MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY
Wok |
; PROMOTING CRIRICAL THINKING IN LANGUAGE
ARTS AND SOCIAL STUDIES AT USSH — HCMC:
DIFFERENCES IN THIRD-YEAR TESOL TEACHER QUESTIONING COGNITIVE LEVELS
THU VIE |
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS (TESOL)
Submitted by NGUYEN THANH MAI Supervisor
HA HAI CHAU, M.Sc., Dip.Med.Sc
Trang 2ABSTRACT
This cross-sectional study was conducted from April 2008 to April 2010 in Ho Chi Minh City It aims to investigate the differences in teacher questioning cognitive levels in two content reading areas: Language Arts (i.e British Literature) and Social Studies (i.e American Studies) Total four volunteers were classified into two groups, respectively consisting of two Language Arts teachers, and two Social Studies teachers The data (teachers’ questions) were collected via class observations, respectively four for each group, and two for each volunteer All the classes are of similar academic level (third year) The quantitative data analysis was processed through Excel program, with the support of an interactive calculation tool for chi-square tests of goodness of fit and independence, and one for correlation coefficient tests of inter-rater reliability
The results highlighted that: (1) A significant higher percentage of critical thinking questions was identified in Language Arts group, reflecting a greater opportunity for Language Arts students to develop their critical thinking skills through teacher questioning; (2) A significant difference in teacher questioning cognitive levels has been identified in Language Arts group and Social Studies group, reflecting the effect of different teaching contents on teacher questioning cognitive levels; (3) significant difference in cognitive levels of teacher questions has been accounted in the Social Studies group, reflecting the possible effect of factors other than the teaching content on cognitive levels of teacher questions
Trang 3TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Statement of authOTShIDp - s1 1111 9n HH HH tk ke i Retention and use of the th€SIS - Q ng HH HT ng ii [M91 4Ivei2i;120 5 iii ˆÂU¬ir 000 108 iv Table of T1 Vv 8u) vii 00x10) 120007877 viii Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION 1155 1 1.1 Background of the study . Ă SĂ BS S4 HH ng, I 1.2 Statemenf Of DUTDOS€ HH HH ng ng ng 2
1.3 Statement of research qU€SfIOIS - 5 Ăn S9 di, 3
1.4 Sipnificance of the SfUdy chen HH rkc 4
1.5 Thesis Structure na 5
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW Ăn HH HH HH HH Hư 6 2.1 Thinking, critical thinking, and higher-order thinking 6 2.1.1 Thinking vs critical thinking, ii 6 2.1.2 Definition of critical thinking 5 55+ 2< «<< £ssesseersre 8
2.1.3 Critical thinking and higher-order thinking - «- 12
2.2 Teacher questioning and Critical thinking skills 13
2.2.1 Teacher questioning & student critical thinking development 14
2.2.2 Elaborating high-order cognitive questions using Bloom’s
vi 18
2.2.2.1 Bloom’s taxONOMY . ++scsxc+ccseeeeess 18
2.2.2.2 Elaborating high-order cognitive questions using
Bloom’s Taxonomy .eseseeecenceseeeeseeeerseeeesaeeeens 21
2.2.3 Question Classification SYStEMS .::ccccccessssestecetsceesneesseeeesees 23
2.3 Higher-order cognitive question level in cÏassroom practice 27
2.3.1 General teaching COn(€XÍ (St SH nveriee 27
Trang 4k6 my n e
3.4 Data coding and any§1S ch HH HH KH Hư
3.4.1 Coding ofteachers” questIOnS - 5-52 ssersves
3.4.2 Data anaÌyS1S LH HH TH TH HH ng HH nkrưy
3.5 Procedure SUIMIMALY 6 a
Chapter 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION HH HH
“Nhu 0o nh e
4.2 Languag€ aT{S CÏASS€S Ăn HH ng Hên
4.3 Language Arts vs Soclal StUd1eS «+ cà k1 hy
4.4 Influence of teacher experience on high level questions
4.4.1 Social stuđl€S øTOUD TH HH HH HH HH,
4.4.2 Languag€ arfS ØTOUD Ăn cha
4.5.COncCÏUSIOT c0 ST SH uc bu CĐ ket
Chapter 5: DISCUSSION AND I[MPLICATIONS cà senenHree
5.1 Findings
5.2 Significance of the study Ăn HH HH Hy
Trang 5LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.3.2 a: Frequency (and Percentage) of Question Types in Baseline: Social Studies and Reading/Language Arts (Beck et al., 1996) Table 2.3.2 b: Type, Frequency (and Percentage) of Question in Baseline: Teacher Table 4: Table 4.1a: Table 4.1b: Table 4.1c: Table 4.2a: Table 4.2b: Table 4.2c: Table 4.3a: Table 4.3b: Table 4.4.1: Table 4.4.2: One (T1) and Teacher Two (T2) (Bernadowski, 2006) Participant profile TT Social Studies Teacher 1: Type, Frequency (and Percentage) of
Questions Asked in Social Studies Class 1 and 2 . - Social Studies Teacher 2: Type, Frequency (and Percentage) of
Questions Asked in Social Studies Class Í and 2 .- -
Social Studies group: Type, Frequency (and Percentage) of Questions Language Arts Teacher 1: Type, Frequency (and Percentage) of
Questions Asked in Language Arts Class l and 2 Language Arts Teacher 2: Type, Frequency (and Percentage) of
Questions Asked in Language Arts Class l and 2 -
