Classroom Interaction in Science Teacher questioni

InternationalJournalofScienceEducationVol.28,No.11,15September2006,pp.1315–1346ISSN0950-0693(print)/ISSN1464-5289(online)/06/111315–32©2006Taylor&FrancisDOI:10.1080/09500690600621100RESEARCHREPORTClassroomInteractioninScience:Teacherquestioningandfeedbacktostudents’responsesChristineChin*NanyangTechnologicalUniversity,SingaporeTaylorandFrancisLtdTSED_A_162091.sgm10.1080/09500690600621100InternationalJournalofScienceEducation0950-0693(print)/1464-5289(online)OriginalArticle2006Taylor&[e-mail]asto(a)developananalyticalframeworkthatrepresentsclassroomtalkandquestioninginscience,(b)findouthowteachersusequestioningtoengagetheirstudentsinthinkingaboutconceptualcontentthatenablestheconstructionofknowledge,and(c)identifythevariousformsoffeedbackprovidedbyteachersinthefollow-upmoveoftheinitiation–response–follow-upformatofteachingexchange.SeverallessonsfromYear7classeswereobservedacrossavarietyoflessonstructuressuchasexpositoryteaching,whole-classdiscussions,laboratorydemonstration,andhands-onpracticalwork.Thelessonswereaudiotapedandvideo-taped.Transcriptsofthelessonsweremadeandanalysed,withparticularattentionpaidtointerac-tionsthatinvolvedquestions.Usingthe“Questioning-basedDiscourse”analyticalframeworkdevelopedinthisstudy,fourdifferenttypesoffeedbackwereidentified.Interactionalissuesrelatedtowaysofspeakingandquestioningthatencouragestudentresponsesandthinkingareaddressed.Thisinformationprovidesadescriptionofwhatconstituteseffectivediscourseinscienceteachingandlearning,andwillalsobeusefulforbothteachersandteacher-educatorsinidentifyinganappropriaterepertoireofskillsforsubsequentteachereducationandprofessionaldevelopment.IntroductionWhenstudentslearnscienceinaclassroomsetting,aprimarysourceofinformationinputcomesfromteachertalkandteacher–studentinteractions,astheprocessesandtransactionsinvolvedintheconstructionofmeaningsaremediatedthroughlanguage.Giventheimportantroleofverbaldiscourseinmeaning-makingbystudentsanditssignificanceforteachingandlearning,classroomdiscourseandinteractionhasbeenthesubjectofinterestofseveralresearchers(e.g.,Cazden,2001;Edwards&Mercer,1987;Edwards&Westgate,1994).*NaturalSciencesandScienceEducation,NationalInstituteofEducation,NanyangTechnologicalUniversity,Singapore.Email:[e-mail],thethree-partexchangestructureknownas“triadicdialogue”(Lemke,1990)orrecitationhasbeenfoundtobepervasiveinclassrooms.Thisdiscourseformattypicallyconsistsofthreemoves—initiation(oftenviaateacherquestion),studentresponse,andteacherevaluation—andhasbeencommonlyreferredtoas“IRE”(Mehan,1979).Theteacherasksaclosedquestionthatisbasi-callyinformation-seeking,thatrequiresapredeterminedshortanswer,andthatisusuallypitchedattherecallorlower-ordercognitivelevel.He/shethenpraisescorrectanswersandcorrectsthosethatarewrong.Sometimes,itisalsoknownas“IRF”—initiation,response,andfollow-uporfeedback(Sinclair&Coulthard,1975),asthethirdmovemaynotnecessarilybeanexplicitevaluation.Wells(1986),forexample,hasdiscussedwaysinwhichteachersmayprovidefeedbackbyencour-agingstudentstoexternalizeideas,generatehypotheses,andtestthem.Thetriadicdialogue,whichistypicaloftraditionalteaching,isoftenperceivedtohaverestrictiveeffectsonstudents’thinkingasstudents’responsesremainbriefandteacher-framed,thusminimizingtheirroleintheco-constructionofmeaning.Althoughsuchconventionalteacher-questioningpracticesbasedonthisdiscourseformathavebeencriticized(e.g.,Lemke,1990),someauthorshaveaccordeditacertainfunctionalitythatisconsistentwitheducationalgoals.Forexample,Newman,Griffin,andCole(1989)arguedthatthethree-partexchangehas“abuilt-inrepairstructureintheteacher’slastturnsothatincorrectinformationcanbereplacedwiththerightanswers”(p.127).Suchaviewisappropriateifweviewtheresponsibilityofteachersasensuringthatstudentsappropriatetheknowledgethatisnormativewithinaparticularculture.Similarly,Wells(1993)hasarguedthat,whenusedeffectively,“itisinthisthirdstepintheco-constructionofmeaningthatthenextcycleofthelearning-and-teach-ingspiralhasitspointofdeparture”(p.35).Thus,thetriadicdialoguecouldhavemeritifteacherscanscaffoldstudents’extensionofknowledgethroughfurthersupportivedialogue(Bruner,1986;Vygotsky,1978).Aninstanceofthiswouldbewhenteachersposeaquestionthatstimulatesfurtherproductivethought,basedontheirevaluationofstudents’previousresponses.Insuchacase,teacherswouldbeguidingthedevelopmentofstudents’ideasbysuccessivelybuildingontheircontri-butionsinareciprocalmanner.Thissuggeststhatthetriadicdialoguedoesnotexistasahomogeneousformat.Toachieveamoreadequateunderstandingofclassroomdiscourse,wecouldstudythevariationsthatstemfromtheIRFformat.Thisstudyinvestigatedquestioning-baseddiscoursepracticesinscienceclass-roomsthroughtheinteractionbetweenteacherandstudentsacrossanumberofactivities.Itaimedtoidentifythedifferentwaysinwhichteachersfollowuponstudents’responsestotheirquestions.ClassroomInteractionandDiscourseinScienceKnowledgeisconstructedinthesocialcontextoftheclassroomthroughlangu