Teacher questioning strategies used with elementary level mildly handicapped students

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Teacher questioning strategies used with elementary level mildly handicapped students
Physical Description:
viii, 136 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Korinek, Lori
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Children with disabilities -- Education (Elementary) -- Florida -- Alachua County   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1985.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 118-124).
Statement of Responsibility:
by Lori Korinek.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 000877452
notis - AEH5145
oclc - 14771945
System ID:
AA00002170:00001

Full Text
















TEACHER QUESTIONING STRATEGIES USED WITH
ELEMENTARY LEVEL MILDLY HANDICAPPED STUDENTS


KORINEK


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY


UNIVERSITY


SCHOOL

FOR THE


OF FLORIDA


1985


LORI

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


Appreciation and


gratitute


are extended


to all of those who


assisted


in the completion


of my


doctoral


studies


and this


dissertation.


Special


thanks


are offered


to Dr. Bob Algozzine,


chairman,


to Dr. Rex Schmid,


cochairman


of my


supervisory


committee,


for their advice,


perspective,


rigorous


standards,


and professional


competence.


Dr. Bill


Reid,


Larry O'Shea,


and Dr.


Stephen


Olejnik


also


served


on my


committee


gave me


the benefit


are extended.


Bill


of their


expertise


and Larry will


and insight.


be remembered


in a


For this

special


, my

way


thanks

for


their openness,


constancy,


cheerful


tolerance


toward me


in my more


neurotic,


unsure-of-myself moments.


They will


never


realize


how much


their words


encouragement,


positive


regard,


and faith


abilities


helped in

special

their as


through


education


distance


some


crucial


faculty


support,


times. To the other members

the staff of the Ross-Mercer


my appreciation


also


of the


Project


offered.


For their


encouragement,


help,


and moral


support,


sincere


thanks


are offered


to Alice


Tesch,


Karen Hiller,


Lee Clark


, Iris


Torres,


the other friends


and doctoral


students


with


whom


have worked over the


past


three


years.


Each has


contributed


to my personal


and professional











absurd helped me


survive


the most


discouraging


times


and made


good


ones


that


much


better;


Kathy


Ruhl,


for always


making


the time


listen


and having the


answers


to my


questions


during my


dissertating


and interviewing


days;


John


Theroux,


for his caring,


interest,


only


seeing


myself;

to put


the best


and Carol


in me,


and never allowing me


and Bob Quick,


Humpty-Dumpty back


to feel


for their warmth,


together again


when


sorry


honesty,


she became


and ability


unglued.


am grateful


to the teachers


and students


cooperated


in this


research.


Their


allowing me


to observe


their classrooms


made


conduct


of this


study possible.


Leila Cantara


deserves


special


mention


for her


friendship,


understanding,


and technical


assistance


in completing


this


document.


She was


first


contact with


the Department


of Special


Education


and has


remained a


constant


source


of guidance


throughout


my stay


at the University


of Florida.


feel


greatly


indebted


to her


and fortunate


to have


made


her acquaintance.


Finally,


and most


importantly,


deepest


appreciation is


offered


my parents,


Martha


and Louis,


and my


brothers


and sisters,


Vickie,


Mary,


Andy


, Dan,


, Jeff,


Jill,


and Lynn


Korinek,


for their


love


support.


could not


have


arrived at


this


point


personally


or professionally


without


their


help.























TABLE


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

LIST OF TABLES

ABSTRACT


OF CONTENTS


. a a a a a a a


a a a a S a a a


a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a


CHAPTER


INTRODUCTION


. a a S a*. a a* a


Background and Need


Study


a a a a a a .


Teacher


Effectiveness


Research


S .* a a a


Teacher Questioning


Student


Responding


* S S a a S a a S a a a a a a
* a a S S S S S S a a S S S a a a a a S


Questioning
Problem Stateme


and Responding


in Special


Education


ettings


. S a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a


Purpose of the
Rationale


Study


a a a a S a a a a S S S S a a a S .


a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a S


Definition
Types o


of Terms


* a a a a a a a S S S S S a a S S S -


f Teacher Questions


Teacher Wait-Time


a a a a a a a a a a a S S a a a


Addition
Delimitation
Limitations


Definitions


s of the Study
of the Study


* a a a a a a a 9 5 a a a S S a S S
a a a a a a a a a a a a a
* a a a a a S S a a a a a a a .


Summary


S. . a a a a .


CHAPTER


Selection


REVIEW


OF THE


of Relevant


Teacher Effectiveness
Teacher Questioning


LITERATURE


Literature


. a a a a a a a a S a


Concerns . . . . .
C c e s . . . *


Types


of Teacher Questions


S. a a a S S


Teacher Wait-Time


. a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a .


Teacher


Follow-up


to Student


Responses


. a a 43


General


Trends


S a a* a a a a a a a a


Immediacy.


Process


Feedbsek


. .,J ,I, -2 ti L I-*Lis f- -- A t l'L A L. I I I It I "-111 -


era -ie


#I ,


Jl. lJ %rV i,


and Criti













Teacher


Chapter


Wait-Time


Summary


and Special


and Impli


cations


Education
for Study


* 4 a *5
* S S S a *S


CHAPTER


METHOD


. . . 59


Objectives
Procedures


* . S a S C S C
* S p S S a S S S S C S S S a p a p


Selection and D
Instrumentation


Observer


Data


Training


Collection


scription


of Subj


ects


* S C C S C C C a S S S S S C S p 62*Oj
. a a 627

* p a C C S S S a S a S C S S S S 5 T74


Design
Summary


a C P 5 C C C S a S a C C S S S S C P


CHAPTER


RESULTS


p . . . . 79


Teacher Questions


Teacher
Teacher
Student


Wait-Time
Follow-Up
Responses


* . C S S . C S . 80
* C . S C a . S 83


to Student


Responses


S a S 86


S. S . . C 88


Relationship
Relationship


Between
Between


Questioning


Student


Oral


Variables
Responses


and Responses


and Ginn


Reading


Test


Scores


CCC95


Summary


of Results


CHAPTER


SUMMARY


DISCUSSION


C . C . . 98


Summary
Purpose
Method


scussion


* S S C C S S C S S S S S S a S S 5 5
* S C S S C C C S S C S S S S S S C S S S a
* C C C P 5 5 p p 5 5 5 C C C S S S S S


Teacher Questions


Teacher Wait


Teacher
Student
Chapter Su


-Time


Follow-Up
Responses
mmary .


* . . . C S S
* . C C C S S .
* P S S S


REFERENCES


. C . C C 5 5 . C 118


APPENDIX A


ALACHUA


COUNTY


ELIGIBILITY


CRITERIA FOR SPECIAL


EDUCATION PLACEMENT


S . . . 5 1251


APPENDIX B


APPENDIX


CLASSROOM

CLASSROOM


OBSERVATION FORM

INFORMATION FORM


* C S .

* . a P

















LIST OF TABLES


Table


Page


Summary


of Teacher


Effectiveness


Studies


Relative


Questioning


Strategies


Summary of Teacher


Wait-Time


Studies


Description
the Study


of Special


Education


Teachers


Included


Description


of Varying


Exceptionalities


Students


Included


in the Study


Types


of Questions


Used by


Teachers


During


Reading


Instruction


Teacher Wait-


Time


seconds)


and As


sociated Student


Responses


Teacher


Follow-Up


to Student


Responses


During


Reading


Instruction


Student


Responses


to Recall,


and Amplification/


Elaboration/Evaluation


stions


During


Reading


Instruction


and on Ginn


Tests


Correlations
and Student


Between


Teacher Que


stioning


Variables


Responses
















Abstract


of Dissertation


of the University
Requirements


of Florida


for the


Presented


to the Graduate


in Partial


Degree


of Doctor


Fulfillment


School
of the


of Philosophy


TEACHER


ELEMENTARY


QUESTIONING


STRATEGIES


LEVEL MILDLY HANDICAPPED


USED WITH


STUDENTS


Lori K

August


orinek

, 1985


Chairman:
Cochairman:


Major


Robert


Rex E.


Department:


Algo


Schmid
Special


zzine


Education


Although


teacher


questioning


has been


deemed


an essential


component


instruction


in general


education,


little


systematic


investigation


has been


done


to document


teacher questioning


strategies


student


responses,


education


describe


or relationships


classrooms.


types


between


The purpose


questioning


these


of this


strategies


variables


study was


used


in special


to examine


teachers


exceptional


students


during


reading


instruction,


types


responses


produced by their


students


and the relationships


between


teacher


questioning

14 varying


and student responding. C

exceptionalities classrooms


observations were

and comparative


conducted


analyses


completed.


Selected


aspects


teacher


questioning,


wait-time,


follow-up


to pupil


answers,


and student


responses were observed and












responses,


as well


as Pearson


product


moment


correlations


between


aspects


of teacher


questioning


and discussed in relation

The special education


and student


to previous

teachers o


teacher


observed


responding, were


effectiveness


used


calculated

literature.


primarily recall


questions,


approximately


half


as many


application


questions


percent


status


questions


very


questions


involving


amplification,


evaluation,


behavior,


or opinion.


Only


percent


of the academic


questions


asked


were


accompanied


extended


teacher wait-time


approximately


half


these questions


involving wait-time


were


answered


correctly.


The most


frequently


used


types


teacher


feedback


were


simple


confirmation


and general


praise


for congruent


pupil


responses,


and focusing/cueing


or giving


information


incorrect


answers.


Great


variability


in use of various


strategies


was noted


among


individual


teachers,


with


essentially


similar


student


scores on the Ginn

academic questions


tests.

and 87.5


Averages

percent


of 63.5


percent


of written


of orally presented


questions


on the Ginn


tests


were


answered


correctly


students.


Few statistically


significant

variables.

variability


correlations


Given


resulted


between


the inconclusiveness


of strategies


used,


questioning


of these


further research


result


and response

s and the


regarding


specific


aspects


of questioning


appears


warranted.

















CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION


Increased


enrollments


private


schools,


headlines


decrying


school


problems


and criticizing


educators,


and televi


sion


specials


expounding


the crises


in our schools


are all symptoms


an acute


lack


of confidence


in public


education


(Goldberg


Harvey,


1983


"Help!"


, 1980;


Plisko,


1983).


Even


some


members


the college


community


openly ridicule


teaching


as a career


choice,


while


recognizing that


quality teachers


are critically needed


in public


education


(Dunne,


1984).


Politicians,


parent


groups,


administrators


attribute


the problems


the public


schools


lack


of student


achievement


to incompetent


and poorly trained


teachers.


The popular


opinion


is that


professors


in schools


education simply


are not doing


an adequate


preparing


skilled


and effective


teachers.


Both


teachers


and teacher


trainers


have


been


accused of


lacking professionalism


and expertise.


Background


and Need


for Study


In an attempt


improve


training


and to elevate


teaching


professional


status


in the


eyes


critics


considerable


effort











(competencies)


were


delineated,


teachers


could


be trained


to master


them


to improve


their


effectiveness


(i.e. ,


influence


on student


learning).


This


competency-based


teacher


education


movement


of the


1970's was readily


endorsed


a public


demanding


concrete


signs


improvement


in teacher preparation


and by


the majority


professional


educators


(Medley


Soar


Soar,


1975).


Teacher


Effectiveness


Research


In th

education


should


on student


past


decade


reflected


but determine

achievement a


much


attempt


of the research


to not only


the effects


nd performance


concerning

specify what


of specific

e. In most


teacher

cases,


teacher

teachers


behaviors


competency


lists


generated during the


competency-based


teacher


education movement


were


the product


a consensus


expert


opinions


about


what


skilled


teachers


do in their


classrooms


rather


than


a systematic


investigation


of specific


teaching


strategies


(Heath


Nielson,


1974;


Shores


, Burney,


Wiegerink,


1976).


next


logical


research


step was


to empirically


determine


which


the specific


competencies


were


essential


promoting


student


learning.


Several


areas


that


were


studied


include


classroom management


organization,


presentation


of subject


matter,


grouping a

responses.


md scheduling,


Mlost


and student


of the teacher


and teacher


effectiveness


initiations


research


has been


conducted


with


general


education


populations.


portion


of these


studies


been


focused


on teacher


questioning


and student












Teacher Questioning


Teacher


questioning


deals


with


the way the


teacher


uses


inquiry


to promote


student


responding


during


learning


interactions


Questions


help


taught

include


teachers


determine


and if they

focusing s


if students


can apply


student


this


attention,


remember


knowledge.

expanding


or understand


what


Subfunctions


student


was


questions


responses,


encouraging parti


cipation,


managing


student


behavior,


supporting


students


in their


efforts


to learn


(Hunkins,


1970


Wilen,


1982).


Teachers


also


use questions


to provoke


thought


and interest


assess


background


knowledge


and learning


difficulties


of students


, review,


clarify


draw


conclusions,


and reinforce


student


learning


(Crump


1970)


Aspects


of teacher


questioning


that


have


been


investigated


include


types


and cognitive


levels


of questions


asked


to initiate


instructional


interactions,


teacher wait-time


used


in questioning,


and follow-up


to student


responses.


Teacher


question


types


include


rote/recall


questions


frequently referred


to in the literature


"lower-order"'


or "lower


cognitive


level"


questions


and use/application


questions


often


referred


as "higher-order"


or "higher


cognitive


level"


questions.


Still


other


types


of questions


noted have


been


open-ended


wrong


answer)


amplification/elaboration


behavioral,


status


questions.


Teacher wait-time


is that


period


of time


between


the end of











that


response.


primary


interest


are occurrences


of teacher


wait-times

identified


equalling


or exceeding


researchers


such


three


as Rowe


seconds--the


wait-time


as optimal


for promoting


desirable


student


responding.


Teacher


follow-up


strategies


include


general


and specific


praise,


telling


responses


to confirm or


correct,


focusing/cueing


responses,


redirection,


answers.

response


That


acceptance,


Teacher follow-up

the student makes


questioning


and criticism or


strategies

to questions


strategies


command


typically


posed


responses


vary with


during


are an integral


part


to student


type


instruction.


of teaching


bear


further


As early


as 1


investigation

912, Stevens


has been

estimated


documented


that


in a variety


approximately


studies.


four-fifths


of the school


day was


spent


in question-answer


recitations.


More


recent


investigators


also


found


that


teachers


ask hundr


eds of questions


in the


course


an average


school


day.


Guzak


(1967)


for example,


found


that


in approximately


five


hours


of classroom


observations


second


grade


teachers


asked


a total


of 878 questions


and fourth


grade


teachers


asked


a total


of 725 questions.


primary


grade


teachers


asked


an average


of 348 questions


each


during


the school


a study


Floyd


(1960).


Gall


(1970)


reported


similar


high


numbers


questions


summary


questions


of other


descriptive


are encounter


questioning


students


in their


studies.


texts


Additional


and on examinations.


Aschner (1961) d


escr


ibed


the teacher


a professional


question-maker"











Student


Responding


Student


responses


various


types


of teacher


questions


have


also


been


investigated


in the


context


of general


education.


This


component


of instructional


responses,


interactions


incorrect


includes


or incongruent


correct


responses,


or congruent


"I don


student


know"


responses,


or no


response


at all


to questions


posed.


Responses


be made


to oral


or written


questions.


Student


responses


are of major


importance


as indicators


of the


effects


that


teacher


questioning


and instruction have


upon


students'


learning.


They


are an observable


measurable


demonstration


of how


well


the student


recognizes


and recalls


what


been


taught


and how


well


or she


can apply


this


knowledge


or skill.


Using


student


responses


teachers


and concerned


others


can gain


insights


into


make


educated


estimates


of students'


educational


levels,


background


know


edge,


learning


strengths


and weaknesses,


need


for additional


modified


instruction,


progress,


mastery


of knowledge


and skills.


