JAE Article preparation2 - SUBMISSION

AGRICULTURE TEACHERS USE OF QUESTIONING

Agriculture Teachers’ use of Questioning Techniques - A

Qualitative Analysis

Monyatsi Tomeletso

Molepolole College of Education

An Associate Institution of the University of Botswana

Gaborone, Botswana

AGRICULTURE TEACHERS’ USE OF QUESTIONING2

Abstract

This research study was part of a larger study I carried out on exploration of Form 5 teachers of

Agriculture’s use of questioning techniques between August 2013 and May 2014. This article

focused on objective; Do teachers apply questioning techniques of prompting, probing,

redirection and wait-time I in actual classes if so, how and why? The study employed a

qualitative method using descriptive/ interpretive paradigm and sociocultural theory to

understand agricultural teachers’ questioning behavior. Study population was 392 Form 5

agriculture students distributed in ten (10) classes and their five (5) agriculture teachers. From

the 5 Form five agriculture teachers, four (4) were sampled using convenience sampling and

observed teaching for eighty (80) minutes and later interviewed. Data from classroom

observations was transcribed and analyzed using Thematic Analysis in order to understand how

teachers apply questioning techniques in actual classes. Interviews were analyzed using

Thematic analysis in order to understand why teachers questioned the way they did. The results

showed that teachers’ did not rephrase questions, did not use follow up probes adequately, and

applied a less strict form of redirection. On positive note teachers redirected questions well, and

gave enough wait - time I.

Keywords: Questioning; Questioning techniques; Agriculture teachers.


The use of questions as a teaching method dates back to Socrates’ ancient Greece

(Ozmon & Craver, 1990; Cahn, 2012). Despite this reality, an amassed amount of research gives

impression that teachers are lacking in questioning skills. Wilson and Smetana (2011) report that

teacher- centered interaction patterns still saturate classroom instruction up to today, despite

efforts to nurture active learner involvement through questioning in the United Kingdom. In

Pakistan teachers were reported failing to prompt (Ali, Tariq & Topping, 2009). In South Korea

and Portugal teachers did not give students enough to think about answers to oral questions (Cho

et al., 2012; Albergaria-Almeida, 2010).

In Botswana, where this research was carried out, questioning was reported dominated by

correct answer exchanges without any meaningful learning (Rowell & Prophet, 1990). Teachers

have been observed to allow only a few questions, with little manipulation of ideas (Fuller &

Snyder, 1990). I made similar observations as senior teacher II in one senior school as a

supervisor of student teachers joining the agricultural department.

Revised National Policy on Education (RNPE, 1994) of Botswana acknowledges

incongruence between pedagogical approaches of teachers in the country and the philosophy of

learner centered classrooms it espouses. In mapping the way forward Botswana General

Certificate of Secondary Education (BGCSE, 2000) Agriculture syllabus describe teachers’ role

as that of a proficient facilitator, and manager of student learning. The two aforementioned

documents are therefore uncompromising in demanding active learner involvement.



Active learner involvement can be achieved amongst others through questioning (Wilson

& Smetana, 2011; Gallimore & Tharp, 2003; Dillon, 1988; Jacobsen, Eggen, Kauchak, &

Dulaney, 1985). A decade after Prophet’s findings, and half a decade after inception of RNPE

(1994), teachers in Botswana were reported using expository teaching methods, believing it helps

learners in passing national examinations (Tabulawa, 1997). Even though a good amount of

research has been carried on questioning in Botswana, Agricultural teachers in senior schools

have been left out. Hence this study will focus on this group of academics. Unlike some of the

past studies, which studied classroom interactions broadly, I studied specific questioning

techniques of prompting, probing, redirection and wait - time I. This approach ensured less

breadth but increased depth as a result enhanced theoretical and practical understanding of the

different questioning techniques studied.

According Jacobsen et al., (1985) when teachers ask a question and a student fails to

answer or provide a wrong answer most teachers usually call the next student whose hand is up

or answer the question themselves. A better approach to use is to apply prompting which is use

of hints or rephrasing to help her/ him correct the original response (Moore, 1988).

Moore (1985) explains a technique called probing, which is use of questions that obliges

students to think more prudently about their preliminary response. These questions serve to

elucidate (Nicholl & Tracy, 2007), advance critical awareness and to refocus a discussion

(Moore, 1988). By their nature higher order questions and follow up probes require preparation,

they take time to ask and to answer and can be time consuming (Nicholl & Tracy, 2007). Some

helpful examples of follow up probing questions are “what happen if?” How would you?”, or



explain why you?”