Language Arts group: Type, Frequency (and Percentage) of Questions Language Arts group and Social Studies group: Type, Frequency (and
Percentage) of Total Questions Asked .ccccsceeceescesecseeteeereneenseeaees
Type, Frequency (and Percentage) of Questions in Social Studies Group and Language Arts Group .ccecsesesesseseseeesseeesseceteeseneessneecnseeeesaeees Social Studies group: Type, Frequency (and Percentage) of Questions
Asked by two teachers ch Language Arts group: Type, Frequency (and Percentage) of Questions
Trang 6LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
% : percent
HCMC : Ho Chi Minh City
LA : Language Arts
LCI : Language Arts Class One LC2 : Language Arts Class Two LTI : Language Arts Teacher One LT2 : Language Arts Teacher Two SCl : Social Studies Class One SC2 : Social Studies Class Two SD : Standard Deviation SS : Social Studies
ST] : Social Studies Teacher One ST2 : Social Studies Teacher Two
Trang 7CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
This thesis presents at its core the study of the differences in teacher questioning cognitive levels in promoting student critical thinking at university The introductory chapter gives an overview of the study background, states the purpose and then formulates the research questions, predicts the significance of the study in supporting the research field, and finally describes the thesis structure
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Facing the booming advance of sciences and technology, Educational Reform, with ensuing renovation of teaching method, is necessary for Vietnam development Because university syllabuses are heavier with more disciplines and more themes to study, class hours are more and more insufficient to pursue the traditional teaching The task of equipping students with a large amount of knowledge is no longer the decisive one in university classes (Vo, 2006) Thus, the students have to work more independently from their teachers’ guide Moreover, the more and more developed Informatics Technology (IT) provides the students a proliferation of accessible data,
requiring them to be information literacy, i.e to be able to “find, retrieve, analyze,
and use information” (Li, 2007)
Submerged by overloaded data, the students have to develop not only their ordinary thinking skills but also their abilities of analyzing the evidence-based
Trang 8Wallace, 1995) Similarly, to be information literacy, the students also need: to acquire critical thinking skills (Li, 2007)
Similar to other skills, students can acquire their critical thinking skills through the support of their teachers As quoted by Savage (1998), many researchers, such as Beyer (1987), Chance (1986), Costa and Lowery (1986), Paul (1990), Raths et al (1986), Schiever (1991), Swartz and Perkins (1990), agree that teachers can teach critical thinking skills using various strategies Among those strategies, “the strategy that can have the greatest impact on student thinking is teacher questioning” (Clasen, 1990, cited by Savage, 1998) In a research review on classroom questioning, Cotton (2003) reminded us of the popularity of teacher questioning in classroom Cotton also pointed out the purposes of teachers’ classroom questions, one of which was to develop critical thinking skills In order to help students develop their critical thinking skill, “theory strongly suggests that teachers should ask high-cognitive-level questions to have students apply learning
and think critically” (Wilen, 1987, quoted by Godfrey, 2001)
1.2 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
Trang 9Internationally, a few of studies have explored teachers’ use of high-cognitive- level questioning in TESOL classes (Godfrey, 2001) In Vietnam, to the thesis author’s knowledge, there has been no research on critical thinking as well as on teacher questioning cognitive levels to enhance student critical thinking skill acquisition
- In this research context, the study presented in this thesis was conducted from April 2008 to April 2010 in a university in Ho Chi Minh City to explore TESOL teachers’ use of high-cognitive-level questions in two different TESOL reading content subjects: Reading content in Language Arts, i.e British Literature, and Reading content in Social Studies, ic American Studies Those two types of subjects require different questioning strategy and techniques for enhancing students’ critical thinking skills, including different cognitive levels of teacher’s questions from the view of critical development
1.3 STATEMENT OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS
This study carried out at a University of Social Sciences and Humanities where there were Language Arts (i.e British Literature) and Social Studies (i.e American Studies) TESOL classes aims at answering the question:
What are differences in third-year TESOL teacher questioning cognitive levels between Language Arts and Social Studies?
