Identifying the Psychometric Properties of the Question Asking Strategies Awareness Scale: The Validity and Reliability Study

Year 2021, Volume: 11 Issue: 1, 92 - 110, 30.04.2021

Yilmaz Soysal , Serenay Başalev , Somayyeh Radmard

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to develop the question asking strategies awareness scale (QASAS) and to describe the psychometric
properties of the scale. The justification for the current study was the lack of a measurement tool in the national context that explores
the teachers’ in-class questioning practices during instructional activities in-depth and supported by a discursively-oriented theoretical
background. Data gathering process was conducted by reaching 664 teachers from diverse teaching branches to develop the QASAS. The
validity and reliability processes of the QASAS were completed by operating exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis in addition to

calculating the Cronbach Alpha coefficient. The items of the QASAS were gathered around seven factors that are labelled as “Monitoring-
Critiquing-Eliciting”, “Challenging-Conceptual Change-Evidencing”, “Epistemic Authority & Prior Knowledge”, “Clarification-Conceptual
Consistency”, “Open-ended & Close-ended”, “Selecting-eliminating through Follow-up Questions”, “Evaluating & Knowledge providing.”
It is deduced that the factors of QASAS can measure teachers’ awareness regarding both learner-centred and teacher-centred discursive
interactions. The QASAS may serve as a checklist for qualitative studies, in addition to being administrated as a data collection tool for
large-scale surveying studies. QASAS is also a guide in determining the shortcomings of teachers’ professional development as well as
designing and implementing pedagogically-oriented developmental activities.

Keywords

Teacher questions, Classroom discourse, Teacher awareness, Scale development

Soru Sorma Stratejileri Farkındalığı Ölçeği’nin Psikometrik Özelliklerinin Belirlenmesi: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı soru sorma stratejileri farkındalığı ölçeğinin (SSSFÖ) geliştirilmesi ve psikometrik özelliklerinin belirlenmesidir.
Ulusal bağlamda öğretmenlerin sınıf-içi öğretimsel faaliyetlerde soru sorma pratiklerini derinlemesine inceleyen ve söylemsel teorik artalan
ile desteklenmiş bir ölçme aracının geliştirilmemiş olması bu çalışmanın gerekçesidir. SSSFÖ’yü geliştirmek üzere çeşitli öğretmenlik
branşlarından 664 öğretmene ulaşılarak veri toplama süreci tamamlanmıştır. SSSFÖ’nün geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmaları açımlayıcı ve
doğrulayıcı faktör analizlerinin yapılmasının yanı sıra Cronbach Alpha katsayısı hesaplanarak tamamlanmıştır. SSSFÖ’nün maddeleri
“İzleme-Kritik-Derinleştirme”, “Çeldirme-Kavramsal Değişim-Delillendirme”, “Epistemik Otorite & Ön Bilgi”, “Açıklaştırma-Kavramsal İç
Tutarlılık”, “Açık & Kapalı Uçlu”, “Takip Sorularıyla Seçme-Eleme” ve “Değerlendirme & Bilgi Sağlama” olarak isimlendirilen yedi faktör
altında toplanmıştır. SSSFÖ’deki faktörlerin hem öğrenci-merkezli hem de öğretmen-merkezli sınıf içi konuşmalara yönelik olan öğretmen
sorularını betimleyebilecek nitelikte olduğu görülmüştür. SSSFÖ, gerçekleştirilecek olan geniş kapsamlı taramalar için veri toplama aracı
olarak kullanılmanın yanı sıra nitel çalışmalar için de bir kontrol listesi görevi görebilir. SSSFÖ, öğretmenlerin mesleki gelişimine ilişkin
eksiklikleri belirleme ve pedagojik olarak gelişimsel faaliyetleri tasarlama ve uygulama konusunda da yol gösterici niteliktedir

