





































  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 4, October 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

254 
 

PRE-SERVICE EFL TEACHER QUESTIONING STRATEGIES 
DURING PRACTICUM: A CASE STUDY IN INDONESIA 

 
Uun Muhaji 

Universitas PGRI Kanjuruhan Malang 

 

uun.muhaji@unikama.ac.id 
 

ABSTRACT 

The role of teacher questioning in EFL classrooms is pivotal for fostering student 
engagement and language development. However, research on questioning strategies during 
school-based teaching practicum, a crucial phase in pre-service teacher education, remains 
scarce. To address this issue, a qualitative single-case study was conducted with one pre-
service EFL teacher teaching 11th grade students in East Java, Indonesia. It explores the 
types of questions and questioning strategies employed by the teacher during teaching 
practicum. Data were collected through classroom observation and field notes. The findings 
reveal the use of five primary question types-referential, comprehension checks, display, 
confirmation checks, and clarification checks-alongside strategies such as rephrasing, 
repetition, decomposition, and simplification. These strategies were instrumental in 
promoting classroom interaction and supporting student comprehension. The study 
underscores the need for more targeted training in questioning techniques within teacher 
education programs to better equip pre-service teachers for effective classroom 
management and interaction. 

Keywords: Classroom Interaction, Pre-Service EFL Teachers, Questioning Strategies, Teaching 
Practicum, TEFL 

INTRODUCTION 

Interaction is central to communicative language teaching (CLT), especially in EFL 
contexts where authentic language exposure is limited (Karima et al., 2020). Building on 
foundational theories such as Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1980) and Comprehensible 
Output Hypothesis (Swain, 1985), recent research continues to affirm that classroom 
interaction-through negotiation of meaning, feedback, and output modification-significantly 
enhances L2 learning (Walsh, 2011). In this line of nature, Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, 
emphasizing the role of social interaction and mediated assistance, has been further 
developed in contemporary scholarship, highlighting scaffolding and collaborative dialogue 
as key mechanisms for language development (Lantolf & Poehner, 2020). In this view, the 
classroom is not merely a site for the transmission of knowledge but a dynamic space where 
knowledge is co-constructed through interaction between teachers and students. The 
teacher, in this context, assumes a pivotal role as the primary initiator and facilitator of 
classroom interaction (Brown, 2007). The teacher’s ability to orchestrate and sustain 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
mailto:uun.muhaji@unikama.ac.id


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 4, October 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

255 
 

meaningful interaction is thus central to the success of CLT and to the broader goals of 
language education. 

In teacher-fronted classrooms, questions are central to creating opportunities for 
language use, scaffolding learner participation, and guiding attention to specific linguistic 
and conceptual features (Kleinsasser et al., 1995; Schmidt, 1990). In the I-R-F cycle, 
questions initiate exchanges, guide attention, and scaffold participation (Kleinsasser et al., 
1995; Lawson et al., 1977). Through questioning, teachers can elicit a wide range of student 
responses, from simple recall of factual information to more complex, elaborated 
contributions that reflect higher-order thinking and personal engagement (Erdogan & 
Campbell, 2008; Kleinsasser et al., 1995). In this case, distinctions between display and 
referential questions matter because referential, open-ended prompts tend to elicit longer, 
more authentic responses (Brock, 1986). Additional question types include comprehension 
checks, clarification requests, and confirmation checks (Kleinsasser et al., 1995). Beyond 
type, the cognitive level of questions is consequential: moving from lower-order recall to 
higher-order reasoning aligns with Bloom’s revised taxonomy and supports deeper thinking. 
Yet classroom studies in EFL contexts continue to report the predominance of display and 
low-cognitive questions (Brock, 1986; Davoudi & Sadeghi, 2015; Mustika et al., 2020; Tan et 
al., 2017; Truong, 2024; Yude & Zainil, 2018). This overreliance may limit students’ language 
production and reduce opportunities for cognitive challenge and communicative 
engagement.  

A less examined but pedagogically crucial dimension is how teachers modify questions 
in real time—through repeating, rephrasing, simplifying, decomposing multi-part prompts, 
or probing follow-ups—to align with learners’ current understandings and sustain dialogic 
exchange (Fitriati et al., 2017; Karima et al., 2020; Wu, 1993). These adaptive moves 
operationalize scaffolding and enable responsive, cumulative dialogue (Lantolf & Poehner, 
2020; Walsh, 2011), where teachers dynamically adjust their questions based on real-time 
student responses (Huang et al., 2025; Pan et al., 2024; Smit et al., 2022). In relation to this, 
recent studies (e.g., Arinda & Sadikin, 2021; Jocuns, 2021) underline the need for more 
dialogic and dynamic uses of questions to promote deeper learner involvement, negotiation 
of meaning, and the co-construction of knowledge.  