Redirection, states Jacobsen et al., (1985) is the framing and asking of a divergent

question and receiving responses from several students. The technique increase the average

number of student participation in class. According to Brophy and Good (as cited in Jacobsen et

al., 1985) generally teachers do not redirect questions to specific students. In addition, when

questions are redirected ‘perceived high achievers’ are given more answering opportunities than

‘perceived low achievers.’

According to Moore (1985) when teachers learn to extend wait time from 3 to 5 seconds

failure to respond declines, voluntary responses rises, and speculative thinking surges. Cho et al.,

(2012) studied the medical school faculty member’s perception on questioning technique. The

study results show that faculty members wait-time 1 was 2.5 seconds, a figure close to the

recommended wait-time 1 of 3-5 seconds. Enough wait-time I increase length of learners’

answers, encourage volunteering to answer, reduce unsuccessful answers and boosts academic

performance. Tofade, Elsner, and Haines (2013) recommended that where high-order questions

are used it may be essential to provide 1 to 2 minutes of wait - time I.

Purpose and objective

Academicians who have been following classroom research that focused on use of oral

questioning and teacher students’ interactions or classroom life in Botswana by writers like

(Fuller & Snyder, 1990; Rowell & Prophet, 1990; Tabulawa, 1997) will be better informed as to

what directions future research in questioning should take in as far as; type of data to collect,



framework(s), philosophical underpinning and type of analysis to use are concerned. Training

institutions will better understand strengths and weaknesses of teachers as regards use of

questioning and may re-think methodologies used in training of teachers to make them better

equipped in questioning. Policy makers can use the findings of the study to (re-) orientate future

legislations to support use of certain philosophical and pedagogical dispensations in training

institutions. For example in England government enacted a Policy that strongly prescribed . . .

how teachers should teach using ‘interactive whole class teaching’ (IWT) which stressed active

learner involvement by answering questions, explaining and demonstrating their methods and

solutions to fellow learners (Black, 2007). The objective of this research was therefore to answer

the question; Do teachers apply questioning techniques of prompting, probing, redirection and

wait - time I in actual classes if so, how and why?

Theoretical Framework

The study used Lev Vygotsky theory of Socioculturalism which states that work

behaviour in schools is explained by cultural, social and individual spheres” (McInerney,

Walker, & Liem, 2011). Social interactions in schools manifest itself in numerous means,

amongst which are ‘scaffolding’ or negotiation (Gallimore & Tharp, 2003). Scaffolding involves

the opinion that new learning takes place when a learner who is working within the Zone of

Proximal Development (ZPD) which is ‘the difference between the level of the tasks that can be

performed with the help of adults and the level of tasks that can be solved with independent

activity’ (Rosa & Montero, 2003, p. 79).



Amongst the many ways of negotiation of meanings with students is through

questioning. Questioning is deemed valuable for two main teaching advantages, first; if

the teacher questions, there is mental and verbal stimulation of pupils, which gives them

practice and exercise. Second; during this exercise of the pupil’s speech and thought, the

teacher will be able to assist and guide the student’s weaving of evidence and their use of

intellect (Gallimore &Tharp, 2003).

Culture, states Ratner, (as cited in Daniels, 2001, p.132), “comprises social

concepts but also . . . definite ethics of behaviour, systems of control and power,

allocation of opportunities, and rewards and punishments.” The relationship between the

individual and culture of which s/he is a member is one of interdependence; in their

development, each shapes and is shaped by the other.

Vygotsky stated that although biological development is genetically controlled, the

capabilities for acting, thinking, feeling and communicating that makes us human are crucially

dependent on cultural practices and tools which may be of material and /or psychological nature

(e.g. language books, maps, theories, institutions).

Social sphere, states McInerney et al., (2011) include classroom as one of the

constituents. Others being school and family both of which are not dynamics of interest in this

study. Social sphere or classroom climate may also be as defined classroom relationships and

interactions between the teacher and students and among students, including shared perceptions

and behaviours (Koth, Bradshaw, & Leaf, 2008).



Individual sphere refers to intrapersonal factors that influence one’s work behaviour.

Important to this study is prior knowledge (McInerney, et al., 2011). In a study by Wells (2001),

it was observed that students were able to understand new learning and make their own meaning

of it when teachers employed prior learning.

Methods

The study used qualitative methodology (Creswell, 2014), constructivist/ interpretative

paradigm and hermeneutics as the underpinning philosophy. Themes and verbatim extracts

from participants were used to illustrate both positive and negative cases.

