Главная
АИ #26 (208)
Статьи журнала АИ #26 (208)
Study results of teacher’s question analysis in the concrete lesson

10.5281/zenodo.12586245

Study results of teacher’s question analysis in the concrete lesson

Рубрика

Педагогика

Ключевые слова

teacher’s question
lesson analysis
quality of education
bloom's Taxonomy

Аннотация статьи

This research delves into the intricate dynamics of teacher-student interactions, particularly focusing on the pivotal role of teacher questions in secondary school mathematics classrooms. Employing a transcript-based lesson analysis approach, 30 mathematics lessons were thoroughly examined. Teacher questions were meticulously categorized using Bloom's taxonomy and various question types, allowing for a nuanced understanding of their nature and impact. The analysis revealed intriguing insights into the distribution of question types: approximately 50% of questions primarily centered on lesson organization and instructions, while 30% focused on recalling previous knowledge and factual information. Notably, only about 20% of questions stimulated critical thinking and creative engagement among students. These findings hold significant implications for instructional design and teacher training programs. They underscore the necessity of a balanced approach in framing teacher questions to cultivate an enriching and intellectually stimulating learning environment in secondary school mathematics classrooms. This study serves as a beacon for educators and researchers alike, shedding light on the importance of thoughtful question design in fostering deeper student engagement and enhancing overall lesson quality.

Текст статьи

Introduction

The quality of education depends on the quality of a concrete lesson. Therefore, lesson analysis is the most fundamental part of educational quality analysis. The evolution of lesson study and analysis methods reflects a continuous refinement and sophistication over time. Teacher-student interaction and dialogue are the main elements in the classroom. The quality of the teacher's questions directly guides the student's actions and thinking processes in the lesson. Therefore, within the framework of this research, the question is whether it is possible to make a conclusion about the quality of the lesson by analyzing the number and quality of questions asked by the teacher in the lesson. Therefore, lesson analysis is the most fundamental part of educational quality analysis. Teacher-student interaction and dialogue are the main elements in the classroom. The quality of the teacher's questions directly guides the student's actions and thinking processes in the lesson (fig. 1).

image.png

Fig. 1. Problem and Question

Education stands as the cornerstone of societal progress, with the quality of teaching and learning experiences serving as the linchpin for effective knowledge dissemination and skill development. In this context, the significance of rigorous research aimed at enhancing educational practices cannot be overstated. This introduction aims to elucidate the critical importance of our research, highlighting significant problems, the current state of the art, gap analysis, novel concepts to fill these gaps, and ultimately, the purpose of our study.

The quality of education is intricately tied to the quality of individual lessons, making lesson analysis a foundational aspect of educational quality assessment (Kayima, 2016). However, there exists a noticeable gap in efforts to explore teachers' questioning practices within Lesson Study contexts, despite the global goal of critically examining and improving teaching practices in such initiatives (Aziza, 2018; Dong, Seah & Clarke, 2015; Larson & Lovelace, 2013; Shahrill & Clarke, 2014; Amirullah, 2018; Lewis, Perry & Hurd, 2009; Lewis, Perry & Hurd, 2004).

Over time, the evolution of lesson study and analysis methods has demonstrated continuous refinement and sophistication (Kayima & Jakobsen, 2020). Central to effective teaching are teacher-student interactions and dialogues, where the quality of the teacher's questions plays a pivotal role in guiding students' actions and thought processes during lessons (Saka & Inaltekin, 2023).

Despite research spanning decades that underscores the critical role of teachers' questions in shaping students' learning experiences, there remains a gap in exploring teachers' questioning practices within Lesson Study contexts (Aziza, 2018; Dong, Seah & Clarke, 2015; Larson & Lovelace, 2013; Shahrill & Clarke, 2014).

Recent studies have explored multidimensional approaches to understanding teacher questioning practices, leveraging technology, mixed-methods strategies, and longitudinal studies (Prakash & Litoriya, 2022). High-level questions have been shown to be beneficial for student learning (Phillips, 2014). In this study, we aim to delve deeper into the results of teacher question analysis presented in previous studies (Saka & Inaltekin, 2023; Kayima & Jakobsen, 2020), synthesizing and critically evaluating these findings to illuminate effective practices that promote active engagement, critical thinking, and meaningful learning in classrooms.

