1、 1 中文 4600 字 ,2350 单词， 13500 英文字符 出处： Albergaria-Almeida P. Classroom questioning: teachers perceptions and practicesJ. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2010, 2(2):305-309. 毕业设计 (论文 )外文翻译 原文 ： Classroom questioning: teachers perceptions and practices Patrcia Albergaria-Almeida * Abstract M
2、oving from a teacher-centered teaching to a student-centered teaching implies a new perspective of the approaches to questioning. Putting the focus on studentsquestions rather then on teachers questions, and valuing studentsquestions rather then emphasizing their responses is imperative in supportin
3、g learnershigher levels of thinking. This paper outlines and action research study with 3 secondary biology teachers and their students. A 2-month course of professional development was designed and implemented as a strategy to promote teachersclassroom questioning awareness. Important changes in be
4、liefs and practices were found after the intervention, particularly in what concerns the wait-time, the number and the kind of questions asked, both by teachers and students. Keywords: Questioning； classroom questioning； science teaching； course of professional development. 1. Introduction Research
5、on the importance of questioning as a teaching and learning strategy is well documented (Almeida, Pedrosa de Jesus and Watts, 2008, Chin and Osborne, 2008； Graesser and Olde, 2003). It is suggested that teachers spend up to 50% of class time on questioning and that they ask between 300 and 400 quest
6、ions a day (Levin and Long, 1981), while each student asks, on average, 1 question per week (Graesser & Person, 1994). Surprisingly, teachers seem to be not aware of this discrepancy. Several studies also rely on the kind of questions asked by teachers and students, concluding that these are usually
7、 procedural and fact-based (e.g. Brown and Edmondson, 1985). This particular study aimed at promoting teachersclassroom questioning awareness through their involvement on a course of professional development (CPD). 2. Overview of the literature 2.1. Teachers questioning Research has shown that teach
8、ers ask a high frequency of questions. In 1967, Schreiber found that fifth grade teachers asked about 64 questions each during 30-minute social studies lessons. Floyd (1960) developed a study with 40 elementary teachers and found that these teachers asked 93 percent of all classroom questions. These
9、 numbers confirm the results obtained by Stevens in her precursor study about classroom questioning conducted in 1912. More recently, Kerry (2002) reinforces these numbers referring that if teachers ask an average of 43.6 questions per hour, in an average career they are likely to ask about 2 millio
10、n questions. Even if teachers ask a huge number of questions per class, the questions posed are consistently of the same kind. Teachers ask typically low level questions, requiring mainly memory. The finding of teacherscharacteristic use of low-cognitive-level questions has been verified in all scho
11、ol levels 2 (from elementary teaching to university) and in a variety of subject areas. Bearing in mind that teachers spend a large percentage of their communication time asking questions it is pertinent to ask: why do teachers ask questions? What are the functions of teachersquestions? According to
12、 Brown and Edmondson (1985), teachers use questioning fundamentally to check understanding and knowledge to aid teaching, to diagnose students difficulties, to recall facts, to test knowledge, to direct attention and to maintain control. Research has consistently showed that the most frequent functi
13、on of teachersquestions is recall usually 60 percent or more of all teachers questions. Management questions may vary between 12 and 30 per cent (Kerry, 2002). Thus, the remaining percentage of teachersquestions when we exclude recall and management questions is surprisingly small. Consequently, oth
14、er functions associated to teachers questioning such as encouraging students to think, arousing interest and curiosity, developing studentsreflection and stimulate students to ask questions of their own are not frequently found on classroom questioning. 2.1.1. Wait-time The wait-time is essential to
15、 student thinking. By wait-time we refer to the amount of time a teacher allots for student reflection after asking a question and before a student responds (wait-time I) and to the pause after a respondent offers a response (wait-time II). In her investigations, Rowe (1986) found that the mean wait
16、-time was, on average, one second or less. If the student did not answered in one second, the teacher would repeat or rephrase the question, ask another question or call another student. After receiving a response, the teacher waited approximately 0,9 seconds before reacting and asking another quest
17、ion. Rowe (1986) trained the teachers to increase their wait time to three to five seconds and found that the quantity and quality of students answers improved significantly: students give longer responses, students give more evidence for their ideas and conclusions, students speculate and hypothesi
