INT. J. SCI. EDUC., 2002, VOL. 24, NO.

7, 717–736

RESEARCH REPORT

The meaning of student inquiry questions: a

teacher’s beliefs and responses

Charles J. Rop, Department of Curriculum and Psychological Studies,

University of Toledo, Toledo OH 43606-3390, USA; e-mail:
[email protected]

This research explores an American high school chemistry teacher’s perspective on the meaning of
student questions that originate from curiosity and engagement with subject matter. Ethnographic
analysis of a teacher’s reflective processes and decision-making approach suggests that questions hold
contradictory meanings as powerful, conflicting pressures come to play in the everyday patterns of
classroom discourse. Although thoughtful intellectual questions are valued as indicators of student
attitudes and understandings, they nonetheless create an interruption to the normal flow of things.
To the teacher, such interruptions pose threats to his control of classroom events and his ability to
cover the content of his course. Although science educators might enthusiastically endorse the idea that
classrooms should be characterized by a spirit of inquiry in which student questions are encouraged and
respected, findings suggest that it can be difficult for this to happen in actual schools where particular
teachers face specific institutional curricular pressures.

Introduction
The research presented in this paper explores a high school chemistry teacher’s
perspectives on student inquiry questions that are thoughtful, content related and
curiosity driven. A teacher’s response to student questions will be determined at
least partly by his or her perception of what such questions represent. When a
teacher hears a student question, he or she assigns meaning to the question and
uses this meaning to inform decisions about how to respond. This research pro-
vides an exploration of one teacher’s reflective processes and decision-making
approach regarding student questions. Through his own reflections during infor-
mal conversations and interviews, the teacher, Jack Kelso (pseudonym), explores
the contradictory meanings that student questions hold for him. He explains that
he wants to honour student questions and give students emotional support as they
struggle to understand chemistry. He also explains that he is under pressure to
cover a large amount of content in his chemistry classes so that his students are
prepared for their future study in science. The main source of this felt pressure
originates in a science department decision to teach from a particular textbook and
an expectation that he ‘cover the content of the book’. The reason, he explains, is
that a significant number of his students will go on to Advanced Placement
Chemistry and/or college chemistry courses and that they need careful prepara-
tion. The problem, in his words, is that: ‘There is enough content here for two
chemistry courses.’

International Journal of Science Education ISSN 0950–0693 print/ISSN 1464–5289 online # 2002 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/09500690110095294
718 C. J. ROP

The most interesting, and potentially most useful form of student questions
are the questions that come from creative engagement with the content of the
lesson being taught. They are the kind of questions through which the learner
explores ideas rather than just seeking simple, quick answers (Martin 1993, Watts
and Alsop 1995). Watts et al. (1997a) see meaningful dialogue, of which genuine
student questions are an essential component, as a diagnostic tool to determine
what sense students are making of the content of instruction and to recognize
conceptual change. It is a way for a teacher to tune instruction to the intellectual
needs of students and focus on learning outcomes. If students are to reveal
their understandings of subject matter through their questions, they need to ask
deeper questions than the most common transactional and procedural ques-
tions, or the typical short answers to teacher questions. As Watts et al. (1997a)
suggest, ‘a learner’s questions have the capacity to expose both sophisticated and
naive thinking, to tackle complex issues and to focus on the minutiae and detail’
(p. 1027).
At first glance it may seem obvious that a teacher who values student learning
should encourage interruptions triggered by student curiosity and engagement
with the subject matter. In classroom life these events come quickly and have a
short life span, so if a teacher misses the opportunity of encouraging a student’s
inquiry question, an important teaching moment may be lost forever. However, a
teacher’s decision about how to respond to such questions is neither simple nor
obvious. Powerful, conflicting pressures come to play in the everyday patterns of
classroom discourse. Although an original or inquiry question asked by an engaged
student might be an indicator of student scientific thinking and understanding, it
nonetheless creates an interruption to the normal flow of things. Such an inter-
ruption may threaten the teacher’s feeling of control of classroom events and
therefore his ability to cover the content of the curriculum.
There are significant implications of this research for teachers, teacher edu-
cators, and researchers. The findings suggest that teachers should consider class-
room strategies that encourage students to think deeply, to struggle with ideas, and
to test ideas out loud. Teachers and researchers should ask which ideas awaken the
curiosity, the thoughtful questions, and the wonder in students’ minds that natu-
rally lead to a lifetime of self-motivated learning. The findings also suggest that we
abandon the ‘content coverage’ model of instruction and adopt a teaching model
that focuses on student questions, interests and a set of carefully selected learning
outcomes.