Keywords

Öğretmen soruları, Sınıf söylemi, Öğretmen farkındalığı, Ölçek geliştirme

References

• Aflalo, E., & Raviv, A. (2020). Characteristics of classroom discourse in physics lessons. Research in Science & Technological Education, 1-21.
• Akar, İ. (2014). Yaratıcılığa teşvik edici öğretmen davranışları indeksi’nin (YÖDİndeksi) Türkçeye uyarlanması. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(1), 304-328.
• Alexander, R.J. (2006). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. New York, NY: Dialogos.
• Alkın-Şahin, S., & Gözütok, F. D. (2013). Eleştirel düşünmeyi destekleyen öğretmen davranışları envanteri (EDDÖDE): Geliştirilmesi ve uygulanması. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(2), 223-254.
• Andersson-Bakken, E., & Klette, K. (2016). Teachers’ use of questions and responses to students’ contributions during whole class discussions: comparing language arts and science classrooms. In K. Klette, O. K. Bergem, & A. Roe (Eds.), Teaching and learning in lower secondary schools in the era of PISA and TIMSS (pp. 63–84). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
• Bansal, G. (2018). Teacher discursive moves: conceptualising a schema of dialogic discourse in science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 40(15), 1891-1912.
• Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68–94.
• Boyd, M., & Rubin, D. (2006). How contingent questioning promotes extended student talk: A function of display questions. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(2), 141–169.
• Büyükalan-Filiz, S., Çelik, S., & Toraman, Ç. (2018). Sınıf içi soru sorma teknikleri ölçeği'nin (SİSSTÖ) geliştirilmesi. Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 16(2), 197-212.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002). Sosyal bilimler için veri ve analizi el kitabı: İstatistik, araştırma deseni, SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2011). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Brophy, J. (1986). Teacher influences on student achievement. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1069–1077.
• Brown, K., & Kennedy, H. (2011). Learning through conversation: exploring and extending teacher and children’s involvement in classroom talk. Social Psychology International, 32(4), 377-396.
• Carlsen, W. S. (1991). Questioning in classrooms: a sociolinguistic perspective. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 157–178.
• Chapin, S. H., O’Connor, C., & Anderson, N. C. (2003). Classroom discussions: Using math talk to help students learn. Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions Publications.
• Child, D. (2006). The essentials of factor analysis (3rd ed). New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
• Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). Students’ questions: A potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1–39.
• Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1315–1346.
• Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815–843.
• Chin, C., & Langsford, A. (2004). Questioning students in ways that encourage thinking. Teaching Science: The Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association, 50(4), 16–21.
• Christodoulou, A., & Osborne, J. (2014). The science classroom as a site of epistemic talk: A case study of a teacher's attempts to teach science based on argument. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(10), 1275-1300.
• Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research: the issues that divide. Educational Researcher, 19(2), 2–11.
• Cotton, K. (1988). Monitoring student learning in the classroom. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
• Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916–937.
• Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston: Pearson.
• Dunkin, M. J., & Biddle, B. J. (1974). The study of teaching. Oxford: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• Eshach, H., Dor-Ziderman, Y., & Yefroimsky, Y. (2014). Question asking in the science classroom: teacher attitudes and practices. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(1), 67–81.
• Field, A. (2009) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. 3rd Edition, Sage Publications Ltd., London.
• Good, T. L., Slavings, R. L., Harel, K. H., & Emerson, H. (1987). Student passivity: a study of question asking in K-12 classrooms. Sociology of Education, 60(3), 181–199.
• Grinath A.S., & Southerland, S.A. (2019). Applying the ambitious science teaching framework in undergraduate biology: Responsive talk moves that support explanatory rigor. Science Education, 103, 92-122.
• Howe, C., & Abedin, M. (2013). Classroom dialogue: A systematic review across four decades of research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(3), 325–356.
• Jacobs, J. K., Yoshida, M., Stigler, J., & Fernandez, C. (1997). Japanese and American teachers’ evaluations of mathematics lessons: A new technique for exploring beliefs. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 16(1), 7–24.
• Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. L. C., & Philipp, R. A. (2010). Professional noticing of children’s mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(2), 169–202.
• Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. L. C., Philipp, R. A., & Schappelle, B. P. (2011). Deciding how to respond on the basis of children’s understandings. In M. G. Sherin, V. R. Jacobs & R. A. Philipp (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes (pp. 17–34). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Kawalkar, A., & Vijapurkar, J. (2013). Scaffolding science talk: The role of teachers’ questions in the inquiry classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2004–2027.
• Kayima, F. (2016). Question classification taxonomies as guides to formulating questions for use in chemistry classrooms. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(3), 353–364.
• Koc, Y., Peker, D., & Osmanoglu, A. (2009). Supporting teacher professional development through online video case study discussions: An assemblage of preservice and inservice teachers and the case teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(8), 1158–1168.
• Khong, T. D. H., Saito, E., & Gillies, R. M. (2019). Key issues in productive classroom talk and inter¬ventions. Educational Review, 71(3), 334-349.
