ClassroomObservationofDisplayandReferentialQuestions

袁昆雯

【Abstract】As Harmer （2001） indicates， the most important measurement of a successful lesson is the student activity taking place. And studies in second language classrooms have revealed the interconnection between teachers questions and the types of responses elicited from students （Long and Sato 1983； Brock 1986）. Hence， teacher questioning is well worth being studied in order to ensure students linguistic development. This essay attempts to critically analyze the use of display and referential questions in language classrooms which focus on listening and speaking skills by comparing the percentages of these two kinds of questions raised by teachers and their pragmatic use in the language classroom.

【Key words】classroom observation； display questions； referential questions

1. Context

I watched the videos on teflvideo.com （2011） and most of them were recorded in language schools for adult immigrants in the USA. The subject being taught was English language and the usual class size was less than 10 students. During the observation process data were recorded by means of note-taking. Observation can give advice to some pre-service teachers on how to improve their teaching skills （Day 1990）， analyze learner behavior as well as provide opportunities for peer coaching （Joyce and Showers 1982， 1987； Showers 1985； Showers and Joyce 1996）.

2. Analysis and discussion

Maclean and Mohr （1999） propose that guiding questions concerning the objects that interest the observer， the existing problems in the classroom， the problems that the observer wants to target in the classroom and the successful and unsuccessful points of the lesson can be used to direct attention during the research process.

From the observation schedule （see Appendix）， we can see that the percentages of display and referential questions being raised by the teachers differ dramatically. To be more specific， most of the questions （75%） being asked in the speaking lesson are referential questions while all of the questions being raised in the listening class are display questions. The reasons behind it， is that questions should be put forward on the authority of the learning outcomes of a specific lesson. As Brown and Wragg （1993） argue， questions are connected to the aims and underlying purpose of the lesson. Listening and speaking are classified as productive and receptive skills， the main purposes of which emphasize on desirable understanding or comprehension and spontaneous speech， which coincide with the aims of display and referential questions respectively. The second finding is that in order to ensure the effectiveness of teacher questioning， some tactics need to be adopted. In the listening class， for example， the purpose is to help students acquire the skills of listening for gist and detail， so the comprehension of the content of the story is of great importance and there are absolute true and false answers to these questions. It is obvious in the video that the questions are asked sequentially according to the plot of the listening material and closely relevant to it. In addition， the teacher corrects the students errors every time when they have ambiguity of the understanding. When it comes to the speaking class， the teacher does not correct every error made by the students so as to build up the confidence of the learners， further to elicit their ideas using the target language. Moreover， the questions being asked are closely connected to the students daily life and their personal experience； thereby encouraging students to be more vocal. The third finding is that， when students cannot produce the answer， the teacher does not give his/her answer immediately but guides the students to work out on their own. As Nunan （1989） indicates， the failure of students response decreases when teachers are trained to wait for 3 or 4 seconds. This kind of teacher scaffolding is also evident in students group discussion.

Apart from the divergent essences of different classes， other factors can also contribute to the extent to which the teacher uses display and referential questions. The two major influences， in my opinion， are learner and teacher identities. Learner identities can be categorized in three aspects， namely age， learner differences and motivation （Harmer 2001）. Firstly， questions can be brought up according to different age groups as they have various characteristics. Young children generally need individual attention from their teacher and like to talk about themselves and things happened to them while adolescents have a strong need for personal identity and respect. When it comes to adult learners， they have plenty of life experience and tend to be more disciplined， but they may be critical toward the teacher and the teaching method. Secondly， learners aptitude， learning styles， language levels and individual variations can affect the teachers choice of the proportion of questions. Thirdly， learners motivation is also a significant factor. As Williams and Burden （1997） advocate， motivation is a ‘state of cognitive arousal which provokes a ‘decision to act as a result of which there is ‘sustained intellectual and/or physical effort so that the person can achieve some ‘previously set goal. The percentage of display and referential questions depends largely on the teachers decision， thus， teacher identities should be taken into account. In the language classroom， if the teacher just pursues the smooth delivery of a lesson， he/she may prefer to ask display questions as they have existing answers and do not require teachers immediate response towards some unexpected problems. Furthermore， teachers metaphor in the classroom is another manifestation of teacher identities. The teacher as performer leads to the increase of teacher talk time and at the same time the decrease of student talk time. In this case， the teacher may answer the display questions himself/herself and seldom asks referential questions.

3. Conclusion

This essay has given a comparison about the use of display and referential questions used in classes focusing on listening and speaking and reached the conclusion that the percentage of these two kinds of questions differ in relation to different language skills. Nevertheless， the data collected are not adequate to reflect the overall nature of a specific problem. Triangulation， namely data， theory， researcher and methods triangulation （Denzin 1970； van Lier 1988） ought to be taken into account when further research is conducted.

References：

[1]Brock，C.A.（1986）.The Effects of Referential Questions on ESL Classroom Discourse.TESOL Quarterly 20：47-59.

[2]Brown，G.&Wragg，E.C.（1993）.Questioning.London：Routledge.

[3]Day，R.（1990）.Teacher observation in second language teacher education.In J.C.Richards and D.Nunan（eds）Second Language Teacher Education.Cambridge：Cambridge University Press.

[4]Denzin，N.K.（1970）.Sociological Methods：A Source Book.Chicago，IL：Aldine.

[5]Harmer，J.（2001）.The Practice of English Language Teaching（3rd Edition）.New York：Longman ELT.

[6]Joyce，B.& Showers，B.（1982）.The coaching of teaching.Educational leadership 40（1），4-8，10.

[7]Joyce，B.& Showers，B.（1987）.Low-cost arrangements for peer-coaching.Journal of Staff Development 8（1），22-24.

[8]Long，M.H.& Sato，C.J.（1983）.‘Classroom Foreigner Talk Discourse：forms and functions of teachers questions in Seliger and Long（eds.）.

[9]Maclean，M.& Mohr，M.（1999）.Teacher-Researchers at Work.Berkeley，CA：National Writing Project.

[10]Nunan，D.（1989）.Understanding Language Classrooms.Hemel Hempstead：Prentice Hall.

[11]Showers，B.（1985）.Teachers coaching teachers：Schools restructured to support the development of peer coaching teams create norms of collegiality and experimentation.Educational leadership 47，43-48.

[12]Showers，B.& Joyce，B.（1996）.The evolution of peer coaching.Educational leadership 53（6），12-16.

[13]Teflvideo（2011）.Available at：http：//www.teflvideos.com/.Retrieved on 27th，January，2011.

[14]van Lier，L.（1988）.The Classroom and the Language Learner： Ethnography and Second Language Classroom Research.London： Longman.

[15]Williams，M.& Burden，R.（1997）.Psychology for Language Teachers：A Social Constructivist Approach.Cambridge：Cambridge University Press.