Pupil


responses


are also


used


assess


teacher


effectiveness


comparing


after


responses


instruction.


that

While


students

other i


make on


influences


various

besides


measures

teacher


before


behaviors


affect


student


outcomes,


student


responses


on evaluation measures


are widely


accepted


as an indication


of teacher


skill,


accountability,


and effectiveness.


Questioning


and Responding


in Special


Education


Settings


Ta1~: 1-. i-U .9 I


I'TIL -" 1 --


^-T_ -_


-I


A











questioning

instruction


strategies

is currently


and student

y lacking.


responding


in special


Since handicapped


education


children


whose


learning


and behavior patterns


deviate


from


the classroom norms


still


being


referred


for special


services


in increasing numbers


questioning


compete


cies


required


for teachers


who provide


special


education


for exceptional


students


differ


some


ways


from


those


required


for teachers


nonhandi


capped


students.


Teacher


questioning


practices


in special


education


classrooms


or may not


resemble


those


evident


in general


education


settings.


Differences


also


exist


in the number


types


of student


responses


to teacher


questions


in special


education


classrooms.


Responding


to questions


in oral


or written


form


provides


a type


practice


for students


, a degree


of which


is essential


in the acquisition


mastery


stages


of learning


(Lovitt,


1977).


Successful


practice


found


to positively


influence


the performance


of low-achieving


students


in several


major


teacher


effectiveness


studies


(Brophy


Evertson,


1977


Rosenshine,


1983


Stevens


Rosenshine,


1981).


Other


researchers


have


found


that


special


education


students


require


even more


practice


than


do general


education


students


acquire


new


concepts


(Hall,


Delaquandri


Greenwood,


Thurston,


1982)


Documentation


of student


responding


as well


as various


aspects


teacher


some


questioning


patterns


in special


effective


classes


questioning


seemed


warranted.


responding were


Although

identified


are


was











need


remained


for careful


investigation


into


which


questioning


strategies


were


used


with


particular populations


of students


before


sound


recommendations


for best


practices


could


be made.


Problem Statement


Teacher


questioning


has been


deemed


an essential


component


instruction


and a tool


to accomplish


a variety


of objectives.


Investigators


conducting research


with


general


education


populations


have


found


certain


questioning patterns


used


in normal


classrooms


have


a positive


influence


on student


responding


and achievement.


Little


systematic


investigation


been


done,


however


into


questioning


strategies


used


in classrooms


containing


exceptional


students


Purpose


of the Study


purpose


of this


study was


examine


types


of questioning


strategies


used


teachers


of exceptional


students


during


reading


instruction,

relationship

responses.


types


between


responses


teacher


Specifically,


produced


questioning


classroom


students


strategies


observations


were


and the


and student


conducted


address


the following


questions:


What


types


questions


, rote/recall,


use/application)


do special

reading in


education


struction


teachers


use


selected


to initiate


elementary


interaction


level


varying


during

exceptionalities


classrooms?












What


focusing)


types


do special


of follow-up


education


strategies


teachers


praise,


use to resnond


telling,


to student


answers


during


reading


instruction


in selected


elementary


level


varying


exceptionalities


classrooms?


What


types


student


responses


(e.g


, correct,


incorrect)


occur


following


teacher questions


during


reading


instruction


selected


elementary


level


varying


exceptionalities


classrooms?


What


is the


nature


the relationships


between


selected


teacher


questioning variables


(types


of questions,


teacher wait-time,


types


of follow-up)


and student


responses


to oral


written


questions


in elementary


What


is the


level


nature


varying


exceptionalities


of the relationship


between


classrooms?


student


responses


to oral


questions


posed


during


reading


instruction


responses


to written


questions


on the Ginn


reading


series


mastery


tests


given


in elementary


level


varying


exceptionalities


classes?


Rationale


Justification


for investigating


teacher


questioning


strategy


student


responding


in special


education


classrooms


rested


on the fact


that


very


little


documentation


of teacher


questioning


and student


responding


in these


classrooms


exists


that


teacher


effectiveness


rese

with


arch


findings


general


and competencies


education


students


based


primarily


are currently


being


on studies


used


conducted


as a foundation


- -_ --.... 1 .- .-" -


a a -t r. .. a n 4- n '4. a n t- nw. e.


r


!











validating


or revising


improving


exceptional


education


teacher


training


and classroom


instruction


was apparent.


Teacher


questioning


a major


dimension


of several


evaluation/


observation


systems


used


to study


teachers


behaviors


effectiveness


(Amidon


Hunter,


1966;


Flanders,


1970


Gallagher


Ashner,


1968;


Medley


1973;


Soar


, Soar,


Ragosta,


1971).


many


instances,


relatively


high


correlations


have


been


found


between


questioning


behaviors


teachers


observed during


instruction


pupil


achievement


(Good,


1979


Medley,


1977


Rosenshine,


1976).


some


cases


, competencies


, including


aspects


of teacher


questioning,


based


upon


findings


of these


same


teacher


effectiveness


studies


have


replaced


expert


opinion


competency


lists


as a foundation


for teacher


state


observation,


of Florida,


training,


for example,


and evaluation


for Florida


programs.


Performance


In the


Measurement


System


(FPMS)


has been


implemented


improve


beginning


teacher


skills


through


generic


corresponding


a comprehensive


teaching


program


competencies.


to categories


support,


The FPMS


of teacher


training,

addresses


behavior.


and documentation

six domains


The domains


include


planning,


management


of student


conduct,


communication


, presentation


subject


matter,


instructional


organization


and development,


testing.


Developers


of the


system


saw fit to include


supporting


evidence


from


teacher


effectiveness


research and


recommendations


various


aspects


of teacher


questioning


skills


in five


out of six of












in the


state


(Handbook


of the FPMS


, 1981).


Considering


the substantial


efforts


resources


already


invested


in this


system


since


inception


in 1978


its initial


success


in providing


a measure


teacher


behavior,


and the wide


base of


support


given


the FPMS


professional


educators


and the legislature


in Florida,


seems


highly probable


that


the instrument


will


continue


to be used


in the


fore


seeable


future.


Proposals


are also


being


made


use the FPMS


indicators


delineated


as effective


and ineffective


teaching pract


ices


as part


the evaluation


criteria


for making merit


decisions


Florida


teachers.


In the


context


of the FPMS,


same


teacher


behaviors


will


used


to train


and evaluate


the performance


of both


general


and special


education


teachers.


Most


the research


offered


to support


recommended


questioning


techniques


in the FPMS


and typical


instructional


methods


texts,


however,


has been


done


with


normal


school


populations


and their


teachers.


investigations


have


been


conducted


to document


the applicability


of the suggested


questioning practices


exceptional


education


teachers


in special


classrooms.


Investigation


into


types


of questioning


state


gies


most


effectively


used


different


improving


facets


exceptional


special


instruction


education


teacher


may yield


observation,


insights


training


performance.


a .0 a ...n. n










Types


of Teacher


Questions


Open-ended/no wrong


answer


questions.


The teacher


asks


questions


on students


values,


feelings


or opinions


that


have


no right


wrong


answers


(Coker


Coker,


1982,


Recall/rote


information.


The teacher


asks


or elicits


recall


of names,


descriptions,


phrases


definitions


, attributes,


traits,


characteristics


etc.


regarding


simple


facts


or events,


fixed


structures


stable


phenomena,


or lawful


one-to-one


relationships


(Coker


Coker,


1982


Use or application.


The teacher


asks


use or application


knowledge


concepts,


using


concept


in order


to solve


a problem.


cognitive


task


involves


a transformation


of data


provided


in the


original


learning


situation


(Coker


Coker,


1982,


p. 6).


Amplification/evaluation/elaboration


of student


s own idea


work.


The teacher


asks


student


to extend


or elaborate


student'


idea


or answer


, or to support


answer with


evidence.


The teacher


asks


student


to evaluate


student'


own work


(Coker


Coker,


1982


Amplification/evaluation/elaboration


of other


student'


ideas


work.


The teacher


asks


student


to judge


comparative


value


answers


or suggestions


of others.


The teacher


asks


students


to elaborate


upon


another


student'


remarks


(Coker


& Coker,


1982,


Status.


The teacher


asks


question


seeking


status


a student


a group


at the moment.


These


can be procedural


or substantive


questions


(Coker


Coker.


1982.


own












Teacher


Wait-Time


Wait-time.


time


between


the end of


a teacher


question and


the beginning


a student


response


or the


time


between


the student


response


and teacher


follow-up


to that


response.


Types


of Student


Responses


Congruent/correct


responses


are responses


that


satisfy


substantive


intents


of teacher


initiated


questions


(Guzak,


1967


230)


Incongruent/incorrect


responses


are responses


which


fail


some


way (e.


incomplete,


inaccurate)


to meet


intent


the teacher'


ques


tion


(Guzak,


1967


230).


answer


refers


a complete


lack


of response


from


the student


a teacher'


question.


No judgment


as to whether


or not


the student


knows


answer


to the question


is made.


Types


of Teacher


Follow-up


to Student


Responses


Praise with


explanation.


The teacher responds


giving


approval


to enhance,


maintain,


or alter work


or behavior


of students,


with


specific


explanation


about


what


is right


or good


about


the work


(Coker


& Coker,


1982,


Prai


without


explanation.


The teacher responds


verbally


nonverbally,


giving


approval


but withholding


explanation


of why the


work was


acceptable;


general


and nonspecific


praise


(Coker


Coker


1982


Tells/gives


information.


The teacher responds


student











Wrong


answer/no


answer/gives


information.


The teacher


informs


student


that


answer


is wrong


and/or


gives


substantive


information.


This


includes


events


in which a student


does


give


an answer


(Coker


Coker,


1982


, p. 8).


Focusing


or cueing.


The teacher narrows


the focus


of student


attention


Asks


cueing,


another


prompting


student.


or giving


The teacher


hints


asks


(Coker


another


Coker,


student


1982,


to give


answer


one student


or group


fails


answer


or gives


wrong


answer.


This


category


also


includes


the teacher


deferring


to another


student


an answer


a student


asks


a question


(Coker


Coker,


1982,


Accepts/checks


perception.


The teacher


accepts


or rephrases


student'


substantive


work


or comment,


but is neutral


in response


keeps


the idea


in discussion.


The teacher


is accepting with


commitment


as to whether


response


is accurate


or not, or rephrases,


checking


the teacher


s own perception


(Coker


Coker,


1982


Uses


and extends.


The teacher uses


or extends


substantive


idea,


comment


or answer


of student.


Teacher uses


student's


verbalization


as a "bridge"


--"let


s follow


that


idea


for a while"


(Coker


Coker,


1982


Criti


cizes


/commands.


The teacher


criticizes


student


inadequate


answer


or for behavior which


inappropriate.


This


includes


sarcastic


remarks


the teacher


directed


toward


the students


gnrj rntmrnnan^ tl


rrnlcar


li -i n rr"'











Additional


Definitions


Success


rate


is the


percentage


of correctly


answered


oral


questions


asked


during reading


instruction


or written


questions


included


on the


Ginn


reading mastery tests.


Varying


exceptionalities


students


are students


including


those


classified


as having


learning


or educable mental


criteria for these


disabilities


handicaps


handicaps


(EMH)


are placed


(LD),


who meet


emotional

Alachua


in resource


handicaps

County


room


settings


serving


students


from all


three


categories.


(See


Appendix A for


complete


eligibility


criteria


for the


various


levels


categories


of special


students.)


Delimitations


of the Study


The scope of


study has


been


delimited


a number


ways.


First,


the study


has been


restricted


geographically to


Alachua County,


Florida.


Second,


study was


conducted


with


elementary-aged


varying


exceptionalities


students.


In addition,


the study was


limited


teachers


who volunteered


to participate


with


their


students


in this


research.


Limitations


of the Study


Care


should


be exercised


in extrapolating


the results


of the study


to other


geographic


areas


levels


as well


as to other


categories


of exceptional


students.


The particular


demographic


characteristics


(EH),










self-contained


classes


limit


generalizability


of findings


to other


geographical


areas


with


different


service


arrangements.


vagueness


the LD,


and EMH definitions


and the specific


criteria


used


Alachua


classes


County


placement


contribute


of students


to differences


from


into


special


other


education


students


similarly


labeled


but by


different


criteria


to which


the findings


might


applied.


Finally,


the willingness


of the volunteering


teachers


take


part


in this


research may


indicate


a different


motivational


than


that


of teachers


reluctant


to parti


cipate


in such


projects


and,


as such,


affect


the results


for purposes


comparison.


Summary


The identification


of teacher


questioning practices


used


in special


education


classrooms


for the mildly


handicapped


was addressed


in this


study.


Researchers


conducting


studies


with


general


education


students


have


found


certain


patterns


of teacher


questioning


to be positively


correlated


with


student


achievement


responses.


Little


systematic


investigation


has been


done


to document


questioning


techniques


used


in special


education


classrooms


or the relationships


that


particular


types


questions


asked,


various


methods


of responding


to student


answers,


and extended


teacher wait-time


have with


exceptional


student


performance.

patterns and


This study was


Relationships


done


in an attempt


observing


to clarify these


and recording


student-teacher


interactions


in elementary


level


varying


exceptionalities


classrooms










questioning


and on reading


mastery


tests were described and


compared.


Findings


of researchers


studying


similar


factors


with


nonhandicapped


populations


provided


the basis


for subsequent


discussion.


















CHAPTER


REVIEW OF


THE LITERATURE


purpose


of Chapter


is to provide


a summary


and analysis


the professional


literature


relevant


to teacher


questioning practices.


This


chapter


is divided


into


five


sections.


First,


selection


criteria


for the literature


addressed.


reviewed and


In the following


teacher


sections,


effectiveness


an overview


concerns


of teacher


questioning


research


and investigations


into


question


types


, teacher


wait-time,


teacher


follow-up


used


in questioning


interactions,


student


responding


are presented


and discussed.


The relationship


teacher


questioning


and student


responding


to special


education


is also


examined.


Selection


of Relevant


Literature


The review was


begun


with


the setting


of criteria


for inclusion


and the


sources


of references.


Literature


was reviewed


from


1965


present


since


this


time


period


covered most


of the correlational


and experimental


studies


related


to teacher


competencies


effectiveness


bearing


on the


topic


of teacher


questioning.


Previous


studies


cited


or referenced


in the literature


reviewed were


also


are











Literature


concerning


teacher


questioning practices


chosen


review


to meet


the following


criteria:


Direct


observation


and documentation


to be included


in the methodology.


Investigations


to take


place


in the United


States.


Only


teacher performance,


competency,


or effectiveness


studies


investigating


aspects


of teacher


questioning were


included.


Student

or middle

in whole


subjects

e school

class o


of the studies


age (grades


r group


1-6)


situations


to be


or receiving

in classro


elementary

g instruction

oms at the


elementary


or middle


school


level.


Subj ect


matter


to involve


reading


or reading


-type


lessons,


including


sight


vocabulary,


use of


context


clues,


recall


and comprehension,


or application


and interpretation


passages


read.


The initial

analyzed.


references


Studies


meeting


included


selection


in this


criteria


review were


were


based


carefully

on the


investigator'


judgments


of (a)


completeness


of description


procedures


used


arrive


at conclusions


, (b)


general


ability


relationships


or results


some


population


beyond


the sample


studied,


completeness


of description


of sample,


training


procedures,


observer


reliability,


and (d)


clarity


processes


or behaviors


being












to Journals


in Education


(CIJE),


Education


Index,


Exceptional


Child


Education


Resource


(ECER)


Dissertation Abstracts


International


Psychological


Abstracts.


