ECU Gifted Conference

Oct. 10, 2012

Prevalent Modes of Classroom Questioning

Higher-Level Questioning: Is the Question Itself Enough?

Catherine A. Little ECU Gifted Conference October 10, 2012
catherine.little@uconn.edu

IRE/IRF: Initiation, response, evaluation (feedback) or triadic dialogue (Lemke, 1990; Mehan, 1979) Tendency for student responses to be brief (Chin, 2006), and for teachers to dominate conversations passive stance towards learning and nonengagement with text (Wilson & Smetana, 2011, p. 84).

Some Common Questioning Patterns

Recitation versus dialogue (Costa, 2001) Reproductive versus productive questions (Tienken, Goldberg, & DiRocco, 2009) Comprehension, confirmation, clarification (Oliveira, 2010) Pseudo-questions (guess-the-answer)

Classifications
Cognitive level Pedagogical purpose Social/behavioral purpose

Some Key Reflective Questions

Why am I asking this question? What do I expect will happen next? What will my next move be? How am I listening? Who has control of this conversation?

Science Classroom Study

Types of teacher feedback to student responses:
Correct answer, (a) affirm, reinforce, move on; (b) accept then extend the line of thought with further question(s); Incorrect answer: (c) explicit correction; (d) evaluative or neutral comments followed by reformulated or new question. - Chin, 2006

Catherine Little University of Connecticut catherine.little@uconn.edu

ECU Gifted Conference

Oct. 10, 2012

Guiding Discussion
Effective Socratic questioners (a) allow students to have wait time to consider the question and frame an answer before requesting a response, (b) maintain an intellectual discussion, (c) ask probing questions that stimulate in-depth thinking, (d) occasionally summarize what has and has not been discussed, and (e) encourage as many students as possible to participate in the discussion. (Paul & Elder, 2008)

Beyond the Question

Higher-level follow-ups
foster continued dialogue (Chin, 2006; Dull & Morrow, 2008; Hansen, 2004) encourage more elaborated student justifications for their thinking (Gillies, 2010; Chin, 2006; van Zee & Minstrell, 1997; Wolf et al., 2005) extend the discussion the reflective toss (van Zee & Minstrell, 1997)

Talk Moves
Revoicing a students comment Asking another student to restate someone elses reasoning or idea Asking students to indicate their agreement or disagreement with something that has been stated and explain why Prompting for further participation or adding on to what has been said Wait time (Chapin, OConnor, & Anderson, 2003)

Accountable Talk
Encouraging students to
interpret and use one anothers statements press one another for clarification and explanation recognize and challenge misconceptions ask for evidence for claims and justification of proposals
(Fisher & Frey, 2007; Michaels, OConnor, & Resnick, 2008)

Updating Bloom
Retrieving, recalling, remembering Understanding Applying Analyzing Evaluating Creating - Anderson & Krathwohl, 2000

Marzanos Taxonomy
Retrieval Comprehension Analysis Knowledge Utilization Metacognitive System Self System
Marzano, 2000; Marzano & Kendall, 2007

Catherine Little University of Connecticut catherine.little@uconn.edu

ECU Gifted Conference

Oct. 10, 2012

Follow-Up Functions
Scaffold Clarify Tell me more Justify/Explain Go deeper Promote self-regulation - Little, Massicotte, & Ruegg, in development

Some Supports for Encouraging Thinking

Costa (2001): Questions that are invitational and relevant:
Connect to content the learner cares about Suggest in form that multiple responses might be possible Words to suggest tentative is ok

Structure of the Question

Ways of asking for elaboration:
do you agree versus what would you like to add Not just why but how did you come to that answer what does that tell us about _____

Follow-up Fails
Too many follow-up questions at once Insufficient wait time Drawing the conclusions for the student

Avoidance of questions that will give one-word or surface answers Use of pressing Rephrasing Wolf, Crosson, & Resnick, 2005

Summary
Planned questions within the context of the intended learning outcomes Listening to and not just for responses Purpose and function for follow-up questions Contextual variables Issues of control Importance of reflective practice on questioning

Catherine Little University of Connecticut catherine.little@uconn.edu

References Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.) et al. (2000). A taxonomy of learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Blooms taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Chapin, S. H., OConnor, C., & Anderson, N. C. (2003). Classroom discussions: Using math talk to help students learn, grades 1-6. Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions. Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students' responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1315-1346. Costa, A. L. (2001). Teacher behaviors that enable student thinking. In A. L. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking (3rd ed., pp. 359-369). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Dull, L. J., & Murrow, S. E. (2008). Is dialogic questioning possible in social studies classrooms? Theory and Research in Social Education, 36, 391-412. Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2007). Checking for understanding: Formative assessment techniques for your classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Gillies, R. M. (2010). Promoting thinking, problem-solving and reasoning during small group discussions. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 17(1), 73-89. Hansen, C. C. (2004). Teacher talk: Promoting literacy development through response to story. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 19, 115-129. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Marzano, R. J. (2000). Designing a new taxonomy of educational objectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (2007). The new taxonomy of educational objectives (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Michaels, S., OConnor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27, 283297. Oliveira, A. W. (2010). Improving teacher questioning in science inquiry discussions through professional development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 422-453. Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2008). Critical thinking: The art of Socratic questioning, part III. Journal of Developmental Education, 31 (3), 34-35. Tienken, C. H., Goldberg, S., & DiRocco, D. (2009, October). Questioning the questions. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 39-43. van Zee, E., & Minstrell, J. (1997). Using questioning to guide student thinking. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 227-269. Wilson, N. S., & Smetana, L. (2011). Questioning as thinking: a metacognitive framework to improve comprehension of expository text. Literacy, 45, 84-90. Wolf, M. K., Crosson, A. C., & Resnick, L. B. (2005). Classroom talk for rigorous reading comprehension instruction. Reading Psychology, 26, 27-53.