Tutor HuntResources Science Resources

Enhancing Learning Through Effective Questioning

A research article I wrote on using questioning skills in tandem with Bloom`s Taxonomy to enhance teaching and learning

Date : 19/01/2015

Author Information

Zirab

Uploaded by : Zirab
Uploaded on : 19/01/2015
Subject : Science

A fundamental skill in teaching is being able to ask structured questions to pupils, equipping you with a number of benefits such as: assessing progress, differentiating appropriately, and to enhance learning in the classroom. Questioning techniques have been discussed and developed over many years initiating from as far as 1956 from Bloom`s taxonomy; a classification of the cognitive process. Questions can be structured accordingly to differentiate between different levels of intellectual involvement, and hence used to our advantage to promote higher levels of thinking. The incredible ability of being able to classify questions into an intellectual ranking intrigued me to explore the complexities of this topic. Also being identified as my main target by my subject mentor, whilst on placement, I am therefore utilising the opportunity provided by this assignment to gain a better understanding of questioning techniques and aiding my own professional development in education.

In many OFSTED reports there are number of statements that articulate the need to question pupils effectively within lessons. Even serving the purpose as to inform inspectors of the quality of teaching, presenting itself as a technique for self-reflection, edifying their own teaching and as a tool for assessment of learning. Questioning is also an area that defines a grade descri ptor for the quality of teaching; stating the need for teachers to `skilfully question pupils` to determine the present lesson structure and future planning to ensure learning. Questions should be structured to assess pupil progress, and if needed adaptations should be made to the remainder of the lesson (OFSTED 2014). This is further noted in the standards:

S2: `Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of how pupils learn and how this impacts on teaching` (Department for Education 2013)

Showing the need to be able to assess progress, through attained knowledge on the cognitive process, in pupils and act upon the techniques used for this to adapt teaching.

Through teaching we are preparing our pupils to become independent and critical thinkers, meaning our quality of teaching should be ever-developing by reflecting, adapting, and improving our methods of teaching. Which can be done through identifying areas of high impact that encourage the development of the minds` of our pupils. The process of triggering life-long learning can be achieved through asking thought-provoking questions which encourage intellectual curiosity in pupils (Wragg and Brown 2001). Questioning is an important technique as it not only provides you with vital formative assessment data but also encourages interactive dialogue in the classroom (Alexander 2008). A teacher usually accustoms to asking a number of question during lessons to aid understanding, however, when ill-prepared or misleading questions can result in further delaying the process of explaining new concepts and even confusion. Therefore leading to misinterpretations and misconceptions, showing the significance of well-structured questions. This carries a very high value in science, as the pupils are not coming across new concepts but new vocabulary, which must be clearly explained so pupils are able to use the correct terminology in applicable context. Gaining incorrect knowledge, pupils will not be able to move further and apply this knowledge correctly as it will then cascade into detrimental scientific errors.

The different levels of thinking must be considered before trying to develop appropriate questions to challenge pupils and develop their intellectual thinking. In 1956 Bloom identified an area of high importance in education known as the `cognitive domain` which involves the development of intellectual ability from the basic stage of knowledge recall. From this a hierarchy of cognitive ability was put forward to define different levels of thinking. In which six classes were identified, in ascending order: 1. knowledge, 2. comprehension, 3. application, 4. analysis, 5. synthesis, 6. Evaluation. Below is a detailed explanation of these levels including their application in science, they are all from the original Bloom`s taxonomy 1956.

The first level is known as knowledge, which involves basic recall of information or recognition of materials or phenomena. It is suggested that the mind stores certain information in connection with certain learning situations. This is categorised into: remembering general facts and specific facts; recalling steps in a sequence; recognising the abstract theory that puts together facts and figures. Techniques used to establish this level can consist of multiple choice questions with descri ptive and/or qualitative answers, and recognising fact from fiction, as well as being able to categorise definitive material. In science we can establish this through asking questions: naming the sub-atomic particles in an atom; categorising elements using these properties; definition of a covalent bond.

The second level is known as comprehension which refers to the pupil being able to understand the underlying concept, such as being able to translate and interpret information, and finally being able to extrapolate it. Translation involves the ability to make sense of communication and transform it to their understanding using knowledge. Interpretation involves the ability to relate this understanding to their ideas or generalisation, and extrapolation is where they are able to use this data to predict or even determine what is to follow. Translation can be tested through asking the pupils to express the meaning of words in their own way or even communicate findings from a data graph or a diagram. Interpretation can be shown through identifying and distinguishing between advantages and disadvantages from conclusions made from a set of data. Extrapolation is identified through allowing pupils to draw accurate conclusions and predict outcomes. In science, this level of thinking can be shown by asking pupils to demonstrate scientific laws they have learnt such as showing forces through certain motions or identifying acceleration on a velocity graph.

