教育外文翻譯--課堂提問(wèn)-教師的認(rèn)知和實(shí)踐

1、<p>　　中文4600字,2350單詞，13500英文字符</p><p>　　出處：Albergaria-Almeida P. Classroom questioning: teachers’ perceptions and practices[J]. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2010, 2(2):305-309.</p>

2、<p>　　畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)(論文)外文翻譯</p><p><b>　　原文：</b></p><p>　　Classroom questioning: teachers’ perceptions and practices </p><p>　　Patrícia Albergaria-Almeida * </p>

3、<p><b>　　Abstract</b></p><p>　　Moving from a teacher-centered teaching to a student-centered teaching implies a new perspective of the approaches to questioning. Putting the focus on studen

4、ts’questions rather then on teacher’s questions, and valuing students’questions rather then emphasizing their responses is imperative in supporting learners’higher levels of thinking. This paper outlines and action resea

5、rch study with 3 secondary biology teachers and their students. A 2-month course of professional development was designed </p><p>　　Keywords: Questioning; classroom questioning; science teaching; course of p

6、rofessional development. </p><p>　　1. Introduction </p><p>　　Research on the importance of questioning as a teaching and learning strategy is well documented (Almeida, Pedrosa de Jesus and Watts

7、, 2008, Chin and Osborne, 2008; Graesser and Olde, 2003). It is suggested that teachers spend up to 50% of class time on questioning and that they ask between 300 and 400 questions a day (Levin and Long, 1981), while eac

8、h student asks, on average, 1 question per week (Graesser & Person, 1994). Surprisingly, teachers seem to be not aware of this discrepancy. Several</p><p>　　2. Overview of the literature </p><

9、p>　　2.1. Teacher’s questioning </p><p>　　Research has shown that teachers ask a high frequency of questions. In 1967, Schreiber found that fifth grade teachers asked about 64 questions each during 30-minu

10、te social studies lessons. Floyd (1960) developed a study with 40 elementary teachers and found that these teachers asked 93 percent of all classroom questions. These numbers confirm the results obtained by Stevens in he

11、r precursor study about classroom questioning conducted in 1912. More recently, Kerry (2002) reinforces these numbers</p><p>　　Even if teachers ask a huge number of questions per class, the questions posed a

12、re consistently of the same kind. Teachers ask typically low level questions, requiring mainly memory. The finding of teachers’characteristic use of low-cognitive-level questions has been verified in all school levels (f

13、rom elementary teaching to university) and in a variety of subject areas. </p><p>　　Bearing in mind that teachers spend a large percentage of their communication time asking questions it is pertinent to ask:

14、 why do teachers ask questions? What are the functions of teachers’questions? According to Brown and Edmondson (1985), teachers use questioning fundamentally to check understanding and knowledge to aid teaching, to diagn

15、ose students’ difficulties, to recall facts, to test knowledge, to direct attention and to maintain control. Research has consistently showed that the most f</p><p>　　Thus, the remaining percentage of teache

16、rs’questions when we exclude recall and management questions is surprisingly small. Consequently, other functions associated to teachers’ questioning such as encouraging students to think, arousing interest and curiosity

17、, developing students’reflection and stimulate students to ask questions of their own are not frequently found on classroom questioning. </p><p>　　2.1.1. Wait-time </p><p>　　The wait-time is es

18、sential to student thinking. By wait-time we refer to the amount of time a teacher allots for student reflection after asking a question and before a student responds (wait-time I) and to the pause after a respondent off

19、ers a response (wait-time II). In her investigations, Rowe (1986) found that the mean wait-time was, on average, one second or less. If the student did not answered in one second, the teacher would repeat or rephrase the

20、 question, ask another question or call a</p><p>　　Rowe (1986) trained the teachers to increase their wait time to three to five seconds and found that the quantity and quality of students’ answers improved

21、significantly: students give longer responses, students give more evidence for their ideas and conclusions, students speculate and hypothesize more and more students participated in responding. Furthermore, students ask

22、more questions and talk more to other students. </p><p>　　2.2. Students’ questioning </p><p>　　Even if the frequency of students’ questions is usually low, in recent years there has been an incr

23、easing emphasis on the role that students’ questions play in learning science (Almeida, et al, 2008, Chin and Osborne, 2008; Graesser and Olde, 2003), as questions are an essential component of discursive activity and di