Descriptors


used


in this


literature


search


included


questions


questioning, questioning

teaching methods, teacher


techniques


inquiry,


effectiveness,


teacher


teaching


techniques,


competencies


teacher


performance,


teacher


behavior,


discussion


techniques


directed


discussion,


teacher effectiveness


evaluation,


teacher-student


interaction,


interrogative


strategies


information


seeking,


group


instruction,


teacher responses


, teaching models


, teaching


styles


wait-time,


teacher


feedback,


reading,


and reading


instruction.


Literature


identified must


have


been


available


through


the University


of Florida


library


or inter-library


loan


system.


Teacher


Effectiveness


Concerns


In the


past


two decades


teachers


have


come


under


increasing


scrutiny


and criticism as


student


test


scores


declined


, discipline


the classroom deteriorated,


and the supply


of quality teachers


diminished.


The public


called


for increased


accountability,


professionalism,


student


progress


from


educators.


Many


blamed


teacher preparation


programs


for producing poorly


trained


teachers.


Increased


standards


and quality


of training to


demanded


produce


critics


professional


of education


teachers


programs


greater


(Goldberg


expertise


Harvey


were


1983


8 S t 4 *1 41


I*TT .


.11












With


this


competency-based


teacher


education


(CBTE)


movement


of the


1970'


came


an emphasis


on developing


techniques


for recording


evaluating


teacher performance,


and validating


teacher


training


programs


terms


competencies


demonstrated


interns


and graduates


(Medley,

behaviors


Soar,

were


4 Soar

often


, 1975).

included


Statements


on lists


regarding

teacher c


questioning


ompetencies


developed


during this


time.


Most


of the


competencies


specified


as desirable


, including


those


relating


to teacher questioning,


were


formulated


on the basis


expert


opinion


rather


than


empirical


investigation


(Shores,


Burney


Wiegerink,


1976).


Thus


a teacher


or intern who


demonstrated


behaviors


listed


as competencies


was deemed


acceptable or


outstanding,


but how


those


behaviors


actually


affected


learning was


still


cone


cture.


Research


to empirically


determine


the effects


specific


teacher


behaviors


on student


effectiveness


primarily


studies


achievement

was done i


socioeconomic


followed.


n elementary


status


(SES)


The majority


level


students.


of these


classrooms,


In many


teacher


many with

these


studies,


teacher


questioning proved


to be


an important


variable


teacher


effectiveness


Once


findings


of early


teacher


effectiveness


research


became


known,


professionals


revising


competency


lists


to better


assess


teacher


performance


a more


data


-based


foundation


for doing


The results


the teacher


effectiveness


studi


were


also


reflected


in recent












the Classroom


Observations


Keyed


for Effectiveness


Research


(COKER)


(Coker


Coker,


1982)


employed


as measurement


devices


in efforts


further


improve


teacher


training


increase


objectivity


in teacher


evaluation.


Many


of these instruments


included


questioning


behaviors


as integral


components


of teacher performance.


The Florida


implemented

program of s

Competencies


Performance


improve


support,


Measurement


beginning teacher


training,


and related


System,

skills


and documentation


effective


and ineffecti


for example,

through a comin

of teaching c

ve indicators


has been


iprehensive

ompetencies.


based


teacher


effectiveness


research


were


incorporated


into


the FPMS.


Five


of the six domains


included


in the FPMS


deal


with


various


aspects


teacher q

effective


questioning


skills.


and ineffective


Teacher


were


chosen


questioning b

on the basis


ehaviors


deemed


of research


findings


of studies


done


almost


exclusively with


general


education


students.


system,


however,


will


used


to evaluate


the performance


of both


general


education


and special


education


teachers


in Florida.


Very


little


teacher


ectiveness


research


comparable


to that


done


with


general


education


populations


could


be found


in the


ecial


education


literature.


Also


lacking was


research


specifically


documenting


questioning


strategies


used


special


education


teachers


with


their


students


or suggesting which


types


of questioning


behaviors


were most


effective in

achievement.


Promoting exception

Consequently this


student


review was


learning

focused


responses


on reporting











and relationships


with


a select


group


special


education


students


and their


teachers.


Teacher Questioning


Teacher


questioning


deals


with


the teacher uses


inquiry


to promote

are used b


student


oth


responding


to initiate


during


various


learning


types


interactions.


responses


Questions


depending upon


the level


of the question


to provide


a means


of evaluating


student


knowledge


and skills


before


and after


instruction


Specific


aspects


of teacher


questioning


that


have


been


investigated


include


types


cognitive


levels


questions


asked,


teacher wait-time


used


questioning


interactions


follow-up


to student


responses.


Types


of Teacher Questions


Researchers


such


as Bloom


(1956)


and Guilford


(1956)


provided


theoretical fo

identifying an

for by various


undation for

d classifying

questions.


investigation


categories

Two general


of teacher

cognitive


classes


question


types


functioning


questions


called


which


represent


various


cognitive


functions


proposed


these


theorists


are lower


questions


order


were


and higher order


assumed


questions.


to require mental


Rote


functioning


and recognition


at the lower


of the cognitive


hierarchies


were


referred


as lower-order


lower cognitive


level


questions.


Application,


evaluation,


and synthesis


questions


were


credited


with


stimulating


higher


cognitive


functioning


S


fl .n -1 'aIn't-a rnn e 4 i amA 1, 4 ab a,- nrA a-,, a,. 1, ab a,' ~-nn-,,, ira *1 alt al nuar 4--wane


^1


lonr











A 1912

systematic


study

study


done


Stevens


of teacher


is generally


questioning


(Davis


credited

Morse,


as the first


ers,


Tinsley,


1969;


Gall,


1970


Wilen,


1982)


Stevens


examined


the role


teacher


questions


and student


answers


in instruction.


He found


that


on the


average


percent


of the school


day was


occupy


with


questioning


answering,


with


teachers


verbalizing


approximately


percent


of the time


and asking two


to four


questions


per minute.


majority


of questions


required


simple


recall


of facts


that


was lower order


questions.


Teacher


questioning patterns


have


not changed appreciably


according


to findings


more


recent


researchers.


Guzak


(1967),


example,


found


that


in approximately


five


hours


of classroom


observations,


second

teacher


grade t

s asked


teachers

a total


asked

of 72


a total


of 878 questions


questions.


primary


and fourth


grade


grade


teachers


asked


an average of


348 questions


each


during


the school


in a study


Floyd


(1960),


and Gall


(1970)


reported


similar


high


numbers


questions


in her


summary


other


dissertation


studies


focusing


questioning.


Over


years


improved


instrumentation


allowed


researchers


more


objectively


describe


and anal


teacher


questioning


behaviors


in the classroom


(Amidon


Hunter,


1966;


Flanders


, 1970).


Training


programs


were


primarily


intended


increase


number


of higher


level


questions


asked


teachers


in an attempt


to stimulate


higher


cognitive


-I ~ rT.r: *Y -- *i t-~ nn-' 'Ti 1a.! A- S


r -L


d


/^TaT l __-_ I 4" rfi "i "


1 ... "I _1_











strategies


on pupil


performance have been


the focus


of the


most


recent


research


involving


teacher


questioning.


Effectiveness


of lower-order


questions.


Research


findings


regarding


types


questions


as they relate


to student


achievement


are mixed


(see


Table


Results


are probably best


stated


as trends


according


reviews


done


by Good


(1979),


Medley


(1977),


and Rosenshine


(1976,


1983).


Lower


order


questions


tend


to be


itively


related


achievement


, especially with


lower


SES samples.


Higher


order


questions


tend


to be unrelated


or negatively related


to achievement


in the


elementary


grades.


These trends


are supported


in the work


of Brophy


and Evertson


(1976),


Coker


, Lorentz,


Coker


(1976),


Soar


(197


and Stallings


and Kaskowitz


(1974).


Both


the Stallings


and Kaskowitz


(1974)


and the Soar


(1973)


studies


were


conducted


within


the Follow


Through


and Planned


Variation


projects


designed


insure


variability


in educational


practice


and therefore


be considered more


representative


than


studies


done


in traditional


classrooms


where


there


less


variation


across


teachers


(Good,


1979).


Both


researchers


the value


obtained


of direct,


significant


convergent


consistent


low cognitive


level


results


questions


supporting


used


teachers


in the


primary


grades


(see


Table


Coker,


Lorent


and Coker


(1976)


also


found


that


narrow


questions


followed


immediate


feedback


correlated


positively


and significantly


with


second


graders'


reading


and mathematics


achievement.


a 4~ a S


... J J


d









































ecc
OCC
C
*.-ttflO)


AC> 3 (



0*-)
Mt.40 4

4)CU4)



*<>


* u,*
I + 2


++ I


1*
SI + +


C
0)
4)

Cc


40



04 0
U J3


(D ^C

4 ~
wMu
4)
COM
4- O **



O*r4 Q
*O 4
05~0
CJ C
-C 0
CO~~ i0

4.1*0 4"l
Ch C
WV> it


c
o *E


2OJ
4)0

t4- 4)a
0'S
0


Ou **-
0*0
C CO


-^ .ri"
Cd
- *


0 0
.rOC


U tft 4-)
m a)
* U)

4300
* 05



0~0)
*rt



U#E
0)
X M
OCO
13 9
*O 00
3 >


C C)

C4- *0C U 4tci
-o C )4 0
0 M *t i^ *-4o^ in
5.4Ot-405.
C 0f0 4) t.O4. 4 C U O


O4 000 1t
0' C 40 4
(U ON N j^( ^


E 0000r0 V -

4- C i- O O e C ^
ca-lSoSG CA+ M M l*CL


mt3 43>
V) 90 0 l

tfl*#- O t/
CO 00
&r OCd40
aC Uin


.r4 > U
.0,-4 0)434
-4M E C C C
U t3 3 -4 J- t3
O 3*.- C3
SU 04c0 0
C/4 M0lU M


> 0 4
04)
Sr, -r
>00

0 U
S^ CO



000
UCC
C 0
0 *U<-
N 3
Oma
4i0>

0t 3 *
C-

0 0
OO*4
5. +J 44


S*M 4-
In

LAC
COC
4-t*r *>


1440
C C 4-
.0=. 4)1
U *4 **


0-Co
C.C0 &0
*r 40 5-4If
MOT


5-i 5.4 in
o4oo
*M COW
m*mia
04 00 3 /
a> O1
* A C


1 )
0 >c C
-M C.c-4 0 0
S U U 43 4-* tU
MC 00CA 4
3 *H 4^030 t
0C&0 )4- U
4 fin *e
X N 4.1 C U)
Ul N Ow)> 4-


".14
*o

Ctt

U) 0)

O CO) C
tn0)a-InC
-to Ut UO




















0 4) -
C (

.-4U 0). 0
*#9
r O1 r 0-" 0



_ ,- *M cr O
0 '- L

.8 .-2 an ctf
0-u- .


nX3 o i-f
0 b00P
^ C *
0 ., V *
tf. C 0 CJ

0 ,-- --I u


p. cr+ii
O -OO- ,E

bn 0 2
04" +II
0.00OP -,


S0in -3


& 0 ( 0 0 0Q4
0CO COOC -r t/

CLn ce vi+- <
o to 0) 4.)~.)


0 (1)14 4) o CU 0
bC+J.H'r4- .i-4 U v


VI
0

4.)
*H


0
>



C
0)
a)
Ct
Q

f w
0 00
03 $
C >

0 9

*-4



CU
41
'.
cc


Is



0 ed
*e44)
Lj -4


to

bOr
0 0
0,0
0 o
Cu w
C))
0 tn
COtf

V0)


2
0 9
'-4
(114-4



S..CC


00
vi N


2
4)
CO*-40
C 0) *r-
0 00
a ,C
*4 '0 '


0 tf l
24- >,p0|G)

o tf) to
(N.0 I 3 +


C
4)C *H *r4
4*r 4.) >
*rt > 0tf

UI >OG)


*H
"-






















en

r4


U,





4-
C
!~ 3
IIC



00
e n,









0 e
-= 4










0
CC



CO
05
*HQ0
CO
0 5
Q "
0

4>
CC)
0
C.,




(A
C
~0
Lu
4)

'0
C
0






4.)
Ceo




CC
0)
< *
e tf)



SU
*a ^





'a
h4)


pa


-1
>0
(U caoo
Z 0-i


0 .0
oUOO Oo'04-i 4 I
0 *0 4)
. r.4Vt^CO &OtC C I

0bC04Z SN tn4-C 6
* 4 3C 0 *O 0 *


04J'flOCU0".** 04
mC CM OOio o 4oc0 rt"
3 U) >a 3 0 tn C 4) 4)

Zrr 3a Z' -r *Z ^ ~ cua 4) .0 4) 4.)-
eeo*0o-C*U44 M~m
LtflO O +4 tn OUE0 CUomkr O
rU Ci *aU 0 0 4) en 0 M*C -*
rfMO C^ OO-e ^o W OC O 0-

(OsO W oop &O ooaitlO a-o "


I
C
= ** C



S0 0 C4)3 4.i 9H

UOOC *U ). 4
0 UOl4JCU i f

C4.^ HU E <
0 0mtt- t/ f
43 4t- 0
co eni U r .2C U)4) 0 4
U, 2Ch4UERE


4 ~* A
0 C 4.4
+J *rt 0 ^i *M
& 2 *MO a>if ** >
*H *SA c ui .
bCUE 0 C4. 44>


4)^ > aUhefl O.60fl c U &
EOm>oP CO O>)CUCO


'0 'V V*-
0 C
0 3



4->4lC S 0


A a a> as


0 -
*S
C C0 In

4.) '-"Hr
Cm
*H c
+I 0
4.O


00 3
>03
C-4)



*C W T
U)




0 CO
C.r >
o 4


Ocu


en 0

O.4



'0 0



0
CU IU Q



C *


O~C



- -L -J





















*-*4
0






'a




CO

cm
0
OU h
> 3

0 >












0~
*CC<





0
*M






to
-*1-






.04

t
*M e
mC >






O Q
0) *'-I
0 u






0
S u











C)
C








*4
i c



MC 0
CO I/
.r 0
i- 3
OO c









U)
-P
QC *"








0 C
*a t
1) U
& C
0 0


cQ2 0
ojt- o+ -
U2ZCCu


4MC



000
0 *M 0
f- *4 W
SU <1


COC
c u0

CO *r" *)
U. b^l 0 -

M -4



+ 0
+ u


* l 4 *. *,w

O tfl estt2
Co0c
COOCO&


+ I


+ +


0
C
'a
+4-' -
C
C!

0 9
0
NW 3
:

5- 0
0

4
0$..


Cain
C
O O
0>
to00-


0)
.C -CR
0 *

CO2 41
- u

ad1 ....4 0


to
hO .
S-
*M -
m n
0 s
Ca 3

U)w ?

>0
00 -


I 1


S+


0 0
0 4)
C..
CE
0 0


4-h U,
'AOR

0 3 t

3 C


>CM of .
*- C cou
6o Mto at
008.4 E21 8.
.J d$ 4
0 0 o t o
4o C)o u- *u
moW 0a v1


3U
04)

S 0
00 a
mCC-
to t4-'


#:$4

COO
0004


CCC
0 C C
000
*M *fl *r- *
5000


VS '#4 tt >..'r 4p >,4 4) 4o 4
5.. +-' $4( $4 ttS (0- $4 $4
a..C fl.C4.' aC)- 4)03 0-4.4.r
.C 0-C ,CLS C= OE *E C^ *M C


0+J0
*.-40 *-4
$ *o
w o=


ir1 M
--0 *N


4 OW 0t
-C 00
c *^oc u
^ksi @* rA F 0


5-
AZ


4*-,
02

*4'
ti


9 *
^ C
*M *Q .

