Loughborough UniversityInstitutional Repository

Effective teaching:questioning teachers'

interactions with pupils intechnology and design

This item was submitted to Loughborough University's Institutional Repositoryby the/an author.

Citation: McNAIR, DALLET and CLARKE, 2000. Effective teaching: ques-tioning teachers' interactions with pupils in technology and design. IDATER2000 Conference, Loughborough: Loughborough University

Additional Information:

• This is a conference paper.

Metadata Record: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/1369

Publisher: c© Loughborough University

Please cite the published version.

This item was submitted to Loughborough’s Institutional Repository by the author and is made available under the following Creative Commons Licence

conditions.

For the full text of this licence, please go to: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/

128

McNair et al

IDATER 2000 Loughborough University

Effective teaching: questioning teachers’ interactionswith pupils in technology and design

Victor McNair, John Dallat, Robin ClarkeUniversity of Ulster, Northern Ireland

AbstractEffective teachers create rich learning opportunities that foster understanding of key subjectconcepts, and part of their effectiveness is seen in the range and types of questions they askpupils. While research literature on questioning abounds, little is written about how questioningtheory develops capability within individual subjects. This paper examines teachers’ questionsfrom a subject perspective and links them to questioning theory by ranking within a hierarchy.Of 191 higher-order questions asked across 22 hours of Key Stage Three technology and designteaching in Northern Ireland, those questions relating to the key subject skill of analysing areexamined.

Data indicate that teachers’ higher-order questions are used both to induce responses and asa model of pupils’ own analyses of design factors. The study highlights the difficulty inmaintaining higher-order responses from higher-order questions by showing how teachersfurther articulated the concept of analysis on the basis of limited pupil responses. We highlightthe need for teachers to provide opportunities for pupils to respond in ways that reflect depthof understanding of key technology and design skills. The paper concludes with a briefdiscussion about how question analysis contributes to a greater understanding of teachereffectiveness in technology and design.

Keywords: case studies. classroom practice, design pedagogy

Introduction

Technology and design (T&D) teachers inNorthern Ireland have, through successivepolicy statements, been encouraged to focuson effective teaching (NIELB,1994:6;DENI,1998; DENI, 1999). Effective teaching issummarised by Shulman (1999:67) as:

“… those teacher behaviors and strategiesmost likely to lead to achievement gainsamong students”

While Shulman links strategy and behaviourto pupil achievement, Stones (1995:14),suggests that achievement should beunderstood within the context of the teachers’curriculum subject and should include:

“…the conceptual structure of the subjectunder study [and] the most appropriateapproach to teaching for meaningfullearning.”

While the notion of ‘conceptual structure’ isbeyond the scope of this paper we view such

a structure as being characterised byknowledge, skills and understanding centralto designing and making. Specified in theprogramme of study for T&D (DENI, 1999),designing and making includes analysing,investigating and evaluating. Effectiveness inT&D should therefore be understood in termsof how teacher knowledge is used to controlinteractions that lead pupils to learn how toanalyse, investigate and evaluate whiledesigning and making.

In this paper the focus of classroominteraction is on teachers’ questions. Weacknowledge that while questioning isimportant when analysing teachers’ classroominteractions (Cohen et al,1996:231), itsinfluence on pupil learning is less understood(Dillon, 1988:104; Woodward, 1992:147).However, we bring together questioningtheory, and technology and design (T&D)subject content by examining how teachers’questions elicit pupil responses that conformto the conceptual structure of the subject.

129IDATER 2000 Loughborough University

McNair et al

Teachers’ Questions

Teachers need to use a wide range of questiontypes, according to the hierarchy outlined byCohen et al (1996: 231):

“Lower-order cognitive questions embracechiefly recall, comprehension andapplication; higher-order questions, bycontrast, involve analysis, synthesis andevaluation. Lower-order questions tend tobe closed questions … higher orderquestions end to be open….”

While lower-order questions are needed inmany teaching situations, ‘analysis’ and‘evaluation’ are directly specified as core T&Dactivities (DENI,1996; DENI,1999), andsynthesis is strongly implied in many of thestatements (ibid.). Teachers therefore needto strive towards a high frequency of higher-order questions that induce analysis, synthesisand evaluation within T&D. We believe thathigher-order questions are those that are likelyto:

“…[provide] rich and varied learningcontexts for the development of thinkingand reasoning skills . . .. “ (ibid.:1)

Literature shows, however, that teachers usemainly lower order in preference to higher-order questions (Dillon, 1988:235; Hargie etal,1994:99; Cohen et al,1999). One possiblereason for this under-use of higher-orderquestions is the lack of subject-specificapplication of questioning theory. Much of theliterature on questioning may be of limited useto teachers unless it can be applied directly tothe understandings, skills and knowledgerequired within that subject. One study wheresubject-specific analysis of questions wasmade, illustrates the potential of subject-centred question analysis to influence whatteachers do (Newton, 1997: 31).

