Chemistry Teachers' Knowledge and Perceptions about Classroom Oral Questioning
Author(s):
Festo Kayima (presenting / submitting) Matthias Stadler
Conference:
ECER 2014
Format:
Paper

Session Information

ERG SES G12, Education, Management and Teachers' Practice

Paper Session

Time:
2014-09-02
09:00-10:30
Room:
FPCEUP - 252
Chair:
Isabel Menezes

Contribution

Introduction

Questions are an important tool for teachers to motivate and develop students’ interests, evaluate students’ preparation, nurture students’ insights, assess achievement of instructional goals and objectives among others. Research on classroom practice indicates that teachers often use questions which mainly call for students’ recall of facts, neglecting those questions which promote students’ thinking. This kind of practice is said to have persisted for over a century despite many calls for changes from education researchers. Studies however which unfold the teachers’ knowledge and perceptions concerning the use of questions in classrooms are rare. Unfolding teachers’ knowledge about questioning gives insight into the required form of interventions to change the practice as it informs what teachers know and the reasons for the practice. We think the unsuccessful calls for change in the teachers’ questioning practice may be due to lack of knowledge about the logic of the teachers’ practice. Our study aims at providing information on why teachers act the way they do.

A brief review of literature

In the first empirical study on classroom practice Stevens found teachers to ask an average of 395 questions per day of which the majority were factual (Stevens, 1912). In a review of the use of questions in teaching Gall concluded that consistently over the last 60 years 60% of teacher questions were factual, 20% procedural and only 20% of the questions required students to think (Gall, 1970). More recent studies on classroom practice come to similar conclusions, reporting teachers to ask many factual questions at a high rate with minimal opportunity for students to benefit from asked questions (Dillon, 1990; Hannel, 2009; Lee & Kinzie, 2012). 

For over 60 years, researchers working on teacher questions have worked towards improving classroom questioning. Educators (Bloom, 1956; Gallagher & Aschner, 1963; Guszak, 1967; Marzano, 2001; Smith, Meux, & Coombs, 1960) developed and recommended question classification taxonomies to help teachers in question formulation However these question taxonomies have remained in research articles and books. Either teachers have chosen to neglect these taxonomies for reasons known to them, or the taxonomies themselves are not known to teachers. And perhaps they have had minimum impact on the teachers’ way of questioning. 

Exploring research on teaching and teacher education, Anderson sought for reasons why teachers made little use of Bloom’s taxonomy. Some of the issues raised were time factor, teachers’ beliefs and the complexity of the taxonomy (Anderson, 1994). Researchers in the past focused more on explaining types of questions asked in classrooms, leaving aside questioners (teachers). Yet teachers’ knowledge and competencies can be vital in implementing such innovations and recommendations from educational research.

Research Questions

We sought to find out what teachers think and say regarding their own practice, considering the following research questions;

  1. Which type of questions do teachers use in their classroom teaching and how do they characterize these questions?

  2. What reasons do teachers hold for the way they question their learners?

Method

Semi-structured interviews were used to collect information from chemistry teachers. 11 chemistry teachers were interviewed, selected randomly from different schools within the Bergen region (Norway). The interviews were recorded and transcribed. The interview data was analyzed with an ethnomethodological approach along With the concepts of the "Language game" (Ludwig Wittgenstein) to identify teachers’ knowledge, practice and expectations of using questions.

Expected Outcomes

The results show teachers; i. Are able to identify the different types of questions (factual and thinking) that are possible in classroom situations. ii. Categorize questions based on their intentions and the kind of behavior/action expected from the student. iii. The teachers are also able to identify different situations where such questions could be used with justifying reasons. iv. Teachers seem to be unaware of other ways of categorizing questions used in research. v. The teacher education programs seem to address the questioning aspect in a way that does not support the development of reflective attitudes towards questioning in teachers. In conclusion, the way teachers understand their questioning appears to show that they know what they are doing. However monitoring and maintaining the quality of questions asked is a challenge to them, it would be easy if teachers were writing these questions ahead of time. But since writing never happens, then an alternative intervention is needed. The teacher education program needs to address questioning, with concrete and explicit examples which could be tried out in a teaching situation to ensure that the trainees have something tangible to retain after training. The teacher professional development program despite its enormous challenges and shortcomings appears to be another window through which in-service teachers can improve on what they know about questioning. Thus these ought to be emphasized more and especially if they are organized specifically to address classroom question use. There is need to revisit the researchers’ claims that teachers ask a lot of factual questions, to analyze such findings with respect to the teachers’ level of competence and knowledge of classroom questioning, otherwise it might seem of less value to implicate teachers when in reality they lack the actual tools and skills to perform to the expectations of researchers.

References

1. Anderson, L. W. (1994). Research on Teaching and Teacher Education. In L. W. Anderson & L. A. Sosniak (Eds.), Bloom’s taxonomy: a forty year retrospective (Vol. 93, pp. 139-141). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2. Baker, C. (1997). Ethnomethodological Studies of Talk in Educational Settings. In B. Davies & D. Corson (Eds.), Oral Discourse and Education (Vol. 3, pp. 43-52): Springer Netherlands. 3. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Education Goals. Cognitive Domain: Longman. 4. Dillon, J. T. (1990). The Practice of Questioning: Routledge London. 5. Feldman, M. S. (1995). Strategies for interpreting qualitative data (Vol. 33): Sage. 6. Freebody, P., & Freiberg, J. (2011). Ethnomethodological research in education and the social sciences: Studying “the business, identities and cultures” of classrooms. Methodological choice and design: Scholarship, policy and practice in social and educational research, 79-92. 7. Gall, M. D. (1970). The Use of Questions in Teaching. Review of Educational Research, 40(5), 707-721. 8. Gallagher, J. J., & Aschner, M. J. (1963). A Preliminary Report on Analyses of Classroom Interaction. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and Development, 9(3), 183-194. doi: 10.2307/23082786 9. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. 10. Guszak, F. J. (1967). Teacher Questioning and Reading. The Reading Teacher, 227-234. 11. Hannel, I. (2009). Insufficient Questioning. The Phi Delta Kappan, 91(3), 65-69. doi: 10.2307/40345093 12. James A. Holstein, & Jaber F. Gubrium. (2003). Ethnomethodological Analyses of Interviews. Inside Interviewing. SAGE Publications, Inc. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. 13. Lee, Y., & Kinzie, M. B. (2012). Teacher Question and Student Response with Regard to Cognition and Language Use. Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, 40(6), 857-874. 14. Marzano, R. J. (2001). Designing a New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press. 15. Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data (3 ed.): Sage. 16. Smith, B. O., Meux, M. O., & Coombs, J. (1960). A Study of the Logic of Teaching: University of Illinois Press Urbana, Illinois. 17. Stevens, R. (1912). The Question as a Measure of Efficiency in Instruction: A Critical Study of Class-room Practice: Teachers college, Columbia university. 18. Wittgenstein, L. (2009). Hacker, PMS and Schulte, J (translators, editors)(2009) Philosophical Investigations: The German Text with an English Translation: Oxford UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Author Information

Festo Kayima (presenting / submitting)
University of Bergen
Department of Chemistry
Bergen
University of Bergen, Norway

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.