Introduction

The landscape of tertiary education has witnessed profound transformations worldwide (e.g., McLaughlin et al., 2020; Gu and Luo, 2023; Karimi and Khawaja, 2024; O’Dea, 2024), particularly in China (e.g., Hayhoe et al., 2011; Kirby, 2014; Yang, 2015). Two pivotal policy initiatives have been implemented in China in recent years: the introduction of the National Outline for Medium- and Long-Term Educational Reform and Development (2010–2020) aimed at modernizing and enhancing educational standards (Wang, 2015), and the mandatory inclusion of English instruction in tertiary education in 2001, seeking to elevate teaching and learning practices and catalyzing the adoption of innovative assessment strategies. One of the crucial shifts in this context lies in the move toward formative assessment methods, designed to counteract the traditional “teaching-to-the-test” models (Biggs, 1996; Black and Wiliam, 1998b; Torrance and Pryor, 1999; Genesee and Upshur, 2001; Sutton, 2010; Xu and Liu, 2012). Formative assessment, which is integral to dynamic assessment (DA), plays a crucial role in enhancing learning through ongoing feedback and adjustments to teaching strategies (Aljaafreh and Lantolf, 1994; Poehner, 2008; Tsvetkova, 2020).

Recent studies have illustrated the effectiveness of DA in online language learning, evidenced by improvements in text quality, vocabulary, and sentence structure, facilitated by peer feedback mechanisms (Chen, 2021; Liu, 2021; Teng, 2021; Xu, 2022; Yang and Wen, 2015; Zhang, 2023). Despite these advancements, integrating formative assessment into daily classroom activities poses challenges, particularly in the Chinese educational context (Borg and Liu, 2013; Zheng, 2015). These challenges demand a pedagogical framework that not only integrates formative assessment practices effectively but also links them with decentralized classroom behaviors to optimize educational outcomes in TEFL settings (Shepard, 2007).

The advent of internet technologies has urged the development of blended synchronous learning environments (BSLEs), which integrate traditional classroom elements with online learning modalities. BSLEs have been shown to enhance feedback timeliness and boost learner motivation, emphasizing their value in formative assessments in educational settings (Chen et al., 2005; Ebner and Gegenfurtner, 2019; Shi et al., 2021a). The enhanced interaction and immediacy of response within BSLEs make them ideal for implementing the strategic use of questioning as a formative assessment technique. Studies have shown that strategic questioning is essential for reinforcing learning and enhancing student engagement (McComas and Abraham, 2004; Walsh and Sattes, 2005; Marzano and Simms, 2012; McTighe and Wiggins, 2013); thus, this approach plays a crucial role in improving language acquisition and cognitive development in students (e.g., Chaudron, 1988, as cited in Tan, 2007; Brown, 1994; Nunan, 2012).

This study explores the integration of culturally responsive teaching methods into formative assessment practices within BSLEs by utilizing a conceptual framework that synthesizes formative assessment, sociocultural, and constructivist theories (Vygotsky, 1978; Black and Wiliam, 1998a; Ruiz-Primo and Furtak, 2006 and 2007; Heritage, 2007). Focusing on strategic questioning, which is a key formative assessment technique, this study aims to generate universally applicable insights that address challenges in integrating formative assessment into daily classroom activities and reinforce the global relevance of strategic questioning within BSLEs, thereby enriching student engagement and educational effectiveness in TEFL discourse internationally.

Thus, the present study addresses the following research questions:

  1. 1.

    How are questioning techniques utilized as a formative assessment strategy in TEFL classrooms within a sample university in China?

  2. 2.

    What are the observable patterns and sequences of teacher–student interactions during formative assessment in TEFL classrooms, particularly in a BSLE?

  3. 3.

    What are the perceptions and experiences of TEFL teachers and students regarding the use of questioning as a formative assessment strategy?

Literature review

Formative assessment, which is normally defined as using information garnered from assessment activities to inform and modify teaching and learning activities (Black and Wiliam, 1998a), is characterized by its immediate, continuous feedback mechanisms that help adjust instructional strategies to effectively meet student needs (Sadler, 1989). Despite challenges in its methodology across various educational settings, formative assessment considerably enhances learning outcomes (Gu and Luo, 2023; Huang and Luo, 2023; Wang, 2023). In flipped classrooms, the implementation of clear assessment criteria and the provision of timely feedback are crucial for student engagement (Ni, 2024). Additionally, dynamic assessment (DA) in online settings enables real-time feedback and instructional adjustments; however, DA requires further refinement to maximize its effectiveness (Zhang, 2023).