The study population were five (5) agriculture teachers and their form 5 students (n =

392) in one senior school, in the year 2014. The school is located 40kms from Gaborone the

capital city of Botswana. Convenience sampling was used to sample teachers to answer the

question ‘Do teachers apply the questioning techniques of prompting, probing, redirection and

wait - time I in actual classes, if so, how and why?’ According to Weiers (2002) ‘members of

such sample are chosen primarily because they are both readily available and willing to

participate’ (p. 146). Four out of five teachers were selected, observed teaching, captured on

voice recorder and later interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire.

50% of the sampled teachers were males. The four teachers were given pseudonyms to

protect their identities. All teachers held Bachelor of Science in Agriculture and were senior

teacher II’s. Three of the teachers had 16 – 20 years of teaching experience and one had 11- 15



years. The pseudonyms were, Mrs Kgosi, Mrs Morake, Mr Bonang, and Mr Thabang. Names

used for students were also pseudonyms.

Data collection

A Philips voice tracer was used for voice recording of class lessons of the four teachers

chosen through convenience sampling. All lessons lasted 80 minutes. Topics taught were on

game farming and livestock diseases.

Interview Schedule was used to interview teachers using a predetermined semi-structured

questionnaire. The interview schedule designed had an opening, body and a closing (Brewer,

2000). Interview about teachers’ use of each of the questioning techniques began with the

question, ‘Please briefly talk about your job experience in particular teacher students’ relations

and instructional issues.’ This question served as an ice breaker. The second question which was

varied depending on which questioning technique was the focus of interest at any point in time

was, ‘From class observations you seem keen to use hints/ probes/ redirection questions/ wait /

not to wait after a student answered. Is there a reason for this?’ ‘Does it help you as a teacher?’

‘Does it help student involved?’ The interviewer would then ask follow up questions to get more

information from the interviewee on any interesting answers.

Semi-Structured Interview Schedule; it was developed from guidelines provided

(Creswell, 2014; Brewer, 2000). Other measures taken to enhance validity were; discussing

negative cases, which helps to exemplify and support positive cases and to show exceptions to

discussed trends and in the process portray truth in real life (Brewer, 2000).



Data analysis

To answer the first part of the question ‘Do teachers apply the questioning techniques of

prompting, probing, redirection and wait - time I [emphasis added], if so, how?’ I used quasi-

statistics. According to Becker ( as cited in Maxwell (2010) qualitative researchers usually pose

quantitative statements orally, employing words like many, often, typically and so on .Becker

therefore suggested that such use of quantitative statements can be validated by use of what is

called quasi statistics which is simple counts of things to substantiate use of words like

sometimes, usually, most, etc. Use of quasi statistics also contributes to internal generalizability

in case studies. In order to achieve both substantiated quantitative claims in a qualitative study

and internal generalizability voice recordings were transcribed. In each transcript researchers

counted all opportunities that came up (total opportunities) and required application of

prompting technique. From these total opportunities, researcher counted those in which the

teacher applied the technique (used opportunities) and expressed them as a percentage of the

total opportunities. The same steps were followed for probing and redirection.

With regard to wait - time I, ten (10) questions were randomly sampled for each teacher

making a total of forty (40) questions. Using a stop watch wait-time I for each question was

captured as time from a moment teacher finished asking a question to a moment he/ she called a

student to answer. In this case there were forty (40) total opportunities, because forty questions

were sampled. Therefore used opportunities for wait - time I refers to instances where a teacher

waited for a minimum of 3 seconds based on standard wait- time I of 3 – 5 seconds by Rowe ( as



cited in Moore, 1988). The results were presented in a table showing counts of total opportunities

and percentages of used opportunities for each questioning technique.

To answer the second part of the question ‘Do teachers apply the questioning skills of

prompting, probing, redirection and wait - time I in actual classes, if so how [emphasis added]

and why?’, transcriptions were analyzed and verbatim extracts from the transcripts were

provided to illustrate ‘good’ and ‘bad’ use of these questioning techniques.

To answer the last part of the question ‘Do teachers apply the questioning skills of

prompting, probing, redirection and wait - time I in actual classes, if so how and why [emphasis

added]? Interviews were analyzed into themes using Brewer’s guidelines on thematic analysis

(Brewer, 2000), and verbatim extracts were used to support themes that came up during teacher

interviews.

This research was checked by Office of Research and Development in University of [ ]

and Ministry of Education & Skills Development (MoE & SD) in [ ] and was found to meet the

required level of ethical considerations.

