See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/333516947

Overcoming Obstacles to the Formulation and Use of Questions in the Science

Classroom: Analysis from a Teacher Reflection Workshop

Article in Research in Science Education · May 2019

CITATION READS

1 279

2 authors:

Carol Joglar Sandra Rojas-Rojas

University of Santiago, Chile Universidad De Santiago de Chile, Santiago, Chile
37 PUBLICATIONS 93 CITATIONS 20 PUBLICATIONS 84 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sandra Rojas-Rojas on 31 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Research in Science Education
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9857-5

Overcoming Obstacles to the Formulation and Use

of Questions in the Science Classroom: Analysis
from a Teacher Reflection Workshop

C. Joglar 1,2 & S. P. Rojas

1,2

# Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Abstract
Studies have investigated various aspects of the use of questions in science lessons, but there is
still a lack of research that demonstrates how, during peer reflection, teachers learn through
identifying and overcoming obstacles to their own questioning in their professional develop-
ment process. The present study is aimed at analyzing the types of obstacles identified by
science teachers who participated in a Teacher Reflection Workshop (TRW) on the formulation
and use of questions in their lessons. The workshop consisted of stage 1 (7 sessions), stage 2
(video recordings in school classrooms), and stage 3 (3 sessions). The discourses of 8
participating teachers in the areas of chemistry, biology, physics, and natural science at
different educational institutions in the city of Santiago, Chile, were analyzed in this case
study. The analysis was carried out by the professors participating in the workshop, based on
the participants’ identification, initial attempts to address, and proposals to overcome, their
obstacles. In the earlier stages of the process, the identified obstacles had procedural charac-
teristics, but as the process advanced, they took on a more epistemological nature. One of the
main differences between the initial and final identification of obstacles by the participating
teachers is that the latter were more precise and critical, and the teachers increasingly
demonstrated the ability to propose specific solutions to teaching problems. Engagement with
the obstacles does not take place uniformly but depends on the types of obstacles that the
teachers identify in their practice. Proposals for overcoming the obstacles require the teachers
to have time for reflecting and validating their ideas in their practice.

Keywords Questions in science . Obstacles . Teacher’s reflection . Self-analysis . Professional

development

* C. Joglar
carol.joglar@usach.cl
* S. P. Rojas
sandra.rojas.r@usach.cl

Extended author information available on the last page of the article

 Research in Science Education

Introduction

It seems evident that asking good questions is a competence of science teachers, because good
questions are the starting point for promoting the development of highly complex scientific
skills and competences of scientific thought in the students, such as solving problems,
explaining, and arguing. Good questions presented to students develop higher cognitive,
linguistic, contextual, and emotionally complex processes. Developing the skills to ask good
questions must be taken into account in the design and use of teaching activities.
Keeping in mind that “the teacher’s type and way of asking will determine and show in the
students the mental processes and the limits of freedom to develop their reply” (Colás 1983, p.
1), the role of questions as promoting or limiting factors of metacognition and self-regulation
in the classroom is crucial (Chin 2007; Graesser et al. 2005). Research has identified that
teachers who are competent at asking questions promote the development of higher thought on
the part of students seven times more compared with those who are not (Stronge et al. 2007). If
this practice on the part of teachers is regularly observed by their students, the learning of
science can undergo significant advances (Graesser et al. 2005; Márquez and Roca 2006;
Otero and Graesser 2001), because students learn how to ask good questions based on this
modeling. It is important, therefore, for the teachers to be able to leave behind “the culture of
the response” in their classes, turning toward promoting a “culture of the question” (Márquez
and Roca 2006). Developing these competencies on the part of science teachers presents new
challenges to the professional development of science teachers.
Currently in Chile, the standards for initial teacher education (MINEDUC 2012) and the
evaluation of teachers in service (Manzi et al. 2011) demand advanced levels of questioning
competence. However, according to Manzi et al. (2011), approximately eight out of every ten
teachers of subjects in the area of the natural sciences present unsatisfactory and basic levels
with respect to the quality of “pedagogical interactions,” which include the quality of oral
questions, the ability to ask for scientific explanations, handling of the students’ responses, and
contributions to learning. Although asking questions is one of teachers’ most widely used
didactic activities, according to Stronge et al. (2007), only between 13 and 17% of questions
are open and are aimed at the development of critical thought, leading to the belief that science
teachers in Chile may not perceive the complexities involved in this competence.
In a study performed in Chile with 174 in-service teachers, 41% considered that their
questions developed scientific thought in their students, and they also thought that their
questions were more relevant than the answers (Joglar et al. 2017); however, it seems that
these beliefs are not correlated with the reality of teacher evaluation. We consider it important,
therefore, to investigate the obstacles that are generated between the teachers’ thinking and
doing and how they face these during the process of professional development.
Asking a good question is a meta-comprehensive competence that needs to be taught at
school and in the initial education of teachers, because it is not generated spontaneously. This
implies a complex change in the teachers’ didactic model, which for Cañal and Porlán (1987,
p. 92) is “a theoretical-formal” construction based on “ideological scientific assumptions.”
This change questions beliefs built on the basis of experience and common sense in the
teachers, and the transit of these beliefs must be centered on a meta-reflection on disciplinary
content and practice, without one exceeding the other in importance (Mellado 2004; Vázquez
et al. 2007; Wamba and Jimenez Pérez 2003).
Reflection performed “by,” “among,” and “with” teachers, in which they take an active role
in their professional development and in that of their peers (Bernal et al. 2010; Couso and
Research in Science Education

