Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to find out how teachers use questions in classroom discourse to scaffold student thinking and help students construct scientific knowledge. The study was conducted in large‐class settings where the medium of instruction was English although the students were non‐native speakers of the language. Six teachers teaching grade 7 science classes from four schools participated in the study. Thirty‐six lessons covering a range of topics were observed across a variety of lesson structures such as expository teaching, whole‐class discussions, and laboratory work. The lessons were audiotaped and videotaped. Verbal transcripts of classroom discourse were analyzed interpretively. Particular attention was paid to questioning exchanges that stimulated productive thinking in students, as manifested by their verbal responses. A framework was developed that included four questioning approaches adopted by the teachers. This included Socratic questioning, verbal jigsaw, semantic tapestry, and framing. This paper describes these various questioning approaches, their features, and the conditions under which they were used. It also discusses the implications of these approaches for instructional practice. The findings from this study have potential in translating research insights into practical advice for teachers regarding tactical moves in classroom discourse, and provide guidelines for teachers to increase their repertoire of questioning skills. © 2007 Wiley Perio…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
This constructive-challenge strategy resembles a neutral evaluation that avoids a triadic dialogue and favors a collaborative construction of knowledge.
“This strategy resembles a neutral evaluation that avoids a triadic dialogue (teacher's judgment on whether it is correct or not) and favors a collaborative construction of knowledge”
From Young Children's Epistemic Operations and Emergent Argumentation in Inquiry‐Based Discussions: The Role of Teacher Questioning and Collaborative Interactions (2025) · cites this paper as Chin 2007
By tossing back questions, the teachers validate the students' ideas and establish them as a baseline on which to build, shift the responsibility for knowledge construction back to the student, and promote student-student collaboration.
“By doing this, the teachers not only validate the students' ideas and establish them as a baseline on which to build, but they shift the responsibility for knowledge construction back to the student and promote student-student collaboration”
From Young Children's Epistemic Operations and Emergent Argumentation in Inquiry‐Based Discussions: The Role of Teacher Questioning and Collaborative Interactions (2025) · cites this paper as Chin 2007
Responsive questioning techniques both help students progressively make sense of the conceptual ideas and require them to engage in more higher-order thinking.
“Therefore, these kinds of “responsive questioning” techniques both help students progressively make sense of the conceptual ideas (Chin 2006) and also require them to engage in more higher-order thinking (Chin 2007).”
From Young Children's Epistemic Operations and Emergent Argumentation in Inquiry‐Based Discussions: The Role of Teacher Questioning and Collaborative Interactions (2025) · cites this paper as Chin 2007
Sequencing questions helps students to move up a 'cognitive ladder' through levels of increasingly complex reasoning.
“sequencing questions helps students to move up a “cognitive ladder” through levels of increasingly complex reasoning”
From Young Children's Epistemic Operations and Emergent Argumentation in Inquiry‐Based Discussions: The Role of Teacher Questioning and Collaborative Interactions (2025) · cites this paper as Chin 2007
Almost half, 46.83%, of teacher questions were higher-order thinking questions by Chin's definition.
“Almost half, 46.83%, were higher-order thinking questions by Chin's (2007) definition.”
From Teacher questions, wait time, and student output in classroom interaction in EMI science classes: An interdisciplinary view (2023) · cites this paper as Chin's (2007)
Teacher questions that encourage students to elaborate, discuss various points of view, and promote higher-order thinking can elicit more substantial student responses in full sentences, benefiting science learning.
“Such questions can elicit more substantial student responses in full sentences, benefiting science learning (Chin, 2006(Chin, , 2007;;van Zee & Minstrell, 1997).”
From Teacher questions, wait time, and student output in classroom interaction in EMI science classes: An interdisciplinary view (2023) · cites this paper as Chin, 2007
Each questioning approach possesses a special and meaningful function in contributing to constructivist teaching.
“As Chin (2007) discussed, each of the questioning approaches possesses a special and meaningful function in contributing to constructivist teaching.”
From Teacher questions, wait time, and student output in classroom interaction in EMI science classes: An interdisciplinary view (2023) · cites this paper as Chin (2007)
Pumping, the most commonly used type, is a more straightforward form of constructivist questions.
“One reason could be that pumping, the most commonly used type, by Chin's (2007) definition, is a more straightforward form of constructivist questions.”
From Teacher questions, wait time, and student output in classroom interaction in EMI science classes: An interdisciplinary view (2023) · cites this paper as Chin's (2007)
Together with the overall low average time percentage of student talk, unfavorable conditions for science learning and language learning were revealed.
“Together with the overall low average time percentage of student talk, unfavorable conditions for science learning and language learning were revealed (Chin, 2007;Long, 1996).”
From Teacher questions, wait time, and student output in classroom interaction in EMI science classes: An interdisciplinary view (2023) · cites this paper as Chin, 2007
Cites
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789 · see citing works
Classroom Interaction in Science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses
Chin, C. (2006) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500690600621100 · Cited by 566 · cited 2× · see citing works
“In a previous related study (Chin, 2006), I identified four different types of feedback associated with the follow-upmove of the IRF pattern of discourse.”
BackgroundSelf-citationWait Time: Slowing Down May Be A Way of Speeding Up!
Rowe, M. B. (1986) · Journal of Teacher Education · doi:10.1177/002248718603700110 · Cited by 534 · see citing works
Using Questioning to Guide Student Thinking
van Zee, E., & Minstrell, J. (1997) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0602_3 · Cited by 342 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Teacher–Student Dialogue During Classroom Teaching: Does It Really Impact on Student Outcomes?
Howe, C., Hennessy, S., Mercer, N., Vrikki, M., & Wheatley, L. (2019) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1080/10508406.2019.1573730 · Cited by 425 · see citing works
Regulation of Teacher Elicitations in the Mathematics Classroom
Nathan, M. J., & Kim, S. (2009) · Cognition and Instruction · doi:10.1080/07370000902797304 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Characterizing the formative assessment enactment of experienced science teachers
Dini, V., Sevian, H., Caushi, K., & Orduña Picón, R. (2020) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.21559 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Analyzing Teachers’ Use of Metadiscourse: The Missing Element in Classroom Discourse Analysis
Tang, K. (2017) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.21275 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
An, J., & Childs, A. (2023) · Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching · doi:10.14746/ssllt.38283 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
“Together with the overall low average time percentage of student talk, unfavorable conditions for science learning and language learning were revealed (Chin, 2007; Long, 1996).”
InfluentialTao, Y., Wang, D., & Chen, G. (2026) · British Educational Research Journal · doi:10.1002/berj.70031 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Caño, L., & Sanz, J. (2025) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.70010 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Chin, C.
- Affiliations
- Nanyang Technological University (SG)
- Corresponding author
- Chin, Christine
- Venue
- Journal of Research in Science Teaching
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-01-03
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 815-843
- ISSN
- 0022-4308 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2736
- OpenAlex
- W1965442895
- Cited by
- 603
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 34 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 56 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 21
- FWCI
- 48.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Research in Science Teaching (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Keywords
- teacher questioning, classroom discourse, scientific knowledge construction, Socratic questioning, framing, non-native speakers, grade 7 science, questioning strategies, whole-class discussion, laboratory work
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review