22391201

International Journal of Science Education Vol. 28, No. 11, 15 September 2006, pp.
13151346
RESEARCH REPORT
Classroom Interaction in Science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students responses

Christine Chin*
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
hlcchin@nie.edu.sg ChristineChin 0000002006 Journal of Science Education 00 2006 & Francis Original Article 0950-0693 Francis Ltd International 10.1080/09500690600621100 TSED_A_162091.sgm Taylor and (print)/1464-5289 (online)
The purpose of this study was to (a) develop an analytical framework that represents classroom talk and questioning in science, (b) find out how teachers use questioning to engage their students in thinking about conceptual content that enables the construction of knowledge, and (c) identify the various forms of feedback provided by teachers in the follow-up move of the initiation responsefollow-up format of teaching exchange. Several lessons from Year 7 classes were observed across a variety of lesson structures such as expository teaching, whole-class discussions, laboratory demonstration, and hands-on practical work. The lessons were audiotaped and videotaped. Transcripts of the lessons were made and analysed, with particular attention paid to interactions that involved questions. Using the Questioning-based Discourse analytical framework developed in this study, four different types of feedback were identified. Interactional issues related to ways of speaking and questioning that encourage student responses and thinking are addressed. This information provides a description of what constitutes effective discourse in science teaching and learning, and will also be useful for both teachers and teacher-educators in identifying an appropriate repertoire of skills for subsequent teacher education and professional development.
Introduction When students learn science in a classroom setting, a primary source of information input comes from teacher talk and teacherstudent interactions, as the processes and transactions involved in the construction of meanings are mediated through language. Given the important role of verbal discourse in meaning-making by students and its significance for teaching and learning, classroom discourse and interaction has been the subject of interest of several researchers (e.g., Cazden, 2001; Edwards & Mercer, 1987; Edwards & Westgate, 1994).
*Natural Sciences and Science Education, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Email: hlcchin@nie.edu.sg ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/06/11131532 2006 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/09500690600621100
1316 C. Chin In particular, the three-part exchange structure known as triadic dialogue (Lemke, 1990) or recitation has been found to be pervasive in classrooms. This discourse format typically consists of three movesinitiation (often via a teacher question), student response, and teacher evaluationand has been commonly referred to as IRE (Mehan, 1979). The teacher asks a closed question that is basically information-seeking, that requires a predetermined short answer, and that is usually pitched at the recall or lower-order cognitive level. He/she then praises correct answers and corrects those that are wrong. Sometimes, it is also known as IRFinitiation, response, and follow-up or feedback (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975), as the third move may not necessarily be an explicit evaluation. Wells (1986), for example, has discussed ways in which teachers may provide feedback by encouraging students to externalize ideas, generate hypotheses, and test them. The triadic dialogue, which is typical of traditional teaching, is often perceived to have restrictive effects on students thinking as students responses remain brief and teacher-framed, thus minimizing their role in the co-construction of meaning. Although such conventional teacher-questioning practices based on this discourse format have been criticized (e.g., Lemke, 1990), some authors have accorded it a certain functionality that is consistent with educational goals. For example, Newman, Griffin, and Cole (1989) argued that the three-part exchange has a builtin repair structure in the teachers last turn so that incorrect information can be replaced with the right answers (p. 127). Such a view is appropriate if we view the responsibility of teachers as ensuring that students appropriate the knowledge that is normative within a particular culture. Similarly, Wells (1993) has argued that, when used effectively, it is in this third step in the co-construction of meaning that the next cycle of the learning-and-teaching spiral has its point of departure (p. 35). Thus, the triadic dialogue could have merit if teachers can scaffold students extension of knowledge through further supportive dialogue (Bruner, 1986; Vygotsky, 1978). An instance of this would be when teachers pose a question that stimulates further productive thought, based on their evaluation of students previous responses. In such a case, teachers would be guiding the development of students ideas by successively building on their contributions in a reciprocal manner. This suggests that the triadic dialogue does not exist as a homogeneous format. To achieve a more adequate understanding of classroom discourse, we could study the variations that stem from the IRF format. This study investigated questioning-based discourse practices in science classrooms through the interaction between teacher and students across a number of activities. It aimed to identify the different ways in which teachers follow up on students responses to their questions. Classroom Interaction and Discourse in Science Knowledge is constructed in the social context of the classroom through language and other semiotic means. Central to Vygotskys (1978) sociocultural theory of learning is the idea that conceptual knowledge first appears between people on an
Classroom Interaction in Science 1317 interpsychological plane, and then inside the learner on an intrapsychological plane. The notion of the teacher assisting student performance through the zone of proximal development also suggests that teachers can guide the discourse on the interpsychological plane to support student learning. This recognizes the importance of teacherstudent discourse in the classroom, which may be considered as a form of scaffolding (Bruner, 1986; Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976), although the latter was originally conceived in the context of tutoring a single individual in problem solving. Edwards and Mercer (1987) identified the following features of classroom discourse at an increasing level of teacher control: elicitation of students contributions, significance markers, joint-knowledge markers, cued elicitation of students responses (which is similar to the IRF structure), paraphrastic interpretations of students contributions, reconstructive recaps, and direct lecturing. Lemke (1990) identified several thematic development strategies used by teachers in science classrooms. These include dialogue and monologue strategies. Dialogue strategies include the Teacher Question Series (similar to the triadic IRF), selection and modification of student answers, retroactive recontextualization of student answers, and joint construction. Monologue strategies include logical exposition, narrative, selective summary, and foregrounding and backgrounding. Scott (1998) characterized authoritative and dialogic discourse based on the general features of the discourse, the nature of teacher utterances, and the nature of student utterances. While authoritative discourse focuses on the information transmitting voice and has a fixed intent and outcome, dialogic discourse involves several voices and has a generative intent. In authoritative discourse, the teacher conveys information and his/her utterances often involve instructional questions, factual statements, and reviews. However, dialogic discourse encourages challenge and debate, and is often based on open or genuine questions. For authoritative discourse, student utterances are often given in response to teacher questions, and consist of single, detached words interspersed in teacher delivery. In contrast, they are often spontaneous, expressed in whole phrases or sentences, and are tentative suggestions in dialogic discourse. While dialogic discourse allows students to argue and justify their ideas, the authoritative discourse also has its place in the classroom, particularly when the already constructed shared knowledge needs to be emphasized. Indeed, an alternation between these two types of discourse is important for developing conceptual thinking on the intrapsychological plane (Mortimer, 1998). Scott (1998) referred to the alternation between these two types of discourse as rhythm of the discourse, and suggested that learning will be enhanced through a balance between presenting information and allowing exploration of ideas. In their flow of discourse analytical framework, Mortimer and Scott (2000, 2003) addressed aspects of classroom discourse including (a) teaching purposes, (b) the content of the discourse regarding whether a student utterance matches the intended learning goal, (c) the form of the utterance in terms of whether it is a description, explanation, or generalization, (d) the communicative approach (interactive vs non-interactive, authoritative vs dialogic), (e) the patterns in the flow of the
1318 C. Chin discourse, and (f) teacher interventions. Central to their framework is the communicative approach, which focuses on whether or not the teacher interacts with students, and whether he/she takes account of students ideas. The dialogic approach recognizes more than one point of view, while the authoritative approach focuses on just one (the school science) point of view. The interactive approach allows for the participation of other people, but the non-interaction approach excludes them. Thus, for the interactive/authoritative communicative approach, the teacher invites responses from students but discounts their ideas, as he/she focuses solely on the scientific idea. He/she typically leads students through a sequence of questions and answers with the aim of reaching one specific point of view. In contrast, for the interactive/dialogic approach, the teacher explores students views and takes account of them, even though they may be quite different from the scientific one. The noninteractive/authoritative approach is best represented by the formal lecture where the teacher presents normative ideas in a monologue. As for the non-interactive/dialogic approach, the teacher does not invite any turn-taking interaction with students, but makes statements that addresses other points of view in addition to the formal scientific one. As for patterns of discourse, Mortimer and Scott (2003) expanded on the IRE or IRF structure by identifying the IRFRF chain where the elaborative feedback from the teacher is followed by a further response from a student. This form is typical of discourse that supports a dialogic interaction. As part of the feedback, the teacher could repeat a students comment to encourage the student to continue, elaborate on the comment, or ask for elaboration. By establishing this pattern of discourse, the teacher is able to explore students ideas. van Zee and Minstrell (1997a) examined ways of speaking that were characteristic of reflective discourse. In such interactions, students articulated their own ideas and posed questions; and teachers and students engaged in an extended series of questioning exchanges. Teachers helped students develop understandings through a process of negotiation rather than transmission or confrontation of misconceptions. Teaching strategies included soliciting students conceptions, restating student utterances in a neutral manner, using reflective questioning, and invoking silence to foster student thinking. Teacher Questioning Teacher questioning is a prominent feature of classroom talk (Wellington & Osborne, 2001). Early studies on teacher questioning focused on the IRE pattern of discourse (Mehan, 1979; Lemke, 1990), the lack of student active engagement when teachers asked too many questions based on the IRE format (Dillon, 1985), and the importance of wait time in increasing students thoughtfulness (Rowe, 1986; Tobin, 1987). More recent studies, however, have focused on the characteristics of teacher talk that encourage students construction of knowledge. Unlike teacher questioning in traditional lessons where the purpose is to evaluate what students know, the nature of questioning in constructivist-based or
