The Impact of High-Level Teacher Questioning on Elementary School Students’ Achievement, Retention and Attitude in Science

Abstract

This research aimed to investigate the impact of high-level teacher questioning on 6th grade students’ science achievement, retention of learning and their attitudes toward science. A quasi-experimental pretest-posttest control group design was employed in this research. Participants consisted of 43 students enrolled in two intact 6th grade classes of a science teacher in a public elementary school. Two classes were assigned as either an experimental group or a control group randomly. Students in both groups were taught electricity concepts through student centered activities aligned with the national elementary school science curriculum. Difference between the two groups was the type of questions used by the teacher during the instruction. Background Questionnaire, Science Achievement Test, Attitude Scale and Structured Interview Form were used to collect data. ANCOVA results revealed a significant difference in science achievement and retention of learning across two groups, in favor of experimental group. However, independent t-test results demonstrated that students’ attitudes toward science were not significantly different across the groups. Moreover, interview results supported the findings obtained from the achievement test.

Keywords

• Attitude toward science
• Elementary school
• Science achievement
• Teacher questioning

References

1. Aguiar, O. G., Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2010). Learning from and responding to students’ questions: The authoritative and dialogic tension. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 174-193. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20315
2. Akıllı, H. I. (2008). The effect of using computer at science and technology courses on the students reaching level, their remembrance and their attitudes towards course. Unpublished master’s thesis. Hacettepe University, Institute of Social Sciences, Ankara.
3. Artino, A. R. (2012). Academic self‐efficacy: From educational theory to instructional practice. Perspectives on Medical Education, 1, 76-85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-012-0012-5
4. Ateş, S., Döğmeci, Y., Güray, E. & Gürsoy, F. (2016). An analysis of speeches of classroom inside: Is it dialogic or monologic? Ahi Evran University Kırşehir Journal of Education Faculty, 17(2), 603-625.
5. Aziza, M. (2018). An analysis of a teacher’s questioning related to students’ responses and mathematical creativity in an elementary school in the UK. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 10(4), 475-487.
6. Can, A. (2017). SPSS ile bilimsel araştırma sürecinde nicel veri analizi [Quantitative data analysis in the process of scientific research with SPSS]. Pegem Akademi.
7. Chen, Y. C., Hand, B., & Norton-Meier, L. (2017). Teacher roles of questioning in early elementary science classrooms: A framework promoting student cognitive complexities in argumentation. Research in Science Education, 47(2), 373-405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9506-6
8. Chen, Y. C. (2020). Dialogic pathways to manage uncertainty for productive engagement in scientific argumentation: A longitudinal case study grounded in an ethnographic perspective. Science & Education, 29(2), 331-375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00111-z