Despite extensive work on question types and cognitive levels, little is known about 
pre-service teachers’ on-site modification strategies during school-based practicums in 
Indonesia; most studies focus on in-service teachers or rely on surveys/interviews rather 
than fine-grained classroom observation. Consequently, we lack evidence of how novice 
teachers adapt questions moment-by-moment and what functions these adaptations serve 
in EFL interaction. In this line of matter and given the centrality of questioning in promoting 
effective EFL instruction, it is critical that pre-service teachers are equipped with strong 
questioning skills (Brown, 2007). It is emphasized that teacher education programs should 
not only introduce questioning typologies and strategies but also provide opportunities for 
practical application and reflection.  

Addressing this gap, this case study investigates an Indonesian pre-service EFL teacher 
during her school-based teaching practicum, with two aims: (1) to identify the types of 
questions posed during classroom interaction, and (2) to describe the real-time modification 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 4, October 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

256 
 

strategies (e.g., repetition, rephrasing, simplification, decomposition, probing) and their 
interactional functions. By foregrounding modification strategies alongside question type, 
the study contributes a more nuanced account of questioning as adaptive scaffolding in 
initial teacher education, offering implications for curricula that emphasize dialogic teaching, 
adaptive expertise, and reflective practice. 

METHODS 

This study employed a qualitative single case study design to explore the questioning 
strategies of a pre-service EFL teacher during a school-based teaching practicum. The case 
study approach allowed for an in-depth examination of classroom interaction patterns, 
consistent with best practices in recent EFL research. 

The participant was a pre-service EFL teacher enrolled in an EFL teacher education 
program at a university in East Java, Indonesia. The participant was undertaking a school-
based teaching practicum as one of the final requirements in accomplishing a bachelor 
degree in teacher education program. The practicum took place in a senior high school EFL 
classroom during the 2024 academic year. The class consisted of 32 eleventh grade students, 
reflecting a typical Indonesian EFL context (Karima et al., 2020). Concerning the ethical 
consideration, written informed consent was obtained from the pre-service teacher and 
school administration prior to data collection. To protect confidentiality, the participant’s 
name is pseudonym, and any identifying details in transcripts or still images were removed. 
Audio-video files and transcripts were stored on a drive accessible only to the researcher. 

Data were collected through non-participant classroom observation utilizing video 
recording, observation checklist, and detailed field notes over four consecutive lessons. Each 
lesson lasted approximately ninety minutes, yielding a total of six hours of video data. Video 
recording was utilized during the observation to document the details of the teaching 
learning process happening in the classroom particularly the questioning strategy employed 
by the pre-service teacher. The lessons were recorded using a fixed camera positioned 
unobtrusively at the back of the classroom to capture whole-class interaction, with on-board 
audio. Equipment was tested before each session; a brief pre-lesson was used to check 
framing and sound levels. After each lesson, files were transferred immediately to secure 
storage and the SD card was cleared. Further, recordings were verbatim transcribed by the 
author. Bahasa Indonesia segments were retained in the original and translated into English 
for reporting where necessary; transcripts were checked against video for accuracy. Further, 
an observation checklist targeting: (a) question type (display, referential, 
comprehension/clarification/confirmation checks), and (b) modification strategies (e.g., 
repetition, rephrasing, simplification, decomposition, probing follow-ups) was employed. 
The field note was utilized to support the data from the video recording. Besides focusing on 
the types of questions posed and the questioning strategies employed by the pre-service 
teacher, it was also used to document salient interactional episodes and contextual factors 
taking place during the teaching learning process.  

Data were analyzed using thematic analysis with a hybrid deductive–inductive 
approach, informed by the taxonomy of question types and questioning strategies (Fitriati 
et al., 2017; Wu, 1993). The unit of analysis was the teacher’s questioning move within an 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 4, October 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

257 
 

interactional sequence. Deductive codes captured question type; inductive open coding 
captured modification strategies and their interactional functions (e.g., eliciting elaboration, 
checking comprehension, focusing form). Further, a structured codebook was developed to 
define each code with inclusion and exclusion criteria and examples from the data. The 
codebook underwent iterative refinement across two pilot transcripts. To enhance 
credibility and dependability, a second coder, who was trained on the codebook, 
independently double-coded a 30% purposive sample of transcripts spanning different 
lessons. Coded segments were then collated to identify patterns across lessons as a process 
of searching and reviewing the themes. Lastly, final patterns were defined to show the 
question types and modification strategies employed by the pre-service teacher. 
Triangulation was achieved by cross-checking field notes and observation data, following 
recent qualitative research standards. 

RESULTS 

Types of Questions Used 

The four observed lessons demonstrated that the initiation of interaction between the 
participant and the students primarily follows the I-R-F pattern. In this sequence, classroom 
interactions typically begin with the teacher’s question, followed by the students’ answers, 
and conclude with the teacher’s feedback. The analysis revealed that the pre-service EFL 
teacher employed a range of question types throughout the observed lessons, with the total 
of 282 questions. The pre-service teacher employed various types of questions, including 
referential questions, comprehension checks, display questions, confirmation checks, and 
clarification checks. Referential questions were the most common, making up 37% of all 
questions asked, followed by comprehension checks at 27%, display questions at 25%, 
confirmation checks at 6%, and clarification checks at 4%. Percentages may not sum to 100 
due to rounding. Figure 1 visualizes the distribution of question types; Table 1 provides 
frequencies, percentages, and representative examples. 

