Engaging Students in Dialogic Interactions Through Questioning

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/advance-article/doi/10.
1093/elt/ccac021/6588004 by MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY user on 14 March 2023

Engaging students in dialogic
interactions through questioning
Zi Yang and Sue Brindley
This paper presents a study of EFL classroom talk with the focus on how
teachers successfully encourage and elicit student dialogic talk through
questioning. It is based on observation data from forty-nine classes involving
eleven teaching staff in a university in central China. The findings reveal
the difficulty of engaging students to be the first to participate in dialogic
interactions in a culture where deeply engrained reserve is the accepted norm.
Two teacher questioning patterns are identified that are effective in eliciting
students’ first dialogic contribution in each interaction. These patterns can
also serve as a profitable investment to elicit subsequent productive talk from
students. This study also argues for a situated, contextualized analysis of
classroom talk.
Key words: dialogic teaching, teacher questioning, classroom talk,
discourse analysis
Introduction In classroom discourse, dialogue is arguably a prime tool for advancing

students’ intellectual development and educational achievements
(Mercer and Littleton 2007). At the core of a dialogue-oriented approach
is constructively engaging students in quality classroom talk and the
meaning-negotiation process, as a result of which students can play a
more egalitarian role in learning (Alexander 2008). In the field of ELT,
Haneda and Wells (2008) have argued there are three ways in which
dialogic interactions are beneficial for L2 learners. First, they enhance
knowledge of the target language such as phonology and lexis. Second,
the joint meaning-making process empowers students with opportunities
to produce longer and more complex discourse, leading to more active
participation in the classroom community. Third, as dialogic interactions
invite divergent voices, they provide a context where student discursive
competence can develop through engaging in hybrid, diversified
utterances.
Theoretical review Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory perceives learning as a social
of dialogue-based process in which social interaction is at the core of cognitive growth.
teaching Knowledge is first constructed as social knowledge before it is
internalized into learners’ repertoires of knowledge systems, and
language is an essential semiotic tool for realizing this process. Vygotsky’s
groundbreaking theory advocates a dialogic teaching approach—as
ELT Journal; https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccac021 Page 1 of 10

© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
opposed to the traditional monologic approach—emphasizing the power
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/advance-article/doi/10.1093/elt/ccac021/6588004 by MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY user on 14 March 2023
of talk to engage students in joint knowledge-building processes and
grant them more ownership of learning (Alexander 2008). To be specific,
teaching and learning should highlight divergent voices, constructively
engaged talk, and using talk, often reciprocally, to explore, reason, and
learn (Mercer and Littleton 2007). Alexander (2008) set out specific
strategies and principles for promoting dialogic teaching—such as
collective, reciprocal, supportive, cumulative, and purposeful dialogue—
providing a framework for educators to rethink ways to use talk to foster a
more egalitarian, student-empowered classroom atmosphere.
Teacher Among classroom discourse, teacher questioning has been an intensively

questioning and studied field in EFL classrooms, as it can mediate the learning scope
L2 learning and signal the particular types of knowledge that are valued and the
preferred ways of participation (Boyd and Markarian 2011). Two broad
categories have been identified (Myhill 2006; Boyd 2015): display/factual
questions designed to elicit predetermined answers, and authentic/
referential questions which are imbued with an explorative nature.
Researchers generally espouse that referential questions are more capable
of generating syntactically complex utterances and facilitating higher-
level cognition from students (Myhill 2006). However, research has also
documented numbers of instances in which authentic questions can
constrain student talk while display questions can function to encourage
active participation. For example, Gibbons (2003) reported that English
language learners (ELLs) with low language proficiency could be stifled by
authentic questions. On the contrary, Boyd and Markarian’s (2011) study
described how a literature teacher managed to mobilize his students to
produce elaborated responses by using display questions. They asserted
that it was important for teachers to be predisposed towards a dialogic
stance that opens up discourse space for negotiation of meaning. Aside
from question types, questioning strategies also play a role in eliciting
quality classroom talk (Wu 1993).
The In the context of China, research shows that monologic, teacher-fronted

