Classroom interaction in science

Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1315-1346.

Background

The main input for students in a Science lesson is from teacher talk and teacher-student interaction. The dominant discourse pattern is the IRF/IRE (Initiation-Response-Feedback/Follow-up/Evaluation) triadic pattern in which the teacher initiates, the students respond and the teacher evaluates. Some researchers have criticized this traditional practice as too restrictive while others have felt that it can be useful.

Aims

The writer investigated the questioning patterns used in Science classrooms across a number of activities. The purpose was to (a) develop an analytical framework representing classroom talk and questioning in science, (b) find out how teachers use questioning to engage their students’ thinking about content, and (c) identify the various forms of feedback provided by teachers in the follow-up move of the IRF (initiation-response-follow-up) framework.

Sample

Two Singapore Science teachers from different schools were chosen because of the wealth of interactive questioning in their classes. Each of their classes had around 40 students. Seven lessons per teacher were observed totalling approximately 14 hours.

Method

The lessons were audio- and video-recorded. For logistical reasons, whole-class settings were recorded together with some group sessions where the teacher was involved. The data from the audio transcripts were used in the analysis with video recordings and class materials used as additional material. The focus was on the IRF triadic dialogues.

Findings

The writer categorized the feedback stage of IRF into four types: Affirmation-Direct Instruction; Focusing and Zooming; Explicit Correction-Direct Instruction; and Reconstructive Challenge. Their use depended on the presence of certain conditions. For example, the first two represented feedback given to correct or partially correct responses from students; the second two were feedback to incorrect responses.

Implications

The writer feels that the teacher should closely align an initiation move of an IRF to the feedback move of the preceding IRF so as to provide meaningful and progressive links. If the feedback move is more elaborative (i.e. it asks the student to think further) than evaluative, it will encourage discussion by the students. However, this may not work for all students and some will benefit more from direct instruction rather than through dialogic approaches. One limitation noted by the writer was that, in the large classes studied, individual students did not have many opportunities to speak and their responses were thus limited and non-elaborative.

Original article retrieved through Google Scholar.