Display and referential questions

Last updated

A display question (also called known-information question) is a type of question requiring the other party to demonstrate their knowledge on a subject matter when the questioner already knows the answer. [1] They are contrasted with referential questions (or information-seeking questions), a type of question posed when the answer is not known by the questioner at the time of inquiry. [2] [3]

Contents

Both question types are used widely in language education in order to elicit language practice but the use of referential questions is generally preferred to the use of display questions in communicative language teaching. [3] [4] Display questions bear similarities to closed questions in terms of their requirement for short and limited answers and they can be classified under convergent questions. On the other hand, referential questions and open questions are similar in their requirement for long, often varied, answers, and can be grouped under divergent questions. [5]

Both display and referential questions are subcategories of epistemic questions.

Epistemic questions

Epistemic questions are questions that seek information. Subcategories of it includes display, referential, rhetorical and expressive questions. [6]

Context of usage

Language education classrooms

Long and Sato (1983) first applied the terms display and referential questions in the field of second language pedagogy, differentiating them according to the actions each type of question performs. [7]

Examples

Richards and Schmidt give the following example of a display question:

Q: Is this a book?
A: Yes, it's a book. [3]

Omari gives the following examples of a referential question:

Q: Which character in the story you admire most and why?
Q: What would you do if you were in the judge’s place? [8]

Brainstorming

Referential questions are employed at higher rates when brainstorming a topic and gathering responses. [9] As there is no one fixed answer to referential questions, they can be used to instigate genuine communication, thereby facilitating less restricted discourse and promoting greater creativity in the classroom.

Eliciting existing knowledge

Display questions work best for eliciting short and low-level answers that correspond to the answer already expected by the teacher. Since referential questions serve to request for new information, answers can be subjective and varied based on the students' opinions, judgement and experiences. Students answer referential questions with the goal of assisting teachers in filling the information gaps. [5]

Checking on understanding

Display questions are mainly used as a means to evaluate whether the listener has understood what is needed. [10] There is a tendency for display questions to be employed when addressing groups of people, such as in a classroom setting, and referential questions when addressing individuals. In addition, students' language proficiency greatly affects the chances of being asked display questions by the teacher. Teachers are more likely to pose display questions to the student with a lower proficiency on the topic being discussed. The teachers' teaching skills also correlates to the frequency at which display questions are asked. Less experienced teachers tend to ask more display questions. [11]

A study by Barnes (1983) found that in universities, about 80% of the questions asked by the teachers are to recall facts. Questions by teachers tend to be display questions while student-initiated questions are referential (Markee, 1995). [12]

Online communication

A study by Blanchette (2007) shows that in online communication, the teacher asked both referential and display questions while students asked only referential questions. This finding agrees with Markee's (1995) conclusion that the majority of student-initiated questions are referential. However, this is not because the participants only asked questions for which they did not know the answer for. These questions can bring numerous possible responses and therefore it reflects the higher cognitive levels in the questions. [12]

Other institutional settings

Asymmetrical conversation is characteristic of institutional talk as opposed to everyday interactions among participants of equal status. [13] As the use of display questions tend to reproduce asymmetrical conversation, [14] they can be found in several institutional settings.

Display questions may sometimes be used by media interviewers and courtroom attorneys in the presence of an overhearing audience to assert their views or opinions. [13] In a counsel-witness interaction, a counsel's question is directed at the witness with other participants acting as indirect receivers, and the witness's response is not in fact directed at the counsel, who typically already know the answer to their own questions, but at the judge and jury. This kind of interaction can be seen as a display talk. [15] Similarly in media interviews, the follow-up is usually left to the listener or viewer following the interviews, unlike situations like classrooms and quizzes where a follow-up from the questioner on whether the answer is correct is present. [16]

Doctors also often use known-information questions when interacting with patients. Even though they usually already possess the information, these questions are asked only to evaluate the patient through their responses. While the doctor might ask the patient for something in particular, the patient would understand the content of the question but they might not understand the point of it since the doctor already knows the answer. [17]