Limitations

When I arrived at the school for data collection, it was difficult to get all the students to

one venue at the same time because they were engaged in different practical subjects in the

afternoons. I then resorted to sampling from class lists and using teachers to administer the

questionnaire in the afternoons or during lessons depending on what suits them. Because of the

large number of agriculture classes (ten in all) I could not be present in all classes when the



questionnaire was administered, as a result presence of the teacher alone could have

compromised the students responses and thereby negatively affected the credibility of results.

Results

The aim of the study was to answer the question; Do teachers apply questioning

techniques of prompting, probing, redirection, wait - time I in actual classes, if so, how and why?

To answer first part of the question ‘do teachers apply the questioning techniques of prompting,

probing, redirection and wait - time I in actual classes?’ I applied quasi statistics. As shown in

table 1, I found out that teachers applied questioning techniques of redirection and wait - time I a

lot, hardly prompt and their application of probing was average.

Table 1: Percentage Used opportunities for each of the questioning techniques

Prompting Probing Redirection Wait - time I

ƒ Utilised (%) ƒUtilised

(%)ƒ

Utilised

(%)ƒ Utilised (%)

28 13 (46) 28 14 (50) 15 13 (87) 40 27 (68)



To answer the second part of the question ‘Do teachers apply questioning techniques of

prompting, probing, redirection and wait - time I in actual class if so, how [emphasis added]?’ I

selected extracts from lesson transcripts to illustrate both good and bad use for each of the

questioning techniques. I found out that teachers did not prompt the particular student who

answered wrongly or had no idea, teachers did not apply the many variants of probing, and

teachers redirected well but involved only a few students. More over teachers’ redirection

questions even though divergent did not require evaluation and passing of judgments by the

students. At times teachers did not redirect questions to precise individuals. Lastly teachers wait -

time I was perfect. In this section and preceding ones, the following key was used. Letter ‘T’

represented Teacher, ‘S’ represented Student, double S, (SS) represented students answering in

chorus or whole class answering, ‘R’ represented Respondent in interviews, and ‘I’ represented

Interviewer.

Prompting

Good examples of prompting never surfaced in lessons observed. Extract 1 illustrates an

attempt by one of the teachers to prompt but still the questions were not directed to any particular

student.’ In extract two, the questions were not directed to the student who answered ‘no idea.’

Extract 1



T: “You mean you still don’t know the difference between a grazer and a browser? hmm, so

normally in our ranges, you find browsers and grazers leaving together. What is the intention?”

(Silence)

T: “To balance what?”

(Silence)

T: “What is the intention? To balance eco . . .?”

SS: “ecosystem.”

Extract 2

As shown in extract 2 when faced with a situation where students, either do not answer at all

(keep quiet) or say “no idea” teachers call a different student whose hand was up to provide an

answer. This is a bad example of prompting.

T: “Can u give me an example of a pathogenic disease caused by bacteria?” (Points at a student)

S: “No idea.”

T: “No idea. Yes?” Sethunya? (Points at a different student)

S: “tuberculosis.”



Probing

As shown in extract 3 use of probing was average. Again, students were allowed to

answer randomly, without the teachers precisely allocating answering opportunities.

Extract 3

T: “Now looking at this disease (referring to FMD) which animals are affected?”

SS: “cattle”

S: “goats”

S: “sheep”

T: “goats, sheep, cattle. What is common about these animals?”

S: “they are cloven hoofed animals”

As shown in extract 4 in the event teachers probed they did not give themselves time to apply

more variants of the technique to assist student who failed in producing full answers but in

majority of the cases they seemed to give up easily and would call a different student.

Extract 4

T: “What is foreign exchange?”

S: “selling of animals.”

T: Is that foreign exchange?” (Points to a different student)



Redirection

When divergent questions were asked students were called in turns to provide answers.

Even though teachers redirected questions it was observed that in each of the classes in the study

questions revolved around 8-10 students in every class. This observation was even brought to

attention of teachers during the interview. Extract 5 illustrate a good example of redirection.

Extract 5

T: “One must look at the ecological principles of selecting a game farm. What are they? Yes,

Pinkie.

Pinkie: “Carrying capacity.”

T: “We talked about carrying capacity, what else? Yes, Leungo.

Leungo: “game population?”

As shown in extract 6 the teacher asked a divergent question but did not direct it to any

specific student as a result students answered in chorus and this is a bad example of the

technique.

Extract 6

T: “So if you are to venture into game farming how is it going to uplift your livelihood?”

SS: “employment”



Wait - time I

As shown in extract 7 class observations showed teachers usually pause after asking a

question before calling students to answer. This illustrates a good example of the technique.

