The worst question in teaching (Part 3 — Action research)

By Scott Donald

Having described ‘do you understand’ as the worst question in teaching in part 1, and examined five better methods for checking students’ understanding in part 2, in part 3 we will look at the results a questionnaire conducted to find out which of the five methods teachers actually use in their classrooms.

The questionnaire

The questionnaire was designed to elicit honest answers from the respondents about their teaching and to ask their opinions on checking understanding. They were allowed to submit their answers anonymously. They had a multiple choice question to determine how often they used a specific technique and they were able to write comments underneath to support their answer.

Results

In total, the sample included 14 respondents, both native and non-native English teachers, with a range of teaching experience — from newly qualified to over 10 years. The results of the multiple choice questions were as follows:

(If you’re not sure what’s involved in these techniques, click here for a quick explanation.)

Analysis and teachers’ comments

The data above indicates that checking understanding is regarded as important by the teachers in the sample; all stated it is something they either do, and/or would like to do more often. The three most popular techniques were: personalisation, student explanation and timelines.

The use of concept checking questions was also a popular technique, with an even split between often/sometimes.

Extension is the least popular technique, and was the only technique to feature in the never category.

The data also indicates a high level of consensus amongst the teachers regarding these techniques. E.g. a spread of 3:3:2:3:3, would have suggested a lack of consensus; whereas instead we see results which are clearly weighted towards one category, e.g. 1:10:3:0:0, for ‘student explanation’. This consensus is also supported in the comments the respondents made regarding each technique.

I have analysed the comments on the techniques below, quoting specific samples and attempting to draw general conclusions where relevant.

1. CCQs

This was perhaps the most controversial of all the techniques. Whilst the data indicates high usage, the comments often suggested a lack of confidence in the technique. Many respondents felt that there was a danger of CCQs being ‘patronising’ or ‘disingenuous’, especially with higher levels. There were also concerns about the difficulty of forming CCQs adequately graded for lower levels, which seems to be tied to the idea that CCQs require forethought and planning, and may not be suitable for dealing with language which emerges spontaneously.

There did however seem to be a consensus that CCQs are something which the teachers should be using more of in their lessons, and despite their criticisms and reservations, many did cite CCQs as a ‘useful’ or ‘time-efficient’ technique. One respondent gave an example of a lesson where he was attempting to convey the word ‘follow’ and realised after the lesson that the explanation may have left room for a different meaning, something closer to ‘chase’. His suspicion was confirmed when he checked this in the next lesson, and he writes,

“If had used proper CCQ’s the first time, I would not have lost five minutes of that next lesson, reteaching them the word.”

2. Personalisation

This was a highly popular technique, with many teachers citing the fact that the engaging nature of the technique would make the target language ‘more memorable’ for students — one teacher wrote that personalisation was ‘essential’ to the learning process.

Some felt that personalisation was a good follow-up technique to CCQs, with one respondent saying that CCQs are limited as to how effective they are at helping the student truly learn the word. She suggests that using the personalisation technique gives the students the chance to hear the word used both semantically and contextually.

Despite its popularity, many respondents acknowledged that personalisation can be a time consuming technique. One teacher also felt strongly that, while useful, personalisation could be a little teacher-centric and that opportunities for personalisation should be placed in the hands of the learners.

3. Extension

As my initial informal research had indicated, this was the least widely used technique. Most teachers stated that they weren’t consciously aware of ever having used the technique, or that they were not aware of it, or had forgotten it. Some were conscious of it only as a type of written exercise students complete in their coursebooks.

One teacher who does use it wrote,

“I use it to check the understanding of linkers and discourse markers and with idiomatic language / fixed expressions (‘He’s over the moon because…’)”

Two teachers outlined potential pitfalls with the technique saying that learners can find the technique confusing, and that sometimes the student’s completion of the prompt doesn’t particularly clarify whether they have understood or not. These pitfalls could be somewhat lessened by another teacher’s suggestion that the extension technique would be useful, as long as students are acutely aware of what is expected of them when the teacher gives the prompt.

4. Eliciting definitions/explanations from students

Both the data and comments indicate that this is the most popular and widely used technique amongst the group of teachers. This is especially interesting as teacher trainers are often critical of the technique for a number of reasons:

• (a) only stronger students are able or willing to respond.
• (b) if weaker students do respond, a lot of time is spent waiting for them to formulate an answer, especially at lower levels.
• (c)it’s inefficient compared to other techniques, taking up a lot of class time.
• (d) the fact that it is often used as a delaying tactic by teachers when they can’t think of an explanation, but if the teacher can’t think of a good explanation, why would the students do any better?