Pintó 2009; Maiztegui et al. 2001) allows processes of identifying, exchanging, and analyzing
their own obstacles, leading them to propose ways of facing them as a community that learns
together, which increases their epistemological education (Maiztegui et al. 2001, p. 178). In
this context, the present study reports results which identify the characteristics of obstacles
identified by teachers in making and using questions in their classes during a Teacher
Reflection Workshop (TRW). Are there differences between the types of obstacles identified
when the subject of analysis goes from observations of unknown teachers to reflection on
one’s own practice? What proposals do the teachers participating in the TRW make in relation
to overcoming their obstacles and their consequent professional development?
To answer these questions, we share the results of a Teacher Reflection Workshop conducted
with teachers of physics, chemistry, biology, and natural science, the objective of which was to make
them aware of the impact of their questions in their classes. We believed that this would generate
dissatisfaction with their present beliefs by identifying obstacles faced in their lessons and the need to
further develop their didactic models. As a first step, the participating teachers watched videos of
lessons by unknown science teachers that presented epistemological, didactic, and pedagogical
obstacles, with the purpose of allowing the teachers to identify and discuss these obstacles.
According to Marzábal et al. (2014), it is common for this kind of analysis to be centered on the
use of cognitive conflicts and/or pointing out “errors” by the researchers, which is considered
counterproductive, since it does not engage participants’ own professional judgment in the same
way. Therefore, this TRW was aimed at developing in the teachers’ skills in self-analysis of their
practice, allowing more-skilled identification, engagement with, and overcoming of obstacles to the
formulation and use of questions in their classes.

Studies on Questions and Their Use in the Teaching of Science

International literature on questioning in science teaching shows benefits and consequences for
learning. Redfield and Rousseau (1981) constructed a meta-analysis of 18 studies of teacher
questions and identified a positive relationship between good teacher questions and the
achievements of their students. For Winne (1979), regardless of the nature of the research,
the use of higher order thinking questions by the teachers has positive effects on the students.
Since the beginning of the twentieth century in the USA, Gall (1970) notes that of 395
questions that a teacher asks in class, 60% had to do with memorizing facts, 20% with
procedures, and only 20% promoted active thought. Current studies show that these percent-
ages are still valid.
Present research in education and its theoretical perspectives has adopted an approach from
sociolinguistics (Carlsen 1991; Chin 2007; Colás 1983; Dillon 1985; Edwards and Mercer
1988; Roca 2007; Rose et al. 1998; Wilen 1987) centered on discourse in the classroom and
social contexts. Considerable research in relation to teacher questioning has occurred in the
past decade, and at present, there are various research lines, such as questions in textbooks
(Davila and Talanquer 2009; Márquez and Roca 2006; Nakiboğlu and Yildirir 2011; Pappa
and Tsaparlis 2011), written evaluations (Sanmartí and Marchán 2014), the discourse of
science teachers (Machado and Sasseron 2012), communicative questions and interactions
(Cutrera and Stipcich 2016; Longhi et al. 2012), researchable questions as scientific compe-
tence (Ferrés-Gurt 2017; Sanmartí and Márquez 2012), and questions by students (Conejera
and Joglar 2017; García González and Furman 2014; Mazzitelli and Macías 2009; Roca et al.
2013). We would argue, however, that further research into teachers’ ability to develop and use
high-quality questions, and into their meta-cognition around question, is still urgently needed.
 Research in Science Education

Obstacles Faced by Teachers, and Reflection

This research project falls within the “paradigm of teaching thought” (Bernal et al. 2010).
Important advances in this field, according to Wamba and Jimenez Pérez (2003, p. 114), are
based on (a) knowledge that declares its explicit beliefs and ideas; (b) procedural knowledge,
decision making, implicit routines and ideas; and (c) knowledge linked to actual conduct when
teaching or designing teaching units, the latter being deeply influenced by social stereotypes
and/or cultural myths. From this approach, critical reflection is a means that seeks to promote a
transit in these beliefs and the transformation of practice by leaving an exclusive focus on
content memorization and moving to the development of skills, attitudes, and values. There-
fore, the relation between the system of beliefs of the teachers in relation to how they teach and
how students learn (Bryan 2003; Pajares 1992) and the use that they give to questions in their
classes must go through a characterization of their personal didactic models and an awareness
of the obstacles that are faced in the process (Marzábal et al. 2014), where theory and practice
are mutually related.
According to Astolfi (1999), “the obstacle presents a more general and transverse character
that the conception is what, in depth, explains and stabilizes it. In fact, different representations
that refer to notions without apparent link can appear after an analysis, as an emergence point
of the same obstacle. On the contrary, various obstacles can get together in the determination
of a singular representation.” (p. 207)
These obstacles are the “hard core” of the conceptions and beliefs, which are characterized
by:

