Improving teacher questioning in science inquiry discussions through professional development

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 47, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 422-453

  Oliveira, Alandeom W ^a  

^a STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

Discourse analysis; Elementary; Language of science and classrooms; Professional development; Teacher educationpracticing teachers

Indexed keywords

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS; ELEMENTARY TEACHERS; INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE; LANGUAGE OF SCIENCE; ORAL QUERIES; PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT; STUDENT RESPONSE; STUDENT-CENTERED;

EMPLOYMENT; LINGUISTICS; PROFESSIONAL ASPECTS; SCHOOL BUILDINGS; SEMANTICS; SOCIAL ASPECTS; STUDENTS;

TEACHING;

EID: 77950956923     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.20345     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Amit, M., & Fried, M.N. (2005). Authority and authority relations in mathematics education: A view from an 8th grade classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58, 145-168. (Pubitemid 40526294)
2. Ash, D., & Kluger-Bell, B. (1999). Identifying inquiry in the K-5 classroom. In: Foundations VolumeII: A monograph for professionals in science, mathematics, and technology education: Inquiry, thoughts, views, and strategies for the K-5 classroom (pp. 79-85). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
3. Beghetto, R.A. (2009). Correlates of intellectual risk taking in elementary school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 210-223.
4. Bernard, H.R. (2002). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (5th edn., pp. 443-449). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
5. Bills, L. (2000). Politeness in teacher-student dialogue in mathematics: A socio-linguistic analysis. For the Learning of Mathematics, 20, 40-47.
6. Binghan, C. (2004). Let's treat authority relationally. In: C. Binghan & A.C. Sidorkin (Eds.), No education without relation. New York: Peter Lang.
7. Blanton, M., Westbrook, S., & Carter, G. (2005). Using valsiner's zone theory to interpret teaching practices in mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8, 5-33. (Pubitemid 40533776)
8. Bloom B.S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook 1. Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
9. Bogdan, R.C.,&Biklen, S.K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (4th edn.) Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
10. Brock, C.A. (1986). The effects of referential questions on ESL classroom discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 47-59.
11. Carin, A.A., Bass, J.E., & Contant, T.L. (2005). Teaching science as inquiry (10th edn.) Upper Sadler River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
12. Carlson, W.S. (1992). Closing down the conversation: Discouraging student talk on unfamiliar science content. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 27, 15-21.
13. Carlson,W.S. (1997). Never ask a question if you don't know the answer: The tension in teaching between modeling scientific argument and maintaining law and order. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 32, 14-23.
14. Chiappetta, E.L., & Koballa, T.R. (2002). Science education in the middle and secondary schools (5th edn.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
15. Cliatt, M.J.P., & Shaw, J.M. (1985). Open questions, open answers. Science and Children, 23, 14-16.
16. Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students' responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1315-1346. (Pubitemid 44446558)
17. Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 815-843. (Pubitemid 47234178)
18. Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 23, 42-44.
19. Crawford, B.A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916-937.
20. Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
21. Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London: Methuen.
22. Emerson, R.M., Fretz, R.I., & Shaw, L.L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23. Erdogan, I., & Campbell, T. (2008). Teacher questioning and interaction patterns in classrooms facilitated with different levels of constructivist teaching practices. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1891-1914.
24. Erickson, F. (1996). Ethnographic microanalysis. In: S.L. McKay & N.H. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 283-306). New York: Cambridge University Press.
25. Friedrichsen, P.M., Munford, D., & Orgill, M. (2006). Brokering at the boundary: A prospective science teacher engages students in inquiry. Science Education, 90, 522-543. (Pubitemid 43735031)
26. Furtak, E.M. (2006). The problem with answers: An exploration of guided science inquiry teaching. Science Education, 90, 453-467.
27. Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P.C., Marx, R.W., Krajcik, J.S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., & Clay-Chambers, J. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry-based science curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 922-939.
28. Ghent, C.A., & Holliday, W.G. (2008). Embedded science textbook questions used to increase comprehension. Proceedings of NARST 2008 Annual Meeting.
29. Glaser, B.G.,&Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
30. Hayes, M.T. (2002). Elementary preservice teachers' struggles to define inquiry-based science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 147-165.
31. Hogan, K., Nastasi, B.K.,&Pressley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition & Instruction, 17, 379-432.
32. Jacoby, S., & Gonzales, P. (1991). The constitution of expert-novice in scientific discourse. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 2, 149-181.
33. Kearsley, G.P. (1976). Questions and question asking in verbal discourse: A cross-disciplinary review. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5, 355-375.
34. Keys,C.W.,&Kennedy,V. (1999). Understanding inquiry science teaching in context:Acase study of an Elementary Teacher. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10, 315-333.
35. Koufetta-Menicou, C.,&Scaife, J. (2000). Teachers' questions - types and significance in science education. School Science Review, 81, 79-84.