Table 1. Frequency, percentage, and examples by question type (N = 282). 

Question type Frequency Percentage (%) Representative example from data 

Referential 108 37 
“What kind of letter have you ever got?” 
(Excerpt 1) 

Comprehension 
check 

76 27 “Do you understand?” (Excerpt 2) 

Display 70 25 
“Who is the receiver of the letter?” 
(Excerpt 3) 

Confirmation 
check 

17 6 
“So… is it the second one?” (cf. Excerpt 6 
follow-up) 

Clarification 
check 

11 4 “What is it called?” (Excerpt 8) 

 

  

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 4, October 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

258 
 

Referential Questions 

Referential questions were used by the pre-service EFL teacher in inviting students to 
share opinions, experiences, or predictions, fostering authentic communication and higher-
order thinking. Further, the referential questions posed were mainly lesson-related 
inquiries. This aligns with calls in the literature for more referential questioning to promote 
engagement. 

Excerpt 1: Referential questions 

T : Alright, before going to the material, I am going to ask you something. Have you 
 ever got a personal letter? 

Ss : Yes (all students) 
T : Okay, okay. That’s similar. What kind of letter have you ever got? What kind of 

 letter?  
Ss : Um… 
T : What? Invitation? Pardi, what did you say? 
S1 : Wedding 
T : Okay, that’s wedding invitation. And any other letter? 
S2 : Love letter 
T : Owh, love letter? Love letter. 
Ss : (laughing) 

Comprehension Checks 

It is noteworthy that comprehension checks were the second most frequently used 
type of question by the pre-service teacher, making up 27% of all questions asked. The pre-
service EFL teacher used comprehension checks to ensure students understood instructions 
or content. The participant often checked her students’ understanding by asking, “Do you get 
it?”, “Do you understand?”, or “Okay?”. Interestingly, the students consistently responded 
with “yes” whenever these questions were posed.  

Excerpt 2: Comprehension checks 

T : So, if you have finished, collect it to me to the front please. Do you understand? 
Ss : Yes 

Display Questions 

Display questions accounted for 25% of all questions asked during the lesson, making 
them the third most common type. Most of the display questions posed by the participant 
aimed to elicit information from students. However, a few form-related display questions, 
intended to assess students’ recall of factual information, such as vocabulary and grammar 
points, were also observed. These questions accounted for the third most frequently asked 
of total questions, consistent with findings in recent EFL classroom studies. 

  

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 4, October 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

259 
 

Excerpt 3: Information-related display question 

T : Who is the receiver of the letter? 
Ss : Nathan 
T : Okay, the receiver is Nathan. The second one, who is the sender? 
Ss : Angela 
T : Yes, Angela is the sender of the letter. 

Excerpt 4: Form-related display question 

T : Okay, what is town in Bahasa Indonesia? 
S : Kota  
T : Ok, good. Kota. 

Confirmation Checks and Clarification Checks 

Accounted for approximately 6% of the total questions asked by the teacher, 
confirmation checks were utilized to confirm students’ responses or understanding. Further, 
as the least type of questions asked by the teacher, approximately 4%, clarification checks 
were employed to address misunderstandings or unclear answers. 

Question Modification Strategies Employed 

The pre-service teacher demonstrated adaptability by modifying questions using 
several strategies. It was revealed that there were four types of question modification 
employed: rephrasing, repetition, decomposition, and Simplification. From the total of 96 
appearances of questions modification deployed by the participant, the most frequently used 
was rephrasing (50%), followed by repetition (25%), decomposition (17%), and 
simplification (8%). Figure 2 shows the relative distribution; Table 2 summarizes counts and 
functions. 

Table 2. Frequency, percentage, and brief function notes for modification strategies (N = 96). 

Modification 
strategy 

Frequency Percentage (%) Illustrative function / example 

Rephrasing 48 50 

Reformulates a question using simpler 
wording to elicit a response: “Where… what 
are the places in Japan are you visiting?” 
(Excerpt 5) 

Repetition 24 25 
Repeats the prompt after silence to increase 
uptake: “Which one is it? … Which one is it?” 
(Excerpt 6) 

Decomposition 16 16 
Breaks a complex question into smaller steps 
to scaffold answers: “What is the first 
component? … the second?” (Excerpt 7) 

Simplification 8 8 
Reduces linguistic complexity to match 
proficiency: “So, this is called as… What is it 
called?” (Excerpt 8) 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 4, October 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

260 
 

Rephrasing  

Reformulating questions using simpler language or alternative structures to enhance 
comprehensibility, in line with adaptive questioning practices. Rephrasing was used to help 
the students understand better by expressing the question in another way. Thus, the 
expected responses from the students can be elicited. The excerpt below shows the sample 
of the rephrasing strategy used by the participant. 

Excerpt 5: Rephrasing strategy  

T : (Moving to the other group) Where are you going? 
Ss : Japan.. 
T : To Japan.. Ok. Where…, what are the places in Japan are you visiting? 
Ss : Tokyo, Disneyland.. 
T : Oh, Disney, so, there is Disneyland in Japan? 

