Characteristics of Student Questions in Korean EFL Classes

This paper surveyed some characteristics and effects of student questions in Korean EFL classes which were managed by native teachers. In Korean EFL classes, students preferred asking convergent questions to divergent ones; that is, most student questions did not require highorder thinking, but sought factual or conceptual knowledge of words or idiomatic expressions. The students used unmarked simple interrogative sentences, and rarely asked questions with complex or compound sentences. Also, quite a few of the student questions were ungrammatical. In the discourse which began with student questions, more than half of the interactions were made up of InitiationResponse (IR) patterns, lacking evaluation or feedback which usually appears in teacherinitiated discourse. Student questions often contributed to the increase of classroom interactions and comprehension of sentences or lexical items through negotiation of meaning. The native instructors often used them as scaffolding for providing other associated or related knowledge. Student questions were of some help in estimating their level of grammatical knowledge or speaking ability

Characteristics of Student Questions in Korean EFL Classes 233 언어과학연구 58 (2011) Characteristics of Student Questions in Korean EFL Classes* 1) Kidong Hwang(Naval Academy) Hwang, Kidong 2011 Characteristics of Student Questions in Korean EFL Class The Journal of Linguistic Science 58, 233-258 This paper surveyed some characteristics and effects of student questions in Korean EFL classes which were managed by native teachers In Korean EFL classes, students preferred asking convergent questions to divergent ones; that is, most student questions did not require high-order thinking, but sought factual or conceptual knowledge of words or idiomatic expressions The students used unmarked simple interrogative sentences, and rarely asked questions with complex or compound sentences Also, quite a few of the student questions were ungrammatical In the discourse which began with student questions, more than half of the interactions were made up of Initiation-Response (IR) patterns, lacking evaluation or feedback which usually appears in teacher-initiated discourse Student questions often contributed to the increase of classroom interactions and comprehension of sentences or lexical items through negotiation of meaning The native instructors often used them as scaffolding for providing other associated or related knowledge Student questions were of some help in estimating their level of grammatical knowledge or speaking ability (Naval Academy) Key words student question, classroom interactions, scaffolding, convergent/divergent question, grammatical modification * This study was funded by Naval Institute of Ocean Research funded by the National Research Fund of Korea in 2011 234 언어과학연구 제58집 Introduction These days our pedagogical environments are changing rapidly from teacherdirected classrooms to student-centered ones In the student- centered classrooms, students quite often ask various kinds of questions, through which they try to understand the content in their own way, see connections in concepts, and apply them to real-life situations In those settings teachers also have begun to change their view on student questions: they are regarding student questions as a means of providing or processing essential information productively rather than as devices for the evaluation of learning or comprehension (Walsh & Sattes, 2005) As a result, during the past decade, many researchers such as Ellis (2008), Wilen, Hutchison & Ishler (2008), and Ohta & Nakone (2004) have shown great interest in student questions However, until recently, there has been little progress on the study of classroom discourse which is initiated by student questions One reason is because students typically have participated in the classroom discourse much less than teachers, and have also done so in quite limited ways; in other words, in classroom discourse led by Initiation-Response- Follow-up/Evaluation (IRF/E) exchanges, students have usually took the role of ‘response' Another reason is because researchers have had difficulty in collecting data which include student questions in an EFL class; for example, Ohta and Nakone (2004) found that in a Japanese EFL class students asked only twenty questions out of 40 hours of instruction Here, taking advantage of the student-initiated discourse which was transcribed during the native teachers' regular class, the researcher tried to find a few characteristics and effects of student questions in Korean EFL classes: What types of questions the students prefer to ask? At what cognitive level are student questions? Do student questions affect classroom interactions which could lead to better learning? Does student initiation also show the same interactional patterns as teacher-initiated discourse? What are formal characteristics of students questions? Do the native teachers respond directly to the student questions? The result will be of some help in understanding the realities of student questions Characteristics of Student Questions in Korean EFL Classes 235 in a Korean EFL class, and in finding out how to take advantage of student questions more effectively Also, it will provide some direction on how student questions should be improved or developed for the enhancement of students’ communicative and cognitive ability in Korean EFL classes Literature Review 2.1 Effects of