24、alectical thinking. The act of questioning encourages learners to engage in critical reasoning. Given that asking questions is fundamental to science and scientific inquiry, Zoller </p><p>　　Students' qu

25、estions result form a gap or discrepancy in the students' knowledge or a desire to extend their knowledge in some direction. Students' questions may be triggered by unknown words or inconsistencies between the st

26、udents' knowledge and the new information, which then engender 'cognitive disequilibrium' (Graesser and Olde, 2003). According to these authors 'questions are asked when individuals are confronted with ob

27、stacles to goals, anomalous events, contradictions, discrepancies, salie</p><p>　　Student-generated questions are an important element in the teaching and learning process, and play a significant role in mot

28、ivating meaningful learning. Students' questions can serve different functions, namely:</p><p>　　- creating a culture of inquiry: an emphasis on students' questions conveys the message that the scien

29、ce disciplines are areas where inquiry is a natural component and questions need constantly to be raised (Marbach-Ad and Sokolove, 2000); </p><p>　　- heightening conceptual understanding: learners' quest

30、ions can lead to improvement of understanding and toretention of the learning a student encounters. When students ask questions they are shaping and exposing theirthoughts (Watts, et al., 1997). Students' questions c

31、an de diagnostic of their learning, allowing teachers to recognisestudents' alternative conceptions. This means that students' questions provide opportunities for teachers' insight intothinking and conceptual

32、 understanding; </p><p>　　- driving classroom interactions: teachers' own thinking can be provoked and challenged by students' questions (Watts, et al., 1997) which are highly efective in increasing

33、student interest, enthusiasm and engagement [4, 24]. Question-asking fosters discussion and debate; </p><p>　　- promoting autonomous inquiry-based learning: teachers can promote the notion of autonomy in lea

34、rning through the provision of opportunities for students to become questioners (Marbach-Ad and Sokolove, 2000). </p><p>　　While students' questions serve useful functions for learners, they are also hel

35、pful to teachers in prompting reflective thought and student engagement. Therefore, students' questions can be analyzed by distinguishing between the use of these questions in learning science and in teaching science

36、.</p><p>　　3.Methodology </p><p>　　This study was conducted with a sample of three secondary biology teachers and their eighth grade students (n= 59). All teachers were respected members of thei

37、r teaching communities and showed a willingness to share and examine their practices. </p><p>　　As a way of assisting these teachers to investigate their use of questioning, a 2-month CPD (from September to

38、November 2009) about classroom questioning (teacher and student questioning) was developed and implemented. Course sessions were audio-recorded, and teachers were interviewed before and after this course. Sessions includ

39、ed analysis and discussion of literature, but relied mainly on analysis, reflection and discussion about each teacher’s questioning practices. Before the beginning of th</p><p>　　After the initial analysis o

40、f pre-CPD transcripts, the following themes emerged as fundamental: (i) classroom discourse pattern; (ii) cognitive level of teacher’s and students’ questions; and (iii) wait-time. These were the main topics discussed du

41、ring the PDC sessions. </p><p>　　4. Results </p><p>　　4.1. Phase 1 – “Classroom discourse pattern” analysis of pre- and post-CPD data </p><p>　　A high rate of questioning was eviden

42、t in the three lessons transcripts pre-CPD. Given a 45-minute lesson, the rate of teacher's questions was, on average, 2 questions per minute. On the other hand, the students asked about one question each three minut

43、es. These results go along with the data reported in the literature (Wragg and Brown, 2001). The three teachers remarked in the first interview that they were surprised with the number of questions they asked. Furthermor

44、e, the teachers also though</p><p>　　However, post-PCD, the average of teacher's questions decreased to 1,2 questions per minute, and the number of students' questions raised to one question per minu

45、te. This kind of result shows that when teachers are aware of their practices, they are able to change their questioning practices, namely through decreasing the number of questions posed and, consequently, giving more s

46、pace and time for their students’ questions. </p><p>　　4.2. Phase 2 - “Cognitive level of questions” analysis of pre- and post-CPD data </p><p>　　The second phase of the CPD focused on the cogni

47、tive level of both teacher and student questioning. Questions were categorised as closed and open. Closed questions have one correct or 'best' answer or one from a narrow range of answers. On the other hand, open

48、 questions are higher-level questions, permitting a wide range of responses; hese can also include the expression of feelings or values (Almeida and Neri de Souza, 2009). </p><p>　　The majority of teachers&#

