CONSIDERING STUDENTS RESPONSES IN DETERMINING THE QUALITY OF

TEACHERS QUESTIONS DURING MATHEMATICAL DISCUSSIONS

Elif N. Gokbel & Melissa D. Boston
School of Education, Duquesne University

Goals

Coding

Results

The purpose of the study was to provide an understanding of the close connection between
teacher questioning and student engagement. We investigated the extent to which question
types identified as higher-order questions actually serve to generate high-level student
responses during whole-group discussions in mathematics lessons.

Teacher Questioning
Wimers (2001) two categories for the cognitive levels of teacher questions:
Higher order and lower order questioning (Wimer, et al. 2001).
Boaler & Humphreyss (2005) framework to identify the nine types of teachers questions.

Literature Review & Framework

Student Responses
Using the IQA rubric (two categories for the cognitive demand of student responses):
High-level, scored as 3 (mathematical connections, conceptual understanding, or use of
representations, but without justification) or 4 (level 3, but with explanations or justifications)
Low level, scored as 1 (short answers, facts) or 2 (procedures, computations). We also
identified the number of words in each student response.

Many previous studies address questioning by developing theoretical models, analyzing

different levels and types of questions (e.g., Boaler & Humphreys, 2005), by investigating
the value of questions (Sorto, et al. 2009), and even by separating questions into
categories (Tienken, et al. 2009). However, these studies lack of analysis of both
questions and more importantly students responses in context to better understand the
close connections between them. It takes into account flow of the discussion, while
focusing on the individual teacher questions and student responses.

Data Coding and Analysis

Both authors consensus coded portions of the transcribed discussions to obtain reliability. All
remaining data were coded by the first author, with the second author providing additional
consensus coding for any teachers questions and students responses coded as high-level by
the first author. Any dilemmas in coding were resolved through consensus.

Results
Table 1. Level of Teacher Questions in Relation to Level of Students Responses
Level of Student Responses
High
Low
21
19
High
Level of Teacher
Questions
3
77
Low
SUM

24

96

SUM
40
80
120

Table 2. Classification of teacher questions by level and type

Methodology
Subject
6 mathematics teachers in a large urban school district participated.
Data
Eight mathematics lessons (two teachers recorded twice) were analyzed from video
recordings of 90-minute block class periods for: 1) types and levels of questions the teacher
asks, 2) types of responses students provide, and 3) the length of students responses
(number of words used).
Instrument
The Instructional Quality Assessment (IQA) Rubric (Boston, 2012), Boaler and Humphreys
(2005) questioning types, and Wimers (2001) categories of higher order and lower order
questioning

Number of
Questions

Implications and Discussion

Our findings suggest that

high-level teacher questions are necessary to generate high-level student responses and
increase student participation
teachers can improve student engagement by asking Linking and Applying (LA) and
Probing (P) questions and through careful phrasing of Gathering Information (G) questions.
The more time students spend engaged in expressing their mathematical thinking and
reasoning, the more they learn (Gettinger & Seibert, 2002). High-order questions can elicit
high-level students responses that provide evidence of students mathematical
understanding. Hence, teachers can support students learning by purposefully incorporating
specific types of questions into mathematical discussions. The results of this study can
provide concrete guidance to teachers in planning classroom discussions capable of eliciting
students mathematical thinking.

Level of Student
Responses #(%)
High
5 (6%)

Low
74 (94%)

Gathering information (G)

79

Inserting terminology (IT)

0 (0%)

3 (100%)

Exploring mathematical meanings (EMM)

2 (50%)

2 (50%)

Probing (P)
11

6 (54%)

5 (46%)

11

2 (18%)

9 (88%)

4 (80%)

1 (20%)

2 (28%)

5 (72%)

Generating discussion (GD)

Linking and applying (LA)

Student Responses
High-level questions were answered by up to 35 words, with an average of 6.75
lower-order questions included up to 20 words and 3.7 on average.
The mean number of words in students responses is significantly higher for higher-order
questions than for lower-order questions (t (118)= 3.17; p < .0001 [one-tailed])

The findings of this study help researchers better understand what type and level of
mathematical questions create classroom environments in which students are more
engaged.

40 out of 120 were higher order questions (33%)

52.5% of higher order questions generated high-level student responses, whereas
less than 4% of lower order questions generated high-level student responses.
Hence, the level of teacher questioning significantly impacted the level of student
response ( =39.61; p < .0001).

Categories
(Boaler & Humphreys, 2005)

Consistent with Boaler and Humphreys (2005), we found:

the majority of questions were Gathering Information (G), and these questions almost
always (94%) generated low-level student responses;
low frequencies of questions (38 of 120; 32%) considered to support students
mathematical thinking and reasoning (e.g., EMM, P, LA, ET); and
Probing (P) and Linking and Applying (LA) were likely to generate a high-level student
response.

Significance of the Study

This work builds on previous theories and frameworks to empirically identify specific types
of questions that elicit greater student engagements and high-level student thinking. Hence,
this work provides direction to support teachers in the ongoing issue of enacting reformoriented mathematics instruction that maintains students engagement in high-level
cognitive processes.

Selected References
Boaler, Jo and Cathy Humphreys. (2005). Connecting Mathematical Ideas: MiddleSchool Video Cases to Support Teaching and Learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Boston, M. (2012). Assessing instructional quality in mathematics. The Elementary School Journal, 113(1), 76-104.
Gettinger, M., & Seibert, J. K. (2002). Best practices in increasing academic learning time. Best practices in school psychology IV, 1, 773-787.
Sorto, M. A., Mccabe, T., Warshauer, M., & Warshauer, H. (2009). Understanding the value of a question: An analysis of a lesson. Journal of Mathematical Sciences
and Mathematics Education, 4(1), 50-60.
Tienken, C.H., Goldberg, S., & Di Rocco, D. (2009) Questioning the questions, Kappa Delta Pi Record, 46(1), 39-43, DOI:10.1080/00228958.2009.10516690.
Wimer, J. W., Ridenour, C. S., Thomas, K., & Place, A. W. (2001). Higher order teacher
questioning of boys and girls in elementary mathematics classrooms. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(2), 84-92.

Extending thinking (ET)

Orienting and focusing (OF)
Establishing context (EC)

Elif N. Gokbel, MA
Doctoral Student
School of Education
Instructional Technology & Leadership
karalie@duq.edu

Melissa D. Boston, Ed.D.

Associate Professor
School of Education
Instruction and Leadership in Education
bostonm@duq.edu