Student Questions The purpose of questioning is to engage thinking, extend thinking, share thinking, or clarify and confirm thinking (Rogers, 2002) Questions are one of the best ways teachers could seize the initiative in the classroom exchange, control the classroom, and facilitate or sustain participation by the students However, in today's student-centered classrooms, many researchers such as Wilen, Hutchison and Ishler (2008) and Walsh and Sattes (2005) recommended that teachers reduce the number of questions they ask, and help students formulate many high-quality questions for effective learning and teaching Until now, many researchers have found some effects and characteristics of student questions in the classroom discourse: First of all, by taking initiative through questions, students can use a wide variety of communicative acts and expressions that can be widely used in real-life situations Ellis (2008) said that in the student-centered role- playing the students often used discourse lubricants like topic introducers (for example, ‘Well', ‘As you know') and various kinds of supportive moves which were widely used in a natural setting In contrast, in the teacher-directed discussion, the students confined themselves to an ‘interactional core' like ‘Yes' or 'No' in the discussion Cathcart (1986) also found that in a variety of school settings where the students had control of the conversation, the student's discourse was featured by various communicative acts and syntactic structures; however, in the settings over which the teacher had control the students usually produced single-word utterances, short phrases and formulaic sequences 236 언어과학연구 제58집 Next, students were more likely to acquire a form and incorporate it into their utterance in student-initiated discourse rather than in teacher-directed This may have been because student-initiated focus-on-form addresses the actual gap in the students' knowledge whereas teacher-initiated focus-on-form only deals with forms which the teacher hypothesizes might be problematic (Ellis, Basturkmen, & Loewen, 2001) Students may be pushed to use language at the limits of their competence in order to make their questions comprehensible (Seliger and Long, 1983); that is, they should think out an appropriate expression, perform a syntactic analysis of the expression, choose appropriate words, and pronounce them more clearly In addition, teachers can take advantage of student questions for the negotiation of meaning: they can request clarification and ask other questions in order to check whether their input was comprehensible This process is regarded as particularly helpful in promoting language acquisition because students usually ask questions when they are confused or want to get more information (Cundale, 2001) Finally, by formulating questions, students can connect new information to old, and thereby experience learning as understanding (Walsh & Sattes, 2005) The students who make connections between new content and personal experience are engaging in productive and long-term learning These students develop intrinsic motivation and the skills of lifelong learning (Wells, 2001) Especially in those EFL contexts where the students have few opportunities to interact with native speakers in a natural setting, student questions in the classroom discourse can be a valuable opportunity to actively practice and experiment with the target language under the students' own initiation 2.2 Classification of Student Questions Many researchers have developed various frameworks to classify functions of questions from either a pedagogical and linguistic point of view or according to different kinds of thinking and cognition From the pedagogical point of view, Barnes (1969) first divided questions into closed and open ones, but his framework of questioning was unbalanced and developed as part of curriculum development in Characteristics of Student Questions in Korean EFL Classes 237 L1 classes, so it was not suitable for the analysis of student questions in EFL classes After that, Long and Sato (1984) developed a framework for the analysis of teachers' questions using Barne's (1969) and Kearsley's framework of questions, and tried to cover all functions of questions in L2 classrooms Because their framework of questions reflected the change of English teaching method in L2 classroom from a traditional teaching method to a communicative teaching method (Chaudron, 1988), many researchers such as Nunan(1989), Seedhouse(2004) and Walsh(2006) adopted their framework in the analysis of questions of L2 classrooms in one way or another However, Long and Sato's (1984) framework didn't include questions on classroom management and procedure which are beginning to play an increasingly visible role in today's classroom environments In fact, a few procedural or managerial questions were found in the corpus of student questions in Korean EFL courses Thus, to analyze functions of questions from both the linguistic and the managerial or procedural point of view, Richard and Lockhart (1996) developed anothere framework of questions, which classified the types of questions into three parts procedural, convergent, and divergent ones Their division of questions makes it easy to classify student questions because it is only centered on the content of the question itself rather than the learning procedure or teachers' point of view In addition their division of questions can handle so-called ‘pseudo communication' 1) without difficulty, which could