Extract 7

T: “Can you give me reasons why we control diseases?” (Pauses) Yes, Botho.

Botho: “So that we can avoid disease spreading.”

As shown in extract 8 at times teachers did not pause after asking a question. It has to be

pointed out that such cases were very rare. In this particular case the teacher’s wait - time I was

less than two seconds.

Extract 8

“What else is considered in selecting a game farm?” (No pause) Tiny.

Tiny: (silence)

T: “say something, what about energy?”

Now that it was established that teachers apply mostly redirection technique, followed by

wait - time I and examples from teachers’ lessons were used to illustrate how they implement the

different techniques, the last part was to understand why teachers questioned as they did during

lesson observations. As shown in table 2, seven themes emerged during interview with the four

teachers.



Table 2: Themes on why teachers questioned as they did.

Questioning techniques Themes

Prompting Theme 1: We prompt; Asked how they assist students with ‘no

idea’ or who fail to respond at all teachers said they rephrased or

used clues. Class observations showed they did not rephrase or use

clues but pointed to a different student.

Probing Theme 2: I know what each can offer; Asked why they did not

probe teachers said they know what each student can offer hence

for some students it is pointless to do it since they will never get the

answer correct.

Theme 3: As a teacher I come last; teachers said students should

give all they know to a question before they can come in.

Redirection Theme 4: Makes students feel motivated and cared for; teachers

used students’ names to redirect questions believing it motivated

them.

Wait - time I Theme 5: I think students should be given time; teachers believed

it is important to pause after asking a question to give students

thinking time.



Discussion, Conclusion & Recommendations

A discussion of the finding(s) under each questioning technique incorporates findings

from class observations, and teacher interviews. Verbatim quotes were used to support themes

that emerged during teacher interviews. The results are presented using a side-by-side approach

and then triangulated.

Prompting

The finding of this study was that teachers rarely prompted. This finding is in agreement

with Jacobsen et al., (1985) and Moore (1985), who stated teachers pass questions to next student

when no answer was forthcoming with the hope of sustaining interest and motivation. In a study

of Pakistan Universities by Ali at el., (2009) report showed teachers’ failed to prompt. In

Botswana, Rowell and Prophet (1990) reported science teachers ignored students’ answers when

wrong. All studies above even though not based on agriculture teachers consistently showed

teachers, irrespective of subject taught did not prompt.

In the interview teachers said that if a student fails to answer they rephrased questions.

This position did not concur with class observation outcomes. Under theme 1; we prompt, Mrs

Morake said “where they seem blank, I would try to think of a leading question.” Mrs Kgosi

concurred as follows; “But the student who says no idea, I think you can rephrase the question.”

Rephrasing is one way of prompting (Moore, 1988; Jacobsen et al., 1985). It is evident from

class observations that teachers seldom rephrased and this is when majority of students did not

understand and therefore no answer was forthcoming. My position is that teachers should



rephrase even to individuals because we teach to individuals in groups not to groups of

individuals (Dillon, 1988).

Based on class observations’ and teacher interviews it is clear that teachers did not

prompt but were aware of the use of the technique. The finding of this study is in agreement with

those of (Ali at el., 2009; Jacobsen et al., 1985) who both showed teachers, did not prompt.

Probing

The finding of this study is that teachers’ probing was average. Teachers assumed the

role of expanding and explaining students’ answers, while students responded in incomplete

sentences. But, there is evidence that some teachers are engaging students through follow up

probes. This finding is in agreement with Rowell & Prophet (1990) who observed that teachers

in Botswana did not ask students to explain their answers or show how concepts are related but

also pointed out that some teachers were breaking away from traditional didactic pedagogies.

In addition, teachers also missed on opportunities to probe, for instance results show that

only 50% of total opportunities were utilized (see table 1). Using extract 4, it can be argued that

there were several possible follow up probes the teacher could use. The author posits that the

student in the extract was not entirely wrong. The ground for this position is that one way of

getting foreign exchange (forex) is through selling of animals. As such, possible probes could be;

if you sell animals what do you get in return? Possible answers are; money/ foreign exchange.

Another probe assuming the answer is money would be; if the buyer is from outside Botswana

what name do we use to call such moneys? If the student fails to supply the word(s) ‘foreign



exchange’ or ‘forex’, then the question can be passed to next student. If all fail, teacher can give

it as assignment or supply the word(s) since the technique allows it where particular terminology

should be learned. Probing in this case could have given the student a line of thought; he/she

could possibly use to help remember the term ‘forex’ or foreign exchange in future. The point is

there were many possible routes to follow with probes.

