Teacher questions: A comparative analysis between English‐medium and Basque‐medium lessons at university

In this article we present a comparative study in which analyzed teacher questions two different languages of instruction, namely, English-medium instruction (EMI) and Basque-medium (BMI) classes at university. For purpose, videotaped teachers who delivered 29 lessons forming corpus 39 h recording. The tool used for classroom observations the analysis was Communicative Orientation Language Teaching observation scheme, then followed by statistical analyses. Results revealed that language did not exert an influence on questioning practices, since there were no significant differences between EMI BMI lessons. However, results their teaching style as influential variable when it came to questioning. both most utilized types Display Questions, Convergent Referential indicated lower-order predominated over higher-order questions. As pedagogical implications, highlight need training so lecturers become aware importance promoting interaction through questions, well positive impact asking entail cognitive challenge students. En este artículo se presenta un estudio comparativo en el que analizan las preguntas realizadas por parte de profesorado universitario clases impartidas inglés y euskera (BMI). Para ello, grabamos analizamos discurso dos docentes impartieron conformaban total horas grabación. La herramienta utilizada para observaciones aula su posterior análisis fue esquema observación COLT, sustentado los estadísticos pertinentes. Los resultados revelaron idioma instrucción parece influir profesorado, ya encontraron diferencias significativas entre BMI. Sin embargo, mostraron docente, más concretamente estilo enseñanza, resultó ser una influyente relación con plantean durante la clase. El tipo utilizadas, ambas lenguas, fueron llamadas “display”, seguidas referenciales convergentes. Estos indican orden inferior predominaron sobre superior. cuanto implicaciones pedagógicas, observa necesidad formación docente tome conciencia importancia promover interacción través preguntas, así como del impacto positivo conlleva plantear superior supongan reto cognitivo alumnado. learning process happen has been widely demonstrated literature last decades (An & Thomas, 2021; Lasagabaster Doiz, 2022; Mercer Littleton, 2007; Simpson et al., 2010; Slavin, 1996; Wegerif 2019). all aforementioned authors, plays key role process, extent they agree fact lack would make very difficult students learn. al. (2019, p. 1) point out, international interest dialogue education is increase because effectiveness “depends great how use talk communicate.” Interaction may be hampered L2 means (MOI), issue time courses are mushrooming universities around globe (Lasagabaster, Dafouz Smit, 2020; Macaro, 2018). help scaffold students’ foster interaction, find especially challenging understand complex content English can contribute decreasing difficulty posing right intend focus only but also (BMI, minority spoken Basque Autonomous Community Spain), comparison foreign (English L3 context under scrutiny) (Basque co-official language) deliver will enable us conclude whether or teachers’ more factor comes interaction. Since one effective linguistic devices interact (Chang, 2012; Lllinares Peña, 2015), thus worth delving into. With mind, now roles played It useful check students' understanding lesson see if follow explanation. helps practice ensure topic before starting with next one, strengthen self-esteem. Questions promote through, previously mentioned, “scaffolding.” verbalizing thinking and, therefore, clarifying minds. An aspect should take into account about level is, question, direct interaction: simple usually do require short unchallenging answers, whereas demand higher effort part tend boost much greater degree. If question requires sophisticated skills (Mujis Reynolds, 2001; 2019) provide answer, talking higher-level, called, On contrary, basic thinking, like remembering name application some rules, example, these lower-level Higher-order answer than must them: “Research shown higher-level less teachers, although majority still lower level” 2001, 20). Besides, research studies (Redfield Rousseau, 1981) related student achievement. brings another distinction: open closed Open have indefinite answers (e.g., “What makes your city special?”), while “Who invented lightbulb?”). case “effective found ask large proportion questions” This reason why authors such Howe (2012) Doiz (2023) balance Furthermore, cases using detrimental learning, required (Lasagabaster 2022). Moving strategy participation, mention greatest problems hinder unwillingness posed teacher. important taken general tone class interacts expecting get it. That becomes habitual class, participating what expected from them. atmosphere behavior play matter: “A non-evaluative, well. Students likely involved feel wrong response elicit criticism ridicule (or fellow students)” 19). We refer non-evaluative want participation rather conduct evaluation exam. Thus, teachers' performance crucial creating good where confident participate. Another guarantee context, could personalities, extroverted willing participate, shyer probably willing. Students' personalities change, unlikely shy start raising hands volunteer strategies participation. seems helpful specific each time, instead throwing air, even though recommended other situations voluntary participation). Extended Initiation, Response, Feedback (I-R-F) sequences rigid ones. A wide variety functions limited functions. Teacher high-level responses, low-level demonstrations knowledge already shared. Long turns ones allow express concepts. Sufficient wait processes occur prior to, during, after turn. These five aspects borne mind quality researchers analyze Therefore, apart aspects, Macaro (2018) considers responses long fifth refers indeed, study. Last least, specifies exists peculiarity MOI, first (L1). chosen account, amount kind translanguaging. Hence, strongly