Classroom Interaction in Science 1319 inquiry-oriented lessons is different. In such lessons, the teachers intent is to elicit what students think, to encourage them to elaborate on their previous answers and ideas, and to help students construct conceptual knowledge. Thus, questioning is used to diagnose and extend students ideas and to scaffold students thinking. Such questions are open, requiring one-sentence or two-sentence answers, and the teacher engages students in higher-order thinking (Baird & Northfield, 1992). Flexibility in questioning is needed, the teacher adjusts questioning to accommodate students contributions and responds to students thinking in a neutral rather than evaluative manner. For example, the feedback step of the IRF sequence could be in the form of a reflective toss (van Zee & Minstrell, 1997a), where the teacher throws the responsibility for thinking back to a student by asking a question in response to a prior utterance, thereby shifting toward more reflective discourse. A reflective toss sequence typically consists of a three-part structure: a student statement, a teacher question, and additional student statements. van Zee and Minstrell (1997b) found that the teacher used reflective tosses to serve a series of subgoals. These included using questions to help students (a) make their meanings clear (e.g., clarifying the meaning of what had just been said, bringing student knowledge into public view, prompting articulation of the focal issue by a student, and emphasizing a procedure), (b) consider a variety of views, and (c) monitor the discussion and their own thinking. The authors further proposed that this form of questioning may help teachers shift toward more reflective discourse that help students to clarify their meanings, consider various points of view, and monitor their own thinking. In another study on teacher questioning during conversations about science, van Zee, Iwasyk, Kurose, Simpson, and Wild (2001) found that teachers elicited student thinking by asking questions that developed conceptual understanding, and practising quietness through long wait times, attentive silence, and reticence. The teachers questions included those that elicited students experiences, diagnosed, and refined student ideas, as well those that helped students to clarify, explore, and monitor their various points of view and thinking. Roth (1996) described a case study where the teachers questioning was designed to draw out students knowledge, scaffold students discursive activity to lead to independent accounts and student-centred discussions. The students answers were not evaluated against the external standard of canonical knowledge. Although the teachers discourse contributions did not have an evaluative function, her authority as a teacher was undisputed. Instead, teacher authority was asserted and maintained by means other than the IRE sequence often linked to control (Lemke, 1990). By means of contingent queries, the teacher was able to ultimately lead the students to the canonical knowledge that was aligned to her lesson objectives. Purpose of Study Carlsen (1991) proposed a sociolinguistic framework for research into teacher questioning that would illuminate contextual issues that could not be addressed by
1320 C. Chin studies based on a processproduct paradigm. This framework consists of three features: the context of questions, the content of questions, and the responses and reactions to questions. In view of Wells (1993) suggestion that the third step of the IRF questioning sequence might offer potential for productive discourse and of Carlsens (1991) proposal for the use of a sociolinguistic framework to research into teacher questioning, this study was conducted to investigate the communicative and cognitive functions of teacher questions and the variety of feedback moves employed by teachers. Given the important role of discourse in meaning-making by students, there is also a need to characterize the positive kinds of talk-scaffolding in some way (Westgate & Hughes, 1997). The latter authors have suggested some potential areas for further research that involve discoursecognition relationships. This includes developing some form of cognitive coding for identifying and classifying cognitive functions carried out in talk, and which might incorporate elements and hierarchies within such categories. In connection with this aim, one area that might be fruitful to explore is the variety of feedback moves employed by teachers. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to (a) develop an analytical framework that represents classroom talk and questioning in science, (b) find out how teachers use questioning to engage their students in thinking about conceptual content that enables the construction of knowledge, and (c) identify the various forms of feedback provided by teachers in the follow-up move of the IRF (initiation-responsefollow-up) format of teaching exchange. Methods This study was carried out in Singapore. It was part of a larger study that involved six teachers from four schools teaching Year 7 (1213 year olds) science. However, the present study on which this paper is based involved only two of these teachers, who came from different schools. The lessons of these two teachers were selected for more detailed analysis because, when compared with the others, there was a relatively larger amount of rich, interactive questioning in their classrooms. This selection criterion was important as the focus of the study was on questioning-based practices and the feedback moves employed. Thus, purposeful sampling was used. The average class size was 40 students per class. The students were generally motivated, on-task, and ranged from average to aboveaverage ability. Because of large class sizes, time constraints to cover a prescribed national science curriculum, and accountability pressures on teachers for students to succeed on examinations, teaching was implemented predominantly via direct instruction or guided discussions in whole-class contexts. However, small group discussions and hands-on practical work in the science laboratory were also carried out on a regular basis. Class activities included expository lectures, whole-class guided discussions, teacher demonstrations, small-group hands-on tasks, paired discussions, and laboratory experiments carried out in pairs or individually.
Classroom Interaction in Science 1321 Fourteen lessons (seven from each of the two teachers), which comprised a total of about 14 h, were observed; these were either audiotaped or videotaped, or both. The lessons covered a range of topics included in the science syllabus. These included mass, volume, and density; elements, mixtures, and compounds; photosynthesis; and respiration. Because of manpower constraints and the limited availability of audio-recorders for use, only classroom discourse in whole-class settings and in some cases small groups were taped. The latter occurred whenever the teacher circulated among groups to talk to individual students. The audio-recorder was strapped to the teacher and so recorded whatever she said during the lessons. The video camera was set up at the back of the classroom and was directed at the teacher and students. Besides visually recording the transactions occurring in the classroom, it also helped to capture the voices of students who were seated at the back of the room. Data sources included audiofiles and videotapes of science lessons, copies of lesson handouts given to students, and notes of meetings with the teachers. The audiofiles of recorded classroom talk were transcribed verbatim. Video-clips of the lessons were observed and interpretive notes were made. Verbal data from the transcripts served as primary sources of data. They were analysed interpretively, with a focus on teacherstudent interactions and questioning. Video-clips of the lessons, lesson handouts, and students written work provided additional information about the classroom contexts. The discourse was analysed based on the scientific content of the talk, type of utterance, type of thinking associated with students responses, and interaction patterns. The unit of analysis was the IRF exchange. Each pair of the teachers initiating question and the corresponding students response that it elicited was analysed, with a focus on the type of question posed, how it was asked, and the relationship between the cognitive level of the question and students responses. This questionanswer pair was coded using cognitive categories, according to the type of responses generated. These cognitive categories reflected the type of thinking that was elicited. These included mere recall, as well as the higher-order cognitive processes such as hypothesizing, predicting, explaining, interpreting, and making conclusions. To identify the different kinds and patterns of interaction in classroom talk, I traced the questions asked, the responses that they triggered, and how the teacher followed-up on these responses. In particular, I examined the impact of preceding utterances on later ones. By examining student utterances before and after a teachers question, I traced how the question influenced what students said and whether it elicited further thinking. I identified episodes of dialogues that seemed to prompt deeper thinking, move thinking forward, or lead to productive responses, and interpreted the questioning and follow-up that occurred within these. I looked at both the content and patterns of interaction in the flow of discourse in the classroom, paying particular attention to how the ideas evolved and progressed over time. Key strategic moves or questions that appeared to change or influence the direction and content of the talk were noted. Analysis thus focused on systematically analysing what was observable, in terms of turns or moves, and then on whether any emerging
1322 C. Chin patterns in the forms or functions of the discourse could be discerned, especially in association with the teachers input (Westgate & Hughes, 1997).
