Research on the correlation between teacher classroom questioning types and student thinking development from the perspective of discourse analysis

IF 2.6 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Instructional Science Pub Date : 2024-08-31 DOI:10.1007/s11251-024-09683-7
Xiarizhati Niyazi, Xiaopeng Wu
{"title":"Research on the correlation between teacher classroom questioning types and student thinking development from the perspective of discourse analysis","authors":"Xiarizhati Niyazi, Xiaopeng Wu","doi":"10.1007/s11251-024-09683-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Discourse analysis, as a mainstream research method in classroom teaching, has gained widespread attention in education. Educators believe that children's thinking development requires support from interactive discourse. In this study, four primary school mathematics classes were segmented based on the form, frequency, content, and purpose of teacher-student interactions. A total of 73 dialogue segments were selected for coding, resulting in 338 codes. The coding process was based on the turn of talk and assigned corresponding coding numbers to the content of teacher-student discourse in the fragments according to the Bloom-Turney teaching questioning code list and the Hierarchical Framework of Student Thinking Level based on Biggs-Collis Structure of the observed learning outcome. The results show that Knowledge level question (Q1), Understanding level question (Q2), Application level question (Q3), Synthesis level question (Q5), and Evaluation level question (Q6) are related to students' low-level thinking. The questions of Analysis level (Q4), Synthesis level (Q5), and Evaluation level (Q6) are related to students' high-level thinking. We found that there are variety of interactive structures between teachers and students in the question and answer session, among which three interaction structures show significant performance, namely Q2 → M (Multiple-point structural level) → Q4 → C (Correlational structural level), Q3 → M → Q4 → C, Q3 → M → Q6 → A (Abstract-extension level), these structures can show how teachers timely adjust the types of questions according to students' answers to improve students' thinking level.</p>","PeriodicalId":47990,"journal":{"name":"Instructional Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Instructional Science","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-024-09683-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Discourse analysis, as a mainstream research method in classroom teaching, has gained widespread attention in education. Educators believe that children's thinking development requires support from interactive discourse. In this study, four primary school mathematics classes were segmented based on the form, frequency, content, and purpose of teacher-student interactions. A total of 73 dialogue segments were selected for coding, resulting in 338 codes. The coding process was based on the turn of talk and assigned corresponding coding numbers to the content of teacher-student discourse in the fragments according to the Bloom-Turney teaching questioning code list and the Hierarchical Framework of Student Thinking Level based on Biggs-Collis Structure of the observed learning outcome. The results show that Knowledge level question (Q1), Understanding level question (Q2), Application level question (Q3), Synthesis level question (Q5), and Evaluation level question (Q6) are related to students' low-level thinking. The questions of Analysis level (Q4), Synthesis level (Q5), and Evaluation level (Q6) are related to students' high-level thinking. We found that there are variety of interactive structures between teachers and students in the question and answer session, among which three interaction structures show significant performance, namely Q2 → M (Multiple-point structural level) → Q4 → C (Correlational structural level), Q3 → M → Q4 → C, Q3 → M → Q6 → A (Abstract-extension level), these structures can show how teachers timely adjust the types of questions according to students' answers to improve students' thinking level.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从话语分析的角度研究教师课堂提问类型与学生思维发展的相关性
话语分析作为课堂教学的主流研究方法,在教育领域受到广泛关注。教育工作者认为,儿童的思维发展需要互动话语的支持。本研究根据师生互动的形式、频率、内容和目的对四节小学数学课进行了细分。共选取了 73 个对话片段进行编码,共产生 338 个编码。编码过程以谈话的转折点为基础,根据布鲁姆-特尼教学提问编码表和基于比格斯-柯利斯结构的学生思维水平层次框架,对片段中师生话语的内容赋予相应的编码编号,以观察学习结果。结果显示,知识层面的问题(Q1)、理解层面的问题(Q2)、应用层面的问题(Q3)、综合层面的问题(Q5)和评价层面的问题(Q6)与学生的低层次思维有关。分析水平问题(Q4)、综合水平问题(Q5)和评价水平问题(Q6)与学生的高层次思维有关。我们发现,师生在问答环节中存在多种互动结构,其中有三种互动结构表现显著,即 Q2 → M(多点结构层次)→ Q4 → C(关联结构层次)、Q3 → M → Q4 → C、Q3 → M → Q6 → A(抽象-扩展层次),这些结构可以说明教师如何根据学生的回答及时调整问题类型,以提高学生的思维水平。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.00%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Instructional Science, An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, promotes a deeper understanding of the nature, theory, and practice of learning and of environments in which learning occurs. The journal’s conception of learning, as well as of instruction, is broad, recognizing that there are many ways to stimulate and support learning. The journal encourages submission of research papers, covering a variety of perspectives from the learning sciences and learning, by people of all ages, in all areas of the curriculum, in technologically rich or lean environments, and in informal and formal learning contexts. Emphasizing reports of original empirical research, the journal provides space for full and detailed reporting of major studies. Regardless of the topic, papers published in the journal all make an explicit contribution to the science of learning and instruction by drawing out the implications for the design and implementation of learning environments. We particularly encourage the submission of papers that highlight the interaction between learning processes and learning environments, focus on meaningful learning, and recognize the role of context. Papers are characterized by methodological variety that ranges, for example, from experimental studies in laboratory settings, to qualitative studies, to design-based research in authentic learning settings.  The Editors will occasionally invite experts to write a review article on an important topic in the field.  When review articles are considered for publication, they must deal with central issues in the domain of learning and learning environments. The journal accepts replication studies. Such a study should replicate an important and seminal finding in the field, from a study which was originally conducted by a different research group. Most years, Instructional Science publishes a guest-edited thematic special issue on a topic central to the journal''s scope. Proposals for special issues can be sent to the Editor-in-Chief. Proposals will be discussed in Spring and Fall of each year, and the proposers will be notified afterwards.  To be considered for the Spring and Fall discussion, proposals should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief by March 1 and October 1, respectively.  Please note that articles that are submitted for a special issue will follow the same review process as regular articles.
期刊最新文献
Spaced recall reduces forgetting of fundamental mathematical concepts in a post high school precalculus course The roles that students’ ethnicity and achievement levels play in teachers’ choice of learning materials in online teaching: evidence from two experimental studies Research on the correlation between teacher classroom questioning types and student thinking development from the perspective of discourse analysis Developmental relations between mathematics self-concept, interest, and achievement: A comparison of solo- and co-taught classes Gaming the system mediates the relationship between gender and learning outcomes in a digital learning game
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1