Previous studies have established that strategic questioning effectively sustains student interest and enhances higher-order thinking (Ragawanti, 2009; Kholisoh and Bharati, 2021; Darong, 2022; Wang, 2023). In university environments and English as a Second Language (ESL)/English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts, where cultural and linguistic factors notably influence learning, a variety of effective strategies for quality questioning in formative assessment have been developed. These strategies aim to foster critical thinking and adapt linguistic approaches, contributing to a highly dynamic formative assessment process (Black et al., 2003; Ruiz-Primo and Furtak, 2006; 2007; Heritage, 2007; Bonne and Pritchard, 2009; Jiang, 2014; Matra, 2014; Sujiarti et al., 2016; Zainudin et al., 2022).

BSLEs, with their critical components, namely, material content, communication among teachers, students, and peers, and development of the emotive response within the learning environment (Kerres et al., 2003), enable accessibility for those who cannot attend classes physically (Norberg, 2012). They emphasize motivation and social interactions in promoting cognitive engagement (Lei and Zuo, 2015; Shi et al., 2021b) and facilitate the participation of learners from diverse geographical and physical settings. Thus, BSLEs enhance the distribution of educational resources and the quality of education, expanding access and interaction opportunities (Raes et al., 2020). In such environments, adaptive teaching strategies and optimal allocation of resources are critical for enhancing educational outcomes (Si and Yang, 2015; Wu and Wu, 2024).

A robust understanding of assessment literacy among teachers is indispensable for the effective application of questioning in formative assessments in TEFL classrooms (e.g., Zhou, 2024). Constructivist and sociocultural theories emphasize the role of questioning as a tool for knowledge construction and facilitating social interaction (Piaget, 1976; Vygotsky, 1978, 1987; Black and Wiliam, 1998a; Volante and Fazio, 2009; Xu and Liu, 2012; Xu and Brown, 2016; Jiang, 2020). Furthermore, insights from systemic functional linguistics have enriched theoretical understanding and offered strategic guidance for improving teacher–student interactions (Shen et al., 2023; Peng, 2024).

Theoretical and conceptual frameworks

This study is grounded in three foundational theories: formative assessment theory (Black and Wiliam, 1998a), sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978), and constructivist theory (Piaget, 1952), each offering essential insights into the cognitive, social, and educational aspects of teacher-led questioning in TEFL settings, respectively. According to Black and Wiliam (1998a), formative assessment theory emphasizes the necessity of ongoing and continuous assessments and responsive feedback, which are crucial for enhancing student understanding and guiding teaching strategies through strategic questioning. The sociocultural theory of Vygotsky (1978) emphasizes the critical role of social interactions and the cultural context in shaping cognitive development, indicating that learning is profoundly influenced by its cultural milieu. The constructivist theory of Piaget (1952) promotes the idea that learners actively construct their knowledge, with questioning serving as a key facilitator for critical reflection and the assimilation of new information into existing cognitive structures. These theories collectively form a comprehensive framework for exploring how effective questioning can navigate and leverage the intricate cognitive, social, and cultural dynamics in educational settings.

Developed based on the theoretical framework, this study articulates a conceptual framework that aims to transform abstract theories into precise analytical tools for examining teacher-led questioning within a BSLE for TEFL. This framework envisions formative assessment as a culturally responsive practice that transcends mere evaluation of linguistic competencies to incorporate the cultural contexts of students, enhancing educational inclusivity and outcomes. Critical to this framework is the utility of questioning as a fundamental tool in formative assessment, recognized for its capacity to engage students actively and promote higher-order thinking. The BSLE, as detailed by Wilen (1991) and Hrastinski (2019), is optimized to support diverse learning styles and improve accessibility, further enriching the educational experience.

Integrating culturally sensitive teaching strategies, the framework draws on the seminal works of Gay (2000), Piaget (1952), and Vygotsky (1978), which advocate for educational practices that are reflective of and responsive to the multicultural and multilingual realities of contemporary classrooms, as further supported by Hammond and Gibbons (2005). The research methodology within this framework is designed to refine these insights into a pragmatic model suitable for empirical scrutiny that investigates how effective questioning can foster environments sensitive to cultural nuances. Ultimately, this redefined approach to formative assessment positions teacher-led questioning at the forefront, aiming to create responsive, inclusive, and dynamically engaged educational experiences.

Methodology

The study utilizes a mixed-methods approach (Creswell and Creswell, 2017), combining classroom observations, conversation analysis, and interviews with two teachers and two students. This methodology aims to strengthen the understanding of effective communication and assessment techniques in culturally diverse classrooms. Moreover, this method explores the multifaceted aspects of questioning techniques in relation to formative assessments and the influence of BSLEs.

Setting

The study was conducted at a university in China that provides BSLEs. The choice of this setting, reflective of the shift toward online and blended learning, enhances the ecological validity of the research by placing it in a context where such educational interactions naturally occur (Bower et al., 2015; Szeto, 2015).