The third level known as application is a step beyond the summation of the first two levels, where now they are used collectively to solve a new problem. Application requires understanding of the first two levels; the pupil uses previously obtained comprehension correctly, such as rules, methods, laws, and principles, to delegate an appropriate method as a solution for this new problem. They must do this without any other input or suggestions and be able to choose and apply the suitable techniques correctly to achieve the solution. In science this can be done through presenting the pupils with a problem and allowing them to select scientific theories and principles to deploy in order to solve the problem, for example working out the electron configuration of an ionised atom.

The fourth level known as analysis involves the ability to breakdown and itemise the material, and identify relationships between the constituent elements of the communication, and elucidate an organisation of these parts. This can be done through providing them with a scenario such as the movement of an object (aeroplane), and allowing them to elucidate the forces acting on the movement, the intensity of the forces at the different points, as well as being able to comment on the how the design of the plane may affect these forces.

The fifth level of Synthesis refers to going back and being able to conjoin individual constituents together to form a new system that wasn`t there before. This level of cognitive ability provides the pupils with an opportunity to create, invent, or even discover. The pupil should be able to use their knowledge and comprehension of materials, as well as analysis of relationships of these materials to form a new product, structure or an arrangement not seen before. This can be seen through allowing pupils to design their own chemical experiments to achieve a desired product.

The final level in Bloom`s taxonomy is known as evaluation. It is the process of making judgments about a material using defined criteria such as effectiveness, accuracy or economics. As well as critically reviewing it or even expressing an opinion to how well it meets your needs. Even though evaluation is presented as the last level in Bloom`s taxonomy and, up to some extent, requires knowledge of all the previous levels, it can, however occur during each level. Nonetheless, here evaluation is not considered through opinions but judgment using evidence or criteria. This can be done through asking to identify and explain how a certain type of material will be best suited for the production of an item, where the desired output or criteria can be given.

Since 1956 Bloom`s taxonomy has been widely accepted and used to develop curriculums, learning methods and assessment material. However since then our knowledge of how children learn has vastly improved, hence in 2001 `a revision of Bloom`s taxonomy of educational objectives` was published by Anderson and Krathwohl. They argued the need for this on the basis of how our understanding of how children develop and learn, has greatly advanced. In the cognitive domain they named the six levels as 1. Remember, 2. Understand, 3. Apply, 4. Analyse, 5. Evaluate, and 6. Create. They also showed how the knowledge domain and its subdivisions are interlinked with the six levels of the cognitive domain. The subdivisions of the knowledge domain being: A. factual, B. conceptual, C. procedural, D. metacognitive. All the categories involve factual knowledge, which is the recall of information such as definitions or facts. However when this information is organised and integrated using a systematic approach it is then called conceptual knowledge. Procedural knowledge then dwells into being able to use this information to carry out a methodology and knowing how to do this. The final subdivision of metacognitive knowledge is being able to identify the extent of knowledge you possess and recognizing your own cognitive processes (Andrew and Krathwohl 2001).

Andrew and Krathwohl (2001) then drew a taxonomy table that can be used to identify level of thinking required in certain learning exercises. It can be used as a differentiating tool, where you can target your question to pupils of different abilities. The table can also be used to structure and plan questions to be asked during class time. Being able to visualise the level of thinking required, proves to be a useful tool when aiming to enhance learning, it can be used to challenge students by relating their current ability to the table and planning questions a level higher to promote their learning. It also provides a way to ensure all cognitive processes have been put forward and encouraged when teaching. Andrew and Krathwohl (2001) also argued that the cognitive process does not form a cumulative hierarchy as implied by Bloom`s taxonomy and others but rather forms individual sets of cognitive abilities. However there is a link of cumulative hierarchy in the first four levels but research evidence does not follow this pattern in the last two levels.

Before we can apply these strategies in science, it should be considered how children learn science. Leach and Scott (2000) articulated children`s methods of learning science; they suggested that children learn phenomena from `everyday knowledge`, which poses a difficulty in the classroom when the same phenomena are explained scientifically. Everyday knowledge is built through general life activities such as making sense of observed phenomena, either by thinking or talking. This can also be affected by the environment and surroundings children are brought up in. These social interactions define what knowledge the child constructs of the natural phenomena (Vygotsky 1978). This knowledge then remains as the understanding of phenomena, subconsciously reinforced, throughout their life until they are presented with the scientific explanation. Scientific knowledge is more formal in context and involves developed theories and facts put forward through an academic setting. Therefore a viable route would be to work and add on to or even reconstruct previous knowledge (Leach and Scott 2000). To allow children to construct this new knowledge they have to be allowed to assemble into a somewhat social setting. This can be done through allowing them to talk to each other, discussing new phenomena. A more preferable and reliable method to construct a similar setting is to encourage teacher-student interaction, where the teacher controls the learnings through interventions (Edwards and Mercer 1987). This can be done through employing the various techniques of classroom questioning.