49、39; questions pre-CPD were categorized as closed questions (91%). 95% of students' questions were also classified as closed questions. However, post-CPD, teachers' closed questions decreased to 75% and students&#

50、39; closed questions decreased to 81%. </p><p>　　During the CPD, teachers were advised to prepare some higher-level questions before the class. During the second interview, the three teachers emphasized that

51、 they had prepared some open questions before implementation. These results also seem to confirm what we have found elsewhere (Almeida and Neri de Souza, 2009), that the kind of questions raised by the teacher seems to i

52、nfluence the kind of questions asked by the students. Here, when the number of teacher’s open questions raised, the number</p><p>　　4.3. Phase 3 – “Wait-time” analysis of pre- and post-PDC data </p>&

53、lt;p>　　The teachers analyzed their classroom discourse according to whether they waited for (i) 2 or more seconds, or (ii) less then 2 seconds. The pre-training analysis of data for Wait-Time I showed that for 13% of

54、the questions asked the teachers waited at least 2 seconds or more. The analysis of data for Wait-Time II revealed that, of the 270 questions raised by the three teachers, the teachers waited more than 2 seconds only for

55、 26 questions. </p><p>　　After the CPD, the teachers waited more than 2 seconds for 38% of the questions raised. For Wait-Time II, for 32% of the questions asked, teachers waited for more than 2 seconds. <

56、;/p><p>　　4.4. Teacher’s Reflections </p><p>　　Teachers were asked to write a reflection upon the effectiveness of the CPD. All participants found that the training program was effective for them a

57、s teachers and that it provided them with valuable new teaching strategies for promoting their students’ learning. All teachers referred to: </p><p>　　i) the importance of asking higher-level questions to e

58、nhance their students’ thinking and reasoning; </p><p>　　ii) the need to change their questioning practices and, consequently, to change their students’ questioning behaviors; </p><p>　　iii) the

59、 significance of providing enough wait time after asking a question; </p><p>　　The three teachers also agreed that audio recording, transcribing and analyzing their own classes was an effective strategy to m

60、ake them aware of their questioning profiles and the kind of discourse that was produced in their classes. The teachers also considered this kind of strategy as an effective way to face their practices and deconstruct th

61、eir erroneous perceptions about their questioning profiles and their students’ questioning profiles. </p><p>　　5. Discussion </p><p>　　Qualitative data from the interviews and from teachers’ ref

62、lections show that teachers were not aware about their questioning patterns. The three teachers believed that they asked a small percentage of all classroom questions, and that the majority of questions was raised by the

63、ir students. Furthermore, all teachers thought that their students posed complex and difficult questions. They also believed that their own questions were higher-level questions. When confronted with the recordings and t

64、h</p><p>　　Pre-CPD revealed that teachers lacked the skills and knowledge in all three phases of intervention. For instance, in Phase 2, with regard to the cognitive level of questions, the majority of the q

65、uestions were formulated at the lower levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. With regard to Phase 1, the teacher initiated nearly all the interaction episodes by asking a question, with only a residual number initiated by the stude

66、nts. Similarly, Phase 3 pre-CPD data indicated that teachers did not wait for the st</p><p>　　6. Conclusion </p><p>　　This study shows that, in what concerns the classroom questioning patterns,

67、there is a mismatch between teachers’ perceptions and practices. The three participants lacked awareness and knowledge of the way they structured and processed their questioning episodes. </p><p>　　This stu

68、dy has highlighted the importance of carefully planning appropriate questions before implementation as well as the facilitation of student-initiated interaction episodes. If learning is to be promoted in ways congruent w

69、ith contemporary learning theories then training teachers to ask higher-level questions in appropriate ways is crucial. In their written reflections and also during the interviews, the teachers signaled that they were no

70、t aware of the importance of using effective questio</p><p><b>　　譯文：</b></p><p>　　課堂提問(wèn):教師的認(rèn)知和實(shí)踐</p><p>　　帕特里夏阿爾貝加-阿爾梅達(dá)</p><p>　　摘要：從以教師為中心的教學(xué)向以學(xué)生為中心的教學(xué)轉(zhuǎn)變意味著