Trang 10In an attempt to find out relevant answers, the study explores four aspects: Question 1: What are types and percentages of questions in Social Studies? Question 2: What are types and percentages of questions in Language Arts? Question 3: What is the effect of teaching subjects (Language Arts vs Social Studies) on teacher questioning?
Question 4: What is the influence of teacher experience on teacher questioning?
1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
Trang 111.5 THESIS STRUCTURE
The following Chapter 2 reviews the literature relevant to critical thinking, teacher questioning, and studies exploring teacher questioning cognitive levels in Language Arts and Social Studies classes
Chapter 3 describes the research methodology in terms of research method, timing, location, participants, data collection and analysis The quantitative data analysis was processed through Excel program, with the support of an interactive calculation tool for chi-square tests of goodness of fit and independence, and one for correlation coefficient tests of inter-rater reliability
Chapter 4 presents and discusses the data analysis in terms of (1) differences of question types and percentages between teaching reading contents of Language Arts Social Studies, (2) the possible influence of teaching content on teacher questioning levels, and (3) the possible influence of other factors The discussion refers to the sources presented in Chapter 2
Trang 12CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter provides an overview (1) of critical thinking; (2) of the effect of teacher cognitive questioning levels in promoting student critical thinking development; (3) of the effects of two teaching content areas (Language Arts and Social Studies) on teacher questioning levels; (4) of the influence of teacher experience on teacher questioning; (5) of the taxonomies and classification schemes, especially Blooms’ taxonomy and the use of question types; (6) the studies exploring Blooms’ theory; and (7) the studies exploring teacher cognitive levels in Language Arts and Social Studies
2.1 THINKING, CRITICAL THINKING and HIGHER-ORDER THINKING There are three terms that we need to distinguish: Thinking, Critical thinking and Higher-order thinking
2.1.1 Thinking vs Critical Thinking
Trang 13understanding, or a judgment Thinking/ cognitive operations includes both skills and strategies Skills describe simple thinking operations, such as recalling or analyzing; whereas strategies describe more complex and sequential strategies, such as problem solving or decision-making Metacognition tends to control, i.e to guide, correct, adjust and direct these cognitive operations to make meaning Thus, metacognition makes “individual stand outside their own head and to be aware of how they are going about their own thinking so that they can better accomplish what they are trying to accomplish’
According to Paul (1990), thinking is natural, i.e individuals “think spontaneously, continuously and pervasively”’ In the contrary, thinking critically
about the standards and principles guiding spontaneous thoughts, is not natural
Trang 14step in the movement of educational reform, in general, and in teaching thinking to students, in particular Actually, the development of Informatics Technology with a proliferation of accessible data requires students to be information literacy That is
the ability to “find, retrieve, analyze, and use of information”, in other words, to
think critically (Li, 2007)
In the world, critical thinking was already introduced into teaching practice by Socrates with the method of probing questioning 2500 years ago Recently, in the 20" century, the idea of critical thinking has raised a new interest in educational field, emphasizing the need for critical thinking in providing good education, resulting in good citizen (Sumner, 1959; cited by Paul, 1990):
Education in the critical faculty is the only education of which it can be truly said that it makes good citizenship
2.1.2 Definitions of Critical Thinking
Trang 15critical thinking is “rational reflective thinking concerned with what to do or believe” Matthew Lipman also gave a definition of critical thinking as “skillful, responsible thinking that is conductive to judgment because it relies on criteria, is
self-correcting, and is sensitive to context” Besides, citing some definitions of
critical thinking, Paul (1990, p.33) also provide a definition of critical thinking “which lends itself to an analysis of three crucial dimensions of critical thought: 1) the perfections of thought; 2) the elements of thought; 3) the domains of thought”
There are more definitions of critical thinking According to Beyer (1985, as cited in Ulmer, 2005), critical thinking is “the assessing of authenticity, accuracy, and/or worth of knowledge claims and arguments” (p.21) Kurfiss (1988, p.2) also had her own definition of critical thinking as “an investigation” to “explore a situation, phenomenon, questions,- or problem to arrive at a hypothesis or conclusion” which “integrates all available information” and “can be convincingly justified”
Critical thinking is not a concrete object, which results in various definitions
for it Besides, since everybody’s stands are quite different from each other’s, we view critical thinking differently Generally, there are two models we can follow to define critical thinking: one is based on philosophy, the other psychology Some representatives of philosophy-based theories with their definitions are Dewey,
