提問(questioning)是英語教師維持對課室掌控的主要方法之一 (Ellis,1990)。許多研究 (eg., Brock, 1986; Boyd & Rubin, 2006; Wu, 1993) 也肯定老師提問在英語為外語課室的正面功能。在台灣隨著英語學習備受重視，外籍英語教師在台灣儼然較本籍英語教師更強勢。過去許多研究探討學習者對中外師不同教學風格的觀感，卻鮮少研究直接分析比較中外師在課室的言談表現。而且過去的研究往往使用簡單的二分法來分類討論外語教師的問題，例如開放性問題與封閉性問題。本研究使用課室言談的方法來分析外籍與本籍英文教師提問模式，進而探討英語教師提問模式對於教師與台灣兒童英語學習者之間互動的影響。此外，此研究也討論本籍與外籍教師對於不同程度學習者的提問差異。外語課室的言談與自然溝通的言談是相當迥異的。然而以Kramsch (1985) 所提出的外語課室師生互動模式線性架構為基礎，許多外語課室中的變數，例如學習活動、學習教材、及討論的成員構成，都會影響英語課室中學生老師的互動是趨於「教學式言談」抑或是「自然式言談」。本研究旨在討論英語教師的問題使用反映出的師生互動模式來窺探老師教學風格的差異。此外，老師與學生問題使用的差異，及學生的程度差異是否影響學生本身的問題使用也在本研究的討論範圍內。研究對象為兩班學生，分別為高階班與低階班，及其每班各有的本籍師與外籍師。語料收集地點為台北市某私人連鎖兒童英語學習機構的分校。本研究以Willis (1992)的「外語教室課程內外言談分析方法」(Inner and Outer)及Tsui(1992)的「問題分類」(Elicitation Classification)為基礎，設計了一個外語課室問題的分析方法。根據分析結果有以下四點發現:
1. 師生互動程度是趨於「教學式言談」或「自然式言談」反映出英語教師所期待
的教學目標。
2. 教授低階班級的本籍與外籍老師的 提問模式 都反映出師生互動溝通程度較低，因而較趨於「教學式言談」。反觀高階班級，本籍與外籍教師的提問模式都展現較高意願建構趨於「自然式言談」的師生互動模式，顯示出英語教師確實會隨著學生的程度差異而調整自己的問題使用。
3. 學生與老師有不同的提問模式。結果顯示老師的問題使用較著重虛假問題的使用與確認學生是否了解已傳述的言談，而學生的問題以尋求訊息、確認、與期待對方重複之前的訊息此三類為主。
4. 就問題的數量來看，高階班級的學生比低階班級的學生問較多的問題，且在高
階班級中，程度較高的學生也頃向問較多的問題。顯示學生在英語學習課堂中問問題的意願及能力與程度的提升似乎有正相關的現象。

結果顯示英語教師的國籍背景雖會影響其在課堂中問題的使用，其學生程度上的差異似乎更是影響英語教師問題使用的要因。本研究的結果可作為英語教學上教師問題使用方法的參考。如何根據不同程度的學習者，透過不同類型問題的使用，建構出接近「自然式言談」的師生互動模式。

Asking Questions is the main method in which teachers maintain control over the classroom discourse (Ellis, 1990). Several studies (eg., Brock, 1986; Boyd & Rubin, 2006; Wu, 1993) confirmed the positive functions carried by questions in a language classroom. This study uses discourse analysis approach to investigate the question formats and functions used by native and non-native English teachers (hence, NEST vs. non-NEST) when teaching English to young Chinese students with different English proficiency levels. Furthermore, the study primarily examines the relationship of their question patterns and the degree of communicativeness in teacher-student interaction along the continuum with the two poles of instructional discourse and natural discourse in EFL classrooms proposed by Kramsch (1985). The discourse data were video recording of twelve lessons from two classes, each of which taught by a NEST and non-NEST, in a private children English school in Taipei City. One class was formed by the students with low proficiency, and the other was form by the students with high proficiency. A modified model of question use based on Willis’ (1992) Inner and Outer Model and Tsui’s (1992) Elicitation Classification was used as the analytical instrument for this study. The results show that the pattern of teacher’s question use is a critical indicator for how communicative the instruction is. The findings of the study are summarized as follows:

1. The extent of natural discourse controlled by the teachers reflects their pedagogical goals.
2. Both the NEST and non-NEST teaching low proficient students exhibit a low degree of communicativeness in their lessons, while the NEST and non-NEST teaching high proficient student show higher intention of using natural discourse in their instruction. This finding reveals that the teachers indeed change their question use with students’ proficiency.
3. The teachers used a high percentage of ‘Pseudo Questions’, while the students asked more Elicit: inform, Elicit: clarify, and Elicit: repeat. The teachers and the students present different question patterns. These two distinct patterns indicate their opposite intentions, providing versus receiving knowledge, in these EFL classrooms.
4. The students would be more capable in asking questions when their language proficiency is higher.
These findings demonstrate that though the teachers’ language background plays a role in their question use, the students’ proficiency level seems to be a much more influential factor in shaping the teacher’s question use. Pedagogical implications are provided for planning a more communicative L2 classroom from the use of questioning techniques.