Repetition 

Repeating questions verbatim to prompt student responses, especially when initial 
responses were absent or hesitant. The pre-service teacher’s next strategy for eliciting the 
desired responses from students was repetition, which accounted for 25% of all question 
modifications used. This approach has also been identified in recent research. The teacher 
employed repetition not only to enhance the clarity of the questions but also to increase 
students’ chances of responding. Specifically, the teacher repeated questions to ensure 
students fully understood them and reiterated the questions after a pause when students did 
not provide the expected answers. 

Excerpt 6: Repetition 

T : Which one is it?  
Ss : (silence) 
T : Which one is it?  
S : Second… 
S : The second…   
T : Yes, the second one. Good. 

Decomposition & Simplification 

The other two questioning strategies employed were decomposition and 
simplification. The participant used decomposition to break down complex questions that 
required equally complex responses. The complex questions are broken down into smaller, 
more manageable sub-questions to scaffold student understanding. In contrast, 
simplification was applied to make questions easier, enabling students to provide answers. 
It was used to reduce linguistic complexity to match students’ proficiency levels, a strategy 
highlighted in recent EFL research. Additionally, simplification served as a modification 
strategy when students failed to give the expected responses. This approach was used when 
the teacher felt the original questions were too long or unclear, so they were shortened or 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 4, October 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

261 
 

rephrased to help students respond more effectively. These strategies were often used in 
combination, particularly when students struggled to respond, reflecting a responsive and 
student-centered approach. Examples of these strategies are illustrated in the following 
excerpts.  

Excerpt 7: Decomposition 

T : Alright, can you tell me what the components are? 
Ss : (silence) 
T : What is the first component?  
Ss : The opening. 
T : Good. The second component? 
Ss : Message. 
T : Good. Third component? 
Ss : Concluding statement 
T : Wonderful! 

Excerpt 8: Simplification 

T : The first one, 54 west Sydney Australia (pointing to the visual aid). So, this is called 
as? You know?  

Ss : (silence) 
T : What is it called? 
S : Address? 
T : Yes, good! This is address.  

The questioning strategies contributed to varied patterns of classroom interaction. 
Display questions typically elicited brief, choral responses, while referential questions 
prompted longer, individualized answers and greater student engagement. The use of 
clarification and confirmation checks supported negotiation of meaning and deeper 
processing, consistent with sociocultural and interactionist frameworks (Lantolf & Poehner, 
2020). 

DISCUSSION 

This study explored the questioning strategies employed by a pre-service EFL teacher 
during a school-based teaching practicum in Indonesia. The results demonstrate that across 
four lessons, the pre-service teacher used a range of question types within an IRF pattern. 
Referential questions were most frequent, followed by comprehension checks and display 
questions. Four modification strategies were observed, with rephrasing most common, then 
repetition, decomposition, and simplification. These findings both confirm and extend prior 
research, reflecting persistent patterns and emerging trends in EFL classroom questioning 
practices (Fitriani et al., 2016; Namaziandost & Imani, 2020; Rahayu & Suharti, 2023). The 
comparisons with recent literature reveal that while display questions continue to dominate 
pre-service teacher discourse, there is evidence of experimentation with referential and 
higher-order questions as teachers gain confidence and experience.  

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 4, October 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

262 
 

Interpreting the Pattern of Question Types 

A key finding is the predominance of referential questions, which accounted for the 
largest proportion of questions posed. These questions encouraged students to share 
opinions, experiences, and predictions, thus fostering authentic communication and higher-
order thinking. This aligns with recent calls in the literature for greater use of referential 
questioning to promote student engagement and deeper learning (Pan et al., 2024; Rahayu 
& Suharti, 2023). While display questions remained common-often used to check recall and 
comprehension-referential questions were particularly effective in eliciting extended, 
individualized responses and supporting dialogic interaction. 

Underlining the dominance of referential questions, three factors likely converged. 
First, the task/topic ecology (e.g., work on personal letters) naturally invited experience-
based prompts (“What kind of letter have you received?”), making referential questions an 
efficient way to activate schema and personalize content (Carlsen, 1991; Nassaji & Wells, 
2000). Second, CLT-oriented goals encouraged the teacher to elicit extended turns and 
authentic information, aligning with the lens of the Interaction Hypothesis and Sociocultural 
Theory accounts of learning through negotiated, meaningful use of language (Long, 1996; 
Swain, 2000; Vygotsky, 1978). Both frameworks emphasize the importance of interaction, 
mediation, and scaffolding in language development. Third, as a novice, the teacher appeared 
to use referential prompts to gain quick entry into dialogue while maintaining lesson 
momentum in a large class (Walsh, 2011). Furthermore, the association between referential 
questions and more elaborate student responses supports the value of dialogic, open-ended 
questioning for fostering critical thinking and learner autonomy. 

