Training teachers to ask questions Geoff Thompson
One of the main forms of interaction between the language teacher and the learner is through questions. This article describes an approach to helping trainee teachers ask questions effectively. The approach is based on a method of categorizing questions which is intended not only to show the main options in a systematic way, but also to lead naturally towards a consciousness-raising discussion of important aspects of teacher-learner interaction in general.

Introduction

As trainees on initial teacher-training courses soon realize, asking questions effectively in the classroom is not always as easy as it seems. Although this is clearly a crucial skill, there is a tendency to assume that it can only be picked up through trial and error. The tips often given to trainees may seem sensible, but they are not presented as part of a coherent approach. There are some useful overviews, particularly in books focusing on the teaching of reading (e.g. Nuttall 1982), but many books aimed at trainee teachers (e.g. Doff 1988, Harmer 1991) only deal with the skill briefly and incidentally, if at all. The subject has received attention in studies of classroom interaction (especially Long and Sato 1983), but these sources are not easily accessible to trainees and, in any case, their primary aim is descriptive rather than pedagogic. The problem of training teachers to ask questions is one that we have faced in our work with trainees at the University of Liverpool. The experience has led me to devise a way of categorizing question types in order to help trainees understand, in a systematic way, what options are open to them. The set of categories is fairly unsophisticated, and does not cover important aspects of questioning, but in practice it works satisfactorily with trainees. Indeed, we have also used this approach successfully with experienced teachers on in-service training. The main purpose of setting up the categories is not simply to provide a checklist for use in preparing teaching activities (although it serves that function as well) but to help sensitize trainees to what they are actually doing with their questions, and what else they might be doing. The discussion of these topics is designed to lead on naturally to a discussion of more general aspects of the interaction between teacher and learners. The final outcome, we hope, is that trainees will have a wider range of techniques for exploiting texts and situations in the classroom.

Categorizing questions

The system that we use for categorizing questions depends on criteria that are relatively simple in themselves. However, as will become clear below, it is not always easy at first to see how they work in combination.
ELT Journal Volume 51/2 April 1997 Oxford University Press 1997 99

articles

welcome
Indeed, the problems that arise from trainees attempts to apply the categories provide the main basis for the awareness-raising that is the pedagogic justification for introducing them. We begin by asking the trainees to work out their own system of classification for the questions they might ask as teachers. At this stage, inevitably, they often suggest categories which are interesting to explore, but which do not fit easily into the system we want to lead them towards. For example, one basis for categorizing questions that certainly needs discussing at some point is specificity: how vague or specific a question is. Inexperienced teachers sometimes start a lead-in stage (e.g. a pre-reading discussion) by asking a question which is so vague that it is almost unanswerable. If we take the text that I will be discussing below (about how much money British people spend on their pets) the kind of question I am thinking of is How do you think people ought to treat their pets?. Not unnaturally, the usual response from the learners is stunned silence, since they hardly know where to start - whereas asking the same question at a later stage, after they have read the text, may well trigger a useful debate. We find that this kind of problem is best dealt with when it arises in teaching practice: if it happens in class, it tends to have an effect on the lesson that the trainee will remember and want to discuss afterwards. Another issue which arises sometimes is that of direct versus indirect questions-the difference, for example, between How much do people in your country spend on their pets? and Ive no idea how much people in other countries spend on their pets. Can anyone tell me what the figures are for their country ?. Normally, rather than focusing on this in the asking questions session, we would cover it as part of a more general review of how the trainees can keep their own use of language in the classroom as comprehensible to the learners as possible. When these suggestions for ways of categorizing questions come up, therefore, we tend to gently sidestep them in the early stages, preferring to help the trainees, with a little prompting, to make the link with the three dimensions of analysis they have met elsewhere in the course: form, content, and purpose (or function). For example, they already know that in analysing their own knowledge of English, and in deciding how to introduce new language to the learners, they need to consider how the new language (e.g. the present continuous) is formed, what it refers to, and how, when, and why it is used. If everything goes well, they come up with the insight that, with some adjustments, these three dimensions can be applied to particular examples of questions which teachers ask, in order to arrive at a classification.