• Leach, J. T., & Scott, P. H. (2002). Designing and evaluating science teaching sequences: An approach drawing upon the concept of learning demand and a social constructivist perspective on learning. Studies in Science Education, 38, 115–142.
• Leach, J. T., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Individual and sociocultural views of learning in science education. Science & Education, 12, 91–113.
• Lee, Y., Kinzie, M. B., & Whittaker, J. V. (2012). Impact of online support for teachers’ open-ended questioning in pre-k science activities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(4), 568–577.
• Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwoord, NJ: Ablex.
• Leven, T., & Long, R. (1981). Effective instruction. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Martin, A. M., and Hand, B. (2009). “Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom. A longitudinal case study.” Research in Science Education 39: 17-38.
• McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2009). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94, 203–229.
• McMahon, K. (2012). Case studies of interactive whole-class teaching in primary science: communicative approach and pedagogic purposes, International Journal of Science Education, 34(11), 1687-1708.
• Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: Analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 137–168.
• Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children's thinking: A sociocultural approach. Routledge.
• Mercer, N. (2010). The analysis of classroom talk: Methods and methodologies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 1–14.
• Mercer, N. & Dawes, L. (2014). The study of talk between teachers and students, from the 1970s until the 2010s. Oxford Review of Education, 40(4), 430-445.
• Mills, S. R., Rice, C. T., Berliner, D. C., Rosseau, E.W., & Rousseau, E.W. (1980). The correspondence between teacher questions and student answers in classroom discourse. The Journal of Experimental Education, 48(3), 194–204.
• Molinari, L., Mameli, C., & Gnisci, A. (2013). A sequential analysis of classroom discourse in Italian primary schools: The many faces of the IRF pattern. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 414-430.
• Oh, P. S. (2010). How can teachers help students formulate scientific hypotheses? Some strategies found in abductive inquiry activities of earth science. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 541–560.
• Oh, P.S., & Campbell, T. (2013). Understanding of science classrooms in different countries through the analysis of discourse modes for building ‘classroom science knowledge’ (CSK). Journal of Korean Association for Science Education, 33(3), 597-625.
• Oliveira, A. W. (2010). Improving teacher questioning in science inquiry discussions through professional development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 422–453.
• Pimentel, D. S., & McNeill, K. L. (2013). Conducting talk in science classrooms: Investigating instructional moves and teachers’ beliefs. Science Education, 97(3), 367-394.
• 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), 709–736.
• Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 137-162.
• Smith, L., & King, J. (2017). A dynamic systems approach to wait time in the second language classroom. System, 68, 1-14.
• Soysal, Y. (2018a). Determining the mechanics of classroom discourse in vygotskian sense: Teacher discursive moves reconsidered. Research in Science Education, 1-25.
• Soysal, Y. (2018b). A review of the assessment tools for the student-led cognitive outcomes/contributions in the sense of inquiry-based teaching. Elementary Education Online, 17(3), 1476-1495.
• Soysal, Y. (2019a). Investigating discursive functions and potential cognitive demands of teacher questioning in the science classroom. Learning: Research and Practice, 1-28.
• Soysal, Y. (2019b). Fen öğretiminde öğretmenin söylemsel hamlelerinin öğrenenlerin akıl yürütme kalitelerine etkisi: Söylem analizi yaklaşımı. Research in Education, 7(3), 994-1032.
• Soysal, Y. (2019c). Indicators of productive classroom talk and supporting discourse moves: A systematic review for effective science teaching. Academy Journal of Educational Sciences, 3(2), 114-137.
• Soysal, Y. (2019d). Meaning and formats of classroom discourse in the context of teacher discursive moves. Elementary Education Online, 18(2), 600-620.
• Soysal, Y. (2020a). Investigating the discursive interactions in the elementary science classroom. Elementary Education Online, 19(1), 1-17.
• Soysal, Y. (2020b). Establishing the norms of the Vygotskian teaching in the science classroom. Elementary Education Online, 19(3), 1838-1857.
• Soysal, Y., & Radmard, S. (2020). Research into teacher educators’ discursive moves: A Vygotskian perspective. Journal of Education, 200(1), 32-47.
• Soysal, Y., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. (2019). Relationships between teacher discursive moves and middle school students’ cognitive contributions to science concepts. Research in Science Education, 1-43.
• Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2012). Using multivariate statistics. (6th ed). New York: Pearson.
• Tofade, T., Elsner, J., & Haines, S. T. (2013). Best practice strategies for effective use of questions as a teaching tool. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 77(7), 155-166.
• Treagust, D. F., & Tsui, C.-Y. (2014). General instructional methods and strategies. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2, pp. 303–320). New York: Routledge.
• Tytler, R., Aranda, G. (2015). Expert teachers’ discursive moves in science classroom interactive talk. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(2), 425-446.
• van D. Booven, (2015). Revisiting the authoritative–dialogic tension in inquiry-based elementary science teacher questioning. International Journal of Science Education, 37(8), 1182-1201.
• van Zee, E.H., & Minstrell, J. (1997a). Reflective discourse: Developing shared understandings in a physics classroom. International Journal of Science Education 19, 209-228.
• van Zee, E.H., & Minstrell, J. (1997b). Using questioning to guide student thinking. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 229-271.