The research outlined in this paper seeks todemonstrate that the application ofquestioning theory within T&D can helpredress any theory-practice mismatch andilluminate how effectiveness can be betterunderstood.

Technology and Design in NorthernIreland.

Technology and Design, at Key Stage Three

(the only phase at which it enjoys mandatorystatus), was introduced into the NorthernIreland Curriculum in September 1992 (DENI,1992). Since then, the subject has gonethrough two major revisions (DENI, 1996;DENI, 1999) in which the elements that makeup its single attainment target, “technologyand design capability”, have been reduced incontent and changed in number. Thoseelements now consist of four areas:

DesigningCommunicatingManufacturing

Using Energy and control

T&D differs from technology education inother countries and UK regions. The firstdifference relates to the specification of wood,metal and plastic through which ‘design andmanufacturing activity’ should be conducted.The second major difference is therequirement that the central focus of thesubject must be:

“…the design and manufacture ofproducts which require the use of energyand control to make them function.”(DENI, 1999:3) (our emphasis)

While the materials and energy and controlspecification might seem to restrict NorthernIreland pupils’ experiences, compared withtheir counterparts in, for example, Englandand Wales, DENI reinforce the need forteachers to develop “thinking and reasoningskills….” (ibid., p.1). In technology and design,these thinking skills are expressed in terms ofthe subject requirements stating that:

“When designing, pupils should developthe ability to:…analyse… investigate… evaluate…justify.”

The subject specification also states thatteachers should not develop these skills inisolation but in conjunction with otherelements of the subject, such as when usingmaterials and components, using energy andcontrol, and when manufacturing.

The conceptual structure of the subjecttherefore is design-orientated and requirespupils to analyse, investigate, evaluate and

130

McNair et al

IDATER 2000 Loughborough University

justify as part of technology and designcapability. These fundamental activities relatedirectly to the higher-order activities ofanalysis, synthesis and evaluation outlined byCohen et al (1999). In this paper we examinethe T&D activity of ‘analysis’ as an example ofhow linking questioning theory to technologyand design can bridge the gap between theoryand practice. We believe that examining theT&D element of analysis will illuminateteacher-pupil interactions that can easily betransferred to other T&D activities, includingthose that involve synthesis and evaluation.

Method

The research was designed around thefollowing questions:

• What higher-order questions do teachersask of pupils both in a whole-class andindividual context?

• What do pupils’ responses tell us about theprocesses they use and relationship ofthose responses to the conceptualstructure of the subject?

• What can our understanding of thisrelationship tell us about how questioningtheory can be applied to subjects?

Case Selection

The research was conducted in three post-primary schools over three years, each beingtreated as a separate case study (Yin, 1994).Each participant, an experienced T&D teacher,was selected on the basis of his willingness toparticipate, his perceived standing as a modelof good teaching and the fact that each wasworking on similar electronic projects withpupils. All studies took place at the end of KeyStage Three (year 10), when it couldreasonably be assumed that pupils’ technologyand design capability should be nearing itsoptimum development. Other selectionconsiderations included availability of classes,suitability of teachers’ timetables, the desireto sample schools from differing Educationand Library Boards (ELBs) and schoolmanagement types. The projects consisted ofa timing device (teacher 1), a security alarm(teacher 2) and a moisture sensor (teacher 3).Each project used an electronic circuit, housed

in a container, two of which were vacuumformed in rigid polystyrene and one fabricatedin metal.

In total, 22 lessons were video-recorded andtranscribed to facilitate detailed analysis of thequestions and the contexts within which theywere asked. All observations were undertakenwith minimal camera and observer movementso as to avoid any intruding influence onclasses. Non-participant observation of thisnature is consistent with Woods (1999:4).

Triangulation was provided in the form ofteacher interviews, conducted beforerecording, and through an analysis of pupils’written work and verbal responses after theobservations. The main purpose oftriangulation was to enhance validity andreliability as well as illuminate data whenviewed from differing research perspectives.

Coding

Once transcribed, all teacher questions werecoded on the basis of our understanding ofthe hierarchy of question types outlined byHargie et al (1994). For example, questionsthat required simple yes/no responses werecategorised as closed, those that requiredpupils to repeat previously taught contentwere coded as recall. Other codes includedmanagement and rhetorical questions.

Once identified, higher-order questions werecategorised according to the relationshipbetween the activities pupils were required tocarry out, and the key curriculum requirementof analysing, as outlined above.