During the interview teachers were asked why they did not ask follow up probes theme 2

came up. For instance Mr Bonang said ‘When I ask the questions I know if one answers this way

I know that’s the best that particular learner can afford.’ Teachers hardly asked students probes

saying they know the kinds of questions each of their students can answer. This means teachers

have stratified students according to perceived ability, and in turn made high order questions a

preserve of the few ‘perceived high performers’. One possible implication is that ‘perceived low

performers’ will remain so, while ‘perceived high performers’ keep improving due to assisted

performance.

In Sociocultural theory, this is akin to testing only fossilised traits because students are

tested on what they already know, while denying them opportunity of performance before

practice as offered by ZPD theory for the development of cognitive capacities (Gallimore &

Tharp, 2003). My position is that ‘perceived low performers’ should equally be exposed to

questions that demands clarification, defending ones answers and supplying evidence to that

effect. According to Ratner (as cited in Daniels, 2001, p.132), part of the definition of culture in

sociocultural theory is ‘allocation of opportunities’, hence I feel right to postulate that it is the



teacher’s role to ensure equal learning chances to all learners by giving equal answering

opportunities to all students regardless of their ‘perceived ability.’

Another theme associated with probing is theme 3: Asked what role teacher should play

in helping students provide fully developed answers Mrs Kgosi said “as a teacher I come last,

what I do is throw the question onto the rest of the students.” Mrs Morake said “allowing

students to think deeper helps them to learn . . . I shouldn’t just chip in.” I feel this is a wrong

application of probing and does not resonate well with sociocultural theory. This theory puts the

teacher and students as equals, giving the former the role of facilitator. It is therefore expected

that teachers will always be probing; guiding discussions, asking for explanations and examples

in the quest to reach an answer that is jointly-constructed, not taking a back position, waiting for

students to fail and only coming in to provide a fully-fledged answer that he/ she thought of on

their own.

Redirection

Based on class observation and interviews this study made several finding as follows;

Teachers seemed to practice redirection more than any other questioning technique, but gave

answering opportunities to only a few students in class. The observation that answering

opportunities are concentrated in few hands could be a plausible explanation for the low score on

students’ perception of teacher’s application of redirection technique. This finding is in

agreement with (Jacobsen et al., 1985) that even though teachers redirect, majority of the



students (possibly ‘perceived low achievers’) received low calls to answer questions, hence did

not feel involved.

Teachers practiced redirection technique in its less strict form. This is because even though

questions redirected were divergent they did not require evaluation and comparison of

alternatives on part of the student and as such did not give the student the intended benefits

inherent in the technique. To the authors’ best knowledge this observation has not been noted

before in Botswana classrooms.

Teachers used students’ names to redirect questions to a precise student. Interviews revealed

teachers felt use of student names to redirect questions ‘made student feel cared for and

motivated’ (theme 4) Mrs Morake had this to say; “You feel that the teacher cares about you, it

motivates them”. Mrs Kgosi said “the students they get motivated; they believe that you care

about them.” It has to be noted that even though teachers gave different reasons for use of

students names the practice does help to redirect questions to specific individuals. According to

Moore (1998) it promotes involvement and achievement. This finding is in disagreement with

that of Brophy and Good (as cited in Jacobsen et al., 1985) who stated that teachers did not

redirect questions to precise students. In this study failing to redirect precisely was observed in

one out of four teachers. I therefore view this observation as one of those negative cases and did

not characterise the case study. Also associated with this discrepant case is overuse of sentence

completion oral questions also called ‘supplying missing words’ ( Rowell & Prophet, 1990)

which appeared to increase occurrence of chorus answering. Teachers were at times not aware of



certain of their class practices, for instance a teacher stated s/he does not allow chorus answering

at all. The teacher even blamed it on poor class management. Surprisingly this was the teacher

whose class observation revealed chorus answering was very dominant than in anybody else’s.

This finding is in agreement with Cho et al., (2012) who stated that teachers’ perception about

their classroom practices are usually different from actual practices and Rowell & Prophet

(1990) who observed students answering in chorus and supplying missing words. Two of the

teachers interviewed conceded they allowed minimal chorus answering in their classes to

improve class participation and class observations found this to be true. According to them it

gave shy students chance to say something in a crowd. My position is that chorus answering

should be discouraged since studies carried out maintain it is not an academically beneficial

practice (Rowell & Prophet, 1990; Tabulawa, 1997).

