Research on the effects of teachers' graduate degrees is limited (Goldhaber & Brewer, 1996; Wayne & Youngs, 2003) and a definitive relationship between graduate coursework and improvement in teaching or student learning has not been established (Hill, 2007). Although much of the existing research indicates that a graduate degree may have limited impact, most studies have not considered the type of graduate degree pursued. An exception is a study by Goldhaber and Brewer (1996) in which data from the National Educational Longitudinal Study indicated that teacher subject-specific training in mathematics and science had a significant impact on secondary studentsŐ test scores. However, the implication that subject-specific graduate coursework in mathematics and science can positively impact studentsŐ achievement has not been supported across the K-12 curriculum (Wayne & Youngs, 2003). The mixed nature of research results indicates a need for further study of the ways in which teaching is influenced by graduate coursework. Such a focus is particularly important given that teachersŐ instructional practice is directly related to the nature and quality of student learning.

Our research has focused on characterizing changes in instructional practice as teachers participate in a MasterŐs degree program. In the research reported here, we sought to answer the following question: What changes occur in teachersŐ questioning over the course of a MasterŐs degree program designed to increase teachersŐ mathematics content and pedagogical knowledge?

Theoretical Perspective

A wealth of literature has underscored the importance of teacher questioning. For this study, we drew on questioning frameworks from the mathematics and science education literature (Boaler & Brodie, 2004; Chin, 2007; Erdogan & Campbell, 2008; Newcomb & Trefz, 2005) to examine the individual questions teachersŐ posed and to construct detailed rubrics to characterize the nature of teachersŐ questioning and detect shifts in questioning over time. When examining individual teacher-questions, we relied heavily on: Erdogan and CampbellŐs (2008) categories for closed-ended, open-ended, and task-oriented questions and Newcomb and TrefzŐs (2005) levels of cognition hierarchy–remembering, processing, creating, and evaluating.

Methods

Participants

This study was situated within the context of a mathematics-science partnership project conducted as a 3-year MasterŐs degree program in two tracks, mathematics and science. Teachers earned a Master of Science degree in either Curriculum and Instruction (science education) or Mathematics (mathematics education). Participants included 22 teachers from a public school district in a mid-sized Midwestern city.

Data Sources

Data were drawn from a three-phase video reflection cycle. At the beginning of the program, each teacher planned, taught, and video recorded a lesson that became the basis for reflection and revision throughout the program. About halfway through the program, teachers reviewed their initial lesson plan, viewed the recorded lesson, and reflected (in writing) on their teaching in light of the coursework, readings, and program activities in which they had subsequently been engaged. They modified the lesson plan, wrote a rationale for the modifications, re-taught and recorded the modified lesson, and reflected on the differences between the two lessons as taught. This process was repeated at the end of the program. Our final data set was comprised of 65 video-recorded lessons.

Analysis

Analysis was conducted in three phases. For every lesson, we constructed a verbatim transcription of the teachersŐ questions and recorded the nature of student responses (e.g., short answer, extended, discussion). Although these transcripts sufficiently captured the overall flow of discourse and allowed us to recognize shifts in focus or content, questions were more meaningfully interpreted within the context of a sequence, or cluster, of questions. Thus, in phase one, three researchers individually identified clusters and met to compare and agree upon cluster designations.

 In the next phase of analysis, three researchers individually coded each question within a transcript using the Erdogan and Campbell (2008) and Newcomb and Trefz (2005) frameworks. This information was used to code each cluster using a 5-point researcher-developed rubric and write a brief description of the overall lesson. Cluster codes were compared, agreement was negotiated, and intercoder reliabilities were computed. One researcher then constructed a narrative characterization of the overall lesson based on the cluster codes and a synthesis of each researcherŐs narrative descriptions of the lesson.

In the final phase of analysis, lesson narratives were analyzed using a 5-point lesson rubric (similar to the cluster rubric). Changes in teachers' questioning were examined broadly according to shifts in lesson rubric designations and more specifically through qualitative analysis of the three narrative characterizations for each lesson.

Findings and Conclusions

The majority of teachers exhibited changes in their questioning indicated by shifts in lesson rubric designations between the first and third lessons. For the first lesson, rubric designations for the vast majority of teachers were at the lowest two levels, characterized by a predominance of closed-ended, short-answer recall questions (e.g., remember number facts or computational procedures). By the third lesson, many teachers had progressed to Level 3 of the rubric, characterized by a mix of open- and closed-ended questions requiring students to apply procedures to solve problem, explain their thinking, and (infrequently) to draw original conclusions. Only three teachersŐ lessons were rated at Level 4 of the rubric, characterized by numerous open-ended questions that elicited student explanations, novel thinking, and critical analysis.

Analyses of the narratives characterizing each of the teachersŐ three lessons highlighted distinct, yet often subtle, changes in teachersŐ questioning practices. For many teachers, we noted a trend of increased higher-order thinking questions requiring greater student engagement and less teacher direction and funneling to a particular solution. More specifically, we found greater follow-up to student responses, increased focus on activating studentsŐ prior knowledge, and more probing for student explanation.

Although we make no claims of causality between participation in the MasterŐs degree program and changes in teachersŐ questioning, we do have evidence that teachersŐ engagement in the video reflection cycle (our data source) acted as an impetus for change, in general, and believe it was an essential component of the program. This has broader implications with regard to the influence of MasterŐs degree programs on teaching practice.

References

Boaler, J., & Brodie, K. (2004). The importance nature and impact of teacher questions. In D. E. McDougall, & J. A. Ross (Eds.), Proceedings of twenty-sixth annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for Psychology of Mathematics Education, 2, 773-782.

Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815-843.

Erdogan, I., & Campbell, T. (2008). Teacher questioning and interaction patterns in classroom facilitated with differing levels of constructivist teaching practices. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1891-1914.

Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, J. D. (1996). Evaluating the effect of teacher degree level on education performance. Rockville, MD: Westat, Inc.

Hill, H. C. (2007). Learning in the teaching workforce. The Future of Children, 17(1), 111-127.

Newcomb, L.H., & Trefz, M.K. (June, 2005). Toward teaching at higher levels of cognition. NACTA Journal, 56-60.

Wayne, A. J., & Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review. Review of Educational Research, 73(1), 89 – 122.