71、一種新的教學(xué)方式開(kāi)始了。新教學(xué)方式要求教師開(kāi)始把關(guān)注點(diǎn)放在學(xué)生的提問(wèn)而不是老師的提問(wèn)，并重視學(xué)生的問(wèn)題而不是強(qiáng)調(diào)他們的反映，這是教師在以后的教學(xué)中必備的教學(xué)思維。本文概述和研究了一所中學(xué)的生物學(xué)教師和他們的學(xué)生，在2個(gè)月內(nèi)教師教學(xué)和學(xué)生專業(yè)知識(shí)學(xué)習(xí)的情況，為了增強(qiáng)教師課堂提問(wèn)的意識(shí)研究中實(shí)施了一項(xiàng)策略，讓教師與學(xué)生參與職業(yè)發(fā)展的課程（CPD）進(jìn)修。進(jìn)修后關(guān)于教學(xué)中一些重要和關(guān)鍵性的問(wèn)題，主要通過(guò)讓學(xué)生們自己質(zhì)疑并提出問(wèn)題的教學(xué)方式進(jìn)行而

72、不是教師提問(wèn)，觀察以教師提問(wèn)為主的教模式改變?yōu)橐詫W(xué)生提問(wèn)為主的教學(xué)情況下，教師和學(xué)生的重要變化。</p><p>　　關(guān)鍵詞:提問(wèn)；課堂提問(wèn)；科學(xué)教育；課程的專業(yè)發(fā)展</p><p><b>　　1、簡(jiǎn)介</b></p><p>　　研究提問(wèn)在教學(xué)和學(xué)習(xí)中的重要性是有據(jù)可查的，這些研究建議，教師把50%的課堂時(shí)間花在提問(wèn)上，他們覺(jué)得每天應(yīng)該提3

73、00到400個(gè)問(wèn)題，而每一個(gè)學(xué)生都應(yīng)該每周被提問(wèn)1次。令人驚訝的是，許多老師似乎并沒(méi)有意識(shí)到提問(wèn)的重要性，而且研究顯示每個(gè)老師一天提問(wèn)的次數(shù)差異很大。而且有幾項(xiàng)研究顯示出，有些老師或?qū)W生提出的問(wèn)題通常是程序性或基于事實(shí)的，問(wèn)題一般是已經(jīng)得出結(jié)論，或不需要再討論的記憶性的問(wèn)題(布朗和埃德蒙森,1985)。這個(gè)關(guān)于教師和學(xué)生提問(wèn)現(xiàn)狀的特殊研究旨在通過(guò)讓教師與學(xué)生參與職業(yè)發(fā)展的課程(CPD)促進(jìn)教師課堂提問(wèn)的意識(shí)和培養(yǎng)學(xué)生質(zhì)疑的精神。<

74、/p><p><b>　　2 研究概述</b></p><p><b>　　2.1 老師的提問(wèn)</b></p><p>　　有研究表明，教師有時(shí)候高頻率的提出問(wèn)題。1967年,施賴伯發(fā)現(xiàn)，五年級(jí)老師在一堂30分鐘的社會(huì)研究課期間提出了約64個(gè)問(wèn)題。另一個(gè)研究者弗洛伊德在1960年開(kāi)發(fā)的一項(xiàng)研究發(fā)現(xiàn),40個(gè)小學(xué)教師在他們的課堂

75、上提問(wèn)占整堂課的93%，這些數(shù)據(jù)證實(shí)了史蒂文斯在她大約1912年進(jìn)行的課堂提問(wèn)的前兆研究獲得的結(jié)果是正確的。最近,克里重新整理得出了加強(qiáng)的數(shù)據(jù)，指出如果一個(gè)老師平均每小時(shí)提出43.6個(gè)問(wèn)題,那么在他的職業(yè)生涯中他可能會(huì)提出近200萬(wàn)個(gè)問(wèn)題。即使這些問(wèn)題是向整個(gè)班級(jí)的同學(xué)提出的，那也是一個(gè)龐大的數(shù)據(jù),而且對(duì)不同層次的同學(xué)提出的問(wèn)題是一樣的。并且有些老師通常問(wèn)低水平的問(wèn)題,主要的目的只是用來(lái)加強(qiáng)學(xué)生記憶。研究發(fā)現(xiàn)教師在課堂中提問(wèn)低水平的問(wèn)題

