LEARNING FROM AND RESPONDING TO STUDENTS' QUESTIONS: THE AUTHORITATIVE AND DIALOGIC TENSION BY ORLANDO, EDUARDO, PHIL

1. ABSTRACT
2. RESEARCH ON STUDENTS' QUESTIONING
1. 2.1 THE ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK (MORTIMER AND SCOTT, 2003) FOCUSED ON THREE ASPECTS
  1. FOCUSED ON THREE ASPECTS
    1. 2.1.1 TEACHING PURPOSES
    2. 2.1.2 PATTERNS OF INTERACTION (MORTIMER AND SCOTT, 2003)
      1. 2.1.3.1 TRADITIONAL I-R-E (INITIATE-RESPONSE-EVALUATE)
      2. 2.1.3.2 CLOSED CHAIN INTERACTIONS OF THE TYPE R-P-R-P-R (INITIATE-RESPONSE-TEACHER PROMPT-...CLOSED WITH EVALUATION BY TEACHER)
      3. 2.1.3.3 OPEN CHAINS (SAME PATTERN AS ABOVE, WITHOUT THE CLOSING EVALUATION BY TEACHER)
      4. 2.1.3.4 QUESTION AND ANSWER (LEMKE, 1990)
      5. QUESTIONS FROM STUDENTS FOLLOWED BY TEACHER'S ANSWERS
    3. 2.1.3 FOUR CLASSES OF COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH
      1. 2.1.3.1 INTERACTIVE DIALOGIC
      2. TEACHER AND STUDENTS EXPLORE DIFFERENT IDEAS POSING GENUINE QUESTIONS, AND OFFERING, LISTENING TO, AND WORKING ON DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW
      3. 2.1.3.2 NON-INTERACTIVE DIALOGIC
      4. TEACHER REVIEWS VARIOUS POINTS OF VIEW HIGHLIGHTING SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES
      5. 2.1.3.3 INTERACTIVE AUTHORITATIVE
      6. TEACHER LEADS THROUGH A QUESTION AND ANSWER SEQUENCE WITH THE AIM OF REACHING ONE SPECIFIC POINT OF VIEW
      7. 2.1.3.4 NON-INTERACTIVE AUTHORITATIVE
      8. TEACHER PRESENTS ONE SPECIFIC POINT OF VIEW
      9. CANNOT BE PLANNED IN ADVANCE BY TEACHER IN CASE OF RESPONSIVE TEACHING
  2. EXPLANATORY STRUCTURE (OGBORN, 1996)
    1. THE WAY EXPLANATIONS FIT ALONGSIDE AND WITHIN ONE ANOTHER AND FORM A STRUCTURE REFLECTING LONG AND SHORT-TERM GOALS
      1. DEPEND ON
      2. PERSONAL STYLE OF THE TEACHER
      3. RELATIONSHIPS TEACHER ESTABLISHES WITH THE CLASS
      4. TEACHER'S STOCK OF EXPLANATORY RESOURCES
      5. ARE
      6. FLEXIBLE
      7. BELONG TO A LIVE INTERACTIVE CONTEXT
      8. HAS
      9. CONTENT
      10. FORM
      11. PURPOSES
      12. Subtopic 1
2. 2.3 TYPES OF STUDENT QUESTIONS
  1. 2.3.1 BASIC INFORMATION QUESTIONS
    1. 2.3.1.1. FACTUAL
      1. RECALL OF INFORMATION
      2. CLOSED QUESTIONS
    2. 2.3.1.2 PROCEDURAL
      1. SEEK CLARIFICATION ABOUT PROCEDURE
    3. NOT CONSIDERED IN THIS STUDY
  2. 2.3.2 WONDERMENT QUESTIONS
    1. CONCEPTUALLY HIGHER LEVEL
    2. REQUIRE APPLICATION OR EXTENSION OF TAUGHT IDEAS
    3. FOCUS ON
      1. PREDICTIONS
      2. EXPLANATIONS
      3. CAUSES INSTEAD OF FACTS
      4. RESOLVING DISCREPANCIES OR GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE
    4. ASKED WHEN
      1. RELATING NEW AND EXISTING KNOWLEDGE
      2. BUILDING INTERNAL ASSOCIATIONS AMONG DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF NEW KNOWLEDGE
    5. HAVE GREATER POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTION FOR ADVANCING CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING
    6. 2.3.2.1 COMPREHENSION QUESTIONS
      1. SEEK AN EXPLANATION OF SOMETHING NOT UNDERSTOOD
    7. 2.3.2.2 PREDICTION QUESTIONS
      1. "WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF..."