Results The Questioning-based Discourse Analytical Framework Four aspects of classroom discourse (namely, content, type of utterance, thinking elicited, and interaction pattern) constitute the elements of the questioning-based discourse analytical framework. Content refers to the scientific ideas and concepts addressed in the discourse. The type of utterance refers to whether it is a question, answer, statement, or comment. In the context of this framework, a statement refers to further content-related propositions made by the teacher, whereas a comment is an evaluative or neutral utterance given by the teacher in response to a students reply to her question. The latter could also take the form of a restatement or reformulation of the students response. The thinking elicited was coded according to the type of cognitive process associated with a students response. Finally, the interaction pattern takes into account, the nature of students responses and reactions to questions initiated by the teacher, the type of feedback given in relation to the purpose of the question, as well as the form and function of the utterance. An analysis of the follow-up or feedback given by the teachers in the IRF sequence showed that this was typically in the form of a comment or statement followed by either another question, or further statements that expounded more scientific content. Thus, the F part of the three-part exchange could comprise a comment question (CQ) or statementquestion (SQ) couplet where the question component of the couplet may be regarded as overlapping with the initiation or I move of the next IRF sequence. However, if no questions were asked, it took the form of a commentstatement (CS) couplet. At times, feedback consisted of only comments (C) or statements (S). An example of a questioning sequence based on this framework is represented visually in Table 1. In Table 1, the column titled Move indicates the form of the utterance (I, R, or F) while the column labelled Purpose of utterance represents the purpose or function in that discourse move (e.g., elicit, reply, probe, extend). Entries in the column titled Type of utterance indicate whether the utterance is in the form of a question, answer, statement, comment, or a combination of more than one type. Taken together, these three components (namely, move, purpose, and type of utterance) represent the interactive aspect of the discourse. The final column, entitled cognitive process, indicates the thinking processes associated with students utterances. Since it was not possible to gain direct access to the minds of the students, this analysis was inferential in nature, and based on what was known about the classroom context. Analysis of the relationship between the interactive and cognitive aspects of the discourse helped to identify patterns embedded in the talk, and to identify any specific teacher discourse-moves that facilitate productive responses in students.
Table 1. Sample excerpt based on the Questioning-based Discourse framework
Speaker I R FI R FI R FI A CQ A CQ A SQ Reply Accept, elicit Reply Accept, elicit Reply Focus, elicit Q Elicit
Utterance
Move
Type of utterance
Purpose of utterance
Cognitive process
Teacher
Student 1 Teacher Student 2 Teacher Student 3 Teacher
Hypothesize/recall Hypothesize/recall Hypothesize/recall
Students Teacher Student I R FI R FI R FI R FI Q A CQ A Q A CQ A SQ
R FI R
A CQ A
Reply Probe Reply Probe Reply Probe Reply, justify Extend Reply Accept, elicit Reply Focus, elicit
Recall Observe Evaluate Explain Compare Hypothesize
Teacher Students Teacher
Classroom Interaction in Science 1323
Student Teacher Student Teacher Student Teacher
What are the factors that affect the rate of dissolving? What do you think? Temperature of solvent. Temperature of solvent. What else? The rate of stirring. The rate of stirring. How fast you stir it. And also? Yes? The volume of the solvent. Yes. To be more specific, we are talking about size of solute surface area What do you observe in daily life that has a relation to the size of solute?. Lets say, in the morning when you make a cup of Milo or a cup of coffee You want to make it sweet. What do you use? Sugar. You think of sugar. And does the size of sugar have an effect? Yes. (The student then shared his observation that sugar is sold in both fine and coarse grained forms). What type of sugar would you like to use? Fine grain sugar. Fine grain sugar. Why would you like to use fine grain sugar? Yes, anyone wants to share? Because size of solute affects the rate of dissolving. So you find that, uh, does it dissolve faster or slower? Faster. Faster. Okay, what is the theory behind here? Can anyone propose? Because the size of solute is smaller and covers more surface area Lets say, we have this cube A represents sugar. And we take this cube A and break it into many, many tiny cubes There is a lot of it and all of them will have the same volume as this. So which has larger surface area? A or B?
Table 1. (continued) Move R FI A CQ Reply Accept, elicit Hypothesize Type of utterance Purpose of utterance Cognitive process
1324 C. Chin
Speaker
Utterance
Students Teacher
Student Teacher R A Reply
R FI
A CQ
Reply Probe
Predict Predict
Student
B B. As you know, if you cut them into several pieces, the surface area exposed to the surrounding increases or decreases? What was your prediction, Charles? My prediction was smaller size, bigger surface area. The smaller the size, the larger surface area. Therefore, what happens to the rate of dissolving? Increase.
Note: I, initiation; R, response; F, follow-up; Q, teacher question; A, student answer; C, teacher comment; S, teacher statement (for type of utterance).
Classroom Interaction in Science 1325 This excerpt in Table 1 occurred during a lesson on designing an investigation to find out the effect of surface area on the rate of dissolving sugar in water. The excerpt was taken from the beginning of the lesson where there was a whole-class discussion on the factors that affect the rate of dissolving. In the excerpt, the teacher first elicited students ideas about the factors that affect how fast a solute dissolves in a solvent. Students hypothesized that variables such as the temperature of solvent, rate of stirring and volume of solvent would affect the rate of dissolving. It is probable that students were engaging in hypothetical thinking as this was the first time that the topic was formally introduced in secondary school. However, it is also possible that the students responses were based on recall from primary school science lessons or of previous daily life experiences with dissolving sugar or salt in water. Since it is not possible to tell the exact nature of the cognitive process at play in these instances, the cognitive processes are labelled as hypothesize/recall. The teacher then posed questions pertaining to the size of the solute. Using the context of dissolving sugar in a beverage, she then asked students whether they would prefer to use fine or coarse sugar, and to give their reasons. Her discursive interactions with students consisted of a series of CQ couplets where her questions built on students earlier responses. Typically, she remained neutral in her responses to students replies and offered explicit evaluation only occasionally. In replying to the teachers questions, the students were engaged in the cognitive processes of hypothesizing, recalling, observing, evaluating, explaining, deducing, and predicting. Using this framework, verbal data from transcripts of classroom discourse were analysed to identify the various ways in which the teachers gave feedback following students responses to their questions. Types of Teacher Feedback to Students Responses In response to a teachers question that solicits factual information or that taps into conceptual understanding or reasoning, a students answer could be either scientifically correct or incorrect. After evaluating the students answer mentally, the teacher could verbalize this evaluation publicly to the class by providing a comment. Alternatively, he/she may not articulate this overtly but keep this evaluation silently to himself or herself, thus remaining neutral in his/her response. In the case of a correct answer, this evaluation could be in the form of a praise or acknowledgement; whereas for a wrong answer, the teacher might either issue a put-down or remain neutral. Thus, as a follow-up to a students correct answer, a teacher could proceed in either of two ways: (a) affirm the answer, reinforce it, and then move on to further expository talk via direct instruction; or (b) accept the answer and then ask another related question or series of questions that build on the previous ones to extend the line of conceptual thought. On the other hand, in response to a students answer that is incorrect or that deviates from the scientific norm, corrective feedback could be via (c) explicit correction followed by further expounding of the normative ideas, or (d) evaluative or neutral comments followed by reformulation of the question or challenge via another question.
1326 C. Chin Unlike feedback types (a) and (c), which did not encourage student input beyond the initial solicited answers, feedback types (b) and (d) further elicited students responses, stimulated productive thinking, and extended lines of conceptual thought in students. The different types of teacher feedback are referred to as Affirmationcum-Direct Instruction, Focusing and Zooming, Explicit CorrectionDirect Instruction, and Constructive Challenge. These different types of feedback are summarized in Table 2, and illustrated in the following by specific examples from the dataset. Feedback in Response to a Students Correct Answer Example 1: Affirmation-cum-Direct Instruction. The following excerpt illustrates a case (comprising feedback type (a)) where the teacher affirmed and reinforced students correct answers and then moved on to expound further scientific information via direct instruction. While the discourse was dialogic in nature during the initial stage, teacher talk was authoritative and had a transmissive function during the latter expository phase. This type of feedback is referred to as Affirmation-cumDirect Instruction. The lesson was on the topic Respiration. The teacher had given the students several thinking tasks, one of which required students to imagine that a given piece of plasticine was an organism. Students had to first work in groups to discuss their answers to given questions on a handout. Following this, a representative from each group presented their findings. The questions posed on the handout included:
Table 2. Nature of students response Correct Types of feedback to students responses in the F move of the IRF exchange
Type of feedback (a) AffirmationDirect instruction (b) Extension by responsive questioning: Focusing and Zooming (c) Explicit correctionDirect instruction (d) Constructive challenge
Predominant nature of key utterances CQ, CS
Description Affirm and reinforce response followed by further exposition and direct instruction Accept response followed by a series of related questions that build on previous ones to probe or extend conceptual thinking Explicit correction followed by further expounding of the normative ideas Evaluative or neutral comment followed by reformulation of the question or challenge via another question
Mixture of correct and incorrect Incorrect
CQ
SQ, S
CQ, Q
Note: C, teacher comment; Q, teacher question; S, teacher statement.