18、ze more and more students participated in responding. Furthermore, students ask more questions and talk more to other students. 2.2. Students questioning Even if the frequency of students questions is usually low, in recent years there has been an increasing emphasis on the role that students questi
19、ons play in learning science (Almeida, et al, 2008, Chin and Osborne, 2008； Graesser and Olde, 2003), as questions are an essential component of discursive activity and dialectical thinking. The act of questioning encourages learners to engage in critical reasoning. Given that asking questions is fu
20、ndamental to science and scientific inquiry, Zoller et al. (1987) argue that the development of studentsabilities to ask questions, reason, problem-solve, and think critically should become a central focus of science education reform. Students questions result form a gap or discrepancy in the studen
21、ts knowledge or a desire to extend their knowledge in some direction. Students questions may be triggered by unknown words or inconsistencies between the students knowledge and the new information, which then engender cognitive disequilibrium (Graesser and Olde, 2003). According to these authors que
22、stions are asked when individuals are confronted with obstacles to goals, anomalous events, contradictions, discrepancies, salient contrasts, obvious gaps in knowledge, expectation violations, and decisions that require discrimination among equally attractive alternatives (2003, p.525). Student-gene
23、rated questions are an important element in the teaching and learning process, and play a significant role in motivating meaningful learning. Students questions can serve different 3 functions, namely: - creating a culture of inquiry: an emphasis on students questions conveys the message that the sc
24、ience disciplines are areas where inquiry is a natural component and questions need constantly to be raised (Marbach-Ad and Sokolove, 2000)； - heightening conceptual understanding: learners questions can lead to improvement of understanding and toretention of the learning a student encounters. When
25、students ask questions they are shaping and exposing theirthoughts (Watts, et al., 1997). Students questions can de diagnostic of their learning, allowing teachers to recognisestudents alternative conceptions. This means that students questions provide opportunities for teachers insight intothinking
26、 and conceptual understanding； - driving classroom interactions: teachers own thinking can be provoked and challenged by students questions (Watts, et al., 1997) which are highly efective in increasing student interest, enthusiasm and engagement 4, 24. Question-asking fosters discussion and debate；
27、- promoting autonomous inquiry-based learning: teachers can promote the notion of autonomy in learning through the provision of opportunities for students to become questioners (Marbach-Ad and Sokolove, 2000). While students questions serve useful functions for learners, they are also helpful to tea
28、chers in prompting reflective thought and student engagement. Therefore, students questions can be analyzed by distinguishing between the use of these questions in learning science and in teaching science. 3.Methodology This study was conducted with a sample of three secondary biology teachers and t
29、heir eighth grade students (n= 59). All teachers were respected members of their teaching communities and showed a willingness to share and examine their practices. As a way of assisting these teachers to investigate their use of questioning, a 2-month CPD (from September to November 2009) about cla
30、ssroom questioning (teacher and student questioning) was developed and implemented. Course sessions were audio-recorded, and teachers were interviewed before and after this course. Sessions included analysis and discussion of literature, but relied mainly on analysis, reflection and discussion about
31、 each teachers questioning practices. Before the beginning of the CPD, each teacher was asked to audio-record and fully transcribe a 45-minute class of her own. Transcripts of the lessons were made and analyzed, with particular attention paid to interactions that involved questions. At the end of th
32、e CPD, the three teachers audio-recorded another class. Once again, all the classes were transcribed and analyzed. Teachers self-reflections were also collected and analyzed. After the initial analysis of pre-CPD transcripts, the following themes emerged as fundamental: (i) classroom discourse patte
33、rn； (ii) cognitive level of teachers and students questions； and (iii) wait-time. These were the main topics discussed during the PDC sessions. 4. Results 4.1. Phase 1 “Classroom discourse pattern” analysis of pre- and post-CPD data A high rate of questioning was evident in the three lessons transcr
34、ipts pre-CPD. Given a 45-minute lesson, the rate of teachers questions was, on average, 2 questions per minute. On the other hand, the students asked about one question each three minutes. These results go along with the data reported in the literature (Wragg and Brown, 2001). The three teachers remarked in the first interview that they were surprised with the number of questions they asked. Furthermore, the teachers also