Going back to my claim that teachers apply a less strict form of direction, the following

questions were designed to better exemplify redirection as described in literature (Moore, 1988).

The questions were designed from a topic taught by the teachers studied. These questions in

tentative sequence of implementation are “From the study of systems of rearing ostriches, which

system do you think is suitable for your locality? A follow up probe would be “Different

speakers gave systems that they believe are suitable for their localities. Why do you think they

are suitable for your locality?” The researcher thinks redirection questions phrased in this

manner can be good to use during lesson conclusion.

Wait - time I



The finding was that teachers gave students enough time to think during questioning and

this result agrees well with recommended wait - time I. The finding of this study is in agreement

with those of Cho et al., (2012) who found lectures wait - time was 2.5 seconds, a value close to

recommended wait - time I of 3 - 5 seconds. In the current study teachers wait - time I stood at an

impressive 3.98 seconds. During the interview, theme 5; ‘I believe students should be given

time’ emerged. Mrs Kgosi said ‘I believe that students should be given time to respond’ Asked if

pausing after asking a question is necessary Mr Thabang said ‘yah, its right. That’s the right

thing.’ Teachers agreed that it is important to wait after posing a question. Though teachers held

an incorrect perception of their actual wait - time I, in practice they waited enough. It can also be

said that teachers perceived wait - time I of 1 - 1.5 minutes is also Ok if it is applied when high

order questions are asked as recommended by Tofade et al., (2012).

Conclusion

I conclude that teachers did not always use prompting, that is, hints and rephrases to

assist students who failed to respond but surprisingly they were aware that they must rephrase.

Instead teachers passed question to next student or resorted to use of sentence and word

completion questions as a way of involving students.

Teachers probing was average and their reasoned was that they knew what each student

can offer hence with some students they felt application of the technique would be a worthless

exercise. The other explanation could be that teachers questioning practice of ‘exhausting student

answers’ before they can chip in made them to miss probing opportunities. I use the metaphor of



oil to engine to try to better explain my understanding and expectation in the use of questioning

to stimulate discussions by teachers insofar as sociocultural theory is concerned.

Teachers used redirection amply but their distribution of questions was skewed in favor

of the ‘perceived high performers.’ Teachers used a less strict form of redirection in that even

though questions they asked were divergent, the questions did not require evaluation and passing

of judgment by the students. This in turn denied students the benefit to develop in answering

productive and evaluative questions that comes with the technique when it is fully utilized.

Teachers gave students enough time to think after questioning before calling them to

respond; this was good practice by teachers since wait time is vital even in the application of the

other three techniques.

Teachers understood that learning takes place only when there is active participation by

the students and this to them, justified the use of questions as a way of negotiating meaning. This

understanding by teachers is in agreement with the tenets of sociocultural theory, which

postulates that social interaction, which in classrooms manifest itself through questioning plays

an important role in individual learners’ development. Due to this understanding teachers in the

study were observed using questions profusely in an attempt to achieve mental and verbal

stimulation of students, unfortunately teachers were let down by two factors. First, teachers did

not seem to see themselves as equals with students in co-construction of knowledge as postulated

by sociocultural theory. This is because teachers took a back seat as they waited for students to

fail to answer and would come last only to provide a correct answer which may prove difficult to

comprehend by students since they did not take part in its production. Second, teachers allocation



of answering opportunities to students was skewed in favor of ‘perceived high performers’ hence

not democratic as championed by the sociocultural theory.

Recommendations

It is recommended that when students cannot answer a question, teachers should give

clues or rephrase, and ensure equal distribute of question amongst students. Teachers should

practice redirection as documented in literature, so that students can reap the inherent benefits of

the techniques, which are ability to evaluate, compare and make judgements. Teachers should

uphold use of students’ names, since it motivates and can achieve fair distribution of answering

opportunities when applied properly. Teachers should uphold their wait - time I since it is at par

with recommended wait - time I of 3-5 seconds.

REFERENCES

Albergaria-Almeida, P. (2010). Classroom questioning: teachers’ perceptions and practices.

Procedia Social and behavioral sciences. 2(2010), 305-309. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.

2010.03.015.



Ali, A., Tariq, R. H., & Topping, J. J. (2009). Students' perception of university teaching

behaviors’. Teaching In Higher Education, 14(6), 631-

647.doi:10.1080/13562510903315159

Black, L. (2007). Interactive whole class teaching and learning: Theoretical and practical

implications. Language and Education, 21(4), 271-283. doi: 10.2167/le679.0

Brewer, J. (2000). Ethnography: Understanding social research. Philadelphia. Open

University Press.

