Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 17, Issue 2, Article 10 (Dec., 2016) Jacquie L BAY, Fehi FEHOKO, Mumui LA’AKULU, Ofa LEOTA, Lesieli PULOTU, Sina TU'IPULOTU, Salesi TUTOE, Oliveti TOVO, ‘Ana VEIKOSO, and ‘Emeli H POUVALU Questioning in Tongan science classrooms: A pilot study to identify current practice, barriers and facilitators Previous Contents Next

Findings and Discussion

Characterization of questions used by teachers in Form 1 and 2 science classes

Seven of the eight participating teacher-observer pairs collected quantitative and qualitative data from the observation exercise (Table I). At the point of personal reflection (prior to Workshop B), teacher-researchers categorized the majority of the questions they or their observation partner asked as open (77%). Analysis of these data following the coding consensus development process in Workshop B resulted in only 15% of questions being coded as open. The final collective classification is presented in Table I. This indicates that closed questions (85%) were more likely to be used in the teaching episodes (χ²(1) = 24.923, p<.001).

Table II Examples of typical questions used by teachers in these learning episodes

Closed Questions	Open Questions
What do you call the process that plants use to make their food? Where does photosynthesis take place? What were the three types of microbes we studied in our last class?	What should the community or government do to assist in preventing this disease? Explain how roots help plants. In what ways could you help to avoid the spread of viral infections?

Table II provides examples of closed and open questions observed in the learning episodes. Closed questions were typically used to examine students’ content knowledge, potentially reviewing prior learning. Teachers reflected that these were intended to be easily answered by students to encourage participation.

“In my introductory activities I start using questioning to check students’ prior knowledge….most of my questions are easily answered correctly by the students.” —Teacher 7

“I opened with the easiest questions I could ask…and three students answered correctly all at once. I asked the others [students] to give them a big hand before praising them myself…Students who frequently give positive responses and frequently receive positive reinforcement tend to attempt almost every question, without being asked, with great enthusiasm” —Teacher 8

In contrast, open question used by the teachers targeted exploration of more complex concepts or issues, and provided opportunities for students to engage in explanation and analysis.

The level of cognitive demand in teacher questions was characterized using recall, explanation, and analysis, representing increasing cognitive demand from recall to analysis. Closed questions were more likely to require recall (80%) than explanation (20%) (χ²(1)= 15.356, p<.001) (Analytical questions were not considered in this analysis). Analysis of the open questions is limited by the small sample size (n=8). However, the trend in the data is towards increased frequency of questions requiring explanation (5) and analysis (2), compared to recall (1).

Observing teachers counted the number of students offering to respond to each question and the number of student questions that arose from a teacher-led question. On average, students were more likely to offer to respond to closed questions (χ²(1) = 9.000, p=.003). However, the type of teacher-led question (open or closed) had no impact on the likelihood of student-generated questions arising (χ²(1) = 0.818, p=.366).

Table I   Categorization of teacher questions and student responses

Barriers and Facilitators

In examining the data two key themes emerged, that of barriers and facilitators. Following the collective coding process, each group went back to the data and examined the reflections to identify common barriers and facilitators. The frequency with which these occurred in self or peer reflections was recorded in Tables III and IV.

That there is a need to increase student interaction and reduce the presence of silence in classrooms was not denied by the teacher-researcher team.

“I really need my students to break the silence.”       —Teacher 7

As hypothesised, the peer observation evidence suggests that factors associated with socio-cultural context contribute to barriers that potentially reduce the use of questioning. These include respect for teachers as elders, who because of their position should be respected and potentially may be seen by some students as people who should not be questioned (Table III).

The highly structured environment typical of classrooms in the participating schools, as well as a strong desire by all (teachers and students) not to be incorrect, are identified as barriers that can be addressed, and link back to the wider socio-cultural context of the school communities..

“Maybe that [students answering questions all at the same time] is the reason why my students are usually quiet. They always wait for my orders to throw it to them to answer it together at the same time.”       —Teacher 7

“Most of the students respond by sitting up straight….some look at their books before looking at the teacher.”       —Observer of Teacher 3

“[You were] very effective. Students were very attentive. A very loud and demanding voice captured students’ attention.”       —Observer of Teacher 6

“Another barrier… was the frequent wrong answers given by some students. Actually I wanted to ask them more questions but because I knew they will be discouraged if they continue to give wrong answers, I was reluctant to ask those students more.”       —Teacher 8

Table III:  Barriers to the use of questions by teachers, identified from self-reflection and peer observation.

