Classroom Interaction in Science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to (a) develop an analytical framework that represents classroom talk and questioning in science, (b) find out how teachers use questioning to engage their students in thinking about conceptual content that enables the construction of knowledge, and (c) identify the various forms of feedback provided by teachers in the follow‐up move of the initiation–response–follow‐up format of teaching exchange. Several lessons from Year 7 classes were observed across a variety of lesson structures such as expository teaching, whole‐class discussions, laboratory demonstration, and hands‐on practical work. The lessons were audiotaped and videotaped. Transcripts of the lessons were made and analysed, with particular attention paid to interactions that involved questions. Using the “Questioning‐based Discourse” analytical framework developed in this study, four different types of feedback were identified. Interactional issues related to ways of speaking and questioning that encourage student responses and thinking are addressed. This information provides a description of what constitutes effective discourse in science teaching and learning, and will also be useful for both teachers and teacher‐educators in identifying an appropriate repertoire of skills for subsequent teacher education and professional development.
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?
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 2006
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 2006
Both teachers used verbal scaffolds in the form of a constructive challenge to respond to incorrect or tentative answers by challenging them to review inconsistent ideas.
“Both teachers used verbal scaffolds in the form of a constructive challenge to respond to incorrect or tentative answers by challenging them to review inconsistent ideas”
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 2006
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, 2006
Constructivist teaching is often contrasted with teaching by transmission where teacher questions often elicit only restricted student responses consisting of pre-determined single detached words which typically only require lower-order thinking.
“Constructivist teaching is often contrasted with teaching by transmission where teacher questions often elicit only restricted student responses consisting of pre-determined”
From Teacher questions, wait time, and student output in classroom interaction in EMI science classes: An interdisciplinary view (2023) · cites this paper as Chin, 2006
While previous literature argued higher-order thinking questions tend to elicit more substantial and complex student responses, it was not the case in this study.
“While previous literature argued higher-order thinking questions tend to elicit more substantial and complex student responses (Chin, 2006;Llinares & Pascual Peña, 2015), it was not the case in this study.”
From Teacher questions, wait time, and student output in classroom interaction in EMI science classes: An interdisciplinary view (2023) · cites this paper as Chin, 2006
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 50 · Cited by 566
- Authors
- Chin, C.
- Affiliations
- Nanyang Technological University (SG)
- Corresponding author
- Chin, Christine
- Venue
- International Journal of Science Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2006-09-15
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1315-1346
- ISSN
- 0950-0693 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5289
- OpenAlex
- W2048875868
- Cited by
- 566
- References
- 50
- Citations by year
- 2026: 25 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 43 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 51 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 18
- FWCI
- 33.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Science Education (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Birmingham
- Nanyang Technological University
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
- Keywords
- teacher questioning, teacher feedback, classroom interaction, science education, analytical framework, student engagement, conceptual understanding, whole-class discussion, teacher professional development, professional development
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