Chinese context instruction essentially dominates English language classrooms
(Xie 2010). Based on data from three urban secondary schools in China,
Tang and Adamson (2014) found student-centred pedagogy was poorly
implemented in EFL classrooms. The obstacles included inadequate
teacher training, teachers’ reluctance to relinquish their traditional
authority, and the incompatibility between student-centredness and the
national college entrance system. Other researchers foregrounded cultural
roots as one of the causes for students’ entrenched reticence in classroom
(Cortazzi and Jin 1996; Xie 2010). In their seminal study, Cortazzi and Jin
(1996) summarized several features of the Chinese culture of learning:
students perceive teachers as an unquestioned authority figure; influenced
by the collectivist culture, students do not wish to disturb the harmony
by active participation; influenced by the Confucian value of modesty,
students consider being the first to speak up as a gesture of showing off;
and students avoid making mistakes in front of others to ‘save face’.
A review of the literature reveals that little has focused on effective
instructional strategies to address the reticence of Chinese ELLs.
Page 2 of 10 Yang and Brindley

Given the context, this paper explores the moments where teachers
manage to elicit productive classroom talk, especially on how teachers’
questioning discourse creates a context where dialogic interactions can
occur, with the aim of providing practical implications for educational
practitioners. In addition, as one cultural root identified for student
reticence is that students are afraid to be the first to speak up, we also look
into teachers’ questioning discourse before the first and the subsequent
student dialogic turn(s) of talk, respectively, in each dialogic interaction.
This study attempts to address the following research questions:
• What questioning patterns can teachers use to productively promote
dialogic interactions among Chinese ELLs?
• How do teachers elicit students’ first dialogic turn?
• How do teachers elicit students’ subsequent dialogic turn(s)?
Methodology This study draws on a qualitative approach to explore classroom discourse.

It was situated at a university in central China. The participants consisted
of eleven teaching staff who taught first-year students and sophomores
in the undergraduate programme of English language and literature.
The average class size was between twenty and twenty-five students. The
observed (compulsory) courses included cross-cultural communication,
debate, integrated English, English listening, creative writing, English
grammar, English literature, linguistics, English reading, and interpretation.
Participating students are considered to be intermediate and above ELLs,
considering that they had been learning English as a compulsory subject for
at least six years before university and had succeeded in being admitted to
this undergraduate English language and literature programme.
This study adopts non-participant observation as the data collection
method. The researchers attended two of each teacher’s classes before
the process of data collection to minimize the impact of observation
and increase the chances of being taken for granted by those being
observed. Informed consent to observe and audio-record the classes
was gained from participating teachers and students beforehand, on
condition of anonymity. All invited participants took part and there were
no withdrawals. All names presented are pseudonyms. A total of forty-
nine class sessions were observed and recorded. Each session lasted for
approximately forty-five minutes.
Data analysis Phase 1: researchers identify student dialogic turn of talk. This used
dialogic markers of student talk, following the protocol derived from a
broad project on dialogic teaching (Hofmann, Mercer, and Ruthven 2015):
1 Student takes an extended turn—it needs to include an elaboration of
their thinking.
2 Student gives a reason—it involves students giving explanation or
justification for their thinking.
3 Student suggests a new idea/response to a task/discussion—it requires
the talk to be relevant but not necessarily correct.
4 Student takes up another student’s idea—it should build on another
student’s talk1.
Phase 2: researchers code teacher questioning discourse that elicited
student dialogic talk. It was completed by two independent coders to
Engaging students in dialogic interactions through questioning Page 3 of 10

ensure reliability. We excluded rhetorical questions that do not expect a
response, or tag questions that mainly function to emphasize opinion.
The teachers’ questioning discourse was coded in terms of typology,
divergence/convergence, and questioning techniques.
The types of teacher question were coded using Boyd’s (2015)
coding scheme:
• Display questions—inquirer knows the answer and requires students to
display knowledge (e.g. what is the colour of the sun?).
• Authentic questions—inquirer has no predetermined answer (e.g. what
do you think of the character?).
• Clarification questions—inquiry seeks articulation, elaboration, or
explanation of thinking from the preceding talk (e.g. could you elaborate
it?).
• Procedural questions—inquirer deals with the management of the class
(e.g. do you hear that?).
The question typology was coded based on the contextualized function of
the questions rather than the syntactic forms (Boyd 2015).
These questions were further coded for their convergent/divergent
nature. Convergent questions are closed-ended in nature, which seek
narrowly defined responses with a restricted scope of accuracy (e.g. is
this working for him?). On the contrary, divergent questions are open-
ended questions, which encourage multiple answers and often lead to
speculation, creativity, and critical thinking (e.g. why is that?)
(Boyd 2015).
The next step was identifying the questioning techniques the teacher used.
It followed several studies (Wu 1993; Xie 2010; Boyd and Markarian 2011):
1. Rephrasing.
2. Simplification—teachers use a simplified version so that students
can manage them. Given the definition, the engagement of students
into a group discussion after they are stumped by a question would be
counted as simplification.
3. Repetition.
4. Decomposition—an initial question is broken down into two or more.
5. Probing—teachers use follow-up questions to extend student answers
and expand their ideas.
6. Wait time.
7. Nomination—calling on students’ names.
8. Redirecting—teachers redirect a question to another student. It also
refers to strategies to redirect the current topic to a new one.
The intercoder agreement was 100% for the basic question types, 97% for
convergence/divergence, and 96% for the questioning strategies.
We then looked closely at the codes, and attempted to identify features
in teachers’ questioning patterns in the situated context. Concerning
our research aims, we also compared the questioning discourse that
successfully elicited students’ first dialogic turn and the subsequent
dialogic turn(s) in each episode to explore the similarities or differences
between them, as well as the implications we could draw.