Trang 16theories and definitions are Bransford, Nickerson, Guilford, Sternberg, ( Quellmalz,
1987, pp x, 87-88)
The above various ways of defining critical thinking is an unavoidable matter during the first stage of the development of such a new and complex concept as critical thinking This makes it difficult for both researchers and practitioners in studying critical thinking and applying it to real life A need for a generally accepted definition of critical has been raised In order to get an opinion consensus, a qualitative research called the Delphi Project (1990) reunited forty-six experts, consisting mainly of philosophers (52%), “and the rest were affiliated with education (22%), the social sciences including psychology (20%), and the physical sciences (6%)” to define critical thinking as a tool of inquiry releasing educational
force and individual resources, and to claim that education will maintain the
individual resources and develop critical thinking skills so that individuals can
probe their insights and use their resources to build up a rational and democratic
society (Facione, 1990)
Trang 17such, CT is a liberating force in education and a powerful resource in one's personal and civic life While not synonymous with good thinking, CT is a pervasive and self-rectifying human phenomenon The ideal critical thinker is habitually inquisitive, well-informed, trustful of reason, open-minded, flexible, fair-minded in evaluation, honest in facing personal biases, prudent in making judgments,
willing to reconsider, clear about issues, orderly in complex matters,
diligent in seeking relevant information, reasonable in the selection of criteria, focused in inquiry, and persistent in seeking results which are as precise as the subject and the circumstances of inquiry permit Thus, educating good critical thinkers means working toward this ideal It combines developing CT skills with nurturing those dispositions which consistently yield useful insights and which are the basis of a rational and democratic society
The Delphi Report plays an important role of a historical witness for the development of our concept about critical thinking This event proves that critical thinking is gradually widely recognized, especially in education field
Trang 182.1.3 Critical Thinking and Higher-Order Thinking
According to Lewis & Smith (1993, cited by Ulmer, 2005), the term, “critical thinking has been inconsistently used, adding to the confusion in defining higher- order thinking:
Critical thinking has been assigned at least three distinct meanings: a) critical thinking as problem solving, b) critical thinking as evaluation or judgment, and c) critical thinking as a combination of evaluation and problem solving
However, Lewis and Smith argued that critical thinking is not the same problem solving and suggested a term boarder than critical thinking It is higher- order thinking Higher-order thinking “includes problem solving, creative thinking, decision making, reasoning and critical thinking” (Lewis & Smith) Sheffield (2008) also prefers to use the term higher-order thinking because “critical thinking skills cannot be easily differentiated from problem solving skills”:
Trang 19According to Ulmer (2005), the term higher-order thinking is related to Application, Analysis, Synthesis and Evaluation levels in Bloom’s taxonomy (which will be discussed further in the following part) However, in common, just Analysis, Synthesis and Evaluation levels are referred as higher-order thinking
(Bernadowski,, 2006)
Paul (1990) advances that high-order cognitive thinking is needed in every learning domain: from monological ones, i.e finished products, such as mathematics, so that students can think non-algorithmically into mathematical systems, to multilogical ones, such as history and sociology so that students can appreciate the truth (multilogical) nature of these domains
2.2 TEACHER QUESTIONING and CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS
According to Paul (1990), the mind can think spontaneously but uncritically Learning to think critically is then needed, and constitutes an extraordinary process that cultivates capacities potential in human thought, i.e to make the mind discipline itself and to direct the mind to “rational rather egocentric beliefs,
practices, and values”
According to Halpern (1996, cited by Anita van der Wal, 1999), critical thinking could be taught and learnt at school Similar to other skills, student can
Trang 20acquire their critical thinking skills through the support of their teacher Sumner (1959; cited by Paul, 1990) emphasized the teacher’s role in “cultivating” critical thinking as a “habit” in the students According to Sumner, teachers have great impacts on students through their own behaviors in class In the same manner, as quoted by Savage (1998), many researchers, such as Beyer (1987), Chance (1986), Costa and Lowery (1986), Paul (1990), Raths et al (1986), Schiever (1991), Swartz and Perkins (1990), agree that teachers can teach critical thinking skills using various strategies According to Wilen (1987, quoted by Godfrey, 2001), “theory strongly suggests that teachers should ask high-cognitive-level questions to have students apply learning and think critically’ Wimer, Ridenour, and Place (2001, cited by Bernadowski, 2006) also assumed that “asking higher-order-thinking questions that promote analysis, synthesis and evaluation rather than lower-order questions that rely on recall of information” enhances critical thinking skills
