English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies ISSN 2640-9836 (Print) ISSN 2640-9844 (Online) Vol. 7, No. 4, 2025 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls 90 Original Paper Teacher Questions in EFL Classroom: A Study between More and Less Developed Regions Ruiying Lu1 & Fang Tan1 1 School of Foreign Languages, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, Liaoning, China Received: June 09, 2025 Accepted: August 01, 2025 Online Published: August 14, 2025 doi:10.22158/eltls.v7n4p90 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/eltls.v7n4p90 Abstract Teacher questions are important indicators to reflect English teachers’ teaching ability. This study took 28 English teachers as corpora to explore the characteristics of teacher questions in EFL classroom between more and less developed regions. Combining the models of interactive choices of EFL (English as a foreign language) teacher questions (Yang, 2021) and the revision of Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson et al., 2001), this study investigated the interactivity degrees and cognitive levels of teacher questions. Firstly, it was found that there was no significant difference in the interactivity degrees of teacher questions in EFL classroom between more and less developed regions. Secondly, teachers in less developed regions asked remembering questions more frequently than those in more developed regions while the latter asked applying questions more frequently than the former. From the perspective of sociocultural theory, it was found that teachers in more developed regions focused more on students’ intra-mental interaction, while teachers in less developed regions focused more on students’ inter-mental interaction. Keywords Teacher Questions; EFL Classroom; More Developed Regions; Less Developed Regions; Interactivity Degrees; Cognitive Levels 1. Introduction 1.1 Research Background Some research indicates that more developed regions tend to possess higher-quality education systems, with teacher quality being a crucial component. These regions often provide more competitive salaries and greater opportunities for professional improvement, which attracts more skilled teachers (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2006). As a result, parents generally prefer schools in more developed regions to secure better educational opportunities for their children (Coleman, 2018). However, Murnane & Ganimian www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 7, No. 4, 2025 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 91 (2014) argued that there was no direct relation between economic condition and teacher quality, as non-economic factors, such as incentive structures and resource distribution mechanisms, also played significant roles. Teacher questions serve as key indicators that reflect English teachers’ teaching ability and classroom quality. In English-as-foreign-language (EFL) classroom, where communication in English is a primary objective, teacher-student interaction plays a critical role. Sociocultural theory highlights the importance of interaction in students’ knowledge construction, particularly in second language acquisition (Vygotsky, 1978). Sociocultural theory holds that effective teacher-student interaction helps create a welcoming and challenging classroom environment conducive to second language acquisition. Teacher questions are crucial ways to elicit such interaction (Borich, 1988; Gall, 1970). Teacher questions may stimulate students to participate in classroom interaction and to improve their critical thinking through interaction. In this process, the interactivity degrees and cognitive levels of teacher questions significantly influence the quality of teacher-student interaction (Hu & Li, 2017; Yang, 2010), thereby affecting the classroom environment. Few studies have contrasted teacher questions in EFL classroom between more and less developed regions. Therefore, drawing on sociocultural theory, this study explored the interactivity degrees and cognitive levels of teacher questions in EFL classroom between more and less developed regions. 1.2 Literature Review 1.2.1 Definitions of Teacher Questions Teacher questions, due to their significance of classroom instruction, have been extensively studied since the 1970s. Scholars have proposed various definitions of teacher questions. Ur (2012) defined them as verbal prompts designed to elicit oral responses from students. Similarly, Borich (1988) described teacher questions as spoken language used to stimulate students’ responses. Yang (2010) characterized teacher questions as interactive exchanges in which teachers seek information from students. The functions of teacher questions have also been emphasized. Gall (1970) argued that teacher questions are fundamental methods for stimulating student thinking and learning. Similarly, Blosser (1991) suggested that teachers use questions to assess comprehension, foster critical and creative thinking. In summary, teacher questions are verbal prompts aimed at eliciting information from students, engaging them in classroom interaction, and stimulating their cognitive processes. They are essential tools for creating interactive and cognitive environment in classroom teaching. In this study, teacher questions refer to discourse moves that require students to give information through verbal responses. 