Modeling for unanticipated questions

Rachael FyeYing Ying (Jane) Xia

Paolo Infante

Question asking as an Intellectual Tool “Let us begin, for example, with question-asking. I

would expect very little resistance to the claim that in the development of intelligence nothing can be more "basic" than learning how to ask productive questions. Many years ago, in Teaching as a Subversive Activity, Charles Weingartner and I expressed our astonishment at the neglect shown in school toward this language art. Such neglect continues to astonish. The "back to the basics" philosophers rarely mention it, and practicing teachers usually do not find room for it in their curriculums. Thus I find it necessary to repeat two obvious facts about question-asking. The first is that all our knowledge results from questions, which is another way of saying that question-asking is our most important intellectual tool.”

(Postman, 1980, 28).

Focus of Presentation We will investigate one teacher (R), who

begins with an effective implementation of a planned modeling activity, is “thrown off” course with unanticipated questions.

We will also examine how interactional patterns changed when students asked unanticipated questions

Excerpt 11. R: okay (.) so ne^xt we’re going to work O::n (2)

((R locates 2. some information on her handouts at the front of the room)) 3. um (.) paraphrasing. 4. is this PLAgiarism.5. >kay< >notice how we<- 6. >can someone read this for me?< (.) >the first one?< 7. [>yeah<] >go ahead< >first one?<8. S: researchers have choices when studying (.)

refusals (.) in 9. the E:F:L: context.10. R: >exactly< (.) EFL is >English as a Foreign

Language<. can 11. anybody read the second one for me? (.) please? >yep< (.) 12. >thank you.<13. S: researchers have options when studying

refusals within the 14. EFL context.

Line 4: poses central (display) question

Lines 6-7, 10-12: • recruitment

Lines 8-9, 13-14: • establishes common

knowledge

Excerpt 1 (continued)15. R: can anybody tell me what cha:nged. 16. (1)17. Ss: two words ((multiple students respond))18. S?: ˚choices˚19. R: two words. Choices beca::me 20. Ss: options ((multiple students respond))21. R: and I:n beca::me 22. Ss: within. ((multiple students respond))23. R: is this plagiarism. 24. Ss: yes25. R: YES. why is this plagiarism. 26. SS: (inaudible)27. S?: same structure. ((multiple students respond))28. R: same[structure?29. S?: [all of them the same30. R: exactly31. S?: (inaudible)32. S?: it’s exactly the same, but two words.33. R: yeah.

Line 15: • recruitment• Reduces degrees of freedom

Line 19, 25: • marks critical features

(echoing) “two words” & “yes”

Lines 19, 21: frustration control (fill-in-the-gap)

Line 23, 25: comprehension check

Summary:Excerpt 1 All six forms of scaffolding used (McCormick &Donato,

2000) Modeling inner speech (Verplaetse, 2000) R firmly in role of primary knower (Nassaji & Wells,

1999) Community Building (Boyd & Maloof, 2000)

cumulative talk as a way to collectively work in "an uncritical, non-competitive, and constructive way" (Mercer, 2000, p.102)

non-evaluative feedback (echoing, acceptance acts) (Verplaetse, 2000)

Common knowledge (Mercer, 2000)

Excerpt 3i4. S: could you li:ke change it in a proper way? like (3.0)5. [in a good ((student laugh)) way 6. R: [you want me to change this in a pro:per? way?7. S: in a good way like u:h [change the structure? 8. R: [I think we have an example of 9. something would’ve- oh >in class activity< 10. okay so you are asking me(.) 11. you are asking me a [good example?12. S: [(inaudible)13. S: >no no no< try to paraphrase. [(like we did) 14. R: [>try to paraphrase

this<= 15. S: =yeah we did badly here like (.) just change two words and 16. could you change [the structure and anything?=17. R: [okay.

Lines 4-5: S asks a question

Line 6: overlap(lines 8, 14 and 17)

Line 7: S clarifies

Lines 10-11: R rephrases the question

The interactional patterns are markedly different between this episode and the planned modeling activities in Excerpt1. Unlike in Excerpt1, the interactional patter here is more like everyday talk.