36. Labov, W. (1970). The study of language in its social context. Studium Generale, 23, 66-84.
37. Labov, W., & Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. New York: Academic Press.
38. Lakoff, G. (1972). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society (pp. 123-228). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
39. Lawrence Hall of Science. (2005). FOSS, full option science system. Nashua, NH: Delta Education.
40. Lawson, A.E., Abraham, M.R., & Renner, J.W. (1989). A theory of instruction: Using the learning cycle to teach science concepts and thinking skills. Cincinnati, OH: National Association of Research in Science Teaching.
41. Lee, O., Maerten-Rivera, J., Penfield, R.D., LeRoy, K., & Secada, W.G. (2008). Science achievement of English language learners in urban elementary schools: Results of a first-year professional development intervention. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 31-52. (Pubitemid 351189811)
42. Lemke, J.L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
43. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
44. Long, M.H., & Sato, C.J. (1983). Classroom foreign talk discourse: Forms and functions of teachers' questions. In: H.W. Seliger & M.H. Long (Eds.) Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 268-285). Rowley MA: Newbury House.
45. Lotter, C. (2004). Preservice science teachers' concerns through classroom observations and student teaching: Special focus on inquiry teaching. Science Educator, 13 (1), 29-38.
46. Martin, D.J. (2006). Elementary science methods: A constructivist approach (4th edn.) Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth.
47. McNeill, K.K., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers' instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 53-78. (Pubitemid 351189812)
48. Mehan, H. (1979). "What time is it Denise?": Asking known information questions in classroom discourse. Theory Into Practice, 28, 285-294.
49. Moscovici, H., & Nelson, T.M. (1998). Shifting from activitymania to inquiry. Science and Children, 35, 14-17, 40.
50. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
51. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
52. Nieswandt, M., & Bellomo, K. (2009). Written extended-response questions as classroom assessment tools for meaningful understanding of evolutionary theory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 333-356.
53. Nunn, C.E. (1996). Discussion in the college classroom: Triangulating observational and survey results. The Journal of Higher Education, 67, 243-266. (Pubitemid 126075442)
54. O'Connor, M.C.,&Michaels, S. (1993). Aligning academic task and participation status through revoicing: Analysis of a classroom discourse strategy. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 24, 318-335. (Pubitemid 24754107)
55. Oliveira, A.W., Sadler, T.D., & Suslak, D.F. (2007a). The linguistic construction of expert identity in professorstudent discussions of science. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2, 119-150.
56. Oliveira, A.W., Sadler, T.D., & Suslak, D.F. (2007b). Analyzing language, interaction and outcomes in an inquiryoriented classroom. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2, 165-170.
57. Osman, M.E., & Hannafin, M.J. (1994). Effects of advanced questioning and prior knowledge on science learning. Journal of Educational Research, 88, 5-13.
58. Palmer, D.H. (2009). Student interest generated during an inquiry skills lesson. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 147-165.
59. Patrick, H., Mantzicopoulos, P., & Samarapungavan, A. (2009). Motivation for learning science in kindergarten: Is there a gender gap and does integrated inquiry and literacy instruction make a difference. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 166-191.
60. Peters, J.M., & Stout, D.L. (2006). Science in elementary education: Methods, concepts, and inquiries (10th edn.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
61. Rivet, A.E., & Krajcik, J.S. (2008). Contextualizing instruction: Leveraging students' prior knowledge and experiences to foster understanding of middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 79-100.
62. Robson, C. (2002). Real world research (2nd edn.). United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing.
63. Roehrig, G.H., & Luft, J.A. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science teachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 3-24.
64. 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, 709-736.
65. Rowland, T. (2000). The pragmatics of mathematics education: Vagueness in mathematical discourse. London: Falmer Press.
66. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplist systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.
67. Sadeh, I.,&Zion, M. (in press). The development of dynamic inquiry performances within an open inquiry setting:A comparison to guided inquiry setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. EPub ahead of print 2009.
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, 159-190. (Pubitemid 33629144)
69. van Zee, E.H., & Minstrell, J. (1997a). Reflective discourse: Developing shared understandings in a physics classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 209-228. (Pubitemid 127716998)
70. van Zee, E.H., & Minstrell, J. (1997b). Using questioning to guide student thinking. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 229-271. (Pubitemid 127045391)
71. Waring, H.Z. (2002). Displaying substantive recipiency in seminar discussion. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35, 453-479. (Pubitemid 36618845)
72. Webb, N.M., Nemer, K.M., & Ing, M. (2006). Small-group reflections: Parallels between teacher discourse and student behavior in peer-directed groups. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 63-119. (Pubitemid 43242265)
73. Wellington, J.,&Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
74. Wells, G. (1993). Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom. Linguistics and Education, 5, 1-37.
75. Wells, G. (1995). Language and the inquiry-oriented curriculum. Curriculum Inquiry, 25, 233-269.
76. Worth, K., & Grollman, S. (2003). Worms, shadows, and whirlpools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.