RESEARCH

No TITLE QUESTIONS METHODS

Authors RESEARCH DESIGN PARTY DATA DATA CONTEXT RESULTS
And TOPIC RESEARCH OBJECTIVES CIPAN COLLEC ANALYS
year GAP TS TIONS IS
1. 2022 English Researching 1. How is the Qualitativ 3 EFL Recordin Content Vocational Research results disclose that three teachers
( Reflianto , Teachers' Online learning teachers' e teachers gs, analysis School observed, only One fofthose who make
Punaji Competency classes competence in in interviews with majoring question level appreciation with inquiry .
Setyosari , in Flipped Teaching using question Vocatio to the descriptiv in There is a difference between inner teachers
Dedi Learning: materials levels in learning nal teacher, e analysis manageme apply the question level this . Difference the
Kuswandi , Question to read Highsch nt in No depending on the amount experience
Utami Level and Focus on comprehension in ool Pariaman follow learning , active period teach , and
Widiati ) Questioning researchers all an online-based City age , but on ability literacy and mastery
Strategy in saying question flipped language , mastery technology learning , and
Reading and then classroom? teacher habits in apply based online teaching
Comprehensi classify all 2. How is the ask answer . The three teachers studied own
on teacher's competence of close ability _ The same in make questions
questions based teachers using literal level . T1 can make around 90 items
Topic: English on literal, questioning ( 49.2%) of the total 183 questions made . T3
Teacher reorganized, strategies in as much 85 items of questions were made
Competence in inferential, learning to read (36.5%) of the 233 questions made . T2 files
Flipped evaluation comprehension in literal questions as many as 62 (39.7%) of
Learning and appreciation , an online-based the total 156 questions made . on the rate ask
Questioning and three flipped inferential , T1 can submit more Lots
Strategies in strategies classroom? question compared to the others as many as
Reading question 3. How do 23 questions (12.6%) of the 183 questions
namely teachers and made . T2 is ability ask the lowest at this
redirection, students respond level that is only six questions (3.8%) out of
prompting, and to the level of a total of 156 questions made . T3 more
probing. questions and Good from teachers I and II in make
strategies in question inferential as many as 33 questions
learning to read (14.2%) of the 233 questions made . During
comprehension in learning , the teacher provides instructions
an online-based For direct student For get correct answer . _
flipped because _ it , no rarely T1, T2, and T3 do
classroom? over code use Indonesian in the learning
process when student difficulty understand
the questions asked . Observation the three
teachers in learning read understanding
with use the online- based flipped classroom
method shows that ability in make enough
questions and strategies Good
2. 2022 Development Use classroom How are effective Mix 3 Pre- Questionn Spss Test 90 students The suggested teaching scheme, based on
( Tetiana Of discourse, type ways of improving method service aire and Of senior interdisciplinary connections within the
Yeremenko, Prospective question No MA students' EFL descriptiv highschool content of the practical and theoretical-
Iryna EFL mentioned in a questioning skills, Teacher experime ely in xxx in practical courses, and students' school and
Lukyanchen Teachers' manner specific encouraging them s ntal Ukraine university teaching practices, was
ko , Angelina Questioning in general class to work out their hypothesized to result in improving МА
Demchuk ) Skills In only , own teaching students' specific proficiency in using
Classroom examining strategies in their questions as an effective tool in the EL
Discourse: preservice future classroom interactions. In this section the
Interdisciplin teacher professional results obtained via the experiment are
ary Approach questioning activity? described. Basing on the obtained
who teaches quantitative results, we can conclude that (a)
Topic : high school both variants of the suggested teaching
Prospective class scheme aimed at developing MA students'
EFL Teachers' proficiency in questioning in EL classroom
Questioning discourse realization have a positive effect
Skills In on improving prospective EL teachers'
Classroom specific question-generating skills as an
Discourse effective tool in the classroom interaction;
(b) scheme B, tested in EG-2, is proven to be
more effective than scheme A, tested in EG-
 1. The analysis of the pre-experimental
assessment stage results made it possible to
identify and characterize the difficulties of
MA students, pre-service EFL teachers, met.
It turned out that the primary problems
were related to defining and choosing the
appropriate types of questions that should
be used in a particular classroom activity,
conforming to a particular situational
communicative context and the learners'
age, as well as in the classroom discourse to
encourage pupils ' learning motivation, their
critical thinking, and to stimulate their
involvement in the classroom discussion

