Question types of pre-service teachers at the implementation of a new learning model: a comparison between QASEE, RQA, and conventional learnings

Year 2020, Volume: 8 Issue: 2, 843 - 856, 15.06.2020

Wulandari Saputri Aloysius Duran Corebima

https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.647916

Cited By: 1

Abstract

This research aims at analyzing the question types posed by pre-service teachers at the implementation of QASEE (Questioning, Answering, Sharing, Extending and Evaluating) learning and its comparison with RQA (Reading, Questioning, and Answering) learning and conventional learning. 107 pre-service teachers participated in this qualitative and quantitative research. The data of questions raised during the learning activities were collected using observation sheets. The collected questions were analyzed related to the content and were classified based on the revised version of Bloom’s taxonomy. The results were then analyzed descriptively. Based on the cognitive process dimensions, in the QASEE class, the most common question type found is the Q2 questions (59.34%) and only few Q1 questions (2.75%) are found; in the RQA class, the most common question type is the Q2 questions (67.22%) and only a small number of Q1 types (2.79%) are found, while in the conventional class, the Q1 and Q2 questions are found in the same frequency (32.35%). Based on the knowledge dimension, in the QASEE class, the most question type found is the QC questions (86.64%) and only few QF questions are found (1.75%); in the RQA class, the most question type found is the QC questions (83.94%) and only few QF questions (5.57%) are found, while in the conventional class, the frequencies of the QF and the QC questions are 32.35% and 44.12% respectively. Based on the cross-section dimension, in the QASEE class, the most question type found is the classify questions (57.60%) and only few list questions (0.42%) are found. In the RQA, the classify questions (63.40%) are also the most question type found and only few list questions (1.86%) were found, while in the conventional class, the most question type found are the list questions (32.35%), and the classify questions (32.35%). The QASEE learning has the most potential in encouraging pre-service teachers to produce better questions, because it has the highest frequency of HOT (Higher Order Thinking) and QM questions as well as the lowest frequency of list question, compared to the RQA and conventional learning.

Keywords

Bloom taxonomy, learning models, pre-service teachers, questioning skills, teacher education

Thanks

The authors thank to the Endowment Fund for Education (LPDP) Ministry of Finance Republic Indonesia that has funded the implementation of this research.