Participants

The study involved a selective group of participants to comprehensively analyze teacher-led questioning within formative assessments in a BSLE setting. The participant group comprised two TEFL lecturers, Jenny and Susan (pseudonyms), each with substantial international experience and qualifications in TESOL from universities abroad. Jenny brings over 15 years of experience and a reputation for innovative teaching methods, while Susan has a decade of experience teaching English to a diverse student body, including aspiring doctors. Furthermore, one student from the class of each lecturer was selected based on their active engagement and willingness to contribute to the research. These criteria were essential for yielding rich qualitative data. This focused selection of participants follows the principles of the case study research design, which prefers small, targeted samples for an in-depth understanding of complex phenomena within specific contexts (Yin, 2014). This approach is supported by Boelens et al. (2017), who emphasized the importance of contextual factors in studies of blended learning environments (BLEs). The approach corresponds with methodologies in technology-enhanced learning research that prioritize a detailed exploration of educational interactions for meaningful insights (Hew and Cheung, 2014).

Instruments

Informed by seminal works (e.g., Brock, 1986; Wragg and Brown, 2001; DeCapua, 2008; Cohen et al., 2011; Van Compernolle, 2014), the current study specifically examines how “TeacherMate,” which is identified and adopted as a critical tool, supports the deployment and effectiveness monitoring of specific questioning strategies used as formative assessments. This digital tool proved instrumental by enabling the collection of synchronous data and the analysis of student responses. Based on real-time insights into student engagement and comprehension, the tool facilitated immediate feedback and enabled the dynamic adjustment of instructional strategies. Such platforms are crucial for a detailed evaluation of the questioning techniques employed and their impact on student learning outcomes within BSLEs. The interaction patterns between TEFL teachers and students in BSLEs, reflecting their perceptions and experiences, provide a nuanced examination from both perspectives to further explore the application of these techniques in formative assessments. This approach not only enriches our understanding of how formative assessments are perceived and implemented in real-time, technology-enhanced learning environments but also emphasizes the importance of questioning as an instrument for formative assessment and highlights how concrete online platforms such as “TeacherMate” are pivotal in effectively operationalizing these assessments within BSLEs.

In this study, “interaction” specifically refers to exchanges pertinent to formative assessments, excluding verbal communications for classroom management or non-assessment purposes. Analyzed interaction types include the following: teacher-initiated interactions, where teachers pose questions to initiate learning dialogs; student responses, which capture direct answers from students; teacher evaluation/feedback, where teachers assess and provide feedback on student answers; student modifications, which involve adjusted student responses post-feedback; display questions, which focus on knowledge recall; contextually limited questions, which are restricted to specific lesson content; referential questions, promoting comprehensive understanding; redirecting for eliciting response, where teachers rephrase questions to effectively elicit responses; and extended questions as feedback, using in-depth questioning to provide feedback. Each type is counted only if it directly contributes to formative assessment objectives, aiming to enhance student learning through engagement and tailored feedback.

Data collection procedure

Classroom observations focused on the types and frequency of questions posed by both lecturers as well as the interaction patterns between teachers and students, which were integral to capturing the dynamic interactions and identifying effective questioning techniques (Brock, 1986; Wragg and Brown, 2001), providing a practical foundation for assessing real-time formative assessment imposed by questioning. Conversation analysis dissected detailed sequences of classroom dialogs to examine how instructors adapt questioning strategies in response to student feedback. This adaptation not only bolsters student engagement and comprehension during interactions but also refines the strategic deployment within formative assessments (Seedhouse, 2004; Hutchby and Wooffitt, 2008). Furthermore, semi-structured interviews with teachers and students explored their perspectives on the effectiveness and impact of using questioning as a formative assessment tool (Dörnyei, 2007; Ginn and Munn, 2015). The quantitatively collected data from the classroom observations were analyzed to provide descriptive statistics (Creswell, 2014), which were complemented by qualitative analyses of conversation transcripts and interview responses. These semi-structured interviews yielded deep qualitative insights into the experiences and perceptions of participants.

Data analysis

A robust framework integrating the GFIP model (Gap, Feedback, Involvement, Progression) (Heritage, 2007) and the ESRU cycle (Elicit, Student response, Recognition of student response, Use of Information) (Ruiz-Primo and Furtak, 2006) is designed to explore the dynamics of formative assessment in TEFL classrooms within BSLEs. The GFIP model plays a crucial role in identifying gaps in student knowledge, providing targeted feedback, and fostering student involvement and progression through strategic questioning for observations. The ESRU cycle is dedicated to eliciting student responses and effectively utilizing this information to adapt teaching methods for conversation analysis. Additionally, the IRE/F (initiation–response–evaluation/feedback) exchange sequence (Cazden, 1990) delves into the pedagogical dynamics of teacher–student interactions, enabling an enhanced understanding of structured turn-taking dialogs within a BSLE context.