Results and Discussion

In total, 877 questions were recorded of which191 (21.7%) were categorised as higher-orderquestions. This proportion of higher-orderquestions is in line with Hargie et al (1994:99) and suggests a higher frequency of lower-order responses from pupils than could beaccounted for by management, organisationaland revision factors. Although we show threeother T&D skills in Figure 1 below, only theskill of analysing will be discussed.

131IDATER 2000 Loughborough University

McNair et al

Figure 1 Teachers’ use of process questionsN=191

Developing the process of analysing

Analysing in T&D requires pupils to thinkabout the various design elements of aproduct or idea in order to determine theparameters within which they need toconsider it. It is quite common for teachers todevelop a ‘factor analysis’ prior to writing adesign specification. We found two ideasembedded in teachers’ questions relating toanalysis and we refer to them as process andproduct. First, the teachers observed taught aprocess of analysing through a sequence ofquestions. In the example shown belowteacher two seeks to develop the ability toanalyse design factors (DENI, 1999:5), leadingto a specification for a security device. Todevelop pupils’ understanding of the concepthe uses the example of a hospital bed, askingthe whole class;

T “What are the basic things a hospitalbed would have to do or would haveto have?

P It would have to have wheels.T It would have to have wheels. Why?P Because you move the patients and

you move the beds round and all andfor safety in an emergency you need tomove them quick.

T Hospital beds unlike our beds at homehave to be movable. You have to movethem from ward to ward or up tooperating theatres or – or – or placeslike that. What else must it have?

P It has to take all the weights.T It has to be pretty strong because

people come in all shapes and sizes soyou know there are slim people likemyself, then there are not so slimpeople. So it has to hold all sorts of

people. So what about size. Then?….”

This interaction shows a typical pattern ofpupil-response/teacher-articulation andhighlights a major difficulty in using higher-order questions within T&D. The limited pupilresponses leave the teacher to furtherarticulate the required depth of analysis. Whilesuch teacher articulation is often desirable(Cohen et al,1996:237), such articulation candefeat the purpose of higher-order questionsin developing the skill of analysis. If theseresponses are to closely reflect the originalaims of the question sequence teachers willneed to find ways of framing questions toinduce analytical responses.

After the questioning sequence from whichthe above sample was taken had beencompleted, the teacher expected pupils toapply these steps to their container byreplicating, in their own contexts, the typesof questions he had asked, as the transcriptbelow illustrates:

“So a specification for a hospital bedincludes… I could go on and on and onI’m not going to but every time you setout to design something you draw up aspecification OK…So what I want you todo …is to draw up a specification for yourburglar alarm.”

The teacher’s expectation of pupils’ ability toapply a similar question sequence may havebeen high. What is interesting, however, is thatthe teacher presented a model questioningsequence to pupils and then expected themto replicate it in their own context. Here theteacher is requiring the pupils to ask theirown higher-order questions.

While this task exemplifies a potentially richopportunity for pupils to offer higher-orderresponses, and thus develop analysis-typeskills, we are, notwithstanding, cautious aboutthe learning gains (effective transfer of theprocess of asking higher-order questions)unless pupils are given specific instructionsand opportunities to apply these questions totheir own design activities. Given the limitedtime available for technology and design at KeyStage Three in most schools, and the highdemand for other forms of assessment

132

McNair et al

IDATER 2000 Loughborough University

evidence as a basis for measuring learning,effective embedding of higher-order questionsby pupils is, we believe, unlikely.

The second idea that we found related to theresponse induced by the teacher’s wordingof the question. We referred earlier to this asthe product and reflects an importantopportunity for pupil learning. For example,in the question shown below, teacher onediscussed ergonomics with the class and,leading to a discussion on locating the batterywithin the box, asked:

T “…make it a reasonable size so you canhandle it, you may also want to make itsuch a size that you can get inside it,for what purpose, why would you wantinside it?

P Batteries

In this case the pupil response was accurateand reflected the required response. Thesubsequent ‘teacher articulation’ of the needfor access to batteries constructed a definitionof ergonomics for this context:

T …if you want to get inside to changethe battery you need to be able to getin with your fingers, right, to removethat battery, so it needs to be largeenough to allow your fingers to fit intoit, ok?”

This questioning sequence was followed by apencil and paper designing activity for thecontainer. The success of the designingexercise in terms of the pupils includingergonomic factors in their designs was due tothe teacher’s interventions, sometimes at awhole class, but often at an individual level.The mismatch between pupil responses andthe subsequent designing activity, we believe,illuminates the potential that lies in higher-order questions to provide pupils with a firmercognitive basis for subsequent designingactivities .

