Abstract

Among all the researches of EFL classroom teaching in senior high school at home and abroad, classroom questioning has been one of the most essential parts. Teachers’ questioning is not only the key segment in teaching, but also an indispensable linkage, which brings teachers and students closer. Domestic research in this field starts relatively late, and most scholars’ researches focus on the questioning in elementary school classroom and college classroom, while the study of questioning in senior high school English classroom is relatively little noticed. 

This study takes students and English teachers from Grade One of a senior high school in Chengdu, Sichuan province as the research object, the input hypothesis and output hypothesis as the theoretical basis, from the angle of high school English teachers' classroom questioning, through notes, transcriptions and recordings of classroom observation and interview, making comparison between student teachers and experienced teachers' classroom questioning and analyzing the differences and similarities and trying to find answers to two main research questions: (1)What are the main differences between students teachers’ questioning and experienced lecturers’ questioning? (2)How do these differences come into existence? from the perspectives of questioning strategies, types and quantities of questioning, teachers' wait time and way of giving feedback. Both several similarities and some significant differences in student teachers’ and experienced teachers’ classroom questioning are presented as major findings. 

Firstly, strategies of prompting, repeating, redirecting and translating are favored by two types of English teachers, but experienced teachers have more skills in prompting strategies. As to types and amounts of questions, both two kinds of teachers ask a lot during class, but most of their questions are display questions. In the aspect of wait time, more time is given to students to think and give responses by experienced teachers. With respect to teachers' feedback, no matter student teachers or experienced teachers give more positive feedback, but the language of student teachers is relatively single. 

The research questions and the results of this study are discussed combine with literature and the conclusions are as follows: due to the insufficient understanding of the basic information and learning situation of students and the lack of teaching experience, there is a great gap between student educators and experienced educators in classroom questioning. On this basis, the author points out some enlightenments in this research for senior high school English teaching, hoping to provide some references for English teachers’ questioning in EFL classroom in senior high school in the future. 

Key Words: Classroom questioning; Student teachers; Experienced teachers ; Comparative study

Contents

Abstract

摘要

1. Introduction-1

1.1 Research Background-1

1.2 Significance of Study-2

1.3 Structure of Study-2

2. Literature Review-4

2.1 Theoretical framework-4

2.1.1 Krashen's Input Hypothesis-4

2.1.2 Swain's Output Hypothesis-5

2.1.3 The Definition of Classroom Questioning-5

2.1.4 Functions of questioning-6

2.1.5 Principles of effective questioning-6

2.2Empirical Studies on Classroom Questioning Between Student Teachers and Experienced Teachers Home and Abroad-7

2.2.1 Introduction to Student Teachers and Experienced Teachers-8

2.2.2 The strategies of questioning-8

2.2.3 Questioning types-9

2.2.4 Wait time-10

2.2.5Feedback-10

3. Methodology-12

3.1 Research Questions-12

3.2 Participants-12

3.3 Research methods-13

3.3.1 Interviews-13

3.3.2 Classroom Observation-14

3.4 Method of data analysis-14

4. Findings and Discussion-15

4.1 The Differences in Strategies of Questioning-15

4.1.1 Prompting Strategy-16

4.1.2 Repeating Strategy-17

4.1.3 Redirecting Strategy-18

4.1.4 Translating Strategy-19

4.2 The Differences in Types And Amounts of Questions-19

4.3 The Differences in Wait Time-21

4.4 The Comparison Between Way of Providing Feedback-22

5. Conclusion-24

5.1 Summary of Major Findings-24

5.2 Implications-25

5.3 Limitations-26

5.4 Suggestions-26

Appendices-27

Bibliography-28

Acknowledgements-31