9. Chin, C. (2004). Students’ questions: Fostering a culture of inquisitiveness in science classrooms. School Science Review, 86(314), 107-112.
10. Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815-843. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20171
11. Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). Students’ questions: a potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260701828101
12. Chinn, C. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1998). The structure of discussions that promote reasoning. Teachers College Record, 100(2), 315-368.
13. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21166
14. Çimer, A. (2007). Effective teaching in science: A Review of literature. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 4(1), 20-44.
15. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
16. Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916-937. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200011)37:9<916::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-2
17. Cumhur, F. & Güven, B. (2018). Investigating of pre-service mathematics teachers’ questioning: The reflections from teaching practice course. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 6(12), https://doi.org/10.18009/jcer.432559
18. Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. Routledge.
19. Erduran, S., Simon, S. & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. International Journal of Science Education, 88, 915-933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
20. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th Ed). McGraw-Hill.
21. France, A. (2019). Teachers using dialogue to support science learning in the primary classroom. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09863-3
22. Ferkany, M., Freed, A. L., & Stapleton, S. R. (2014). A review of “navigating environmental attitudes”. The Journal of Environmental Education, 45(2), 134-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2014.874252
23. Forster, C., Penny, J., & Shalofsky, R. (2019). Questioning the role of questions: new primary teachers’ realisations of over-reliance on questions in scientific dialogue. Practice: Contemporary Issues in Practitioner Education, 1(2), 173-185. https://doi.org/10.1080/25783858.2019.1659637
24. Gall, M. D. (1970). The use of questions in teaching. Review of Educational Research, 40, 707-721. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543040005707
25. Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2014). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River.
26. Günel, M., Kıngır, S. & Geban, Ö. (2012). Analysis of argumentation and questioning patterns in argument based inquiry classrooms. Education and Science, 37(164), 316-330.
27. Güveli, H. (2019). Teaching of limit with analogy supported dialogic method: An action research, Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Trabzon University, Graduate Education Institute.
28. Harper, K. A., Etkina, E., & Lin, Y. (2003). Encouraging and analyzing student questions in a large physics course: Meaningful patterns for instructors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(8), 776-791. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10111
29. Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Janiel, K., Miller, B. W., Kim, I. H., & Kuo, L. J. (2011). Influence of a teacher's scaffolding moves during child-led small-group discussion. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 194-230. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210371498
30. Kapici, H. O., Akcay, H. & de Jong, T. (2020). How do different laboratory environments influence students’ attitudes toward science courses and laboratories? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(4), 534-549. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1750075
31. Karademir, Ç. A., Çaylı, B., & Deveci, Ö. (2019). An investigation of pre-service teachers’ inquiry skills and curiosity levels. Elementary Education Online, 18(3),1157-1171. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2019.610860 Kaya, G., Şardağ, M., Çakmakcı, G., Doğan, N., İrez, S. & Yalaki, Y. (2016). Discourse patterns and communicative approaches for teaching nature of science. Education and Science, 41(185), 83-99. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2016.4852
32. Koballa, T. R., & Glynn, S. M. (2004). Attitudinal and motivational constructs in science learning. In S. K. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook for Research in Science Education. Earlbaum.
33. Kuhn, D. (1993). The skills of argument. Cambridge University Press.
34. Lee, Y., & Kinzie, M. (2012). Teacher question and student response with regard to cognition and language use. Instructional Science, 40(6), 857-874. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9193-2
35. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Ablex.
36. Lim, W., Lee, J. E., Tyson, K., Kim, H. J., & Kim, J. (2020). An integral part of facilitating mathematical discussions: Follow-up questioning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(2), 377-398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09966-3
37. Liou, P. -Y., Wang, C. -L., Lin, J. J. H., & Areepattamannil, S. (2020). Assessing students’ motivational beliefs about learning science across grade level and gender. The Journal of Experimental Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2020.1721413
38. Martin, D. (2009). Elementary science methods: A constructivist approach. Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
39. Martin, A. M., & Hand, B. (2009). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom: A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39(1), 17-38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9072-7
40. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.702360
41. Mercer N., Dawes, L., & Staarman, J. K. (2009). Dialogic teaching in the primary science classrooms. Language and Education, 23(4), 353-369. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780902954273
42. Mercer, N. (2010). The analysis of classroom talk: Methods and methodologies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709909X479853
43. Ministry of National Education (MoNE) (2013). Primary education institutions (primary and elementary schools) science course (3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grades). Ministry of Education.
44. Ministry of National Education (MoNE) (2018). Science curriculum (primary and elementary school grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8). Ministry of Education.
45. Molinari, L., & Mameli, C. (2013). Process quality of classroom discourse: Pupil participation and learning opportunities. International Journal of Educational Research, 62, 249-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.05.003
46. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2012.02071.x
47. Morris, J., & Chi, M. T. H. (2020). Improving teacher questioning in science using ICAP theory. The Journal of Educational Research, 113(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2019.1709401
48. Mortimer, E. F. & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Open University Press.
49. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9596
50. 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.
51. Oliveira, A. W. (2010). Improving teacher questioning in science inquiry discussions through professional development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 422-453. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20345
52. Oliver, J. S., & Simpson, R. D. (1988). Influences of attitude toward science, achievement motivation, and science self concept on achievement in science: A longitudinal study. Science Education, 72(2), 143-155.
53. Özmantar, M. F., Bingölbali, E., Demir, S., Sağlam, Y., & Keser, Z. (2009). Curriculum reform and the classroom norms. International Journal of Human Sciences, 6(2), 1-23.
54. Pimentel, D. S., & McNeill, K. L. (2013). Conducting talk in science classrooms: Investigating instructional moves and teachers’ beliefs. Science Education, 97(3), 367-394. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21061
55. Rodriguez, C., & Bonner, E. P. (2018). The impact of teacher questioning and open ended problems on mathematical communication. Journal of Teacher Action Research, 4(3), 68-89.
56. Ryder, J., & Leach, J. (2006). Teaching about the epistemology of science in upper secondary schools: An analysis of teachers’ classroom talk. Science Education, 17, 289-315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-006-9007-0
57. Salta, K., & Tzougraki, C. (2004). Attitudes toward chemistry among 11th grade students in high schools in Greece. Science Education, 88, 535-547. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10134
58. Schindler, A. K., Gröschner, A., & Seidel, T. (2015). Teaching science effectively: a case study on student verbal engagement in classroom dialogue. Orbis Scholae, 9(2), 9-34.
59. Scott, P. (1998). Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: A Vygotskian analysis and review. Studies in Science Education, 32, 45-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057269808560127
60. Scott, P., & Mortimer, E. (2005). Meaning making in high school science classrooms: A framework for analysing meaning making interactions. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. De Jong, & H. Eijkelhof (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education (pp. 395-406). Springer.
61. Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F. & Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90(7), 605-631. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20131
62. Soysal, Y. (2019). Effects of the teacher discursive moves on the students’ reasoning qualities in the context of science teaching: Discourse analysis approach. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 7(3), 994-1032. https://doi.org/10.14689/issn.2148-624.1.7c.3s.5m
63. Talton, E L., & Simpson, R. D. (1987). Relationships of attitude toward classroom environment with attitude toward and achievement in science among tenth grade biology students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(6), 507-525. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660240602
64. Uçak, E. & Bağ, H. (2018). Experience of pre-service science teachers on dialogic interaction. International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences, 9(31), 194-237.
65. Ulu, H. (2017). A research on the analysis viewpoint dialogical teaching of fourth class science and technology courses. Journal of Mother Tongue Education, 5(4), 608-626. https://doi.org/10.16916/aded.323084
66. Uyanık, G. (2016). Effect of learning cycle approach-based science teaching on academic achievement, attitude, motivation and retention. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(5), 1223-1230. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2016.040536
67. van Booven, D. (2015). Revisiting the authoritative-dialogic tension in inquiry-based elementary science teacher questioning. International Journal of Science Education, 37(8), 1182-1201. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1023868
68. van Zee, E, H., Iwasyk, M., Kurose, A., Simpson, D., & Wild, J. (2001). Student and teacher questioning during conversations about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 159-190. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200102)38:2<159::AID-TEA1002>3.0.CO;2-J
69. van Zee, E. H., & Minstrell, J. (1997). Reflective discourse: Developing shared understandings in a physics classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 209-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069970190206
70. Zhu, Y., & Edwards, F. (2019). Teacher questioning in a Chinese context: Implications for New Zealand classrooms. Teachers and Curriculum, 19(1), 27-33.