However, the findings also suggest that despite the CLT orientation, display questions 
remained necessary for form-focused work such as terminology, grammar, and layout 
features, as well as for quick progress checks within IRF sequences (Butterfield & Bhatta, 
2015; Kellem & Halvorsen, 2018). Their continued use reflects the dual demands of meaning- 
and form-oriented objectives in exam-aware classrooms (Zare et al., 2024). Further, Nggawu 
& Thao's (2023) study acknowledges that even within CLT approaches, teachers require 
structured strategies to monitor comprehension and track progress, which supports the 
pedagogical necessity of display questions for targeted purposes. In this sense, successful 
CLT implementation does not imply the complete abandonment of form-focused questioning 
but rather its integration into communicative practices to ensure systematic checking of 
student learning, particularly in relation to form-focused elements (Eisenring & Margana, 
2018). Ellis et al. (2019) underline that form-focused instruction can be integrated into 
communicative activities, suggesting that focus-on-form and focus-on-forms represent 
points along a continuum rather than entirely separate categories. 

Comprehension checks, confirmation checks, and clarification checks were also 
regularly employed, serving to monitor understanding, confirm responses, and address 
ambiguities. The frequent use of comprehension checks highlights the teacher’s 
attentiveness to students’ grasp of instructions and content. However, frequent “Do you 
understand?”-type prompts suggest classroom management and pacing priorities typical of 
novice teaching: they provide rapid assurance that instructions landed, but often yield 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 4, October 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

263 
 

superficial “yes” responses (Day & Park, 2005). These checks also function as low-risk 
procedural monitoring moves in moments of uncertainty about students’ comprehension or 
task readiness—paralleling findings that such routine-oriented questioning supports 
instructional flow (Nicholson, 2014; Walsh, 2011; Zhou, 2018). 

Further, while in accordance with sociocultural and interactionist perspectives 
(Lantolf & Poehner, 2020), clarification and confirmation checks facilitate negotiation of 
meaning and deeper processing, the low rates of these reactive moves likely because many 
student responses were brief or choral. Therefore, opportunities for repairing meaning were 
fewer and the teacher often opted to rephrase proactively rather than pursue repair 
sequences. This is in line with previous studies which pointed out that the reduced frequency 
of clarification and confirmation checks due to brief or choral student responses and 
teachers' preference for proactive rephrasing over reactive repair sequences to maintain 
instructional flow in time-constrained classrooms (Ardini, 2018; Shomoossi, 2004). 

The Role of Modification Strategies 

In terms of questioning strategies, the teacher demonstrated adaptability by modifying 
questions in real time. The frequent use of modification strategies mirrors findings from 
Jusoh et al. (2020) and Rahayu & Suharti (2023) that emphasize the importance of adaptive 
questioning for maintaining engagement and ensuring comprehensibility in diverse EFL 
settings. Rephrasing was the most frequently used strategy, enabling the teacher to restate 
questions in simpler language or alternative forms to enhance comprehensibility. The 
dominance of rephrasing shows sensitivity to learners’ proficiency and the need to maintain 
intersubjectivity in which the teacher reformulated prompts to lower linguistic load while 
keeping task demands intact (Ekawati et al., 2021; Fitriani et al., 2016; Milawati & Suryati, 
2019). Repetition was also common, particularly when initial student responses were absent 
or hesitant, ensuring that all students had the opportunity to participate. Repetition 
functioned as a participation nudge in moments of hesitation, and—paired with longer wait-
time—can convert silence into uptake (Fitriani et al., 2016; Gülten, 2023).  

Decomposition and simplification were used to break down complex questions into 
manageable parts or to reduce linguistic complexity, thereby scaffolding student 
understanding and accommodating varying proficiency levels. Decomposition was pivotal 
when tasks were cognitively dense, enabling stepwise scaffolding of complex targets (e.g., 
genre components). Simplification surfaced when initial questions over-taxed processing; 
used judiciously, it prevents breakdowns, though overuse risks narrowing the cognitive 
challenge. Together, these moves instantiate contingent scaffolding central to sociocultural 
accounts of learning: support is adjusted in real time to the learner’s evolving contribution 
(Gülten, 2023). These adaptive strategies reflect a responsive, student-centered approach 
and are increasingly recognized as hallmarks of effective teaching (Fitriani et al., 2016; Jusoh 
et al., 2020; Rahayu & Suharti, 2023). The observed use of clarification and confirmation 
checks, as well as real-time question modification, demonstrates the teacher’s emerging 
ability to provide contingent support and facilitate meaningful classroom discourse (Lantolf 
& Poehner, 2020).  

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 4, October 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

264 
 

Pedagogical Implications for Teacher Education 

The findings of this study highlight the importance of preparing pre-service teachers 
with explicit training in questioning techniques, as many still rely heavily on display 
questions due to insufficient preparation in this area. While display questions play a role in 
form-focused checks, teacher education programs should provide systematic opportunities 
for candidates to practice generating referential and higher-order questions that stimulate 
reasoning, justification, and elaboration (Shafeei et al., 2018; C. C. R. Yang, 2010). Such 
training should also cultivate adaptive expertise by equipping teachers with strategies like 
rephrasing, decomposition, and simplification, which can scaffold learning and ensure 
equitable participation. Moreover, fostering a dialogic classroom environment through 
purposeful questioning can strengthen students’ communicative competence, critical 
thinking, and metacognitive awareness (Chow et al., 2023; Z. Yang & Brindley, 2023). 