Communicative performance

Display questions are more directive than authentic questions, and they promote greater ability in thinking by spurring students to have to back up their contribution. Utilising display questions that build on previous statements made by the students in a rephrased or simplified form facilitates the production of a more elaborate dialogue. [10] As output is an important part of language learning, pushed output is necessary in classrooms to engage the students and encourage them to talk in the language they are learning. There is a need to determine the effects of the question types on communicative classroom interaction and student output. Its effectiveness correlates to the authenticity in the second language classroom. [4]

Referential questions are often seen as a way to add meaningful usage of a language. Output from the students solicited from referential questions appear three times as much than other question types, especially so for beginner classes, even though beginner language students were expected to interact less due to the limited knowledge of the language. [18] When learners were asked referential questions, responses are found to be significantly longer and syntactically complex. [19] Non-verbal communication and the need to use a dictionary also increased when responding to referential questions. Learners themselves are found to be more interested in referential question activity and agree that it is more conducive in bringing higher quality and quantity output, and also motivated interaction. [4]

However, there are also studies that found no increase in learner response with referential questions. Where learners have little collective knowledge, bombarding students with questions is unlikely to garner increased output. [20]

There is some evidence that imply that display questions are not as injurious as many think. [10] Kachur & Prendergast (1997), cited in Boyd (2006), found that asking 70% of authentic questions resulted in a lack of student participation, while lowering the amount to 32% resulted in the students being more engaged. This is explained as due to the ethos of mutual respect that is further studied by Christoph & Nystrand (2001). It is stated that in a classroom with mutual respect, the teachers and students are not inclined to introduce new topics. Instead, they extend topical episodes by being invested in listening and responding to the utterances of others.

Cognitive effects

When pitted on an intellectual scale, display questions are deemed to be posed at low cognitive levels because such questions require only basic recollection of factual information, which is at the lowest level of the hierarchy. In contrast, referential questions, in calling for evaluation or judgement, are associated with the highest cognitive levels. [19]

Finding the correct answer to display questions involves higher-level cognitive thinking. Beyond eliciting known information (on the asker's part) and recognizing the content of questions (on the askee's part), answering display questions also involves active consideration and interpretation of the way the questions are organised as each display question is designed with a specific answer in mind. [21]

Questions that require lower cognitive levels to answer are seen as injurious, even though questioning holds a major role in classroom interaction. This type of question does not encourage participation nor does it stimulate student thinking. Studies by Barnes (1983), Fischer and Grant (1983) as cited by Blanchette (2007) [12] have found that instructors at the post-secondary level tend to ask questions of lower cognitive levels.

Pragmatics and discourse

Nature of interaction

Classroom interaction features heavily in communicative language teaching,[ citation needed ] as it provides an avenue for language learners to practice conversing in the target language without judgement. The type of questions used to steer interaction is critical as it determines the types of responses that will be garnered.

Forced vs Natural

In cases of classroom interaction where more display questions are used as opposed to referential questions, participation appears forced and unnatural. [7] This was found to be true regardless of whether the teacher doing the asking is experienced or otherwise. [22] The exclusive or excessive use of display questions generally leads to lower instances of classroom communication. [23]

Referential questions are seen as an effective method of increasing oral participation because it creates opportunities for students to voice their opinions. [9] The added bonus that there is no one specific answer encourages students to be less afraid of making mistakes and be more productive.

Type of feedback

Display and referential questions form part of a question-answer sequence consisting of an initiation, response, and follow-up (IRF). [24] A follow-up with an evaluative function, commenting on the response to a question, is a distinguishing element of classroom conversation, and the difference between sequences with evaluative follow-ups compared to those serving as acknowledgements has been regarded as a major difference between display and referential questions. [2]

An example of responding with an acknowledgement:

Speaker A: What time is it, Denise?
Speaker B: 2:30
Speaker A: Thank you, Denise

An example of responding with an evaluation:

Speaker A: What time is it, Denise?
Speaker B: 2:30
Speaker A: Very good, Denise

The IRF sequence is commonly found in classroom discourse, of which display questions are a distinguishing feature. Feedback is important to a learner, so a teacher's follow-up would normally evaluate the learner's response with words like right or yes, sometimes including a repetition of the response for others to hear. Feedback is also important when students provide technically-correct answers but they are not what the teacher is looking for. An absence of feedback from the teacher can also be an indication to the student that his or her answer is wrong. IRF sequences in everyday discourse seldom include evaluative follow-ups, and responses in casual conversations often carry relational functions such as showing agreement or expressing a particular emotion. [25] [26]