14-1.C



COV



00-4

(2
OOcU
00<




4040
*o m i



rt ih n
to to t
-' Ci


1 +



























UCOM
CMU U


*-
cc
00 0-
M 0
(o 0


Su


CV


4.1
CO
<







& o
SC
0k
eta
>S
m m

0>
<






0
In*J
CC
04)U

4 0
-CO
0 *M
0-4
0<
u




ta
C
*1fl
;Co
0)0


eg w
U 3
e 0


MCC
CC
OCu
bo

CU



CO
5..
c -H
90 c
0c ^



















0
CO,


: 0)


*o
*Z
**V *-
0 *0
2 .C
O* asM


1 +


4>O


+ + +


C UN O
0 (/ c 0 U
E* CA
5 o0 ak >
CC O*M .-C

CO >s 3C41


C 7 W f- ~
04) r 4
gT Z-O
4>4*0OC
400 1ht.4n.
.4 4)0
emREWM
4.14)N
UU~MCUZ


ma n
C-C
& 0 4-

cu u'0o or
CI S 0 J 01 4
-(W (N 3VI C
COON*M (0' O
000 $4 C "-4 ML
^\0\ QfU M~/


00
>4

WtUX
4) 4) 4)
N M *m
>.0 .n0
ctC)



UEG)OOu
005 C
tUM4)4-1440

300 C 4-' 44^
$4 I. *- 0 0U a
U 0 E C


0sW ),Cfl


h ~ C
*4-* 3C U 4-) 3

C4J U 14C C
S> 3OM 0*-
5u OO A C
CM C c
(na)-3 iC) 4J CN*


ce ^

0~4^
M-O c


$ C


S*JS

-C &-'
EM^C
U3 O.4-


^ t/1




















*H
en
en
-<
Ce
<







4.)
C
O o


0 3
0 u)


J= (
&





CU>
04
$4.'

*Mu
0<

be
c0 e





-4
0 0

H E




C
,4 3
<* A
<- u







I>
0
Cu


00
t CU


0 0






S4
ICOV




.^0
'I3


1~ c
0
0. *-I


3 W
MM ^
20 b
3E 4


ca
0 GO M
oi- -oe o
4) 3 *r4) >
1 O- 0 P-
i.D .C r4C6 CU .)-itM
<*i- CM t UW
>$404C 3 kr4 *) 41W
0 44 4 4 U 4) EU4
UUC Eri*Jr4Vt
Z O'4.-4 U4i-4^ $4 A i(
00 03Us 4&


4 .M
4- cfl


-> *4


C *1


b0 *.


++ z
2


*5 &0

$4@
0-4
S0
Vt
0n
00 0
*r 3,4-'

Cd cf en
U b
E C
0*HQ#
3M 0
~ *

O U

0@0
4- b3et)


'3 '0 $ CC *
t0 00 U W T
t~r4Cfl 04
CJ C4 *.O 0
NNMO P C ~(f


1>


0


C 4 4
540,
Cf 0
S3
cfl efl

04)
40
*a-4 0
3 *O 4-
4)n
004
$4U-4

-0
b8MS
U-C >

400

*4.0
. CO




0> )

4400
*- ^



O4uC

0,0
C 0



Oe 4 J
00.
I.4oU
0 04 cU


0
4
Wn .
0U)U
0 C C


o wC)
In 0 03
44 )

b~cO
& ~4)

60 (> Ut *

CC (U OJ

ZJ0100@*


0 co
U 04JC0 *iH
S f -


to e o a
rf; U T0OU U V Cf
U'0 3uuwclcf f
oV4-100oV00 o

C-wP"EE


| 9 a


-en




















C C &
4 0 0 3 e
0.4 4) (U c)
Ow O0> 0 0


amu MA coeo-
cn VCO* 4
-ko>%d) 4


*R ~*
C M 0 0 .-3
- C <. : ,-> 0 ,
u ,. o n e .,..u y
1 0 t l)C-DO 4>
vcU3E-.t >cas cu
OS4 C O a< i ya
Mc2:Ui-

I 14 +


C C
0 C3 C
0w *H< 0
44 E
met U CUN 4 >


C.00CO.MU
MO t4c0U3


4 0
CtO
'UE-t


-4(/ -tfl >,


0-, >c,
s -t-i a)
*M w*h
(D m O
0000ua


o0


'J -p


11++


4)
O
C

0 0

Cf 0

C C 3

e M -* 3 WO o
0) C )M t
C a t O
o c &4 o4 *4

3 .r (0 0> 60a r
C > Ogaig ** iiie.f .ir


00 W000 3 tC-4->
;0 &@ *r 4 CS 0 *-X
4)40)40 4^U**f- *') U



042<@4)40
Cn -H i C> 4Utafl 4*x

C) C..0.r4 oC4 ) C
3 Qt>J Ofl^o h c


me
C.C
00
+J 0
0 3
*-sit

..OOC
o- o e
0
.,,4 )
0 3
04.00 O

CC) 4) Ct 4)^
004.4
0 B 41 >
'H 34)
tfl (0 U I- I
0c 0 4z .3
3mz C


0 4-
'.440


O 0


0)
W 3
it 0

0u,
N0 iW
MM E
* C


te -
cN U)
- CU C,
SMo
CO S
090
N(M C


tU
m

0
- U

iW
0 In O
Is-M;


S4-O

GC
tfl0
c


C0





(In
NO
C C





* 00
c w
C .







*.- tfl'4.
CO3
*M 0







494)
tOU
0 CM
De E







04~
04& 0







0U40
C M
*HI )


*003



<*Ma
45 a
bouQ
*rt*^
0c *
md

























*4-











C
Cm
500
C
0
O 0

-4 F
3



**(CO





0



U

*M >



So
*-
& <



40
&ca




>
4-C
oc
C*l-





QC
Cu
00

cc m
&0














n



0
0U,


-to;


4)1




QC
.In
0CE
40
oe >
O
a) *H
*^ u
a <


+ I


*f-

0 ,

CO 4 C
C U)
n3 (U 4


OUCO

N *H E 4_
0 O

*HT)*>

cs y
o? 4) a
*.-I. 3> ^


C; OT<
o 4)0
c3U0


- -


+ +


++


u c
rt 0
*H


*H C *r4"H 3
4) 00 -



CC@

*V C
C ct 4^o *j o




O.C tC04 OG
CO M COi
CO M W WO0
0 0 CC *


"0


CO

04-

*r*1
CO -M


(f 3 J i
-i ^ia? i)*4.
W t3 VI fl <
; a c o
0 $.4-4C oa E
L1t bo 6lUr.-4 U3











positively related


scores


on the Iowa


Test


of Basic


Skills


after


controlling for pretest


grades


and SES levels.


a study


originating


as part


Stanford


Program


Teacher


Effectiveness


(Gage,


1976)


researchers


obtained


wide


variation in

semi-scripted


teacher questioning


lessons


techniques


involving reading,


through


recall


the use of


and comprehension.


This


study was


a factorially d


designed


experiment


in which


four


experienced


sixth


grade


teachers


were


trained


to deliver


controlled


variations


of lessons


which


differed


in the


amount


and kind


structuring,


soliciting


reacting


used


to teach


the lessons.


Observers


indicated


that


the parti


cipating


teachers


were


able


systematically vary their teaching,


and that


this variation


affected


performance


of students.


Classes


that


were


asked more


recall


questions


during


lessons


(low


soliciting)


performed


better


on the multiple


choice


test


comprised


of recall


and integration


items


used


as the


dependent


measure


of achievement.


Classes


in the high


and low


soliciting


groups


did equally well


on the thought


questions.


The researchers


concluded


that


students


remembered


more


information


when


teachers


asked mostly r


ecall


questions


during


class


that


pupils


' ability


to apply


integrate


information


seemed


not to be


affected


question


type.


It should


be noted,


however,


that


after


the influence


of class


differences


in ability were


stati


stically


removed,


the differences


student


achievement


between


classes


were











Effectiveness


of higher


cognitive


level


questions.


Most


of the


researchers previously


cited


support


the trend


toward


greater


achievement


when high


numbers


of lower


cognitive


level


questions


are used with


elementary


level


and low SES


students.


Evidence


from


these


studies


indicating


that


effective


teachers


of elementary


or low


SES students


also


ask fewer


higher


level


questions


is less


extensive,


but the results


from Soar'


(1973)


and Coker


and others


' (1976)


research


would


support


this


contention.


Some


investigators


have dealt


more directly with


the effects


higher


cognitive


level


questions


on I


earning.


Gall,


Ward,


Berliner,


Cahen,


Winne,


Elashoff


and Stanton


(1978)


followed


a semiscripted


lessons


procedure


to determine


the effects


on student


learning


higher


cognitive


level


(HCL)


questions


and redirection.


They varied


the percentage


questions


to include


percent,


50 percent


and 75


percent


HCL questions


in various


lessons


taught


specially trained


teachers,


and included an


art activity


serve


as a control


treatment.


Generally,


the students


in the


25 percent


and 75


percent


HCL question


groups


outperformed


the students


in the 50 percent


HCL question


group


and the


group


on both


knowledge


acquisition


and higher


cognitive


measures.


Eighteen


experimental


and quasi-experimental


studies


of teachers'


instructional


use of relatively more


verses


relatively


fewer


higher


cognitive


level


questions


were


critically reviewed


Winne


(1979).











student


achievement.


He reached


same


cone


lusion


when


he considered


only


those


studies


that


he judged


to be suffi


ciently valid


stringent


evaluation


criteria.


The investigations


Winne


analyzed


involved


several


different


and ability


subjects.


levels


Elementary


of students


in a variety


(non-secondary)


level


settings


students


and academic


were


subjects


in 10 of the studies.


Of the 10 research


teams


conducting


these


studies


Winne


judged


seven


as showing no difference


achievement,

dependent me


two teams


asures,


as obtaining mixed


and only


results


one as demonstrating


on the v

positive


arious

effects


higher


cognitive


level


questioning


on achievement.


When


only


the six


elementary


studies


deemed


valid


Winne


were


considered


, again


only


one was accepted as


evidence


that


could


be used


to support


the efficacy


of higher


level


questions


with


elementary


students.


Redfield


and Rousseau


(1981)


pointed


out that


Winne


used


variation


of the voting method


to anal


the 18 questioning


studies.


This


method


allows


comparison


of the number


of significant


nonsignificant


experimental


findings


within


a selected


pool


of studies,


but does


not allow


for determining


the magnitude


treatment


effect


across


studies.


Redfield


and Rousseau


reanalyzed


the studies


selected


Winne


(1979)


in addition


to two others


that


were


conducted


subsequent


to his review using meta-analysis


(Glass


, 1978).


In both


reviews,


the studies


were


categorized


as either


training


or skills


experiments


-- -1- t~ S -


J __ __^ J -r -_ __ -...


J l


4"










(higher or


lower


cognitive


level


questioning)


prescribed


experimenter.


Based


on the overall


effect


size of +7292


researchers


reported


that


predominant


use of higher


level


questions


during


instruction


did positively


affect


student


achievement.


This


conclusion


contradicted


that


reached


Winne


analyzing


same


studies


done


with


same


groups


of subj


ects


as well


previously


cited


researchers


offering


support


for the positive


relations

and pupil


between


achievement.


:he predominant

On the other


use of

hand,


lower 1

Redfield


evel


questions


and Rousseau


are


in agreement


with and


offer


some


empirical


substantiation


for Gall'


(1970)


and others


claim


that


teacher


questioning


behavior


does


measurably


influence


student


learning.


Teacher


Wait-Time


Another


aspect


of teacher


questioning


found by


some


to influence


student


responding


teacher wait-time.


Teacher wait-time


(TWT)


defined


as the length


after posing


a question


time


a teacher waits


or before


responding


to call o

to student


*n a student

answers


(Rowe


1974).


No studies


directly


involving the


use of wait-time


reading


lessons


or with special


populations


could


be found


for this


review,


so once


again


related


general


education


literature


will


discussed


(see


Table


One of the


primary


investigators


of the


concept


and practice


teacher wait-time


is Hary


Budd


Rowe


(1974).


context


of most



























bO m CZ3 "-4
0 30% V


COo C *O1;S
-C **- C* 3 -
COOO


O- 0 4)



C E .r4O J-1 I In0 k
Mo 03J 4) C'


*i 5. 0 U.4 l 0
SC C t U C

ce C 0- # 4


CO & >U2C
0-4 = J
UNV 0 3fl)
C 0S 0 3 r
.. co. al ceo
sCO r
'-4 *H 4 1- ) U
M*MRO C 6C&
CO C.'.r

.9. II
U *r44.C .0?
*C o" 3.-
tf -*r^E D 3
*i-l 3 ,P B
c C crc2*


to
C
*-
C C

0 +-> .CUt/
0-0 CO

2 t..3 nC 0 In
MM CT fO


OUU
0 *--Q

*CU fl 3(r
o *n 3 >

0 3
'. EC 4)0


C C* WC


60 I n 'CU 0
'-=HJ OOC 6 OU C t06 ".
E -. O *^ .,H *r ^-rl
i- .,* C *M 0 C,. > 1
%C GC 0 Ct4.4 C .M,.4 > W
(N 4. sCO+J ) Ca 6>0
-..4.r*-4 X 3 .44V *1*r -4 $.43
-( a wO CT* tnn 0 LC0


I
C C
00
*-4


DO
Y U
0 4<
C C 3

0 Jtn
e ^* C


C C)

.0 0



04J-
CO
0.> ^

.4.) C &).
x


C) 0.'.4
*.0 *P .
WWCO



*J .


60"0 60
;= oU C"
*40 0. *4
CCCC
0*MO ** a
Ct4- *C
$.4X fl 1.
c-k 0


0
in j
0 0
*P U

Oe &
StO-


00> C
C.MO 0 0
Ek CV 01
09 > U




C
0 -


0 0

'0 CM4J
0)4 -
>O ^
O W W .-t-a


S0
O 0 W
WO C

010
os S.. 6
c0-C.


C
0
*fl

90&
W>
30


Ok
>c
OC

** WA&
V) 0 r

,C *r *
c0
- .4


0Z *


o, 0
c *M >
0 C

0z0J
* *0 i 0
Ui 3O


4.)
C
O4N
*HC

0)0
C0
1-
oil
0E

-2*

> *-4



OU
^i

























< ** 1 O
C I tfl
CC B .-

*MtCOO tt 0 <>f
t*-! *i- ** c ae ii
CO CO 4 C P

*En &O-M ^iSCQ
*MYt GOM O a) 3

@**4&" F< ao oi i

VC C> *. C *i ) C 4)
CJ3*^..404)l ,3 O Q-.U0
OC C 4 P > C
.14.4 CU-4 Ci -41

* M 9 aj *ft *-) *U U ( +
r4 N. 4 ..4.. CM4
^-40 bomA U tfl +j)aW.rd*


C)
4-*-
t^ ** 0u*

SCUOCUO0)
a.) -0 -)<*o G r
*6 co 03e "
I^ C'l 4)..t tf C).ffi
4+'44-4C8U t Ot M G

1 -N Q)-- *4 8) >,0) 43
*>- *M U M y 111 'i> -

c*l 0 C C+


4 -) Uit 4)^- >O. C
ova ..t4 <^CU0.Ca4C a4 *> G *C

C *Ci *r4UC $

4-) *(N0 b*n U 4S 40 0.
- r .14 n .C1 U.rC 3 U
*M IfM- *H*0 MW0 O- -


ul m

C C d) C CO
0 0 t 0


a C)
00400*-> ^
4,4J 30 *



1 .4.- U) .) 4..C
r404si U-0 I
en0'm* 0 0



C0 0C C C.
, cU 4 0

c rt c &,j -- ,
0 rt B.-O +


J *J 0
,-i 4..c
*r~tJC1
00)0
0 4-
-4.4


. 4) S
* *@ ^ E >


0

C:
0
*4E
**0

C
in 3n

SCC C


4J 4rJ 0 4.3
*A
u2U0 I
SMO


a 0
4)0
04C 4)

cnsa
0 fl"
0C .0 0Q
m ,


0 *.
hoc


.-00
i >
OX


0 m


cU CO
4 tf 0)*H 0
o0 *.4 *ri
OU CW4)Co
o oc4co























S~ D
E- n *- c
0fC) U)V
~ *0 0u*M
*rUC 0 U0
*r CO OS O

4 0 4) f *
U, C 1) oO
h T 0 **- odJ N
CUA *U U cU
C CA 12 3
C +4k- C&T J )<
CM M CO*M 3 J&-

tj 44 0M $. 0
Ui- u oO -Mv
CMn^ em c po -t


C *O a ui* 0
y-t (0 00 3^0t
*O 00 *O i N
0NCD *0* 0 .


