The Effects of Quantity and Quality of Teachers’ Probing and Guiding Questions on Student Performance

Abstract

This study investigated the types, quantity, and quality of teacher questions and their impact on student understanding.  In contrast to previous studies, in order to obtain optimum effects of question types, quantity, and quality, this study controlled for variables such as teachers’ experience, textbooks used, and teachers’ mathematics preparation knowledge, all of which may affect student achievement. The data were collected from 33 7th- and 8th-grade teachers in 2 different states, Texas and Delaware, who participated in a longitudinal project.  A total of 103 videotapes were obtained.  For the 1st research question, Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) was run with 2 levels; student and teacher.  For the 2nd question, inter-correlations were computed between the variables.  We found that the quality teachers’ probing questions significantly predicted student performance when other variables were controlled.  We also found that the quality and quantity of guiding questions and probing questions significantly correlated. 

Keywords

• Teachers’ Questioning, Student Understanding, Probing, Guiding, and Student Performance.

-

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı öğrenme-öğertme sürecinde öğretmenlerin sordukları soruların kalitesinin, çeşidinin ve sayısının öğrencilerin anlamaları üzerindeki etkisini incelemektedir. Diğer çalışmalardan farklı olarak, öğretmenin soru çeşidinin, kalitesinin ve sayısının etkisini tam olarak ölçmek için; öğretmenin tecrübesi, kullanılan ders kitapları ve öğretmenin aldığı ders sayılarının öğrencinin öğrenmesi üzerindeki etkisi kontrol edilmiştir. Veriler Texas ve Delaware eyaletlerinde 7. ve 8. sınıflarda matematik öğretmenliği yapan toplam 33 katılımcıdan toplanmıştır. Verilerin toplanmasında izin alınarak video kayıtları kullanılmıştır. Bu kapsamda toplam 103 adet video kaydı yapılmıştır. Verilerin analizinde hiyerarşik doğrusal modelleme (HLM) ve korelasyon katsayıları kullanılmıştır. Çalışma sonucunda, ortam değişkenleri kontrol edildiğinde, öğretmenlerin sordukları sorgulayıcı açık uçlu soruların öğrencilerin başarısını etkilediği bulunmuştur. Ayrıca, öğretmenin kaliteli sorduğu açık uçlu sorularla kaliteli sorduğu yön verici sorular birbiri ile anlamlı şekilde ilişkili bulunmuştur

Keywords

• Ögretmen, Soru sorma tekniği, Sorgulayıcı soru, Yönlendirici soru, Öğrenci başarısı

References

1. Agodini, R., Harris, B., Atkins-Burnett, S., Heaviside, S., Novak, T., & Murphy, R. (2009). Achievement effects http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20094052/pdf/20094052.pdf early elementary school math curricula. Retrieved from
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford.
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2000). Middle grades mathematics textbooks: A benchmarks-based evaluation. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Sci- ence.
4. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2002). Number: Diagram to aid assessment task design. Project 2061. Unpublished document.
5. Andrew, M., & Schwab, R. L. (1995). Has reform in teacher education influenced teacher performance? An outcome assessment of graduates of eleven teacher education programs. Action in Teacher Ed- ucation, 17, 43–53.
6. Ball, D. (1991). Research on teaching mathematics: Making subject matter knowledge part of the equa- tion. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching (pp. 1–48). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
7. Billstein, R., Williamson, J., Montoya, P., Lowery, J., Williams, D., Buck, M., Winston, B. (1999). Middle grades MathThematics. Evanston, IL: McDougal Littell.
8. Bloom, B., Englaehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). A taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook 1: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.

9. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
10. Capraro, M. M., Capraro, R. M., & Henson, R. K. (2001). Measurement error of scores on the mathemat- ics anxiety rating scale across studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 373–386.
11. Carlsen, W. S. (1991). Questioning in classrooms: A sociolinguistic perspective. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 157–178.
12. Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive think- ing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815–843.
13. Collins, W., Dritsas, L., Frey-Mason, P., Howard, A. C., McClain, K., Molina, D. D., Wilson, P. (1999). Mathematics: Applications and connections. Columbus, OH: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.
14. Cotton, K. (1988). Classroom Questioning. Close-Up No. 5. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
15. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Authentic assessment of teaching in context. Teaching and Teacher Educa- tion, 16, 523–545.
16. DeBoer, G., Morris, K., Roseman, J. E., Wilson, L., Capraro, M. M., Capraro, R.,et al. (2004 April). Re- search issues in the improvement of mathematics teaching and learning through professional development. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association annual meeting, San Diego, CA.
17. Denton, J. J., & Peters, W. H. (1988). Program assessment report: Curriculum evaluation of a non-traditional program for certifying teachers. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.
18. Dewey, J. (1939). The individual in the new society. In J. R. Editor (Ed.), Intelligence in the modern world: John Dewey’s philosophy. New York: The Modern Library.
19. Dillon, J. T. (1982). The effects of questioning in education and other enterprises. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 14, 127–152.
20. Gall, M. D. (1970). The use of questions in teaching, Review of Educational Research, 40, 707–721.
21. Gall, M. (1984). Synthesis of research on teachers’ questioning. Educational Leadership, 42(3), 40–47.
22. Gallagher, J., & J. Parker. (1995). Secondary science teacher analysis matrix - (SSTAM). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.
23. Ginsburg, H. P. (2009). The challenge of formative assessment in mathematics education: Children’s minds, teachers’ minds. Human Development, 52(2), 109–128.
24. Greenwald, R., Hedges, L. V., & Laine, R. D. (1996). The effect of school resources on student achieve- ment. Review of Educational Research, 66, 361–396.
25. Harrop, A., & Swinson, J. (2003). Teachers’ questions in the infant, junior and secondary school, Educa- tional Studies, 29(1). 49–57.
26. Howe, R., (1998). The AMS and mathematics education: Revision of the NCTM standards, Notices Ameri- can Mathematics Society, 45, 243–247.
27. Ilaria, D. R. (2002). Questions that engage students in mathematical thinking. Proceedings of the annual meeting (of the) North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (24th, Athens, GA, October 26–29, 2002). Vol. 1–4; SE 066 887.
28. Jordan, H. R., Mendro, R. L., & Weersinghe, D. (1997). Teacher effects on longitudinal student achievement: A preliminary report on research on teacher effectiveness. Paper presented at the National Evaluation In- stitute, Indianapolis, IN. Kalamazoo, MI: CREATE, Western Michigan University.
29. Kawanaka, T., & Stigler, J. W. (1999). Teachers’ use of questions by eight-grade mathematics classrooms in Germany, Japan, and the United States, Mathematical Thinking & Learning, 1, 255–278.
30. Klitgaard, R. E., & Hall, G. R. (1974). Are there unusually effective schools? Journal of Human Resources, 10(3), 90–106.
31. Kulm, G., & Capraro, R. (2004, April). Relationship between textbook use and student learning of number and algebra ideas in middle grades. Paper presented at the research pre-session of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA.
32. Lappan, G., Fey, J. T., Fitzgerald, W. M., Friel, S. N., & Phillip, E. D. (1998). Connected mathematics. Menlo Park, CA: Dale Seymour Publications.
33. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
34. Martino, A. M., & Maher, C. A. (1999). Teacher questioning to promote justification and generalization in mathematics: What research practice has taught us. Journal of Mathematical Behavior 18 (1), 53– 78.
35. Mills, S. R., Rice, C. T., Berliner, D. C., & Rosseau, E. W. (1980). The correspondence between teacher questions and student answers in classroom discourse. Journal of Experimental Education, 48, 194– 204.
36. Monk, D. H. (1999). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics teachers and science teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13, 125–145.
37. Monk, D. H., & King, J. A. (1994). Multilevel teacher resource effects on pupil performance in secondary mathematics and science. In R. G. Ehrenberg (Ed.), Choices and consequence (p. 29–58). Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
38. Murnane, R. J., & Phillips, B. R. (1981). Learning by doing, vintage, and selection: Three pieces of the puzzle relating teaching experience and teaching performance. Economics of Education Review, 11(4), 691–693.
39. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
40. Nelson, G. D., Kulm, G., & Manon, J. R. (2000). Improving mathematics teacher practice and student learning through professional development. Proposal to the Interagency Educational Research Initiative, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC.
41. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
42. Redfield, D. L., & Rousseau, E. W. (1981). A meta-analysis of experimental research on teacher question- ing behavior. Review of Educational Research 51, 237–245.
43. Reys, R., Reys, B., Lapan, R., Holliday, G., & Wasman, D. (2003). Assessing the impact of standard-based middle grades mathematics curriculum materials on student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34, 74–95.
44. Riley, J. P. (1986).The effects of teachers' wait-time and knowledge comprehension questioning on sci- ence achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 335–342.
45. Riordan, J. E., & Noyce, P. E. (2001). The impacts of two standards-based mathematics curricula on stu- dent achievement in Massachusetts. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 32 (4), 368–398.
46. Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (1998, April). Teachers, schools and academic achievement. Cam- bridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
47. Romberg, T. A., Burrill, G., Fix, M. A., Middleton, J. A., Meyer, M., Pligge, M., et al. (1998). Mathematics in context. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica.
48. Rosenholtz, S. J. (1986). The organizational context of teaching. Learning to Teach. University of Illinois at Champaign, Urbana: IL
49. Rosenshine, B. (1971). Teaching behaviours and student achievement. London: National Foundation for Educational Achievement.
50. Rowe, M. B. (1974). Wait-time and rewards as instructional variables, their influence in language, logic, and fate control: Part one-wait time. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11(2), 81–94.
51. Sahin, A. (2013). Teachers’ Awareness and Acquisition of Questioning Strategies. Sakarya ] University Journal of Education, 3(3), 17-36.
52. Sahin, A., & Kulm, G. (2008). Sixth grade mathematics teachers’ intentions and use of probing, guiding, and factual questions. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(3), 221-242.
53. Samson, G. E., Strykowski, B., Weinstein, T., & Walberg, H. J. (1987).The effects of teacher questioning levels on student achievement. Journal of Educational Research 80, 290–295.
54. Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.
55. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C., & Raizen, S. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
56. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense- making in mathematics. In D. Grouws, (ed.). Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning(pp. 334–370).New York: MacMillan.
57. Shafer, J. (1997). Analysis of incomplete multivariate data. London: Chapman and Hall.
58. Smith, M., & Stein, M. K. (2011). 5 practices for orchestrating productive mathematics discussions. Reston, VA: NCTM.
59. Spencer, H. (1910). Education: Intellectual, moral, and physical. New York: Appleton.
60. Strudler, N. B., Mckinney, M. O., Jones, W. P., & Quinn, L. F. (1999). First year teachers’ use of technolo- gy: Preparations, expectations, and realities. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 7(2), 115–
61. Thompson, B. (2003). Score reliability: Contemporary thinking on reliability issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
62. Trafton, P. R., Reys, B. J., & Wasman, D. G. (2001). Standards-based mathematics curriculum materials: A phrase in search of a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(3), 259–263.
63. Vacha-Haase, T. (1998). Reliability generalization: Exploring variance in measurement error affecting score reliability across studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 6–20.
64. Winne, P. H. (1979). Experiments relating teachers’ use of higher cognitive questions to student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 49, 13–50.
65. Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 57–67.
66. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 458–477.