As demonstrated in section 3.7.6, international research into classroom pedagogi- cal behaviours suggests the IRF structure is central to all classroom teaching (Abd- Kadir & Hardman, 2007; Hardman, 2008a; Nystrand et al., 1997). IRF is prevalent in directive forms of teaching and often consists of closed teacher questions, brief stu- dents’ answers and superficial teacher non-constructive feedback. What is more, inter- national observational research has shown that the interaction which many learners ac- tually experience in classrooms does not help in maximising their cognitive engagement and growth (e.g., Alexander, 2008; Moyles, 2003; Nystrand et al., 1997). In fact, three kinds of teaching talk have been identified by Alexander (2001) as preva- lent internationally in many classrooms:
Rote, or the drilling of facts, ideas and routines through constant repetition. Recitation, or the accumulation of knowledge and understanding through ques-
tions designed to test or stimulate recall of what has previously been encoun- tered, or to cue students to work out answers from clues provided in the ques- tion.
Expository instruction, or imparting information and/or explaining facts, prin- ciples or procedures.
P a g e| 54 In addition to this, Hardman (2008b) links the discourse patterns that teachers use in the classroom to their prevailing contextual pedagogical beliefs and strategies. His re- search has found ‘[a] persistence of the teacher-led recitation approach and that with- out managing the quality of classroom discourse there will be no genuine dialogic teaching’ (p. 26). This highlights the role that context plays in shaping pedagogical perceptions and practices.
Nassaji and Wells (2000) argue that in the IRF structure questions mainly take place during the ‘I’ move which is overwhelmingly dominated by teachers. For teachers, questions are probably the most crucial and reliable technique that invites students’ participation as it implies continuous dialogue in the teaching process (Rajab, 2012). Through questions, teachers can check students’ understanding, promote their interac- tion, gauge the depth of their learning, and stimulate their motivation. In language classrooms, questions are used for pedagogical purposes particularly for assessment practices. Black and Harrison (2001, p. 58) state that questioning is ‘an important tool for assessment which can be used to promote classroom interaction’ and as a basic technique for testing understanding and improving learning.
However, during classroom interaction, several types of questions are used. The most common classification of teacher questions contrasts open and closed questions. Yet, this classification is not comprehensive, as questions in studies of classroom interac- tion can be classified as:
Closed questions: mostly designed to: recall knowledge, produce answers that are pre-determined and known to teachers.
Open questions: mostly designed to: stimulate thinking, investigate opinions and prompt effective communication.
Display questions: require students to display their knowledge by providing in- formation already known to the teacher.
Referential questions: require the learner to provide information, give an opin- ion, explain or clarify. They allow for more meaningful teachers-students in- teraction.
P a g e| 55 Although open questions are more effective than closed ones, studies on questioning techniques reveal that open referential questions are not frequently used in classrooms, despite their potential communicative usefulness. Ellis (2003) points out that closed questions are much more common than open referential questions as the former re- quire much shorter ‘wait time’ than referential questions. Similarly, Long and Sato (1983) and Nunan (1992) reported that the number of closed display questions initiat- ed by teachers was far greater than that of referential questions in language class- rooms. The literature documents the same findings in different geographical regions (Abd-Kadir & Hardman, 2007; Smith et al., 2004).
Similarly, Nassaji and Wells (2000) point out that display questions are typical of teacher-fronted lessons in which transmission of knowledge from teacher to student is the expected form of interaction. Even in foreign and second language classes, teach- ers seem to rely almost exclusively on the use of display questions to elicit contribu- tions from their students (Lightbown & Spada, 2006).
On the whole, effective questioning entails factors like timing and frequency of ques- tioning, strategic thinking, a non-evaluative positive interactive atmosphere, and a high percentage of open and process questions (Cazden, 1988). Nunan (2004) found out that when language teachers increased their use of referential questions, the quality of language produced improved, becoming richer and more dialogic in nature. For Clifton (2006), referential questions allow for:
More meaningful interaction between the teacher and students.
Encouraging students’ initiative and oral-interaction between participants, promoting greater learner output.
The use of such questions serves to modify the interactional structure of the discourse, thereby facilitating both participants' attempts to reach a mutual understanding. Close- ly related to the choice and use of questions in the classroom is ‘think-time’ and ‘wait- time’. The length of wait-time between the ‘I’ move and the ‘R’ move inevitably af- fects student input in terms of ‘quality of response and as an indicator of the pedagogi- cal mores in which the teacher and student operate’ (van Hees, p.16). That is, it was
P a g e| 56 found that when think-time and wait-time are increased, students become less hesitant in expressing their feelings, more confident about formulating their thoughts, and more conscious of the language they use (Cazden 2001; Cotton, 2001; Stahl, 1990).