Skip to main content

Pace, challenge and questions

I'd like to come back to an issue I have blogged about before: questioning.

Here is part of a very good page from the From Good to Outstanding site.


Questioning can fail because:
  • questioning techniques are inappropriate for the material.
  • there may be an unconscious gender bias.
  • there may be an unconscious bias towards most able or more demanding students.
  • levels of questions might be targeted to different abilities inappropriately.
  • students don’t have enough thinking time.
  • learners don’t have any idea as to whether they are the only ones to get it wrong/right.
  • learners fear being seen by their peers to be wrong.
  • questions are too difficult.
  • questions are too easy.
Questioning succeeds when:
  • all learners get a chance to answer.
  • learners can see how others are thinking.
  • teachers gain information about thinking and learning.
  • learners have time to consider their answers.
  • learners have time to discuss and follow up on their answers.
  • the answers are not always clear-cut.
  • learners feel safe to answer.
  • questions stimulate more questions.
  • questions stimulate thinking
Some of the above points are certainly relevant to MFL teachers, but some may not be.

Let's first take the issue of thinking time. Language teachers are usually encouraged to generate pace in their lessons as well as challenge. Pace is important because it probably reduces the potential for boredom and it helps to develop quick, alert responses. In language teaching we are sometimes working on the behaviourist dimension of learning, depending less on analysis, more on stimulus-response and unconsciously acquired knowledge developed through sheer practice and repetition. Reflective analysis comes into play when we are teaching a grammatical concept. In a typical questioning sequence for beginners or near beginners we therefore do not want to give too long to reflect.

Secondly, the claim that all questions should be answerable by all pupils needs critical reflection. An important part of skilled language teaching is the capacity to pitch questions at different levels of difficulty depending on the student. I would argue that if all questions were answerable then some must be too easy for the most able. There is, therefore, a case for differentiated questioning with hands-up. This may especially be the case with intermediate or advanced students.

Thirdly, let us look at the notion that questions should not be too easy. In some language teaching sequences we deliberately choose to make questions easy and answerable because the questioning has a different purpose to that in other subject areas. Questions are used as a form of structured drilling, a kind of artificial game where the main aim is to teach and practise a structure rather than to focus on declarative knowledge.

Take this sequence:

Teacher: Is it a pen or a book?
Pupil 1: It's a book?
Teacher: Is it a book?
Pupil: Yes, it's book.
Teacher: Is it a pen?
Pupil 3: No, it's a book.
Teacher: All together - it's a book.
All pupils: It's a book.

Now, to a language teacher, this is is all very valid questioning  because the focus is on form rather than meaning. The questions are all very easy, not very challenging and barely constitute real communication at all. The aim of the questions is not to elicit knowledge, but to allow for instant response and repetition. In the long run, the ability to reply quickly without reflective thought is what will make a student a successful speaker and listener.

I only make these points to highlight the fact that language teaching is not like the teaching of, say, mathematics or history. Much of our questioning is of a special type, with the purpose of developing internalised competence with grammar, vocabulary and, ultimately, fluency. Language teachers must therefore treat the most recent recent pronouncements on questioning technique with at least a degree of scepticism.

Comments

  1. This very succintly puts into words exactly the point I have tried to make every time someone visits my department and doesn't understand that we cannot 'question' like other subjects. I am printing this out for my departmental base wall. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for your comment. With regard to no-hands up questioning, our department tried it with a couple of Y7 classes and found it frustrating. Our pupils have a good record of high achievement based on fast paced lessons with plenty of hands up and enthusiasm. We concluded that no-hands up questioning was alright in small doses, just to change the dynamic of a lesson, but that it slowed things up too much and frustrated the most able.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

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,

Second language learning and acquisition

This is a long, referenced blog which combines all the posts in my earlier series entitled Conscious and Unconscious Language Learning. If you have already read those posts, you should look away now. Part 1 Throughout the history of the study of language learning and teaching reference has been made to two distinct types of language learning. The first could be characterised as "picking up" a language and normally involves the apparently unconscious acquisition of a language in an informal or natural setting. One thinks of the child who learns their native tongue, or the immigrant who learns the new language without recourse to formal study. The second type of language learning involves the practice of a language in a formal, systematic way, often in a classroom setting. This has frequently been termed conscious learning. Such a clear distinction may be controversial and you may already be thinking, quite reasonably, that both types of learning have a role. However, when

The 2026 GCSE subject content is published!

Two DfE documents were published today. The first was the response to the consultation about the proposed new GCSE (originally due in October 2021) and the second is the subject content document which, ultimately, is of most interest to MFL teachers in England. Here is the link  to the document.  We are talking about an exam to be done from 2026 (current Y7s). There is always a tendency for sceptical teachers to think that consultations are a bit of a sham and that the DfE will just go ahead and do what they want when it comes to exam reform. In this case, the responses to the original proposals were mixed, and most certainly hostile as far as exam boards and professional associations representing the MFL community, universities, head teachers and awarding bodies are concerned. What has emerged does reveal some significant changes which take account of a number of criticisms levelled at the proposals. As I read it, the most important changes relate to vocabulary and the issue of topics

What is skill acquisition theory?

For this post, I am drawing on a section from the excellent book by Rod Ellis and Natsuko Shintani called Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research (Routledge, 2014). Skill acquisition is one of several competing theories of how we learn new languages. It’s a theory based on the idea that skilled behaviour in any area can become routinised and even automatic under certain conditions through repeated pairing of stimuli and responses. When put like that, it looks a bit like the behaviourist view of stimulus-response learning which went out of fashion from the late 1950s. Skill acquisition draws on John Anderson’s ACT theory, which he called a cognitivist stimulus-response theory. ACT stands for Adaptive Control of Thought.  ACT theory distinguishes declarative knowledge (knowledge of facts and concepts, such as the fact that adjectives agree) from procedural knowledge (knowing how to do things in certain situations, such as understand and speak a language).

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