& their subjectivity,

& resistance to change,
& answers to reiterated experiences,
& the fact that they are usually acquired in a non-reflexive manner,
& transmitted culturally,
& often come from common sense,

bringing out a teacher identity that reproduces inherited practices (Sanyal 2014). The mental
focus of teachers’ work can tend to involve not questioning their actions, be centered
predominantly in classroom management, and to lack a critical analysis of their decision
making in the classroom. These obstacles are resistant and difficult to face, and reflection on
practice does not guarantee overcoming them, but according to Mellado (2003, p. 419), they
are also development opportunities arising from what “they already think and do, from their
real problems”. For Marzábal et al. (2014), these can be faced in contexts of reflection, but
require intentional activities to localize, engage with, and overcome the obstacles, with the last
of these goals as the hardest to achieve.
These steps allow the teachers who investigate and reflect on their activity to generate
theories, contextualized practice, and awareness of the obstacles that hinder their professional
development (Vásquez 2005), giving rise to self-regulation mechanisms from and for their
practice, a process in which verbalization between peers and self-analysis of the didactic action
can contribute significantly, through causing awareness and formalizing thought (Martín
2009). That is why this study has as its objective analysis the types of obstacles identified
by the science teachers participating in a TRW focused on the formulation and use of questions
in their classes.
Research in Science Education

Methodology

This study is part of a larger project that lasted 2 years and was aimed at understanding the use
that science teachers give to questions in their classes. This was achieved initially through the
design, validation, and application of a questionnaire that tried to identify profiles of beliefs
about questions and their use in the classroom on the part of 184 science teachers (chemistry,
biology, physics, and natural science) dealing with Grade 7 through senior grades in the city of
Santiago, Chile. The results of this instrument were used to inform the second stage, which is
reported in this document, through the selection of the participants for the TRW, which
consisted of three steps. To be able to analyze in depth the obstacles identified by the teachers
in the stages of the TRW, it was decided to use as a method a case study (Yin 2014) of the
reflection model used in the TRW (Figs. 1 and 2).

Selection of the Participants in the Case Study and Ethical Aspects

The teachers who comprised the sample in the study were selected from a comprehensive
sampling (McMillan and Schumacher 2014) according to the following criteria: (a) participa-
tion in solving the questionnaire on beliefs on the questions and their use in the classroom
(Joglar et al. 2018); (b) the inclusion of a range of different administrative and financial
arrangements (private, private-subsidized by the state, and municipal-subsidized in its entirety
by the state); (c) a range of different science areas taught; and (d) availability to participate in
the teacher reflection workshop (TRW).
Of a total of 12 teachers selected (natural science, biology, chemistry, and physics) and
invited to participate, nine accepted. Two teachers abandoned the workshop for personal
reasons at the end of the sessions. Finally, the study included 9 teachers, 2 of whom taught
elementary school natural science, and the rest, 2 in physics, 2 in chemistry, and 3 in biology,
taught in high school. In general terms, they had 2 to 15 years of professional experience.
In relation to the ethical aspects of the research, all the teachers, students, parents and
guardians, and school administrators signed documents stating that they gave their free and
voluntary informed consent for participation in the study, which complied with all the ethical
standards of the institution’s ethics committee.

Fig. 1 Design of the Teacher Reflection Workshop

 Research in Science Education

Theoretical Obstacle
bases identification

Unknown teacher
Observation 360°

Own class
Observation Obstacle engaging
Transcription
Transcription
Socialization
Overcoming
Socialization obstacles

Stage 1-TRW
Stage 3- TRW
Fig. 2 Model used in the TRW to promote identifying, addressing, and overcoming obstacles

The Teaching Reflection Workshop

The instruments used in the TRW to promote the transition of the teachers’ beliefs were (a)
papers on the subject of the questions; (b) video recordings of science classes downloaded
from the internet; (c) video recordings of classes (360°) of the teachers participating in the
TRW; and (d) transcriptions of all the classes observed in the TRW. To identify the obstacles
and the strategies chosen for overcoming them, the proposal of Marzábal et al. (2014) was
chosen, i.e., localizing, addressing, and overcoming the obstacles.
The main intervention in the study was considered to be the TRW sessions, which were
composed of a weekly 2-h (120 min) session, during 5 and a half months, i.e., there was a total
of 10 sessions and approximately 1200 min. All the sessions were video recorded and took
place at the facilities of the Facultad de Química y Biología of the Universidad de Santiago de
Chile (Fig. 1).
The TRW followed the methodological orientations proposed by Hevia, Assaél, Cerda,
Guzmán, and Peñafiel (1990, pp. 17, 19 & 24) with the purpose of “reflecting on the teachers’
own experience, turning them into learning opportunities […] which favor a learning in which
the subject who is learning is turned into protagonist of the event […] where the cooperative
group becomes an occasion for learning democratic relations.” As a result, the TRW sessions
sought to promote the teachers’ autonomy, developing their own cognitive processes
(Camacho 2010), and in this way making possible conscious decision making and the
construction of their own meanings.
Each TRW session involved the participation of the teachers, a researcher, a research assistant,
and a non-participating observer who took notes for discussion with the team. Each session
consisted of three phases: (a) informative phase; (b) group task; and (c) session evaluation.