Findings Overall, dialogic interactions seldom appeared. A total of twenty-one
dialogic episodes were identified among the forty-nine class sessions,
accounting for 5.4 percent of the overall class time. Yet, among the
dialogic episodes that did appear, four patterns were identified. Two broad
questioning patterns characterize the teacher questioning before students’
first dialogic turn: first, teachers drew on a series of display or convergent
questions to create dialogic momentum (Episodes 1, 6–7, 10, 14–17, 20);
second, teachers persistently used explorative questions with multiple
questioning strategies (Episodes 3–4, 8–9, 11–13, 18, 21).
Questioning A series of display/convergent questions to create dialogic momentum
patterns before In this pattern lecturers used a series of display questions or convergent
student’s first questions, often of convergent nature, to encourage or ‘coax’ students into
dialogic turn a quick discursive and thinking momentum, before imposing a divergent,
explorative question. The questioning techniques employed in the process
were mainly ‘probing’. Each subsequent question was contingent on the
preceding utterances in extending student thinking, echoing Alexander’s
(2008) dialogic principle of being cumulative where teacher and students
build on each other’s ideas and chain them into coherent lines.
Example 1: This excerpt was taken from Lin’s creative writing class which
focused on studying a short story, ‘Good Old Neon’, by David Foster
Wallace. Lin was leading a discussion on whether the narrator, Neal, had
the option to escape from the psychological suffering of endless self-
reflexivity and suicide by undergoing psychoanalysis.
1 T: Answer this, judged from the results, is the psychoanalysis treatment
working for Neal? (Display, convergent question)
2 Ss: No.
3 T: Success or failure? (Display, convergent question; probing)
4 Ss: Failure.
5 T: Is this failure incidental or inevitable? (Display, convergent question;
probing)
6 Ss: Inevitable.
7 T: Huang, you tell me then why you think it is inevitable. (Clarification,
divergent question; probing, nomination)
8 S1: Um … Because I think the narrator thinks the doctor doesn’t get
his real problem, and, and he knows the doctor better than the doctor
knows him. He was all acting in front of the doctor.
In this episode, Lin used four turns to recruit students’ first dialogic
engagement. The exchange did not start with his direct solicitation
of student opinions on the paradox of Neal’s psychoanalysis. Instead,
Lin asked two simple display questions (turns 1 and 3), with the aim
of directing the class to a factual answer which they could easily draw
from the fact of Neal’s suicide. After getting students on board with the
quick discursive move, Lin then chose a convergent question of whether
Neal’s suicide can be avoided (turn 5). This question is obviously less
straightforward, as it promoted a deeper thinking of Neal’s logical vicious
cycle, but the teacher maintained the closed-ended nature of the question
to avoid inadvertently intimidating or stifling the students. The response
‘inevitable’ generated by many was an indication of joint knowledge
building. In this atmosphere of a participatory discussion, Lin then posed