1.2.2 Previous Studies on Teacher Questions Previous studies on teacher questions in English language classrooms have primarily focused on two classifications. Firstly, Barnes (1969) categorized teacher questions into open questions and closed questions. Open questions are designed to encourage a wide variety of possible student responses, whereas closed questions prompt a more limited set of answers. It is generally argued that open www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 7, No. 4, 2025 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 92 questions stimulate more student output so that such questions should be used more frequently in classroom teaching (van der Wilt et al., 2022). Nevertheless, other researchers emphasized the pedagogical value of closed questions in English teaching. For instance, Wu (1993) studied teacher questions in English-as-second-language classroom in Hong Kong. It was demonstrated that closed questions were more effective than open questions in stimulating student responses. The second frequently used classification was developed by Long & Sato, who divided teacher questions into display questions and referential questions (Pourhaji et al., 2020). Display questions check students’ understanding by asking for information already known by teachers, while referential questions seek information unknown by teachers to promote students’ deeper understanding. Many researchers advocated for more frequent usage of referential questions which created more meaningful information gaps (Liu & Gillies, 2021; Roostini, 2011). However, other scholars proposed different viewpoints. Qashoa (2013) studied EFL classrooms. It was revealed that some display questions could actually generate longer student responses than referential questions, leading to the conclusion that both question types were important in classroom interaction. In summary, previous studies on teacher questions in English teaching classroom have mainly focused on the dichotomy of teacher question. However, scholars have not yet reached a consensus regarding which types of questions more effectively facilitate teacher-student interaction. In addition, some other studies examined the cognitive levels of teacher questions in English language classrooms. Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy of educational objectives classified cognitive processes into six hierarchical levels from concrete to abstract: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Later, to make this taxonomy more in line with the current educational background, Anderson et al. (2001) revised it into remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating and creating (see Table 1). Bloom’s taxonomy and its revision have been applied widely in studies on English teacher questions. Song (2019) investigated 8 Chinese high school English reading classes and found a positive correlation between teacher questioning patterns and students’ critical thinking development. Liu and Yoon (2024) examined the frequencies and functions of teacher questions at six cognitive levels in Chinese preschool storytelling classes, finding that each level contributed differently to developing critical thinking skills among young learners. These above studies have validated the applicability of Bloom’s taxonomy and its revision in the research on English teacher questions. However, few studies combined the interactivity degrees and cognitive levels of teacher questions, both of which are emphasized by sociocultural theory. The above reviews reveal that few studies focused on the interactivity degrees of teacher questions. Yang (2021), from the perspective of systemic functional linguistics, constructed a model of interactivity degrees of teacher questions in terms of subject persons and model deixis (see Table 2). The interactivity degrees of teacher questions are realized by their interactive choices of subject persons and modal deixis. To validate this model’s applicability, Yang (2021) examined how different interactive choices affected the length of student responses. It was indicated that questions with www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 7, No. 4, 2025 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 93 “interactant” and “judgment” elicited longer student responses, which demonstrated higher interactivity degrees. Table 1. The Cognitive Level Dimension (Anderson et al., 2001) Categories & Cognitive Levels Examples 1. Remembering: retrieving relevant knowledge from long-term memory 1.1 Recognizing Do you know habits? 1.2 Recalling What do Da Ming’s grandparents like? 2. Understanding: constructing meaning from instructional messages, including oral, written, and graphic communication 2.1 Interpreting What is a magazine? Chinese. 2.2 Exemplifying Can you give me an example of exercise? 2.3 Classifying Now, what clothes are for boys? 2.4 Summarizing How many times does Andy make the invitation? 2.5 Inferring Can you guess the singular form of scarves? 2.6 Comparing Anything different with, from yours? 2.7 Explaining Why doesn’t she often buy chocolate? 3. Applying: carrying out or using a procedure in a given situation 3.1 Executing Now, suppose you were Da Ming, could you introduce your grandparents likes and habits to us? 3.2 Implementing Can you write a plan clearly? 4. Applying: breaking material into its constituent parts and determining how the parts relates to one another and to an overall structure or purpose 4.1 Differentiating Okay, class, which one do you choose? 4.2 Organizing What do you think David should write in this invitation? 4.3 Attributing What’s the keyword? 5. Evaluating: making judgment based on criteria and standards 5.1 Checking Is that a good way? 5.2 Critiquing Do you agree with him? 6. Creating: putting elements together to form a coherent or functional whole; reorganizing elements into a new pattern or structure 6.1 Generating Besides these people, who else do you think can help? 6.2 Planning And what will you sell? 6.3 Producing If you want me to watch a movie, what advice will you give to me? www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 7, No. 4, 2025 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 94 Table 2. Coding Scheme System for Teacher Questions Interactive Choice (Yang, 2021) Choice Meaning Examples Subject person Interactant (involving) students you, your family inclusive we, inclusive our Non-interactant other people, things, acts he, she, their Anna, Amy one, exclusive we ancient history, the trip who, what these, the Modal deixis Judgment intermediate degrees between positive and negative can, have to agree with Time present is, are, do, have