Interview responses were subjected to thematic analysis, during which emerging themes were identified and explored for patterns and implications pertinent to formative assessment practices (Braun and Clarke, 2006). The NVivo 11 software facilitated the analysis of data using grounded theory techniques, including open, axial, and selective codings (Bazeley and Jackson, 2013). A thematic analysis of student responses was also conducted to uncover patterns and themes regarding their perceptions of the questioning process (Braun and Clarke, 2006).

The analysis applied sociocultural, constructivist, and formative assessment theories to interpret data concerning questioning techniques, teacher–student interactions, and the influence of cultural and institutional contexts, enriching the findings and providing comprehensive theoretical insights into formative assessments within BSLEs in TEFL settings.

Ethical considerations

This study strictly adhered to ethical guidelines. These guidelines included obtaining informed consent from all participants, ensuring their anonymity and confidentiality, and respecting their right to withdraw from the study at any point. The collected data were securely stored and used solely for the purposes of this study, thereby safeguarding participant information and maintaining the integrity of the research process.

Research findings

Research Question 1: Assessment strategies: questioning techniques in practice

Ten lessons from each teacher were observed, with each lesson lasting 40 min, totaling 400 min or approximately 6.5 h of observation. A total of 450 and 320 interactions were recorded for Susan and Jenny, respectively, culminating in a combined total of 770 interactions. Furthermore, 58.3% of these interactions were classified as formative assessment interactions facilitated through questioning.

The specific definitions and categorizations of “interaction” used in this study closely align with the GFIP model, the ESRU cycle, and the IRE/F sequence. This alignment ensures that each interaction type precisely encapsulates the processes of eliciting, responding, and utilizing student responses. The correlation enables a detailed examination of the dynamics of formative assessment, structured through strategic questioning and feedback within BSLEs.

Table 1 presents an analysis of interactions initiated by teachers Susan and Jenny, highlighting their use of GFIP as formative assessment strategies. Despite variations in style and frequency, both teachers effectively employed these strategies. Gap identification through questioning was prevalent, with Susan demonstrating a higher frequency. Feedback was provided primarily through “Teacher Evaluation/Feedback” and “Extended Questions as Feedback,” with Susan offering more feedback overall. Both teachers also promoted student engagement and monitored progress using the technique “Redirecting for Eliciting Response,” with Susan applying this method more frequently.

Table 1 Formative assessment interactions and strategies employed by teachers.
Full size table

Elements of the ESRU cycle were evident in the assessment conversations. Elicitation of information occurred through higher-level questions, prompting student responses to performances. However, these responses were slightly constrained by a focus on form and the limited contextual scope of the questions. The utilization of information, such as the extended questions in the lessons of Jenny and the lesson evaluations of Susan, created additional learning opportunities.

Research Question 2: Interaction patterns of questioning as formative assessment in BSLE

Key questioning strategies employed by TEFL teachers for formative assessments were identified through analysis of classroom interactions in BSLEs. Teachers utilized eliciting techniques and feedback mechanisms, incorporating culturally sensitive practices, to boost student involvement and understanding. However, the findings revealed some deficiencies in the assessment literacy of teachers, especially in leveraging student responses to improve learning outcomes. Teachers were adept at eliciting and recognizing student contributions, but they did not consistently use these insights to refine teaching methods or enhance student comprehension. The analyzed lessons included the College English session by Jenny on argumentative essay writing and the use of an assessment rubric by Susan. Insights from this analysis shaped the design of semi-structured interview questions to further investigate the perceptions of teachers regarding their assessment literacy and training needs for professional development.

In the initial example from the online class of Susan, referred to as “Teacher Guiding Students in Selecting Appropriate Words,” an assessment conversation where questioning for formative assessment occurs is observed. Susan directs students: “Ok, let’s look at this sentence I’ve highlighted in the screen; can anyone read it? Nina?” This question not only elicits a response from Nina but also provides an opportunity for teacher recognition, as noted in the response of Susan: “Good, ok Nina.” Susan employs various linguistic strategies to encourage student participation and cultivate a relaxed atmosphere. For instance, she uses hedging and auxiliary verbs, as observed in “Could you try?” and “Give me an example.” She also utilizes suggestive phrases and polite requests, such as “why not put “present” in the sentence” and “please read the sentence out loud.” Susan’s praise, “Thanks James, good choice,” acts as positive feedback, motivating students to engage actively and build confidence. The interaction sequence adheres to an IRFF model: inquiry by the teacher, response from the student, with subsequent feedback and follow-up by the teacher. Following her inquiry, “Could you try?,” James replies, “Maybe change some words,” to which Susan responds with feedback, “Good, but how?” and a follow-up, “Give me an example.”

The effective utilization of student feedback by the teacher to enhance learning remains ambiguous. This uncertainty might be attributed to the inherent limitations of online instruction, which can obscure accurate reaction assessments of students. Furthermore, the consistent expressions of praise and recognition by teachers could be indicative of a culturally sensitive approach to preserving face among Chinese students.