Data Systematization and Analysis

The instruments and strategies used for the data analysis were focused on the teachers’
experiences and thoughts, particularly in respect to decision making during teaching, theories,
implicit beliefs, and their incidence on the professional practice (Sandín 2003). Therefore, the
design of the research sought to (a) analyze the obstacles identified by the teachers in the
formulation and use of questions during teaching (identification of the obstacle; (b) compare
the types of obstacles which are identified by the teachers when they reflect on the practice of
unknown teachers and relate it to their own practice (engagement with the obstacle); and (c)
identify the proposals for facing the obstacles made by the teachers during the socialization
(overcoming proposals).
Research in Science Education

Instruments for the Identification and Addressing of the Obstacles

In stage 1 of the TRW, the teachers read articles related to the formulation of questions, their
importance, and their use in science classes. Together with this, extracts of video records of science
classes by unknown teachers and the transcriptions of these extracts were presented. The objective of
this activity was to foster identification by teachers of the actions of others and ask them to relate
them to their own practice, facilitating the identification of their own obstacles. In stage 2, the
teachers taught lessons in their schools which were video recorded in 360° and self-analyzed (Fazion
and Lousada 2016; Tripp and Rich 2012). This activity was aimed at making possible a broad vision
of the class and its students. Furthermore, use was made of the transcriptions of the video-recorded
extracts of their classes so that the teachers could analyze their discourse in the classroom, and in
particular their questions. Finally, in the socialization activities of the TRW sessions, teachers were
asked to propose ways of facing these obstacles.

Analysis of the Obstacles

The analysis of the obstacles identified by the teachers during the interactions performed in the
TRW sessions and their categorization is based on the types of obstacles proposed by Jiménez
Pérez and Wamba Aguado (2003, pp. 119–120) (Table 1):
For the analysis of the proposals for overcoming the obstacles, use was made of the
categories proposed by Marzábal et al. (2014) (Table 2):
The identification of the obstacles took place from the coding of the discourse of each
teacher in the reflection group, for which the Atlas TI 8.0 software, the types of obstacles
(Table 1), and the types of changes for the teachers’ proposals for overcoming the obstacles
(Table 2) during the TRW sessions were used.

Results

Characteristics of the Obstacles

For a better understanding of the characteristics of the obstacles identified by the teachers in
the formulation and use of the questions in their classes during a TRW, it was decided to
identify initially their frequency of occurrence in each of the sessions of stages 1 and 3, as

Table 1 Types and categories of obstacles

Type of Description Code

obstacle

Nature of Centered on scientific knowledge, and subdivided into what it is, who and how it is NOS
science constructed, and what scientific knowledge is good for.
What to teach Centered on student knowledge, and subdivided into what it is, by whom and how it is QE
constructed, and what scientific knowledge is good for.
How to teach Which sources of information they use, with what criteria they are selected, and what CE
they are good for, types of problems stated in the classroom, and characteristic
intervention structures in the classroom.
Proposed What to evaluate, who participates, what kinds of instruments are used, and what it is EP
evaluation done for.
 Research in Science Education

Table 2 Types of changes for overcoming the obstacle

Types of changes for Description Code

overcoming

Declarative changes Changes in the explicit beliefs and conceptions of teachers in their discourse. CDe
Methodological Changes related to procedural know-how, they are related with teaching CMe
changes routines and their implicit ideas.
Attitudinal changes Changes related to actual conduct in action, when the design of a didactic unit is CAc
being taught; they are strongly affected by social stereotypes and cultural
myths.

detailed in Figs. 3 and 4, allowing the research team to verify the behavior of the obstacles.
Although these results show the teachers’ analysis centered on “how I teach,” these kinds of
obstacles have an irregular frequency, indicating that there are factors that promote their
significant increase in some TRW sessions compared with the rest.
This can be explained based on the activities occurring during the workshops. In the TRW2,
a text was read (Márquez and Roca 2006) to promote reflection on the obstacles faced in their
classes. The teachers also observed videos of lessons taught by unknown teachers. In TRW3,
analyses were made of the discourse of the video recordings in the transcriptions, leading to
improved identification of obstacles in this session. In TRW4, one’s own obstacles—identified
during the week’s classes—were discussed, and the questions asked by the observed teachers
in the transcriptions. In TRW5, the text of Roca et al. (2013), which problematized the use of
questions and of scientific explanations, was discussed, and the analysis of the discourse in the
transcriptions of the observed classes was continued. Analysis of the video recordings and
transcriptions of the observed classes was made, and raising of awareness was perceived, with
the consequent start of engaging with the obstacles (Vásquez 2005). Then, after the lessons
were taught by the participating teachers (stage 2), in a manner similar to TRW8, where the
self-analysis of the records 360° and transcriptions was made, this allowed us to infer their
relevance in the activation and increase of the number of obstacles identified. In the final two
sessions, the identification of obstacles decreases, and the proposals to face them increase in an