past was, were, did, had 1.2.3 Previous Studies on Factors Affecting Teacher Questions Previous studies mainly examined factors related to teachers and students themselves, such as teaching experience, teaching medium and students’ proficiency. Petek (2013) compared lessons given by 1 native EFL teacher and 1 non-native EFL teacher and pointed out that there was no difference between native and non-native EFL teacher question usage. Both teachers asked display questions more frequently. Pourhaji et al. (2020) investigated the relation between teachers’ teaching experience and question usage, finding that experienced EFL teachers used more varied questions than novice teachers. Serna-Bermejo & Lasagabaster (2024) explored the impact of teaching medium on teacher question usage. They suggested that there was no significant difference in teacher questions between English-medium and Basque-medium university instruction. Concerning factors related to students, by comparing the questions asked to undergraduate and graduate students, Bova (2015) found more general questions for undergraduates versus more specific questions followed by why-questions for graduates. Kumar et al. (2024) explored the relation between teacher questions and students’ genders. It was found that girls and boys were asked at similar rate and that teachers asked more scientific questions to boys than to girls. In summary, few studies have contrasted teacher questions in EFL classroom between more and less developed regions. Sociocultural theory has requirement for the interactivity degrees and cognitive levels of teacher questions. Therefore, this study attempts to address these research gaps by investigating the following questions: (1) What are the interactivity degrees of teacher questions in EFL classroom in more and less developed regions? www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 7, No. 4, 2025 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 95 (2) What are the cognitive levels of teacher questions in EFL classroom in more and less developed regions? (3) In terms of interactivity degrees and cognitive levels, what are the characteristics of teacher questions in EFL classroom in more and less developed regions from the perspective of mediation and the zone of proximal development in sociocultural theory? 2. Method 2.1 Corpus Description The data was from 28 videos of the 15th Junior High School Foreign Language Classroom Teaching Presentation and Observation, an event hosted by the Foreign Language Teaching Professional Committee of the Chinese Society of Education in China in November 2023. This event was selected as research data for three reasons. Firstly, it involves 28 English teachers from different provinces of China. They delivered on-site lectures with complete structures. Secondly, the content in each class is closely related to the teaching materials without extraneous elements. Thirdly, this event has clear and complete recordings (https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1QK42117kv). This study utilized GDP per capita (GDPPC) of regions where the 28 teachers worked in 2023 to categorize the 28 teachers into two groups: teachers in more developed regions and teachers in less developed regions. GDPPC is recognized by Barro and Sala-i-Martin (2003) as a crucial indicator of regional economic disparities. The data of GDPPC used in this study was officially ranked by China’s National Bureau of Statistics and local statistical bureaus. Table 3 presents the basic information of the 28 teachers. Teachers were identified as “Tn” to protect their privacy. “N” indicates their sequences of giving lectures in the event. The total duration of recordings was approximately 994 minutes, with 519 minutes of the recordings by teachers in less developed regions and 475 minutes of the recordings by teachers in more developed regions. Moo0 was applied to convert lecture videos into audio files. Feishu (www.feishu.cn) was used to transcribe these audio files into texts which were then proofread and annotated manually. The verified transcripts were categorized into two corpora according to the classification of teachers. The corpus including classroom discourse in classes given by teachers in less developed regions was named LEDR, while the corpus including classroom discourse in classes given by teachers in more developed regions was named MEDR. The size of the two corpora was calculated through AntConc4.0. After excluding Chinese, there were totally 3,163 types and 92,195 tokens in the two corpora, including 2,153 types, 44,585 tokens of LEDR and 2,286 types, 47,610 tokens of MEDR. A pilot study was conducted to verify whether lesson type significantly influenced teacher questions. Two listening & speaking lessons, two writing lessons, and two reading lessons were extracted from LEDR, while two listening & speaking lessons and two reading lessons were extracted from MEDR. SPSS27 was used to conduct ANOVA to compare the proportions of the interactivity degrees and cognitive levels of teacher questions in different types of lessons in each corpus. The results revealed that there was no significant difference in the frequencies of interactive choices and cognitive levels of www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 7, No. 4, 2025 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 96 teacher questions across the various lesson types within each group (p>0.05). Table 3. Basic Information of Teachers and Lectures Group Teacher Region Ranking of GDPPC in 2023 Lesson Type Teachers in More Developed Regions T23 Beijing 1 Listening & Speaking T25 Jiangsu 3 Listening & Speaking T29 Fujian 4 Reading T15 Zhejiang 5 Listening & Speaking T5 Tianjin 6 Reading T9 Guangdong 7 Reading T12 Inner Mongolia 8 Reading T14 Hubei 9 Reading T26 Chongqing 10 Reading T17 Shandong 11 Listening & Speaking T28 Anhui 13 Reading T22 Hunan 14 Reading T6 Xinjiang 15 Reading T21 Shanxi 16 Reading Teachers in Less Developed Regions T10 Hainan 17 Listening & Speaking T24 Ningxia 18 Reading