Interestingly, these criticisms were addressed by some of the answers in the questionnaires. It was suggested that the problem of a single student answering (a) could be addressed through effective nomination of others in the class. This seems like a valid solution, especially if we are talking about checking, not conveying meaning; the teacher is not nominating a student to answer using their prior knowledge of English, but on their understanding of the meaning as it was conveyed in class.

The issue of using it with lower levels (b) and it being inefficient (c) weren’t specifically mentioned, although some respondents did seem to have an awareness of the downsides of using the technique. One teacher said he had used it ‘a little too much’ in his morning lesson, but had qualified that by saying that he was ’seeking more input from the students’. Another said that she used it despite knowing that it was ‘a big NO in teacher training’. She goes on to say,

“I think that giving their own explanations is another way of internalizing their knowledge. Of course, not all words can be easily defined and sometimes they know the word, the just can’t find the right definition for it. That’s obviously not a useful way of using this method. But I do believe that in some cases this can be a successful strategy of checking understanding. It is also argued by psychologists that the highest or deepest form of understanding is when you are teaching it to somebody, and giving explanations or definitions for a word is the same thing.”

Some teachers acknowledged that they use it as a delaying tactic (d); however, the general impression was that this was a benefit of the technique, and not detrimental to the learners. Many teachers felt that it would ultimately make the language more memorable if they have to think about it first. Also, there was the idea that the technique allows the teacher to have the time to think of a better way to clarify it, allowing them to optimise how they will ultimately clarify the language.

One of the most significant benefits of the technique, according to the teachers, was its application as a communication strategy. Many teachers felt that asking students for explanations was an opportunity to train and develop their ability to do this outside the classroom, they saw it as a ‘real-world communication strategy’ that students need to get ‘into the habit’ of using.

Another benefit is the technique’s high student-centeredness; this too was something many teachers commented on.

5. Timelines

Timelines were perhaps the least controversial of the techniques, gaining almost unanimous support from all the respondents. Specifically, the use of two timelines for contrast, (e.g. present perfect vs past simple), was a popular use of the technique. One teacher strongly emphasised the need for an accompanying explanation when using timelines, as students may copy down the timeline as an automatic process without understanding it. Some emphasised the benefit of the technique in simplifying concepts such as tense and praised its ability to cater for ‘visual learning preferences’. CCQs were also suggested as good technique to accompany timelines. The only respondent to choose ‘rarely’ said that he felt putting timelines on the board put, ‘too much focus on the teacher, unless you make the learners physically mark the timeline’. Others also mentioned the idea of having students mark the timelines.

6. Other techniques and comments

Two other popular techniques that came up in the questionnaires were miming and drawing. My favourite example for drawing was as follows,

“I was teaching simple future vs. Future perfect vs. Future continuous and the class seemed to lack confidence on the meanings. So I had three sentences, one in each tense: In fifteen minutes, I will have lunch. In fifteen minutes, I will be having lunch. And In fifteen minutes I will have had lunch. I drew three plates, one with a full sandwich, one with a half-eaten sandwich, and one empty plate and had them pick which picture went with each sentence.”

Another interesting technique suggested was to ‘humorously’ misuse a word or concept after teaching it, which for me is something similar to a CCQ.

Finally, an interesting point raised by one of the teachers, and something these articles haven’t discussed, was the difference between conveying and checking meaning,

“The border between conveying and checking meaning is also rather blurry (e.g. do we use timelines for conveying, or checking meaning?”

This was something that I had considered in my initial research into the area and I was pleased to see this aspect being considered by one of the teachers. I think there is a great deal of crossover between the two terms and many of the other techniques I researched can be used in situations: pictures, board drawing, mime, translation, scale/cline.

Whilst I think the blurred lines between conveying and checking are noteworthy, I do wonder if their difference is more semantic than practical. Also, as I discussed in part 1, some language doesn’t require teachers to check the students have understood.

Final thoughts

One thing I haven’t mentioned is that this questionnaire is already slightly dated. I had to reach into my DELTA files from 2013 and blow off some digital cobwebs. I am very grateful to my colleagues at Budapest who completed it back then, but I think we could agree that perhaps it’s time we updated this -repeat the questionnaire and who knows, maybe we could reach more people.

I’d also be more than happy for any of the original participants to complete it again, as I realise my own opinions have shifted in the last few years, e.g. I’m now a lot more sceptical about the efficiency of eliciting definitions from students, possibly as a result of my experiences as a teacher trainer. Have your opinions of the techniques in this article changed as a result of your classroom experience, and if so, how?

I have made a simple Google form, which follows the same format as the original checking understanding questionnaire, here is the link, which I’ve turned into a memorable portmanteau:

https://tinyurl.com/chundering

I look forward to hearing your ideas.