PC -
04)4.
ZcU c U

S tO)
A t/
^ X C C
0 40 0
C tf>0..
00C0u
<>0 0.
C *M U*
WWW) (0C


0 C -0
0< < ^ ~


3: 4.4.*
*MC)
t-0 ** ,c M -
tn $J C



4) 0) -Cti *CJCU
CU -- 44-CIC >>
+)U 0.3 o M


a; ~ ~ ~ e tnoj i"- r -

WU3 >4CU+Jc ."3 4*
ac'-'U 0.)t *V* o +4
aN)< 2 k tfl CQ 60
C10 *4 4>



40 0v U


>
Ce C
J3 0
60
CO
bCVN
CE
C-N
< 000C
+C CO


c
CO
4) 0)

*O m -i

0) 90 9


CO >CCU
5 444


04>
Q)0 c -
E&*C**o
C) 3
Swc> o
> 4 004J4.
*M4U 0)0
UCC.0C
40 e0* a


C
0 U
0)C



o
Cd c w
+j *M *


0@00
C &-0
0 4^

$.4H4)
0 *H
0O& 4-
00q
Cfl0


SII) -


4. 0 0 0
00 F 00
0
g CU ^ c


C tnlO
00049C P
0 04C 0)O
r 4 0)t U 0'-'
H>O O n"


0 10) C
.C in .C tf#
cU USCOf

CO P\0 W 0
M 00 O 0
^ &\*M


r- o






















CV)
-4
U)
0)



LI,
0
&-








t.



*rl
o>









C
0

0

CT3










C .)
S*H










0C9




Ok
0
C>




















'.4
+-P















C)
&








0)
*P










U
*3 ^
CV)
C).


tflE\o

-4C
C *i- *H-
*'H
*i-4 -0
Vl 0) (t
< C3 C



V U) 3i- CC
cdo *CUC
ct rt t rt *



o p.tn +j &
cj 00 uF
c > 0




4-i + o4a>
+JC *rSt .y.- *J 4
n *1 *LV) 3
b O bf e
.1- 4 -.t 0 9
*@ C *Mt tf


4J
+-> r-
cs : c
*H ;
MA ^4
CU ror
e a) ;
.r1* % C


,QCu

Vl) Z3r-
to 3 *r
0 9 ..
CL VI U


C
M

0)

4Jc




CC
00)
4n-1
** ^
4-~* b


TO V)
a a
M'-4
ictju3
3 cdtov

0 0
-* o 1

100
C3

i *H 0
n1 ti U


t/l 0
to O Uo




09030
u0p0 d
3' > ^-P r


0)CCU1o
0 C*d4 CO
<~ *) Xt











interactions


from all


regions


of the United


States


to determine


typical


use of wait-time


teachers,


changes


in TWT after


training,

Among


and effects

the changes


of wait-time

in student


upon


student


variables


that


responding.

she credited


increased


TWT based


upon


her analyses


were


increased


length


student


responses,


unsolicited


appropriate


responses,


responses


from


"slow"


students


and student


questions


along with


decreased


failures


to respond


(see


Table


Fagan,


Hassler,


and Szabo


(1981)


found


that


increased


TWT corresponded


to these


same


changes


in pupil


response


behavior with


third


through


fifth


grade


language


arts


classes.


Lake


(1974)


replicated


some


of Rowe'


early


investigations


with


fifth


grade


science


classes.


Nine


groups


received


instruction


lesson


from the


Science


Curriculum


Improvement


Study


(SCIS)


under


extended


teacher wait-time


(TWT)


conditions


nine


groups


were


instructed


using


short


conditions.


The obj


ective


in the lesson


was development


student


inquiry


behavior


all teachers


used


same


scripted


lessons.


Students


under


extended


engaged


conversational


sequences


and offered


alternative


explanations


significantly


greater


degree


than students


in the short


groups


In addition,


pupils


' responses


in the former


groups


were


judged


to be cognitively more


complex


than


responses


from


short


groups.


Winterton


(1977)


used


lessons


from


same


science


curriculum











procedures.


As in Rowe's


study,


significant


increases


in the length


of student


responses


and the number


of student-to-student


comparisons


were


noted,


as well


as positive


gains


in verbal


participation


from


low-verbal


students,


unsolicited


appropriate


responses,


student-initiated questions.


Such


Anshutz


positive


(1975)


gains


in student


or by Garigliano


responding were


(1973)


analyzed


not reported


relationships


between


teacher wait-time


these


same


pupil


response


behaviors.


Anshut z


(1975)


conducted a


study


designed


compare


the effectiveness


of training


wait-time


and questioning


techniques


on classroom


behavior


preservice


elementary


school


teachers.


on-campus


training program


in TWT


questioning


skills


coupled


with


four


weeks


of microteaching


helped


increase


the duration


of TOT


the number


of higher


order


questions


asked


the teachers.


These


increases,


however


were not


reflected


in measures


science


achievement


taken


the third and


fourth


graders


under


these


teachers'


instruction.


Garigliano


(1973)


also


attempted


to train


teachers


to increase


the length


of wait-time


used


in questioning.


The teachers


in the


training


group demonstrated


significantly


greater wait-time


than


control


group


teachers,


but still


not achieve


the overall


TWT'


3-5 seconds


recommended


Rowe


(1974)


to obtain maximal


benefits.


The only


affect


on student


behaviors


seemed


to be longer


responses












student


solicitations


inflected


responses,


pupil-pupil


interactions


or "I


don't


know"


responses.


In all of the aforementioned


studies,


the merits


of increased


were


judged


in relation


to the


type,


quantity,


and quality


students


verbal


responses.


In only


one study


did the researchers


(Tobin

between


Capie


1982)


and student


report


a significant


achievement,


and th


positive re

is was with


lationship

science


classes


in grades


five


through


seven.


Whether


this


same


relationship


would


be evidenced


in the


context


of elementary


reading


or reading


like


assignments


interactions


not known.


summary,


teacher


wait-time


has been


identified


as a significant


variable


affecting


student


responding


in several


studies.


Generally,


the result


of extended


wait-time


an increase


in the length


quality


of pupil


responses.


Few investigations


into


relationship


between


teacher wait


-time


and student


achievement


have


been


conducted.


Almost


all of the wait-time


studies


done


thus


far have


involved


regular


school


populations


and their


teachers


in the


context


science


or higher


level


academic


subjects.


Little


is known


about


effects


of wait-time


upon


the responding


or achievement


of special


education


populations


in the


context


of basic


skills


instruction


such


as reading.


Teacher


Follow-up


to Student


Responses


1 1_ n n. *_ t ,


*9


qO q


11











Good,


1979;


Rosenshine,


1976).


Part


of this


lack


agreement


results

used to


be explained


document


students,


teacher


context


differences


behaviors.


of the teaching


in observation


The level a

situation,


categories


md abilities of

and the objectives


of the lesson may


also


have


accounted


for the different


results.


General


Trends


Although


the value


of specific


teacher reactions


was not


consi


stent


across


all studies,


some


trends


in effective


teaching


were


identified


certain


populations


contexts.


Based


upon


findings


from


teacher


effectiveness


studies


reviewed,


Anderson,


Evertson,


and Brophy


(1979)


suggested


a drill


pattern


with


little


feedback


coupled


with


asking


questions


the students


can answer,


much


like


that


suggested


Stallin


and Kaskowitz


C1974)


and Soar


(197


for similar


samples


low SES students


, to be


most


effective.


After reviewing


effectiveness


studies


for evidence


of best


practice


for teachers


when


responding


to student


answers


Dunkin


Biddle


(1974)


and Rosenshine


(1976)


agreed


that


researchers


did not


find an


unvarying


relationship


between


specific


types


of adult


feedback


and student


achievement.


But,


some


trends


they


identified


from results


included


criticism


was usually negatively related


to achievement,


acknowledgement


or acceptance


of students'


answers


was positively related


gains


and (c)


the effects


praise


on achievement


seemed


highly


dependent


upon


the level











students


in all


contexts.


By using


unique


observation


categories


they


did discover


that


each


type


student


response


had its


optimal


type


teacher


reaction


Correct


answers


were


best


followed


askin


a new


question.


If the student'


answer was


partially


correct


correct,


answer.


it seemed most


incorrect


helpful


responses,


the teacher to


the asking


give


simpler


questions


with


prompts


or hints


to guide


responding,


rather


than


just


giving


the pupil


answer, was


most


highly


correlat


with


achievement.


Thus


student


incorrect


arrive


answers


at the


be best


correct


responded


answer without


to by


slowing


helping


pace


instruction


too much,


or by reiterating


the initial


explanation


a somewhat


simpler


level.


A somewhat


different


pattern


emerged


for higher


SES students.


For them,

answer was


answers


process

found,


criti


feedback


giving


cism for wrong


correct


answer


answers,


answers


in response


to highlight how t

to partly correct


and redirection


(calling


another


student


when


a pupil


was unable


to give


correct


answer)


were


positively


Immediacy,


Process


and significantly related


Feedback,


to achievement.


and Criticism


In analyzing more


specific


findings


concerning


adult


feedback,


one sees


different


teacher


reactions


highlighted


in different


teacher


effectiveness


studies.


Stallings


and Kaskowitz


(1974)


stress


ed the


importance


of immediacy


of feedback


to academic


responses


which











finding


stands


in contrast


with


those


of Dunkin


and Biddle


(1974)


and Rosenshine


(1976)


concluded


that


praise


and acknowledgment


are usually positively


(criticism)

achievement


related


is generally negati


The endorsement


to achievement,

vely correlated


for immediate


and negative


with


feedback


feedback


student

also


contradicts


to wait


suggestion


a minimum


Rowe


of 3-5 seconds


(1974)


before


and others


responding


for teachers


to student


answers


to produce desirable


student


behaviors.


Stallings


Kaskowitz


(1974)


and Anderson


et al.


(1979)


did agree with


helping


students


problem or


arrive


at correct


delineating


answers


the process


iving


(rule)


used


clues to clarify

to arrive at the


answer


and with


giving


sustained


feedback


to correct


errors.


While


heavy reliance


on criticism


generally negatively


correlated


with


achievement


for normally


achieving


students


(Dunkin


Biddle,


1974


Rosenshine,


1976),


moderate


and specific


use of


criticism


was found

al. (1979)


to be


positively


and Gall


et al.


correlated

(1978). F


with


achievement


or students


in these


Anderson

studies


the criticism was


interpreted


as being


corrective


and/or motivating.


For others,


especially


lower


level


lower


SES students,


student


criticism often had


the opposite


effect


and discouraged


further


responding.


Reduced


responding may


have


contributed


to their


lower


achievement


giving


them


less


practice or


fewer


opportunities


respond


under


supervision of


the teacher.


Practice


correct











Caution


is recommended


in making


interpretations


with


regard


to criticism,


however,


because


generally


low levels


of the


same


were


observed


to be used


by most


teachers


under


study.


Whereas


statistical


significance

criticism and


was reached


achievement,


certain


situations


the practical


for correlations


significance


of the


between


same


should


not be overlooked.


as the primary


form


Almost


of feedback


no teacher


to student


relied


responses


on criticism

regardless


level


of student


or classroom


context.


Redirection


Controversy


exists


on the effect


of redirection


or asking


another


student


to answer when


the student


originally


asked


a question


fails


to respond


or responds


incorrectly.


Stallin


and Kaskowitz


(1974)


and Brophy


and Evertson


(1974)


found


that


calling


on another


student


answer


in these


situations


was negatively


and significantly


correlated


with


achievement


of lower


SES pupils.


Brophy


and Evertson


(1974)


found


opposite


to be


true,


however,


with higher


SES students


in grades


and 3,


as did


Soar


(1966)


with


older


fifth


grade


students.


They


proposed


better


this


able


to be the


to benefit


case


from


because


higher


information


level


coming


students


from a


variety


sources,


whereas


lower


SES pupils


may perform


better


a more


teacher-directed


and structured


learning


situation.


Gall


et al.


(1978)


found


no significant


relationships


between


redirection


and achievement.


Teacher


Praise











with


explanation


was found


to be significantly


and positively


correlated


with student


achievement


Anderson


et al.


(1979),


Brophy


(1981)


and Soar


(1966).


a study


y Gage


(1976)


involving


variations


the recitation


strategy


(structuring,


soliciting,


reacting)


with


sixth


grade


public


school


students


, the students


received


praise


for their


correct


answers


reasons


for the


wrongness


an answer


did slightly


better than


students


given


neutral


feedback


no reasons


for their


answers


being


wrong


(low


reacting).


But,


as was noted


previously,


once


differences


in ability


were


statistically


removed,


the differences


in the classes


in student


achievement


and attitude


toward


subject matter were quite


small


across


the variations


of soliciting


reacting


teachers.


Praise without


explanation


was found


to be positively


related


achievement


of low SES students


in reading


(Brophy


Evertson


, 1976),


whereas


nonspecific


praise was


found


to be negatively


correlated with


achievement


Anderson,


Evertson,


and Brophy


(1979)


in a subsequent


study


of first


grade


reading


groups.


Mixed


results


were


obtained


Stallings


and Kaskowitz


(1974)


found


that


priase


and acknowledgement


were


positively related


to achievement


in first


grade


, but negatively


related


gains


in third


grade


Their


findings


could


be used


support


Brophy'


description


praise


as a technique


that


seemed


more


beneficial


younger


and lower


level


students.


Stallings


(1976)


describing


the Follow-Through


findings


reported












ability


profited more


from


a high


rate


of praise


than


did classrooms


of higher


entering


ability


students.


Student


Responding


and Systematic


Instruction


Student


responses


to various


types


of teacher


questions


have


also


been


investigated


in the


context


of general


education.


This


component


of instructional


interactions


is of major


importance


as an indicator


the effects


that


teacher


questioning


and instruction


have


upon


students


' learning.


Pupil


responses


are also


used


assess


teacher


effectiveness


comparing responses


that


students


make on


various


measures


before


and after


instruction.


The positive


effects


systematic


instruction


with


a high


rate


of student


responding


success


seemed


a common


thread


woven


through


the teacher


effectiveness


studies


despite


the inconsi


stencies


evident


in the relationships


of specific


teacher


questioning


behaviors


student


achievement.


Positive


effects


seemed


the result


combination


of time


spent


instruction


with


a high


rate


of question/


answer drill,


practice,


praise


or at least


brief


acknowledgement


correct


responses


(Brophy,


1981;


Englert


1984


Rosenshine


, 1976).


Also


necessary,


especially


for low SES students


seemed


to be


high


rate


success


(i.e.,


low error rate)


for students


during


drill


and practice


activity


Fisher,


Berliner,


Filbey


Marliave,


Cahen,


and Dishaw


(1980)


found


that


structuring


the learning


environment


*
fl-n ad- -. n nfl


* S
. .- nfl


-- 1 *i.-....y -.1i -: na-nni











providing


practice


levels


of 80 percent


accuracy


or higher positively


influenced


the performance


of low-achieving


students,


matching


findings


of a study


Anderson


et al.