an exploratory question ‘Why is it inevitable?’ to probe for clarification,
leading to an extended turn from the student.
Explorative In the second category, the lecturers directly and persistently used
questions explorative questions to indicate their genuine interest in the students’
with multiple responses. The initial divergent questions often led to student reticence,
questioning about which the lecturers had to be very patient. They adopted a series
techniques of questioning techniques such as rephrasing and simplification to
persistently encourage reticent students to voice their opinion. The
persistence displayed the lecturers’ dialogic stance because it reiterated
their sincere interest in student ideas rather than right or fixed answers.
At the same time, it created discourse space for students since the
lecturers did not urge students to jump to any quick or unconsidered
response.
Example 2: In Kai’s integrated English class, she tried to get students to
focus on the couple’s different reactions to the fight in the story ‘Say Yes’.
1 T: So … the husband tried to please his wife right? … The wife wanted to
use her indifference to hurt him. Why their responses are so different?
(Wait time 7 seconds) (Authentic, divergent question; wait time) The
husband got out of it very soon but the wife still wanted an answer and
got her husband to say yes. Do you agree? (Display, convergent question;
simplification)
2 Ss: Yes.
3 T: What’s the reason for that? (Authentic, divergent question; probing)
Is it because of the different characteristics? (Authentic, convergent
question; simplification)
What caused this difference? (Wait time 7 seconds) (Authentic,
divergent question; rephrasing, wait time)
Okay. So two minutes to think about it and you can exchange ideas
from your neighbours, and then I expect your views. (Authentic,
divergent question; rephrasing, simplification)
(Student discussed for roughly 3 minutes)
4 T: Okay. Robin, what do you think? (Authentic, divergent question;
nomination)
5 S1: Uh … I think the woman doing this was not to hurt him. She was
just to keep the peace on her mind. She is more desperate and in deep
sorrow instead of being angry at her husband.
Kai’s first question signalled her intention to encourage divergent
thinking and elaborative talk, but the whole class did not give a prompt
reply to it. She then turned to a display convergent question ‘Do you
agree?’ (turn 1) to make sure that they had acquired shared foreknowledge
to move forward. After receiving an affirmative answer, Kai revisited
the focused question and drew on several questioning techniques in her
subsequent talk, such as rephrasing or simplification (turn 3). Those
questions maintained the open-ended nature, constantly serving as
an explicit cue for an elaborated, analytical student response. Despite
students’ low level of participation after Kai’s long discursive move of
questioning, she did not give up the task by shutting down the discussion
or answering the question herself. Instead, she suggested a group
discussion to simplify the task, which finally led to an elaborated response.

Patterns of A total of forty-seven subsequent student dialogic turns were identified
teacher talk in in the twenty-one episodes. They were further divided into two categories
the subsequent according to the context of the exchange: (1) the subsequent dialogic turn
student was on the same topic as the previous one (twenty-one turns); (2) the
dialogic turns subsequent dialogic turn occurred in a new subtopic (twenty-five turns).
Subsequent dialogic turn was on the same topic as the preceding one
In this category, the typical questioning pattern (64 percent) was one single
authentic or clarification question that aimed to probe for an explanation of or
elaboration on the preceding turns. This suggests that to elicit the subsequent
dialogic talk, the lecturers in most cases did not make as much effort as they
did before students’ first dialogic turn. The dialogic exchange developed more
naturally, without many attempts such as using a series of display/convergent
questions or multiple explorative questions with techniques to recruit
participation. The questioning pattern can be seen in the following example.
Example 3: This was taken from Jiang’s intercultural communication
class. Turn 1 was the first dialogic turn in this exchange generated by S1.
1 S1: (Modern Family) a TV series about 3 families … The other family
is a cross-cultural one, an American man with a younger Columbian
woman.
2 T: Yes. Yes, and he is the granddad of one of the families, the father
of the other two families … So, this is between two generations, isn’t?
What does Modern Family show us about American life and culture?
(Authentic, divergent question; probing)
3 S1: It shows us that American is a big melting pot. It can accept many
things. Also it shows us how they celebrate thanksgiving, how to adopt
a child, and how … um … in a very big family, what kind of problems
they may have.
After S1 generated her first dialogic turn (turn 1), Jiang followed up
through elaborating on the plot of Modern Family to create initial joint
understanding for the class. Immediately following this, she asked an
authentic divergent question (turn 2) with the intention of extending the
focus on the plot to the cultural implications reflected in the show. S1,
without any obvious hesitation, shared the American life and culture she
perceived from the show (turn 3).
Subsequent dialogic occurred in a new subtopic
This category shares similar features with the first category in that
lecturers seldom made proactive efforts to generate student dialogic turns.
The flow of talk was more natural and smoother. A high proportion of the
subsequent dialogic turns (80 per cent) were initiated by a single question
(authentic/display) with the questioning technique of redirecting, such as
‘Any other idea?’.
Example 4: In Kai’s integrated English class, she guided students to
compare the characters in the story ‘Arrangement in Black and White’
and that in ‘Say Yes’ in terms of their racial prejudice. Turn 1 was the first
dialogic turn in this exchange.
1 S1: The woman in the second story is less obvious … Actually I think the
bias is deep in her heart. She just doesn’t know it.