Excerpt 3ii18. R: =okay. >I’ll I’ll< help you ah think of

something >does 19. anybody want to provide their ow:n< (0.5)

example (.) maybe? (1) 20. S: um=21. R: =yeah go ahead so=22. S: =use the sa:me (mistake) sentence as the first

one and put 23. there (.) quotation marks (.) e~nds= 24. SS: =[((laughing)) 25. R: [yeah, yeah, exactly. [take the easy way out

to quote it. 26. yeah 27. S: [that’s the easiest way

Lines 18-19: R offers help but opens floor to students

Lines 20-23: S contributes solution but not exactly correct

Line 24: generates laughter

Lines 25-26: R provides indirect evaluation through bantering

“Teacher talk can engender or defeat the potential for student talk in the classroom” (P179, Boyd & Maloof).

28. R: but I think she is looking at how we can uh paraphrase this 29. (.)so let’s look at this. 30. ((R starts to read the sentence on the screen)) 31. researchers have choices when studying refusals in (.) the EFL32. context. so [let’s] (.) [let’s] (.)33. [((L arm and R arm spread apart in arcing motion))]34. [((L arm and R arm spread apart in arcing35. motion))]36. ---37. [let’s] (.)[let’s not] (.) look at this right now. 38. [LH and RH spread apart in arcing motion]39. [LH and RH spread apart in arcing motion]40. -----41. how might you say this? 42. (7) 43. R: there are many choices to be had (.) when looking a:t (2.0) 44. refusals (.) for (2.0) English language learners. ˚maybe˚ kay and 45. then (1.0) ˚we: (.) can cite that Fye comma 2012˚ okay >I don’t 46. even rem remember what I said< but (.) let’s move on.

Excerpt 3iiiLine 28: R rephrases the original question to get the conversation back on track

Lines 32-37: repetition

Lines 37: ambiguity

Lines 32-40 and lines 38-30: gesture

Lines 41: R opens the floor but does not give enough wait time

Lines 45-46: uncertainty

Lines 43-44: paraphrase

1. Comparing to Excerpt1, here the scaffolding questions are missing2. R as an expert is challenged by an unanticipated question.

Discussion Excerpt 1- Primary Knower (Nassaji and Wells, 1999)- Six types of Scaffolding (Donato & McCormick, 2000)- Modeling of Inner speech (Verplaetse, 2000)- Cumulative Talk (Mercer, 2000)- Building community (Boyd & Maloof, 2000)

From Excerpt 1 to 3: “Thrown off course:” interactional patterns changeR opens up the floor to questions (In Excerpt 2) (does anybody have any questions?)

Student-initiated questions (challenges R’s position as ‘primary

knower’; students are setting goals for classroom discussion)Absence of guided questions(scaffolding) found in Excerpt 1(no modeling of inner speech;Interactional patterns change)

DiscussionExcerpt 3: Features Present Building Community

Acknowledge students as legitimate interlocutors Use students as resources (redirecting questions; 3ii: lines 18-19; 3iii: line 41) Open floor to students to ask their own questions (3i: lines 4-5) Overlapping speech less common in classroom institutional talk and more common in everyday talk (changes

in power relationship) Creating common knowledge (rephrasing of questions; 3ii: lines 18-19, 3iii: line 41) Humor and bantering by both teacher and students (3ii: lines 24-27)

Cumulative Talk

Excerpt 3: Features Absent Wait time (frequency of overlapping speech and latching) Absence of guided questions and scaffolds

Implications for teaching- Maximizing six functions of scaffolding- Exploratory talk- Wondering out loud (Verplaetse, 2000)- Adequate wait time- Teacher’s use of feedback acts (Verplaetse,

2000)- Non-evaluative feedback to promote engagement- Paraphrasing (common knowledge, to extend learner’s

ZPD)- Humor