for the transcription conventions.).

15


Excerpt 1: Ms Elena-NS (L_voice5)

Question Functions
Understanding check

Utterance
17. T: ok, we will divide into 2 teams/ ok?/

18. Ss: hangman/((chatting together))/
19. T: ((dividing the class into 2 team))/ok, you are

Understanding check

team sun/ you are moon/ok?/
20. Ss: sun and moon/
21. T: ok, team sun has to explain a sentence/ the

Understanding check

other

team

has

to

guess,

right/ok/make

sentences to describe this word, ok?
22. S: ok/ this fruit is like orange juice/

Pseudo and understanding check questions are relatively less common in
social conversations. Long and Sato (1983) found in their influential study that
adult native speakers almost never used pseudo questions with non-native
speakers in casual talks. In reality, when a speaker possesses more power than

other speakers in a group, for example a company leader or a committee chair,
s/he would tend to use more pseudo and understanding check questions than other
members of the group. By doing so, the speaker also exercises a high level of
control over the progress of the talk and the contributions of other participants in
the conversation. As Goody (1978) points out, questions carry speech acts, which
enable interlocutors to negotiate, assert, and challenge each other‟s status in a
social context. Thus, if one enforces a high level of control in casual talks by
asking pseudo or understanding check questions, one breaks the general
cooperation principle of Grice (1989) and may be seen as a “bossy” person by
others. However, a classroom is a specific context where the unequal speech
16