Upon inquiry, the teacher is found to consider several key factors: (1) the nature of online lessons complicates the ability to gauge the reactions of students, particularly when cameras are frequently off; (2) the sensitivity of Chinese students to face-saving necessitates frequent teacher recognition; and (3) delving into the answers of students is a time-consuming task, requiring teachers to judiciously balance knowledge-checking opportunities across the student body. Additionally, the teacher employs a variety of linguistic devices as part of the ESRU cycle to foster student engagement and build confidence. These devices include hedging (e.g., “may”), auxiliary verbs (e.g., “could”), suggestive phrases (e.g., “why not”), polite requests (e.g., “please”), and praise (e.g., “good”). The overall atmosphere remains lighthearted, yet the interaction sequence occasionally diverges, often following an IRFF model.

In the “Construct of Arguments” example, the teacher assists students in developing a structured approach for a discussion paragraph on a particular subtopic. The transcript, comprising 38 sentences, includes 11 questions aimed at formative assessment and another 11 for ice-breaking and emotional support. The teacher employs questioning as a formative assessment method to guide students in effectively constructing arguments. These questions facilitate scaffolding for the learning of Chinese TEFL students within their zone of proximal development (ZPD). Moreover, ice-breaking questions, such as “Everybody is listening? Right?,” contribute to an emotionally supportive environment, which is crucial for culturally sensitive pedagogy. The questioning technique of teachers also encompasses critical aspects of formative assessment: eliciting information (“What is the major topic?”), providing feedback (“Thanks Emily, that is a very good guess.”), and enhancing and consolidating understanding (“How did you get that answer?”).

The strategic deployment of ice-breaking and emotionally supportive questions within formative assessment practices not only alleviates social tensions but also boosts cognitive engagement. These questions establish a secure and nurturing environment, which is crucial in settings that might initially seem daunting or unfamiliar to students. Therefore, this supportive atmosphere empowers students to share their thoughts and doubts openly, thereby enriching their engagement and enhancing the efficacy and inclusivity of the formative assessment process.

Additionally, the teacher’s selection of hedging and auxiliary verbs (e.g., “right”, “ok”, “could”) exemplifies culturally sensitive language, fostering a harmonious online environment that safeguards the self-esteem of students. Furthermore, the teacher emphasizes the importance of structural organization in argument formulation by contrasting two paragraphs, illustrating that pedagogical strategies often take precedence over linguistic elements in this setting.

In the third example, “Peer Revision according to a Rubric,” taken from the class of Jenny, the primary function of the questions diverges from knowledge testing or ice-breaking, as observed in the first two examples. Herein, Jenny facilitates peer revision, interpreting assessment criteria alongside students. Her questioning strategy is consistent with the GFIP framework, as described by Heritage (2007), which highlights student involvement and monitors progression through various learning stages. By probing the current comprehension of students, as exemplified when Jenny asks Amy, “What is a field? What does it mean?,” she effectively elicits responses and identifies gaps in their understanding of the requirements. This pedagogical method enhances student engagement and achievement by familiarizing them with the assessment criteria. For instance, through the “Zhong Nanshan” example, Jenny helps students grasp the academic meaning of “field,” thereby improving their future performance. Linguistically, Jenny utilizes simple syntax and grammatically flexible structures in her queries (e.g., “Why is a place related to subject and theory?”) and paraphrases or simplifies complex concepts in subsequent discussions. This approach aids EFL learners in understanding and processing intricate sentences or questions, reflecting the thoughtful consideration of language complexity in EFL instruction.

As presented in Table 2, the results from the conversation analysis demonstrate the effectiveness of the ESRU framework in the interactions between teachers Susan and Jenny and their students. This approach provides a meta-perspective on the dynamics of formative assessment in TEFL classrooms, moving beyond the traditional focus on individual turn-taking dialogs as depicted by the IRF/E sequence. For instance, Susan employed an initiation–response–feedback–facilitation (IRFF)/ESR sequence, facilitating formative assessment and evaluation. Meanwhile, Jenny alternated between IRE/F and ESRU sequences, emphasizing scaffolding within the ZPD of students.

Table 2 Teacher–student interactions and examples of sequence.
Full size table

Research Question 3: Perceptions of questioning as a formative assessment strategy

Each interview of the teacher participant lasted approximately 80 min, while the student participant was interviewed for 40 min. Both teachers engaged in a reflective process during these sessions, which included recounting their experiences, assessing their performance, recalling specific situations, and considering potential improvements for future similar scenarios. Their introspective responses prompted a critical assessment of the effectiveness of the questioning techniques during the interviews. The primary findings from these interviews were organized, coded, and analyzed using NVivo 11 software, following the principles of grounded theory as outlined by Strauss and Corbin (2008), as shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Three-level coding results.
Full size table

The analysis of perceptions and experiences from EFL teachers and students on the use of questioning as a formative assessment strategy yielded explicit and implicit insights. Explicitly, teachers acknowledged the role of questioning as a pivotal tool for formative assessment that enhances self-regulation, prepares students for summative assessments, and uncovers individual learning needs. Implicitly, the findings highlighted the importance of employing effective questioning techniques for successful pedagogy and emphasized the effect of selected language in questions on students’ understanding and engagement. Additionally, the analysis explicitly and implicitly addressed the role of cultural context in formative assessments and education overall. Nodes related to the teacher–student relationship and “protecting students’ faces” revealed that cultural factors markedly impact classroom dynamics and the efficacy of formative assessments through questioning, thereby emphasizing the necessity of culturally sensitive teaching practices.