(1979).


They


also


found


that


the percentage of


incorrect


student


responses


was negatively


correlated


with


achievement


for lower


SES students.


Correctness


answers


not coded


in the Stallings


but as Rosenshine


(1976)


and Kaskowitz


pointed


(1974)

correct


or Soar

answers


(1973)

were


studies

usually


student


answers


to low order


fact


or recall


questions


then


results


of those


found


high


success


rates


beneficial


match


those


both


Stallin


and Kaskowitz


and Soar.


They


also


found


that


both


order


questions


and the frequency


of lesson-related


verbal


interactions


were positively


related


to achievement.


The relationship


between


percentage


correct


incorrect


pupil


responses


and achievement


was reversed


when


data for


higher SES


students


were


analyzed


(Brophy


Evertson,


1977


Evertson,


Anderson


Brophy


1980)


Fisher


et al.


(1980)


at Far West


Laboratories


found


that


while


structuring


the learning


environment


insure


low error rates


during


individual


seatwork


was strongly


and positively


correlated


with


achievement


for all second


graders


in their study,


no consistent


relationships


between


these


same


variables


could


be demonstrated


fifth


grade


readers


with


high


preachievement


scores.


Such


findings


lend


credence


to Good'


s (19


observation


that


error


rates


well


be most


important


for less


capable


younger


students.


was











established


the basic


skills


and cognitive


development


necessary


deal


with


higher


level


learning.


The contradictory


findings


for the effects


of low error rates


on achievement


involve


of high


the low ability


and low SES


students'


or ability


attention


students


difficulties.


also


Zeamon


and House


(1963)


proposed


that


attention


deficits


explained


greater number


initial


of trials


acquisition


required


concepts.


by mentally


Hall


retarded


, Delaquandri,


subjects


Greenwood,


Thurston


(1982)


also


contended


based


upon


their


research


findings


that


low achieving


children need


more


practice


in order


to master


concepts.


Implications


of Findings


for Special


Education


was stated


previously,


most


of the teacher questioning


research


has been


done with


regular


education


not special


education


populations.


How specific


questioning


strategies


affect


different


types


learners


not been


widely


investigated,


but the related


research


does


contain


implications


for special


educators


Questioning


Strategies,


Student


Responding,


and SES


Upon


reanalysis


of results


certain


studies


Ward


and Tikunoff


(1976)


have


suggested


that


effects


of varying


questioning


treatments


were

with


often


a function


treatment


conditions


entering

Althou


aptitudes

Qh caution


and their


urged


interactions

in interpreting


these


interactions,


seems


that


no one strategy is


routinely


best


for all students.











conditions.


all three


Higher


treatments.


functioning


For oral


students performed


outcome measures


equally well


low ability


high


ability


students


best


in the 25


percent


and the 50


percent HCL question


treatments


respectively.


Such


results


indicate


a need


to consider not


only the


type


of question,


but the


types


pupils


being


instructed


in efforts


to promote


optimal


student


performance.


Researchers


involved


in the Texas


Teacher


Effectiveness


Studies


(Brophy


Evertson,


the Beginning


Teacher


1976;


Crawford,


Evaluation


Evertson,


Study


(McDonald


Brophy,

, 1976)


1976)


arrived


similar


conclusions


regarding


differential


relationships


between


achievement


of high


and low SES pupils


patterns


of teacher


behavior.


The Texas


study


involved


31 teachers


the first


year


and 28 teachers


the second

classroom


year.


Teachers


achievement


over


were

four


chosen

or more


stability


years


criteria


and spanned


the full


range of


effectiveness.


Low inference process


context


variables


were


correlated


with


student


achievement


on the Metropolitan


Achievement


Test,


and findings


were


presented


separately for


high


and low SES pupils


as well


as for the total


sample.


Gain


scores


were


residualized


to control


for students'


entering


levels


and then


averaged


for each


class.


Many


of the variables


investigated


which


were


negatively


correlated


with


criteria


for higher


SES classes


were


not related












questions


and simplicity


questions


asked


of students.


Achievement


of lower


SES students


correlated


positively with


both


variables,


while


same were


negatively related


to achievement


of higher


pupils.


Thus


competent


teacher


elementary


level,


low SES


students


seemed


to be


one who


kept


questions


rather


narrow


academically

synthesize,


focused

evaluate


instead of

, or express


encouraging


their


them


opinions


to analyze,

freely via question-


answer


interactions


and discussions.


competent


teacher


higher


level


students


was more


likely


to resemble


the opposite


profile.


The differential


an important


treatment


consideration


effects


due to socioeconomic


in special


education


status


instruction.


courts


have


repeatedly


demonstrated


that


educational


placements


based


on student


performance on


ability


or achievement


tests


result


in disproportionate


placement


in special


classes


of minority


lower SES


pupils


(Diana


State


Board


of Education


1970


Larry


v. Riles, 1979).


prevent


Although


such misplacements,


some measures


many


have


special


been


classes


taken


still


to correct


have


high


percentage


of these


students


(MacMillan


1982;


Ysseldyke


Algozzine,


1982).


If this


is the


case


with


the sample


of students


under


invest


action


in the


present


study,


teacher


questioning


practices


identified


as more


beneficial


to students


from


lower


SES backgrounds


also


be applicable


to the students


being


observed


, and possibly,











feedback


with


limited


redirection


and criticism,


and a high


rate


teacher praise.


No conclusions


can be reached,


however,


until


more


data


on teacher


questioning


and student


responding


in special


education


classes


are collected.


Other


Factors


Influencing


Effects


of Questioning


Strategies


socioeconomic


status


is probably not


the only


factor


involved


the effectiveness


of teacher


questioning


strategies.


As Tobin


Capie


(1982)


point


out,


higher


cognitive


level


questions


are not


appropriate


should


for all


be matched


types


of objectives


to the cognitive


level


and the level

of the intended


of questioning

d outcomes.


Younger


or lower


ability


students


are learning


foundational


skills


in the basic


subjects


and whose


reasoning


abilities


are less


well


developed may profit


more


in their


instruction


from direct,


lower


level


questions


corresponding


to skill/knowledge


objectives.


Primarily


verbal


abstract


for younger


interactions


reasoning


students


on a higher


or higher


or those


cognitive


thought


level


aimed


processes


functioning


at stimulating


be less


on a lower


helpful


cognitive


level


as is often


case


with


special


education


students.


This


logic


was underscored


by McDonald


(1976)


in his work


with


beginning teacher


evaluation.


He also


suggested


that


nature


effective


teacher


behaviors


varies


with


subject matter


and grade


level


being


taught.


a comparison


second and fifth


grade


students,


questions


requiring


identifications


appeared


valuable


to second


graders.










where


higher


cognitive


processes


were


being


developed,


questioning


techniques


a more


thought


-provoking nature


seemed more


benefit


cial.


Teacher


Wait-Time


and Special


Education


increased


responses


from students


regarded


by their


teachers


as "slow"


and decreased


failures


to respond


attributed


to increased


teacher wait-time


seem particularly


relevant


to special


education


students.


Their


frequent


lack


responses


result


in fewer


opportunities


to practice


correct


response


under


the guidance


the teacher.


Lack


response may


also


prevent


instructor


from


giving


corrective


feedback


to students


who formulate


inaccurate


concepts

incorrect


but fail


responses.


express


them,


Increased


and who may


TWT may,


however


subsequently

r, counter t


practice


he inclination


of many

before


special

he makes


education

a mistake


teachers


to assist


an effort


the hesitant


to model


student


appropriate


response


or to


insure


success


experiences


in his learning.


In evaluating


the benefits


extended


teacher wait-time,


should


also


consider


the empirical


evidence


supporting


the efficacy


of structured,


fast-paced


drill-like


instruction


involving


a high


rate


of low level


questioning,


immediate


feedback,


error


correction


offered


(1979)


by researchers


, Engelmann


Such


such


and Bruner


techniques


have


as Be


cker


74),


proven


Carnine


and S


highly


tailings


and Silbert


and Kaskowitz


successful


in the development


of bas


skills


in reading,


language,


and mathematics.


nriiirnl-nrc irnrcin nnnrar 4- flr, n,-,nl at- S., Ta S. 'It- ~ I- nfl n


one










responses


documented


to establish


by myriads


new


behaviors.


of applied


Such


behavior


benefits


analysis


have


studies


been


dealing


with a


wide


range


academic


and social


behaviors.


Increased


teacher


wait-time


represents


a strategy technically


opposed


to either


fast-paced


instruction


or immediate


feedback


student


responses.


Again


need


to delineate


which


techniques


work


best


to accomplish


specific


goals


in varied


context


and with


certain


populations


surfaces.


Extended


teacher wait-time may


be a highly


beneficial


strategy


inquiry models


of teaching


aimed


at stimulating


higher


level


thinking


among


older


or average


to higher


ability


students.


It may


less


appropriate


in situations


where


basic


skill


development


is the


primary


goal


or when


working with


less


adept


students.


Chapter


Summary


and Implications


for Study


In no


facet


of teacher questioning


researchers


find


universally


applicable


best


practi


ces.


Although


some


general


trends


in effective


teacher


behaviors


and questioning


were


identified


for particular


groups


of students


(higher


and lower


SES general


education


pupils at


the elementary


level),


be influenced


the effects


a variety


any specific


of factors


These


teacher


factors


behavior


include


the level,


instructional


of such


ability,


format,


variables


unique


and/or


as question


responses


objectives


type,


students,


the lesson.


teacher wait-time,


subject matter,


The influence

and teacher


follow-up


type


on learning


has been


examined


some


extent


with











little


is known


about


the effects


of questioning practices


exceptional


student


performance.


courts


placements


have


based on


repeatedly


student


demonstrated


performance on


that


ability


educational


or achievement


tests


result


in disproportionate


placement


in special


classes


minority


and lower


SES pupils.


Although


some measures


have


been


taken


to correct


prevent


such misplacements,


many


special


classes


still


have


a high


percentage


of these


students


CMacMillan


1982;


Ysseldyke


Algozzine


, 1982).


This


seemed


to be the


case


with


sample


students i

identified


investigated

as more be


in this


neficial


study.


Teacher


to students


from


questioning


lower


practices


SES backgrounds


also


be applicable


to the students


being


observed.


No conclusions


could


be reached


, however,


until


data


to substantiate


this


possibility


are collected.


More


fundamentally


a clear


description


of teacher questioning


strategies


used


in special


education


environments


was lacking.


Comprehensive

correlates of


information


teacher


about


questioning


he nature,

in setting


extent, an

gs designed


d classroom


serve


mildly


handicapped


children


was not found


in the professional


literature.


Consequently,


type


of information


that


would


direct


other


than


a descriptive


study


not exist.


A descriptive


study was,


therefore,


selected


as an appropriate


method


of developing


a knowledge


base


upon


which


to build


future


studies.










observations.


types


questions,


wait-times


and feedback


used


special


educators


were


recorded during


observations


in elementary


level


varying


exceptionality


classes


to provide


the data


for this


inves


tigation.


A description


of the design


and methodology of


study


is presented


in the following


chapter.
















CHAPTER
METHOD


This


chapter


procedures,


is organized


summary.


Subj


into


ects


three


sections--objectives,


, instrumentation


observer


training,


data


collection,


and design


are described


in the


procedures


section.


Objectives


purpose


of this


study was


to examine


types


of questioning


strategies


used


by teachers


of exceptional


students


during


reading


instruction,


types


responses


produced


their


students


the relationships


between


Classroom observations


were


teacher questioning


conducted


and student


and descriptive


responding.


and comparative


analyses


completed.


The following


ectives


were


addressed:


To describe


types


stions


used


to initiate


interaction


during


reading


instruction


in selected


elementary


level


varying


exceptionalities


asses.


To describe


the nature of


teacher wait-time


used


questioning


interactions


occurring


during


reading


instruction


selected


elementary


level


varying


exceptionalities


classes.


To describe the


types


of follow-up


to student


answers


used











To describe


types


of student


responses


to teacher


test


questions


obtained


during reading


instruction


elementary


level


varying


exceptionalities


classes.


To describe


the relationships


that


exist


between


selected


teacher


questioning variables


(types


questions,


teacher wait-time,


types


questions


of follow-up)


during reading


and student


instruction


responses


to oral


in selected


written


elementary


level


varying-exceptionalities


classes.


Procedures


Prior


to contacting principals


and teachers


to be involved,


approval


for the


conduct


of this


study


in the public


schools


obtained


from


the University


of Florida


Committee


for the


Protection


of Human Subjects


and Alachua


County public


school


officials.


Once


approval


had been


obtained,


resp


ective


teachers


were


contacted


for permission


to observe


and scheduling


of classroom observations


the purpose


data


collection.


Selec


tion and


Description


of Subjects


Fourteen


elementary


level


varying


exceptionalities


teachers


from


the Alachua


County public


schools


participated


in the study;


each


was observed


interacting


with


a reading


group


or more


students.


The students


in the VE


groups


include


pupils


clas


sified


as Emotionally


Handicapped


(EH),


Learning


Disabi


(LD),


and Educable


Mentally


Handicapped


(EMRH)


according


to Alachua


County


eligibility


was











handicapping


conditions--emotional


and educable mental


handicaps.


handicaps,


If differences


learning


disabilities


in questioning pract


ices


exist


between


general


and special


educators,


it seemed


that


they would


apparent


in such


setting


In addition


the mildly


handicapped


comprise


the largest


portion


of handicapped


children


served


in the


schools


(Meyen,


1978)


According


to the results


of the National


Survey


Algozzine


of Individualized


(1984),


Educational


percent


Programs


of handicapped


cited


children


in Ysseldyke


served


are


considered mildly


handicapped.


These


students


are frequently


grouped


for academic


instruction


according


to their


functioning


level


rather


than


exceptionality.


exceptionalities


offered


students


an overview


Studying reading


of similar


groups


functional


questioning practices


used


comprised

abilities


with


varying


not only


the mildly


handicapped,


but added


control


content


of academic


subject


this


research.


Selection


of classrooms


for observation


was made


from


a list


all (19)


elementary


VE teachers


in Alachua


County who met


following


criteria:


full-time


placement


a VE classroom


and based


school,


possession


a valid


Florida Special


Education


teaching


certificate,


use of reading


instruction


based


on the Ginn


reading


series


one










willingness


to participate


in this


study.


A total


of 14


elementary


level


VE teachers


in Alachua


County


participated in


this


study.


A description


of teacher


characteristics


is provided


in Table


age range


of the sample


of students


was restricted


elementary


level


(grades


through


in an attempt


to reduce


variability


of observed


behavior


often


characterized


children


different


ages.


In addition,


most


of the teacher


effectiveness


research


upon


which


questioning


competencies


were


based


was conducted


with


elementary


aged


students.


Comparisons


between


general


and special


populations


seemed


enhanced


with


special


education


subjects


ages


similar to


those of


the general


education


students


previously


studied.


Details


on student


characteristics


are shown


in Table


Reading


groups


were


chosen


for observation


to further


control


for differences


in questioning practices


due to subject


matter.


Although


the grade


range


in this


study was


, there


was a more


narrow range


of reading


levels


(grades


through


due to the reading


deficits


displayed


by these varying


exceptionalities


students


the discrepancy


requirements


for placement


in this


type


of class.


Reading


classes


were


also


context


many


of the


previous


teacher


effectiveness


studies.