2.2.1 Teacher Questioning and Student Critical Thinking Development
Trang 21been considered as the single most influential teaching act, “without the question there is no processing of information” (Hunkins, 1976) Moreover, as what Hyman (1976) pointed out, “the primary purpose of a question is to spur a person to think and to direct that person to think about a topic” Wilen, Ishler, Hutchinson, and Kindsvatte (2000) also shared that point of view when claiming that questioning is an effective way “‘to stimulate student interaction, thinking and learning”
The important roles of questioning in classroom have been identified to develop student critical thinking However, research on teacher questioning so far has indicated that up to 60 percent of questions asked are lower cognitive questions, only 20 percent are higher cognitive questions and 20 percent are procedural (Cotton, K., 2003) These figures were the same as those found by Gall in 1970 after reviewing research done in this field for half of the century before that, which means that there has been no critical change on types of teacher questions in class At the college level, the situation is no better with 83 percent of all questions asked in undergraduate classrooms are at the factual level (Barnes, 1979)
Many research studies recognize the importance of teacher questioning in class as a “stimuli that convey to students the content to be learnt as well as the directions for what they are to do and how they are to do it” (Bernadowski, C., 2006) Many also do reckon that questions are of many types which functions differently and relatedly Some types of questions are to recall the facts, which help
Trang 22- at the first step - to bring out data needed to answer thoughtful questions later Some other types of questions are to challenge student to analyze, synthesize and evaluate information, which are assumed to provoke student critical thinking Some others are used to review and summarize previous lessons and assess achievement of instructional goals or objectives These variety of roles questions play and a variety of purposes questions serve are obvious However, many have also proved
that teachers are keen on asking lower-order-thinking questions than higher-order-
thinking ones
Interactions between teachers and students in class are not just through purely asking and answering questions It is believed that teachers set an agenda prior to the classroom discussions using questions as a mean to dominate the discussion (Bernadowski, C., 2006) So, questions if planned can arouse discussions in class, and classroom discussion, as a result, is the medium by which much teaching takes place and during which students demonstrate to teachers much of what they have learned” (Cazden, 1986) By asking questions, teachers mean to attract students’ interests in a topic and involved them in the debate, which give a support to students’ construction of meaning
Trang 23to researchers in this field While a number of researches have proved the relationship between teacher higher-order thinking questions and the learners’ outcomes in term of critical thinking development, others conclude that “asking higher-cognitive-level questions is not enough to ensure comparable levels of
student cognitive performance” (Mills, Rice, Berliner, and Rosseau, 1980, as cited
in Cotton, 2003) In Cotton’s reviews of 37 studies of classroom questioning, he also stated that asking a higher-level question does not necessarily lead to getting a
higher-level answer (2003)
Moreover, teacher questioning, has also been reported leaving an opposite effect on what it is meant Although the act of asking questions has the potential to improve instruction and greatly facilitate the learning process, it also has the potential to turn a student off from: learning (Bernadowski, 2006) That is when questions embarrass students rather than promote their inquiry In that way, students feel exposed and stupid, especially when being laughed at by other students That the teachers evaluate student’s responses or do not really show genuine interest on students’ answer also leave a bad feeling on them As a result of that, questioning fails to fulfill not only its mission of enhancing student critical thinking but also its mission of encouraging student to learn
Whatever the research on teacher questioning has found, teacher questioning still interests many researchers, and research on teacher questioning has still been
[san]
THƯ VIỆN| ——~ mem
Trang 24on progress since 1900s As the first 50 years of research focused on describing and evaluating teacher’s usage of questions in class, the next 20 years witnessed the development of sophisticated methods of systematic observation and analysis to identify teacher-questioning behaviors (Ellis, 1993) Later, investigators began to find out the correlation between teacher questioning and student achievement (Bernadowski, 2006) Since this is the first study in Vietnam focusing on this topic, the author chooses to evaluate teacher questioning in promoting student critical thinking skills as a first step to start this topic in Vietnam
2.2.2 Elaborating High-Order Cognitive Questions Using Bloom’s Taxonomy 2.2.2.1 Bloom’s Taxonomy