Regarding the importance of formative assessments, both teachers agreed that effective questioning practices are crucial for delivering meaningful feedback, enhancing the self-regulation of students, and ensuring their confidence and preparedness for summative assessments, which account for 60% of the overall assessment. The response of Jenny further highlights the necessity of incorporating culturally sensitive teaching practices:

“A complete circle of formative assessment to be performed through questions, in my mind, is to realize task decomposition, then task re-occurrence, then task completion followed by teacher evaluation and student reflection.”

Both teachers acknowledged the importance of questioning techniques. Jenny emphasized that initiating a lesson with open questions can reveal the personalities of students through discussions, therefore allowing teachers to craft highly effective and personalized questions. She identified the roles of “ice-breaking” and “spying” as critical in this process:

“The most important step for teachers to assess the credibility of a student’s answer for assessment is whether the student has fully understood the question, that’s why ice-breaking and spying serve key purposes, and these could easily be ignored by most teachers.”

Vogt and Tsagari (2014) indicated that despite pre-service training, in-service foreign language teachers in Europe often lack developed assessment literacy and express a need for further training, particularly in linguistic skills assessment. Similarly, Pham and Hamid (2013) revealed a disconnect between the intentions of teachers and their actual questioning practices, indicating that novice EFL teachers require additional development in this area. Similar to these findings, Susan expressed a strong desire for further training:

“It is rather important, at least for me, to have some practical advice or training to tell me how to make students feel welcomed and attuned as individuals in class participation and in teacher–student dialogs. Educational developers or our supervisors or even policy makers should offer us more training informative assessments and question practices.”

In interviews, Jenny and Susan shared that they typically start with open or comprehension questions to reduce student anxiety and prevent confining assessments to mere knowledge testing. Susan remarked on this approach in her interview:

“In a culture like us, inviting students to talk freely with encouragement for drawing on evidence from text to illustrate their point became an effective way for warming up by both teachers.”

As outlined in Table 4, the analysis of approximately 4500 words from student interview responses revealed three principal themes: “Unique Cultural Dynamics,” “Student Fear of Making Mistakes,” and “Importance of Face-Saving Strategies.” These insights, together with those from earlier coding stages, denote the complex nature of perceptions and experiences related to the use of questioning in formative assessments within TEFL contexts. Factors that shape these perceptions include student empowerment, effective pedagogical strategies, linguistic considerations, and the cultural context. This comprehensive understanding extensively addresses research question 3.

Table 4 Thematic analysis results of students’ insights in the use of questioning as a formative assessment strategy in Chinese TEFL classrooms.
Full size table

Discussion

Finding analysis

Drawing from established theoretical frameworks, the findings are initially validated through observations that highlight the strategic use of questioning by teachers as a crucial instrument in formative assessments to deepen the understanding of students and address misconceptions. The GFIP framework and ESRU cycle, as elaborated in prior studies (Bell and Cowie, 2001; Duschl, 2003, as cited in Ruiz-Primo and Furtak, 2006; Heritage, 2007), support these pedagogical approaches by facilitating dynamic feedback and instructional adjustments. Teachers frequently blend high-level and low-cognitive questions (Milawati and Suryati, 2019) and prompt students to refine their responses based on feedback. This practice not only bolsters communication but also demonstrates their assessment proficiency (Hasselgreen et al., 2005; Zheng, 2015). Moreover, how teachers scaffold the ZPD of learners, in line with the focus of sociocultural theory on social mediation in learning (Vygotsky, 1978), is corroborated with empirical evidence. This approach highlights the necessity of incorporating culturally sensitive teaching practices.

The interaction patterns observed emphasize the utility of the ESRU cycle as a comprehensive framework for analyzing groups of assessment dialogs as interconnected elements of formative assessment-oriented interactions. In particular, the extended application of questions for formative feedback indicates that the ESRU cycle is either adapted or only partially implemented in this BSLE context within TEFL settings (Heritage, 2007). These adaptations, while upholding student dignity (Leung and Mohan, 2004) and promoting cooperative learning, successfully comply with the unique requirements of this educational setting. Such a congruence confirms the practical relevance of formative assessment theory (Black and Wiliam, 1998a), which champions adaptive and ongoing assessment to enhance teaching strategies and deepen student understanding. Consequently, these findings validate the emphasis of the theory on strategic questioning and feedback as crucial to advancing educational practices.