Instrumentation


Data


were


collected using


classroom observations


and student


products


and recorded


on the Classroom Observation


Form


(see


Appendix


B) which


was a modification


the teacher


questioning


and pupil


are










Table


Description


of Special


Education


Teachers


Included


in the Study


Variable Numbers Percentages


21.4
78.6


Females


Years


Teaching


Experience


21.4
7.1
7.1
14.3
14.3


Race


Black
White
Other


Highest


Degree


92.9


Bachelor's
Master's
Educational


42.9
50.0


Specialist


Florida


Teaching


Certificationsa


64.3
50.0
64.3
14.3
14.3


Other


Number


of Certifications


Held


Individual


Teachers












Table


3--Continued


Variable Numbers Percentages


Aide

None 11 78.6
Full-time 2 14.3
Part-time 1 7.1


n > 14 because


several


teachers


held multiple


certifications.











Table


Description


of Varying


Exceptionalities


Students


Included


in the Study


Variable Numbers Percentages


Males
Females


Grade


80.0
20.0


Level


40.0
31.1
11.1


Race


Black
White
Other


68.9
31.1


SES (Free or


Reduced


Lunch)


High
Low


24.4
75.6


Exceptionalities


48.9
33.3
17.8


Numbers


in Reading


Groups


28.6
28.6
35.7











Table


4--Continued


Variable Mean Standard Deviation Range


Ages 8.7 2.58 8.7 12.0

1Q 86.2 10.47 61.5 99.3

Ginn Mastery Test Scores 87.5 5.60 78.4 98.3











Research


(COKER)


instrument


(Coker


Coker,


1982)


and on the Classroom


Information


Form


(see


Appendix


Provided


on the Classroom


Observation


Form were


spaces


for coding


observational


categories


involving


question


types,


congruence


student


responses


wait-time,


and teacher


group,


follow-up


materials


strategies.


being used


Narrative


in the lesson,


comments


type


on size


of activity


were


also


entered


on the form.


The Classroom


Information


Form was


used


to record additional


information


about


the students


and the


teacher


being


observed.


Background


information


on the COKER.


The Classroom


Observations


Keyed


for Effectiveness


Research


(Coker


Coker,


1982)


after which


the Classroom Observation


Form was


patterned


an observation


system


used


for coding


the behaviors


of pupils


and teachers


in the classroom.


The COKER is


a low-inference


direct


observation


instrument


with


which


observers


code


events


that


occur


in the classroom during


five-minute


observation


periods.


This


instrument


based


on the


assumption


that


competencies


exist


that


are necessary


for effective


teaching


that


overt


behaviors


can be identified


measure


those


competencies.


The COKER was


developed


based


on competency


lists


and behavioral


indicators


of the competencies


from


task


forces


of classroom


teachers


from


Carroll


County,


Georgia.


The lists


were


similar


to competency


lists


of other


competency-based


teacher programs


in the


country.


Indicators


substantiated


in the research


were


used


in the












One of


the suggested


uses


for the


COKER


given


its authors


it to


obtain


objective


information about


what


is happening


in specific


types


classrooms.


to competencies


and measurement


Identification


such as


of these


of subsets


questioning


particular


of teacher


follow-up


behaviors


behaviors


to student


is permitted


related


responses


with


COKER without


violating


assumptions


on which


was based


(Coker


Coker,


1982).


normative


groups


for the COKER


included


both


males


females,


elementary


and secondary


students


, rural


and urban


teachers


and student


teachers.


Dependent measures


were


usually related


reading

included


and math.

in the g


Special


groups


education


on which


teachers


the COKER was


and students


normed.


were


Additional


observations


using


the COKER were made


a variety


of special


education

colleagues


classrooms


prior


throughout


to this


Florida


investigation.


the researcher


The instrument


seemed


her

well


suited


to record


the student-teacher


interactions


observed


in these


classes.


For these


reasons


use of


subsections


of the COKER


involving


teacher questioning practices


was deemed


appropriate


for this


study.


Reliability


of the COKER was


estimated


using


the Cronback


Alpha


coefficient.


teacher


Internal


competency was


two year period.


the Observation


Data


consistency


estimated

collection


Schedule


items


using


Record,


which


103 teachers


proceeded


Form 5


using


Verbal


apply


observed


five


to each


over


instruments


(Medley,


1973),











the Teacher


Coping


Practices


Analysis


Observation


Schedule


Record


Educational


(Brown,


Settings


1970)


and the


(Spaulding,


1969).


instruments


contributed


varying numbers


of items


to the behavioral


indicators.


A number of


reliability runs


were


computed


on the COKER


scores,


both


for the proportionality


score


the standardized


T-score.


Although


reliability


estimates


for individual


items


were


low (.


1-.2)


estimates


increased


considerably


as items


were


aggregated


into


keys


for behavior


indicators


384-


.834,


with


an average


reliability


of .606).


Competencies


with


small


numbers


items


tended


to have


lowest


reliability


coefficients;


those


with


greatest


number


items


the higher


coefficients.


Reliability


coefficients


for the


composite


keys


varied


in magnitude.


All of these


coefficients


, however,


were


statisti


cally


signifi


cant


from


zero


(alpha


(Coker


Coker


, 1982).


Some


from


evidence


171 student


construct


teachers


validity was


at the University


collected


of Toledo.


using


These


data


data


were


analyzed


using


a principle


components


factor analysis.


Eleven


factors


were


found


which


accounted


for 69.8


percent


of the


variance


among


the 35


measures


on the COKER.


These factors


included


student


questioning


communication,


in small


on-task


groups,


evaluating


interactions


which


feedback,


transfer,


questioning


student


teacher


interactions.


Support


for the appropriateness


of using


COKER


subsections


assess


questioning


and feedback


competencies











Coding procedures.


Tallies


will


be used


on the Classroom


Observation


Form


to record


teacher


and student


behaviors


as they


occurred.


A "1"


was recorded


in the Teacher


Wait-Time


column


after


questions


for which


the teacher


demonstrated


a wait-time


of three or


more


seconds.


Tallies


were


recorded


under the Correct/Congruent


Pupil


Responses


column


of the Classroom


Observation


Form


correct


or congruent


responses


to teacher


questions


Tallies


in the third


student


response


column


represented


incorrect


or incongruent


answers.


Lack


of pupil


responses


was


recorded


in column


Teacher


responses


to student


answers


were


tallied


under


the columns


corresponding


to the


type


answer


the pupil


gave


to the teacher'


question,


with


the exception


of behavioral


stions.


This


type


teacher follow-up was


in response


to inappropriate


or off-task


comments


and/or


behaviors


rather


than


to student


answers


to teacher


questions.


Totals


percentages


for each


type


of question


and follow-up


strategy were


calculated


and entered


on the form following


observations.


Background


on the Ginn


Reading


Series


tests.


The Ginn


Reading


Series


was chosen


as a focus


for observations


from among


many


available


reading


programs


because


it is the reading program


adopted


for countywide


use in Alachua


County.


Teachers


are strongly


advi


to use


the Ginn


program with


its teacher


editions,


tests,


pupil


texts,


and skillpacks


(workbooks)


as the basis


for reading


instruction


in both


general


ecial


education


classes.


Study











approach


advocated


utilizes


six basic


steps


organize,


teach,


practice,


extend,


test


review.


Within


each


step,


structured


teaching


strategies


are provided


that


utilize


and integrate


various


teaching modalities.


No special


training


is required


the Ginn

provided.


series


instruction


The written


unit


, although


mastery tests


some


inservice


provided


has been


in the Ginn


program


can also


be administered


and scored


the teacher


or reading


specialist


without


special


training


(Florida


Learner


Verification


Guidelines,


1983).


Components

research-based


of the Ginn

and tested o


series


n a variety


are purported


of students


authors


from


to be


several


geographical


with


areas.


25-120 teachers


Various

and abou


studies

t 1600


were


conducted


students.


in 6


Samples


were


states

selected


so as


to be


representative


of those


who would


use the published


product.


Guidelines


directing


selection


samples


included


wide


geographical


distribution,


a variety


school


settings,


and high


low SES.


Learner verification


research


included


studies


of literary


content


instructional


design,


and the


testing


program consisting


unit,


level,


and placement


tests.


Data


were


collected


on all


aspects


of the

analysis


program


through


of pupils'


use


work


test


surveys,

scores,


interviews


field


class


experiments


visits,

analysis


reports


and unsolicited


comments


and analysis


independent


use











percent


of the teachers


asked


stated


that


unit


tests


realistically


reflected


their pupils'


achievement


(Florida


Learner


Verification


Guidelines,


1983).


Computing


success


rates


with


the Ginn


Reading


tests.


Average


success


rates


each reading


group


involved


in this


study were


determined by


calculating


average


percentage


correct


student


responses


on the Ginn mastery tests


associated with


content


of the


specific


reading


lessons


observed


for data


collection


on each


teacher's


questioning


teachers

and avera


behaviors.


The students'


on the Classroom Inf

ged for each reading


formation

group.


scores


Form,

Other


were


provided


converted t

information


o percentages,


concerning


student


each


and teacher


teacher


characteristics


, and required


called


no special


for on this


training to


form were


obtain


provided


and record.


Observer


Training


The classroom


observational


data


were


collected


the researcher


had been


formally trained


in the


use of the COKER


instrument


prior


to the conduct


of this


study.


The skills


demonstrated


during


training


included


a thorough


understanding


of the pupil-related


dependent


variables--correct


or congruent


incorrect


or incongruent


pupil


responses,


accurate


observation


and recording


of the


type


frequencies


questions


asked


the teacher,


accurate observation


and recording


of the


type


and frequencies


of follow-up


strategies


used


the teacher to respond


to student


answers


, (d)


accurate











The training period


included


an explanation


of the pupil-


related


dependent


variables


an explanation


of the


categories


of questions


and responses


to be observed;


a description


observer responsibilities;


practice


in categorizing


questions


responses


using


observation


forms


worksheets


and (e)


observations


of videocassette


tapes


in order to


attain


skills


recording


question


types,


pupil


responses,


and teacher


follow-up


strategies.

questioning


These


videocassette


interactions


with


tapes


children


depicted


teacher-student


a variety of


classroom


contexts.


The extent


to which


observers


' skills


and knowledge


were


acquired


was measured


comparing


trainer-trainee


observations


using


the COKER


to record


teacher- student


interactions


on videotapes


in actual


classroom


situations.


Before


training was


terminated,


trainee


s observations


and recordings


had to reach


80 percent


level


of interrater


Observer


agreement


agreement


with


the trainer'


Accuracy


observations.


of the principal


data


observations


was checked


throughout


the investigation


another


observer trained


use the COKER


categories


included


on the


Classroom Observation


Form.


Interobserver


agreement


checks


took


place


during


classroom


observations


for approximately


percent


the teachers


involved


were


calculated


y comparing


five minute


records


of reading


instruction


observations.


Interobserver


agreement


was calculated


using


the formula


collector's











This


formula


was used


in other


teacher


effectiveness


studies


(Anderson,


Evertson,


Brophy


, 1979;


Medley


Coker


Soar,


1984;


Stallings


Kaskowitz


, 1974)


to determine


interobserver


agreement.


Agreement


levels


or greater were


considered acceptable


the authors


and evaluators


of the COKER.


For this


study,


agreement


levels


averaged


percent


and ranged


between


percent


and 92


percent.


Data


Collection


The data


were


collected


during


a series


of five


minute


observations


of reading


classrooms


groups


within


in the selected


a period


varying


of approximately


exceptionalities


45 school


elementary


days.


developers


of the COKER


(Coker


Coker,


1982)


suggested


that


observers


record


minutes

second


behaviors


and then


part


on the first


pause


to record


of the COKER as


were


two parts


as many

observed


system


of the signs


during


for five


listed


same


on the


five minutes.


This

report


procedure

t that hi


comprises


ghly reliab


one record

le scores


or observation

can be obtained


unit.

with


The authors

12 such


observations.


Soar


and Soar


(1982)


reported


that


12-18


five minute


observations


across


one or several


days


have


produced meaningful


results


for studies


of this


nature.


Other researchers


investigating


teacher


effectiveness


also


favor


such


relatively


short


observation


records


(Medley,


Coker,


Soar,


1984).


Rowley


(1978)


has shown


that


for the


same


total


observation


time


, a larger number


of brief











The teacher


questioning,


student


responses,


and teacher


feedback


behaviors


recorded


were


a subset


of the COKER


items,


Part


Teachers


were


being


observed


only


during


reading


instruction


rather


than


during


a variety


of subjects


and time


periods


as was done


the COKER and


some


of the other widely


acclaimed


teacher


effectiveness


studies


(Stallings


Kaskowitz,


1974).


The purpose


of this st

of teacher


udy was


to describe


questioning


behavior


the relations

r and pupil r


between


esponses


different


styles


not to describe


with


maximum


reliability


the behavior


an individual


teacher.


Therefore


the investigator


opted


for shorter observations


in greater


numbers


classrooms


across


the county rather


than


longer


observations


in a


small


number


of classrooms.


Based


upon


these considerations


the focus


records


of this


completed


study,


a series


for this study


at least


during


a total


12 five minute


of three


observation


visits


each


classroom was


considered


appropriate


was consistent


with


other


teacher


effectiveness


research.


Observations


occurred


during reading


instruction


when


the classroom


was in its natural


state


and only when


the designated


classroom teacher


was present.


The data


on teacher


questioning


and student


oral


responding were


recorded


using


the Classroom Observation


Form and


averaged


each


across


teacher and


the three

group of


observations


students


to provide


for purposes


the data


of analysis


set for

Scores


from


the Ginn


reading mastery


tests


and frequencies


occurrences











Design


Comprehensive


information


on questioning


strategies


used


special


education


teachers


does


not exist


in the professional


literature.


Consequently,


a des


criptive


and correlational


study was


selected as


an appropriate method


of forming


a knowledge


base


upon


which


to build


future


studies.


percentages


of the


types


questions


and follow-up


strategies


used


select


elementary


level


varying


exceptionalities


classroom teachers


and the


percentage


correct/congruent


responses


to teacher questions


demonstrated


students


were


obtained


in this


research.


Percentages


questions


which


teacher wait-time


equals


or exceeds


three


seconds


were


also


recorded.


Variables.


Teacher


behavior variables


included


in this


study


were


frequencies


various


types


of questions


asked,


occurrences


of extended


teacher wait-time


equal


to or


exceeding


three


seconds,


and (c)


frequencies


of various


types


follow-up


strategies


used


the teacher


to respond


to student


answers.


Two variables


concerning


student


performance


included


average


success


rate


on reading mastery


tests


and (b)


percentage


of correct/congruent


responses


to teacher questions


during


lessons.


These were


chosen


because


standardized


tests


are generally not


designed


to show


changes


in scores


over


short periods


of time


(Winne,


1979)


and therefore


would not


be sensitive


to pupil


changes


occurring


during


the observation











Data


analysis.


Percentages


of correct/congruent


and incorrect/


incongruent


student


responses


and the


average


success


rate


on reading


mastery


tests


were


calculated


and reported


in table


form.


Pearson


product moment


variables


correlations


included


were


in the study.


calculated


prevlou


for pairs

s reviews


continuous


of teacher


effectiveness


research


(Medley


1977


Stall wings


Kaskowitz


, 1974)


relationships


equivalent


to linear


correlations


>.39 between


test


and a


criterion


were


considered


stron


and reliable


relationships


and corresponding


to acceptable


evidence


validity


in general


practice


in addition


statistical


significance


at the


.05 level.


Summary


purpose


of this


descriptive


and correlational


study was


examine


types


of questioning


strategies


used


by teachers


exceptional


students


during reading


instruction,


types


responses


produced


the students,


and the relationships


between


teacher


questioning


strategies


and pupil


responses.


Fourteen


teachers


their


students


were


observed


during reading


instruction


in elementary


level


varying


exceptionalities


asses.