Trang 25cognitive responses” (Lam, 1976; Martin, 1979) and “effective teachers ask high- level cognitive questions” (Wilen and Clegg, 1980) Other studies also suggested that thinking is “elevated beyond mere memorization when teachers ask questions higher than the level of simple recall” (Perry, Vanderstoep & Yu, 1993; Redfiel and
Rouseeeau, 1981; Samson, Strykowski, Weinstein and Wallberg, 1987; Winne, 1979)
Along with the usefulness of Bloom’s Taxonomy, we recognize its limitations, too It is because Bloom’s taxonomy is considered as one-way hierarchy, in which knowledge is the lower than comprehension, comprehension is lower than application, and so forth through analysis, synthesis and evaluation However, this view is misleading since “achieving knowledge always presupposes at least minimal comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation” (Paul,
1990)
The problem related the linear design of the taxonomy also attracted many researchers Hirst (1974, as cited in Bernadowski, 2006) stated that knowledge is not usable without comprehension Others said that evaluation is needed in synthesis Then the evaluation level is in the same line with synthesis level (Kropp
& Stoker, 1966; Woods & Nuttall, 1973; McGuire, 1963, Ormell, 1974; Wilson,
1971, as cited in Bernadowski, 2006)
Trang 26Many have found the ways to revise Bloom’s taxonomy Newcomb and Trefz (1987, as cited in Ulmer, 2005) suggested a condensed version from 6 levels to 4 levels, including: Remembering, Processing, Creating and Evaluating The first two require lower-order thinking skills whereas the last two require higher-order
thinking skills Lorin Anderson, a former student of Bloom’s, tried to update the
taxonomy with the hope of meeting the teachers and students’ requirement for the
twenty-first century Published in 2001, the revision includes several seemingly
Trang 272.2.2.2 Elaborating high-order cognitive questions using Bloom’s Taxonomy ' Using Bloom’s Taxonomy to identify types and cognitive levels of teacher questions has been the common choice of many authors (Bernadowski, 2006)
Levels of questions using Bloom’s Taxonomy
(1) KNOWLEDGE
- Skills demonstrated:
observation and recall of information
knowledge of dates, events, people, objects, places, definitions - Sample questions:
Literature: What is the setting of ‘To kill a mocking bird’?
Social Studies: List three predominant economic systems that exist (2) COMPREHENSION - Skills demonstrated: Understanding information Grasping meaning - Sample questions:
Literature: Summarize Jem’s beliefs about Boo Bradley Social studies: Discuss the nature of socialism
Trang 28(3) APPLICATION - Skills demonstrated:
Use of information
Demonstration of methods, concepts, skills
Solving problems using skill and knowledge - Sample questions:
Literature: Show through role-play, the final scene in the novel
Trang 29Use of all ideas working together to create new ones Generalize from given facts
Relate knowledge/concepts from several areas - Sample questions:
Literature: Compose a dialogue between Atticus and Tom Robinson when they first met
Social studies: Devise a new economic system based on that already
exists
(6) EVALUATION
- Skills demonstrated:
Assess value of theories or ideas
Make choices based on reasoned arguments Formulate an opinion or judgment
- Sample question:
Literature: Justify the title ‘To kill the mocking bird’
Social studies: Conclude and support which economic system leads to a higher standard of living
2.2.3 Question Classification Systems
Many research have attempted to describe the types of questions teachers asked In a review study conducted by Gall (1970), he identified that there have
Trang 30been at least 11 classification systems suggested to classify teachers’ questions Among these system, Bloom’s, Gallagher’s and Carner’s can be used to classify questions irrespective of context However, these system have their limitations which prove to be unhelpful in describing of questions asked in a specific context For specific curriculum, other classification systems are suggested Clements’s (1964) was developed to assess questions used by art teachers; whereas, Guszak (1967) was designed for reading teachers’ questions (Gall, 1970)
Guilford’s framework (1956) of identifying convergent and divergent thinking stimulated the development of Gallagher and Aschner’s classification system (1963) in identifying five types of questions in classroom: cognitive-memory, convergent, divergent, evaluate and routine
Many other systems developed lately have made Gall’s list longer Textually explicit, textually implicit and scripturally implicit are other three categories of questions from Pearson and Johnson’s taxonomy (1978) Taba (as cited in Hyman,
1970) designed her system of classification using the perspective of cognitive
function within teaching Harlen (1985, as cited in Bernadowski) is known with a
type of question called “productive” asking students to actively engage with the
materials at hand
Trang 31(2006) This system was used in their studies to classify Language Arts and Social Studies teachers’ questions Accroding to this system, teachers’ questions are classified based on four general purposes:
(1) Retrieve information Some questions required students to retrieve
information directly from the text with little or no transformation of the information
Example: What is the Hawaiians’ favourite food?