Questioning is seen as one of the forms of verbal communication that plays a major part in effective learning. Initially, thought should be given to how well you are able use your voice, concentrating on tone, pitch, volume, clarity, and speed, and what feelings or implications are conveyed from the variation of these. It should also be considered when and how to alter these in certain situations, utilising these effectively, such as adopting a high pitch for an appraisal or a low tone for disciplining. However when questioning, a clear and welcoming voice should be adopted. Various pieces of research has shown that speed in your voice is an important aspect to which wait-time should be built in when asking questions, accordingly to the level of difficulty presented by the question( Myers and Capel 2013).

Proficient questioning, while maybe used only a fraction of the time available in a lesson, provides valuable information to the teacher of how students have retained and understood the information that is being passed on to them (Redondo 2013). Other reasons for using questioning in class may include: diagnose learning difficulties, to stimulate pupils, elicit misconceptions, direct attention, recall of vital information, to involve everyone, or even as a behaviour management technique to keep all pupils on task (author 2014). However, particularly in science we may ask questions to incite curiosity and develop thinking skills in pupils.

Wragg and Brown (2001) proposed three types of question asked in classrooms: conceptual questions; Empirical questions; value questions. Conceptual questions involve `eliciting ideas, definitions and reasoning`; it helps the pupil to consider whether answers they provide are correct or incorrect towards understanding concepts. Empirical questions involve factual answers or answers from observation and experimental findings. Value questions are associated more with social, environmental, and health issues where personal beliefs and values are discussed. They also demonstrated that questions contain a `narrow/broad` dimension. Narrow question require short, verifiable answers and broad question require a long, much complicated answer. The habitual use of narrow questions is seen to be unfavourable as it generally produces short answers, inhibits discussion and therefore prevents higher thinking levels. As well as using a broad question for a narrow answer produces confusion and frustration (Wragg and Brown 2001). Narrow question can be effectively used to reinforce learning and to remind pupils of work done (Myers and Capel 2013). On the other hand, correctly used broad question can encourage higher-order thinking in pupils where there are number of possible answers. These are generally used to encourage thinking and to challenge pupils, heightening their learning experience as they require a level of creativity, imagination, and application of knowledge. These two types of questions can also be used together to achieve a goal, for example starting off with narrow questions to ensure correct recall of facts i.e. atomic structure, electronegativity, different types of bonding. Subsequently, moving onto a broader question where the pupils have to use this information collectively i.e. predict the type of bonding certain molecules exhibit and henceforth the structure. Bloom`s taxonomy (1956) and the taxonomy table (Andrew and Krathwohl 2001) could be used to identify the level of challenge presented and level of thinking required. However, generally narrow questions are used at the start of lesson to recall knowledge from the previous lesson, and at the end to reinforce new material learned. Additionally `follow-up` questions can also be used in between topics to enhance students thinking and provide well-developed answers; these can be directed towards the whole class (Myers and Capel 2013). Your response to answers should also be considered, being careful not to ridicule the child but be supportive and prepared to construct their previous knowledge into new more accurate scientific knowledge. You should also praise good answers; this will encourage more pupils to participate, hence achieving an active learning environment.

Another type of questioning known as diagnostic questioning, has been recently developed to enhance learning of key scientific knowledge. These questions are designed to give information on the learner`s thought processes as well as to test their understanding. Therefore an accurately structured diagnostic question should be easily interpreted to show support of correct understanding or a specific misconception or the root of misunderstanding (Millar 2003).

In my teaching, there was the natural tendency to ask questions following a series of lessons. However after carrying out a literature research, I now realise my questions generally inclined towards being narrow and just factual recall. Where questions only served the purpose of assessment needs and did not challenge the pupils to a supposed level. I now will be using the taxonomy table developed by Andrew and Krathwohl (2001) in my planning, from this I will be able to clearly distinguish between cognitive levels I aim to apply within my teaching.

Features of teaching effectively are most definitely not limited, and every aspect to teaching has many variables, however if we consider each individual variable, and apply our understanding and research correctly, it will help to improve teaching and meeting learning demands. Skilful Planning and organisation of the different questioning techniques in tandem with the proposed levels of cognitive ability will challenge and push learners towards their optimum potential. This in itself is a step forward in ensuring learning is predominant in the classroom.

This resource was uploaded by: Zirab

Other articles by this author