3. 2022 Teachers' Focus on 1. What beliefs do Qualitativ 3 second Interview Descriptiv three They more often use type question divergent
( Gopal experiences researching Nepalese English e level E s ely with secondary than question convergent Because question
Prasad on the use of teachers who teachers hold on FL Narrative schools of This increase creativity student . They allow
Pandey) questioning use type the use of Narrative teachers, inquiry Kathmand exploration various ideas, improve Skills
strategy in question questioning inquiry approach u solving problem students and improve
Nepalese ELT divergent and strategy? creativity them . Although No There is fixed
classrooms convergent but 2. What kinds of time and stages at which the strategy asks
 priority given questioning can used inside _ class , in part big question
to question strategies do they filed at the ' while ' stage teach ' in lesson .
divergent use in the English All teachers agree that amount questions
language that can submitted in class certain
classrooms? depending on the duration lessons ,
2. Why do they properties lessons and levels understanding
use questioning student . Studies This validate Adler's (1982)
strategies in the notion that teachers posit question to student
English For involve them and earn thinking more
classroom? level _ in . They submit question For
motivating students , evaluate student is they
understand lesson or no , give bait return ,
develop ability learn , and create student
active .

4. 2021 Strategies Thai learners' 1. What strategies Qualitativ 4 Record Coversati Thai The teacher uses an elite strategy on display
(Martin Used and L2 do (secondary e ( EFL ) and semi- on secondary questions and referential questions. Display
James Challenges interactional school) teachers Thai structure analysis school queries ( frequent be compared with close
Farrelly , Faced by Thai development use to elicit Thai Explorati teachers d (CA) (SMA) questions) and questions referential (open
Kemtong EFL Teachers opportunities student's L2 talk ons of interviews questions). Besides it guru, also uses proven
sinwongsuwa When by highlighting in teacher-learner English 2 different and scaffolding strategies succeed in
t) Eliciting Talk elicitation interactions in seconda high interaction talk during classroom.
 During strategies used different contexts ry schools
Classroom by the Thai of an English- school Observation find , when the teacher uses
Interactions teachers in the speaking class? With 10, more strategy variations broad , it seems
in High four contextual 2. How do 11, 12 There is participation more students _ active
School areas of focus. teachers use grades . Findings it also delivers outlook about what
Contexts different a certain strategy use , and show that
means : elicitation big class question appearance is the most common
Topic: the his research strategies in each strategy used in between four context .
teacher's add 4 focus context? A number of challenge elicitation
strategy raises context, and 3. What encountered , and the strategies used For get
questioning for use elite difficulties do over it witnessed , such as scaffolding or use
interaction in technical teachers of L1, in addition to encouragement and
the classroom encounter when motivational strategies .
using these
strategies to get
students to
initiate/ construct
L2 turns, and how
do they deal with
these difficulties?

5. 2020 Raising Identify the 1. What are the Mix 3 EFL Records, descriptiv private Studies This show that the teacher realized
(Asuman Awareness of question types type(s) of method Teacher observati e analysis university objective from question they are submit .
Şimşek , EFL Teachers asked by questions that are s at ons in Turkey That is , the teacher is not submit question in
Safiye İpek on Question teachers and asked by the universit with a manner random ; on the contrary , they
Kuru Types and examine the university-level y levels Qualificat Small class use the questioning strategy with on purpose
Gönen ) Pedagogical pedagogical EFL teachers ion : (15-20 For involve student in lessons , for
Goals: An goals during classroom Semi students) motivating them , and for get more Lots
Analysis interactions? structure response For interaction effective class . _
through 2. What are the d Besides that , even though the teacher is not
Classroom pedagogical goals interviews can identify type questions , they know
Modes of the teachers and purpose and function question as voiced by
while asking observati ÿahin ( 2013 ). Objective pedagogic from
questions in ons question according to customized mode with
different the goals stated by the participants .
classroom modes? Findings This highlight that even though the
3. What do teacher is inside study This No used to with
teachers think terminology used _ For classify type
about the question questions , they own awareness For use type
types they use different questions on the stages different
during classroom lessons _ in accordance with objective
interaction? pedagogical them . Objective general of '
displays question ' is For inspect
background behind knowledge them and
 reminded they about things from lesson
previously