Fig. 3 Types of obstacles identified by the teachers in each TRW session—stage 1

Research in Science Education

Types of obstacles identified by the teachers in the

Stage 3
30

Frecuency 20

10

0
TRD8 TRD9 TRD10
TRW sessions

CE EP NOS QE
Fig. 4 Types of obstacles identified by the teachers in each TRW session—stage 3

inversely proportional way, which indicates a transition from engagement with to overcoming
the obstacles.
The stage 1 obstacles have a procedural approach (many questions from students confuse
me; we use the questions as a control mechanism…), but as the sessions advance (stage 3),
they begin to have a more epistemological approach (questioning culture; but it was interest-
ing, how to prepare, focus on questions that are more comprehensive could be said…)
(Márquez and Roca 2006).

Differences Between the Types of Obstacles

Although the frequency of the obstacles identified offers hints about the questioning of the
teachers’ action, the type of obstacles identified indicates a critical analysis on the didactic
decision making and on the awareness of its reflexive process. Although in stages 1 and 3 there
is a predominance of obstacles of the “how to teach” type, differences are perceived between
their nature. In stage 1, the teachers mention “difficulty for asking spontaneous questions: How
do we know if it is or not a good question? How can I develop thought and advance with the
content? Excessive questions; difficulties to maintain a questioning climate in the classroom,”
while in stage 3 (from the self-analysis), emphasis is placed in the short time available for
answers (… because it is not easy to set the times...), the relation between what was planned
and reality (then one on the run had to think…), and what to do with emerging questions in the
classroom (several questions that arose there I tried to write on the board…). In another setting,
in the self-analysis of the classes, it was possible to go deeper into aspects like (1) excessive
repetitions in the discourse (I identified that I asked the question around eight times, one after
the other). (2) not taking notice of some of the students in the interaction (I did not pay
attention to the student, I did not even see him, I only became aware in the transcription…).
The differences between the types of obstacles starting from stage 1 point to obstacles in which
teachers “defend” their own weaknesses (It is that, most of the questions require answers
where it is necessary for us to explain, reason, allow reflection or explain in greater detail; I
believe that I have to do with the little culture, how to formulate the question). By stage 3, the
participants identified more precise obstacles, criticized their own practices, sought solutions,
and analyzed their didactic decision making (self-analysis, Appendix 1) (but it was interesting,
 Research in Science Education

how to prepare, focus on questions that are more comprehensive could be said). The obstacles
relating to the nature of science decrease as the sessions advance, and it is understood that this
is possible due to the theoretical frameworks that are socialized and shared among the teachers,
contributing to the formalization of thought (Martín 2009).

Proposal for Overcoming Obstacles, and Consequences for Professional Teacher

Development

The proposals for change show important differences between the two stages analyzed (Figs. 5
and 6). In both, initially, there are no proposals for change. Declarative type changes are
present in the two stages (the issue of starting arguing on the questions and from there escalate
levels to know where we are standing, the purposes of the educational acts that one finally
develops), focusing mainly on the procedures (“I am trying, at least in his second unit, to plan
questions,” “I think that an “unlearning” is required from us, the teachers, from the students, of
how we achieve, perhaps from the family, from the system…”). This tells us that although the
identification of the obstacle is a difficult process, because it involves tensions between
practice and theory, “generating change proposals” is a more complex process, because
promoting transit from the beliefs declared in the teaching discourse toward a change in
attitudes and in action requires a constant epistemological vigilance (Chevallard 1997).
This might explain why attitudinal changes and those related to “knowing how to do”
increased their frequency at the end of the TRW. This can be seen when they express the need
to develop in their students competence in asking questions (“in some way I have seen that
with this support, this material, and certain conditions have facilitated their appropriation of the
issue, and how… not form yet good questions, but still generate some questionings”),
indicating the overcoming of some beliefs about questions in the science classroom.
The obstacles relating to “how I teach” are identified more frequently compared with those
related to “what do I teach” and the “nature of science,” and it is perceived that the activities of
analysis of practice and analysis of video and transcriptions strongly influence this increase.
Furthermore, “proposed evaluation” is an obstacle rarely identified by the teachers. The initial
obstacles have a procedural approach, but as the sessions advance, they develop toward a more
epistemological approach.