There are opposing views on the use of IRF exchanges in the classroom setting. It has been seen as a poor and unproductive model for spoken interaction in the target language outside the classroom due to its failure in enabling students to learn the demands of everyday conversation. [26] Too often, follow-ups are carried out by teachers, leading to learners having to take on the role of passive respondents without getting sufficient experience in performing requests and using listener follow-ups. This can be improved by allowing students to participate in peer-to-peer interactions as platforms to generate appropriate listener responses. [27]

In contrast, typical IRF exchanges could still be useful in classroom situations where teachers assign the kind of interactional status that helps learners be actively involved in the interactions. Productive use of conversational responses in peer-to-peer speech practices could be eventually achieved if teachers provide exposure to and guidance on the use of follow-ups. [28]

Turn-taking

Display questions are mostly found in the classroom in the three-turn sequence of initiation-response-evaluation (IRE). In this sequence, the teacher asks a question in the first turn, following a reply from the students in the second turn. Upon going back to the teacher in the next turn, the teacher gives feedback on the adequacy of the students’ response. This sequence is considered structurally robust. Teachers can continuously go through interactional revision when continuing the conversation with a student using this sequence. This allows for methodical revision and negotiation between speakers. As the teacher analyses the student's replies and reformulates the following question, each question becomes a repair of the one before and thus becomes an interpretive resource based on the teacher's analysis and decisions derived from the prior exchange. [21]

Frequency of turns

The use of referential questions in classroom discourse promotes a significantly higher number of speaking turns as compared to the usage of display questions. [19]

It is often assumed that display questions are less engaging than referential questions. However, depending on the process of how the teacher uses the display questions, and what they achieve from those processes, display questions can become an effective teaching variable in lessons. [21]

Duration between turns

Responses to display questions have been found to be rather prompt in requiring only factual recall. Referential questions are known to elicit higher-order responses resulting from critical thinking. [9] Thus, there is typically a longer wait-time between turns where referential questions are involved.

However, responses to referential questions do not always take the form of complex utterances. The following example is a case in point:

Teacher: Can you swim?
Student: Yes, I can. [29]

In the same vein, display questions do not always garner immediate responses because the language learner may have the knowledge but lack the vocabulary to express it, thereby contributing to a longer-wait-time.

See also

Related Research Articles

Social constructivism is a sociological theory of knowledge according to which human development is socially situated, and knowledge is constructed through interaction with others. Like social constructionism, social constructivism states that people work together to actively construct artifacts. But while social constructivism focuses on cognition, social constructionism focuses on the making of social reality.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Listening</span> Hearing what others are saying, and trying to understand what it means

Listening is giving attention to a sound. When listening, a person hears what others are saying and tries to understand what it means.

Instructional scaffolding is the support given to a student by an instructor throughout the learning process. This support is specifically tailored to each student; this instructional approach allows students to experience student-centered learning, which tends to facilitate more efficient learning than teacher-centered learning. This learning process promotes a deeper level of learning than many other common teaching strategies.

Collaborative learning is a situation in which two or more people learn or attempt to learn something together. Unlike individual learning, people engaged in collaborative learning capitalize on one another's resources and skills. More specifically, collaborative learning is based on the model that knowledge can be created within a population where members actively interact by sharing experiences and take on asymmetric roles. Put differently, collaborative learning refers to methodologies and environments in which learners engage in a common task where each individual depends on and is accountable to each other. These include both face-to-face conversations and computer discussions. Methods for examining collaborative learning processes include conversation analysis and statistical discourse analysis.

Communicative language teaching (CLT), or the communicative approach (CA), is an approach to language teaching that emphasizes interaction as both the means and the ultimate goal of study.