References

• Akkaya, N., & Demirel, M. V. (2012). Teacher candidates’ use of questioning skills in during-reading and post-reading strategies. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 4301–4305.
• Almeida, P., & Neri de Souza, F. (2010). Questioning profiles in secondary science classrooms. International Journal of Learning and Change, 4(3), 237.
• Almeida, P.A. (2012). Can i ask a question? the importance of classroom questioning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 634–638.
• Almeida, P.A. (2010). Questioning patterns and teaching strategies in secondary education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 751–756.
• Amin, A. M., Corebima, A. D., Zubaidah, S., & Mahanal, S. (2017). Identifikasi kemampuan bertanya dan berpendapat calon guru biologi pada mata kuliah fisiologi hewan [Identifying the questioning skills and the argumentation skills of pre-service biology teachers in the animal physiology Course]. Bioedukasi, 15(1), 24–31.
• Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for Learning, teaching, and assessing: Revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. United States: Pearson Education.
• Bahri, A., & Corebima, A. D. (2015). The contribution of learning motivation and metacognitive skill on cognitive learning outcome of students within different learning strategies. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 14(4), 487–500.
• Bay, D. N. (2016). The question asking skills of preschool teacher candidates: Turkey and America example. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(1), 161–169.
• Bielik, T., & Yarden, A. (2016). Promoting the asking of research questions in a high-school biotechnology inquiry-oriented program. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(15), 1–13.
• Bowker, M. H. (2010). Teaching students to ask questions instead of answering them. Thought & Action: The NEA Higher Education Journal, 26, 127–134.
• Cardoso, M. J., & Almeida, P. A. (2014). Fostering student questioning in the study of photossyntesis. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 3776–3780.
• Cerdán, R., Pérez, A., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Rouet, J. F. (2019). To answer questions from text, one has to understand what the question is asking: differential effects of question aids as a function of comprehension skill. Reading and Writing, 32(8), 2111–2124. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09943-w
• Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2002). Student-generated questions: A meaningful aspect of learning in science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(5), 521–549.
• Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). Students’ questions: A potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1–39.
• Corebima, A. D. (2016). Pembelajaran biologi di Indonesia bukan untuk hidup [The Biology Learning in Indonesia is not for life]. Biology Education Conference, 13(1), 8–22.
• Dang, N. V., Chiang, J. C., Brown, H. M., & McDonald, K. K. (2018). Curricular activities that promote metacognitive skills impact lower-performing students in an introductory biology course. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 19(1), 1–9.
• Duman, B., & Semerci, Ç. (2019). The effect of a metacognition-based instructional practice on the metacognitive awareness of the prospective teachers. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 7(3), 720–728.
• Efklides, A. (2008). Metacognition: Defining its facets and levels of functioning in relation to self-regulation and co-regulation. European Psychologist, 13(4), 277–287.
• 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.
• Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.
• García, F. C., García, Á., Berbén, a B. G., Pichardo, M. C., & Justicia, F. (2014). The effects of question-generation training on metacognitive knowledge, self regulation and learning approaches in science. Psicothema, 26(3), 385–390.
• Graesser, A. C., & Olde, B. A. (2003). How does one know whether a person understands a device? The quality of the questions the person asks when the device breaks down. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 524–536.
• Hariyadi, S., Corebima, A. D., Zubaidah, S., & Ibrohim. (2017). The comparison of the question types in the RQA (Reading, Questioning, and Answering) learning model and conventional learning model. Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education, 4(7), 10–18.
• Hofstein, A., Navon, O., Kipnis, M., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Developing students’ ability to ask more and better questions resulting from inquiry-type chemistry laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(7), 791–806.
• Kaberman, Z., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). Metacognition in chemical education: Question posing in the case-based computerized learning environment. Instructional Science, 37(5), 403–436. h
• Kaya, S., & Temiz, M. (2018). Improving the quality of student question in primary science. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 17(5), 800–811.
• Lestari, P., Ristanto, R. H., & Miarsyah, M. (2019). Analysis of conceptual understanding of botany and metacognitive skill in pre-service biology teacher in Indonesia. Journal for Ecucation of Gifted Young Scientist, 7(2), 199–214.
• Muhlisin, A. (2019). Reading, Mind Mapping, and Sharing (RMS): Innovation of new learning model on science lecture to improve understanding concepts. Journal for Ecucation of Gifted Young Scientist, 7(2), 323–340.
• Munzenmaier, C., & Rubin, N. (2013). Perspective Bloom’s taxonomy: What’s old is new again. Santa Rosa: The eLearning Guild.
• O’Holleran, B., Barlow, J., Ford, C., & Cochran, A. (2019). Questions posed by residents in the operating room: A thematic analysis. Journal of Surgical Education, 76(2), 315–320.
• Olde Bekkink, M., Donders, A. R. T. R., Kooloos, J. G., De Waal, R. M., & Ruiter, D. J. (2015). Challenging students to formulate written questions: A randomized controlled trial to assess learning effects Approaches to teaching and learning. BMC Medical Education, 15(1), 1–6.
• Phua, M. P. E., & Tan, A.-L. (2018). Promoting productive argumentation through students’ questions. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 4(4), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41029-018-0020-9
• Pramudiyanti, Susilo, H., & Amin, M. (2015). Analisis tingkat berpikir kognitif mahasiswa pada pembelajaran biologi sel melalui teknik menuliskan pertanyaan [Analyzing Students' Cognitive Thinking Levels in Cell Biology Learning by Using Writing Question Technique]. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Pembelajaran MIPA 2015, (pp. 987–999.
• Purdum-Cassidy, B., Nesmith, S., Meyer, R. D., & Cooper, S. (2015). What are they asking? An analysis of the questions planned by prospective teachers when integrating literature in mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 18(1), 79–99.
• Rahayu, A. (2018). The analysis of students’ cognitive ability based on assesments of the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy on statistic materials. European Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 7(2), 2414–8385.
• Ramocki, S. P. (2007). Metacognition and transfer: Keys to improving marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education, 29(1), 18–24.
• Shakurnia, A., Aslami, M., & Bijanzadeh, M. (2018). The effect of question generation activity on students’ learning and perception. Journal of Advances in Medical Education & Professionalism, 6(2), 70–77.
• Stokhof, H. J. M., De Vries, B., Martens, R. L., & Bastiaens, T. J. (2016). How to guide effective student questioning: a review of teacher guidance in primary education. Review of Education, 5(2), 123–165.
• Teplitski, M., Irani, T., Krediet, C. J., Di Cesare, M., & Marvasi, M. (2018). Student-generated pre-exam questions is an effective tool for participatory learning: A case study from ecology of waterborne pathogens course. Journal of Food Science Education, 17(3), 76–84.
• Weinstein, Y., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2010). A comparison of study strategies for passages: rereading, answering questions, and generating questions. Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied, 16(3), 308–316.
• Wisetsat, C., & Nuangchalerm, P. (2019). Enhancing innovative thinking of Thai pre-service teachers through multi-educational innovations. Journal for Ecucation of Gifted Young Scientist, 7(3), 409–419.
• Yeşil, R., & Korkmaz, Ö. (2010). A comparison of different teaching applications based on questioning in terms of their effects upon pre-service teachers’ good questioning skills. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 1075–1082.
• Zhang, Y., & Patrick, P. (2012). Introducing questioning techniques to pre-service teachers. Journal of Teacher Education and Educators, 1(2), 159–184.