76、在不同層次的學(xué)校(從小學(xué)教育到大學(xué))和各種學(xué)科領(lǐng)域中已經(jīng)是普遍現(xiàn)象。</p><p>　　令人印象深刻的是有些老師花費(fèi)大量的教學(xué)時(shí)間來(lái)提問(wèn)，但提出的問(wèn)題往往是:為什么老師問(wèn)問(wèn)題?等一些沒(méi)有意義和價(jià)值的問(wèn)題。那么，教師提問(wèn)的作用到底是什么呢？根據(jù)布朗和埃德蒙森的觀點(diǎn)，教師提問(wèn)的基本作用是讓教師了解學(xué)生理解和掌握知識(shí)的情況，診斷學(xué)生的學(xué)習(xí)困難，或是回顧已學(xué)知識(shí)，鞏固學(xué)生的記憶，達(dá)到用問(wèn)題來(lái)輔助教學(xué)的目的。在克里200

77、2年的研究一再表明通常60%或更多 （ 多12 -30%）的教師提問(wèn)最常見(jiàn)的功能是“回憶”。 </p><p>　　因此，當(dāng)我們排除提問(wèn)是用來(lái)回憶知識(shí)的教師比例，剩下的比例出奇的低。因此，關(guān)于提問(wèn)的其他功能，如鼓勵(lì)學(xué)生思考、激發(fā)興趣和好奇心、培養(yǎng)學(xué)生的反映和激發(fā)學(xué)生提出自己的問(wèn)題，這些提問(wèn)的其他功能都沒(méi)有很好的被應(yīng)用到課堂當(dāng)中。</p><p>　　2.1.1 等待時(shí)間</p

78、><p>　　給學(xué)生思考留足夠的等待時(shí)間是至關(guān)重要的。所謂的等待時(shí)間指的有老師問(wèn)問(wèn)題后留給全部學(xué)生反映的時(shí)間，第一個(gè)學(xué)生回答后等待下一個(gè)答辯的時(shí)間(教師等待時(shí)間)，和一個(gè)問(wèn)題解答后問(wèn)下一個(gè)問(wèn)題的停頓的時(shí)間，又或者回答后等待學(xué)生提供響應(yīng)的時(shí)間(等待時(shí)間II)。在1986年羅維的調(diào)查中，她發(fā)現(xiàn)教師的平均等待時(shí)間值，一般是平均一秒或更少。如果學(xué)生在一秒鐘內(nèi)沒(méi)回答，老師會(huì)重復(fù)或用另一種方式闡述這個(gè)問(wèn)題，又或者問(wèn)另一個(gè)問(wèn)題或叫

79、另一個(gè)學(xué)生回答。在收到響應(yīng)后，老師等了大約0至9秒，開(kāi)始問(wèn)另一個(gè)問(wèn)題。</p><p>　　羅維在研究中要求教師提高他們的等待時(shí)間，延長(zhǎng)至三到五秒鐘，發(fā)現(xiàn)學(xué)生的答案的數(shù)量和質(zhì)量顯著改善：由于學(xué)生獲得更長(zhǎng)的反應(yīng)時(shí)間，學(xué)生給予更多的證明他們的想法和結(jié)論，學(xué)生猜測(cè)和推測(cè)越來(lái)越多，學(xué)生參與響應(yīng)也提高很多。而且，學(xué)生提出更多的問(wèn)題，與其他學(xué)生參與討論之中。</p><p>　　2.2 學(xué)生的問(wèn)題&

80、lt;/p><p>　　有據(jù)可查阿爾梅達(dá)、陳和奧斯本、格雷澤和奧爾德等人都認(rèn)為：即使學(xué)生提問(wèn)的頻率通常較低，但是近年來(lái)課堂提問(wèn)在教學(xué)中占有越來(lái)越重要的地位，因?yàn)閱?wèn)題是話語(yǔ)活動(dòng)的重要組成部分，以及批判性思維成為了科學(xué)改革教育的中心，學(xué)生通過(guò)課堂提問(wèn)可以鼓勵(lì)學(xué)生從事批判性推理，提出問(wèn)題，分析原因，解決問(wèn)題，培養(yǎng)學(xué)生的辯證思維 ，發(fā)展學(xué)生的能力。鑒于提出問(wèn)題的根本是從事科學(xué)和科學(xué)探究，學(xué)生也可以從提問(wèn)中學(xué)習(xí)科學(xué)知識(shí)。