be shown in the following example: How long have you worn glasses? (Ellis, 2008) So, what advice would you give the parents? (Cundale, 2001) Following Long and Sato's (1983) framework of questions, the above questions might be considered both as display and as referential because on one hand, part of the answer was predictable as the situation was set by the text, but on the 1) ‘pseudo-communication’is a discourse in which it is not clear whether the question is for structural purpose or for informational purpose (McTear 1975) 238 언어과학연구 제58집 other hand, students could provide their own information (Cundale, 2001) However, according to Richard and Lockhart (1996) the second question is classified simply as divergent because it not only requires students to formulate several answers but also engages them in still higher-level thinking rather than the first question Next, questions can be classified from a cognitive point of view Van Lier (1988) and Ellis (2008) contended that in order to examine the characteristics and effects of student questions, student questions should be analyzed in terms of cognitive demands as well as interactive purpose and linguistic production Recently, for the analysis of questions from both cognitive levels and knowledge dimension, Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) revised and extended the well-known Bloom's (1987) taxonomy It incorporates both a cognitive process dimension (knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation) and a knowledge dimension (factual, conceptual, procedural, and meta-cognitive knowledge) Recently, for the development of quality questioning, Walsh and Sattes (2005) developed a comprehensive analytic framework of questions which incorporates both Richard and Lockhart's (1996) linguistic framework and Anderson and Krathwohl's (2001) cognitive levels and knowledge dimensions Therefore, in order to comprehensively analyze all kinds of student questions in the Korean EFL classrooms, the researcher adopted Walsh and Sattes' (2005) classification of questions According to Walsh and Sattes (2005), student questions can be classified into three types: First, convergent questions have a correct or acceptable response, and not require respondents to engage in high-level thinking They serve to facilitate the recall of information rather than to generate student ideas and classroom communication They can be included in the cognitive process dimensions of ‘recall' and ‘apply' in Bloom's Taxonomy Second, divergent questions have multiple, alternative, correct responses They call on respondents to utilize higher-order thinking skills They encourage diverse responses which require students to provide their own information rather than to recall previously presented information They can be included in the cognitive process dimensions of ‘analyze', ‘evaluate' and ‘create' in Bloom's Taxonomy Characteristics of Student Questions in Korean EFL Classes 239 Last, procedural questions have to with classroom procedures or management, as opposed to the content of learning They are used to check assignments or instructions They have a different function from the other two types of questions which are designed to help students master the content of a lesson 2) Method 3.1 Participation and Data Collection 3.1.1 Participants The subjects for this research were comprised of four EFL instructors who taught English conversation to juniors in college There were three male and one female instructors, all with considerable TEFL experience Two out of the three male instructors majored in English literature and Anthropology while the other male instructor in English Linguistics The female instructor majored in Education Each of them had taught regular classes at the elementary or intermediate levels in various adult ESL programs for several years in Korea During the first semester of 2008, the instructors taught an English conversation course at a small college in Changwon, Korea They taught 14 to 16 hours every week All of them used Interchange (2005) and All Clear (1993) as their textbooks and submitted their syllabus two weeks before their classes began The English conversation course consisted of juniors from a range of different majors: electronics, shipbuilding, computer science, oceanography, military history, international relations and foreign languages During the first semester of 2008, 167 students took this course Every week, the students studied English conversation for 2) As mentioned before Long and Sato's (1983) epistemic classification of questions which was first developed in ESL classroom are most widely used in the classification of questions, butit doesn't include the procedural question 240 언어과학연구 제58집 two hours The class was managed in small groups and each group consisted of eight to thirteen students Their TEPS score was between 450 and 800 points, and they usually had little time to preview or review their textbooks before or after class The four teaching assistants who took notes of the topics studied in America or the U.K for over years and got higher than 600 points on the TOEFL PBT tests 3.1.2 Data Collection All of the data were transcribed by the teaching assistants while while they were assisting the native teachers' classroom activities during the 1st semester of 2008 Before class, the researcher chose two or three topics of dialogue or idioms from the native instructors' syllabus After that, with the permission of the four instructors the teaching assistants took notes of their