Aspects of Teaching Secondary Science

Perspectives on Practice

Sandra Amos, Richard Boohan

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2003
• ISBN:
  9781134508792
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

This book's structure reflects the different dimensions to learning science. The first section focuses on the importance of talk in the science classroom, while the second explores the key role of practical work. The third section is concerned with the creative, theoretical aspect of science. Section four follows this by considering the communication of ideas and how pupils learn to participate in the discourse of the scientific community. Section five emphasizes the place of science in the broader context, considering its moral and ethical dimensions and its place in a cultural context. Finally, section six explores the complexity of the task faced by science teachers, highlighting the knowledge and skills science teachers must acquire in order to create an environment in which students are motivated to learn science.

1 Talking about science

Introduction

You turn the handle and open the door to a classroom where a science lesson is under way. What do you expect to see? Pupils engaged in practical work, perhaps? The teacher demonstrating a procedure? Pupils writing up notes while the teacher checks they are on task? What you are almost certain to see when you enter the room is people talking. It is almost too obvious to be seen. Talk is such an integral part of our lives that its value and significance are easily overlooked. Not so long ago, a ‘good’ teacher may have been regarded as one that kept their classes quiet. Pupils were to be seen and not heard. Yet talking is central to the teaching and learning of science. It is through talk that we communicate and explore our ideas about the world and how it works. Talk can shape those ideas, and create new ways of thinking.

Within the classroom, talk is highly organized even if it does sound like a noise. Different sorts of talk, involving different people, are used for different purposes. Teachers explain, give instructions, use talk to manage the lesson and the pupils, promote discussion and learning. Pupils talk to each other as well as the teacher. Talking, particularly discussing, debating and sharing ideas, helps to make science more human and interesting to pupils, and widens its appeal to those who might otherwise see science as being too impersonal. Teachers are under pressure to ‘get through the curriculum’ and talking takes time. But for effective learning to take place, pupils need to be given a chance to really talk about their ideas.

Questions are an important part of classroom talk, and pupils’ questions play an extremely important role in developing their understanding of science. But there is tension between the management of thirty or so learners in the classroom, and encouraging them to ask lots of questions. Let’s be honest. It is easier for teachers if pupils are seen as mere receivers of teaching, rather than as active questioners and explorers of scientific ideas. If so, pupils’ questions may not be capitalized upon or may even be discouraged. Science education is impoverished if this happens.

We construct, as well as communicate ideas using language. Words carry meanings that can present problems to those learning science. The reason that scientific language can be difficult is not necessarily because the terms are strange, long or difficult. Some terms are complicated words for simple things, for example haemorrhage or Eustachian tube. Some terms, such as ion or gene, are simple, but behind them lie difficult concepts. And many simple, everyday words have a particular meaning in science that is different from the everyday meaning, for example, food, energy or force. The challenge for science teachers is not only to help pupils develop their scientific vocabulary, but also to ensure they gain the scientific understanding necessary to use the language appropriately.

• Questions, and the search for answers, are fundamental to science itself. Sandra Amos begins this section by exploring the questions used in the science classroom, and how they can be used to support teaching and learning science. She provides a framework for analysing questions and drawing together the different ways of categorizing questions found in the literature.
• Teachers can, and do, carry out research into what happens in their classrooms. Derek Carr provides an account of a small-scale research project carried out by the members of the science department he leads. He examines the usefulness of questioning in science teaching, the framework they used to analyse their practice, and ends with a critical discussion about the practice they uncovered. Their findings are not unusual or unique to them, and as such, the key points are well documented in the research.
• In her chapter, Joan Solomon considers how discussion in science classrooms can serve a variety of purposes, and in particular, those relating to activities specific to science classrooms - carrying out practical work, interpreting results and understanding social issues. What is important for effective learning from discussion is that activities are structured in ways that will require real participation.
• Explaining things to pupils is an essential part of science teaching, but it involves much more than simply talking at them. Jon Ogborn, Gunther Kress, Isabel Martins and Kieran McGillicuddy consider what is involved in making a scientific explanation, and what drives explanations in the classroom. Creating interest, expectations and surprises is what makes pupils want explanations; it is this that they refer to when they argue the importance of ‘opening up differences’.
• The principal focus of the first two chapters is teachers’ use of questions. Steve Alsop, Gillian Gould and Mike Watts examine the importance of encouraging pupils’ questions, drawing on the research carried out as part of the Questions for Conceptual Understanding Project (QUESTCUP). Their chapter provides an analysis of the questions pupils ask, and they discuss the implications of these findings for science teachers and ways of fostering a climate of questioning.

1 Teachers’ questions in the science classroom

Sandra Amos

Introduction

There can be no doubt that questions play an important part in the teaching and learning of science. Indeed, questions and the search for answers are central to science itself. It is, therefore, important that science teachers ask questions and encourage pupils themselves to ask questions. The focus of this chapter is the questions used by science teachers, why they are used, and how they can be used effectively. It is not intended to be read and then simply put it into practice; rather, it aims to provide a framework for looking at and thinking about teachers’ questions in the science classroom. Teaching, and learning to teach, are complex activities, so how do teachers learn to use questions effectively? We use questions in our everyday lives, and children quickly learn how to use questions to achieve their desired goals. We develop some questioning skills as a result of our experiences, but for teachers, will this be sufficient to ensure effective practice in the classroom? Some of the ideas in this chapter may be used to inform planning, or help in the analysis of questioning practice. When teachers are learning to use questions effectively, the frameworks provided can be used to analyse what they do and plan action for improvement. Using such frameworks may be useful not only in the early stages of learning, but also in continuing to develop greater professional expertise.