How would you shape it such that there is a maximum exchange of gases between this organism and its surroundings? What are two factors observed that can help to ensure the maximum exchange of gases taking place? Where can these features be found in our bodies?
These questions were also displayed on a PowerPoint slide on a screen at the front of the classroom. Four students then went up to the front of the classroom to show their moulded products. Table 3 shows the conversation that followed, based on the proposed framework given. In this excerpt, the teacher got the students to observe the features of their moulded products by asking questions such as What would the shape be? and What can you say about the thickness?. She also told the students to act as judges and to evaluate which sample would be the best shape for the maximum exchange of gases, as well as to explain and justify their choice of sample. After this, she stimulated analogical thinking in students by asking Which organ in your body has such features?. The students were then further posed the question How are you going to contain it? where they had to figure out how to get the plasticine into a small container, without changing its shape. In trying to solve the latter problem, students had to generate a variety of ideas including rolling, flattening, and bending. During the conversation described, the teacher encouraged students thinking by accepting responses in a neutral manner, affirming the responses with a comment such as okay, or restating students responses. This was followed by a question that built on the students previous response. Thus, the teachers replies to students responses consisted of a series of CQ couplets. Subsequently, the teacher consolidated the key points embedded in the students responses by introducing the appropriate scientific vocabulary (such as lungs, air sacs, large surface area, blood capillaries, large network [of blood capillaries], one cell thick, rapid exchange of gases) in the form of direct instruction. During this latter phase, feedback consisted of a series of teacher statements, and was predominantly of the CS couplet type. Feedback in Response to a Mixture of Correct and Incorrect Answers Example 2: Extension by responsive questioning (Focusing and Zooming). In this example, the teacher remained neutral in her evaluation of students responses (even when the responses were inconsistent with the scientific norm) but asked a series of further related questions that extended student thinking (feedback type (b), which comprised mainly CQ couplets). These questions were used to elicit, probe, extend, and elaborate students thinking, with a view to helping students construct conceptual knowledge. There was responsive questioning in that the teacher adjusted her questions to students responses, with each subsequent question building on to the previous one(s) to help students progressively construct a related and integrated framework of ideas. The teacher also invited other students to respond to a given answer. Discourse was dialogic and occasionally authoritative, and had a facilitative
Table 3. Example of excerpt for Afrmation-cum-Direct Instruction
1328 C. Chin
Turn I R FI R FI R FI R FI R FI A CQ A CQ A CQ A CQ Reply Accept, probe Reply, justify Accept, extend Reply Extend Reply Accept, extend Q A CQ Elicit Reply Accept, extend
Speaker
Utterance
Move
Type of utterance Describe Evaluate Explain
Cognitive process
1 2 3
Teacher Student Teacher
4 5
Students Teacher
6 7
Charles Teacher
8 9 10 11
Students Teacher Students Teacher
Describe Apply/recall
12 13 14 15 16 17
Student Teacher Student Student Teacher Student
What would the shape be? Flattened Okay, which do you think is the best shape for the maximum exchange of gases? You will be judges. Which one would be best? Charless Okay, Charles, can you tell the class why your friends think this is the best? This has the largest surface area. Okay, this has largest surface What can you say about the thickness? Thin Thin Which organ on your body has such features? Lungs Okay. Very good. Lungs I have another more mind boggling thing. Imagine I have this thing [holding a container]. Dont change the shape. Try and contain it into this vessel. How are you going to contain it? You may do anything but dont change the shape. Roll it up Roll it up, okay. Try flattening it. [Laughter from the class] Roll another way. Any other way? Bend it, bend it. [Students tried different ways, some without success.] [Finally, one student succeeded in getting his plasticine into the vessel without altering its shape and held up his sample for the class to see. The class cheered.] R F R R I R A C A A Q A Reply Accept Reply Reply Elicit Reply
Hypothesize Hypothesize Hypothesize Hypothesize
Table 3. (continued)
Turn F CS Accept, expound
Speaker
Utterance
Move
Type of utterance
Cognitive process
18
Teacher
Okay. What he did was he rolled it up! And when you roll it up, what happens to the features? Do you realize its thrown into folds? Have you ever wondered why our lungs are in this shape? [showing a slide] Lungs are organs. Lungs are actually organs. If you were to look into the organs, thats the tissue. You will see that at the end of tissue, you have air sacs. If you look at the cross section, do you see that it is thrown into folds? I want you to put down whatever you are doing. Listen, you see they are thrown into folds. There were two factors that you said. First, the large surface area. Thats correct. Lets look further in. You see large surface area. You can get large surface area if these tissues are arranged into ball-like structures And to further increase the large surface area, your lungs have blood capillaries, a large network of it.... Thats the first point. Second point, in order to be very thin, it is one cell thick. Why one cell thick? So that there is rapid exchange of gases taking place.
1330 C. Chin function. This approach to questioning is termed Focusing and Zooming as the questions zoomed in and outalternating between a big, broad question and more specifically focused, narrow, subordinate questions. The teacher used her questioning lens to adjust and refocus the nature of her questions, as appropriate. As a prelude to learning about density, the students had just learnt how to find the volume of a solid such as a marble, by the method of displacement of water using a measuring cylinder. The teacher then posed the question of how to determine the volume of sugar and a piece of sponge. An excerpt is presented in Table 4 for the case of sugar. The overarching, macroscopic question here related to how the volume of sugar determined by the displacement method would be affected by its dissolution in water. The teacher first elicited students ideas by asking students to give their predictions. Students different answers included the same and it will be less. The teacher then probed students to explain their reasoning by asking further subsidiary questions such as can you elaborate on why the volume will be less? which required them to think at the submicroscopic or molecular level (zooming-in). After focusing on the case of sugar, the teacher moved on to the case of a piece of sponge (zooming-out) using a similar questioning approach. Finally, she posed another overarching question: If you want to determine the volume of the material by this method of displacement of water, what must be the nature of this material?. Through a series of responsive focusing and zooming questions, she guided students to generate their own inferences and conclusions, where they gave responses such as the material must be non-porous, it does not absorb water, must not dissolve in water, and it must not float. Feedback in Response to Students Incorrect Answer Example 3: Explicit CorrectionDirect Instruction. An example based on feedback type (c) is now given in a lesson on density where the teacher elicited students ideas on how fishes sink and rise in water. A student proposed an answer and the teacher then invited peer evaluation from the class. After explicitly pointing out the students mistake, the teacher proceeded to give the correct answer and then carried on with telling students more information. Table 5 presents a description of this excerpt. The teachers feedback was in the form of an overt correction followed by a series of statements alluding to experiences with swimming. By having the correct answer told to her directly, the student, Yi Le, who had inappropriate conceptions about the topic, did not have to do the cognitive work to reason out the answer herself. Example 4: Constructive Challenge Here, the teacher did not articulate the students mistake in the form of an evaluative comment. Instead, she remained neutral but challenged the student by posing another question, thereby throwing the responsibility of thinking back to the student in the form of a reflective toss (van Zee & Minstrell, 1997a). She did this by further
Table 4. Example of excerpt for Focusing and Zooming
Turn I SQ Elicit
Speaker
Utterance
Move
Type of utterance
Cognitive process
Teacher
2 3 4 5 R F-I R F-I A C-Q A C-Q
Cha Ming Teacher Student 1 Teacher
R F-I R F-I
A C-Q A C-Q
Reply Clarify, elicit Reply Probe Reply Probe Reply Probe, elicit
Predict Predict Explain Hypothesize
6 7 8 9
Student 1 Teacher Student 1 Teacher
10
Suk Hua
We now want to look at if you can use this same method, which is method of displacement of water using a measuring cylinder to determine the volume of rock sugar The problem with sugar is that it dissolves in water, right? And if it dissolves in water, how does that affect the volume determined? Cha Ming? Will the sugar volume be more or less? Or the same, unaffected? The same. The same, uh, you think it is the same? It will be less. It will be less? You are saying that the volume will be less? Okay, can you elaborate on why the volume will be less?. It [sugar] takes up space. Huh? It takes up space from where? [From] within the water. Water. But if it takes up the space within the water, wouldnt it have displaced the volume of water upwards? (Drawing on board.) Lets say these are water molecules. When sugar molecules go in, and it becomes sugar molecules dissolved, what is happening in this phenomenon of dissolving? Anybody? Suk Hua? Does it take up more space? Yes or no? No R I A Q Reply Probe
11
Teacher
Predict/ guess
12
Student
And why doesnt it take up more space? We were talking about water molecules as not being so closely packed. There are spaces in between them. So in dissolving, what is happening? The sugar takes up the space between the water molecules.
Reply
Explain
Table 4. (continued)
Turn F-I C-Q Accept, elicit
Speaker
Utterance
Move
Type of utterance
Cognitive process
1332 C. Chin
13
Teacher
14 15 16 17 18
Suk Hua Teacher Huiyi Teacher Huiyi
R F-I R F-I R
A C-Q A C-Q A
Reply Elicit Reply Probe Reply, justify
Predict Predict Explain, theorize
19
Teacher