believe sixth added list mentioned above regarding choice translanguaging Rhetorical (Sánchez-García, 2010) those expected. Sometimes objective audience reflect “Yes, going this, not?”). Self-answered answered speakers themselves “And happens heat ice? melts.”). whose known actually know. type I–R–F (Initiation-Response-Feedback) structure (Maíz-Arévalo, 2017), common classrooms (Sinclair Coulthard, 1975) consists launched teacher, communicative act started demands ends teacher´s feedback: When extensively place following I–R–F–R–F structure: Or I + R (I R) F (Varonis Gass, 1985) correspond negotiation meaning: sequence scheme context. promote, way, create micro-dialogue, structured interactions. reported (Nikula, 2007) comparing (EFL) integrated (CLIL) lessons, concluded CLIL longer interventions being tight EFL any case, overuse Llinares explain, cause model, participants acquire, interactions hierarchical view reinforced, maintains highest authority. conception lead teacher-centered dynamic, exposes subject acquire listeners, briefly asked. dynamics work groups, change; generating own ideas (Llinares Morton, 2012). thus, genuine especially, 2017) “real” questioner does really know she he just pretending Within distinction Divergent established. seen kinds stronger promoters due nature. constitute real seek answers. qualitative conducted Dalton-Puffer (2007), prefer single noun-phrase regardless asked preferences, easier them give others. day today?” (Convergent Question) extensive answer. you think latest measures government prevent spread coronavirus?” (Divergent harder preference. defined (2006), information wants obtain question; facts, explanations, opinions, etc., her results, coinciding Peñas' (2010) findings, showed (63%–88%) look facts. reinforce tendency study, subjects compared. second Against hypothesis put forward researcher, taught exclusively awareness looking output Spain, Sánchez-García (2013) compared three lecturers' disciplines. Confirmation Checks, Self-Answered Questions. explain similarities disciplines, implying “lectures educational setting seem transcend academic disciplinary culture exhibit certain uniformity called macro-structure” (p. 144). similar Maíz-Arévalo (2017) frequency affected Spanish. university Economics Finance degree Financial Accounting Spanish-medium (SMI) group. that, against hypothesized, depending vary significantly, slightly English. other, Comprehension Checks frequent SMI Clarification Requests Nevertheless, end clear conclusion measured. asked, turned out intense. precise, promoted same variables impinge involvement duration length interventions. differ obtained carried contrastive analyzing Spanish Business Administration author correlation several times went unanswered. factors proposed varies knowing (unconsciously) making providing enough close-ended open-ended extend discourse. findings derived seemed idiosyncrasy instruction. Hu Duan (2019) cross-disciplinary Chinese effects instructional medium background responses. cognitively simple, Concretely, MOI incidence, complexity coincide Li universities. Turkey, Genc Yuksel (2021) predominantly text-based, ended All MI (Spanish Chinese) classes, language, Basque, many our represented To knowledge, previous L2MI L3MI practices MOI. words, examine affects content. teacher–student time. Wait question. Giving There leave enough) leaving obtaining Tobin (1980), giving 3 s reduced talk, increased interjections talking. Gooding Swift (1982) Trussell (2016), appropriate had Other benefits attributed adequate are, participations decrease incorrect (Bysen Bysen, reduction problem behaviors attention (Trussell 2016). Although matter sight, avoiding uncomfortable silence. Mujis Reynolds (2001) propose amounts low-order optimal suggest up 15 s. directly improve necessary or, remind its importance. Farrell (2015), (among aspects) subject, personality, circumstances, equal concerning Our compare (a (an hegemonic level. section specify concrete pay to: (i) First all, quantitative perspective. during lesson, (ii) (iii) ratio Then, (iv) receiver addressed whole (in it) group Last, (v) respect, calculate left action way dynamic quite opposite. consideration carry in-depth therefore pave reach robust conclusions. main following: Does English) affect teacher? led sub-research questions: Two Faculty participated Both selected unusual delivering languages, met condition. Economic History 10 years, B Economics: Organization Management 14 years his year EMI. relation accredited teach Spanish, English, French, certified L1 differed A's proficient B's mother tongue fluent Basque. lectured L2, EMI, FL (English), L3. attended recorded made h. based (COLT) (Spada Fröhlich, 1995) videotapes. COLT created observing learning. serves guide describe events classify activities “typically marked change overall theme content” episodes “characterized teaching/learning approximately minute longer” 1995, 30). register oral lesson. adapted version altered categories, new dismissed sections original one. bulk instrument remained final version. One modifications incorporation “Question Types” “Wait Time,” aim delve include classification because, schemes facilitated coding consisted identifying instances syntactic pattern and/or utterance's intonation Once done, categorized categories scrutiny. determining (when knows answer) (those immediately teacher). decided given chance reply not, gave without allowing Self-Answered. data classified, step per hour, homogeneous sample. Kolmogorov–Smirnov test normal distribution, Mann–Whitney nonparametric tests out. discourse lectures involving practice, number 1451 identified. Table 1 distribution teachers. (55%), (13%). remaining incidence: (8%), (9%), (4%), Request Indirect (3%), Repetitions (1%), (0%), Retrospective (0%). 2 reveals significantly (p = 0.000**) (50.96 hour) (11.12). reflection difference styles. pedagogic styles looked them, promotion recurrently A´s (61%), whilst B´s recurrent Ques