Table IV:  Facilitators to the use of questions by teachers, identified from self-reflection and peer observation.

The impact of teachers as researchers

The study placed teachers in the role of researchers, supporting empowerment of teachers to become adaptive experts, who are “engaged in ongoing cycles of inquiry and knowledge building to develop their expertise in response to specific challenges students face.” (Timperley H., 2011). Because of this resultant empowerment, the process through which these outcomes were established is potentially more important than the baseline characterization itself. McIntyre defines four principles that are core to PAR methodologies, each of which we identified in the process that led to the development and undertaking of this study. These are “(a) a collective commitment to investigate an issue or problem, (b) a desire to engage in self- and collective reflection to gain clarity about the issue under investigation, (c) a joint decision to engage in individual and/or collective action that leads to a useful solution that benefits the people involved, and (d) the building of alliances between researchers and participants in the planning, implementation, and dissemination of the research process” (McIntyre, 2008,p.1). These principles fit well with a talanoa methodology. The PAR process has established a model that can be applied by this research group in ongoing analysis and development relating to the issue of questioning, or to other challenges they identify.

Analysis of the process also indicates that it represents the work of a professional learning community (PLC) promoting teaching as inquiry, and the role of teachers as researchers engaged in analysing and addressing issues critical to supporting student learning. Core to this classification is the notion that in contrast to one-off workshops known to be ineffective in facilitating change, the PLD workshops in the model were part of a series that provided a foundation for ongoing critical reflection and analysis, supported by internal and external leadership over an extended period (Lumpe, 2007). This is reflected in a focus group discussion held with teacher-researchers at the end of the academic year in which the work was initiated.

“It was different [to prior PLD] because you [external project leaders] kept coming back to us - we kept coming back together – that made us do something, we could not just go - I’m too busy...”       —Participating teacher-researcher, School A; focus group

“We talked together – it was not just being talked at.”       —Participating teacher-researcher, School B; focus group

“Also the [PLD] program had real examples – we were hands on learners, so that works for us as well as the kids!”       —Participating teacher-researcher, School C; focus group

PLCs are characterised by shared values and vision, collective responsibility, reflective inquiry, collaboration, and group as well as individual learning (Stoll, Bolam, McMahon, Wallace, & Thomas, 2006). These characteristics can be identified in the focus groups comments as well as within the process and outcomes of the study. Shared values and vision, while established earlier in the project at a high level (Bay & MacIntyre, 2013), were co-constructed by the PLC within Workshop B. This involved defining the research process that was required in order to address the question of interest, which sat within the overarching shared project goals relating to scientific and health literacy development.

The PAR process enabled the team to critically examine and reflect on their practice, and the frames of reference supporting that practice with regard to the use of questions in learning and teaching. The emerging evidence supported the hypothesis that questioning, when used, was more likely to be closed. The significant shift from initial to final coding with regard to what constituted open or closed questions demonstrates that participants engaged in a transformative learning process. Key elements of transformative learning seen within the process include identification of prior experience and critical reflection within a community of learners (Taylor, 2011). This supported the questioning of assumptions, promoted awareness of the presence of alternative perceptions and led to changed perceptions that were in turn examined in greater depth.

While exploring concepts associated with the use of questioning in learning the team were aware that they in turn would be facilitating the process of examination of the role of questioning in science learning with other teachers. They reflected that identification of exemplars had been useful to them in refining their perceptions of categorisation of questions (Figure 3), and hypothesised that such exemplars could support other teachers to analyse the types of questions being used in classrooms. In order to develop the continuum exemplars represented in Figure 3, the team had to imagine learner centred activities that represented the far right of the continuum as they identified that such questions were not as a common part of their current practice. The associated PLD programme had introduced learner-centred discovery activities, so these were not unfamiliar in theory. The PLD had enabled teachers to experiment as a group with these, but the team was yet to apply these ideas in practice. That learner centred activities could be imagined for learning contexts and topics beyond the project represents the potential offered by talanoa to facilitate active engagement and learning in this professional community.

