Options
Teacher questioning in Singapore classrooms : a corpus-based investigation
Loading...
Type
Thesis
Author
Bi, Xiaofang
Supervisor
Guo, Libo
Hong, Huaqing
Doyle, Paul (Paul Grahame)
Abstract
High quality discursive practice in classroom interactions between teachers and students is essential to promoting effective student learning. However, few studies in Singapore have examined knowledge building through investigating teacher questioning. Thus, the present study examines how teacher questioning varies in the lessons across different subjects (English and Math) and across different grades (Grade 5 and Grade 9) in influencing the knowledge building processes in classroom interactions.
The present study develops an analytical framework that draws on a critical review of previous studies, review of English and Math syllabi, coding of the data, theories of disciplinarity in knowledge building processes (Bernstein, 2000; Maton, 2014a) and students’ cognitive developmental levels at different ages (Karpov, 2005a, 2005b; Vygotsky, 1987). The whole process helps identify and define different forms (factual, speculative, process and procedural), and functions of teacher questioning (e.g., checking students’ prior knowledge or experiences, gathering information, promoting students’ deeper thinking, reflecting strategies in solving problems, disciplining students’ behaviours) (Myhill & Dunkin, 2005), as well as the strength levels of the semantic gravity (SG) (Maton, 2009, 2013, 2014a, 2014b) of the discipline-specific knowledge developed by teacher questioning.
Frequent use of questions to elicit the students’ reproduction of the knowledge learnt and to manage classroom procedures and disciplines in the lessons of both subjects and both grades depicts a picture of a content-based curriculum which mainly transmits basic and foundational knowledge. However, the differences in teacher questioning across the English and the Math teachers indicate different knowledge building processes of each subject. That is, the Math teacher questioning tended to create a more hierarchical knowledge building process for the students than English teacher questioning. The Math teachers used most of the questions of stronger SG to ask the students to reproduce, summarise and interpret Math knowledge, and used some questions of the weakest SG to help the students generalise strategies and steps in solving Math problems into different contexts. In comparison, the English teachers only used questions of stronger SG to mainly focus on the students’ reproduction and interpretation of English knowledge within the context of learning. The comparisons between the P5 and the S3 teachers revealed that teacher questioning might reflect the students’ perceived different cognitive developmental levels at different grades. That is, the teachers at higher grade asked more questions of weaker SG than the teachers at lower grade to help the students develop judging and generalising abilities based on their formal-logical thinking, which might create different classroom interactional patterns across the lessons in different grades. The patterns of teacher questioning in the lessons of each subject at different grades might also reflect the different knowledge emphasis in the syllabus of each subject at different grades.
These findings are not only revealing for practitioners, but also provide insights for educational policy makers, teacher trainers and researchers on classroom discourse analysis. For example, the findings suggest that the teachers use more questions to help the students develop discipline-specific knowledge of the weakest SG in order to enable the hierarchical knowledge building and cumulative learning more effectively (Maton, 2010, 2013, 2014a), which the Singapore educational policy (e.g., lifelong learning) favours.
The present study develops an analytical framework that draws on a critical review of previous studies, review of English and Math syllabi, coding of the data, theories of disciplinarity in knowledge building processes (Bernstein, 2000; Maton, 2014a) and students’ cognitive developmental levels at different ages (Karpov, 2005a, 2005b; Vygotsky, 1987). The whole process helps identify and define different forms (factual, speculative, process and procedural), and functions of teacher questioning (e.g., checking students’ prior knowledge or experiences, gathering information, promoting students’ deeper thinking, reflecting strategies in solving problems, disciplining students’ behaviours) (Myhill & Dunkin, 2005), as well as the strength levels of the semantic gravity (SG) (Maton, 2009, 2013, 2014a, 2014b) of the discipline-specific knowledge developed by teacher questioning.
Frequent use of questions to elicit the students’ reproduction of the knowledge learnt and to manage classroom procedures and disciplines in the lessons of both subjects and both grades depicts a picture of a content-based curriculum which mainly transmits basic and foundational knowledge. However, the differences in teacher questioning across the English and the Math teachers indicate different knowledge building processes of each subject. That is, the Math teacher questioning tended to create a more hierarchical knowledge building process for the students than English teacher questioning. The Math teachers used most of the questions of stronger SG to ask the students to reproduce, summarise and interpret Math knowledge, and used some questions of the weakest SG to help the students generalise strategies and steps in solving Math problems into different contexts. In comparison, the English teachers only used questions of stronger SG to mainly focus on the students’ reproduction and interpretation of English knowledge within the context of learning. The comparisons between the P5 and the S3 teachers revealed that teacher questioning might reflect the students’ perceived different cognitive developmental levels at different grades. That is, the teachers at higher grade asked more questions of weaker SG than the teachers at lower grade to help the students develop judging and generalising abilities based on their formal-logical thinking, which might create different classroom interactional patterns across the lessons in different grades. The patterns of teacher questioning in the lessons of each subject at different grades might also reflect the different knowledge emphasis in the syllabus of each subject at different grades.
These findings are not only revealing for practitioners, but also provide insights for educational policy makers, teacher trainers and researchers on classroom discourse analysis. For example, the findings suggest that the teachers use more questions to help the students develop discipline-specific knowledge of the weakest SG in order to enable the hierarchical knowledge building and cumulative learning more effectively (Maton, 2010, 2013, 2014a), which the Singapore educational policy (e.g., lifelong learning) favours.
Date Issued
2016
Call Number
LB1027.44 Bi
Date Submitted
2016