In line with contemporary calls for reform, teacher education programs need to 
reorient curricula to include explicit instruction on questioning, reflective practice, and 
classroom-based inquiry (Cavanagh, 2021). Digital tools and video-based reflection have 
proven especially effective in heightening pre-service teachers’ awareness of their 
questioning strategies and in promoting data-informed refinement (Cavanagh, 2021; Sydnor 
et al., 2020). To translate these insights into practice, several key directions emerge including 
designing purposeful balances of question types, upgrading comprehension checks into 
diagnostic probes, developing a repertoire of modification moves, embedding video-based 
reflection, and assessing questioning as a competency.  

In more elaborative sense, firstly, pre-service teachers should be trained to plan 
“question maps” aligned with lesson phases: referential prompts at the lead-in stage to build 
common ground, display questions during input/analysis to support noticing and accuracy 
checks, and higher-order referential questions in practice/production to push reasoning and 
elaboration. Secondly, instead of global checks (e.g., “Do you understand?”), teachers should 
learn to use concept-checking questions (CCQs) that require production, such as generating 
new examples or completing task steps. Providing banks of CCQs across grammar, lexis, and 
procedures can scaffold this skill. Next, training should include micro-skills for rephrasing, 
decomposition, probing, and reformulation, combined with strategies like wait-time and 
revoicing, to extend learner contributions rather than reduce them. Furthermore, by 
annotating their own recordings to identify question types, modification strategies, and 
learner uptake, pre-service teachers can make visible the link between their questioning 
moves and student responses. Lastly, programs should incorporate assessment criteria that 
evaluate not only the distribution and proportion of question types but also the effective use 
of modification strategies and the presence of dialogic follow-up that presses for reasoning 
and deeper engagement. Taken together, these implications suggest that effective 
questioning should be treated as a core professional competency rather than an incidental 
skill. A coherent program of instruction, practice, reflection, and assessment in questioning 
strategies can equip future teachers with the tools to balance form- and meaning-oriented 
objectives while fostering richer, more dialogic classroom interaction.  

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 4, October 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

265 
 

In summary, the study highlights the evolving questioning practices of pre-service EFL 
teacher, the importance of adaptive and dialogic approaches, and the ongoing need for 
comprehensive training in effective classroom questioning. The pre-service teacher’s 
pattern—heavy on referential prompts, frequent comprehension checks, and strategic 
rephrasing—reflects an emerging dialogic stance moderated by novice concerns about 
clarity and control. Developing effective, adaptive questioning practices should be a central 
focus of EFL teacher education. Teacher education should therefore move beyond 
taxonomies to cultivate adaptive expertise: planning for purposeful question sequences, 
converting checks into diagnostic probes, and orchestrating contingent modifications that 
keep learner thinking—and language—moving forward. By fostering reflective, dialogic, and 
student-responsive questioning, educators can create more engaging and supportive 
environments that empower learners and enrich the language learning experience. 

CONCLUSION 

This study sheds light on the nuanced and evolving nature of teacher questioning in 
Indonesian EFL classrooms, particularly during the formative phase of pre-service teacher 
practicum. The results underscore the importance of preparing pre-service teachers with a 
broad repertoire of question types and adaptive skills that enable real-time adjustment 
during teaching. Teacher education curricula should explicitly integrate training in 
questioning strategies, supported by guided practice, observation, and structured reflection. 
Embedding these practices within microteaching sessions, school-based practicums, and 
video-based analysis can enhance pre-service teachers’ ability to use questioning as a means 
of engaging learners, promoting critical thinking, and encouraging learner autonomy. 

Despite these contributions, the study is limited by its single-case design and reliance 
on classroom observation. Future research should employ longitudinal designs to capture 
how questioning develops across different stages of teacher education, as well as mixed-
methods approaches—including interviews, stimulated recall, and reflective journals—to 
uncover the cognitive processes guiding teachers’ choices. Further inquiry into the 
relationship between questioning strategies and student learning outcomes would also 
provide valuable insights. 

In practical terms, this study suggests three key implications for teacher education 
programs: (1) incorporate explicit instruction and practice on varied questioning strategies, 
(2) use digital tools and video-based reflection to strengthen pre-service teachers’ 
awareness and adaptive expertise, and (3) foster a culture of reflective practice where 
questioning is regularly analyzed and refined. By embedding these elements into teacher 
preparation, programs can better equip future teachers to orchestrate interactive, 
responsive, and effective classroom discourse. 

REFERENCES 

Ardini, S. N. (2018). Repair Strategies of Teacher’s Talk in EFL Classroom. ETERNAL (English 
Teaching Journal), 6(2). https://doi.org/10.26877/eternal.v6i2.2373 

Arinda, P., & Sadikin, I. S. (2021). Dialogic Feedback To Promote Deep Learning For Efl 
Speaking Learners In Online Learning Environment : Students ’ Voices. PROJECT 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 4, October 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

266 
 

(Professional Journal of English Education), 4(5), 803–813. 

Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. White Plains, NY: Pearson 
Longman. In Language (Vol. 57, Issue 3). 