The first dimension that we aim to elicit relates to the grammatical form of the question: whether it is of the yes/no type or the wh- type. This distinction is, of course, very familiar from descriptions of English grammar. However, it is not always explicitly applied to the questions teachers themselves ask. It is sometimes pointed out (e.g. by Gower et al. 1995: 139) that yes/no questions are generally easier for learners to answer, and that teachers can therefore direct those questions at weaker

Geoff Thompson

learners, or use yes/no questions to check basic understanding of a text or situation before moving on to wh- questions to elicit more detailed information. But it is also worth remembering the salespersons technique, of a yes/no question followed up with a wh- question to the same person. A yes/no question (especially if the answer is fairly obvious or noncontroversial) encourages learners to accept a part in the interaction, even if they are shy or hesitant. Once they have committed themselves that far, it is easier for them to continue the interaction by answering the follow-up question which, of course, needs a fuller response. Content The second dimension relates to the content of the question: whether it asks about outside facts, personal facts, or opinions. Outside facts refer to information which is not specifically related to the learner. This most often consists of the information in the text or situation on which the teaching is based, but the category may go beyond that to facts about the world outside the classroom. Personal facts (e.g. Do you have any pets?) relate to the learners own lives, as, of course, do opinions. Most teachers are now aware of the advisability of personalizing at least some of the questions that they ask, inviting their learners to talk about themselves rather than only talking about information provided by the textbook. One great advantage of this is that it allows the learners to have some degree of control over the input, which may well lead to increased motivation and more investment by the learners in the learning process. However, personalization does not necessarily mean that real communication is taking place: I shall argue that another distinction applies independently of distinctions in content. This distinction forms the third dimension. It relates to the purpose of the question: whether it is for display or communication. To a great extent, the difference hinges on the simple fact of whether the teacher already knows the answer or not: if he or she does, the question is merely intended to prompt the learners to display their comprehension and/or command of accurate English; if he or she does not, the purpose of the question will normally be to gain new information. Teachers are one of the few professional groups who routinely spend their lives asking questions to which they know the answer, but in recent years language teachers, in particular, have realized that their subject allows them to ask about a great many other things, since they are primarily teaching a means of communication rather than a specific topic of communication. As we shall see, the initial simple distinction made here does not quite account for all the question types: it is, in fact, more useful to look at whether the teacher behaves as if he or she knew the answer or not. By combining these three sets of criteria, we arrive at a basic list of 12 question types (Table 1). These, of course, represent a simplification of what really happens in classroom communication, but they provide a useful overview. In Table 1 the question types are ordered roughly from those which demand least personal investment from the learner (and teacher) to those which demand most.

Training teachers to ask questions 101

Purpose

Table 1 Form 1 Content outside outside personal personal opinion opinion outside outside personal personal opinion opinion fact fact fact fact Purpose display display display display display display communicative communicative communicative communicative communicative communicative
yes/no whyes/no whyes/no whyes/no whyes/no whyes/no wh-

fact fact fact fact

It should be noted that the order is not meant to reflect a rigid progression of question types that the teacher might work through for any given text or situation - indeed, certain types would probably be incompatible within the same teaching sequence (see the discussion of examples of types 3 and 9 below). Nevertheless, some kind of selective progression through the list can often help to link teaching materials to the learners own lives and opinions in a simple but effective way. Traditionally, questioning in the classroom, in activities such as comprehension questions on written texts, has focused on the information provided to learners by the textbook and other teaching materials-i.e. on outside facts which the teacher already knows. However, there has been increasing recognition (e.g. Scott et al. 1984) that it is worth approaching input materials with a much wider range of question types, encouraging the learners to place what they are reading or listening to in the context of their own existing knowledge and opinions, and quite possibly to develop a more critical attitude towards the input (Wallace 1992).