Design and methodology

The research purpose is to develop and test a methodology for studying the level of teachers' questions in regular lessons. The objects of the study include 30 mathematics lesson transcripts, with the subject being teachers’ questions. A coding scheme, utilizing Bloom's Taxonomy, is employed to categorize and classify the level of each teacher's question. Data collection involves a random selection of 30 mathematics lessons from various secondary schools, ensuring a representative sample. Additionally, a classification based on question types is implemented.

Purpose of the research: To develop and test a methodology for studying the level of teachers' questions in a regular lesson.

Objects and subjects of the study:

  • Object: 30 mathematics lesson transcript.
  • Subject: Teacher’s question.
  • Development of Coding Scheme: Utilization of Bloom's Taxonomy to categorize and classify the level of each teacher's question.

Data Collection: Random selection of 30 mathematics lessons from various secondary schools. Collection of verbatim transcripts of the selected lessons, ensuring a representative sample.

Development of Coding Scheme: Utilization of Bloom's Taxonomy to categorize and classify the level of each teacher's question.

Question Types: Additional classification based on question types.

On whether a teacher’s question was relevant or inappropriate, there was a substantial agreement between the 4 analysts, Cronbach's Alpha  = 0.887 (95% CI, 0.937), p < 0.0005.

Cronbach's Alpha based on standardized items, with a value of 0.937, further emphasizes the strong internal consistency, suggesting that even when the items are standardized, the reliability remains high.

Research design based on tbla:

  • Selection of Lesson Videos: 30 mathematics lesson videos labeled as "Good Lessons" from 2015-2018 are chosen from the ITPD database.
  • Transcription of Videos: Verbatim transcripts of all 30 videos are generated, providing a representative sample of lesson content.
  • Highlighting Questions in Transcript: Teacher questions are identified using a transcript-based lesson analysis method.
  • Determination of Questions Level by Bloom Taxonomy: Four researchers independently categorize questions using Bloom's Taxonomy, ensuring a comprehensive analysis.
  • Summarization of Determined Levels: Researchers collaborate to consolidate their categorizations, ensuring a holistic view of question levels.
  • Re-Determination of Questions by Bloom Taxonomy: Further refinement of question levels based on collaborative input.
  • Data Analysis: The average distribution of questions across Bloom's Taxonomy levels is analyzed for insights into question complexity.

Research Design Based on TBLA Steps:

Step 1. To choose lesson videos

The ITPD has a good lessons database for teachers to use in-service teacher training for all subjects. (2015-2018). We chose 30 math lesson videos.

As for the video lesson selection, 30 videos of “Good Lessons” (Sain khicheel) since 2015 were chosen.

Step 2. To transcript videos into text (fig. 2)

image.png

Fig. 2. To transcript videos into text

Table 1

A transcript of the lesson theme “Cone and lateral surface area"

Name of Speaker

Sequential Number

Contents of utterance

T

34

There is a cone. Where is it?

S

35

On the top.

T

36

Yeah, is it on the roof?

S

37

But it is not whole, like a cut.

T

38

Sure, it is not exactly cone. Also what is there? Which shape of door?

S

39

Door is a rectangle.

T

40

How about floor?

S

41

It is a circle.

S

42

Circle

We did transcript for all 30 video lesson tapes to text on word documents. One hour lesson transcript wroten about 12 pages on A4 format on the word document. You are seeing part of example of a lesson transcript. We wrote it in 3 columns. First column is the name of the speaker, the second one is the number of utterances and the last one is the whole contents of it.

Step 3. To highlight Questions in transcript

The teacher's questions were identified by importing them into a template EXCEL file using a regular transcript-based lesson analysis method (TBLA).

Step 4. To determine Questions level by Bloom Taxonomy (Researchers separately)

Table 2

Questions level

Questions level

CODE

REMEMBER (KNOWLEDGE)

Q1

UNDERSTAND (COMPREHENSION)

Q2

APPLY

Q3

ANALYZE (breaking down into parts, forms)

Q4

EVALUATE (according to some set of criteria, and state why)

Q5

CREATE (SYNTHESIS)

Q6

Hand-written notes of Bloom's Taxonomy classification of one lesson by 4 different teachers.