Fig. 5 Type of change proposed by the teachers to overcome the obstacles—stage 1

Research in Science Education

Proposed change and improvement - Stage 3

30

Frecuency
20
10
0
TRD8 TRD9 TRD10
TRW sessions
Cde Cme Cac
Fig. 6 Type of change proposed by the teachers to overcome the obstacles—stage 1

The “how do I teach” obstacles identified in their own practice are different from the
obstacles identified in the practice of others. Although the process used is similar, the subject
of the analysis is different, and the obstacles are centered on “thinking on real problems”
(Mellado 2003, p. 419). The obstacles generated from the self-analysis are focused on
“thinking on their real problems in their practice,” and this deepens their relation and how
they emerge from their practice. In this process, analysis of the discourse through the
observation of video recordings and the transcriptions of their classes allow an advance from
initially procedural obstacles to epistemological obstacles in the teaching of science. This
allows identifying that the final obstacles are more precise, critical, and offer solutions to
specific initial didactic problems.
The proposals for improvement of questioning practice increase when the previous activity
is centered on the identification of obstacles, so we can state that the teachers need a minimum
amount of time to reflect on and test their ideas in their practice, to then generate significant
proposals for change that affect their attitudes, and go beyond what is declarative. This
explains the high frequency of proposals at the end of the TRW. These results indicate that
engagement with the obstacles does not take place uniformly, but rather shows a gradual
improvement dependent on the types of obstacles that the teachers identify and relate to and
from their practice.
Finally, the impact of the self-analysis and exchange of ideas between the teachers
contributed significantly to the proposals for overcoming the obstacles, showing the important
role of reflection among peers in the identification of obstacles and challenges faced by the
teachers in matters related to questions and their use in the science classroom. Therefore, it is
considered that study of the obstacles faced by the teachers in the issue presented here
constitutes a relevant starting point for reflection processes from and in the teaching practice
that should have greater emphasis in the initial and in-service education of science teachers.

Funding Information We gratefully acknowledge support from CONICYT FONDECYT 11150873.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

This research complied with all the standards of the accredited Scientific Ethics Committee (report N ° 607/
2018).
 Research in Science Education

Appendix

1. Self-analysis in the transcriptions

Self-analysis Transcriptions – Interaction of the teacher in the classroom
questions
P8. ¡OK!, you already did it or named some, but paracetamol
was named for almost all the discomforts and it is very widely
used, … Do any of you know the path that paracetamol follows to
have a given effect in the body and reduce the different pains?
E2. I think that it goes through the liver…or does it not? To
release some substance that has an effect…
P8 - ¡OK!...you already ran ahead of the second question …then
I ask trivial or what path would it follow or which systems would it go through?
irrelevant questions.
E2. endocrine!
P8. endocrine?
E2- that is, it gets first to the digestive to some place where it
causes the reaction of some organ, to provoke a hormone which I
don’t know why decreases the headache …
Est.- it depends on the primary receptor!
I ask questions that
P8. good, actually it reaches the kidney, where it is assimilated,
only admit corrector / and different reactions take place…part of that, it generates a
incorrect type answers.
pain relieving effect. And part of it is eliminated, so in the
elimination which systems will be involved?
E2. the liver
P8. the liver, yes, the kidneys and part of the excretory system,
right? Now, what other systems?…if I got to Emilio and I hit him,
or I pinch him…which system is going to…?
E3.- nervous!
P8.- nervous, which is the one that will bring together the
different signals, to say so, and be able to tell the brain “Oh!
This is hurting”
E2. the circulatory also or not?
P8. yes, also…depending on the medicine.

References

Astolfi, J. P. (1999). El error, un medio para enseñar. Sevilla, España: Díada, Editorial S.L.
Bernal, B. V., Pérez, R. J., & Jiménez, V. M. (2010). Los obstáculos para el desarrollo profesional de una
profesora de enseñanza secundaria en ciencias experimentales. Enseñanza de las ciencias: revista de
investigación y experiencias didácticas, 28(3), 417–432.
Bryan, L. A. (2003). Nestedness of beliefs: Examining a prospective elementary teacher’s belief system about
science teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(9), 835–868.
Research in Science Education