Devising questions

To explore the implications of the categorization, I ask the trainees to read a text and devise questions that they might ask about it in each of the twelve categories. The newspaper report below is typical of the texts we use, and I have written sample questions based on it to illustrate the categories. Before looking at the questions, you might like to think of a set of your own. Some of the question types are likely to prove more difficult to construct than others. The following illustrative questions are numbered to correspond question types in Table 1. Are cats cheaper to own than dogs? How much do dog owners spend on pet food each week? Do you have a dog at home? Which of the pets mentioned in the text do you have? Do you like dogs? Which kind of pet do you prefer? Do dogs usually live longer than cats? Why do dogs need insurance? to the

9 Do you have any pets at home? 10 How much a year, roughly, do you spend on your pets? 11 Do you find the information in the text surprising? 12 Why do you think people spend so much on their pets?
Some of the question types are relatively easy to devise, e.g. 1, 2, 11, and 12. The activity then leads to a discussion of the usefulness of these types. We emphasize the fact that even types 1 and 2 serve an extremely valuable purpose, in establishing that the learners have understood enough of the text to be able to handle questions which demand a greater personal investment (and suitably framed questions can, of course, play a crucial role in guiding the learners towards the necessary level of understanding).
It may be a dogs life but it still costs 9,OOO
by CLIVE NELSON ANIMAL lovers pay out more than 9,000 on their pampered pets. The cash goes on toys, treats, vet bills and food during a dogs lifetime. A study found that dog owners spend 15 a week on pet food, plus an extra 236 a year on vets fees, treats and insurance.
During an average dogs life of 12 years, the bill adds up to an astonishing 9,072. Cats are cheaper to own, according to the figures in Wild About Animals magazine. But they still cost more than 6,000 during their average lifespan. Even keeping a rabbit can be expensive - 400 a year for its average three-year life. Families in London, the South East and Yorkshire traditionally spend more on their pets, the survey showed. A magazine spokesman said: Economic depression means nothing to pet lovers.

Today, 9 April 1992

Display

questions

The questions which often cause the teacher some difficulty, and which are usually argued over by the trainees, are those in the middle of the list. On the one hand, it seems odd to talk about display questions when the topic is personal fact or opinion (Questions 3-6). These might seem by definition to be genuinely communicative, in that the teacher is unlikely to know the answer. It is clear that there is very little difference, in form or content at least, between Questions 3 and 9, or between Questions 4 and 10. However, the label display is often justified by the teachers behaviour, which may well signal that the real purpose of asking the question is not to gain information. To a large extent, this depends simply on the kind of response that the teacher gives to the learners answer. If the teacher says simply Good, this is a clear sign that he or she is only listening to whether the learners answer is grammatically correct, regardless of the content of the question. It also typically signals that the exchange is over, and that it is time for another learners grammar to be checked. An embarrassingly obvious example

Training teachers to ask questions
of a teacher treating a personal fact question as a display question came several years ago from a trainee I was observing. He was trying hard to ask personalized questions to practise the vocabulary of jobs in English, and was asking the students what members of their family did. The exchange went like this: T: Sl: T: S2: T:
Acknowledging the response
What does your father do Teacher Hes a teacher/good/what does your father do My father dead Good/and what about your father
A more normal non-classroom response is to acknowledge the content of the answer. In the following exchange1 between a doctor (D) and patient (P), the doctors acknowledgement (Oh) encourages the patient to explain a bit more about the confusion over her two first names.
Ill give you a sick note/its Mary Im probably known by er Angela at work but Oh I told the receptionist/she said have you got another name/I said Mary/she couldnt find me under my surname
A simple acknowledgement like this signals that the questioner is not only interested in the information but also expects the answerer to volunteer more information; if he or she does not, the questioner will then typically go on either to ask for more information or to offer related information of his/her own. The interaction is thus extended beyond the initial question and answer.