Technology integration is defined as the use of technology to enhance and support the educational environment. Technology integration in the classroom can also support classroom instruction by creating opportunities for students to complete assignments on the computer rather than with normal pencil and paper. In a larger sense, technology integration can also refer to the use of an integration platform and application programming interface (API) in the management of a school, to integrate disparate SaaS applications, databases, and programs used by an educational institution so that their data can be shared in real-time across all systems on campus, thus supporting students' education by improving data quality and access for faculty and staff.

"Curriculum integration with the use of technology involves the infusion of technology as a tool to enhance the learning in a content area or multidisciplinary setting... Effective technology integration is achieved when students can select technology tools to help them obtain information on time, analyze and synthesize it, and present it professionally to an authentic audience. Technology should become an integral part of how the classroom functions—as accessible as all other classroom tools. The focus in each lesson or unit is the curriculum outcome, not the technology."

Sequential bilingualism occurs when a person becomes bilingual by first learning one language and then another. The process is contrasted with simultaneous bilingualism, in which both languages are learned at the same time.

An intelligent tutoring system (ITS) is a computer system that imitates human tutors and aims to provide immediate and customized instruction or feedback to learners, usually without requiring intervention from a human teacher. ITSs have the common goal of enabling learning in a meaningful and effective manner by using a variety of computing technologies. There are many examples of ITSs being used in both formal education and professional settings in which they have demonstrated their capabilities and limitations. There is a close relationship between intelligent tutoring, cognitive learning theories and design; and there is ongoing research to improve the effectiveness of ITS. An ITS typically aims to replicate the demonstrated benefits of one-to-one, personalized tutoring, in contexts where students would otherwise have access to one-to-many instruction from a single teacher, or no teacher at all. ITSs are often designed with the goal of providing access to high quality education to each and every student.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Composition studies</span>

Composition studies is the professional field of writing, research, and instruction, focusing especially on writing at the college level in the United States.

Formative assessment, formative evaluation, formative feedback, or assessment for learning, including diagnostic testing, is a range of formal and informal assessment procedures conducted by teachers during the learning process in order to modify teaching and learning activities to improve student attainment. The goal of a formative assessment is to monitor student learning to provide ongoing feedback that can help students identify their strengths and weaknesses and target areas that need work. It also helps faculty recognize where students are struggling and address problems immediately. It typically involves qualitative feedback for both student and teacher that focuses on the details of content and performance. It is commonly contrasted with summative assessment, which seeks to monitor educational outcomes, often for purposes of external accountability.

A literature circle is equivalent for young people of an adult book club, but with greater structure, expectation and rigor. The aim is to encourage thoughtful discussion and a love of reading in young people. The intent of literature circles is "to allow students to practice and develop the skills and strategies of good readers".

Language teaching, like other educational activities, may employ specialized vocabulary and word use. This list is a glossary for English language learning and teaching using the communicative approach.

In linguistics, an adjacency pair is an example of conversational turn-taking. An adjacency pair is composed of two utterances by two speakers, one after the other. The speaking of the first utterance provokes a responding utterance. Adjacency pairs are a component of pragmatic variation in the study of linguistics, and are considered primarily to be evident in the "interactional" function of pragmatics. Adjacency pairs exist in every language and vary in context and content among each, based on the cultural values held by speakers of the respective language. Oftentimes, they are contributed by speakers in an unconscious way, as they are an intrinsic part of the language spoken at-hand and are therefore embedded in speakers' understanding and use of the language. Thus, adjacency pairs may present their challenges when a person begins learning a language not native to them, as the cultural context and significance behind the adjacency pairs may not be evident to a speaker outside of the primary culture associated with the language.

Dogme language teaching is considered to be both a methodology and a movement. Dogme is a communicative approach to language teaching that encourages teaching without published textbooks and focuses instead on conversational communication among learners and teacher. It has its roots in an article by the language education author, Scott Thornbury. The Dogme approach is also referred to as "Dogme ELT", which reflects its origins in the ELT sector. Although Dogme language teaching gained its name from an analogy with the Dogme 95 film movement in which the directors, actors, and actresses commit a "vow of chastity" to minimize their reliance on special effects that may create unauthentic feelings from the viewers, the connection is not considered close.

