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

International Journal of Science Education Vol. 28, No. 11, 15 September 2006, pp. 1315–1346 ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/06/111315–32 © 2006 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/09500690600621100 RESEARCH REPORT Classroom Interaction in Science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses Christine Chin* Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Taylor and Francis LtdTSED_A_162091.sgm10.1080/09500690600621100International Journal of Science Education0950-0693 (print)/1464-5289 (online)Original Article2006Taylor & Francis0000000002006ChristineChinhlcchin@nie.edu.sg 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– response–follow-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 video- taped. Transcripts of the lessons were made and analysed, with particular attention paid to interac- tions 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 teacher–student 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 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 moves—initiation (often via a teacher question), student response, and teacher evaluation—and has been commonly referred to as “IRE” (Mehan, 1979). The teacher asks a closed question that is basi- cally 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 “IRF”—initiation, 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 encour- aging 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 built- in repair structure in the teacher’s 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-teach- ing 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 contri- butions 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 class- rooms 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 Vygotsky’s (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 proxi- mal development” also suggests that teachers can guide the discourse on the interpsychological plane to support student learning. This recognizes the importance of teacher–student 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’ contribu- tions, 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 modi- fication of student answers, retroactive recontextualization of student answers, and joint construction. Monologue strategies include logical exposition, narrative, selec- tive 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 trans- mitting” 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 alterna- tion 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 (inter- active 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 communi- cative approach, which focuses on whether or not the teacher interacts with students, and whether he/she takes account of students’ ideas. The dialogic approach recog- nizes 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 partic- ipation 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 non- interactive/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 student’s 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 evalu- ate 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 teacher’s 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 accommo- date 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 state- ment, 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, bring- ing 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 practis- ing 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 teacher’s 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 teacher’s 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 process–product 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 Carlsen’s (1991) proposal for the use of a sociolinguistic framework to research into teacher question- ing, this study was conducted to investigate the communicative and cognitive func- tions 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 discourse–cognition 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 feed- back provided by teachers in the follow-up move of the IRF (initiation-response- follow-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 (12–13 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 teach- ers 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, purpose- ful sampling was used. The average class size was 40 students per class. The students were generally motivated, on-task, and ranged from average to above- average 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 labora- tory 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; photosyn- thesis; 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 circu- lated among groups to talk to individual students. The audio-recorder