T1 Liaoning 19 Reading T16 Sichuan 20 Listening & Speaking T3 Jiangxi 21 Reading T4 Tibet 22 Reading T13 Yunnan 23 Reading T8 Henan 25 Reading T20 Hebei 26 Reading T11 Jilin 27 Reading T18 Guizhou 28 Writing T2 Guangxi 29 Writing T27 Heilongjiang 30 Reading T7 Gansu 31 Reading www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 7, No. 4, 2025 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 97 2.2 Research Procedures The first step was coding. Teacher questions were extracted into Excel files and coded in terms of their interactive choices and cognitive levels. There were totally 1,841 teacher questions in the two corpora, with 932 by teachers in less developed regions and 909 by teachers in more developed regions. The interactive choices of teacher questions were coded based on the framework in Table 1, while the cognitive levels based on the framework in Table 2. Two coders familiar with the two coding schemes coded the interactive choices and cognitive levels of teacher questions independently. Cohen’s Kappa statistics—κ=0.985 for subject persons, κ=0.983 for modal deixis and κ=0.917 for cognitive levels— indicated excellent inter-coder agreement. The disagreements were resolved through discussion. The second step was analyzing. The frequencies of teacher questions with different interactive choices as well as of different cognitive levels were calculated in Excel files. The frequencies were normalized by 10,000 words to control for possible effects of corpus size. This study used the UCREL significance test system (http://corpora.lancs.ac.uk/sigtest/) to conduct log-likelihood (LL) tests in order to examine whether there were significant differences in the interactivity degrees and cognitive levels of teacher questions between the two corpora. If LL≥3.84, it indicates that there is significant difference. Meanwhile, this study took Phi coefficient (φ) as the effect size measure (Wei et al., 2019). φ around 0.1 indicates a small correlation. φ around 0.3 indicates a medium correlation. φ around 0.5 indicates a large correlation (http://corpora.lancs.ac.uk/sigtest/). Then AntConc4.0 was applied to identify the high-frequently used patterns of teacher questions with different interactivity degrees and cognitive levels. Finally, from the perspective of mediation and the zone of proximal development in sociocultural theory, this study analyzed what were the characteristics of teacher questions in EFL classroom in more and less developed regions in terms of interactivity degrees and cognitive levels. 3. Results & Discussion 3.1 Interactivity Degrees of Teacher Questions in EFL Classroom in More and Less Developed Regions The results of log-likelihood tests on interactive choices of teacher questions in the two corpora are shown in Table 4. Firstly, there is no significant difference between the choices of subject persons by the two groups of teachers. High-frequency subject persons of teacher questions in the two corpora are shown in Table 5. Both the two groups of teachers frequently used “you” and inclusive “we” as “interactant”. “There” was the most frequently used “non-interactant” in these two corpora. Teachers usually used questions with the patterns of “(is there) anything/anyone else?” or “(is there) any different ideas/answers?” to ask for different answers to their previous questions. It is a way to encourage students to engage in divergent thinking and involve more students in the classroom interaction. Meanwhile, it is shown that the pattern of “which one” was high-frequently used by teachers in more developed regions as “non-interactant”. It makes teacher questions simpler by providing students with alternative answers. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 7, No. 4, 2025 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 98 Table 4. Results of Log-likelihood Tests on Interactive Choices of Teacher Questions in the Two Corpora Interactive Choices LEDR MEDR Log-likelihood Phi Coefficient Normalized Frequency (per 10,000 words) % Normalized Frequency (per 10,000 words) % Subject Person Interactant 88.59 42.38 76.87 40.26 0.35 0.0117 Non- interactant 120.44 57.62 114.05 59.74 0.22 0.0087 Modal Deixis Judgment 74.91 35.84 65.32 34.21 0.26 0.0102 Present 127.85 61.16 110.27 57.76 0.56 0.0138 Past 6.28 3.00 15.33 8.03 20.81 *** 0.1017 * p < 0.05, critical value = 3.84; ** p < 0.01, critical value = 6.63; *** p < 0.001, critical value = 10.83. Table 5. High-frequency Subject Persons in the Two Corpora Rank LEDR MEDR Normalized Frequency (per 10,000 words) % Subject Person Normalized Frequency (per 10,000 words) % Subject Person 1 76.71 36.70 you 61.75 32.34 you 2 21.76 10.41 there 19.11 10.01 there 3 9.42 4.51 inclusive “we” 11.55 6.05 inclusive “we” 4 8.30 3.97 it 8.82 4.62 he 5 7.63 3.65 they 8.82 4.62 it 6 6.28 3.00 she 6.30 3.30 who 7 6.28 3.00 who 5.46 2.86 they 8 4.71 2.25 he 3.78 1.98 she 9 4.04 1.93 what 3.57 1.87 what 10 2.24 1.07 that 2.10 1.10 which one Secondly, it is shown in Table 4 that there is significant difference in the usage of “past” by teachers between more and less developed regions, LL = 20.81, φ = 0.1017 (M = 0.45 vs. 1.09, SD = 0.42 vs. 1.34). After the analysis of specific data in MEDR, this difference is found to be due to the teaching habit of T14 who usually used the pattern of “have you found” to ask students questions. High-frequency modal deixis of teacher questions in the two corpora is shown in Table 6. It is shown www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 7, No. 4, 2025 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 99 that “can” was the most frequently used “judgement” by both groups of teachers who usually used the pattern of “can you/we ...?” to ask questions. What’s more, these two groups of teachers also used the patterns of “would you like ...?” to invite students to answer questions, “do you agree (with ...)