Árva, V., & Medgyes, P. (2000). Native and non-native teachers in the classroom.
System, 28, 355-372.
Asher, J. (1996). Learning another language through actions. Los Gatos, Calif.: Sky Oaks.
Baetens Beardmore, H. (1996). Reconciling content acquisition and language
acquisition in bilingual classrooms. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 17, Nos 2-4.
Boyd, M., & Rubin, D. (2006). How contingent questioning promotes extended
student talk: A function of display questions. Journal of Literacy Research,
38(2), 141-169.
Brock, C. A. (1986). The effects of referential questions on ESL classroom discourse.
TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 47-59.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to
second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and
learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chen, C. L.,& Hsu, C. T. (2008). A study of motivation in English learning for junior high school students in the cram school in Taiwan. 2008 International Conference on English Education. Hsih Chien University.
Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition: Learning in the
classroom. Oxford: Blackwell.
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 354-375.
Gall, M. D. (1970). The use of questions in teaching. Review of Educational
Research, 40(5), 707-721.
Givon, R. (1979). On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.
Ho, D. G. E. (2005). Why do teachers ask questions they ask? RELC Journal, 36(3),
297-310.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.),
Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (269-293). Harmondsworth,
England: Penguin.
Kachur, R., Smagorinsky, P., & Smith, M. (1995). The language of interpretation:
Patterns of discourse in discussions of literature (NCTE Research Rep. No.
27). Urbana. IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Kim, S. H. O., & Elder, C. (2005). Language choices and pedagogic functions in the
foreign language classroom: A cross-linguistic functional analysis of teacher
talk. Language Teaching Research, 9(4), 355-380.
Kramsch, C. J. (1985). Classroom interaction and discourse options. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 159–68.
Kramsch, C. J. (1987). Socialization and literacy in a foreign language: Learning through interaction. Theory of Practice, 26(4), 243-250.
Lei, X. (2009). Communicative teacher talk in the English classroom. English Language Teaching, 2(1), 75-79.
Lin, H. Y. (2005). Teacher talk of native and non-native English teachers in EFL classrooms. (unpublished Master Thesis, Min-Chuang University).
Marshall, P., Smagorinsky, P., & Smith, M. (1995). The language of interpretation:
Patterns of discourse in discussions of literature. Urbana, IL: National Council
of Teachers of English.
Martin, N. (2003). Questioning styles. Mathematics Teaching, 184, 18-19.
Maum, R. (2002). Nonnative-English-speaking teachers in the English teaching
professions. ERIC Digest. Retrieved January 2, 2005 from http://www.cal.org/ericcll/DIGEST.
McNeil, A. (1994). Some Characteristics of Native and Non-native Speaker Teachers
of English. In N. Bird, D. Allison, P. Falvey, A.B.M. Tsui, and A. McNeill,
(Eds.). Language and Learning, Hong Kong Education Department, 521-532.
Medgyes, P. (1992). Native or non-native: Who’s worth more? ELT Journal, 46(4),
340-349.
Norton, B. (1997). The identity of the nonnative ESL teacher on the power and status
of nonnative ESL teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 577-580.
Nunan, D. (1987). Communicative language teaching: Making it work. ELT Journal, 41(2), 136-145.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunn, R. (1999). The purposes of language teachers’ questions. International Review
of Applied Linguistics, 37(1), 23-34.
Ohta, A. S., & Nakaone, T. (2004). When students ask questions: Teacher and peer
answers in the foreign language classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 42(3), 217–237.
Savignon, S. J. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and practice: Texts and Contexts in Second Language Learning. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley
Seedhouse, P. (1996). Classroom interaction: Possibilities and impossibilities. ELT
Journal, 50(1), 16-24.
Skilton, E., & Meyer, T. (1993). So what are you talking about?: the importance of student questions in the ESL classroom. WPEL, 9(2), 81-99.
Thornbury, S., & Slade, D. (2006). Conversation: From Description to Pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tsui A. B. M. (1985). Analyzing input and interaction in second language classrooms. RELC Journal, 16(1), 8–32.
Tsui A. B. M. (1992). A functional description of questions. In: Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in spoken discourse analysis (pp.162-182). London: Routledge.
Üstünlüoglu, E. (2007). University students’ perceptions of native and non-native
teachers. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 13(1), 63-79.
Willis, J. (1992). Inner and outer: spoken discourse in the language classroom. In:
Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis (p.162-182). London: Routledge.
Walsh, S. (2002). Construction or obstruction: teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research, 6(3), 3-23.
Wu, K. Y. (1993). Classroom interaction and teacher questions revisited. RELC
Journal, 24(2), 49-68.
陳淑嬌。(民 89)。國小英語習得規劃。英語教學，24(4)，53-67 。
張湘君。(民 91)。透視台灣兒童英語教育。成長幼教季刊。13-1(49)，18-21。
盧慧真、陳泰安。(民94)。由國家語言政策評估台灣幼兒英語教育之現況發展。
環球技術學院科技人文學刊，2，45-56。
中華民國教育部。直轄市及各縣市短期補習班資訊管理系統。2009年7月5日，取
自http://ap4.kh.edu.tw/