Analysis across a range of activities.

A total of 84 out of 191 higher-order questions(44%) were found to have strong elements ofanalysis associated with them. Figure 2 showsthat these analysis-associated questions wereasked frequently when the teacher wasdeveloping an understanding of the topic

(time, moisture sensing or security) and lessfrequently when manufacturing or developingsubject knowledge (electronics in each case).

This difference can partly be explained interms of the high knowledge requirement thatcharacterises electronic projects and also thehigh concentration on practical activity duringmanufacturing. It is easy to understand thatboth of these activities would provide feweropportunities for higher-order questioning.However, allowing for these factors, theapparent reduction in higher-order questionsat these stages in the project should alertteachers and others to the possibility of apotential loss of learning opportunity.

Conclusion

We have shown that technology and designprovides rich opportunities for higher-orderquestions that reflect the conceptual structureof the subject.

Teacher-pupil interactions have the greatestpotential for effective learning in T&D as it isthe place where meanings are negotiated anddeveloped by pupils. We have shown that, interms of the T&D activity of analysing, thepotential for higher-order responses remainshigh and that such questions need to allowfor this in the answers offered by pupils.

In our examples, the teachers required pupilsto transfer the process of asking higher-orderquestions to their own contexts. We recognisethis as a valuable skill and one which shouldbe promoted. Pupils need to be shown thatthe questions they ask themselves requirehigher-order responses and that these

Figure 2 Analysis-inducing questions

133IDATER 2000 Loughborough University

McNair et al

responses should reflect the key concepts thatcharacterise the subject. While we contendthat teachers need to strive to induce analysis-type responses during all T&D activities, weconcede that pressure of curriculum time maymilitate against such advances, particularlywhen manufacturing. We would encourageteachers, however, to maximise the learningpotential for higher-order questions in all areasof the subject.

Finally, the process of examining questioningtheory in the context of T&D has, we believe,bridged a gap between theory and practice bylinking, in this paper, the activity of analysingwithin T&D to higher-order questions askedby teachers. This research highlights theimportance of maintaining a link between keysubject concepts and pupil responses to thosehigher-order questions. While we focused onthe T&D element of analysing, our researchcontinues and will be applied to other areasof the subject. Indeed, we believe that itsapplication to other subjects will moregenerally enhance our understanding ofeffective teaching.

References

• Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K.(1996), A guide to teaching practice,Routledge, London.

• Cooper, P. and McIntyre, D. (1994) ‘Patternsof interaction between teachers’ andstudents’ classroom thinking and theirimplications for the provision of learningopportunities’. Teaching and teachereducation, 10, 6, 633-646.

• Department of Education Northern Ireland(1992), Technology and designprogrammes of study and attainmenttargets.

• Department of Education Northern Ireland(1996), The Northern Ireland Curriculum:1996 subject orders for Key Stages 3 and 4programmes of study and attainmenttargets.

• Department of Education Northern Ireland(1998), Target setting: guidance for post-

primary schools. School improvement:The Northern Ireland Programme.

• Department of Education Northern Ireland(1999), Circular 1999/18, The NorthernIreland Curriculum: 1999 subject ordersfor home economics and technology anddesign at Key Stages 3 and 4.

• Department of Education Northern Ireland(1999), Key Stages 3 and 4 programmes ofstudy and attainment target.

• Dillon, J.T. (1988) ‘Questioning ineducation’. In Meyer, M. (ed) Questionsand questioning, De Gruyter, Berlin.

• Northern Ireland Education and LibraryBoards (July 1994), Evaluating technologyand design. A support document.

• Hallam, S. and Ireson, J. (1999) ‘Pedagogyin the Secondary School’. In Mortimore, P.(ed) Understanding pedagogy and itsimpact on learning, Chapman, London.

• Hargie, O., Saunders, C. and Dickson, D.(1994), Social skills in interpersonalcommunication (3rd ed), Routedge,London.

• Newtown, L.D. (1997) ‘Teachers’questioning for understanding in science’.British journal of curriculum andassessment, 8,1, 27-31.

• Shulman L. S. (1999) ‘Knowledge andteaching: foundations of the new reform’.In Leach J. and Moon B. (eds) Learners andpedagogy, Open University in associationwith Chapman, London.

• Woods, P. (1999), Successful writing forqualitative researchers, Routledge,London.

• Woodward, C. (1992) ‘Raising andanswering questions in primary science:some considerations’. Evaluation andresearch in education, 6, 2&3, 145-153

• Yin, R.K. (1994) ‘Case study research,design and methods’. Applied socialscience research methods, Vol 5, London.