?” to ask students to evaluate the ideas of others, and “what do you think of ...?” to require students to judge something. Table 6. High-frequency Modal Deixis in the Two Corpora Rank LEDR MEDR Normalized Frequency (per 10,000 words) % Modal Deixis Normalized Frequency (per 10,000 words) % Modal Deixis 1 65.27 31.22 is 56.50 29.59 is 2 26.69 12.77 can 23.10 12.10 can 3 25.34 12.12 do 17.64 9.24 do 4 18.17 8.69 are 12.39 6.49 does 5 13.91 6.65 think 10.92 5.72 are 6 8.97 4.29 agree 10.08 5.28 think 7 8.97 4.29 want to 8.19 4.29 did 8 8.52 4.08 does 7.56 3.96 want to 9 3.59 1.72 did 5.25 2.75 agree 10 3.14 1.50 would like 4.20 2.20 would like 3.2 Cognitive Levels of Teacher Questions in EFL Classroom in More and Less Developed Regions It is found that there are significant differences in the frequencies of remembering and applying questions between the two corpora. The results of log-likelihood tests on cognitive levels of teacher questions in the two corpora are shown in Table 7. Teachers in less developed regions asked remembering questions more frequently than teachers in more developed regions, LL = 19.11, φ = 0.0932 (M = 3.38 vs. 1.82, SD = 1.52 vs. 0.87). In addition, teachers in more developed regions asked applying questions more frequently than teachers in less developed regions, LL = 30.89, φ = 0.1226 (M = 0.77 vs. 0.34, SD = 1.09 vs. 0.40). As for frequently used patterns, both the two groups of teachers usually asked evaluating questions with the pattern of “what do you think of ...?” to require students to judge something and with the pattern of “do you agree (with ...)?” to invite them to evaluate other students’ answers. What’s more, teachers in less developed regions also asked evaluating questions with the pattern of “is there anything else/different?” to invite students to provide different ideas. www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 7, No. 4, 2025 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 100 Table 7. Results of Log-likelihood Tests on Cognitive Levels of Teacher Questions in the Two Corpora Cognitive Levels LEDR MEDR Log-likelihood Phi Coefficient Normalized Frequency (per 10,000 words) % Normalized Frequency (per 10,000 words) % Remember 47.33 22.64 25.41 13.31 19.11 *** 0.0932 Understand 77.16 36.91 82.76 43.34 3.39 0.0363 Apply 4.04 1.93 14.28 7.48 30.89 *** 0.1226 Analyze 18.84 9.01 20.37 10.67 1.17 0.0241 Evaluate 50.24 24.03 37.81 19.80 3.09 0.0371 Create 11.44 5.47 10.29 5.39 0.01 0.0804 * p < 0.05, critical value = 3.84; ** p < 0.01, critical value = 6.63; *** p < 0.001, critical value = 10.83. 3.3 Characteristics of Teacher Questions in EFL Classroom in More and Less Developed Regions from the Perspective of Mediation and the Zone of Proximal Development in Sociocultural Theory Sociocultural theory provides a new perspective for studying English-as-second-language teacher questions. Vygotsky (1978) viewed learning as a process in which learners construct knowledge within society and culture. Interaction plays a significant role in this process. It is proposed that there are two types of interaction in the process of knowledge construction: inter-mental interaction and intra-mental interaction (Vygotsky, 1978). These two types of interaction respectively set requirements for the interactivity degrees and cognitive levels of teacher questions. 3.3.1 Characteristics of Teacher Questions in EFL Classroom in More and Less Developed Regions from the Perspective of Mediation in Sociocultural Theory Inter-mental interaction refers to the interaction between learners and external social factors (Vygotsky, 1978). Sociocultural theory holds that environment and culture influence learners’ learning attitudes and beliefs, thereby affecting their language knowledge construction. Both sociocultural theory and systemic functional linguistics emphasize the social feature and interactive functions of language. One critical concept of sociocultural theory, mediation, requires teachers to use language as a medium to create the classroom environment that approximates real society for students’ knowledge construction through inter-mental interaction (Vygotsky, 1978). Systemic functional linguistics proposes the interpersonal metafunction of language, which studies how language establishes social relationship and expresses the speaker’s attitudes (Halliday, 2004). Among all discourse in classroom, teacher discourse, especially teacher questions that trigger teacher-student interaction, is one of the key elements that help create classroom environments. English teachers should use questions of high interactivity degrees in www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 7, No. 4, 2025 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 101 classroom to help create a relaxing and welcoming teaching environment. Based on systemic functional linguistics, Yang (2021) proposed a framework for studying the interactivity degrees of English teacher questions in terms of grammatical choices, and pointed out through empirical research that “interactant” and “judgement” are choices more interactive than “non-interactant” and “time”. “Non-interactant” is not related to students so that students are not responsible for the validity of information required (Yang, 2021), as shown in Excerpt 1. Teacher questions with “non-interactant” are more like instructions from teacher to students, which emphasizes the relation between teacher and students as educator and learners. Excerpt 1. < 063> What is the theme of the project? “Interactant” is related to students and makes them responsible for the validity of the information required by asking information related to students or designating some students to answer questions (Yang, 2021), as shown in Excerpt 2 & 3. Teacher questions with “interactant” are more like interactive events in which students are not only the addressees but also the participants of the events mentioned in these questions. Teacher questions with “interactant” are similar to real-life communication, which helps to create a relaxing and welcoming classroom environment required by sociocultural theory. Excerpt 2. <035> And do you think you eat well? Excerpt 3. <020> Do you have