REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.7 Key strategies for formative assessment practices
2.7.2 Eliciting evidence of learning through questioning
42
Figure 2.3: A model for learning goals (adapted from Hanover Research, 2014, p. 12).
43
Lightbown and Spada (2013) argued that questions serve as instruments for exploring how much students have understood concepts. Heritage and Heritage (2013) echo this view by illustrating the role of classroom questions in generating evidence about students’ learning and for the teacher’s decision making. They posited that “ open and respectful pedagogical questioning is a key resource in eliciting students’ current learning status, and for making decisions about next steps in student learning” (Heritage & Heritage, 2013, p. 176).
Teachers utilise questioning as a formal or informal FA strategy in checking students’
understanding. Ruiz‐Primo and Furtak (2007) explained that students’ questions or incorrect responses may be enough to trigger an informal assessment episode by the teacher. Questioning is the most frequently used instructional tool, and allows teachers to assess at what point the learners are during classroom discussion. Cuccio‐Schirripa and Steiner (2000) stated that “Questioning is one of the thinking processing skills which is structurally embedded in the thinking operations of critical thinking, creative thinking and problem solving”. According to Graesser and Person (1994), a question is defined as “a speech act that is either an inquiry, an interrogative expression, that is an utterance that would be followed by a question mark in print or both”. A question is any sentence which has an interrogative form or function (Cotton, 1988). Questions define task, express problems and delineate issues (Elder & Paul, 1998). Although the above authors make reference to learners, questioning as a form of assessment is not only important at school level but also in all forms of learning, including at tertiary level.
Due to the social nature of classroom activities, information collected through informal FA is through conversations and these conversations are made possible through questioning. Black and Wiliam (2009) posit that questioning is used to start effective classroom discussion and to involve other students in the learning task. This helps in eliciting evidence of students’ understanding. On a similar note, Chin (2007) states that questions provide feedback to the teacher about students’
understanding. Weiss and Pasley (2004) extend the idea and argue that it is through questioning that misconceptions are revealed during the process of teaching and learning. Generally, when you interact with educators within school and tertiary levels about forms of assessment, you will rarely hear educators referring to questioning. Is this because it is not implemented, or because it is not conceptualised as a form of assessment? While in agreement with the above authors, it is critical
44
to take cognizance of the purpose of questioning, since all of the authors posit that its aim should be to elicit thinking and provide feedback. As Zepeda (2014) posits, questions can trigger responses which range from simple recall to abstract processes of applying, synthesising and evaluating information. It is therefore important to note that the art of thinking is driven by questions (Elder & Paul, 1998).
Questions differ in function and can be grouped into different categories. According to Feng (2014) teachers’ questions can be classified into four types: yes/no, either/or, tag, and wh-questions (what and why). The yes/no questions seek to prompt new information, clarify, or confirm given information, whereas wh-questions are used to elicit particular kinds of information (Cele-Murcia
& Larsen-Freeman, 1999). Babu (2015) found that 90% of teachers’ questions are based on knowledge in the cognitive domain; almost 55% were closed, while 40% were yes/no questions.
In order to elicit thinking, Feng (2014) suggested that questions can be grouped into six levels according to Bloom’s taxonomy, i.e. knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Bloom’s taxonomy can be further classified into lower-level questions and high- level questions. Lower-level questions refer to those at the knowledge, comprehension and application levels of the taxonomy, while those that require complex application such as analysis, synthesis and evaluation are considered high-level questions (Feng, 2014).
Research has shown that teachers dominate in the classroom discourse by asking the highest number of questions, which tend to be of low order and mainly seeking knowledge, not eliciting deep understanding of the concept. For example, Wiliam (2007b) reported that the 1999 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) video found that there were 8 teachers’
words for each student word. The author (Wiliam, 2007b) also reiterated that for a class of 25 students, the teacher speaks 200 times as much as any student. Almeida (2012) avers that if teachers ask huge numbers of questions per class, then the questions posed will constantly be the same. According to Tofade, Elsner and Haines (2013), teachers ask questions to help students to uncover what has been learned, to comprehensively explore the subject matter and to generate discussion. In contrast, Chafi and Elkhouzai (2014) believe that teachers use questions not to aid students’ learning but rather to control and support their teaching. Kawalkar and Vijapurkar (2013) emphasise that “teachers’ questions in the inquiry classroom not only explore and make students’
45
thinking explicit in the classroom but also serve to guide and scaffold it”. Therefore, for effective classroom dialogue the questions should not always come from the teacher.
