Understanding the benefit of specific question types in teacher assessment in primary science

PSQM, University of Hertfordshire

Clare Warren, Jane Turner

Key words: Question, assessment, science

Key aims and outcomes

The requirement for teachers to report Teacher Assessment data in science at the end of Key Stages One and Two (Standards and Testing Agency (STA), 2015a) increases the importance of formative assessment in primary classroom. The Report of the Commission on Assessment without Levels (DfE, 2015, p16) “strongly believes that a much greater focus on high quality formative assessment as an integral part of teaching and learning will have multiple benefits.” The Government response (STA, 2015b, p4) “supports the Commission’s view that schools should place a high value on day-to-day formative assessment that does not rely heavily on the collection of data and hope this will lead to reductions in teacher workload.”

This small scale study will seek to determine the benefits of improving formative assessment in the context of science teaching and learning. Questioning is a formative assessment, or assessment for learning (AfL), technique promoted by both Dylan William (2011) and the TAPS project (Bath Spa University, 2015) and this area of formative assessment was selected as a focus for the research.

The Royal Society of Chemistry funded the development and delivery of a workshop for a group of 18 teachers in a Primary Science Quality Mark hub based in Bedfordshire to develop questioning skills and create a set of questions suitable for use by primary science teachers. Black and Harrison (2004, p6) believe that “collaboration between teachers to exchange ideas and experiences about good questions will be very valuable.” For this reason the teachers worked within their own key stages during the workshop to generate a list of questions to share. The workshop took place in February 2016 and was developed and led by Andrea Mapplebeck (Formative Education, 2016).

The workshop focused on three question types

  1. Hinge point questions. These are promoted by Wiliam (n.d.) and are diagnostic questions which occur during lessons to check the understanding of the whole class, possibly through finger voting, use of A, B, C, D cards or mini-whiteboards. During the workshop, for each question type covered, success criteria were generated and for hinge point questions these were:
  2. Quick for teachers and learners
  3. Links to misconceptions
  4. Includes the alternative ideas
  5. Multiple answers (more than one correct)

An example of a hinge point question generated by the teachers was:

In which of these sports can you improve performance by reducing friction?

  1. Long jump
  2. Bob sleigh
  3. Running
  4. Swimming
  1. Real time quizzes. These are similar to hinge point questions but tend to focus on knowledge rather than understanding of concepts. Again they can be answered by the whole class at the same time. Wiliam and Leahy (2015, p93) state that “there is now a great deal of research that shows that regular testing increases learning” andpractising retrieving informationfrom memory is the mechanism through which this happens. The success criteria generated for real time quizzes were:
  2. One correct answer
  3. All involved for recall
  4. Assesses knowledge
  5. Quick for teachers and learners

An example of a real time quiz which was created by the teachers is:

1Magnetic; 2 Non Magnetic

  1. Pencil
  2. Baked bean tin
  3. Plastic ruler
  4. Iron filings
  5. Bone
  6. Breakfast cereals
  1. Rich questions. Black and Harrison (2004, p7) define these as questions “that cannot be answered immediately but rather requires the learner to work on a series of smaller questions and activities before they can have a stab at answering it.” The success criteria generated for rich questions were:
  2. It has a context (real life)
  3. Opportunity for explanation/reasoning
  4. Draws on previous knowledge or experience
  5. A variety of possible answers
  6. Students can investigate to find out the answer
  7. Open questions

An example of a rich question created by the teachers was:

Imagine you are an estate agent. How would you sell this log to a woodlouse?

Having spent time writing questions in key stage groups, teachers commented on how difficult it was to phrase questions accurately and that creating questions was a time consuming activity. They concluded that a bank of such questions would be very helpful and all questions created were shared with the group so that they too could share them with colleagues throughout their schools.

Research Methodology and Methods

One month after the completion of the workshop the teachers who attended were asked to complete a questionnaire reflecting on changes in practice and attitudes since the workshop. Twelve of the questionnaires were returned either fully or partially completed. The questionnaire asked respondents to provide both qualitative and quantitative answers.

Evidence

The teachers were asked to reflect on their practice, both before, and a month after the workshop. They were asked to think about which students answered questions during whole class teaching in science lessons and fig. 1 shows whether they indicated an increase, decrease or no change in the children to whom questions during whole class teaching were addressed.

The teachers were also asked to categorise the questions they asked and reflect on the number of different types of questions they typically asked. Figure 2 shows whether their answers reflected an increase, reduction or no change in the number of each question type asked.