classroom discourse on those topics every Thursday for ten weeks The teaching assistants had little difficulty in taking notes of the discourse because they assisted the instructors every day They took notes of around ninety three topics which were dealt with in the interactions between the teachers and students, and thirty two topics out of them included eighty seven student questions with the exception of student greetings One of the interactions which was exchanged during discussion of the topic, ‘impolite expressions', can be seen in the following: T: When I was taking attendance, many of you said Yeah It is very impolite S1: What we have to say? T: You should say Yes instead of Yeah S2: Does it have other meaning in English? The above dialogue includes two student questions - one student question which asks how to say something politely and the other student question which asks the pragmatic difference between two expressions Characteristics of Student Questions in Korean EFL Classes 241 Fortunately, while the teaching assistants were taking notes of the discourse between teachers and students, the researcher could often attend their class as a supervisor, and had chances to observe or write their classroom activities and speech habits That was very helpful in classifying and analyzing their question forms For the classification of the student questions the researcher reviewed the discourse with the teaching assistants every Friday and used his experience and intuition to ascertain the types of questions presented 3.2 Research Questions As was mentioned in the introductory part this study surveys characteristics of student questions at various points: epistemic types or types of knowledge, level of content, grammatical forms, patterns of interactions, interactional contribution or pedagogical effects However, there has been little research into the characteristics of student questions, compared with those of teacher questions Therefore, for the orientation and comparison of this research the recent research of teacher questions as well as student questions should be mentioned briefly: First, which types of questions students prefer, convergent or divergent ones? Most researchers agree that language teachers prefer closed, display, or convergent questions to open, referential, or divergent ones As an example, Richards and Lockhart (1996) observed that teachers tend to ask more convergent questions than divergent ones Second, at what cognitive level are student questions? Walsh and Sattes (2005) argues that most teacher questions are at the lowest cognitive level - known as fact, recall, or knowledge - and not require high-order thinking However, Walsh and Sattes (2005) contended that high-level questions promote the development of thinking skills Third, how well the students phrase their questions grammatically? In order to phrase or form a good question it takes thought, skill, and practice Ellis (2008) summarized that teachers tend to use short utterances, few subordinate sentences and 242 언어과학연구 제58집 few marked structure, and to rarely use ungrammatical talk Fourth, what are interactional features of student questions? Many researchers agree that the IRF/E cycle and display questions appear to be universal or general in education For example, Seedhouse (2004) and Ellis (2008) contended that the IRF/E cycle and display questions appear to be universal phenomena in education and learning contexts Finally, student questions contribute to language acquisition or classroom pedagogical activities? Ellis (2008) proposed that learner initiation create the conditions that lead to the negotiation of meaning: it ensures the learner's interest in the activity, helps the teacher to identify what speech forms may lie within the learner's zone of proximal development, and provides a basis for determining the kind of scaffolding In the next part, the above research will be compared with the characteristics and effects of student questions in Korean EFL classes Results and Discussion The research consists of five parts In the first four parts, the formal characteristics of student questions - epistemic types, level of content, grammatical forms, patterns of interaction - are surveyed This analysis will show some characteristics of students' use of questions in Korean EFL classrooms In the last part the effects of student questions will be illustrated with examples It will clarify the pedagogical or interactional effects of students' questioning behaviour and may suggest the direction for the development of student questions in Korean EFL classroom interactions 4.1 Epistemic Types of Student Questions To examine the epistemic role of questions in the native teachers' EFL classes three kinds of questions are distinguished here - convergent, divergent and procedural 244 언어과학연구 제58집 T: Okay Instead of saying, “Give me the salt”, you could ask, “Would you pass me the salt?” to be polite Therefore, it can be said that in Korean EFL classrooms the students ask questions for comprehension and clarification on their text or discussion topics than for genuine exchange of information on personal ideas, attitudes or opinions That is the students might view their questions in the classrooms as devices to achieve their individual pedagogical purpose or to fill their lack of knowledge rather than as real-life communication in which they freely exchange information and establish a close rapport 4.2 Cognitive Level of Student Questions When applied to Anderson and Krathwohl's (2001) scheme of cognitive process dimension, most student questions were included in two basic levels - the domain of knowledge and comprehension They did not require high-order thinking but only sought factual or conceptual knowledge, which could be shown in Table Table Taxonomy Table Cognitive Process Dimension Knowledge Comprehension Vocabulary 26 10 Speaking & Presentation 10 15 Writing Grammar Others Total 41 33 Characteristics of Student Questions in Korean EFL Classes 245 In the above table, twenty six (53%) out of forty one questions at the level of knowledge dimension sought information on words: these questions were concerned with provision of information on words or idioms, or differences of meaning between two words On the other hand, at the level of comprehension dimension, fifteen (45%) out of thirty three questions were concerned with speaking and presentation That is, these questions were concerned with specification or concrete examples of teachers' explanations, description of personal ideas, or pragmatic categorization of an expression such as: What we have to say? Do you have special plan for the vacation? How about saying, “I really appreciate you doing this for me?” Therefore, it could be said that most of the student questions remained at low level cognition which required only comprehension and recall of factual or textual information, rather than high-order thinking skills 4.3 Grammatical Forms of Student Questions While teacher questions were usually grammatical, students often asked ungrammatical or impolite questions: thirty five (40%) out of eighty seven questions were ungrammatical or impolite, which could be shown in Table Also, most of the student questions in T-unit were unmarked simple interrogative sentences The ratio (50%) of ungrammatical sentences in divergent questions - that is, nine out of eighteen questions - was much higher than that (38%) of ungrammatical sentences in convergent questions- that is, twenty one out of fifty six questions That may mean that our students are not accustomed to asking divergent questions which are neither connected with their previous learning nor dealt with in their course of lesson 246 언어과학연구 제58집 Table Sentence Forms T-unit Form Fragment Total 21 56 18 Procedural 13 Total 43 35 87 Type Grammatical Ungrammatical Convergent 29 Divergent It is remarkable that student questions which included specific words or expressions such as 'like' or 'How about' were quite often ungrammatical or misused: *How about bossy? (I don't know the meaning of bossy.) *How does she look like? *Are they not the same meaning like, How are you? *So it's like What's the matter? It might be that quite a few students did not clearly know the usage or meaning of these words This may show that our students need to clearly understand the usage of some idiomatic expressions which are used quite often in their classroom or daily interactions 4.4 Patterns of Interaction In the student-initiated discourse of Korean EFL classrooms the pattern of Initiation- Response (IR) cycle was still more frequent than that of IRF/E cycle, which can be seen in Table More than half of the interactions which began with student questions were made up of IR patterns, lacking evaluation or feedback; that is, forty six (53%) out of eighty seven questions took the patterns of IR cycle while only thirteen questions (15%) took the pattern of IRF/E cycle 247 Characteristics of Student Questions in Korean EFL Classes Table Relation between Epistemic Types and Interactional Turns Number of Turns Type of Knowledge (I) (IR) (IRF) over Convergent 26 3 Divergent 11 46 13 11 Procedural Total 1 Also, epistemic types of questions - that is, convergent or divergent ones - had little part in increasing the amount of interaction, even though in teacher-initiated discourse referential or divergent questions promoted more interaction or invited multiple responses (Walsh and Sattes 2005) The amount of interaction was not decided by the epistemic types of questions but by other factors such as teachers' provision of new or related knowledge, grammatical modification of student questions, negotiation of meaning, or students' interest in the topics That is, it depends on teachers' pedagogical purpose or students' engagement in the topic whether the student- initiated discourse will be extended or not In addition, when students asked questions, the teacher rarely subverted 3) but provided direct answers to students, which was contrasted with the teacher-directed lessons (Ellis, 2008: 811-812) Teachers provided answers directly to seventy nine out of eighty seven students but did not give an answer to only seven student questions, which could be shown in Table 5: Table Types of Responses Direct Answer 79 Indirect Answer No response Total 87 3) Markee (2000) & Ellis (2008) pointed out that a counter-question is ineffective because the fact that the students had asked for help indicates that they had been unable to fill the gap in their knowledge by themselves 248 언어과학연구 제58집 Seven (8%) out of eighty seven questions to which the teachers did not provide an answer related to the teachers' personal life The teachers dodged the answers to these questions by correcting the grammatical mistakes of student questions themselves: S1: How many family you want? T: How many children you want? S3: How about your family? T: “How about”is a desire 4.5 Effects of Student Questions Based on the analysis of student questions in Korean EFL classrooms, the researcher could find or prove