2020
DOI: 10.1080/00220671.2019.1709401
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Improving teacher questioning in science using ICAP theory

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Regarding interactional scaffolding, PST participants in this study mostly confirmed and praised students’ answers; however, they rarely asked elaborating or probing questions to help avatar students explore new ideas, clarify understandings and observations and make their reasoning visible to others. While questioning skills have been found highly important for inquiry-based learning and problem solving across content areas (Oliveira, 2010; Pagliaro, 2017), both pre- and in-service teachers in general have difficulty in using high-level questions (Benedict-Chambers et al , 2017; Kabel and Yayan, 2016; Morris and Chi, 2020). Similarly, PSTs teaching ELs in simulation settings are challenged to elicit higher order thinking skills (Regalla et al , 2015).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Regarding interactional scaffolding, PST participants in this study mostly confirmed and praised students’ answers; however, they rarely asked elaborating or probing questions to help avatar students explore new ideas, clarify understandings and observations and make their reasoning visible to others. While questioning skills have been found highly important for inquiry-based learning and problem solving across content areas (Oliveira, 2010; Pagliaro, 2017), both pre- and in-service teachers in general have difficulty in using high-level questions (Benedict-Chambers et al , 2017; Kabel and Yayan, 2016; Morris and Chi, 2020). Similarly, PSTs teaching ELs in simulation settings are challenged to elicit higher order thinking skills (Regalla et al , 2015).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The This framework postulates that students' learning outcomes and the products of knowledge development are achieved at the highest degree with Interactive behaviors, followed by Constructive, Active, and finally Passive behaviors. Several empirical studies conducted in science or engineering classrooms have shown that students produce the greatest learning outcomes in an Interactive mode, and outcomes decrease systematically from Constructive to Active and Passive modes, as predicted by the ICAP framework (e.g., Chi et al, 2017;Henderson, 2019;Menekse et al, 2013;Morris & Chi, 2020;Wekerle et al, 2020;Wiggins et al, 2017).…”
Section: Self-constructingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, SCIIENCE does not classify the quality of codes. For example, even as teachers ask questions related to student misconceptions, not all questions have the same quality in relation to student learning (Chen et al, 2017;Kiemer et al, 2015;Morris & Chi, 2020;Oliveira, 2010).…”
Section: Scarcity Of Ngss-aligned Protocolsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, teachers' deep questions are critical for eliciting students' self-explanations (Chi, 2000;Chi et al, 1989). Through explaining why and how a procedure works, students can make connections between new and old knowledge (Morris & Chi, 2020). However, students themselves usually have little motivation to generate high-RETHINKING THE ROLE OF "QUALITY INSTRUCTION" quality explanations.…”
Section: The Role Of Instruction: Refining the O-p Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%