Up to one-fifth of what a teacher says in a classroom is likely to be in the form of questions; it is one of the skills that teachers use most in the classroom. It is, therefore, not surprising that a great deal of research has been carried out into teachers’ use of questions, and many ways of analysing teachers’ questions are to be found in the literature. But, it would be naive to think that the analysis of teacher questioning is straightforward. Such a view would fail to recognize the complexity of the social situations in which questioning takes place, and the less obvious aspects of teacher-pupil interactions, such as the accompanying facial expressions and body language. Nevertheless, there are some useful ways of looking at questions and questioning that provide valuable insights into their use in teaching and learning.

Categorizing questions

The usual approach to analysing questions is to categorize them and examine how teachers use them in practice. The different ways of categorizing questions described in this chapter are simply put forward as ways of looking at and thinking about questions. There are no clear-cut divisions between the categories and there are inevitable overlaps. Each way of categorizing has its own particular strengths and weaknesses, and its usefulness will depend on the focus of the enquiry being undertaken.

The categories of questions that follow have been divided into two groups: those that focus on the characteristics of a question, such as how it is expressed and what it demands of the respondent, and those that focus on the purpose of the questions in relation to teaching and learning.

Question characteristics

An important effect of teacher questions is that they, intentionally or not, disrupt the flow of what is going on in the learner’s mind. This is likely to be a calculated action on the teacher’s part and done to move the learner’s attention and thinking to their agenda. The sort of question asked, and how it is asked, will have a considerable influence on the learner’s cognitive and emotional state. Effective questioning does not threaten the learner’s self-esteem or close down their thinking. Used well, questions promote learning, enable a dialogue between the teacher and learner, and encourage the learner to think. The characteristics of the questions used will have an effect on the extent to which this happens.

Open and closed questions

This is perhaps one of the most well-known and widely used ways of classifying questions. Closed questions have a single, correct answer, and are mainly used to test for the recall of facts (e.g. what is the green pigment in plants?). In contrast, open questions have no right answer, or several possible answers (e.g. how are cacti adapted to their environment?). The degree of openness also depends on the teacher. If a teacher asks an open question but plays the ‘guess the answer in my head’ game, ignoring all other responses, the question is effectively closed. Asking truly open questions involves being open to all possible answers.

More important than the definitions of open and closed questions is the role each has in learning. Teachers use a mixture of open and closed questions although, as Ofsted (1998) and many other studies report, far more closed than open questions are asked. Is this a problem? To answer that question, we have to examine what open and closed questions achieve. Consider the questions below.

Q1 In which circuit are the bulbs brightest?

Q2 In which circuit would the bulbs be the brightest?

Q3 What are the differences between the two circuits?

It is important to note that the cognitive demand of a question is not related to whether it is open or closed. The first closed question draws the pupil’s attention to an observable phenomenon and is not cognitively challenging. The second question is also closed, but is considerably more difficult as the learner has to apply their knowledge in order to make a prediction. The third, open question gives the teacher access to the pupil’s ideas and can be used to help the learner develop their own understanding. Several responses are likely to come to the learner’s mind when asked an open question. Closed questions, on the other hand, bring one answer to mind, or failing that, the desperate search for it. Closed questions are about the teacher’s agenda, and reliance on them results in reduced opportunities for finding out about the learner’s ideas. The ‘guessing game’ approach has the added disadvantage of encouraging thoughtless responses from the pupils as they desperately attempt to hit the target. Closed questions with a ‘yes’ or ‘no‘ answer are even less useful because pupils are prone to guessing without thinking. The report from the National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE) highlights the role of open questions in providing greater opportunity for creative activity on the part of the learner (NACCCE 1999). Closed questions rely on linear processes and logical reasoning, providing no opportunity to stray from the teacher’s path.

Closed questions are also potentially more threatening to pupils’ self-esteem. Unless reasonably sure, a pupil may not venture an answer in case they suffer the humiliation of getting it wrong. Open questions provide greater opportunity for pupils to contribute an appropriate answer and, therefore, are not as threatening. How a teacher responds to pupils’ answers also has a profound impact on their willingness to contribute, and this is explored in more detail later.

So, the conclusion is that closed questions are bad and open questions are good? Not at all. It would be nonsense to suggest that closed questions do not have a place in the classroom. Closed questions can be used to reassure, find out what pupils know and can recall, lead them from one idea to another, and help them to make connections between phenomena, ideas and events. The criticism levelled by Ofsted and others is that there is too great an emphasis on the use of closed questions.

The quality of teachers’ questioning is very variable to the degree to which it extends pupils’ thinking, draws out their ideas, and encourages them to volunteer points and explore further, thus providing evidence for achievement. Too often teachers engage in closed questioning, limiting pupils’ responses or even neglecting to take up issues that pupils raise, and ultimately failing to register how far they have understood the objectives of the work.

(Ofsted 1998: 92–3)

Person and subject-centred questions

As well as being open or closed, questions vary in the extent to which they are person-centred or subject-centred (Harlen 1996). Person-centred questions ask something about the individual and are identifiable by use of the words ‘you’ or ‘your’. Examples are: What do you think goes into a plant?, What do you notice about the rock?, What are your opinions about genetic engineering? In subject-centred questions, the person is omitted. For example, What goes into a plant?, What is known about energy? Like open questions, person-centred questions are less threatening and more learner-friendly because they ask for their ideas, not for the ‘right’ answer.

Lower and higher order questions

Another characteristic of questions is their level of cognitive demand, and this is the basis of Bloom...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Abbreviations
• Sources
• Foreword
• Introduction
• Section 1 Talking about science
• Section 2 Practical work
• Section 3 Imagined worlds
• Section 4 Communicating science
• Section 5 Science in a broader context
• Section 6 Putting it all together
• Index