The teachers were asked about the purpose of their questions both before and after the workshop. Typically they considered that before the workshop the purposes of their question had been (in no particular order):

  • Assess understanding prior to(AfL)/during/after teaching
  • Scaffold learning
  • Identify misconceptions
  • Prompt thinking and initiate discussion
  • Recap previous learning

Following the workshop there appears a shift in the purposes of their questions. The same purposes stated above still applied, however, the following reasons also appeared:

  • More emphasis on deeper thinking
  • Allowing pupils to find things out for themselves
  • Peer and self-assessment
  • Check deeper understanding of a concept
  • Improved phrasing of questions
  • Allow children to reflect on own learning
  • More follow up questions
  • Extend more able children

Teachers were also asked about the benefits and drawbacks of each of the three question types explored during the workshop, now that they had had an opportunity to use them in the classroom. A score of 5 was used to indicate substantial benefits through to 1 for substantial drawbacks; 0 indicated don’t know. Figure 3 summarises the teachers’ responses.

Some teachers did indicate that the three question types were not without drawbacks however the overwhelming number of 4 and 5 scores indicate that overall the benefits outweighed the drawbacks.

Further the teachers were asked to state the benefits and drawbacks of each question type. A summary of their responsesfollows:

Hinge Point Question Benefits

  • Highlights misconceptions
  • Every child shows a response
  • I know where to take the learning next (move on or not)
  • Quick and easy to fit in a lesson
  • Can identify children who need support
  • Higher order thinking is required

Hinge Point Question Drawbacks

  • Hard to write and takes time to write them
  • Need different plan according to different responses
  • Not always easy to quickly unpick where they are going wrong

Real time quizzes Benefits

  • Repetition of information to aid memory
  • Easy to quickly see learning/ knowledge across whole class
  • Fun and works well with competitive class
  • Children engaged and motivated.
  • Can be used in mini-plenaries

Real time quizzes Drawbacks

  • Children may copy others if not managed carefully
  • EYFS children can’t read so need to say the question and children don’t always understand what to do
  • Might interrupt learning

Rich questions Benefits

  • Deeper thinking (extends more able) and shows if children have really understood
  • Promotion of dialogue and develops problem solving skills
  • Allows children develop their own ideas and be scientists
  • Promotes children asking their own questions
  • Draws on prior knowledge to support reasoning
  • Lend themselves to Working Scientifically
  • Enthuses, engages and motivates curiosity
  • Identifies and explores misconceptions
  • Makes science relevant

Rich Question Drawbacks

  • Time constraints/staying on task
  • Some children may need scaffolding
  • Risky – teachers may enter territory that they are not confident in
  • Takes time to compose questions

Conclusions

All the results come with the caveat that they are self-reported and based on what teachers believe about their own practice rather than based on classroom observations. Teachers were asked to recall their practice before the workshop which was a month before they completed the questionnaire and their answers may not truly reflect their practice at that time.

However, the results demonstrate that the workshop had an impact in raising their awareness of a range of questioning techniques and changing the types of questions which teachers asked. It also resulted in changes to the children to whom the questions were addressed, with an increase in the whole class having the opportunity to engage with questions. Most teachers increased their use of the three question types promoted during the workshop.

Overall the teachers involved perceived that the benefits of the three types of questions they explored outweighed the drawbacks. Their list of benefits show clear links to improving conceptual understanding, Working Scientifically skills, engagement, inclusion, classroom management and child-initiated learning.

Recommendations

The teachers involved in the workshop believe that changingtheir questioning practice has a range of benefits. This research set out to discover if questioning, as a form of AfL, had multiple benefits and these have become apparent. Therefore wider sharing of this training and sharing of the questionscreated is recommended. Improving teachers’ questioning is however, not an end in itself. Alexander (2006, p25) states that “There’s little point in framing a well-conceived question & giving ample ‘wait time’ to answer it, if we fail to engage with the answer they give & hence with the understanding or misunderstanding which that answer reveals.” Therefore it is the response of teachers to the information they collect through questioning which will lead to further improvements in teaching and learning.

References

Alexander, R. (2006) Towards Dialogic Teaching Rethinking classroom talk (3rd Edition) Dialogos

Bath Spa University (2015) Teacher Assessment in Primary Science available at accessed 18.5.16

Black, P. and Harrison, C. (2004) Science Inside the Black Box. Nfer Nelson

DfE (2015) The Report of the Commission on Assessment without Levels available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/483058/Commission_on_Assessment_Without_Levels_-_report.pdf accessed 18.5.16

Formative Education (2016) available at accessed 18.5.16

Standards and Testing Agency (2015a) Interim Teacher assessment frameworks for Key stages 1 and 2 available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/interim-frameworks-for-teacher-assessment-at-the-end-of-key-stage-2 accessed 18.5.16

Standards and Testing Agency (2015b) Government response: Commission on Assessment without Levels available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/461311/Government-response-to-commission-on-assessment-without-levels-report.pdf accessed 18.5.16

Wiliam, D. (n.d) Dylan Wiliam – Hinge Questions available at accessed 18.5.16

Wiliam, D and Leahy, S (2015) Embedding Formative Assessment: Practical techniques for K-12 classrooms. Learning Science International, USA.