Okay, so the sugar takes up the space between the water molecules, which were like empty spaces originally. So how then, does that affect the volume of water? If these water molecules are all closely packed together and if there is no space for this sugar molecule, it will take up all this space. And it will displace volume of water. Right? But the water molecules have a lot of empty spaces in between, [the sugar molecules] squeeze in between, and take up the space, which was originally empty in that sense. So therefore, the volume of the water displaced by these sugar molecules, is it still the same as or less than what it should displace [be]? Same. Same, uh? You think it will be the same. Huiyi, what do you think? Less It will be less. And why do you think it will be less? The water displaced will be less. Because the sugar molecules will seep inside the [inaudible] like take up the space in the spread-out water molecules. So there will be less. And then those that cannot [inaudible] they have no space already, they will have some displacement. Then that [volume of water displaced] will be less. Uh-huh Those [sugar molecules] that dont squeeze in between will be the ones that displace the water upwards. Its just like if you have a box If the box is all taped up and you have some materials inside the box, but the box is not fully packed The box is quite empty so you squeeze in some more things When you close up the box again, the box is still occupying the same space as the volume of the box It is very similar to this idea. (Drawing diagram on board) So the volume that you determine would have been less, as the molecules of rock sugar can move in between the spaces of water molecules as a result, displacing a smaller volume of liquid than its own. F-I C-S Accept, consolidate
Table 5. Example of excerpt for Explicit correctionDirect instruction
Turn I Q Elicit
Speaker
Utterance
Move
Type of utterance Cognitive process
Teacher
2 3 R FI R FI A SQ A SQ Reply Check, elicit Reply Inform, link
Yi Le Teacher
R FI
A CQ
Reply Clarify, focus
Hypothesize Hypothesize Evaluate
4 5
Yi Le Teacher
6 7
Students Teacher
8 9
Yi Le Teacher
How do fish sink and rise in water? Anybody wants to suggest an answer? What do fish do when they want to go down into the water? And what do they do when they want to rise to the surface of water? Yi Le? The fish releases air. It can also absorb air. Yes. It releases or absorbs air? When does it need to release air? When it wants to float. It rises. When it wants to float, it needs to release air. Is that correct? No. [Class laughed and teacher also laughed]. When it wants to sink, it needs to release air. Just like when you want [pause] those of you who have gone swimming. If you want to make yourself sink, its not that easy. You need to take in air or blow out air? You need to blow out lots of air before you can sink, right? Same thing. And when you want to rise, you must [pause]? Absorb air. You must take in more air. R F A S Reply Restate, reinforce
Hypothesize, deduce
1334 C. Chin elicitation as well as reformulating her question in the form of a recast, which forced the student to reflect on and reconsider her answer (feedback type (d)). In a lesson on density, the teacher posed the problem of how to find the density of ones body. A student had estimated that it would be a figure close to that of water as our bodies have 70% of water. The teacher then asked students how they would determine their own volume so as to calculate their body density. After some group discussion, a student presented her groups ideas while the teacher drew on the board as the student spoke. The drawing showed a stick figure of a person submerged in a tank of water with two water levels indicated by V1 and V2. Table 6 shows the interaction involved in the conversation between the teacher and student presenter. Upon detecting the error in the students thinking that the markings on the tank represented heights and not volumes, the teacher did not explicitly tell the student that she had made a mistake. Instead, she posed a series of questions, articulating them in several different ways, with each question cast in a slightly different wording. These questions provided the student with cues to draw on her own conceptual resources. They prompted the student to self-evaluate her own thinking, reflect on her incorrect assumption made earlier, discover the fallacy in her reasoning, and to rectify her mistake. Subsequently, the teacher also stimulated the student to evaluate her proposed method to see whether there were possible sources of error. The student became aware that the presence of clothes on a persons body would affect the accuracy of the volume determined. Discussion Questioning is a significant part of teaching and science talk. As Tsui, Marton, Mok, and Ng (2004) have pointed out, questions posed at critical junctures of a lesson can focus students attention on the critical aspects of the object of learning, and open up the space for further inquiry and learning. This study was undertaken to better understand how teacher questioning is woven into everyday instruction and how it influences subsequent student responses. A questioning-based discourse analytical framework was developed for the description and analysis of classroom discourse in science, with a focus on questioning-based practices. It was used to analyse ways in which teachers used questions to frame and guide classroom discourse, and provides a fine-grained description of the subtleties and nuances for a range of possibilities in the IRF teaching exchange. This characterization of teacher questioning in the classroom contributes to an understanding of how questions can stimulate productive thinking in students as part of a teaching sequence. Analysis of classroom discourse using the aforementioned framework revealed some recurrent patterns in the teachers interactional strategies whenever productive responses were generated by students. Where the F-move in the customary IRF cycle or essential teaching exchange (Edwards & Westgate, 1994) was not just evaluative but also supportive in that it embedded a further question that provoked deeper thinking beyond simple recall, it engaged students in more cognitively active
Table 6. Example of excerpt for Constructive Challenge Type of Purpose of Move utterance utterance Cognitive process
Turn Speaker
Utterance
Reply
Problem-solve, apply, generate
Reformulate, challenge
[The teacher had posed the problem of how to find the density of ones body. She asked the students how they would determine their own volume so as to calculate their body density. The students then discussed in groups before one of them presented her groups ideas.] Student We need a big tank. Cuboid shape. The tank is transparent. After that, we pour an amount of water. Take the volume of water first (V1). And then the person will go inside. And then take the volume of the water and the person together (V2). Lie down inside. Take the height [gesticulating the depth of water]. The volume will rise. After that, you subtract V1 from V2. That will be the volume of the person. [The teacher detected an error in the students description and challenged her thinking.] Teacher (Pointing to the drawing and using her fingers to gesticulate the difference in heights between the two markings) Is that the volume already? Is V1 and V2 already the volume?. Are you measuring volume of water? Or are you measuring height? How do you take the volume of water? You mean this thing [tank] is calibrated to read volume? A measuring cylinder is calibrated to read volume. But is this calibrated to read volume? You are reading the sides. You are reading volume or height?. Student Then later take the subtracted answer After that, take the height. R F R F A C A CQ Reply
4 5 6
Reflect, selfcorrect Fine-tune, specify Reply Generate, apply Accept, elicit
7 8
Teacher Difference in height. Student Yeah, difference in height times the area. Teacher Take the difference in height times the area, base area, cross-sectional area. Right. Any person did it differently? Any comments? Any errors involved? Did you discuss about errors? Student [Nodding after a pause] The person wearing his clothes. Teacher [Smiling] The person wearing clothes. How about the modesty of the person? [Class laughed]
R FI
A C
Reply Accept, tease
Analyse, identify
1336 C. Chin roles. In such instances, the teachers subsequent questions stimulated students to formulate hypotheses, predict outcomes, brainstorm ideas, generate explanations, make inferences and conclusions, as well as to self-evaluate and reflect on their own thinking. Thus, the thrust of the teachers utterances in the F-move consisted not just of an evaluative comment and further statements (i.e., CS couplet), but rather a comment and/or a further productive question (Elstgeest, 1985), in the form of a CQ couplet, that took students forward in their thinking. The teacher moves, in such cases, did not appear to be overly evaluative in either an explicitly positive or negative way (e.g., in the form of praises or put-downs). Instead, they were often neutral or accepting of students responses (in the form of subtle affirmations such as okay) if they were appropriate. As Hogan, Nastasi, and Pressley (2000) reported in their study on discourse patterns in teacher-guided small group discussions, although the roles of teacher as questioner and student as answerer are similar to those found in traditional recitation-based classroom exchanges, the crucial differentiating feature of this question-answer exchange is the lack of evaluative statements by the teacher (p. 411). Another common feature observed in the teachers comments in the F-move was that the teachers often restated students responses following their questions. This phenomenon, termed revoicing by Chapin, OConnor, and Anderson (2003), served not only to affirm students responses, but also to make their ideas available to all in the class, thereby making it common knowledge (Edwards & Mercer, 1987). In addition, teacher feedback in the form of paraphrasing students responses may allow students, particularly those with weak language abilities and who may have difficulties in verbalizing their thoughts, the opportunity to co-construct a response with their teacher and peers. In doing this, the teacher provides not only conceptual but also linguistic scaffolding, adjusting both the cognitive and linguistic loads of students. A further characteristic of facilitative F-moves was that teacher questions immediately following teacher feedback built upon students previous contributions, supporting students cognitive activity, and allowing progress towards a joint construction of the concepts concerned. These questions were responsive to students answers, followed from, and were closely linked to the utterance in the feedback from the preceding F-move. They were integrated with each other as part of a coherent framework in that they addressed various types of thinking related to the scientific concepts being discussed. Common purposes associated with teacher utterances include those of accept and elicit. The former affirmed students contributions, while the latter used students knowledge as starting points and raised new questions to take students thinking forward. These elicit moves were thus not of the closed kind but were genuine questions, which often appeared to have the sole intention of drawing out, probing, and extending what the students were really thinking. Figure 1 represents the possible range of purposes underlying teachers utterances during the initiation and feedback moves in facilitative IRF iterations. Three related sets of purposes are depicted, based on the findings in this study. In the initiation
1nitiation
Draw out Elicit, probe, extend
Cue and Provoke Clarify, prompt, challenge
4esponse
Students Responses
Evaluate
Students Responses
.eedback
Reinforce Affirm, restate, consolidate