different opinions, Jimmy? Teacher questions with the modal deixis of “time” does not provide students the space to give their own judgement and expression (Yang, 2021). “Time” places the event mentioned in a teacher question in a specific time frame, so that students are required to provide answers within a fixed frame, as shown in Excerpt 4 & 5. Excerpt 4. <033> Why did they have conflicts? Excerpt 5. <007> What do you usually buy? “Judgement” as modal deixis gives students the opportunities to think and express by themselves (Yang, 2021). It puts the validity of information required into a space between positive and negative, as shown in Excerpt 6. Students give answers without the limitation of certain frame. The consequences of giving wrong answers are mitigated, so that teacher questions with “judgement” help create a welcoming and relaxing teaching environment required by sociocultural theory. Excerpt 6. <007> Would you like to come to Hainan? In terms of interactivity degrees, firstly, both the two groups of teachers could balance their usage of “interactant” and “non-interactant”. Secondly, both of them used “present” more frequently than “judgement” and “past”. From the perspective of mediation in sociocultural theory, it is revealed that the interactivity degrees of their questions are low in terms of their choices of modal deixis. 3.3.2 Characteristics of Teacher Questions in EFL Classroom in More and Less Developed Regions from the Perspective of the Zone of Proximal Development in Sociocultural Theory Intra-mental interaction refers to the interaction between learners and themselves (Vygotsky, 1978). The zone of proximal development (ZPD) is a key concept in sociocultural theory. Vygotsky (1978) www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 7, No. 4, 2025 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 102 defined the ZPD as the gap between students’ current levels and their potential levels. Potential levels refer to the levels that learner can achieve under others’ guidance. Teaching scaffolding refers to the support that teachers provide to students when students are unable to achieve specific goals (Wood et al., 1976). Teachers use teaching scaffolding to help learners understand knowledge and acquire skills that they lack, in order to help them pass through the ZPD. The dynamic interaction between the current levels and potential levels of learners helps to develop their psychological levels from lower to higher. Therefore, as one of the teaching scaffolding strategies, teacher questions should be given attention to their cognitive levels. English-as-second-language teachers should consider using questions of different cognitive levels when asking questions, in order to gradually help students bridge the gaps between their current and potential levels. The revision of Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson et al., 2001) provides an operational tool to study the cognitive levels of teacher questions. From lower to higher, the six cognitive levels are remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating and creating. Remembering questions are at the lowest cognitive level, requiring students to process or deal with information which is directly gotten from teaching materials, as shown in Excerpt 7. Teachers in less developed regions asked such questions more frequently than teachers in more developed regions, revealing that the former more emphasized students’ ability to collecting superficial information through their interaction with teaching materials. Such ability is related to students’ inter-mental interaction. Excerpt 7. <013> Can you tell me the name of the store? Understanding questions are at lower cognitive level. Such questions only require students to process teaching materials in a shallow degree so as to summarize information, to infer, to point out cause-and-effect relation, or to give supporting details for their previous answers, as shown in Excerpt 8 to 11. Excerpt 8. <021> How about their opinions towards after-school classes? Excerpt 9. <019> Can you guess what Chen Han is going to do in picture three? Excerpt 10. <021> Why do they have these ideas? Excerpt 11. <018> Which sentence shows us that? Applying questions are at middle cognitive level, requiring students to use knowledge they learn in class in order to improve their mastery of the knowledge, as shown in Excerpt 12. Such questions are instant practice helping students to master knowledge and cultivating students’ ability to transfer knowledge. Teachers in more developed regions asked these questions more frequently than teachers in less developed regions, revealing that the former more emphasized students’ knowledge transfer which is more related to their intra-mental interaction. Excerpt 12. <036> What activities do people do in Hangzhou in spring? You can share like this: in spring, some ... others ... Analyzing questions are at higher cognitive level. Such questions require students to deconstruct and analyze a particular whole so as to make choices, to get the structures of teaching materials, or to www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 7, No. 4, 2025 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 103 process the main ideas of texts, as shown in Excerpt 13 to15. Excerpt 13. <053> Which one do you choose? Excerpt 14. <051> Can you match those sentences with their functions? Excerpt 15. <019> What are the main ideas of each paragraph or each part? Evaluating questions are at the second high cognitive level. Such questions require students to judge something or to evaluate others’ ideas, as shown in Excerpt 16 & 17. Excerpt 16. <030> Is it proper to be quiet in the library? Excerpt 17. <020> Do you agree? Creating questions are at the highest cognitive level. Such questions require students to synthesize their knowledge so as to create their own output, as shown in Excerpt 18. Creating questions are always asked at the end of a class. Excerpt 18. <044> If you want me to watch a movie, what advice will you give to me? In terms of cognitive levels, the two groups of teachers differed in their focus when asking questions. From the perspective of the zone of proximal development in sociocultural theory, teachers in less developed regions paid more attention to students’ inter-mental interaction, while teachers in more developed regions paid more attention to students’ intra-mental interaction. 