CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 342Science Education and PedagogyInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsMathematics Education and Teaching Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Using Questioning to Guide Student Thinking

van Zee, Emily, Minstrell, Jim·1997·Journal of the Learning Sciences
DOI 10.1207/s15327809jls0602_3
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This case study analyzes ways in which an experienced physics teacher uses questioning to guide student thinking during a benchmark discussion about measurement. Interactional issues involve ways of speaking: Why the teacher decided to ask what he did, when he did, of whom, in what way, and for what purpose. Conceptual issues involves ways of thinking: How students seemed to understand measurement concepts such as calculating an average value. We define a particular kind of question, a reflective toss, that the teacher uses to try to give students responsibility for thinking. A reflective toss sequence typically consists of a student statement, teacher question, and additional student statements. This unit of analysis directs attention to ways in which a teacher question influences student thinking. We analyze reflective tosses in terms of the immediate action plans they instantiated, the emergent goals they served, anal underlying beliefs they embodied during an episode that involved the public refinement of a student's ideas. We propose that teachers may shift toward more reflective discourse by asking questions that help students to make their meanings clear, to consider various points of view in a neutral manner, and to monitor the discussion and their own thinking.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1207/s15327809jls0602_3

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 53 references

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Arons A., 1983, Duedalus, 2, 91
  2. Beach, L. R., Mitchell, T. R., Paluchowski, T. F. & van Zee, E. H. (1989). Image theory: Decision framing and decision deliberation. In F. Heller (Ed.), Decision making and leadership (pp. 172-188). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Dillon, J. T. (1988). Questioning andteaching: A manual ofpractice. New York: Teachers College Press.
  4. Mevarech Z., 1983, Educational Studies in Mathematiacs, 14, 4
  5. Minstrell, J. (1978). An evaluation ofthe Universiry of Washington program in physical science and science teaching for elementary school teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.
  6. Minstrell, J. (1982a). Conceptual development research in the natural setting of a secondary school science classroom. In M. B. Rowe & W. S. Higuchi (Eds.), Education in the 80s: Science (pp. 129-143). Washington, DC: National Education Association.
  7. Minstrell, J . (1984). Teaching for the development of understanding of ideas: Forces on moving objects. In C. W. Anderson (Ed.), Observing science classrooms: Observing science perspectives from research andpractice (1984 Yearbook of the Association for Educators of Teachers of Science, pp. 53-72). Columbus: Ohio State University.
  8. Minstrell, J. (1989). Teaching science for understanding. In L. B. Resnick & L. E. Klopfer (Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research (1989 Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Cuniculum Development, pp. 131-149). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Cuniculum Development.
  9. Minstrell, J. (1992a). Facets of students' knowledge and relevant instruction. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies (pp. 110-128). Kiel, Germany: Institute for Science Education.
  10. Mokros J., 1995, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 20, 10.2307/749226 · DOI
  11. Philipsen G., 1982, The Communicator, 12, 4
  12. S c h h , D. A. (1988). Coachingreflective teaching. In P. P. Grimmett &G. L. Erickson(Eds.), Reflection in teacher education (pp. 19-29). New York: Teachers College Press.
  13. Shaughnessy, J. M. (1992).~esearch on probability and statistics: Reflections and directions. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 465-494). New York: Macmillan.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
van Zee, E., & Minstrell, J.
Affiliations
University of Maryland, College Park (US)
Venue
Journal of the Learning Sciences
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
1997-04
Volume
6
Issue
2
Pages
227-269
ISSN
  • 1050-8406 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7809
DOI
10.1207/s15327809jls0602_3
OpenAlex
W2091292358
Cited by
342
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 19
FWCI
42.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of the Learning Sciences (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • American Educational Research Association
  • University of Washington
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Mathematics Education and Teaching Techniques
Keywords
teacher questioning, student thinking, physics education, measurement concepts, classroom discourse, teacher beliefs, action plan

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