Butterfield, J., & Bhatta, B. (2015). IRF sequences in team-teaching EFL classrooms. The Asian 
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(3), 176–185. 
http://caes.hku.hk/ajal/index.php/ajal/article/viewFile/241/363 

Carlsen, W. S. (1991). Questioning in Classrooms: A Sociolinguistic Perspective. Review of 
Educational Research, 61(2). https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543061002157 

Cavanagh, M. (2021). Pre-service Teacher Reflection and Feedback Using an Online Video 
Platform During Professional Experience. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 
46(2), 72–85. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2021v46n2.5 

Chow, B. W. Y., Hui, A. N. N., Li, Z., & Dong, Y. (2023). Dialogic teaching in English-as-a-second-
language classroom: Its effects on first graders with different levels of vocabulary 
knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 27(6), 1408–1430. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820981399 

Cynthia A. Brock. (1986). The Effects of Referential Questions on ESL Classroom Discourse. 
TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 47–59. 

Davoudi, M., & Sadeghi, N. A. (2015). A Systematic Review of Research on Questioning as a 
High-level Cognitive Strategy. English Language Teaching, 8(10). 
https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n10p76 

Day, R. R., & Park, J. (2005). Developing reading comprehension questions. Reading in 
Foreign Language, 17(1), 60–73. 

Eisenring, M. A. A., & Margana. (2018). An analysis of teacher talk in a senior high school in 
Palu , Central Sulawesi through the use of self-evaluation of teacher talk (SETT). Journal 
Pendidikan Humaniora, 6(4), 188–200. http://journal.um.ac.id/index.php/jph 

Ekawati, D., Ampa, A. T., & Azis, A. (2021). an Analysis of Teachers’ Questioning Strategies 
During the Classroom Interaction At Sman 4 Makassar. Jurnal Keguruan Dan Ilmu 
Pendidikan (JKIP), 8(1), 68–80. 

Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C. (2019). Ellis , R ., Skehan , P ., Li , S ., 
Shintani , N ., and Lambert , C . ( 2019 ). Task-based language teaching : Theory and 
practice . Cambridge : Cambridge University Task-Based Language Teaching. September. 

Erdogan, I., & Campbell, T. (2008). Teacher questioning and interaction patterns in 
classrooms facilitated with differing levels of constructivist teaching practices. 
International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1891–1914. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701587028 

Fitriani, S., Makhsum, C., & Samad, I. (2016). The Investigation of Questioning Modifications 
Used in EFL Classroom. Journal of English Education, 1(2), 118–123. 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 4, October 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

267 
 

Fitriati, S. W., Isfara, G. A. V., & Trisanti, N. (2017). TEACHERS QUESTIONING STRATEGIES 
TO ELICIT STUDENTS VERBAL RESPONSES IN EFL CLASSES AT A SECONDARY 
SCHOOL. English Review: Journal of English Education, 5(2). 
https://doi.org/10.25134/erjee.v5i2.537 

Gülten, A. Z. (2023). Classroom Questioning:Pre-Service EFL Teachers’ Questioning and 
Modification Strategies. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 11(S1-July), 54–61. 
https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v11is1-july.5890 

Huang, H., Li, M., & Dai, C. (2025). Adapting to Complexity: Teacher-Student interactions in 
synchronous online language classes through a dynamic systems lens. System, 
133(May), 103732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2025.103732 

Jocuns, K. F. (2021). Dialogic Teaching as a Way to Promote Students’ English Language Use 
in EFL classroom. Pasaa, 62(December), 173–203. 
https://doi.org/10.58837/chula.pasaa.62.1.7 

Jusoh, Z., Abdul Rahman, J., & Salim, H. (2020). The Use of Question Modification Strategies 
in ESL Class. Arab World English Journal, 11(1), 69–78. 
https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol11no1.6 

Karima, N., Suherdi, D., & Yusuf, F. N. (2020). Interactional Modifications for Comprehensible 
Input: A Case Study of Two EFL Teachers. 430(Conaplin 2019), 138–142. 
https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200406.028 

Kellem, K., & Halvorsen, A. (2018). Special Extended Teaching Note Understanding and 
Utilizing Form-Focused Instruction in the Language Classroom. ORTESOL Journal, 35, 
27–35. 

Kleinsasser, R. C., Richards, J. C., & Lockhart, C. (1995). Reflective Teaching in Second 
Language Classrooms. The Modern Language Journal, 79(1). 
https://doi.org/10.2307/329404 

Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2020). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in 
L2 education: Vygotskian praxis and the research/practice divide. In Sociocultural 
Theory and the Pedagogical Imperative in L2 Education: Vygotskian Praxis and the 
Research/Practice Divide. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203813850 

Lawson, P. O., Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, R. M. (1977). Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The 
English Used by Teachers and Pupils. TESOL Quarterly, 11(2). 
https://doi.org/10.2307/3585455 

Long, M. H. (1980). Article- Native Speaker Non native speaker conversation- Michael 
Long1983. 4(2). 