2 T: Yes. The bias is deeply rooted in her heart. Good. What else?
(Authentic divergent question; redirecting)
3 S2: I think the woman in the second story has invisible bias. The bias is
not from the facts or her experiences. It’s from her living environment.
As the excerpt shows, Kai restated the first student’s key point without
an explicit evaluation, followed by a succinct, redirect question, ‘What
else?’ (turn 2). It indicates Kai’s intention of being more encouraging
than corrective, and recruiting more volunteers to the conversation. This
intention might be prompted by the nature of the class, the purpose of
which is less content-driven and more focused on developing students’
integrated language skills. After the second student voiced her opinion,
Kai repeated the pattern in the next move and successfully engaged more
students to express their perspectives in front of the class. The process
that teachers collected students’ views in a non-evaluative way indicates a
safe and supportive environment that teachers create where students can
express themselves freely (Van de Pol, Brindley, and Higham 2017).
Implications and This study presents a discourse analytic study of dialogic interactions in
conclusion EFL classrooms in China, focusing on how teachers successfully elicited
productive talk through questioning. It was identified that dialogic
interactions accounted for only a small proportion of the EFL classes,
confirming that a monologic teaching approach was still the mainstream
practice in China, even in class for intermediate and above EFL learners at
tertiary level (Xie 2010).
A closer examination of the key episodes demonstrates that in comparison
to the high investment of efforts teachers made in eliciting the first
substantial student contribution to each dialogue, teachers played a
smaller role in eliciting subsequent dialogic turns by students. It is
inferred from this stark contrast that the reticence may be attributed to
the unwillingness to be the first to speak out. Possible reasons are the
cultural value of collectivism and the fact that students do not want to
be singled out and potentially lose face, or that students consider being
the first to speak up as showing off (Cortazzi and Jin 1996). Therefore,
one of the pedagogic implications is that teachers should be well
prepared for prolonged reticence or inactivity, and patiently elicit the first
student dialogic contribution as a profitable investment to recruit more
participation.
With regard to dealing with hesitation about being the first to speak up,
the present study identified two effective instructional patterns. One
was to resort to several display or close-ended questions that sought
straightforward responses, which aimed to encourage students into a
dialogic momentum. This questioning pattern seems counterintuitive,
given the reputation of these questions for suppressing genuine
communication and constricting critical thinking (Haneda and Wells
2008). However, the pattern in our study has distinctive features.
First, these display/convergent questions were employed not only to
test knowledge, but to establish foreknowledge and lay a groundwork
for the subsequent exchange. As Boyd (2015) has argued, display or
closed questions can hint whether student understanding can be
advanced. Second, those questions did not appear in isolation, but were

chained into a process of cumulative knowledge building, reflecting
the characteristics of ‘cumulation’ in Alexander’s (2008) principles of
dialogic teaching. Third, in those episodes teachers skilfully structured
the talk and moved it forward around a specific learning goal,
corresponding to Alexander’s (2008) principles of ‘purposefulness’.
These discourse features may contribute to the higher level of dialogicity
in these interactions.
The other effective pattern was to use explorative questions with
various questioning techniques. Our findings showed that the initial
explorative questions often squelch voices of ELLs, which resonates with
several studies (e.g. Wu 1993; Gibbons 2003) that have demonstrated
that explorative questions can be challenging for L2 leaners. It may be
attributed to the low language proficiency of students (Gibbons 2003),
or culturally situated reserve (Cortazzi and Jin 1996). This hiatus
required teachers to resort to a series of techniques, such as rephrasing,
repetition, and simplification, all of which persistently demonstrated
their dialogic stance while creating space for student thinking and
reasoning. The persistence and patience indicate teachers’ emphasis on
active participation of students in addressing tasks and that the classroom
talk should be collective. In addition, authentic questions without a
predetermined answer per se signal genuine interest in other people’s
perspectives, corresponding to the principle of supportiveness (Van de
Pol, Brindley, and Higham 2017).
Aside from the pedagogic implications, the study suggests that it would
be an oversimplification to focus only on forms of classroom talk such
as the syntactic features of teacher questions. It is exemplified in this
study that some questions are grammatically closed but are able to extend
student utterances and promote thinking, whereas some open-ended
questions only lead to silence. As Cullen (1998) argued, it is important for
the analysis of classroom discourse to provide adequate contextual details
within which the discourse is situated.
Whereas the present study provides practical implications for educational
practitioners to promote dialogic teaching, we do not argue monologic
teaching does not deserve a place, because in certain contexts instruction
with transmissive orientation is not only conducive to learning but
essential. The selected discourse genre, as Haneda and Wells (2008) have
argued, is a joint effort of many factors in which the learning goal is the
most important. For example, the monologic genre can be effective when
introducing a specific concept or recapping what has been taught in class.
Educational practitioners should skilfully manage their discursive moves
and draw on a broader repertoire of questioning strategies according to
the multiple learning goals, and engendering a classroom community
where students will be allowed to negotiate meaning in a supportive
environment and make progress through dialogue.
Note References
1 Examples for each protocol can be found at: http:// Alexander, R. J. 2008. Towards Dialogic Teaching:
www.educ.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/episteme/ Rethinking Classroom Talk. New York:
epiSTEMeObservationProtocol.pdf Dorchester.