Reflecting on constructivist theory (Piaget, 1952), the interviews highlight the active role of learners and teachers in co-constructing knowledge through culturally sensitive questioning. The preference of teachers for employing questions at the start of lessons (Matra, 2014; Ndun, 2015) supports their efficacy in facilitating critical reflection and knowledge construction. This practice emphasizes the pivotal impact of cultural context on classroom dynamics and the importance of sensitivity and adaptability in formative questioning strategies.

Implications

Expected and unexpected findings

The theoretical constructs derived from the empirical investigation of this study have enriched previous studies and realized the hypothesized outcomes guided by the conceptual framework. First, the observed distribution of formative assessment interactions and strategies employed by teacher participants reflects a comprehensive use of various questioning techniques. These techniques correspond with the existing literature that emphasizes the importance of quality questioning in fostering critical thinking and linguistic adaptation in ESL/EFL contexts (Black et al., 2003; Ruiz-Primo and Furtak, 2006). The high frequency of teacher-initiated interactions and the strategic use of referential and extended questions as feedback are consistent with recommendations from previous studies, which emphasize the role of well-structured formative assessments in enhancing student engagement and learning outcomes in diverse educational settings (Jiang, 2014; Zainudin et al., 2022). Fortunately, the results are consistent with expectations, demonstrating the effectiveness of utilizing a variety of formative assessment strategies through questioning to enhance student engagement.

Second, analysis of the conversations reveals unexpected elements in formative assessment practices. Teacher participants effectively employed diverse questioning strategies but often failed to use student responses to dynamically adjust teaching strategies or deepen understanding (Zhang, 2023). This failure is particularly evident in an online setting, wherein nonverbal cues are less perceivable, indicating deficiencies in assessment literacy not fully addressed by the traditional IRF/E sequence (Heritage, 2007). Observations indicated that a complete cycle of ESRU was only partially obstructed; however, the ESRU still accommodates the complexities of formative assessments within TEFL contexts and simultaneously emphasizes a shortcoming in effectively connecting feedback to student learning outcomes (Bonne and Pritchard, 2009). These unexpected findings indicate that the insufficient assessment literacy among teachers, especially in utilizing student responses to refine instructional strategies, is exacerbated in online environments where nonverbal cues are limited (Heritage, 2007).

Sujiarti et al. (2016), as well as Ndun (2015), revealed that teachers predominantly employ open/closed and display questions in teaching, with display questions constituting 92% of the question types used. By contrast, interviews with Jenny and Susan indicated that they typically initiate interactions with open or comprehension questions to reduce student anxiety and avoid limiting responses to mere knowledge testing. Despite this divergence from previous research, the findings were expected in this study, indicating a comprehensive understanding of how questioning strategies can substantially vary based on teacher goals and classroom dynamics. Such questioning practices could be instrumental in creating a highly inclusive classroom environment (Pham and Hamid, 2013).

Thematic analysis of student insights into the use of questioning as a formative assessment strategy in Chinese TEFL classrooms reveals a complex interplay of culturally specific pedagogical dynamics, which include the importance of nonverbal cues and face-saving strategies, alongside an inhibition stemming from fear of making errors. This finding corresponds with those from interviews with Jenny and Susan, who modified their questioning techniques to cultivate a supportive and risk-tolerant learning environment. Their approach aims to diminish student anxiety and foster highly open responses. The congruence observed between student feedback and teacher strategies in the current study, although divergent from findings in prior research, was expected. This concordance reflects an adaptive approach to questioning, specifically tailored to meet the distinctive cultural and emotional needs of students within these educational settings. The expectations were grounded in the understanding that effective formative assessment practices are profoundly contextual, shaped by the cultural backgrounds of the students and the unique dynamics of the classroom environment.

In comparison with previous studies

The findings largely confirm those of Bell and Cowie (2001), Hasselgreen et al. (2005), and Heritage (2007), collectively emphasizing the crucial role of strategic questioning in enhancing teacher–student interactions and deepening student understanding. This assertion is reinforced by recent studies by Zheng (2015) and Milawati and Suryati (2019), which emphasize the efficacy of strategic questioning in educational contexts. Additionally, the observations of frequent teacher-initiated interactions and the strategic use of referential and extended questions for feedback resonate with the findings of Jiang (2014) and Zainudin et al. (2022). These researchers advocate for well-structured formative assessments as essential for boosting student engagement and improving learning outcomes in diverse educational settings. Thus, the current study substantiates the importance of advanced formative assessment strategies in fostering extensive learning and highly dynamic classroom interactions.

