Levels and Types of Questions Raised by EFL Teachers in Southern Al-Mazar Directorate of Education/LES NIVEAUX ET LES TYPES DE QUESTIONS SOULEVEES PAR LES ENSEIGNANTS D'EFL DANS LA DIRECTION DE L'AL-EDUCATION DU SUD DE MAZAR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study aimed at investigating the levels and types of questions raised by EFL teachers in Southern Al-Mazar directorate of Education. The study comprised (12) female/ male teachers. The results of the study showed that; male/female teachers asked (1603) questions; (1290) questions were within the low level and (313) questions were high level. Female/male teachers asked (1603) questions where (393) questions were open and (1210) were ended questions . The results also, showed that female teachers asked (729) questions whereas male teachers asked (874). Also, the results of the study showed that females/ males teachers with high experience asked questions more than those teachers with less experience. In light of the results of the study, the researcher had suggested some recommendations to the concern. Key Words: Levels of questions; Types of questions; EFL teachers questions Resume Cette etude visait a etudier les niveaux et types de questions posees par les enseignants EFL dans le sud de Mazar Ai-Direction de l'education. L'etude comprenait (12) enseignants de sexe feminin/ masculin. Les resultats de l'etude a montre que, mâle/ femelle des enseignants a demande (1603) des questions; (1290) des questions se situaient dans le bas niveau et (313) questions etaient de haut niveau. Les enseignants des femmes/ hommes a demande (1603) questions ou (393) des questions etaient ouvertes et (1210) ont ete clos questions. Les resultats ont egalement, a montre que les enseignantes demande (729) des questions alors que les enseignants masculins a demande (874). En outre, les resultats de l'etude a montre que les femelles ou les mâles des enseignants ayant une experience de haute des questions plus que ces enseignants ayant moins d'experience. A la lumiere des resultats de l'etude, le chercheur a suggere quelques recommandations a la preoccupation. Mots Cles: Niveaux de questions; Types de questions; EFL questions d'enseignant INTRODUCTION The art of questioning is considered as the most effective and motivating weapon in the educational armory of the teacher. Good questions are educative, and they have an immense in all places and situations of all kinds of learning if used in their proper way and in the proper time. Good questions lead to good realms of understanding; they serve as means as of organization knowledge, or correlating the results of educative experiences, of integrating personality and of tying together units learning (Underhill, 1991). Kummer (1995) said that a bad questioner is a bad teacher, may be a good lecturer. Therefore, it is not exaggeration to say that the success of a teacher in any particular lesson, and in teaching in general, depends on the teacher's ability to question well. One of the essential ambitions of a young teacher is the acquisition of a good style of questioning (Dnkel, 1997). It has been said, 'I keep six honest serving men, they taught me all I know, thennames are what and why and when, and how and where and who (Aggarwal, 1997). Teachers usually ask questions for several purposes; to test their students' previous knowledge, recall and recognize something, to think and reason about something, elicit something from their students, to promote initiative and originality, stimulate the interest and effort on the part of their students to focus attention on a particular issue, to develop an active approach to learning, and to keep children mentally alert (Raymond, 2004). Also, (Hargreaves, 1994; Joyce & Well, 1986) mentioned that questioning might be used to stimulate the curiosity of their students, to revise the lesson as well as to check whether their students are following the lesson or not, to link new aspects of knowledge with the previous ones, to create a type of cooperation between the students, to discover the weak points of their students, and to formulate general rules as well as to develop the skills of synthesis (Moallem & Earle, 1998; Al-Aweiny, 2002). …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".