Long, M. H. (1996). The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition. 
In Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-
012589042-7/50015-3 

Milawati, M., & Suryati, N. (2019). EFL Teacher’s Oral Questioning: Are Her Questions and 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 4, October 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

268 
 

Strategies Effective? Dinamika Ilmu, 19(1), 37–55. 
https://doi.org/10.21093/di.v19i1.1545 

Mustika, N., Nurkamto, J., & Suparno. (2020). Teacher ’ S Questioning in Senior High English 
Classroom : an Investigation of Students ’ Critical. International Online Journal of 
Education and Teaching (IOJET), 7(1), 278–287. 

Namaziandost, E., & Imani, A. (2020). Compensatory strategies and Iranian intermediate EFL 
learners’ speaking fluency: focusing on self-repetition and comprehension check 
strategies. … Journal of Linguistics …, 1978. 

Nassaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). What’s the use of “triadic dialogue”?: An investigation of 
teacher - student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21(3). 
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.3.376 

Nggawu, L. O., & Thao, N. T. P. (2023). The impact of Communicative Language Teaching 
(CLT) Approach on Students’ Speaking Ability in a Public Indonesian University: 
Comparison between Introverts and Extrovert Groups. International Journal of 
Language Education, 7(3), 393–413. https://doi.org/10.26858/ijole.v7i3.50617 

Nicholson, S. J. (2014). An Impetus for Change: Classroom Analysis Using Sinclair and 
Coulthard’s Model of Spoken Discourse. International Journal of Linguistics, 6(2), 188. 
https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v6i2.5464 

Pan, Y., Wang, L., & Zhu, Y. (2024). Strategic questioning for formative assessment in TEFL: 
insights from blended synchronous learning environments. Humanities and Social 
Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04086-y 

Rahayu, N., & Suharti, D. S. (2023). Portraying EFL teacher’s questioning strategies and 
practices: the case of a vocational school in Indonesia. Journal on English as a Foreign 
Language, 13(2), 427–451. https://doi.org/10.23971/jefl.v13i2.6280 

Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied 
Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129 

Shafeei, K. N., Hassan, H., Ismail, F., & Abdul Aziz, A. (2018). Incorporating Higher Order 
Thinking Skill (HOTS) Questions in ESL Classroom Contexts. LSP International Journal, 
4(1). https://doi.org/10.11113/lspi.v4n1.49 

Shomoossi, N. (2004). The effects of Teachers’ Questioning Behaviour on EFL Classroom 
Interaction: A Classroom Reseacrh Study. The Reading Matrix, 4(2), 96–104. 

Smit, N., Van Dijk, M., De Bot, K., & Lowie, W. (2022). The complex dynamics of adaptive 
teaching: Observing teacher-student interaction in the language classroom. IRAL - 
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 60(1), 23–40. 
https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2021-0023 

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and 
comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in 
second language acquisition. In Newbury House. 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 4, October 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

269 
 

Swain, M. (2000). The Output Hypothesis and Beyond- Mediating Acquisition through 
Collaborative Dialogue. In Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. 

Sydnor, J., Daley, S., & Davis, T. (2020). Video Reflection Cycles: Providing the Tools Needed 
to Support Teacher Candidates Toward Understanding, Appreciating, and Enacting 
Critical Reflection. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 20(2), 
369–391. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/185373 

Tan, S. Y., Tee, M. Y., & Samuel, M. (2017). Persistent monologicality amidst variation in 
teachers’ questioning practices in Malaysian english language classrooms. Journal of 
Asia TEFL, 14(4), 621–637. https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2017.14.4.3.621 

Truong, H. N. (2024). Students’ Perspectives on the Use of Teacher Questions to Promote 
Critical Thinking in EFL Classrooms. International Journal of Language Instruction, 3(2), 
1–17. https://doi.org/10.54855/ijli.24321 

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and Society: The Development of Higher Psychological 
Processes. In Harvard University Press. 

Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. In Taylor and Francis 
Ltd 5 (Vol. 9780203827826). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203827826 

Wu, K. Y. (1993). Classroom Interaction and Teacher Questions Revisited. RELC Journal, 
24(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829302400203 

Yang, C. C. R. (2010). Teacher Questions in Second Language Classrooms: An Investigation of 
Three Case Studies. Asian EFL Journal, 12(1), 181–201. 

Yang, Z., & Brindley, S. (2023). Engaging students in dialogic interactions through 
questioning. ELT Journal, 77(2). https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccac021 

Yude, U. H., & Zainil, Y. (2018). Analysis of teachers’ questions in the EFL classroom at junior 
high school in Padang. Journal of English Language Teaching, 7(4), 404–409. 
https://doi.org/10.24036/jelt.v10i3.113878 

Zare, J., Noughabi, M. A., & Al-Issa, A. (2024). The impact of data-driven learning form-
focused tasks on learners’ task engagement: An intervention study. ReCALL, 36, 306–
323. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344024000120 

Zhou, D. M. (2018). edTPA as a Tool to Measure Teacher Readiness: A Case Study on First 
Year Teachers. Georgia Educational Researcher, 14(2). 
https://doi.org/10.20429/ger.2018.140205 

 

 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689