81、</p><p>　　格雷澤和奧爾德還認(rèn)為不同層次的學(xué)生對(duì)問(wèn)題的理解程度不同，會(huì)導(dǎo)致學(xué)生差距或差異變大，同時(shí)對(duì)知識(shí)的渴望也在向不同方面擴(kuò)展。由于學(xué)生獲得的新知識(shí)和新信息的不一樣，然后會(huì)產(chǎn)生“認(rèn)知失衡”。根據(jù)這些格雷澤和奧爾德認(rèn)為當(dāng)被問(wèn)者中有個(gè)人面臨目標(biāo)障礙，異常事件，矛盾，差異，對(duì)比突出，在知識(shí)水平上有明顯的差距或期望的行為時(shí)，教師需要讓他們有同等的對(duì)待，提高問(wèn)題的吸引力使不同層次的學(xué)生都被吸引而不是歧視和忽略低

82、層次的學(xué)生。</p><p>　　學(xué)生產(chǎn)生疑問(wèn)在教學(xué)和學(xué)習(xí)過(guò)程中的是一個(gè)重要元素，起到激勵(lì)學(xué)生學(xué)習(xí)的作用。學(xué)生的提問(wèn)可以起到不同的功能，分別是：</p><p>　　- 創(chuàng)建一個(gè)調(diào)查文化：強(qiáng)調(diào)讓學(xué)生問(wèn)問(wèn)題的行為傳達(dá)的信息是在科學(xué)學(xué)科的領(lǐng)域中探究是一個(gè)自然組成部分和問(wèn)題需要不斷提高(Marbach-Ad and Sokolove, 2000)；</p><p>　　-

83、 加高概念的理解：學(xué)生提出的問(wèn)題可能會(huì)改善學(xué)生的理解方式和提高學(xué)生在學(xué)習(xí)中的忍受能力。當(dāng)學(xué)生提出問(wèn)題，他們正在塑造思維和揭露真理(Watts, et al., 1997) 。學(xué)生的問(wèn)題可以去診斷自己的學(xué)習(xí)，讓教師了解學(xué)生的實(shí)際情況 。這意味著，學(xué)生提出的問(wèn)題提供機(jī)會(huì)，讓教師培養(yǎng)學(xué)生的洞察力和加深學(xué)生對(duì)知識(shí)的理解；</p><p>　　- 駕馭課堂互動(dòng)：教師自身的思維可以引起和激發(fā)學(xué)生的提問(wèn)(Watts, et a

84、l., 1997) ，并在提高學(xué)生的學(xué)習(xí)興趣，積極參與課堂互動(dòng)上有很好的效果。</p><p>　　- 促進(jìn)自主探究式學(xué)習(xí)：教師應(yīng)該在課堂中發(fā)展自治學(xué)習(xí)，提供學(xué)生成為提問(wèn)者的機(jī)會(huì)，培養(yǎng)學(xué)生自主學(xué)習(xí)的精神。(Marbach-Ad and Sokolove, 2000)</p><p>　　學(xué)生自主提問(wèn)成為對(duì)學(xué)習(xí)者非常有用的功能，它們不僅利于教師在教學(xué)中的反思，也可以提高學(xué)生的參與度。因此，可

85、以在學(xué)習(xí)科學(xué)和科學(xué)教學(xué)中鼓勵(lì)學(xué)生提出問(wèn)題。</p><p>　　3、方法論 本研究以三所中學(xué)的生物學(xué)教師和八年級(jí)學(xué)生（ N = 59）的樣品進(jìn)行的。所有教師都尊重他們的教學(xué)社區(qū)的成員，表示愿意分享，并檢查他們的做法。</p><p>　　為調(diào)查這些教師和學(xué)生在課堂中的提問(wèn)情況，開(kāi)發(fā)和實(shí)施了一個(gè)持續(xù)2個(gè)月的專業(yè)發(fā)展（從9月至2009年11月）關(guān)于課堂提問(wèn)（老師和學(xué)生的質(zhì)疑）的研究。研究

86、過(guò)程中會(huì)議經(jīng)過(guò)音頻錄制，以及對(duì)參加研究的老師在培訓(xùn)前和培訓(xùn)后都進(jìn)行了采訪留作研究資料。會(huì)議包括分析和討論教案，但主要是分析，并討論、交流參加研究的老師結(jié)束后的想法。在CPD開(kāi)始前，每一位教師被要求錄制音頻，全轉(zhuǎn)錄她自己的一節(jié)45分鐘的課。對(duì)他的教學(xué)視頻進(jìn)行了分析，對(duì)教學(xué)所存在的問(wèn)題做出特別關(guān)注。在進(jìn)修結(jié)束后，三位老師音頻錄制另一節(jié)課。所有的教學(xué)過(guò)程再次被轉(zhuǎn)錄和分析，并收集和分析教師培訓(xùn)后的自我反思。</p><p&g

