My Work in Research
Action research begins with two simple words: I wonder… These words kindle the desire for individual learning that is embedded in students. Many teachers have embarked on sharpening their questioning techniques to promote higher-level thinking and problem solving skills with their students but have they developed their own skills in problem solving and collecting data on the learning within the classroom?
In examining questions asked by classroom teachers. I noticed that it was difficult for teachers to write or ask contextual questions along a hierarchal scale for a given situation. The easiest questions to write were from the lower end of Bloom’s taxonomy.
I learned that the role of questioning for instruction in classes other than science was a different concept from the role of questioning in inquiry-based learning. Unlike questioning to guide the process of inquiry, questioning for instruction should address asking question to get at higher-level thinking. Good questions are the principal element in the development of critical thinking skills. Questions encourage collaboration among students and teachers and support the learning process.
In a recent study conducted with a group of elementary students the following summary gives some insight to what was discovered about classroom questioning techniques related to student achievement.
Study: Teachers, Curriculum, and Higher Level Questions
This intent of this study was to focus on the common teaching practice of questioning. Questioning is the quintessential tool teachers use in their facilitation of lessons. Often the process of asking questions supersedes the why and how.
A concern for the why and how of questioning techniques as it relates to the level of student achievement, a primary building principal of a school district requested professional development. The building used inquiry-based science materials and had access to resource teachers. The K-3 school population was approximately 500 students, 24 grade level teachers and one principal. Teachers ranged from first year experience to 30 years of experience and included one student teacher.
Being a resource teacher for science education, the subject was of general interest because questioning is integral to the teaching for learning of science through inquiry. The focus of this study was to use the faculty as a study group meeting for three to four work sessions, to develop a working definition of question types, practice using the new information, and to analyze the questions integrated in the curriculums.
A revised edition of Bloom’s Taxonomy was used as a guide for the study group. The intent through analyzing the taxonomy, teachers would make better sense of the curriculum, improve instructional planning, and as a result, design assessments, formative and summative, that were better aligned with the objectives inherent in the curriculum. The ultimate goal was to improve student learning while exposing students to higher level reasoning through clearly articulated questions.
The sessions focused on analyzing and writing questions for each of the two dimensions.
- The Taxonomy is divided into the Knowledge Dimension and the Cognitive Process Dimension.
- The Knowledge Dimension is comprised of four dimensions: Factual, Conceptual, Procedural and Meta-Cognitive.
- The Cognitive Process Dimension is the hierarchy and includes: Remember Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, and Create.
Teachers discussed sample questions and wrote attributes then proceeded to examine their teaching manuals to categorize questions. Finally, teachers were given a familiar reading story and wrote a question to align with the Knowledge Dimension and the Cognitive Process Dimension. After discussion, teachers continued through the hierarchy to reform each question.
As a result of this action research, the teachers examined the number and types of questions classroom teachers asked in a 40-minute period, it was discovered that students were not exposed to higher level questioning from the core curriculum and teachers were not using higher-level questions.
Teachers were given a survey 60 days following the conclusion of the study group’s workshop. Results indicated that teachers were more aware of their questions and began to ask more analyze and evaluate type questions.
Study: Questioning in Reading Class vs Questioning in Science Class
To substantiate the study on questioning for student achievement several classes of a reading lesson was evaluated on the types of questions asked in a 40-minute lesson. Five different classes had questions recorded.
The same procedure was followed for a science class. Different grade levels were utilized for both studies.
The results were for Reading, an average of 20 questions were asked in five minutes with the majority (six) being higher level (analyze and evaluate). Most of the 40-minute lesson was used to introduce the story and allow for silent/oral reading of passages.
In the inquiry based science lessons, an average of 60 questions were asked with about half of them being high level (analyze, evaluate). The other half of the questions was procedural questions having the students remember the process of the activity.
Data was given to each teacher with the purpose of improving questioning techniques in core subjects other than science in the hopes of raising scores on state tests.
Points that arose as a result of the examination of types and number of questions were:
- Being unaware of how many or how little questions were asked of students
- How often the same question was repeated
- How little wait time was allowed to students to answer the questions before it was repeated
- How often lower level questions were asked in reading verses science because of the dynamics of the individual classes.
Points that needed to be further investigated:
- Wait time verses no wait time
- Calling on only specific students
- How do other subject’s questions affect achievement
Study: Student Leadership Development
It was often wondered if multi-leveled classes were of benefit to students. This action research projected focused on the building of leadership skills within the group.
Thirty students from grades two through six were selected to participate in a life science class. The class met one time per week. An equal number of students were selected on a voluntary basis from each grade level.
A determination of what was to be surveyed was based on:
- Identify the skills that are effective for student leadership, (e.g., not share opinions, takes responsibility for situation, listens to all sides) and
- have the student identify frequency of the behavior (e.g., I do it a lot, little, etc.). Run the same items for the post. Do comparison of their responses.
A pre survey was given to determine each student’s personal attributes toward leadership skills in the beginning of the inquiry-based life science class. Results were:
Most of the students felt they communicated ideas well and were not as strong with the initiation of ideas, actions, solutions, and procedures. They frequently coordinated ideas to make sense and always summarized for other students.
After the six-week inquiry based life science course was completed, the post survey results indicated:
The students felt they always communicated ideas and coordinated ideas and activities to make sense. Occasionally they initiated ideas, actions, solutions, and procedures. They frequently summarized for students and gave a solution.
There was a large difference with the coordination of ideas and activities and summarizing for students from the pre-survey to the post-survey.
Study: Student Accountability to Complete Homework
Teachers constantly complained that students were not completing homework assignments. Many alternative strategies were employed from punishment to rewards to working with parents. Nothing helped. Changing student attitude and behavior toward homework was not happening.
After many meetings on the topic it was decided to have a detention after school. The superintendent and school board gave their support. The homework detention would serve grades 2 through 5 for one hour after dismissal. Parents of the students were to be responsible for transportation. If this were not possible, administration would transport students home. If the parent refused this process, an alternative date would be selected or an in-school suspension would be given to the student.
The process began with notifying stakeholders, mainly parents of the elementary students, of the reoccurring homework concerns and plan to institute an after school detention period. Notification began with a letter and notice of an informal meeting with the administration presenting the plan to the public. Next, postings on the website and on the monthly newsletter went home. Last, a date was set and a staff was determined.
Daily attendance was kept to focus on the repeating offenders. It was discovered that after the second week the student number dwindled to about a dozen students. Records were kept daily for 6 weeks on student attendance. By the end of semester, only a handful of students were staying for detention.
In summary, this procedure worked. It took time for parents to accept the fact that there would be consequences and some parents still didn’t care to show support for the policies of the district. The only draw back was that some of the repeat offenders had to be driven home because of no transportation or home support.