      2. SPECULATION OR HYPOTHESIS VERIFICATION
    8. 2.3.2.3. ANOMALY DETECTION QUESTIONS
      1. ON DETECTING SOME DISCREPANT INFORMATION OR COGNITIVE CONFLICT
    9. 2.3.2.4 APPLICATION QUESTIONS
      1. WHAT IS THE USE OF THE INFORMATION?
    10. 2.3.2.5 PLANNING OR STRATEGY QUESTIONS
      1. STUDENT IS STUCK AND WANTS TO KNOW HOW TO PROCEED
  3. FOUR KINDS BASED ON PURPOSE/EFFECT ON TEACHING EXPLANATORY STRUCTURE
    1. 1. ELUCIDATING
      1. THE ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURES OF THE ACTIVITY
    2. 2. CONTINUATION (CLARIFICATION OR FURTHER ELABORATION)
      1. OF THE KNOWLEDGE BEING DISCUSSED
      2. NORMALLY WELCOMED BY TEACHER
      3. NO CHANGE IN EXPLANATORY STRUCTURE
    3. 3. EXTRAPOLATION
      1. CHANGE THE LEVEL OF COMPLEXITY AT WHICH THE TOPIC IS BEING DISCUSSED
      2. GOES BEYOND THE LOGIC PROVIDED BY THE TEACHING EXPLANATORY STRUCTURE, DEMANDING CHANGES TO IT
      3. TEACHER MAY IGNORE THESE QUESTIONS OR RESPOND WITHOUT CHANGING THE EXPLANATORY STRUCTURE
    4. 4. CONTESTATION
      1. QUESTIONS THE RATIONALE OF THE KNOWLEDGE BEING DISCUSSED IN THE CLASSROOM
      2. USE ALTERNATIVE VIEWS TO APPROACH A PROBLEM
      3. TEACHERS OFTEN HAVE DIFFICULTY DEALING WITH THEM BECAUSE THEY MAY NOT UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC BEHIND IT
      4. CHALLENGE THE EXPLANATORY STRUCTURE
3. 2.4 FACTORS WHICH ENHANCE STUDENT QUESTIONS
  1. 2.4.1 ELICITATION MOVES BY TEACHER ENCOURAGING STUDENTS TO ASK MORE QUESTIONS
  2. 2.4.2 SUBJECT MATTER WITH WHICH STUDENTS HAVE ACQUIRED SOME FAMILIARITY
  3. 2.4.3 COMFORTABLE DISCURSIVE CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENTS
    1. SOCIAL FACTOR (STUDENTS FEEL VULNERABLE)
  4. 2.4.4 SMALL GROUP COLLABORATIVE WORK
3. METHODOLOGY
1. 3.1 THE APPROACH TO DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
2. 3.2 FREQUENCY AND TIME DEVOTED TO STUDENTS' QUESTIONS IN TWO LESSONS
4. FINDINGS: CLASSROOM EPISODES INITIATED BY STUDENT QUESTIONING
1. 4.1 EPISODE 1: NEW FORMS OF ENERGY?
  1. STUDENT QUESTION TYPE BASED ON EFFECT ON TEACHING EXPLANATORY STRUCTURE
    1. CONTINUATION
  2. PATTERNS OF INTERACTION
    1. QUESTIONS AND ANSWER CLOSED CHAIN
  3. TEACHING PURPOSE
    1. GUIDING STUDENTS TO APPLY AND EXTEND SCIENTIFIC IDEAS
  4. TEACHER'S RESPONSE AND COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH
    1. INTERACTIVE AUTHORITATIVE
2. 4.2 EPISODE 2: WE ARE JUST DISCUSSING IDEAS
  1. STUDENT QUESTION TYPE BASED ON EFFECT ON TEACHING EXPLANATORY STRUCTURE
    1. EXTRAPOLATION
  2. PATTERNS OF INTERACTION
    1. INITIATION-RESPONSE-EVALUATION OPEN CHAIN
  3. TEACHING PURPOSE
    1. EXPLORING STUDENTS' IDEAS
  4. TEACHER'S RESPONSE AND COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH
    1. INTERACTIVE DIALOGIC
3. 4.3 EPISODE 3: SO IT SHOULD BE WARMER
  1. STUDENT QUESTION TYPE BASED ON EFFECT ON TEACHING EXPLANATORY STRUCTURE
    1. CONTESTATION
  2. PATTERNS OF INTERACTION
    1. ARGUMENTATIVE STRUCTURE
  3. TEACHING PURPOSE
    1. GUIDING STUDENTS TO INTERNALIZE SCIENTIFIC MEANING
  4. TEACHER'S RESPONSE AND COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH
    1. STUDENTS RESPONDED VIA INTERACTIVE DIALOGIC
5. DISCUSSION
1. COMPARING ASPECTS OF THE THREE EPISODES
6. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
7. REFERENCES