Teacher questioning,


wait-time,


and follow-up


student


answers


and student


responding were


observed


and recorded


using


the Classroom


Observation


Form,


a modified


version


of the Classroom Observations


Keyed


for Effectiveness


Research


instrument.


In addition,


student


scores


on the Ginn


reading mastery


tests


related


to lessons


observed


and information


on student


ati.I











various


types


of questions,


teacher wait-time,


follow-up


student


responses,


as well


as correlations


between aspects


of teacher


questioning


and student


responding, were


calculated,


reported,


discussed.
















CHAPTER


RESULTS


The goal


of this


study was


to illustrate


types


of questioning


strategies


used


teachers


of exceptional


students


during


reading


instruction,


as well


as to identify the


types


responses


produced


students


between


during


teacher


that


questioning


instruction,


strategies


to evaluate


and student


the relationships


responses


selected

students


varying


exceptionalities


groups


of 2-5 student


classes.

s, total


Fourteen


= 45)


teachers


were


and their


observed during


reading

complete


instruction. A

d, representing


Total


of 256 five-minute


an average of


18.3


observations


observations


was


per teacher.


The number


lengths


of observations


of reading periods


for each


groups


teacher varied due


in the different


varying


classrooms.


Selected

answers.


aspects


of teacher


and student


response


questioning, wa

es to questions


it-time

were o


, follow-up

observed and


to student

recorded


using t

version


he Classroom Observation


of the Classroom


Form


Observations


(see A

Keyed


ppendix


a modified


for Effectiveness


Research


(COKER)


instrument


(Coker


Coker,


1982).


In addition,


student


scores


on the Ginn


series


reading mastery tests


related


to lessons


observed


and information


on student


and teacher markers


(e.g.,


gender


race,











for this


study.


Frequencies


percentages


of the various


types


questions,


teacher wait-time,


follow-up,


and student


responses


well


as Pearson


product moment


correlations


between


aspects


teacher questioning


and student


The purpose of this


chapter


responding were


to present


then


calculated.


the results


of the


study;


data and related


outcomes


are discussed


six sections


corresponding


to the


questions


under


investigation.


In the


main


sections


are addressed


types


of teacher questions


used


nature of


teacher wait-time,


types


of teacher


follow-up


to student


responses,


between


types


teacher


of student


questioning


responses


and student


to questions,


responses,


the relationships


and the relationship


between


student


responses


to oral


written


questions


posed


during


reading

tabular


instruction.


form,


Data related


and key points


to each


are treated


section


in the


are presented


text.


Teacher


Questions


The first


question


interest


in this


study was


stated


as follows:


What


types


questions


rote/recall


use/application)


special


education


teachers


use to initiate


interaction


during reading


instruction


selected


elementary


level


varying


exceptionalities


classes?


For this


study,


questioning


categories


from


the COKER


instrument


were


used


to record


and describe


teacher


questions.


These


categories


included


the following


types


questions:


Open-ended/


No wrong


answer.


Recall /Rote/Tnformation


or Annli nation -


. ..s


1 I_ I











and (g)


Behavioral


questions.


(Definitions


of these


categories


questions


as used


in this


study may


be found


in Chapter


A total


of 2203


questions


were


recorded


in the 256 five-minute observations,


yielding


an average


of 8.6 questions


asked


five


minutes


instruction.


The data related


to teacher use


of specific


types


questions


are summarized


in Table


The most


frequently used


type


stion


was the Rote/Recall/


Information


question


asked an average


of 4


04 times


five minutes


of observation


and representing


percent


of all questions


asked


during the


observation


periods.


next


most


frequently used


were


Use/Application


questions.


Used


an average


of 2.26 times


five-minute


observation,


these


questions


accounted


for 24.8 percent


of all questions


asked--approximately half


the percentage of Recall/Rote


questions.


Status


questions were


the only


other


type


question


asked more


than


an average


once


five-minute


period


this


type of


question


represented


13.5


percent


of those


asked


during the


observations.


Considerable


variability


in the


frequencies


with


which


certain


question


types


were used


was shown


for individual


teachers.


For example,


some


classrooms


Recall


questions


were


asked


twice


as often as


others.


Similarly,


some


groups


ten times


the number of Open-ended


and Elaboration/Evaluation


questions,


13 times


the number


of Status


questions


and six times


the number


of Application


questions


were


asked


than


in other


groups.









0 C 0 0 82
0 0 M N -4 tO 0
o to tn to o-
0 'o to tO 0
Q^ ** S
t O N 0- 0- 0
to



C N tO '-I 0 V
C/* * *














N 0 O O O tO


r^ o ^ M Ci
i-4


















C 140
ow. 0t-t















e '.0 to 'C to .
^| N




o No 0 o
LAO tt ( N

















*H S SS

























0 C '- 0
O0t f t 0

N 0 0 0 0Y
0 to 0n to^o V to





0 *N O N N














bj r ^Z
C: 1 1 1H I
N 0 *0 0 0 0 '0
C

0 '
<-d V '.0 Tt0 to VN 00
0 P.40 0- N 0 to VO N-


CC


M C
**r

S 0




0 0
C0 Ct2V



tO 0 r



in 3- *l03
& 0T 0


o 2 0 U)











responses


occurred during


the 256 observations.


Given


this


very


small


number of


occurrences


category was


dropped and


only


questions


concerning


amplification


, elaboration,


or evaluation


students'


own


ideas


were


considered


in the analyses.


For the remainder


of the


text,


Amplification/Elaboration/Evaluation


questions


refer


one of


these


processes


being requested


of the student


concerning


or her


own idea.


Of the remaining


categories


of questions


questions


about


behavior were


the least


used,


and occurred


an average of


only once


every


three


five-minute


observations.


These


questions


constituted


approximately


percent


of all questions


asked.


Amplification/


Elaboration/Evaluation


of Student'


Own Idea and


Open-ended/No


Wrong


Answer


questions


were


only


slightly more


common,


comprising


percent


and 6.5


percent


of the questions


recorded.


Teacher


Wait-Time


The second question


cons


idered


in this


study was


What


is the


nature

three


of teacher wait-time


seconds


(i.e.,


shorter wait-times)


wait-times


equalling


used during


reading


or exceeding

g instruction


in varying


exceptionalities


classrooms?


Wait-time was


defined


as the


time


between


the end of


a teacher question


and the beginning


student

follow-u


response

n to that


or the time

response.


between

In this


the student


study,


response


teacher wait-t


and teacher

ime (TWT)


was recorded


as the number


occurrences


three-s


second


or longer










student

observer


responses


s mental


to these

y counting


questions.

g "1-1000,


Duration

2-1000, 3


was measured


-1000.


For only


percent


questions)


of the


total


1684


academic


questions


of the three


types


named


did teachers


wait


three


seconds


or longer


for student


responses.


In most


cases


the researcher


count was


interrupted


by the


teacher


calling


on a student


or prompting


between


wait-time


the "1-1000"


was between


and "2-1000"


one and


count,


two seconds


indicating that


in duration.


most


Since


teacher


only


mental


counting


of time


was used,


more


accurate


assessments


of this


duration


could


not be made.


Further


analysis


of these data revealed


that


in 47.6


percent


approximately


questions


wait-time


half


posed.


were


of these


rest


responded


cases


of the


to with


students


questions


correctly


accompanied


incorrect/incongruent


answered


extended


or no


answers


from students.


This breakdown


was


essentially


same


when


responses


to Rote/Recall


Application


(often


(often


referred


referred


as lower-order


as higher-order


questions)


questions)


and Use/


questions


were


analyzed


percent)

percent)


separately


of the

of the


(see


recall


Table


questions


application


Slightly more

and somewhat fe


questions


were met


than


half


wer than


with


half


correct/


congruent


student


responses


following


extended


teacher wait-time.


only three occasions


was extended


TWT used


with Amplification/Elaboration/


Evaluation

*hn TWT h


questions.


one case,


a correct


student


response


followed


11* ti.rn iflC*!lflf'DC c i-i iA on c Cl I Cl ~I *l*~ an cnror


nl i 1


n *







85




ON 0O U t

0 N r 00 N










< 01(N^
'0 O to t
Z '"00 C. -
N-4





U)












00
(U
0 en
U) U N (N to to
0 0)
0; N

















CtC
U)1













+jO* 0*^C 3


,C c- *0^ ^
0 i 0
3O (M tO


















O cnoP N "0 t
4-'tf t
MU

00




0 c*
0 00 t to
t*o *C -
U, to -$ O
cd^
Ul ~ M*i





oo




0- **-


o^ 0 *- CO
U)r- *Hav-4 '0 0
0-4 -- Cdtlc^^
'k- U- 4J '0 II 0 <

in.11OS'-.. Ii oC
0^ -W'D -H Co* ^ P
P.. O* t COt
fl- 5% 4)> Cd so 11
Cd E4 r-400' 4*) C
r'I0 3 I 0N ^- Cdl

+C 54' -^ 1 0-t











As noted


above,


this analysis


is based


on a relatively


small


number


occurrences


of extended


teacher


wait-time


across


all 14 teachers


observed.


The 69 instances


of extended


teacher wait-time


constitute


an average of


only


about


five


instances


teacher.


Some


teachers,


however,


never used


wait-time of


three


seconds


or longer.


Correct


responses

ranged fr


to questions


om an average


associated


of 16.7


with


percent


extended teacher wait-time

to 100 percent for different


teachers


with


similar


students


and for similar questions.


Whether


these


same


patterns


and variability would


be shown


had the teachers


demonstrated


greater use


of wait-time


cannot


be determined


from


present


data.


Teacher


Follow-Up


to Student


Responses


The third question


that


was investigated


for this


study was


What


types


of follow-up


strategies


(e.g.,


prai


telling,


focusing)


do special


education


teachers


use to respond


to student


answers


during


reading


instruction


selected


elementary


level


varying


exceptionalities


classrooms


A summary


of the data representing


answer


to this


question


for the teachers


observed


shown


in Table


Of the 2203


questions


asked


to initiate


instructional


interaction,


1777


(80.7


percent)


eventually received


some


type


of teacher


follow-up.


This


constituted an average


seven


occurrences


of teacher


follow-up


student


responses


to questions


five-minute


observation.


By far


the most


commonly used


type


of feedback


to students


was











0
tao










special


education


teachers.


They used


this


strategy


an average


times


during


a five-minute


period--almost


three


times


as often


as the next most


frequently used


type


of follow-up which


involved


focusing


or cueing.


Focusing/Cueing


follow-ups


comprised


approximately


20 percent


the feedback


given


to students.


next


most


frequently


used


categories


of teacher follow-up were


those


in which


the teacher


gave


correct


information


following


a wrong


answer or


no answer


from


a student,


and general


praise;


these


types


of feedback


comprised an


average


11.2


percent


and 10.1


percent


respectively


of all follow-up


used.


Criticism/Commands


was the least


used


feedback,


accounting


less


than


percent


of the follow-up,


occurring


from


zero


once


in every


sessions


observed.


Other


types


of follow-up


(Specific


Praise,


Asks


Another


Student,


Accepts/Checks


Perception,


Repeats


Same


Question)

follow-up


each accounted f

given, with Asks


or between

Another S


and 3


student


percent


being used


of all teacher


the least


these


categories.


was closer


to the level


frequency with


of Criticism


which


(i.e.,


Uses


almost


or Extends


never used


occurred


in the


elementary


level


varying


exceptionalities


classes


observed).


Student


Responses


Student


responses


were


examined


to answer the


fourth


question


posed


in this


study


concerning percentages


correct,


incorrect,


and no


answer


responses


to teacher


questions


posed


during


reading


instruction


in selected


elementary


level


varying


exceptionalities










were


examined


since


Behavioral,


Status,


and Open-Ended


questions


were not


always


directly


related


to the


content


of the


reading


instruction


or did not


elicit


responses


which


could be


considered


correct


or incorrect.


Means,


academic


standard


questions


deviations,and


and Ginn


ranges


reading tests


of student r

are presented


response


in Table


Responses


classified


as correct


answers


averaged


63.5


percent,


with


the percentage


ranging


from


46.7


percent


to 81.1


percent


for individual


reading groups.


An average


of 28.6


percent


Rote/Recall


Use/


Application,


and Amplification/Elaboration/Evaluation


questions


were


answered


incorrectly


or incongruently,


with


the range


for individual


teacher'


students


38.3 percent.


falling


A mean


of 8


between


percent


a low of 16.7


of teacher


percent


stions


and a high


from


categories


under


investigation


received


no response


at all from


students


but this,


too,


varied


from


percent


to 15


percent


with


different


groups.


On the Ginn


series


reading mastery


tests


related


content


of the lessons


observed,


students


averaged


87.5


percent


correct


responses.


The range


for individual


groups


extended


from a


average


score


of 78.4


percent


to a high


average


score of


98.3


percent.


Relationships


Between


Questioning


Variables


and Responses


The fifth


question addressed


in this


study was


stated as


follows


What


is the


nature


of the relationships


between


selected


teacher










Table


Student


Evaluation


Responses


Questions


to Recall,


During


Use,
Readin


and Amplification/Elaboration/


g


and on Ginn


Tests


Response Type Mean % SD Range


Answers to Teacher Questions

Correct/Congruent 63.5 8.3 46.7-81.1

Incorrect/Incongruent 28.6 6.6 16.7-38.3

No Response 8.0 4.3 2.3-14.9

Answers to Ginn Reading Test

Correct/Congruent 87.5 5.6 78.4-98.3


These questions


across


represent


the 14 teachers


a total


of 1684/2203


(76.4%)


questions


asked


observed.











in elementary


level


varying


exceptionalities


classrooms?


For this


analysis


average


Pearson product


percentages


moment correlations


correct


were


responses made


calculated


students


between

both


orally


during instruction


and in writing


to questions


on the Ginn


mastery


tests


associated


with


the reading


content


being


covered


during


observations


follow-up,


and the


occurrences


percentages

of extended


various


teacher wait


types

-time.


of questions,

The resulting


correlations


and alpha


levels


are reported


Table


The only


categories


significantly


correlated


with


percentage


correct


oral


responses


to academic


questions


were


Status


questions


-.45


< .05)


and Focusing/Cueing


follow-up


=-.70,


< .01).


Thus, higher


levels


status


questions


(e.g.,


understand?"


"Who


s finished?"


"Any more


questions


used


to determine


status


a student


or group


at the moment)


and of Focusing/Cueing


feedback


occurred


with


lower


levels


correct


student


oral


responses


to academic


questions.


It should


be noted


that


Focusing/Cueing


feedback


followed


incorrect/incongruent


or no


answer


student


responses


almost


exclusively.


This


type


of follow-up was


used


to help


students


arrive


at the


correct


answers


when


they


demonstrated


difficulties.


Focusing/Cueing


feedback


seldom


followed


correct


responses


with


which


they were


being


compared

between


in this

correct


be expected,


correlation.


student


and has


Hence,


responses


little


strong negative


and Focusing/Cueing


practical


significance


correlation


feedback


in this


would


context.











Table


Correlations


Between


Teacher Questioning


Variables


and Student


Responses


Correct


Variables


Verbal


Student


Responses


Correct
Written


Student


Responses


(Ginn)


Teacher


Questions


Recall/Rote


Use/Application

Status


-.18


-.45*


Open


Ended/No


Wrong


Answer


-.07


-.43


Amplification/Elaboration/Evaluation

Behavioral


-.09


-.40


-.22


-.02


Teacher Wait-Time Occurrences


Teacher


-.33


Follow-Up


Tells/Confirms/Gives


Information


-.23


Focusing/Cueing


-.04


Wrong


Answer/No


Answer/Gives


Information


-.21


Praise

Praise


Without

With Ex


Explanation


planation


Accept


s/Checks


Perception


-.03


Repeats


Asks


Same Question


Another Student


-.70**