While the discourse of questioning is advocated in the literature, current studies have raised concerns about teachers’ discourse in the process of questioning. Almeida (2012) avers that questions from students play a key role in students’ learning and motivation. Almeida’s reservation regarding teachers’ questioning as a form of learning was in response to Saeed, Khan, Ahmed, Gul, Cassum and Parpio (2012) and Wiliam (2007), who found that in the process of teaching, assessing via questioning is always dominated by the teacher with students having to respond to teachers’ questions. Such classroom discourse perpetuates teacher-centredness.
In contrast, Van der Walle (2007) advocates that questioning as a form of teaching and learning should be two-way and come from both the teacher and the students. Bolgomony (2007) found that encouraging students’ questions or tasks enhanced their understanding. The first steps towards the filling of students’ knowledge gaps is through them posing their own questions (Chin &
Osborne, 2008). Almeida (2012) and Chin and Osborne’s (2008) suggestions build Chin and Chia (2004) exploration of Grade 9 students’ sources of inspiration for their questions and how these questions assist them in knowledge construction. Their study found that students’ learning was driven by their questions. This suggests that the quality of students’ thinking is determined by the kind of questions they ask during instruction.
2.7.2.1 Questioning in mathematics discourse
Questioning in mathematics is an important diagnostic tool for teaching as well as for measuring the academic progression and comprehension of students. According to Moyer and Milewicz (2002) students’ knowledge construction and communication during mathematics lessons may be dependent on the teachers’ questioning. By using questioning and other appropriate teaching strategies, mathematics educators can facilitate problem solving and critical thinking in students.
Moyer and Milewicz (2002) posit that “Teachers who can question effectively at various levels within the cognitive domain such as knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation (Bloom, 1956) are better able to recognize the range and depth of children thinking”. Teachers’ questioning is indispensable because it is the prime source of mathematical questioning discourse which students can learn from and copy (Stolk, 2013).
46
Stolk (2013) study of the types of questions that comprise a teacher’s questioning discourse in a conceptual-oriented classroom indicated that the focus of investigating teachers’ questioning is to establish skilful use of questions which prompts students’ thinking or engages students in developing mathematical understanding, against less skilful use of questions to improve pedagogy.
Sahin and Kulm (2008) developed a framework for categorising teachers’ questions, finding in their qualitative case study on two sixth grade teachers’ questioning that the teachers use three different types of questioning: probing, guiding and factual questions. The authors remarked that guiding and factual questions are less skilful questions.
According to Kawanaka and Stigler (1999) guiding questions guide students to use mathematical concepts and procedures to solve problems. Ortenzi (2002) termed Kawanaka and Stigler’s guiding questions leading or helping questions. According to Ortenzi (2002), through leading questions the teacher may lead students into convergent thinking – in the way that the teacher wants them to think. Sahin (2007) noted that guiding questions are at the centre of inquiry and problem-based instruction. Sahin and Kulm (2008) stated that guiding questions are like leading questions which can promote students’ thinking. Through leading or helping questioning, teachers dispense direct information to assist students when they encounter difficulties during instruction (Sahin & Kulm, 2008). This suggest that one key characteristic of these questioning types (guiding, leading, or helping) is to support students during instruction, so they can also be considered as supportive questions.
In contrast, factual questions allow classroom teachers to check students’ recall of specific mathematical facts or simple procedures, which enables the teacher to assess the knowledge of basic information before moving forward (Myhill & Dunkin, 2002). According to Myhill and Dunkin, factual questions invite predetermined answers; for example, ‘What is five plus five?’.
The authors indicated that 64% of teachers’ questions required some factual predetermined answers. Sahin and Kulm (2008) defined probing questions as questions for clarification, justification, or explanation to extend students’ knowledge. Similarly, Boaler and Brodie (2004) remarked that probing questions ask students to articulate, elaborate or clarify ideas to explain their thinking. The Maryland State Department of Education (1991) indicated that probing not only extends students’ knowledge beyond factual recall and repeating learned skills, but also pushes
47
students to bring past experience or knowledge to bear to develop new concepts and procedures.
Martino and Maher (1999) found that probing questions can be used to justify solutions to a problem and re-examination of students’ original solution. Through probing questions, adequate explanation, justification and generalisation can be supplied by the students (Martino & Maher, 1999). Probing questions are a useful teaching method and enable teachers to explore students’
thinking (Moyer & Milewicz, 2002).
During mathematical discourse, students’ misconceptions and error patterns in mathematics are diagnosed through questioning (Ashlock, 2001). Teachers’ questioning and students’ explanations during mathematical conversations rely on verbal communication as the primary means for eliciting information. According to McCarthy, Sithole, McCarthy, Cho, and Gyan (2016) probing questions have a dual function: serving as the teacher’s response to students’ answers, and also as an assessment of students’ understanding of the concept being learned. Teacher educators need to be mindful of the nature of the questions they ask during mathematics discourse, and are encouraged to ask questions that assist students to work together and make sense of mathematics.