Skip to main content

Question types

In January one of the training day sessions will be on questioning. It's being led by a chemist and I've no idea what his focus will be. Maybe we shall be referred to Bloom's hierarchy of questioning. He lists six types of question based on the following notions: knowledge (identification and recall of information), comprehension (organisation and selection of facts and ideas), application (use of facts, rules and principles), analysis (separation of whole into component parts), evaluation (development of opinions, judgements or decisions) and synthesis (combination of new ideas to form a new whole).

This may apply well enough to some subject areas, but in language teaching we have very specific goals when asking questions. Usually our aim to use skilled questioning to get students to understand and practise an area of grammar or vocabulary. We are often focused on form as much as content. If we question really carefully we can sometimes get students to induce rules for themselves, a process somewhat akin to natural acquisition of language. At a more advanced level our questioning aims to allow students to develop fluency and to communicate in a more authentic fashion.

Here is a hierarchy of question types for language teachers, starting from easiest:

(1) Yes/No questions: C'est un livre? (This can be done using true/false) The simple answer is oui or non, but you could get studenst to complete a sentence: Non, c'est un cahier.
(2) Either/or questions: C'est un livre ou c'est un cahier? (A longer answer is invited than with Yes/No; more decoding is required of the student. A variation on this is to make false statements which students have to correct. In this case a whole sentence answer is always demanded.)
(3) Choice from several options: as above, but you offer at least three options. This requires more decoding than (2)
(4) Question word question: quand est-ce qu'il arrive au collège? (This is harder as the student has to grasp the meaning of the question word and formulate a whole sentence answer.)
(5) Open-ended question: qu'est-ce qui s'est passé? (This demands a more open-ended response, maybe using more than one sentence.)
(6) Asking for opinion: que penses-tu des frais d'inscription à l'université? (This kind of question should elicit a longer answer. It demands more from the student since they have to supply their own view, not just give a factual response.)

It would be reasonable to assume that the more advanced a student is, the more use will be made of the harder question forms. But even advanced students can be encouraged to talk by throwing in very basic question forms. As language teachers we should always be aware of the full range of questioning techniques. With experience we use the full range of questions instinctively, but it does no harm to plan to use the full range.

This is all pretty basic stuff, but it is worth remembering the value and limitations of question-answer: it is an excellent way of controlling the selection and grading of language to be presented and practised, it ensures plenty of target language use in a meaningful way and it is a form of real, if classroom-based, communication. It is also highly adaptable.  The limitations are the relative artificiality of the communication, especially at beginner and intermediate level and the fact that, if it is conducted with a whole class, only one person can answer at a time. Pairwork questioning overcomes this limitation to some extent.


Popular posts from this blog

What is the natural order hypothesis?

The natural order hypothesis states that all learners acquire the grammatical structures of a language in roughly the same order. This applies to both first and second language acquisition. This order is not dependent on the ease with which a particular language feature can be taught; in English, some features, such as third-person "-s" ("he runs") are easy to teach in a classroom setting, but are not typically fully acquired until the later stages of language acquisition. The hypothesis was based on morpheme studies by Heidi Dulay and Marina Burt, which found that certain morphemes were predictably learned before others during the course of second language acquisition. The hypothesis was picked up by Stephen Krashen who incorporated it in his very well known input model of second language learning. Furthermore, according to the natural order hypothesis, the order of acquisition remains the same regardless of the teacher's explicit instruction; in other words,

What is "Input Processing"?

Input Processing (IP) was proposed by Bill VanPatten, Professor of Spanish and Second Language Acquisition from Michigan State University. Bill may be known to some of you from his podcast show Tea with BVP. He is one of those rare university academics who makes a specific effort to engage with practising teachers. IP was first proposed in a 1993 article (published with T. Cadierno in the Modern Language Journal) entitled "Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for instruction." My summary of it is based on an article "Input Processing and Processing Instruction: Definitions and Issues" (2013) by Hossein Hashemnezhad. IP is a little complicated to explain, but I'll do my best to summarise the key points before suggesting how it relates to other ways of looking at classroom language teaching. Is this actually any use to teachers? I apologise in advance for over-simplifying or misunderstanding. To paraphrase Dr Leonard McCoy from Star Trek &q

Pros and cons of pair and group work

Most teachers have made frequent use of pair and group work for many years, notably since the rise of communicative language teaching in the 1980s. Even before then it would have been common for pupils to work in pairs on simple role-play and dialogue tasks. So pair and group work is standard practice, if not universally supported by language teachers. It’s always worth evaluating, however, whether a practice works - whether, in this case, it helps students develop their proficiency. Pros Rod Ellis (2005) summarises the advantages of pair/group work (based on Jacobs, 1998) “1. The quantity of learner speech can increase. In teacher-fronted classrooms, the teacher typically speaks 80% of the time; in groupwork more students talk for more of the time. 2. The variety of speech acts can increase. In teacher-fronted classrooms, students are cast in a responsive role, but in groupwork they can perform a wide range of roles, including those involved in the negotiation of meaning. 3. There can

New MFL GCSE consultation

Updated on 7th April, with a few modifications to the original post written about a month earlier. ........................................................................... The DfE in England has recently published information about the proposed new GCSE exams, first teaching September 2023, first exams June 2025. There are two consultations going on, one regarding the subject content, and the other (much shorter) with respect to the assessment arrangements such as tiering.  The context is important here. DfE are worried about uptake in GCSE MFL, especially with their EBacc target of 90% uptake in mind. (This is highly unlikely to be achieved.) Therefore they would like an exam which makes the subject more attractive, both in terms of interesting content and accessibility (how easy it is thought to be). They are aware also of criticisms levelled at current papers that the exam is elitist, featuring too much subject matter which appeals to middle class students. Recall that MFL has be

An NCELP lesson resource analysed

NCELP (National Centre for Excellence for Language Pedagogy) is the body set up and financed by the DfE in England. based at the University of York and headed by Emma Marsden and Rachel Hawkes. It works through a number of hub secondary schools which, in turn, work with a small group of other schools. Their mission is, broadly speaking, to spread the research findings and principles as laid out in the Teaching Schools Council (TSC) Review of MFL Pedagogy from 2016. By sharing a selected body of research, considered relevant to secondary MFL in England, and creating schemes of work and lesson resources across the hub schools, they hope to spread so-called best practice around the country. As I write this, schemes of learning and lesson resources have been written up to the third term of Y8 for French, German and Spanish. I've been watching with interest as these resources have been built up and in general my view has been that the research resources are very useful and informative (