Figure 1. Purpose of teachers utterances during facilitative IRF iterations
moves, the set termed Draw out consists of teacher questions that aim to elicit, probe, and extend students thinking. These work in tandem with Cue and provoke, where questions are designed to clarify, prompt, and challenge students responses. As for the feedback move, teachers utterances that affirm, restate, and consolidate students correct ideas have the overarching purpose of reinforcing the key scientific concepts involved in the lesson. The solid arrows in the diagram depict the two-way interaction between the initiation and feedback moves that are often closely linked. As teacher evaluation is central to the teaching exchange and was observed to be typically neutral and covert in nature, it is placed in the middle of the diagram and linked to the other purposes by dotted lines. What might be some factors that determine the nature of students thinking and responses, and what might prompt each of the four types of teacher feedback? To some extent, the type of cognitive processing that students engage in depends on the demand level at which the teachers question is pitched (e.g., whether the question requires students to recall, hypothesize, explain, or predict). In turn, the form of the teachers feedback and follow-up may be triggered by the kind of response given by the student. The Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO) taxonomy (Biggs, 2003; Biggs & Collis, 1982) describes the nature of students responses in terms of their sophistication and structural complexity. At the lowest level of pre-structural responses, there is little evidence of understanding. Uni-structural responses focus
Figure 1. Purpose of teachers utterances during facilitative IRF iterations
1338 C. Chin on one conceptual aspect in a complex case, while multi-structural responses show several components that are discrete and unrelated to each other. Evidence of deeper understanding is manifested in relational responses that show integration of concepts. At the highest level, extended abstract responses show conceptualization beyond what has been dealt with in the teaching, as well as application to new domains. As an illustration, consider the case of Example 2 earlier (Focusing and Zooming). When asked how the value for the volume of sugar would be affected, Cha Mings answer of the same (turn 2) would be pre-structural since little understanding was shown. The answer given by Student 1 (turn 4) it will be less would be uni-structural as it was only a minimal response. Subsequently, when Student 1 went on to elaborate that it [sugar] takes up space (turn 6) and [from] within the water (turn 8), features of a multi-structural response are evident as the student attempted to articulate more than one idea, although these were given in two discrete pieces. Upon further probing by the teacher, another student gave a response the sugar takes up the space between the water molecules (turn 12) that was relational, as this showed the integration of two concepts (namely, that there is space between the water molecules and that the sugar molecules take up this space). Towards the end of this given excerpt, Huiyis attempt at theorizing the mechanism involved at the submicroscopic level (turn 18) would be indicative of an extended abstract response. From this example, it appears that one factor influencing the form of a teachers feedback and follow-up questions is the nature of the response made by the student. In the example, when the student, Cha Ming, gave an incorrect answer, the teacher restated her question and redirected it at another student, Student 1 (turns 3 and 4). Then, when Student 1 was able to give the correct answer, albeit at the uni-structural level, the teacher posed further questions that nudged students towards multistructural, relational, and extended abstract responses at an ascending order of cognitive complexity. Apart from the nature of students responses, there are other conceivable factors that determine the form of a teachers feedback and follow-up, although these are beyond the scope of this study. These include the nature or difficulty level of the topic being addressed, the ability level of students, the curriculum time available, and the teachers epistemology and preferred style of teaching. In table 7, I postulate the different conditions under which each type of feedback might be used. Implications for Instructional Practice The findings of this study showed turn-taking and discourse patterns other than the traditional IRE sequences. Some exchanges were of the IRFRF pattern (Mortimer & Scott, 2003) or an IDRF type where students discussed their ideas in pairs or groups (hence, the D for discussion) following a teachers initiating question, before responding to the question. Depending on the nature of the activity, some questioning sequences had the quality of exploratory and facilitative rather than evaluative
Table 7. Conditions under which each type of feedback may be used Type of feedback AffirmationDirect instruction Focusing and Zooming Explicit correction Direct instruction Reconstructive challenge
Conditions under which feedback may be used
Nature of students responses When students answers are scientifically correct When students responses contain both correct and incorrect ideas When students answers are scientifically incorrect or insufficiently detailed Nature or difficulty level of topic When new scientific vocabulary needs to be introduced When concepts addressed are familiar to or within grasp of the students When concepts addressed may be too difficult for students to handle on their own Ability level of students When teacher believes students may not be capable of formulating or reasoning out the answers on their own When teacher believes students are capable of thinking at progressively higher levels (e.g. relational and extended abstract levels of the SOLO taxonomy) Time available When there are constraints in curriculum time When time is available for extended classroom discourse Teachers epistemology, skills, and preferred teaching style When teacher views that dispensing information or teaching via exposition is appropriate When teacher subscribes to a constructivist epistemology
1340 C. Chin talk. In such discursive episodes, teachers questions served to scaffold students thinking and nudge students toward conceptual development instead of just assessing the correctness of their responses. The findings also revealed that the follow-up (F) component of the IRF structure could take various forms. This suggests that by changing the third turn of an IRF questioning sequence from an explicit evaluation to one that includes responsive questioning, teachers can make their classroom discourse more thought-provoking and stimulate more elaborate and productive student responses. An implication of this is that an initiating I-move should be closely tied and aligned to the preceding follow-up or F-move, to ensure meaningful and progressively links among the IRF chains. Also, teacher initiations do not have to be realized through closed or directive questions belonging to a strongly-framed teaching agenda, but should be responsive to the preceding students responses. As Mortimer and Machado (2000) have pointed out, the IRF pattern of discourse is authoritative or univocal as long as the feedback from the teacher is an evaluation. However, where the feedback is elaborative, in that it allows for a further extension of the response by students, or elicits new ideas and contributions from them, the IRF pattern corresponds to a dialogic function. In a study on managing the conclusion phases in teacherstudent interactions, Morge (2005) differentiated between the QuestionAnswerEvaluation (QAE) pattern in recalling knowledge, and the QAE pattern in inquiry. When recalling knowledge, the question asked by the teacher is for an answer the student already knows, but this is not the case for inquiry. Because the conclusion stage of an interaction during an inquiry-based lesson is the point at which the teacher has to decide whether to accept or refuse a production provided by a student in response to a given task, Morge pointed out that the teacher must avoid using authoritative arguments if he or she is to move towards constructivist management of the conclusion phase. Thus, a second implication is that instead of judging a students response as simply right or wrong (which corresponds to a dogmatic view of science and the teaching of science), the teacher could instead delegate the control of students productions to other students, as well as ascertain its validity by determining whether the response answers the question asked, and whether it is relevant to and is consistent with reference knowledge. As Morge (2005) argued:
On an epistemological level, this mode of teacher-student interaction would be compatible with the idea of scientific knowledge that is constructed and which is a result of human activity On the pedagogical level, this mode of interaction is consistent with a socio-constructivist conception of learning for the knowledge is constructed collectively in the interaction between the pupils and the teacher, which the theory maintains facilitates the pupils individual construction of knowledge. (pp. 942943)
When students give scientifically incorrect answers to teachers questions, corrective feedback can be explicit in the form of an overt correction, or implicit. Implicit feedback can take the form of a constructive challenge where the teacher poses further challenging questions or recasts her questions, although other manifestations
Classroom Interaction in Science 1341 such as facial expressions or gestures are also possible. Feedback that does not provide the correct answer explicitly may encourage learners to use their own resources in eliciting self-correction and repair. This was seen in Example 4 earlier. In this regard, a third implication is that implicit feedback may improve students ability to monitor their own thinking, and, under the appropriate conditions, could be more beneficial than simply providing them with the correct form. However, because constructive challenge could be potentially threatening for some students, it may not work well for all students. Zohar and Aharon-Kravetsky (2005) found that cognitive conflict had dissimilar effects for students of different academic levels. In a study on teaching the control of variables strategy thinking, students with high academic achievements benefited from a teaching method that induced cognitive conflict while direct teaching hindered their progress. In contrast, students with low academic achievement benefited from the direct teaching method while the induced cognitive conflict teaching method hindered their progress. Similar findings were reported by Dreyfus, Jungwirth, and Eliovitch (1990), where academically successful students reacted enthusiastically to the flabbergasting effect of cognitive conflict and confrontation, but students with low academic achievement did not, perhaps because of negative self-images and high levels of anxiety. The effectiveness of different types of feedback is determined by whether or not the feedback results in productive uptake, and if it does whether it results in successful repair. Uptake refers to the students utterance or response that immediately follows a teachers feedback and that constitutes a reaction in some way to the teachers intention to draw attention to some aspect of the students initial utterance (Lyster & Ranta, 1997). Future research could look into the differential effect of different types of feedback, the conditions under which different types of feedback are most effective in mobilizing students ideas and triggering change, and the issue of uptake. Teacher questioning that elicits information about students understanding and provokes classroom dialogue is an important instrument for formative assessment. Because the quality of teachers questions can influence the degree to which the questions do or do not extend students thinking and draw out their ideas, both the actual content of the questions and the ways of following up on the responses become important (Black & Harrison, 2001). Thus, a fourth implication is that teachers need to think about how questions can be constructed and used to develop students learning. Learning to talk science is more than simply being able to verbalize the appropriate words, phrases, and scientific terminology. Lines of discourse need to be developed where students are continually engaged in various cognitive processes such as comparing, hypothesizing, predicting, explaining, interpreting, inferring, and reflecting. In moving through a planned agenda of instruction, the teacher needs to decide what questions to ask and the sequence in which to ask them, to move students forward in their thinking. She also needs to decide how to adjust her questioning to accommodate student contributions and respond to students thinking when guiding
1342 C. Chin students through inquiry-based discussions. In particular, if teachers are clear about the kind of cognitive processes that they want to elicit in their students, then they can craft questions that would stimulate such responses. Implications for Teacher Education and Professional Development In contributing to an understanding of the role of language and the discursive interactions involved in the elaboration of scientific concepts, this study also provides important elements for teacher reflection in preservice and inservice education. Teachers could, for example, record teaching sessions, analyse the various interactions involving teacher questioning and follow-up, critique them from an epistemological and pedagogical point of view, and reflect on alternative modes of interaction. This would be learning from posteriori self-analysis, which is in keeping with the paradigm of a reflective practitioner (Schon, 1983). This study provides specific examples of questioning-based practices that may be useful to teachers who are interested in honing their discursive skills and in adopting ways of talking and classroom interaction that foster productive student responses. The questioning-based discourse analytical framework developed here helps make salient and visible, the moves in classroom questioning sequences that can take students forward in their thinking. Because such discursive teaching strategies have been tacitly employed by teachers, they have generally been invisible to others. Also, unlike other approaches to discourse analysis that tend to focus on general aspects of classroom interaction irrespective of subject matter, this framework pays attention to the content of science. It can thus serve as a useful heuristic for science teachers who are interested in shifting their classroom discourse toward more reflective and inquiry-based practices. The findings from this study also have potential in translating research insights into practical advice for teachers regarding tactical moves in classroom discourse. Limitations of Study One limitation of this study is that, in the analysis and interpretation of classroom discourse, the linguistic form (verbal data) was used as a predominant marker of interactional or cognitive function, and is thus at best inferential. This methodological issue was raised by Barnes and Todd (1977, 1995). A second limitation relates to the generalisability of each respondents utterance to the rest of the students. Much of the data in this study were derived from discourse in whole-class settings. However, at any moment in time there can only be one person responding to the teacher, except in the case of chorus answers. The analysis and interpretation of data were based on the utterances and responses of individual members who participated in the verbal exchanges, but collectively extended to the class as a whole. The assumption was made that whatever applied to the individual respondents also applied to the other students in class. This assumption has limitations as the process of internalization does not simply involve direct transfer from social to personal
Classroom Interaction in Science 1343 planes and it is not possible to know for sure the extent to which individual students were able to internalize and make sense of the concepts addressed. A third limitation of this study is that, because of the large class size and predominantly whole-class teaching context, students seldom spoke up in class. Consequently, students responses were limited and non-elaborative. Also, in Singaporean classrooms, students are generally not so forthcoming with verbalizing their ideas publicly in front of their classmates or volunteering unsolicited information unless they are called upon to do so. Thus, there was not much verbal student participation in classroom interaction. This is partly because of the average 12-yearold to 13-year-old students lack of fluency in spoken English. Although the medium of instruction is English in all schools, more than 50% of students do not speak English as first language at home. Thus, these students may find it difficult to articulate and verbalize their thoughts in English although they may be actively engaged in conceptual thinking. Another reason might be the influence of Confucian views of teaching and learning on education (Marton & Tsui, 2004; Watkins & Biggs, 1996), which is part of the cultural heritage in the country, where students are expected to show respect for the teacher and where it is less socially acceptable for students to compete with the teacher in dominating the conversational floor, lest this be interpreted as their being disrespectful. In such a context, however, the teachers responsive questioning and feedback skills in eliciting, probing, and extending students thinking during the IRF cycles become all the more important in providing linguistic scaffolding for students as they are guided towards successively higher levels of cognitive processing. Finally, the four types of feedback reported in this study were based on an interpretive analysis of data from the lessons of two teachers used as case studies. This approach was used to understand the particular in depth. Thus, the findings are presented as grounded hypotheses (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) rather than generalisable findings across universal contexts. Conclusion This study contributes to the characterization of teacherstudent interactions, in particular, during the follow-up or F-move of the IRF teaching exchange. Through an analysis of the relationship between the interactive and cognitive aspects of both teacher and student moves, some apparently enabling strategies related to teacher questioning and feedback were identified. Interactionally, a teachers avoidance of explicit evaluation or put-downs, acknowledgement of students contributions, restatements of students responses, and, more importantly, her ability to pose subsequent questions that build on students earlier responses and that stimulate use of various cognitive processes, all appear to promote productive talk activity in students at a level beyond mere recall. Students can be stretched mentally through sensitive teacher-led but not teacherdominated discourse. As orchestrators of classroom discourse in shaping students learning, teachers need to position themselves as enablers of talk for thinking. One
1344 C. Chin way of doing this is to pay particular attention to the follow-up move of the pervasive IRF exchanges in teacherstudent talk, and consciously pose a series of meaningfully related questions that stimulate students to tap into higher-order thinking processes. Acknowledgements This study was supported by the Centre for Research in Pedagogy and Practice at the National Institute of Education, Singapore, under research grant CRP 12/03 CHL. The author is grateful to the teachers and students who participated in this study. Thanks also to the Editor and reviewers for their valuable comments on a earlier draft of this paper. References
Baird, J. R., & Northfield, J. R. (Eds.). (1992). Learning from the PEEL experience. Melbourne, Australia: Monash University Printing. Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (1977). Communication and learning in small groups. London, UK: Routledge. Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (1995). Communication and learning revisited: Making meaning through talk. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton Cook. Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham, UK: The Society for Research in Higher Education & Open University Press. Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy. New York: Academic Press. Black, P., & Harrison, C. (2001). Feedback in questioning and marking: The science teachers role in formative assessment. School Science Review, 82(301), 5561. Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Carlsen, W. S. (1991). Questioning in classrooms: A sociolinguistic perspective. Review of Educational Research, 61, 157178. Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Chapin, S. H., OConnor, C., & Anderson, N. C. (2003). Classroom discussions: Using math talk to help students learn. Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions Publications. Dillon, J. T. (1985). Using questions to foil discussion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1, 109121. Dreyfus, A., Jungwirth, E., & Eliovitch, R. (1990). Applying the cognitive conflict strategy for conceptual changesome implications, difficulties, and problems. Science Education, 74, 555 569. Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London, UK: Methuen. Edwards, A. D., & Westgate, D. P. G. (1994). Investigating classroom talk. London, UK: Falmer Press. Elstgeest, J. (1985). The right question at the right time. In W. Harlen (Ed.), Primary science: Taking the plunge (pp. 3646). Oxford, UK: Heinemann. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379432.

Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwoord, NJ: Ablex. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 3766. Marton, F., & Tsui, A.B.M. (2004). Classroom discourse and the space of learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Morge, L. (2005). Teacherpupils interaction: A study of hidden beliefs in conclusion phases. International Journal of Science Education, 27(8), 935956. Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2000). Analysing discourse in the science classroom. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: The contribution of research. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Mortimer, E. F. (1998). Multivoicedness and univocality in classroom discourse: An example from theory of matter. International Journal of Science Education, 20(1), 6782. Mortimer, E. F., & Machado, A. H. (2000). Anomalies and conflicts in classroom discourse. Science Education, 84, 429444. Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Roth, W.-M. (1996). Teacher questioning in an open-inquiry learning environment: Interactions of context, content, and student responses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(7), 709736. Rowe, M. B. (1986). Wait time: Slowing down may be a way of speeding up! Journal of Teacher Education, 37(1), 4350. Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books. Scott, P. (1998). Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: A Vygotskian analysis and review. Studies in Science Education, 32, 4580. Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. London, UK: Oxford University Press. Tobin, K. (1987). The role of wait time in higher cognitive level learning. Review of Educational Research, 57, 6995. Tsui, A. B. M., Marton, F., Mok, I. A. C., & Ng, D. F. P. (2004). Questions and the space of learning. In F. Marton & A. B. M. Tsui (Eds.), Classroom discourse and the space of learning (pp. 113137). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. van Zee, E. H., Iwasyk, M., Kurose, A., Simpson, D., & Wild, J. (2001). Student and teacher questioning during conversations about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 159190. van Zee, E. H., & Minstrell, J. (1997a). Reflective discourse: Developing shared understandings in a physics classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 209228. van Zee, E. H., & Minstrell, J. (1997b). Using questioning to guide student thinking. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 229271. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Watkins, D. A., & Biggs, J. B. (Eds.). (1996). The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological, and contextual influences. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre and Australian Council for Educational Research. Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Talk of the classroom: Language interactions between teachers and pupils. In J. Wellington & J. Osborne (Eds.), Language and literacy in science education (pp. 2440). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Wells. G. (1986). The meaning makers: Children learning language and using language to learn. London, UK: Hodder and Stoughton.
1346 C. Chin
Wells, G. (1993). Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom. Linguistics and Education, 5, 137. Westgate, D., & Hughes, M. (1997). Identifying quality in classroom talk: An enduring research task. Language and Education, 11(2), 125139. Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89100. Zohar, A., & Aharon-Kravertsky, S. (2005). Exploring the effects of cognitive conflict and direct teaching for students of different academic levels. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(7), 829855.