the effects of those questions: First, student questions often increased or promoted classroom interaction They could increase interaction between students and the teacher while the students were trying to interpret the teacher's information or the teacher was trying to provide more information using their questions: S1: Sir, what does get down to business mean? T: Getting down to business means to or finish what you are supposed to S2: So, you mean finish work? T: Close You say let's get down to business when more than two people are on the same task For example, what you guys and I when we meet each other? S1: We study English! T: Bingo! So, what would getting down to business mean for us? Ss: Study English! T: There you go In the above discourse, the first student initiated discourse by asking the meaning of the idiom, ‘get down to', for which the teacher provided the answer Next, the second student tried to confirm the information provided by the teacher, but his question showed that he did not understand the teacher’s explanation So, the teacher used an example for clarification, and asked a simplified question Finally the first student comprehended its meaning The comprehension of this small phrase required Characteristics of Student Questions in Korean EFL Classes 249 quite a few turns of interactions between the teacher and students Many researchers like Shomoossi (2004) and Ellis (2008) agree that the increase of classroom interactions could give students a chance to practice and learn the target language quickly and heighten conceptual understanding Second, student questions helped the teacher identify students' level of knowledge or cognition, which might agree with Wilen, Hutchison & Ishler's (2008) proposal that student questions both show and stimulate a corresponding level of cognition Based on the knowledge of the topic which the student questions showed, the teacher could often decide whether (s)he should proceed to the next stage without further explanation or provide more information Look at the following two interactions of the words, ‘brainstorm' and ‘coherence' T: One popular way to create pre-writing ideas is to ask yourself questions about your subject Here are some questions you might ask yourself: what I know about this subject?; how does this subject relate to me?; what I like or dislike about this subject?; what words best describe it? Write only a word or phrase in response to each question Ss: We have to brainstorm? T: Good That’s what you are going to do! T: Coherence is a state or situation in which all the parts or ideas fit together well so that they form a united whole S: So, you mean a sentence with no mistake? T: Well, yes Something like a perfect sentence, but it's more like a clear, straightforward sentence S: Can you give me an example? The above interactions took place during their writing exercise In the former discourse the student's level of knowledge shows that the teacher need not provide further explanation because the students' response shows that they already know the basic method of writing On the other hand, in the latter dialogue the student's question shows that his understanding of the word ‘coherence' is insufficient, so the teacher further illustrated its meaning with examples 250 언어과학연구 제58집 Third, student questions could be used as scaffolding4) for providing other associate or useful information That can be shown in the following discourse on the word ‘gross.' T: These movies are ranked just by the gross amount S: What you mean, gross? T: Ah Okay Let's take a look at these two words (Writing ‘gross' and ’net' on the board) Gross means just the money you make For example, you earn $500 per month That's your gross salary However, actually you get less money than that because of the taxes So, you get around $430 something That's the net amount of your salary In the above dialogue the student's question provided the teacher with the opportunity to explain the meaning of ‘net' in addition to ‘gross' because they are related to one another and are often used in the same context Fourth, student questions could be of great help in promoting comprehension of sentences or lexical items through negotiation of meaning Student questions often showed whether the teacher's explanation or message was understood or not In case of incomplete understanding, the teacher could remedy it through interaction Also, these kinds of interactive modifications are more important than the teacher's individual modification (Ellis, 2008; Chaudron, 1988) T: What's difference between What's the problem? and What's yourproblem? S1: Are they not the same meaning like, How are you? T: Good attempt What else? Ss: (silent) T: Listen carefully First, the meaning of What's the problem? is to ask someone how they feel It's same as Are you OK? S2: So it's like What's the matter? T: Got it Perfect! Cool! Then, what about What's your problem? 