87、t;　　接下來(lái)幾方面是本次研究的主要內(nèi)容：（一）課堂互動(dòng)情況；（二）老師的認(rèn)知水平和學(xué)生的提問(wèn)情況；（三）等待時(shí)間。這些都是在PDC會(huì)議討論的主要問(wèn)題。</p><p>　　4 、結(jié)果 4.1 第1階段 - “課堂互動(dòng)情況”，CPD進(jìn)修前、后的數(shù)據(jù) 從數(shù)據(jù)中看提問(wèn)率高是顯而易見(jiàn)的。一節(jié)45分鐘的課，教師的提問(wèn)率的平均值達(dá)到了每分鐘2個(gè)問(wèn)題。在另一方面，學(xué)生們也平均每三分鐘問(wèn)一個(gè)問(wèn)題。通過(guò)視頻分析后，

88、采訪三位老師他們說(shuō)令他們驚訝的是他們?cè)谝还?jié)課竟然問(wèn)了那么多問(wèn)題，老師以為他們不可能問(wèn)這么多問(wèn)題，但是在無(wú)意識(shí)的情況下還是頻繁提問(wèn)了。</p><p>　　但是，后期的PCD顯示，教師的提問(wèn)率的平均值下降到每分鐘1、2題，而學(xué)生的提問(wèn)率提高到每分鐘一個(gè)問(wèn)題。這些數(shù)據(jù)表明，當(dāng)教師與學(xué)生參與了職業(yè)發(fā)展的課程(CPD)進(jìn)修，促進(jìn)了教師課堂提問(wèn)的意識(shí)和培養(yǎng)了學(xué)生質(zhì)疑的精神。因此，教師在課堂中提問(wèn)的次數(shù)降低了，而給予更多的空

89、間和時(shí)間讓學(xué)生提問(wèn)。</p><p>　　4.2 第二階段 - “認(rèn)知水平的問(wèn)題”，CPD進(jìn)修前、后的數(shù)據(jù) CPD的第二階段側(cè)重于教師和學(xué)生的提問(wèn)的認(rèn)知水平。問(wèn)題被歸類為封閉式和開(kāi)放式。封閉式問(wèn)題指只有一個(gè)正確的或“最佳”答案或者一個(gè)狹窄的范圍答案。在另一方面，開(kāi)放式問(wèn)題是指更高層次的問(wèn)題，允許廣泛的應(yīng)對(duì)措施，還可以包括情感或價(jià)值觀的表達(dá)。</p><p>　　在參加CPD前，多數(shù)

90、教師的提問(wèn)91%被歸類為封閉式問(wèn)題。95%的學(xué)生的問(wèn)題也被歸類為封閉式問(wèn)題。然而，在參與CPD后，教師封閉性問(wèn)題降低到75%和學(xué)生的封閉性問(wèn)題降低到81 %。</p><p>　　由于在參與職業(yè)發(fā)展的課程(CPD)進(jìn)修中，教師被告知課堂提問(wèn)需要準(zhǔn)備一些更高層次的問(wèn)題。在第二次采訪中，三位老師強(qiáng)調(diào)，他們?cè)谶@次教學(xué)過(guò)程中準(zhǔn)備的是一些懸而未決的高層次問(wèn)題，來(lái)吸引學(xué)生的注意力。而數(shù)據(jù)分析的結(jié)果似乎也證實(shí)了老師提出高層次的

91、問(wèn)題是能影響學(xué)生的質(zhì)疑行為的，激發(fā)學(xué)生的興趣而促使課堂的進(jìn)行。在這里，當(dāng)老師的提出開(kāi)放性問(wèn)題的數(shù)量增加，學(xué)生的封閉式問(wèn)題的數(shù)量減少。</p><p>　　4.3 第3階段 - “等待時(shí)間”，CPD進(jìn)修前、后的數(shù)據(jù) 在參與職業(yè)發(fā)展的課程(CPD)進(jìn)修前對(duì)于等待時(shí)間數(shù)據(jù)分析我發(fā)現(xiàn)，對(duì)于教師是否等待了2秒鐘以上的問(wèn)題，13%的問(wèn)題提出后老師等了至少2秒以上。對(duì)于等待時(shí)間II數(shù)據(jù)的分析顯示，由三位老師提出的270