4. Conclusion 4.1 Findings This study took 28 English-as-second-language classes at the 15th Junior High School Foreign Language Classroom Teaching Presentation and Observation as data and divided these classes into two groups. It aimed to contrast teacher questions in EFL classroom between more and less developed regions. Teacher questions were studied in terms of their interactivity degrees and cognitive levels from the perspective of mediation and the zone of proximal development in sociocultural theory. Firstly, there is no significant difference in the interactivity degrees of teacher questions in EFL classroom between more and less developed regions. Both groups of teachers used “non-interactant” and “interactant” in a balanced way. Teachers in this study frequently used “you” and inclusive “we” as “interactant” and “there” as “non-interactant”. Both groups of teachers put the events involved in their questions in the time of “present” most frequently. Teachers in this study frequently used “can”, “think”, “agree” and “would like” to realize “judgement” as modal deixis of their questions. The results show that the interactivity degrees of teacher questions in EFL classroom in more and less developed regions were low in terms of their choices of modal deixis. Secondly, there are significant differences in the cognitive levels of teacher questions in EFL classroom between more and less developed regions. Teachers in less developed regions asked remembering questions more frequently than those in more developed regions while the latter asked applying questions more frequently than the former. It shows that teachers in less developed regions paid more www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 7, No. 4, 2025 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 104 attention to students’ interaction with external factors like teaching materials, which belongs to inter-mental interaction; while teachers in more developed regions paid more attention to students’ interaction with themselves like knowledge transfer, which belongs to intra-mental interaction. 4.2 Implications For English teachers, they could realize and learn from their differences in asking questions with teachers from other regions. In terms of interactivity degrees, it is suggested that English teachers use patterns like “could you/we ...?”, “should we ...?” and “do you think ...?” to increase the interactivity degrees of their questions, so as to create a welcoming and relaxing classroom environment. In terms of cognitive levels, it is suggested that teachers reflect on their tendencies in asking questions at different cognitive levels. When designing teaching questions, they did better consider teaching questions at all levels, especially those at higher levels, in order to create a challenging classroom environment. References Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. The European Legacy. https://doi.org/10.1093/ehr/114.458.1013 Barnes, D. (1969). Language, the learner and the school. Penguin. https://doi.org/10.2307/813888 Barro, R. J., & Sala-i-Martin, X. (2003). Economic growth (2nd ed.). MIT Press. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/CBO9780511803283 Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals: Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. D. McKay. https://doi.org/10.1300/J104v03n03_08 Blosser, P. E. (1991). How to ask the right questions. NSTA Press. https://doi.org/10.2505/978087 3551021 Borich, G. D. (1988). Effective teaching methods. Pearson Education India. https://doi.org/10.55640/eijp-04-10-05 Bova, A. (2015). Favoring argumentative disciplinary discussions in the classroom. A study of teacher’s questions at undergraduate and graduate levels. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 7, 97-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.09.001 Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587 Coleman, J. S. (2018). Parents, their children, and schools. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.2307/2580514 Gall, M. D. (1970). The use of questions in teaching. Review of Educational Research, 40, 707-721. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543040005707 Halliday, M., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203783771 Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2006). Teacher quality. Handbook of the Economics of Education, 2, 1051-1078. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0692(06)02018-6 https://doi.org/10.1093/ehr/114.458.1013 https://doi.org/10.2307/813888 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803283 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803283 https://doi.org/10.1300/J104v03n03_08 https://doi.org/10.2505/9780873551021 https://doi.org/10.2505/9780873551021 https://doi.org/10.55640/eijp-04-10-05 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.09.001 https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587 https://doi.org/10.2307/2580514 https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543040005707 https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203783771 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0692(06)02018-6 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 7, No. 4, 2025 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 105 Hu, G., & Li, X. (2017). Asking and answering questions in English-medium instruction classrooms: What is the cognitive and syntactic complexity level? In Jing Zhao & L. Quentin Dixon (Eds.), English-medium instruction in Chinese universities: Perspectives, discourse and evaluation (pp.184-203). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315618623-10 Kumar, S. C., Haber, A. S., & Corriveau, K. H. (2024). Exploring how teachers’ scientific questions differ by child gender in a preschool classroom. Mind, Brain, and Education, 18(1), 57-61. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12400 Liu, H., & Gillies, R. M. (2021). Teacher questions: Mediated-learning behaviors involved in teacher-student interaction during whole-class instruction in Chinese English classrooms. Frontiers in Education, 6, 65-77. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.674876 Liu, Z. Y., & Yoon, S. J. (2024). Preschool teachers’ perceptions on the use of questioning strategy during storytelling to develop children’s critical thinking in Central China. Early Years, 2, 1-15. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2024.2373373 Murnane, R. J., & Ganimian, A. (2014). Improving educational outcomes in developing countries: Lessons from rigorous impact evaluations. NBER Working Paper. https://doi.org/10.3386/w20284 Petek, E. (2013). Teacher’s beliefs about classroom interaction and their actual practices: A qualitative case study of a native and a non-native English teacher’s in-class applications. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 1195-1199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.176 Pourhaji, M., Zahedi, M., & Saadatara, A. (2020). Types and functions of teachers’ questions during knowledge construction in EFL classroom discourse. English Teaching & Learning, 44(3), 313-329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-019-00045-y Qashoa, S. H. (2013). Effects of teacher question types and syntactic structures on EFL classroom interaction. The International Journal of Social Sciences, 7(1), 52-62. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n2p147 Roostini, K. E. (2011). A reflection on teacher questioning types. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 10-24, https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v1i1.96 Serna-Bermejo, I., & Lasagabaster, D. (2024). Teacher questions: A comparative analysis between English‐medium and Basque‐medium lessons at university. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 86-102. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12479 Song, W. (2019). A study on the influence of teachers’ questioning in high school English reading class on students’ critical thinking. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 9(4), 424-428. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0904.09 Ur, P. (2012). A course in English language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009024518 Van der Wilt, F., van der Veen, C., & Michaels, S. (2022). The relation between the questions teachers ask and children’s language competence. The Journal of Educational Research, 115(1), 64-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2022.2029806 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315618623-10 https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12400 https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.674876 https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2024.2373373 https://doi.org/10.3386/w20284 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.176 https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-019-00045-y https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n2p147 https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v1i1.96 https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12479 https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0904.09 https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009024518 https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2022.2029806 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eltls English Language Teaching and Linguistics Studies Vol. 7, No. 4, 2025 Published by SCHOLINK INC. 106 Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4 Wei, R., Hu, Y., & Xiong, J. (2019). Effect size reporting practices in applied linguistics research: A study of one major journal. SAGE Open, 9(2), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/215824401 9850035 Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5371(76)90084-2 Wu, K. Y. (1993). Classroom interaction and teacher questions revisited. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 3, 56-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829302400203 Yang, X. (2010). Modelling text as process: A dynamic approach to EFL classroom discourse. Continuum. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474211833 Yang, X. (2021). How can EFL teachers make their questions more interactive with students? Interpersonal patterns of teacher questions. System, 99, 102509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102509 Ruiying Lu is a graduate student at the School of Foreign Languages, Dalian University of Technology. Her research interests include applied linguistics and corpus linguistics. Email: luruiying@mail.dult. edu.cn Fang Tan, PhD, is an associate professor and a MA supervisor at the School of Foreign Languages, Dalian University of Technology. Her research interests include applied linguistics and corpus linguistics. Email: tanfang@dlut.edu.cn https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4 https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019850035 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5371(76)90084-2 https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829302400203 https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474211833 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102509 Teacher Questions in EFL Classroom: A Study betwee Ruiying Lu1 & Fang Tan1 Abstract Teacher questions are important indicators to refl Keywords Table 1. The Cognitive Level Dimension (Anderson e Table 2. Coding Scheme System for Teacher Question Table 3. Basic Information of Teachers and Lecture Table 4. Results of Log-likelihood Tests on Intera Table 6. High-frequency Modal Deixis in the Two Co Table 7. Results of Log-likelihood Tests on Cognit References