Camacho, J. (2010). Concepciones del profesorado y promocion de la explicacion Cientifica en la actividad escolar.
(Doctorado), Pontifícia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago de Chile. Retrieved December 3, 2018 from
http://www7.uc.cl/sw_educ/educacion/grecia/plano/html/pdfs/biblioteca/DOCTOR/TesisDoctJohCa.pdf
Cañal, P., & Porlán, R. (1987). Investigando la realidad próxima: un modelo didáctico alternativo. Enseñanza de
las ciencias: revista de investigación y experiencias didácticas, 5(2), 89–96.
Carlsen, W. S. (1991). Questioning in classrooms: a sociolinguistic perspective. Review of Educational Research,
61(2), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170533.
Chevallard, Y. (1997). La Transposición Didactica: del saber sabio al saber enseñado. Buenos Aires: AIQUE.
Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: approaches that stimulate productive thinking.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815–843. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20171.
Colás, C. (1983). The formulation of questions in the didactic act (La formulación de preguntas en el acto
didáctico). Revista interuniversitaria de didáctica, 1, 77–83.
Conejera, A. R., & Joglar, C. (2017). Good questions of students in the biology class, based on socio-scientific
matters (Buenas preguntas del estudiantado en clases de biología, a partir de cuestiones socio-científicas).
Enseñanza de las ciencias: revista de investigación y experiencias didácticas (Extra), 4665–4670.
Couso, D., & Pintó, R. (2009). Análisis del contenido del discurso cooperativo de los profesores de ciencias en
contextos de innovación didáctica. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 27(1), 5–18.
Cutrera, G., & Stipcich, S. (2016). Enseñanza y estrategias discursivas. Principales aportes desde la investigación
educativa. Revista Iberoamericana de Producción Académica y Gestión Educativa, 3(5).
Davila, K., & Talanquer, V. (2009). Classifying end-of-chapter questions and problems for selected general
chemistry textbooks used in the United States. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(1), 97–101.
Dillon, J. T. (1985). Using questions to foil discussion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1(2), 109–121.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(85)90010-1.
Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1988). El conocimiento compartido: el desarrollo de la comprensión en el aula.
Barcelona, España: Ediciones Paidós Iberica, S.A.
Fazion, F., & Lousada, E. G. (2016). Self-confrontation interviews as an engine to development: dialogue of a
teacher with her practice. DELTA Documentacao de Estudos em Linguistica Teorica e Aplicada, 32(1), 215–
236. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-445009940345193358.
Ferrés-Gurt, C. (2017). El reto de plantear preguntas científicas investigables. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y
Divulgación de las Ciencias, 14(2), 16.
Gall, M. D. (1970). The use of questions in teaching. Review of Educational Research, 40(5), 707–721.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1169463.
García González, S. M., & Furman, M. G. (2014). Categorización de preguntas formuladas antes y después de la
enseñanza por indagación. Praxis & Saber, 5(10), 75–91.
Graesser, A., Olde, B., Pomeroy, V., Whitten, S., & Lu, S. (2005). Inferencias y preguntas en la comprensión de
textos científicos. Tarbiya. Revista de Investigación e Innovación Educativa del Instituto Universitario de
Ciencias de la Educación., 103–128.
Hevia, R., Assaél, J., Cerda, A. M., Guzmán, I., & Peñafiel, S. (1990). Talleres de Educación Democrática
(TED). Santiago: Chile: PIIE.
Jiménez Pérez, R., & Wamba Aguado, A. M. (2003). ¿ Es posible el cambio en los modelos didácticos
personales?: Obstáculos en profesores de Ciencias Naturales de Educación Secundaria.
Joglar, C., Rojas, S., Manrique, F., & Navarro, M. (2017). Preguntar en el aula desde las creencias del
profesorado de ciencias. Paper presented at the Enseñanza de las Ciencias.
Joglar, C., Navarro, M., & Rojas, S. P. R. (2018). Construct validity in a scale of beliefs of science teachers
regarding questions in the classroom. Paper presented at the Electronic Proceedings of the ESERA 2017
Conference. Research, practice and collaboration in science education, Dublin.
Longhi, D., Lia, A., Ferreyra, A., Peme, C., Bermúdez, G., Quse, L., et al. (2012). La interacción comunicativa
en clases de ciencias naturales. Un análisis didáctico a través de circuitos discursivos. Revista Eureka sobre
Enseñanza y Didàctica de las Ciencias, 9(2), 17.
Machado, V. F., & Sasseron, L. H. (2012). As perguntas em aulas investigativas de ciências: a construção teórica
de categorias. Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências, 12(2), 29–44.
Maiztegui, A., González, E., Tricárico, H., Salinas, J., Pessoa de Carvalho, A., & Gil Pérez, D. (2001). La
formación de los profesores de ciencias en Iberoamérica. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 24, 163–
187.
Manzi, J., González, R., & Sun, Y. C. (2011). La Evaluacion Docente en Chile (F. d. C. Sociales, Trans.). (pp.
262). Chile: MIDEUC. Retrieved July 5, 2015 from http://www.mideuc.cl/libroed/pdf/La_Evaluacion_
Docente_en_Chile.pdf.
Márquez, C., & Roca, M. (2006). Plantear preguntas: un punto de partida para aprender ciencias. Revista
Educación y Pedagogía, 18(45), 63–71.
 Research in Science Education