4) In language acquisition studies, scaffolding refers to the provision through conversation of linguistic structures that promote a learner's recognition or production of those structures or associate forms (Chaudron, 1988, p.10) Characteristics of Student Questions in Korean EFL Classes 251 In the above discourse, the first student's question shows that (s)he could not distinguish between the two expressions However, with the help of the teacher's further illustration of its meaning, the second student could finally understand the meaning of the expression, “What's the problem?” Finally, student questions themselves often showed their syntactic or wording ability Many questions often were almost incomprehensible: T: The meaning, bossy comes from the word, boss Do you know boss? He is in charge of the group At work, he sometimes makes you things, open the window, get him a coffee, and so on S: This telling means this meaning like the order? T: It is a kind of ordering Yes In the above discourse, the student's question for clarification might be translated as “Does ‘bossy' mean a person who likes to give a lot of orders to other people?”5) However, his question was so poor in grammar that the teacher did not correct his question but provided a simple answer These ungrammatical questions may interfere with the flow of natural discourse and block further development of interactions To sum up, all of the above characteristics and effects show that teachers students should encourage students to ask much more questions and students should develop their own questioning ability in Korean EFL classrooms Conclusion and Pedagogical Implications This study tried to derive some characteristics and effects of student questions in Korean EFL classes which were managed by native teachers The results may offer some tips for improvement of student questions in Korean EFL classrooms: First, only thirty two (34%) of ninety three topics included student questions, quite a few of which were concerned with the meaning or usage of words or idioms 5) The native teacher who taught this class provided the translation 252 언어과학연구 제58집 regardless of the topics This suggests that students need to play a more active role in classroom discourse and teachers provide them with an environment in which student questions are encouraged Second, the ratio of student's convergent questions was about three times higher than that of divergent questions in Korean EFL class; that is, Korean students asked much more questions for comprehension and clarification on their text or discussion topics than for genuine exchange of information Therefore, the students should be encouraged to ask more divergent questions in order to build up practical communicative ability and exchange real-life information Third, most student questions were included at the lowest cognitive level: they asked questions which required factual or conceptual knowledge rather than procedural or meta-cognitive knowledge So, it can be proposed that teachers should lead the student to ask higher-level questions because these questions can promote the development of thinking skills and positively improve student achievement (Walsh and Sattes, 2005) Fourth, more than one third of student questions were ungrammatical Therefore, our students need to practice asking grammatical and polite questions because ungrammatical or impolite questions often interfered with the flow of communication and failed to achieve the original communicative purpose Finally, in our student-initiated discourse around half of the discourse which started with student questions were made up of IR patterns, and lacked follow-up or feedback Students need to recognize that teachers also want to get students' feedback, by which teachers can decide whether they should provide further information or proceed to the following pedagogical activities This survey also found some pedagogical effects of student questions in Korean EFL classrooms: increase of real-life interaction, identification of students' level of knowledge or cognition, filling the gap in students' individual knowledge, correction or provision of knowledge through negotiation of meaning, and grammatical modification of questions themselves However, further research with much more data is needed to shed more light on the characteristics and effects of student questions in Korean EFL classes Characteristics of Student Questions in Korean EFL Classes 253 It is hoped that this study could be a small aid to the improvement of students' questioning ability in Korean EFL classes References Anderson, L W & D R Krathwohl 2001 A taxonomy of Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, New York: Addison Wesley Longman Cathcart, R 1986 “Situational Differences and the Sampling of Young Children's School Language”, In Rowley, R Day (ed), Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition, Mass.: Newbury House Chaudron, C 1988 Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and Learning, Cambridge University Press Cundale, N 2001 “What We Preach?” Stated Beliefs about Communicative Language Teaching and Classroom, Anglo Mexican Cultural Institute Ellis, R 2008 The Study of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford: Oxford University Press Ellis, R., H Basturkmen & S Loewen 2001 “Learner Uptake in Communicative ESL Lessons,” Language Learning 51, 281-318 Hunkins, F P 1995 Teaching Thinking through Effective Questioning, Boston: Christopher-Gorden Publishers Long, M H., & C J Sato 1983 “Classroom Foreigner Talk Discourse: Forms and Functions of Teacher's Questions”, In Seliger, H W and M H Long (eds), Classroom–oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition, Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House, 268-286 Lynch, T 1989 “Researching teachers: behaviour and belief.” In Brumfit C and R Mitchel (eds), Research in the Language Classroom, Modern English Publications in Association with The British Council Nathan, M J & Suyeon Kim 2007 “Regulation of Teacher Elicitation and the Impact on Student Participation and Cognition”, WCER Working Paper 4: 3-30 Ohta, A & T Nakone 2004 “When Students Ask Questions: Teacher and Peer Answers in the Foreign Language Classroom”, International Review of Applied 254 언어과학연구 제58집 Linguistics 42, 217-37 Redfield, D L & E W Rousseau 1981 “A Meta-analysis of Experimental Research on Teacher Questioning Behavior”, Review of Educational Research, 51, 237245 Richard, J C & C Lockhart 1996 Reflecting Teaching in Second Language Classrooms, Cambridge University Press Seedhouse, P 2004 The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A Conversation Analysis Perspective, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Inc Seliger, H & M Long 1983 Classroom-oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition, Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Shomoossi, N 2004 “The Effect of Teachers' Questioning Behaviour on EFL Classroom Interaction: A Classroom Research Study”, The Reading Matrix 4-2, 96-104 Van Lier, L 1988 The Classroom and the Language Learner, London: Longman Walsh, S 2006 Investigating Classroom Discourse, New York: Routledge Walsh, J A & B D Sattes 2005 Quality Questioning, London: AEL Wells, G 2001 “The Development of a Community of Inquiries”, In Wells, G (ed), Action, Talk, and Text: Learning and Teaching through Inquiry, New York: Teachers College Press, 1-24 Wilen, W., J Hutchison & M Ishler 2008 Dynamics of Effective Secondary Teaching, Boston: Pearson Education Inc Characteristics of Student Questions in Korean EFL Classes List of student questions (Convergent Questions) - *How many years have you been to the USA and Canada? - How you spell Halloween? - Is sushi raw fish? - What is a blind date? - What does mandatory mean? - What does photosynthesis mean? - What is photosynthesis? - What's the word in Korean? - Do you know the game Starcraft ? - *What mean irrigate? - What's shift gear? - What is 새우 in English? - Right But how about bananas? - *How about bossy? I don’t know bossy - *This telling means this meaning like the order? - What is gossip? - Mooch? - I don’t know what ritual means - *What you mean, gross? - *What is monument? - Can you say a male friend and a female friend? - *Are they not the same meaning like, How are you? - *So it’s like, What's the matter? - Status What? - What does status quo mean? - *What tranquility mean? - What does get down to business mean? - So, you mean finish work? 255 256 언어과학연구 제58집 - What you mean by call it a day? - Beats me? What you mean? We didn't beat you up - A night owl? Isn’t it an animal? The one with huge eyes and brown feathers? - Butterflies in what? We don't have any butterflies in our stomachs - Have you ever tried drugs? - *Does it have other meaning in English? - *What we have to say? - How about saying, I really appreciate you doing this for me? - Throw eggs? *Hmmm to whom? - You said that in high school students usually throw the eggs and ? - *Where they do, in school? - Did you have a great time when you went to Seoul? - *We ask any questions? - *What about the politics? - Yeah, many times But we don’t exactly know what that means - *How many family you want? - *When you marry? - *How about your family? - *Do you like father or mother? - *Do you have penalties from your father? - *What your family want? - Desire? - It's none of your business? - We have to brainstorm? - Is the word perso” countable? - Yes, it's people But can persons be used as well? - I don’t know how to spell Niagara Falls - What was that? (Divergent Questions) - What is it like in Canada? Characteristics of Student Questions in Korean EFL Classes - *What you like to on your free time? - Is it related with plants? - Is there any difference between obsessive and stubborn? - *Then, is there a difference a statue and a monument? - What is the difference between marching and parade? - No What happened? - *How does she look like? - Sometimes bad words? - *Is there any more things? - *Could you say that specifically? - Are there any ideas? - *Do you have any special plan for the vacation? - *You mean a sentence with no mistake? - Can you give me an example? - Then, can I use people and persons in any sentence? - *Which is the difference between the right-brained and the left-brained? - *Big city and small town, which is better? (Procedural Questions) - *Can we use the dictionary? - More than minutes? - *Do you mean that there should be three space in between? - *Work two people? - How many sentences? - So we have to write sentences according to the topic? - When are we writing an essay? - *What is the boundary of the quiz? - Can you give us some hints? - I have a question Where did you find these questions? - *If you think that is not word? - Give me a reason why we have to buy a new notebook - Is that all you can say? 257 258 언어과학연구 제58집 황기동 (645-031) 창원시 진해구 앵곡동 해군사관학교 사서함88-1 교수부 영어과 전화: 055-549-1246 Cell: 010-4019-5177 전자우편: kdhwang8@hanmail.net 투고논문접수일 2011년 8월 10일 논 문 심 사 일 2011년 8월 24일 심 사 완 료 일 2011년 9월 16일 ... to the student questions? The result will be of some help in understanding the realities of student questions Characteristics of Student Questions in Korean EFL Classes 235 in a Korean EFL class,... developed as part of curriculum development in Characteristics of Student Questions in Korean EFL Classes 237 L1 classes, so it was not suitable for the analysis of student questions in EFL classes After... effects of student questions in Korean EFL classes: What types of questions the students prefer to ask? At what cognitive level are student questions? Do student questions affect classroom interactions