A diary study is an in-depth reflection on learning processes or teaching experiences regularly kept by an individual and then analyzed to look for recurring patterns or significant events. Diary studies are often used in qualitative studies and can be analyzed by diarists themselves or by researchers. It is a research genre gaining popularity in the TESOL field. Originated from both psychological and anthropological research, diary studies involve systematic personal accounts of the feelings, thoughts, beliefs, attitudes and reactions over a period of time. In other words, it is a kind of self-observation, introspection and retrospection. Diarists can freely write about their thoughts and have no need to answer some previously imposed questions for the research. We can often find unexpected underlying factors, especially affective factors through diary studies. Common external research tools such as observation cannot reach the affective part so far.

Academic discourse socialization is defined as one's growing process to realize the academic discourse and reach the expectation of the academic community. Academic discourse socialization is a form of language socialization through which newcomers or novices gain knowledge of the academic discourses by socializing and interacting with peers, experts, or more knowledgeable people in their community and social network. A dynamic and complex process, academic discourse socialization requires negotiation of both knowledge and one's identity. This kind of interaction is defined as a bidirectional process in which both novice learners and experts learn from one another.

A dialogue journal is an ongoing written interaction between two people to exchange experiences, ideas, knowledge or reflections. It is used most often in education as a means of sustained written interaction between students and teachers at all education levels. It can be used to promote second language learning and learning in all areas.

The interaction hypothesis is a theory of second-language acquisition which states that the development of language proficiency is promoted by face-to-face interaction and communication. Its main focus is on the role of input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. It posits that the level of language that a learner is exposed to must be such that the learner is able to comprehend it, and that a learner modifying their speech so as to make it comprehensible facilitates their ability to acquire the language in question. The idea existed in the 1980s, and has been reviewed and expanded upon by a number of other scholars but is usually credited to Michael Long.

Literature Circles in EFL are teacher accompanied classroom discussion groups among English as a foreign language learners, who regularly get together in class to speak about and share their ideas, and comment on others' interpretations about the previously determined section of a graded reader in English, using their 'role-sheets' and 'student journals' in collaboration with each other.

Mobile computer-supported collaborative learning may have different meanings depending on the context in which it is applied. Mobile CSCL includes any in-class and out-of-class use of handheld mobile devices such as cell phones, smart phones, and personal digital assistants (PDAs) to enable collaborative learning.