“There were actual learning resources that we could trial to use these ideas - in the past we just get told - do this, do that - there are never any examples of how we could change things in our classrooms.”       —Participating teacher-researcher, School A; focus group

The evidence suggests that the process of participating in action research created opportunities for participating teacher-researchers to question assumptions with respect to the use of questions in science learning, test out the use of questioning, and reflect on how students responded to this different approach to learning and teaching.

“During my questioning session, I can feel how the learning environment changed in this time. Once I start asking questions, some of my students [were] eager to respond to the questions and some do not. For the students who involve and participate in the discussions of the questions, they build self-confidence which brings out their ideas and view about the questions. At this time, some of the students [are] against the opinion and view of some other students and even my ideas but this builds up some new questions for me to ask the students. At this stage, it shows me that some of my students can critically analyse some of the answers to the questions.       —Teacher 1

Furthermore for some teachers it provided an important opportunity for identification of potential changes in their practice that could enhance the ability of students to engage in open-ended dialogue, through which learning could occur.

“From my colleague’s reflections, the wording of some of my questions were a bit advanced for my students and needs improvement. The students failures in their first attempts to answer some of the questions correctly was not due to unknowing, but rather misunderstanding of the questions. Another weakness……was that I did not give adequate thinking time for students…..mostly with questions that required an explanation. ."       —Teacher 8

These reflections indicate that teachers are testing, or proposing to test perspectives or activities different to those typical of their practice. This is a hallmark of transformative learning.

Overall, the reflections indicate teacher-researcher awareness of cognitive and social needs of students within the classroom and a strong desire to support student learning. The PAR process utilising collective critique and analysis offered the opportunity for teachers to identify potential actions that could be tested to understand how to enhance learning. This resulted in the development of an action research question relating to strategies that may enhance the use of questions in Form 1 – 5 Science classrooms in Tongan schools. Specifically from the evidence it was identified that the following three hypotheses should be investigated:

• That engaging in hands-on learning activities will support increased student participation in questioning.
• That engaging in learning experiences supported by visual stimuli will increase student participation in questioning.
• That placing questions within a Tongan cultural framework will increase active and effective student participation in learning.

These hypotheses offer teacher-researchers potential actions that could be evaluated using the methods established in this pilot study.

Limitations

The potential for participation in research to impact the behaviors of the participants should be acknowledged as a limitation of this study. This is highlighted by the lesson intentions and reflections from participants, examples of which are indicated below.

“Questioning is a key part of the teaching-learning process in any classrooms of any level. All strategies used to impart a teaching concept in the classrooms to the students will surely fail to bring out the desirable learning outcome if questioning is not or less used while the lesson is undertaken. Thus I will ask more number of questions in this period than I have ever used before in my science classes”       —Lesson intentions, Teacher 8

“The purpose of this lesson is for all learners to identify and label these two plant systems - shoot system & root system and also to describe the function of each part of the two systems. I was planning to spend most of my questions in open questions because I really need my students to break the silence and come out from their shells. They are all capable but they need to be more curious”.       —Lesson intentions, Teacher 7

“From this teaching episode, I have found out how the use of open-ended questions in teaching is really effective. Not only [does] it engage students to participate and express their ideas and opinion about the questions but it also make other students criticized the ideas of others.”       —Lesson analysis, Teacher 1

These records indicate that the learning episodes selected for observation by these teachers may not have been typical of their practice. The statements indicate towards usual learning environments where interaction via questioning may be more limited than that observed in this action research setting. This reflects research participation effect, an extensively documented phenomena in human behaviour research, but one that is not fully understood in terms of research design to minimise impact (McCambridge, Kypri, & Elbourne, 2014).

The number of observations could also be considered as a limitation. However, this is a pilot study limited to three schools collaborating in the project and defined by the teacher-researcher team as the extent to which they could enable data collection. Potentially a larger research team or observations outside of the team could have exposed further factors, however the limitation of observation and analysis to the active research team was an intentional act within the design, identified as being important as trust was established within and between the teachers in this group and the group leaders.

This study only examined the content of questions asked by teachers. Once teachers are confident in the use of this method it should be extended to include analysis of the content of student responses and student questions.

 

---

Copyright (C) 2016 EdUHK APFSLT. Volume 17, Issue 2, Article 10 (Dec., 2016). All Rights Reserved.