Boyd, M. P. 2015. ‘Relations Between Teacher Tang, S. and B. Adamson. 2014. ‘Student-Centredness
Questioning and Student Talk in One Elementary in Urban Schools in China.’ London Review of
ELL Classroom.’ Journal of Literacy Research Education 12(1):90–103.
47(3):370–404. Van de Pol, J., S. Brindley, and R. J. E. Higham. 2017.
Boyd, M. P. and W. Markarian. 2011. ‘Dialogic ‘Two Secondary Teachers’ Understanding and
Teaching: Talk in Service of a Dialogic Stance.’ Classroom Practice of Dialogic Teaching: A Case
Language and Education 25(6):515–34. Study.’ Educational Studies 43(5):497–515.
Cortazzi, M. and L. Jin. 1996. ‘Cultures of Learning: Vygotsky, L. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development
Language Classrooms in China.’ In Society and of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA:
the Language Classroom, edited by H. Coleman. Harvard University Press.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wu, K. Y. 1993. ‘Classroom Interaction and Teacher
Cullen, R. 1998. ‘Teacher Talk and The Classroom Questions Revisited.’ RELC Journal 24(49):68.
Context.’ ELT Journal 52(3):179–87. Xie, X. 2010. ‘Why Are Students Quiet? Looking
Gibbons, P. 2003. ‘Mediating Language Learning: at the Chinese Context and Beyond.’ ELT Journal
Teacher Interactions with ESL Students in a Content- 64(1):10–20.
Based Classroom.’ TESOL Quarterly 37(2):247–73.
Haneda, M. and G. Wells. 2008. ‘Learning an The authors
Additional Language Through Dialogic Inquiry.’ Zi Yang is an Assistant Professor at the Institute
Language and Education 22:114–36. of Education, Xiamen University (China). Her
Hofmann, R., N. Mercer, and K. Ruthven. 2015. research interests are in dialogic pedagogy, classroom
‘epiSTEMe Observation Protocol.’ Accessed June 20, discourse, and educational psychology.
2020, http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/ Email: yangzi0815@gmail.com
episteme/epiSTEMeObservationProtocol.pdf
Mercer, N. and K. Littleton. 2007. Dialogue and the Sue Brindley is a senior lecturer at the Faculty of
Development of Children’s Thinking: A Sociocultural Education, University of Cambridge (UK). Her
Approach. London: Routledge. current interests are working with teachers and
Myhill, D. 2006. ‘Talk, Talk, Talk: Teaching and schools on professional development through
Learning in Whole Class Discourse.’ Research Papers practitioner research.
in Education 21:19–41. Email: sb295@cam.ac.uk

Engaging Students in Dialogic Interactions Through Questioning

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Engaging Students in Dialogic Interactions Through Questioning

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/advance-article/doi/10.

1093/elt/ccac021/6588004 by MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY user on 14 March 2023

Introduction In classroom discourse, dialogue is arguably a prime tool for advancing

ELT Journal; https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccac021 Page 1 of 10

Teacher Among classroom discourse, teacher questioning has been an intensively

The In the context of China, research shows that monologic, teacher-fronted

Page 2 of 10 Yang and Brindley

Methodology This study draws on a qualitative approach to explore classroom discourse.