Not knowing the answer

The other questions that can be difficult to devise are communicative questions about outside facts. The problem arises because traditionally it is expected that the teacher will know not only more facts about the language than the learners but also more facts about the world. There are two cases where this situation does not apply, and where teachers frequently exploit their own lack of knowledge to set up opportunities for communication. The first is where the teacher is not of the same nationality as the learners: here questions about the corresponding situation in the learners country or culture are a simple but effective resource. The second is in ESP, where learners will often have greater knowledge of the specialist subject than the teacher. In both cases, the teacher may actually know the answer; but ignorance, whether real or feigned, is both personally excusable - because he or she is not expected to be an expert on that subject - and pedagogically advisable - because it helps to vary the roles and the balance of power in the classroom. Even in a general EFL context with learners of the same nationality as the teacher, a little ingenuity makes it possible for the teacher to think of questions to which he or she does not - or plausibly might not - know the answer. Questions 7 and 8 above are labelled communicative on the assumption that the teacher either genuinely does not know the answers

or behaves convincingly as if he or she did not. We point out to trainees that behaving convincingly in this context may mean leaving the question open if the learners cannot answer it - however much that goes against the grain.

Conclusion

I have argued that the approach outlined here is useful in giving trainees relatively simple guidelines for preparing questions to ask when working with a text or discussing a situation. However, its main training function comes from the fact that certain of the question types are difficult to construct As we have seen, the discussion of the reasons for this is intended to raise the trainees awareness of the implications of choosing different types of questions. These implications go beyond the factors that are explicitly labelled - the form, content, and purpose - and lead into a broader examination of interaction between teacher and learner. Learning to say Oh, as in the doctor/patient conversation above, is one of the key insights that trainees should gain from their discussion of questioning techniques. They are encouraged to see that one way in which they can improve their questioning is simply by getting into the habit of using an interested Oh rather than an authoritative Good as the normal response to answers from their learners - not least because this forces them to think of the kind of questions which will lead to the kind of answers to which Oh is an appropriate response.

Received July 1996

1 Data supplied by Sultan Al-Sharif, University of Liverpool.
References Doff, A. 1988. Teach English. Cambridge: Cam-
Nuttall, C. 1982. Teaching Reading Skills in a Foreign Language. London: Heinemann.
Scott, M., L. Carioni, M. Zanatta, E. Bayer, and L. Quintanilha. 1984. Using a standard exercise
bridge University Press. Gower, R., D. Phillips, and S. Walters. 1995. Teaching Practice Handbook (2nd edn.). London: Heinemann. Harmer, J. 1991. The Practice of English Language Teaching (2nd edn.). London: Longman. Long, M.H. and C.J. Sato. 1983. Classroom foreigner talk discourse: forms and functions of teachers questions in L. Seliger and M.H. Long (eds). Classroom Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

in teaching reading comprehension. ELT Jour114-20. Wallace, C. 1992. Reading. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

nal 38/2:

The author
Geoff Thompson is a lecturer in the Applied English Language Studies Unit at the University of Liverpool. He is course director of the MA in Language Teaching and Learning, and also teaches on the Units initial Certificate in TEFL/ ESP. He previously taught in China, Saudi Arabia, Hungary, Romania, Turkey, Bulgaria, and Algeria.