22391201

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

22391201

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Science Education Vol. 28, No. 11, 15 September 2006, pp.

Classroom Interaction in Science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students responses

Table 1. Sample excerpt based on the Questioning-based Discourse framework

Student 1 Teacher Student 2 Teacher Student 3 Teacher

Hypothesize/recall Hypothesize/recall Hypothesize/recall

Students Teacher Student I R FI R FI R FI R FI Q A CQ A Q A CQ A SQ

Recall Observe Evaluate Explain Compare Hypothesize

Teacher Students Teacher

Classroom Interaction in Science 1323

Student Teacher Student Teacher Student Teacher

Student Teacher R A Reply

Predominant nature of key utterances CQ, CS

Mixture of correct and incorrect Incorrect

Note: C, teacher comment; Q, teacher question; S, teacher statement.

Classroom Interaction in Science 1327

Table 3. Example of excerpt for Afrmation-cum-Direct Instruction

Type of utterance Describe Evaluate Explain

Teacher Student Teacher

Students Teacher Students Teacher

Student Teacher Student Student Teacher Student

Hypothesize Hypothesize Hypothesize Hypothesize

Turn F CS Accept, expound

Classroom Interaction in Science 1329

Table 4. Example of excerpt for Focusing and Zooming

2 3 4 5 R F-I R F-I A C-Q A C-Q

Cha Ming Teacher Student 1 Teacher

Predict Predict Explain Hypothesize

Student 1 Teacher Student 1 Teacher

Classroom Interaction in Science 1331

Turn F-I C-Q Accept, elicit

Suk Hua Teacher Huiyi Teacher Huiyi

Reply Elicit Reply Probe Reply, justify

Predict Predict Explain, theorize

Table 5. Example of excerpt for Explicit correctionDirect instruction

Type of utterance Cognitive process

2 3 R FI R FI A SQ A SQ Reply Check, elicit Reply Inform, link

Reply Clarify, focus

Hypothesize Hypothesize Evaluate

Classroom Interaction in Science 1333

Problem-solve, apply, generate

Reflect, selfcorrect Fine-tune, specify Reply Generate, apply Accept, elicit

Classroom Interaction in Science 1335

Reply Accept, tease

Classroom Interaction in Science 1337

Draw out Elicit, probe, extend

Cue and Provoke Clarify, prompt, challenge

Reinforce Affirm, restate, consolidate

Conditions under which feedback may be used

Classroom Interaction in Science 1339

Classroom Interaction in Science 1345

You might also like