References

  1. ↑ Vivekmetakorn, Chirasiri K; Thamma, Meentra (2015). "'Teacher Questioning from a Discourse Perspective". Language Education and Acquisition Research Network (LEARN) Journal. 8 (1): 63–87.
  2. 1 2 Mehan, Hugh (1979). "'What time is it, Denise?": Asking known information questions in classroom discourse". Theory into Practice. 18 (4): 285–294. doi:10.1080/00405847909542846. ISSN   0040-5841.
  3. 1 2 3 Richards, Jack C.; Schmidt, Richard, eds. (2009). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. New York: Longman. p. 178. ISBN   978-1-4082-0460-3.
  4. 1 2 3 Wright, Brenda M. (2016-12-31). "Display and referential questions: Effects on student responses". Nordic Journal of English Studies. 15 (4): 160–189–189. doi: 10.35360/njes.388 (inactive 2024-05-16). ISSN   1654-6970.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of May 2024 (link)
  5. 1 2 Erlinda, Rita; Dewi, Sari Rahma (2014). "Teacher's Questions in Efl Classroom". Ta'dib. 17 (2): 177–188. doi: 10.31958/jt.v17i2.271 .
  6. ↑ Farrell, Thomas S. C. (2018-09-06). Reflective Language Teaching: Practical Applications for TESOL Teachers. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN   9781350021372.
  7. 1 2 Long, Michael H; Sato, Charlene J (1983). Classroom foreigner talk discourse: forms and functions of teachers' questions. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. OCLC   943433969.
  8. ↑ Omari, Hamzah A. (2018-03-18). "Analysis of the Types of Classroom Questions Which Jordanian English Language Teachers Ask". Modern Applied Science. 12 (4): 1. doi: 10.5539/mas.v12n4p1 . ISSN   1913-1852.
  9. 1 2 3 Bozorgian, Hossein; Fallah, Sakineh (2017). "EFL Learners' Speaking Development: Asking Referential Questions" (PDF). Jurnal Pendidikan Malaysia. 42 (2): 99–106. doi:10.17576/JPEN-2017-42.02-03.
  10. 1 2 3 Boyd, Maureen; Rubin, Don (2006-06-01). "How Contingent Questioning Promotes Extended Student Talk: A Function of Display Questions". Journal of Literacy Research. 38 (2): 141–169. doi: 10.1207/s15548430jlr3802_2 . ISSN   1086-296X.
  11. ↑ Farahian, Majid; Rezaee, Mehrdad (2012). "A Case Study of an EFL Teacher's Type of Questions: An Investigation into Classroom Interaction". Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 47: 161–167. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.631 .
  12. 1 2 3 Blanchette, Judith (2007-08-10). "Questions in the Online Learning Environment". International Journal of e-Learning & Distance Education / Revue internationale du e-learning et la formation à distance. 16 (2): 37–57. ISSN   1916-6818.
  13. 1 2 Drew, Paul; Heritage, John (1992). Drew, Paul; Heritage, John (eds.). "Analyzing talk at work: an introduction". Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. OCLC   848709102.
  14. ↑ Strobelberger, Katrin (2012). Classroom Discourse in EFL Teaching: A Cross-cultural Perspective. Diplomica Verlag. ISBN   9783842873735.
  15. ↑ Tkačuková, Tatiana (2010-12-30). "The power of questioning: A case study of courtroom discourse". Discourse and Interaction. 3 (2): 49. ISSN   1805-952X.
  16. ↑ Carter, Ronald; McCarthy, Michael (2006). Cambridge grammar of English: a comprehensive guide: spoken and written English grammar and usage. Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press. ISBN   9780521588461. OCLC   63186193.
  17. ↑ Ribeiro, Branca Telles (1994-06-23). Coherence in Psychotic Discourse . Oxford University Press. p.  63. ISBN   9780195362121. doctor patient interaction discourse known answer questions.
  18. ↑ Wintergerst, Ann C. (1994). Second-language classroom interaction: questions and answers in ESL classes. University of Toronto Press. ISBN   0802029949. OCLC   802775538.
  19. 1 2 3 Brock, Cynthia A. (March 1986). "The Effects of Referential Questions on ESL Classroom Discourse". TESOL Quarterly. 20 (1): 47–59. doi:10.2307/3586388. ISSN   0039-8322. JSTOR   3586388.
  20. ↑ "Asking questions". TeachingEnglish | British Council | BBC. Retrieved 2019-04-11.
  21. 1 2 3 Lee, Yo-An (2006-12-01). "Respecifying Display Questions: Interactional Resources for Language Teaching". TESOL Quarterly. 40 (4): 691–713. doi:10.2307/40264304. ISSN   0039-8322. JSTOR   40264304.
  22. ↑ Pica, Teresa; Long, Michael (1986). "The linguistic and conversational performance of experienced and inexperienced teachers". Talking to learn: conversation in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. pp. 85–98.
  23. ↑ Cullen, Richard (1998). "Teacher talk and the classroom context". ELT Journal. 52 (3): 179–187. doi:10.1093/elt/52.3.179.
  24. ↑ Sinclair, J. M.; Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: the English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford University Press. OCLC   609479813.
  25. ↑ Coulthard, Malcolm (1977). An introduction to discourse analysis . Longman. ISBN   9780582550872.
  26. 1 2 O'Keeffe, Anne; McCarthy, Michael; Carter, Ronald (2007-05-03). From Corpus to Classroom: Language Use and Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press. ISBN   9780521851466.
  27. ↑ Ohta, Amy Snyder (2001-01-01). Second Language Acquisition Processes in the Classroom. doi:10.4324/9781410604712. ISBN   9781410604712.
  28. ↑ Kasper, G (2001-12-01). "Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development". Applied Linguistics. 22 (4): 502–530. doi:10.1093/applin/22.4.502. ISSN   0142-6001.
  29. ↑ Abhakorn, Jirapa (2014). "Asking Effective Referential Questions in an EFL Classroom" (PDF). The European Conference on Language Learning.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.