Martín, E. (2009). Profesorado competente para formar alumnado competente: el reto del cambio docente. In J. I.
Pozo & M. Pérez (Eds.), Psicología del aprendizaje universitario: la formación de competencias. Madrid,
España: Ediciones Morata.
Marzábal, A., Merino, C., & Rocha, A. R. (2014). El Obstáculo Epistemológico Como Objeto De Reflexión Para
La Activación Del Cambio Didáctico En Docentes De Ciencias En Ejercicio. Revista Electrónica de
Investigación en Educación en Ciencias, 9(1).
Mazzitelli, C., & Macías, A. (2009). Análisis de las preguntas que formulan los alumnos a partir de la lectura de
un texto de Ciencias. Revista Electronica de Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 8(1), 0–3.
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2014). Research in education: evidence-based inquiry. Pearson Higher Ed.
Mellado, V. (Ed.). (2003). Cambio didáctico del profesorado de ciencias experimentales y filosofia de las
ciencias. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 21(33), 343–358.
Mellado, V. (2004, 1,8 y 9 de octubre de 2004). ¿Podemos los profesores de ciencias cambiar nuestras
concepciones y prácticas docentes? Paper presented at the I Congreso Internacional de enseñanza de la
Biología, Buenos Aires.
MINEDUC (2012). Estándares Orientadores para Carreras de Pedagogía en Educación média. In E. e. I. P.
Centro de Perfeccionamiento (Ed.). Santiago, Chile. Retrieved September 23, 2015 from https://www.cpeip.
cl/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Est%C3%A1ndares_Media.pdf.
Nakiboğlu, C., & Yildirir, H. E. (2011). Analysis of Turkish high school chemistry textbooks and teacher-
generated questions about gas laws. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(5),
1047–1071.
Otero, J., & Graesser, A. (2001). PREG: elements of a model of question asking. Cognition and Instruction,
19(2), 143–175. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1902_01.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review of
Educational Research, 62(3), 307–362.
Pappa, E. T., & Tsaparlis, G. (2011). Evaluation of questions in general chemistry textbooks according to the
form of the questions and the Question-Answer Relationship (QAR): the case of intra-and intermolecular
chemical bonding. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(2), 262–270.
Redfield, D. L., & Rousseau, E. W. (1981). A meta-analysis of experimental research on teacher questioning
behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51(2), 237–245. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170197.
Roca, M. (2007). Les preguntes en Lapregnentatge de les Ciencies. (Doctorado), Universidad Autonoma de
Barcelona, Barcelona, España.
Roca, M., Márquez, C., & Sanmartí Puig, N. (2013). Las preguntas de los alumnos: una propuesta de análisis.
Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 31(1), 95–114.
Rose, S., Litcher, J., & December, I. (1998). Effective questioning techniques: in theory and practice.
DOCUMENT RESUME, 110.
Sandín, M. P. E. (2003). Investigación Cualitativa en Educación. Fundamentos y tradiciones. Madrid: McGraw-
Hill.
Sanmartí, N., & Marchán, I. (2014). ¿ Cómo elaborar una prueba de evaluación escrita. Alambique. Didáctica de
las Ciencias Experimentales, 78, 1–10.
Sanmartí, N., & Márquez, C. (2012). Enseñar a plantear preguntas investigables. Alambique(enero-febrero-
marzo), 27–36.
Sanyal, A. (2014). Discourses of experience: the disciplining of identities and practices in student teaching.
Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(3), n3.
Stronge, J. H., Ward, T. J., Tucker, P. D., & Hindman, J. L. (2007). What is the relationship between teacher
quality and student achievement? An exploratory study. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education,
20(3), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9053-z.
Tripp, T. R., & Rich, P. J. (2012). The influence of video analysis on the process of teacher change. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 28(5), 728–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.01.011.
Vázquez, B. (2005). La interaccion entre la reflexion y la practica en el desarrollo profesional de profesores de
Ciencias Experimentales de Enseñanza Secundaria: estudio de casos., Universidad de Huelva, Huelva,
España. Retrieved May 22, 2010 from http://hdl.handle.net/10272/2227.
Vázquez, B. B., Jiménez, R. P., & Mellado, V. J. (2007). La reflexión en profesoras de ciencias experimentales de
enseñanza secundaria. Estudio de casos. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 25(1), 73–90.
Wamba, A. M., & Jimenez Pérez, R. (2003). ¿ Es posible el cambio en los modelos didácticos personales?:
Obstáculos en profesores de Ciencias Naturales de Educación Secundaria. Revista interuniversitaria de
formación del profesorado, (46), 113–131.
Wilen, W. W. (1987). Questions, questioning techniques, and effective teaching. Whashinton D.C.: National
Education Association.
Research in Science Education

Winne, P. H. (1979). Experiments relating teachers’ use of higher cognitive questions to student achievement.
Review of Educational Research, 49(1), 13–49. https://doi.org/10.2307/1169925.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

Affiliations

C. Joglar 1,2 & S. P. Rojas 1,2

1
Departamento de Biología, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Avenida
Libertador Bernardo O’Higgins 3363, Estación Central, Santiago, Chile
2
Departamento de Ciencias del Ambiente, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de
Chile, Avenida Libertador Bernardo O’Higgins 3363, Estación Central, Santiago, Chile

View publication stats