Step 5. To summarize determined levels by 4 researchers

Table 3

Differently defined questions of researchers

 

QUESTIONS

teacher
1

teacher
2

teacher
3

teacher
4

47

What is the floor? Q2

2

3

4

1

51

There are five-sided and six-sided, right? Q1

1

3

4

2

 

What is the shape of the floor? Q1

1

3

4

2

78

Twenty-six and four-tenths square meters. Do the team's answers match? Q4

4

1

5

2

98

What about the main tension rope in number two? Q2

3

4

6

2

 

So, did you get an answer from your team here? Q5

5

4

6

1

100

Haven't got it yet? Q5

5

3

4

2

134

Toono has already entered, so it must not be a cone, right? Q5

5

4

2

3

 

going to cut the cone right? Q5

5

4

3

2

142

Since Toono is coming in, what about us here? Q4

4

2

1

3

167

It will be a part of Uni, right? Q5

5

3

1

2

To summarize determined levels by 4 researchers.

Step 6. Re-Determine Questions by level of BT

Table 4 shows the classification of the questions asked by teachers in the 6 -12th grades of mathematics according to Bloom's taxonomy level. Bloom's taxonomy classification of 30 subjects can be seen in table 4 (Appendix 1).

Table 4

Bloom's taxonomy classification of 30 subjects

 

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q5

Q6

1 LESSON

18

23

11

14

4

2

2 LESSON

12

14

8

7

3

0

3 LESSON

31

41

33

29

16

9

4 LESSON

24

14

18

17

9

12

5 LESSON

41

73

31

28

32

7

6 LESSON

32

49

51

26

24

9

7 LESSON

9

14

6

0

0

0

8 LESSON

10

9

8

0

0

0

9 LESSON

20

16

32

22

13

5

10 LESSON

16

13

18

4

1

2

11 LESSON

12

11

9

0

2

5

12 LESSON

19

17

15

0

0

0

13 LESSON

14

7

19

0

0

0

14 LESSON

11

8

9

0

2

3

15 LESSON

63

75

61

46

36

6

16 LESSON

105

146

59

35

17

8

17 LESSON

52

68

42

24

32

12

18 LESSON

55

76

54

42

35

7

19 LESSON

46

57

39

25

13

9

20 LESSON

28

17

31

12

14

3

21 LESSON

45

37

34

21

28

5

22 LESSON

31

48

32

35

27

6

23 LESSON

86

57

42

38

45

8

24 LESSON

63

72

29

10

24

7

25 LESSON

31

29

34

24

22

9

26 LESSON

21

19

18

8

19

4

27 LESSON

81

93

78

34

14

8

28 LESSON

16

19

14

1

2

2

29 LESSON

24

39

42

28

19

1

30 LESSON

31

12

16

0

0

3

Number of questions asked by the teacher:

image.png

Fig. 3. The numbers questions asked by the teacher

Step 7. To analyze data

Questions levels by Bloom Taxonomy (average).

image.png

Fig. 4. Questions levels by Bloom Taxonomy (average)

There are more level 1, 2 and 3 questions. On the other hand, fewer level 4, 5 and 6 questions.

Level 1-34.9, Level 2 – 39.1, Level 3 – 29.8, Level 4 – 17.7, Level 5 – 15.1, Level 6- 5.06. The reliability of the research findings is supported by Cronbach's Alpha, indicating substantial agreement among the four analysts. The data reveal a prevalence of level 1, 2, and 3 questions, suggesting a teacher-centered approach with a focus on factual recall. Findings underscore the need for teacher development in the art of questioning, promoting higher-order thinking skills for students. The research highlights the weak questioning abilities of teachers and emphasizes the significance of promoting a diversified range of question types.

The results indicate that the teacher's teaching methods in the analyzed lessons are predominantly teacher-centered.

A call is made for developing the teacher's ability to ask higher-level questions, as it is crucial for engaging students in more meaningful learning activities.

The need for comparative analysis with lessons from other countries is identified for future research.

Findings

We analyzed 30 mathematics lessons using a transcript based lesson analysis approach. In the research, the questions asked by the teacher were classified according to Bloom's taxonomy and question types, and the method of drawing conclusions based on the answers of the students who answered the questions was used.

As you can see from the integrated graph, there are more questions on the Remembering and Understanding levels. In the lessons, the teachers aske Lesson study and lesson analysis methods are becoming more and more sophisticated questions in almost every conversation, and most of the questions were closed or required one or two word answers, as well as low-level questions.

Also, the ability of teachers to ask questions is very weak.

Most of the questions posed by teachers were closed or required brief one or two-word answers. Additionally, a prevalence of low-level questions was observed. This pattern suggests a tendency toward more factual and recall-oriented questioning rather than promoting higher-order thinking skills.