However, the analysis also identifies a notable contradiction when capturing the ESRU cycle and the IRE/F sequence in BSLEs, indicating a need for culturally sensitive questioning strategies. Therefore, necessary adjustments to accommodate real-time feedback, conforming to Heritage (2010) and extending the observations of Zhang (2023) on instructional adjustments, are proposed. Findings enhance the dialog on assessment literacy, demonstrating that effective implementation of formative assessment transcends cultural boundaries and hinges on educator training and skills, challenging the context-specific limitations suggested by Gozali et al. (2021). Thus, cultural nuances in TEFL classrooms, specifically addressing the crucial roles of face-saving and fear of error, are more pronounced in this study than previously acknowledged (e.g., Gozali et al., 2021; Kholisoh and Bharati, 2021).

Toward a Culturally Responsive Formative Assessment through Engaged Dialog (CRFAED)

Building on the aforementioned discussions, this study first introduces the Culturally Responsive Formative Assessment through Engaged Dialog (CRFAED) framework, designed to guide questioning strategies that are empirically informed and culturally attuned to the unique context of TEFL environments. Grounded in sociocultural theory, the ZPD, constructivism, and formative assessment theory, the CRFAED framework is specifically crafted to navigate the educational and cultural dynamics prevalent in TEFL classrooms. This framework includes six crucial components. (1) Culturally responsive pedagogy emphasizes culturally sensitive pedagogical practices that consider cultural nuances, such as face-saving and apprehension of mistakes, and advocate for the use of affirmative language by instructors to enhance learner rapport, as supported by Tsui (1996), Gay (2000), and Spencer-Oatey et al. (2016). (2) Formative Assessment through Engaged Dialog highlights the continuous process of eliciting, interpreting, and utilizing data on learner progress, employing inquiries as feedback to enhance accuracy and address learning challenges, as noted in studies by Bell and Cowie (2001), Ruiz-Primo and Furtak (2006), and Heritage (2007).

The CRFAED framework stresses the importance of assessment literacy, emphasizing the need for teachers to define assessment criteria and tailor their teaching strategies based on student feedback, thereby highlighting an area for enhanced teacher training (Hasselgreen et al., 2005; Heritage, 2010). Practitioners implementing the CRFAED framework should initially strive for a linguistic and cognitive balance in their questioning techniques. This balance involves integrating higher- and lower-order questions in formal and informal interactions while prioritizing open-ended questions to expand the understanding of learners (Sinclair and Coulthard, 1977; Milawati and Suryati, 2019). Second, employing culturally responsive questioning techniques that consider the cultural aspects of face-saving and the anxiety associated with making mistakes is essential. These techniques contribute to creating a supportive learning environment. Third, the framework advocates for cooperative learning as a fundamental principle. Practitioners are encouraged to engage in feedback-oriented assessment dialogs during formative assessments within online learning settings, which aim to bolster student collaboration and self-regulation (Walsh and Sattes, 2005).

Limitations

This study provides a comprehensive examination but recognizes several limitations. The study does not thoroughly address aspects such as lexical readiness, awareness of diverse pedagogical approaches, or the complete cycle of the assessment dialog derived from questioning. Furthermore, the intricate relationship between cultural factors and assessment practices remains insufficiently explored. Moreover, potential biases in the perceptions of teachers and students may skew the outcomes of the study. The representativeness of the sample might not adequately reflect the heterogeneity of educational environments, thus potentially limiting the generalizability of the results.

Refining the questioning framework and incorporating student questionnaires would be practical to accurately gauge their perspectives and strengthen the validity of future research findings. Additionally, a corpus-based analysis could be employed to identify patterns in classroom questioning language, as suggested by McEnery and Hardie (2011). Longitudinal studies exploring the impacts of the CRAFED framework through comparative analyses could further elucidate its effectiveness. Consequently, forthcoming research could not only deepen theoretical discussions on pedagogical strategies within multicultural and digital learning contexts but also provide practical recommendations for enhancing teaching and assessment practices in global TEFL environments.

Conclusion

This research substantiates and expands upon the existing body of literature by demonstrating the importance of adaptive questioning techniques in enhancing student engagement and the effectiveness of education through formative assessments within a Chinese TEFL context. Despite its specific regional focus, this study offers a sophisticated exploration of the influence of assessment strategies on learning outcomes, providing insights with potential universal applicability. The CRFAED framework, which emerged from this context, represents a notable advancement in formative assessment strategies, extending beyond the confines of the existing GFIP and ESRU models. This framework enriches the understanding of formative assessments and is poised for adaptation in diverse educational settings globally by integrating robust theoretical foundations with thorough empirical analysis. This broad perspective substantially enhances the assessment literacy and pedagogical effectiveness of teachers, marking a progressive step in the development of formative assessment practices and teaching outcomes. The study also introduces new avenues for research in TEFL education worldwide, particularly in areas of teacher questioning and formative assessments, and serves as a model for conducting regionally focused research with global implications.