KILLING THINGS PHIL 145 Section A: MW 8-9:15 in Lafayette L107 Section B: MW 4:05-5:20 in Lafayette L100 Professor Tyler Doggetttdoggett@uvm.edu Office: S. Williams StOffice hours: W 9:30-11:30 and by appointment The course Blackboard site is at bb.uvm.edu Almost everyone thinks it is sometimes morally permissible to kill some things, some of the time; you can kill a mosquito thats biting you, for example. What else is it permissible to kill? Under what circumstances? This course takes up these questions. Requirements There will be three exams. You have to pass all of them in order to pass the course. But, if you do pass them all, only the last two count towards your final grade. (The first is, essentially, practice.) Those two comprise 80% of your grade. You have to come to class for at least the first three weeks. You cannot miss one session during those three weeks without a good excuseI will disenroll you or flunk you if you do. (The standards for what counts as a good excuse are lower in the early class than in the late one.) After the first three weeks, we will collectively re-evaluate the attendance policy. If you come to class you have to pay attention: no chatting, no texting, no bathroom breaks, no laptops, no sleeping, etc. This is an onerous policy and I will be a jerk about enforcing it. If you cant concentrate on philosophy for 75 straight minutes, if your bladder is too small, if you just cant bear to be off your Blackberry for that long, whatever, you need to drop this class. I strongly encourage you to ask questions. It is very hard to learn philosophy without doing so. If you are uncomfortable asking in class, email me or meet with me. I will regularly give you opportunities to email me with questions if you are too shy (or whatever) to take the initiative. Participation will be worth 20% of your grade. You should check the Blackboard site and your email every day. All important announcements will be emailed to you or posted on Blackboard. If you need accommodation due to a disability, please let me know. If you will miss class because of a religious holiday or sporting event or other universitysanctioned activity, please let me know within the first two weeks of classes.
Schedule of readings Readings are all on e-reserve or posted on our Blackboard site. The readings tend to be short and difficult. Read them at least twice. There is a 0% chance that we will stick to this schedule. Changes will be announced in class and on Blackboard. Basic Terminology James Pryor, http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/index.html James Pryor, http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/reading.html Killing Non-human Animals for Food
Peter Singer, All Animals Are Equal R.M. Hare, Why I Am Only a Demi-Vegetarian Readings We Wont Discuss In Class But That You Might Be Interested In: Thomas Nagel, Death; Michael Pollan, The Omnivores Dilemma, chapter 17; Roger Scruton, The Conscientious Carnivore; Singer, Reply to Hare; Singer and Jim Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat, chapter 17. Abortion Don Marquis, Why Abortion is Immoral Judith Jarvis Thomson, A Defense of Abortion Readings We Wont Discuss In Class But That You Might Be Interested In: Nancy Ann Davis, Abortion and Self-Defense; David Boonin, A Defense of Abortion; Jane English, Abortion: Beyond the Personhood Argument; Elizabeth Harman, Creation Ethics; Frances Myrna Kamm, Creation and Abortion; Thomson, Abortion Self-Defense Thomson, Self-Defense Michael Otsuka, Killing the Innocent in Self-Defense Readings We Wont Discuss In Class But That You Might Be Interested In: Helen Frowe, Threats, Bystanders, and Obstructors; Jeff McMahan, Self-Defense and the Problem of the Innocent Attacker; Jonathan Quong, Killing in Self-Defense War Thomas Nagel, War and Massacre Celia Fabre, Guns, Food, and Liability to Attack in War; Readings We Wont Discuss In Class But That You Might Be Interested In: G.E.M. Anscombe, Mr. Trumans Degree; Anscombe, War and Murder; David Rodin, War and Self-Defense; Jeff McMahan, Killing in War
The Trolley Problem Philippa Foot, The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect Shelly Kagan, selections from The Limits of Morality Thomson, Turning the Trolley Readings We Wont Discuss In Class But That You Might Be Interested In: Alexander Friedman, Return of the Trolley; Thomson, The Trolley Problem Famine Singer, Famine, Affluence, and Morality Colin McGinn, Our Duties to Animals and the Poor Readings We Wont Discuss In Class But That You Might Be Interested In: Dan Moller, Should We Let the Starving Children Die (For Now)?; Liam Murphy, Beneficence and Fairness; Garrett Cullity, selections from The Moral Demands of Affluence