(2) Construct message Questions were identified that required students to
construct meaning from text information Constructing meaning required
active manipulation of text ideas, such as making connections and drawing inferences
Example: (Having read and discussed about Antarctica, students were
presented with a text sentence, ‘Only small amounts of snow fall in Antarctica yearly’.) The teacher asks: ‘How does that make sense with what the author already told us about Antarctica?’
(3) Extend discussion Some questions prompted students to continue developing meaning by building on ideas that had been brought up in the discussion This type of question often involved the teacher’s incorporation of students’ responses into the formulation of a subsequent question
Trang 32Example: (After a student’s named Aletha answered, ‘The author is saying she’s real mad’.) The teacher exended the idea by asking the other students, ‘What’s Aletha reminding us of? Why is that such a big deal? ’ (4) Checking knowledge A portion of the questions teachers asked checked
on students’ prior knowledge, such as asking students to recall the meaning of a word
Example: Checking students’ knowledge about the author’s description of a fox ‘moving craftily’, the teacher asked: ‘What did we say craftily
meant?’
Comparing the previous sample questions provided by Beck et al with the ones provided by Bloom’s taxonomy (2010), Retrieve information question and Checking knowledge question are of lower-order cognitive level (knowledge), whereas, Construct message question and Extend Discussion question are of higher- order cognitive level (analysis)
Trang 332.3 HIGHER-ORDER COGNITIVE QUESTION LEVEL IN CLASSROOM
PRACTICE
The important role of questioning in classroom has been raised as high as a tool to develop student critical thinking The present section reviews various studies on teacher questioning level in classroom practice
2.3.1 General Teaching Context
Bernadowski (2006) cited Godbol (1969) and Crump (1970) studies on teacher questioning Based on their results, these authors conclude that major emphasis was on lower-cognitive level questions that require the students to recall content
Gall (1970) finds out 60% teacher qustions required students to recall facts (lower-order cognitive questions); about 20% required students to think; and the rest 20% were procedural He consequently concludes that: “in half century there has been no essential change in the types of questions which teachers emphasize in the
classroom.”
Barnes (1979) also finds that 83% questions asked in undergraduate university
classrooms are of factual level
Trang 34Bernadowski (2006), making a review of studies, conclude that teachers tend
to ask lower-order-thinking questions than higher-order-thinking ones
Research on teacher questioning has indicated that up to 60% of questions
asked are of lower level, only 20% are of higher level, and the rest 20% are
procedural (Cotton, 2003)
2.3.2 Context of Content-area Reading in Language Arts and Social Studies A variety of different teaching content areas can easily be found at any universities In this study, there are two of them to be focused: Language Arts and Social Studies in TESOL classes Both of them involves in reading comprehension
According to Kurfiss (1988), reading skill is not simply a matter of absorbing individual words Wilson (1999) is more specific, claiming that “critical reading” is more effective in developing student cognitive level, requiring from the student the “ability to learn from texts, to think analytically and critically, and to develop an ethical and reasoned position as a result’
Trang 35interpretations, "in critical reading, readers evaluate what they have read and make a decision This decision may be to accept what the writer has said, to disagree with it or to realize that additional information is necessary before an informed judgment can be made" Wallace (2003) agrees with this
Once more, critical thinking is identified as an important factor in teaching reading content
Bernadowski (2006) cited Davis and Tinsley (1967) study on teacher questioning in Social Studies classroom The results highlight that teachers asked memory-level questions (lower-order cognitive level) in reading comprehension and class discussion.guide their class discussion
Bernadowski (2006) cited Haynes (1935) and Steven (1912) studies The
results identify that questions dealing with the recall of fact (lower-order cognitive
level) was common (77%) in Social Studies classrooms; and only 17% require student thinking
Beck, McKeown, Sandora, Kucan and Worthy (1996) explore teacher
questions in 2 Language Arts and Social Studies teachers’ classes They observed two classes, 5 times each The results highlight the statistically significant predominance of lower-order cognitive questions (93%) in Social studies classes;
Trang 36whereas in Language Arts, higher-order and lower-order questions were nearly equal (53 % vs 46%) (re: Table 2.3.2 a)
Table 2.3.2 a: Frequency (and Percentage) of Question Types in Baseline: Social Studies and Reading/ Language Arts (Beck et al., 1996)