92、個(gè)問(wèn)題，老師只對(duì)26個(gè)問(wèn)題等待2秒以上。</p><p>　　持續(xù)專業(yè)進(jìn)修后，老師提出問(wèn)題后等了超過(guò)2秒的有38%。對(duì)于等待時(shí)間II，對(duì)于老師提出的問(wèn)題的32%，教師等待了2秒以上。</p><p>　　4.4 教師的反思 教師被要求寫(xiě)在CPD的有效性的反思。所有參與者都發(fā)現(xiàn)，培訓(xùn)計(jì)劃是有效的，為教學(xué)者提供了有價(jià)值的新的教學(xué)策略，促進(jìn)學(xué)生的學(xué)習(xí)。所有教師提到： （一）為

93、了活躍學(xué)生的思維和提高學(xué)生的推理能力，提更高層次的問(wèn)題在課堂教學(xué)中是非常重要的；</p><p>　　（二）需要改變學(xué)生的質(zhì)疑的做法，因此，改變學(xué)生的質(zhì)疑行為； （三）提出一個(gè)問(wèn)題后，提供足夠的等待時(shí)間的意義； 老師們也認(rèn)為這些策略有利于教師反思和了解他們的教學(xué)方式，是一種對(duì)教師錯(cuò)誤的提問(wèn)方式有效認(rèn)識(shí)的途徑。</p><p>　　5 討論 從訪談和教師的反思定性數(shù)

94、據(jù)上顯示，教師沒(méi)有意識(shí)到他們的提問(wèn)方式的不妥。三位老師在研究前都認(rèn)為，他們?cè)谒械恼n堂上提問(wèn)只占一小部分，而大部分問(wèn)題是由他們的學(xué)生提出的。此外，所有的教師認(rèn)為相對(duì)于自己的學(xué)生所帶來(lái)的復(fù)雜和困難的問(wèn)題，自己的提出的問(wèn)題是更高層次的問(wèn)題。但通過(guò)課后反思才驚訝于并不是如此，課堂上許多問(wèn)題是老師提出的，而學(xué)生的參與度不高，并且教師提出的有些問(wèn)題水平較低。</p><p>　　預(yù)CPD透露，教師缺乏在所有三個(gè)階段的技能和

95、知識(shí)水平認(rèn)知。例如，在第2階段，對(duì)于問(wèn)題的認(rèn)知水平，大部分的問(wèn)題都制定了布盧姆的分類學(xué)中的較低水平。對(duì)于第1階段，老師幾乎所有的互動(dòng)情節(jié)只問(wèn)了一個(gè)問(wèn)題，忽略了讓學(xué)生提問(wèn)。同樣，第3 階段預(yù)CPD數(shù)據(jù)表明，教師沒(méi)有留足夠的等待時(shí)間讓學(xué)生做出不同的反映和得到學(xué)生真正的想法。</p><p>　　6 、結(jié)論 這項(xiàng)研究表明，對(duì)于課堂提問(wèn)模式，這些參與者都缺乏對(duì)提問(wèn)結(jié)構(gòu)的了解（以學(xué)生提問(wèn)為主），和對(duì)自己在課堂提問(wèn)情況

96、的認(rèn)知，所以導(dǎo)致教師的觀念和實(shí)踐之間不一致。 這項(xiàng)研究表明精心策劃適當(dāng)?shù)膯?wèn)題有利于教學(xué)的實(shí)施以及提高學(xué)生的參與度。如果為了使學(xué)習(xí)的方式適應(yīng)當(dāng)代學(xué)習(xí)理論，培訓(xùn)教師提出更高層次的問(wèn)題以及以適當(dāng)方式提問(wèn)是至關(guān)重要的。 在參與研究的教師的書(shū)面反思和訪談中，教師暗示，他們不知道“提問(wèn)”使用的效益，即作為一個(gè)有價(jià)值的教學(xué)技巧的重要性。我們認(rèn)為，為了提高教師的教學(xué)水平，適應(yīng)新的教學(xué)模式，必須讓老師知道課堂提問(wèn)的重要性，并且可以提供能提高課堂提