6. 2020 Does the Strategy 1 Does the effect quantitati 54 English Reliabilit 54 Chinese disclose that effect of the questioning
(HuanLiu) questioning Researching of the questioning ve universit Reading y test with learners of strategy ( answering combination question
strategy complexity strategy y Compreh analysis English at what and why ) in a manner significant
facilitate understanding (answering a students ension tools text university varies according to size understanding (SAQ
second L2 reading combination of Test automatic xxx in and questions choice double ), control
language (L2) what and why Coh - China difference level individual in understanding
reading Examine the questions while Metrix reading L1, size L2 vocabulary and
comprehensio effect obtained reading) vary by Male : 7 familiarity topic . Question strategy in a
n? The effects his students comprehension And SPSS Female : 47 manner significant facilitate understanding
of pass a reading measure (SAQs read the measured L2 with SAQ but No
comprehensio comprehension and MCQs), choice double . Effect positive part echo
n measures test with controlling for L1 study read L1 which supports role
and insights interspersed reading ability, L2 facilitative in answer question What or Why
from reader question from vocabulary size in understanding ( Callender & McDaniel,
perception teachers and topic 2007; McCrudden & Schraw, 2007;
familiarity? Ozgungor & Guthrie, 2004). Failure in
2. What are L2 answer question What or Why Possible push
readers' reader For read reload and check return
perception of information relevant text _ through more
 using the involvement _ active with text (Pressley,
questioning Ghatala , Woloshyn, & Pirie, 1990). Activity
strategy while read reload and inspect repeat this , which is
reading? basically guided by the question , probably
has involve participant in group treatment
in the process of reading more active , so
increase understanding . Although group
control read every part twice, the process of
reading repeat This without guide or
monitoring anything is possible No build
successful understanding . _

7. 2019 (EFL analyze the How are the Qualitativ An EFL Records, Conversat One of Classroom questions are able to run
( Milawati , Teacher's reasons of the teacher's e: Lecturer observati ion university smoothly, if the teacher can deliver various
Nunung Oral ineffective strategies going s in ons analysis in madura types of questions from simple to complex
Suryati ) Questioning: teacher's effective exploratio Madura levels. As it is cited by Bloom's taxonomy
Are Her questioning ( rephrasing, ns level which is revised and adapted from
Questions and strategies and redirecting, Anderson & Krathwol (2001). She also has
Strategies to give a probing and employed rephrasing, redirecting, probing
Effective?) stronger reinforcement) in and reinforcement in her questioning. It is
connection applied question _ also supported by the Goodwin et al (1992).
between the That relate give 6 However, in employing questioning
 Topic : level of types the question strategies, the teacher sometimes fails in
The questioning posed by arderson delivering her question. Probing, for
effectiveness and the & kratwol example, will run smoothly as if the teacher
of the teacher's questioning theory ? can manage her questions and keep students
questioning strategies, ( emembering , focused on the discussion. It will pretend as
strategy which the understanding, a barrier if the class is silent. Perhaps, it
teacher applying, occurs because the teacher's question is
employed. with analyzing , considered as higher - level questions, which
Anderson & evaluating and makes them think more deeply. In addition,
kraval theory creating) the teacher asks more frequently many high
levels of questions at the same time.
Using
scaffolding
techniques

8. 2018 Contribution Examine the RO : Qualitativ Jembers questionai Correlati 33 students The questions that arise during the
(Slamet of Mind learning model 1. the contribution e ' re on from summarizing process induced since
Hariyadi , Mapping, aja : The of summarizing Quasi- Universi analysis Faculty of construction mapping mind . For do
Aloysius Summarizing, Reading, and questioning in experime ty with Teacher mapping mind , students must understand
Duran and Questioning, the RQA learning ntal student SPSS Test Training idea main from assigned readings and then _
Corebima , Questioning and Answering model integrated and create resumes. During this process ,
 Siti in the RQA (RQA) learning with mind Education, students experience the process of reading ,
Zubaidah , Learning model without mapping to the University processing , understanding , analyzing , and
Ibrohim ) Model to its type of genetic learning of Jember , synthesizing content reading . Next , them
Genetic questioning outcomes 2015/2016 make chart contain keywords and place
Learning 2. using a quasi- academic them to in map mutual thoughts _ connected
Outcomes experimental year and whole . The series of processes can
research design. raises question related concept yet _ clear ,
Topics : These research that concept yet understood , that concept
students results are very has not complete , or giving rise to
learning important to confrontation with draft other . Based on
outcomes further improve phenomenon , compiled a list of questions
this integrated and answers in accordance with pattern
learning model. think student . Questions it also becomes
tree questioning process _ answer during
discussion in class so that learning become
more dynamic .