Retrieve Construct Extend Check information message discussion knowledge Social Studies 33 (77%) 0 (0%) 3 (7%) 7 (16%) Reading/ 13 (43%) 4 (13%) 10 (33%) 3 (10%) Language arts
Retrieve information & Check knowledge = lower-order cognitive level Construct message & Extend discussion = higher-order cognitive level
According to Beck (1996), the distinctions between the two content areas are linked to the respective learning purposes
In social studies, students are reading for the purpose of learning new information, thus, teachers have a greater tendency to ask students to retrieve information from the text as a way of finding out whether students have the information
Trang 37be more inclined to devote attention to getting students to react to
story ideasand events rather than merely retrieving them from the text
Bernadowski (2006) conducted his study based on Beck’s model, exploring teacher questioning in Social Studies classes The results also highlight the predominance of lower-order cognitive questions (87%) in terms of Retrieval of information and Checking for knowledge (re: Table 2.3.2 b)
Table 2.3.2 b: Type, Frequency (and Percentage) of Question in Baseline: Teacher One (T1) and Teacher Two (T2) (Bernadowski, 2006)
Retrieval of Construction | Extension of | Checking for information of message discussion knowledge T1 baseline 114 (47%) 14 (6%) 23 (9%) 93 (16%) lessons (n=5) T2 baseline 13 (43%) 4 (13%) 10 33%) 3 (10%) lessons (n=5)
Retrieval of information & Checking knowledge = lower-order cognittive level Construction of message & Extension of discussion = higher-order cogntive level Paul and Elder’s (2006) define Language Arts and Social Studies as followings:
- Reading/ Language Arts deal with the art of imagining, interpreting and expressing in language how people do live and how they might
Trang 38live their lives It focuses on writings that include ideas of permanent or universal interest and are usually expressed through poetry, novels The study of literature fosters the development of skilled understanding and critique of written work and application of
important ideas to one’s own life
- Social Studies include academic courses that foster understanding of individuals, groups and institutions that make up human society They study how humans live together in groups in such a way that their dealings with one another affect their common welfare Social Studies focus on gaining and applying knowledge about human relationships and interactions between individuals and their families, religious or ethnic communities, cities, governments, and other social groups Some of the branches of Social Studies are history, geography, anthropology and the study of culture
The difference in classification of these two class types lead to the different expectations of the types of teachers’ questions asked in each group Paul and Elder (2006) also pointed out those differences in their list of suggested questions asked in each group For example, according to them, essential questions within literature are:
Trang 392 To what extent is the author shedding light on our character and lives? - 3 How does what I am reading apply to my life?
4 What is of universal interest in this writing?
Paul and Elder also elaborate a list of some essential questions related to Social Studies For example,
1 How do cultural beliefs, customs, mores and taboos come to dominate
people's lives?
2 How do cultural beliefs, customs, mores and taboos function within a
particular group?
3 To what extent are people influenced by culture views?
4 What are some of the implications of, and possibilities for, non- conforming behavior?
2.4 EXPERIENCE AND TEACHER QUESTIONING
Researchers have demonstrated that there is a relationship between people’s ages and their understanding of themselves as knowers, thinkers and reasoners
(Perry, 1970; Belenky et al., 1988; Kurfiss, 1988; Baxter-Magolda, 1992; King &
Trang 40about their cognition development grow stronger In the same manner, teachers with many years of teaching experience are expected to understand themselves as good thinkers and reasoners and to practice their good thinking and reasoning in
classroom
Senechal (2010) also shared her opinion on the effect of teacher experience on teacher high-level cognition development It is experience that provides teacher the traits of high-order cognitive level, such as insight, knowledge, experience, wisdom, and good judgment Moreover, fluency and insights are enhanced by life experience and repeated exposure to the teaching subject, and help the teacher to develop the teaching repertoire with ensuing different ways of presenting the subject
Besides teaching the actual subject (which is much richer than the stuff on the tests), a teacher offers insight, knowledge, experience, and
wisdom, whether directly or indirectly Over time, a teacher comes to
see the education field and his or her subject in perspective Newer teachers may be excited about new discoveries, but teachers with more experience can distinguish valuable ideas from passing fads
There are exceptions, of course, on both ends But experience can