Cahn, S. M. (2012). Classic and contemporary readings in the philosophy of education. (2nd

ed.). New York. NY: Oxford University Press.

Cho, Y. H., Lee, S.Y., Jeong, D. W., Im, S.J., Choi, E.J., Lee, S.H., Baek, S. Y., Kim, Y. J.,

Lee, J. G., Yi, Y. H., Bae, M.J., & Yune S. J. (2012). Analysis of questioning techniqsue



during classes in medical education. BMC medial education, 12(39). Retrieved from

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/12/39.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and pedagogy. London. Routledge Falmer. Taylor & Francis.

Dillon, J. T. (1988). Questioning and teaching. A manual of practice. Sydney. Croom Helm.

Examination Research and Testing Division, Ministry of Education. (2001). Botswana

Government Certificate of Secondary Education Agriculture Assessment Syllabus.

Gaborone. Government Printers.

Fuller, B., & C. W. Snyder, Jr. (1990). In C. W. Snyder, & P. T. Ramatsui


http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/12/39


(Eds.), Curriculum in the classroom. Context of change in Botswana’s junior secondary

school instructional programme. Gaborone. Macmillan.

Gallimore, R., & Tharp, R. (2003). The historical context of Vygotsky’s work. A sociohistorical

approach. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and Education: Instructional implications and

applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 59-88). United Kingdom. Cambridge

University Press.

Jacobsen, D., Eggen, P., Kauchak, D., & Dulaney, C. (1985). Methods for teaching: A skills

approach (2nd ed.). Columbus. Merrill.

Koth, C W., Bradshaw, C. P. & Leaf, P. J. (2008). A multilevel study of predictors of

student perceptions of school climate: The effect of classroom-level factors. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 100(1), 96–104. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.96.

Maxwell, J. A. (2010). Using Numbers in Qualitative Research. Sage. 16(6) 475–

482. doi: 10.1177/1077800410364740.



McInerney, D. M., Walker, R. A., & Liem, G. A. D. (Eds.). (2011). Sociocultural theories of

learning and motivation: Looking back, looking forward. Hong Kong. Hong Kong

Institute of Education.

Moore, K. D. (1995). Classroom teaching skills (3 th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Nicholl, H. M & Tracey, C. A. B. (2007). Questioning: A tool in the nurse educator’s kit.

Journal of Nurse Education in Practice, 7(5), 285-292.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nepi.2006.09.002.

Ozmon, H. A, & Craver, S. M. (1990). Philosophical foundations of education (6 th ed.). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Rosa, A., & Montero, I. (2003). The historical context of Vygotsky’s work. A sociohistorical

approach. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and Education: Instructional implications and


http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nepi.2006.09.002


applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 59-88). United Kingdom. Cambridge

University Press.

Rowell, P.M & Prophet, R. R. (1990). Curriculum In action. The practical dimension in

Botswana classrooms. International Journal of Educational Development, 10(2), 126.

Rowell, P.M., & Prophet, R. R. (1990). Curriculum observed. In C. W. Snyder & P. T. Ramatsui.

(Eds.), Curriculum in the classroom. Context of change in Botswana’s junior secondary

school instructional programme. Gaborone. Macmillan.

Republic of Botswana. (1994). The Revised National Policy on Education. Gaborone.

Government Printers.

Republic of Botswana. (2001). Botswana General Certificate of Secondary Education Teaching

Syllabus: Agriculture. Examination Research and Testing Division, Ministry of

Education. Gaborone. Government Printers.



Tabulawa, R. (1997). Patterns in geography teaching in Botswana: A comparative study. In

P.T. Marope & D. W. Chapman (Eds.), A handbook of research on education. Vol. 1.

Teachers & teacher education in Botswna. Gaborone. Lentswe la lesedi.

Tofade, T., Elsner, J,. & Haines, S, T. (2013). Best practice strategies for effective use of

questions as a teaching tool. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 77 (7), 155.

doi :10.5688/ajpe777155

Weiers, R. M. (2002). Introduction to business statistics (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Duxbury

Thomson Learning.

Wells, G. (2001) (Ed.). Action, talk and text. Learning and teaching through inquiry. New York.

NY. Teachers College Press.

Wilson, N, S., & Smetana, L. (2011). Questioning as thinking: A metacognitive framework to

improve comprehension of expository text. Literacy, 45(2), 84-90. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-



4369.2011.00584.x


JAE Article preparation2 - SUBMISSION

Documents

Transcript of JAE Article preparation2 - SUBMISSION