英语论文网

lay questions and 69 referentialquestions. Display questions are about 1.47 times of referential questions. Obviously,display questions asked by the two foreign teachers are more than referential questions in all ten classes.In terms of the two means, Table 5.1 shows obviously that as for IM1, the time ofthe interaction caused by display questions is 0.67 minutes on average. while the timeof the interaction caused by referential questions is 2.45 minutes on average. It is veryobvious that referential questions can trigger more interaction than display question. Asto IM2, the average number of words by students’ response to display questions are20.75. But the average number of words by students’ response to referential questionsare 41.9 words. As the statistics of the investigation show, more interaction was arousedby referential questions than display questions in terms of IM1 and IM2. And referentialquestions can make students think about questions more carefully and give a morecomplex and complete answer. Some examples can illustrate this result.

..........

conclusion

The first objective of this research is to find out the characteristics of the foreignteachers’ questioning in oral English class. The second objective is to reveal therelationship between teacher questioning and classroom interaction in oral English class.After analyzing the data of the classroom observation, students’ questionnaire andteachers’interview, the main findings of this study can be summarized as follows.
(1) As for the types of questions, more display questions are posed by the twoforeign teachers than referential questions. However, the display questions are closedquestions which can’t induce students to express themselves freely or involve them inclassroom interaction, while referential questions are open questions, which can makestudents think more, communicate with longer, more complex and complete sentences.Besides, referential questions can involve more students taking part in classroominteraction, creating more opportunities for students’output.Therefore, teachers shouldask more referential questions in oral English classroom. (Brock,1986;Numan,1987,1991; Long and Sato, 1983; Liu Xianguo, 2000; Han Xuebo, 2007)
(2) Questioning strategies are very critical for teachers to cultivate students’interests and involve them in classroom interaction. From classroom observation anddata analysis, teachers often employ different strategies in the process of languageteaching. Prompting, repeating, probing are frequently used by the two teachers in tenclasses followed by redirecting and self-explaining among the five strategies. Theresults also show that prompting and probing can involve students in the interaction ata large extent followed by redirecting. Repeating and self-explain also arouse interaction, but less.
(3) As to the waiting time, the two foreign teachers usually gave three to fiveseconds waiting time to students, which is adequate for students to think about thequestions carefully and deeply to some degree. Yet the results also show that the waitingtime less than three seconds is also very common. Some students can’t give anappropriate response due to too short of a waiting time. As the result shows, there is aclose relationship between waiting time and classroom interaction. Lengtheningwaiting time has an effective impact on classroom interaction, and when teachers givestuden