9. 2016 Identifying Focus on 3 sub 1. What are the quantitati 84 ESL closed reliability Form four based on results study moment This that
(Muhammad Reading theories from reading strategies ve Teacher ended test with (15-16 ESL teachers tend to use more multiple
Javed, Lin Strategies to taxonomy b used by ESL s questionn SPSS years old) reading strategies For answer question
Siew Eng, Teach Literal, arrets For his teachers to teach aire student literal understanding than which they do
Abdul Reorganizatio research . literal secondary moment teach How answer question
 Rashid n and comprehension school reorganization and/ or understanding
Mohamed, Inferential Taking a questions? from inferential . Based on the data presented in
Shaik Abdul Comprehensi sample of 84 Penang, Tables 2, 3 and 4, can concluded that ESL
Malik on Questions teachers but 2. What are the Malaysia teachers do use comprehension strategies
Mohamed to ESL interpreted in reading strategies reading For increase literal understanding ,
Ismail) Students the reliability used by ESL reorganization , and inferential student them
test with teachers to teach . Comparison made in Figure 1 based on
selection of reorganization mean score of the reading strategies used by
participants comprehension ESL teachers for teach question literal
random , and questions? understanding , reorganization , and
getting only 10 inferential . Figure 1 shows that average
participants 3. What are the score for literal teaching , reorganization
( ESL reading strategies and understanding inferential respectively
Teachers) used by ESL are 3.61, 3.14, and 2.98. this score disclose
teachers to teach that ESL teachers use more understanding
inferential strategies _ reading For teach How answer
comprehension question literal understanding compared
questions? with question understanding reorganization
and understanding inferential .

10. 2016 (Cao The Research - Studies 1) What are Mix 5 EFL Observati Classroo 150 According to the results of the teachers'
wangru ) on Strategies previously teachers' Method : Teacher on, m students of questioning in class and the students'
of College about teacher's questioning quality s in interview, discourse Henan's expectations, we found there are some
English question no features in college and Henan questionai analysis University effective ways of college English teachers'
Teachers Once take into English quantity Universi re , And SPSS classroom questioning. Referential questions
Classroom account hope classroom? ty recording The create more interaction in the classroom
Questioning student or even 2) What are the average than display questions do. Students also
ignore it . effective ways of size of each expect the teacher to raise more referential
Studies This college English class varies questions than the display ones. Referential
will fill in gaps teachers from 45 to questions can increase the amount of learner
and also classroom 60 students output; therefore, an increased use of
delivers a questioning? (A Big referential questions may create
number of 3) What is the class) communication, which can produce a flow of
method relationship information from students, and may create
effective For between teachers' more classroom interactions. Display
increase questioning questions require short or even one-word
question behaviors and answers and hence are less likely to get
language classroom learners to produce large amounts of speech.
teacher class interaction? However, we cannot generalize that
English college 4) Are there any referential questions and real questions are
high . ways for teachers more useful for language learning or display
- Using to improve their and text questions are useless. In the present
classroom questioning research, the teachers have not raised the
discourse strategies? If any, referential questions to a balanced
 analysis what are they? proportion. According to the standard
analysis. proposed by Borich, Teachers need to
increase the number of referential questions
to a proper ratio, 70:30 (display: referential)
split for low-efficient learners, 65:35 split for
average students and 60:40 (display :
referential) split for high-efficient learners,
and at the same time, also value the
importance of display and text questions.

11. 2012 (Majid A case study to the 1. What are the Qualitativ An EFL Structure Discourse once of it was found out that coded/display and
Farahiana , of an EFL researchers' types of questions e Beginne interviews analysis Senior yes/no questions outnumbered
Mehrdad teacher's type knowledge, to the language Case r Highschool open/referential questions. Moreover, the
Rezaee ) of questions: investigate both school teachers study Teacher this is Iran responses of all types of questions were
an teachers' and ask in the five s in Iran generally made up of single words or simple
investigation the learners' sessions of 15 students phrases. There are lots of reasons for
into responses in the teaching English teachers use of display questions. Among all
classroom classroom. This to secondary level Small class the reasons, proficiency seems to be the most
interaction study is based EFL students ? influencing factor. Moreover, it was revealed
on the above- 2. how the that inexperienced teachers tend to ask more
Topic : mentioned teacher's opinion closed/display questions. It was also likely
Investigations limitations and about the type of that since the teacher in the study does not
type of efl
 teachers the main question have a satisfactory mastery of second
question in purpose is to language, he prefers to ask close questions
classroom find out the since he either cannot produce suitable
type(s) of questions or is not able to provide full
questions a answers to the questions if learners
language school redirected the questions to him. Although
teacher asked the proficiency level of students may justify
in five sessions the use of display questions ( Shomoossi ,
of teaching 2004), referential questions even in close
English to form are necessary to involve students in
intermediate real communication (Dalton-Puffer, 2007).
EFL learners.
Moreover, the
study aims at
seeking
teacher's
opinions
regarding these
types of
questions.