Establish mechanisms for teachers to receive constructive feedback on their questioning techniques. Encouraging self-reflection and peer collaboration can contribute to continuous improvement in instructional practices.

Implications and Recommendations:

  • Professional Development for Teachers
  • Diversification of Question Types
  • Promotion of Higher-Order Thinking
  • Feedback and Reflection
  • Long-term Comparative Analysis

These findings provide a valuable foundation for targeted interventions aimed at improving the quality and effectiveness of teacher questioning in mathematics lessons, ultimately enhancing the overall learning experience for students.

Discussion

  • In order for children to engage in learning activities, they need the ability to ask higher-level questions.
  • There is a need to develop the teacher's ability to ask questions.
  • In the future, there is a need to compare the lessons of other countries with this methodology.
  • The research highlights the significance of promoting a diversified range of question types to enhance the overall learning experience for students.

Список литературы

  1. Aziza M. (2018). An analysis of a teacher’s questioning related to students’ responses and mathematical creativity in an elementary school in the UK. In International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education (Vol. 10, Issue 4, P. 475-487). https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2018438138.
  2. Bibi W., Butt M.N., Reba A. (2020). Relating Teachers’ Questioning Techniques with Students’ Learning within the Context of Bloom’ s Taxonomy Wilayat Bibi Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Women University, Peshawar Muhammad Naeem Butt and Amjad Reba University of Peshawar. FWU Journal of Social Sciences, 14(1), P. 111-119.
  3. Cengiz N., Kline K., Grant T.J. (2011). Extending students’ mathematical thinking during whole-group discussions. In Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education (Vol. 14, Issue 5, P. 355-374). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-011-9179-7.
  4. Chandio M.T. (2021). Bloom’ s Taxonomy: Reforming Pedagogy Through Assessment. 8(1), P. 109-140.
  5. Drageset O.G. (2015). Student and teacher interventions: a framework for analysing mathematical discourse in the classroom. In Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education (Vol. 18, Issue 3, P. 253-272). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-014-9280-9.
  6. Imm K., Stylianou D.A. (2012). Talking mathematically: An analysis of discourse communities. In Journal of Mathematical Behavior (Vol. 31, Issue 1, P. 130-148). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2011.10.001.
  7. Kayima F., Jakobsen A. (2020). Exploring the Situational Adequacy of Teacher Questions in Science Classrooms. Research in Science Education, 50(2), P. 437-467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9696-9.
  8. Morris J., Chi M.T.H. (2020). Improving teacher questioning in science using ICAP theory. Journal of Educational Research, 113(1), P. 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2019.1709401.
  9. Muhayimana T., Kwizera L., Rose M. (2022). Using Bloom’ s taxonomy to evaluate the cognitive levels of Primary Leaving English Exam questions in Rwandan schools. Curriculum Perspectives, P. 51-63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-021-00156-2.
  10. Phillips D.C. (2014). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Encyclopedia of Educational Theory and Philosophy, P. 1-3. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483346229.n326.
  11. Prakash R., Litoriya R. (2022). Pedagogical Transformation of Bloom Taxonomy’ s LOTs into HOTs: An Investigation in Context with IT Education. Wireless Personal Communications, 122(1), P. 725-736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-021-08921-2.
  12. Purdum-Cassidy B., Nesmith S., Meyer R. D., Cooper S. (2015). What are they asking? An analysis of the questions planned by prospective teachers when integrating literature in mathematics. In Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education (Vol. 18, Issue 1, P. 79-99). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-014-9274-7.

Поделиться

498

Gereltuya T.., Ganbaatar T.., Jadamba B.. Study results of teacher’s question analysis in the concrete lesson // Актуальные исследования. 2024. №26 (208). Ч.II.С. 77-83. URL: https://apni.ru/article/9727-study-results-of-teachers-question-analysis-in-the-concrete-lesson

Обнаружили грубую ошибку (плагиат, фальсифицированные данные или иные нарушения научно-издательской этики)? Напишите письмо в редакцию журнала: info@apni.ru
Актуальные исследования

#47 (229)

Прием материалов

16 ноября - 22 ноября

Остался последний день

Размещение PDF-версии журнала

27 ноября

Размещение электронной версии статьи

сразу после оплаты

Рассылка печатных экземпляров

10 декабря