Modeling for unanticipated questions

1. Modeling for unanticipated questions Rachael Fye Ying Ying (Jane) Xia Paolo Infante

2. 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).

3. 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

4. Excerpt 1 Line 4: poses central (display) question • R: okay (.) so ne^xt we’re going to work O::n (2) ((R locates • some information on her handouts at the front of the room)) • um (.) paraphrasing. • is this PLAgiarism. • >kay< >notice how we<- • >can someone read this for me?< (.) >the first one?< • [>yeah<] >go ahead< >first one?< • S: researchers have choices when studying (.) refusals (.) in • the E:F:L: context. • R: >exactly< (.) EFL is >English as a Foreign Language<. can • anybody read the second one for me? (.) please? >yep< (.) • >thank you.< • S: researchers have options when studying refusals within the • EFL context. • Lines 6-7, 10-12: • recruitment • Lines 8-9, 13-14: • establishes common knowledge

5. Excerpt 1 (continued) • Line 15: • recruitment • Reduces degrees of freedom • R: can anybody tell me what cha:nged. • (1) • Ss: two words ((multiple students respond)) • S?: ˚choices˚ • R: two words. Choices beca::me • Ss: options ((multiple students respond)) • R: and I:n beca::me • Ss: within. ((multiple students respond)) • R: is this plagiarism. • Ss: yes • R: YES. why is this plagiarism. • SS: (inaudible) • S?: same structure. ((multiple students respond)) • R: same[structure? • S?: [all of them the same • R: exactly • S?: (inaudible) • S?: it’s exactly the same, but two words. • R: yeah. • Line 19, 25: • marks critical features (echoing) “two words” & “yes” Lines 19, 21: frustration control (fill-in-the-gap) Line 23, 25: comprehension check

6. 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)

7. Excerpt 3i Lines 4-5: S asks a question Line 6: overlap (lines 8, 14 and 17) • S: could you li:ke change it in a proper way? like (3.0) • [in a good ((student laugh)) way • R: [you want me to change this in a pro:per? way? • S: in a good way like u:h [change the structure? • R: [I think we have an example of • something would’ve- oh >in class activity< • okay so you are asking me(.) • you are asking me a [good example? • S: [(inaudible) • S: >no no no< try to paraphrase. [(like we did) • R: [>try to paraphrase this<= • S: =yeah we did badly here like (.) just change two words and • could you change [the structure and anything?= • R: [okay. 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.

8. Excerpt 3ii Lines 25-26: R provides indirect evaluation through bantering Lines 18-19: R offers help but opens floor to students Lines 20-23: S contributes solution but not exactly correct • R: =okay. >I’ll I’ll< help you ah think of something >does • anybody want to provide their ow:n< (0.5) example (.) maybe? (1) • S: um= • R: =yeah go ahead so= • S: =use the sa:me (mistake) sentence as the first one and put • there (.) quotation marks (.) e~nds= • SS: =[((laughing)) • R: [yeah, yeah, exactly. [take the easy way out to quote it. • yeah • S: [that’s the easiest way Line 24: generates laughter “Teacher talk can engender or defeat the potential for student talk in the classroom” (P179, Boyd & Maloof).

9. Excerpt 3iii 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 Line 28: R rephrases the original question to get the conversation back on track Lines 32-37: repetition Lines 37: ambiguity • R: but I think she is looking at how we can uh paraphrase this • (.)so let’s look at this. • ((R starts to read the sentence on the screen)) • researchers have choices when studying refusals in (.) the EFL • context. so [let’s] (.) [let’s] (.) • [((L arm and R arm spread apart in arcing motion))] • [((L arm and R arm spread apart in arcing • motion))] • --- • [let’s] (.)[let’s not] (.) look at this right now. • [LH and RH spread apart in arcing motion] • [LH and RH spread apart in arcing motion] • ----- • how might you say this? • (7) • R: there are many choices to be had (.) when looking a:t (2.0) • refusals (.) for (2.0) English language learners. ˚maybe˚ kay and • then (1.0) ˚we: (.) can cite that Fye comma 2012˚ okay >I don’t • even rem remember what I said< but (.) let’s move on. 1. Comparing to Excerpt1, here the scaffolding questions are missing 2. R as an expert is challenged by an unanticipated question.

10. 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 change R 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)

11. Discussion Excerpt 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

12. 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