Research on student questions

Although there is a substantial body of literature on the questions teachers ask,
work on student questions is limited. Watts et al. (1997a) made the point that,
although classroom questioning has long been a topic of research, most of the
research has been about classroom question and answer sessions dominated by
teachers and that ‘children’s own questions have only received very sparse expo-
sure to research’ (p. 1026). This situation is of concern in light of the current
national and state standards that emphasize student participation and active intel-
lectual engagement. Although common sense suggests that student questions are
limited in lecture-style teaching, one might expect a high frequency of student
questions in classrooms where participants actively discuss together. However, in a
THE MEANING OF STUDENT INQUIRY QUESTIONS 719

study of 27 high school ‘discussion-centred’ classrooms, teacher questions were

still far more frequent than student questions (Dillon 1988). Teacher questions
averaged two per minute while students asked fewer than two questions per hour.
Dillon suggests that when students do ask questions, the purpose is seldom for
seeking knowledge (Dillon 1988). Rather the questions are usually procedural,
informational, and focused on the content required for the next test.
Specifically, the study categorized student questions as conversational, self-
answered, expressive/argumentative, or informational. Informational questions
were the most frequently asked.
Similarly, Carr (1998) reports that in a study done by Brown and Wragg
(1993) primary teachers reported that most of the questions their students asked
were procedural questions: ‘What time are we going home?’ rather than cognitive
questions such as, ‘What happens if. . . .’ Carr (1998) himself found, in a much
smaller study with secondary school students, that although the proportion of
cognitive questions was higher, they were still very rare and that, indeed, few
students asked questions at all.
In examining common patterns of classroom discourse, Lemke (1990) found
that most of the dialogue between students and teachers is part of repeated three-
turn sequences that create ‘Triadic Dialogue’ (p. 8). The teacher controls this
discursive pattern by asking a question of the class or of a particular student and
thus starting the triad. When an answer is received, it is considered and then the
teacher responds. The teacher has several options on how to deal with the stu-
dent’s answer that include affirming it, correcting it, or asking the class for an
alternative answer. Once the teacher receives the expected answer, he/she begins
another sequence. If a student breaks the sequence by asking a related or tangential
question, the teacher often gains control again by weaving his/her way back into
another three-turn sequence.
Tobin and Gallagher (1987) have examined student questions in classroom
contexts. They found evidence that implicit and sometimes explicit roles or social
expectations of some ‘target students’ cause them actively to participate in class-
room interaction in a self-motivated manner. They found that in whole-class inter-
action, a few ‘salient’ students received more than their share of classroom
interactions. These salient, or target students fell into two types: students who
were selected by the teacher to participate on the basis of being high achievers who
could provide correct or thoughtful answers; and those who projected themselves
into whole-class interactions by raising their hands or by calling out responses to
teacher questions, asking questions, and evaluating the responses of other students
(p. 69).
Other researchers have looked specifically at those student questions that
represent thoughtful, authentic intellectual engagement. In an effort to understand
the relationship between questions and conceptualization, Watts and his colleagues
(Watts and Alsop 1995, Watts et al. 1997a,b,c) have classified thoughtful student
questions into three categories that illuminate distinct periods in conceptual
change (Watts 1997: 1029–1030): consolidation questions, in which learners
attempt to elucidate issues, delineate the rationale for classroom tasks, confirm
explanations and consolidate understanding of new ideas; exploratory questions,
in which the questioner, having reached a sense of conviction in his or her under-
standing, then uses the security of this ‘base camp’ to launch a few ‘sorties’ or
‘safaris’ into neighbouring terrain; and elaborative questions, in which learners are
720 C. J. ROP

seen to lack conviction about either their own frameworks of understanding or

those on offer to them. They examine claims and counterclaims, elaborating and
challenging both their previous knowledge and experience, and that being pre-
sented to them.
Some researchers have explored how teachers respond to student questions.
Watts and Alsop (1995: 91) suggested that some of the reasons teachers respond the
way they do to the questions young people ask are simply the same everyday
reasons adults in general put questions off or fail to address adequately questions
posed by children, and thus miss opportunities to explore ideas with children: a
belief that neither the time nor place is appropriate to deal with the issues; a feeling
that the answers are too complex; or limited knowledge about the issue.
Tobin and Gallagher (1987) in their study of target students, found evidence
to suggest that teachers respond differently to student questions depending on who
asked them, when they were asked, and a variety of other contextual variables.
Similarly Watts et al. (1997a: 1028) found that teachers exercise a number of
options when responding to student questions during instruction. The authors
suggest that teachers can:

. ignore the question, change the subject and move on;

. give their best answer for the moment and then close the implied challenge;
. admit ignorance and the need for help;
. turn the question back on the student or into a ‘three-turn sequence’ so as to
allow the teacher to regain control and get back on track;
. change the incident into an empirical question for investigation.

Some researchers have explored the potential for using student questions to
influence the curriculum. In a recent ethnographic study of elementary classroom
science, Crawford et al. (2000) reported that a teacher noticed the intriguing ques-
tions students were asking about marine animal behaviour in a classroom aqua-
rium. The teacher used this spontaneous event to allow students to initiate an
experiment and control the curriculum for a period of time. In this case, students
and teachers became fellow inquirers into the question. The researchers claim that
these events showed that learning of the subject matter was thus constructed as a
social accomplishment – that student questions provided the impetus for an
inquiry process into unknown topics conducted by a community of investigation.
The Tobin and Gallagher (1987) research provides a particularly important
background for this research. Similar to what these researchers found in Australia,
the classroom interactions represented in this Midwestern American study happen
in the context of a whole-class instructional methodology, where the students who
regularly contribute to the discourse are a small proportion of the class members.
The classroom dynamics culls from the rest of the class a group of salient students
who, for various reasons, regularly participate in class. This participation can take
on many forms, some of which are questions asked by students during the lesson.
Of all the questions that are asked during daily lessons, this study is about a
particular type of student question that naturally stands out in the data as different
from all the rest. To avoid ambiguity about the particular type of student ques-
tions that are the focus of this research, an operational definition is provided
below.
THE MEANING OF STUDENT INQUIRY QUESTIONS 721

An operational definition of student inquiry questions (SIQs)

Although there are many forms of student questions asked in the daily life of the
classrooms of this research, this report deals only with the thoughtful student
questions that satisfy three criteria: they are cognitive, content related, and they
originate in individual student curiosity. We make the assertion that the questions
that fulfil all of these criteria are indicative of positive student attitudes and dis-
positions toward personal inquiry. Consequently, for the rest of this report, I will
refer to these student inquiry questions as SIQs.

Methodology
This research is part of an ongoing program of research into the culture of
American high schools and schooling conducted over a period of several years in
three Midwestern suburban public high schools. This researcher employed an
ethnographic methodology (Erickson 1986) which included participant observa-
tions, informal interviews and extended time on site. As researcher, I was present
as a participant observer in the chemistry classes several times a week over a period
of a year. During this time I regularly recorded field notes and expanded field
notes which included observations and records of interactions (Jackson 1990,
Sanjek 1990). I also collected physical artefacts such as tests, student papers,
and teacher instruction sheets. Close analysis of this wide variety of sources and
a clear focus on specific events embedded in the larger study (Stake 1995, Yin
1990) provides a qualitative case study (Stake 1995). A case study is especially
useful when contextual variables are considered vital to understanding what is
going on (Creswell 1998). Using a case study methodology, I am therefore very
interested in the setting and the scene in which the events take place. My approach
to case study is similar to Yin (1990) in that I use scientific method-developing
hypotheses, collecting empirical data, and coming to conclusions based on the
analysis of that data. In the end, the lessons learned from the case provide implica-
tions for teachers, researchers, and any other reader. Perhaps a perceived disad-
vantage of case study research is that it is a picture of events caught in place and
time so that one might question generalizabilility. Although generalizability is
something that qualitative researchers don’t often worry about (Glesne and
Peshkin 1992), it might be said that it is up to the reader or other researchers to
determine if the case represents other places, people and times (Yin 1990, Glesne
and Peshkin 1992, Creswell 1998).
During the course of the research, Jack Kelso’s introductory chemistry class
met just before he and his students had their lunch period. That meant that during
this academic year of participant observation, I could meet with the teacher or his
students as they ate their lunch, immediately after the chemistry class session,
while events were fresh in participants’ minds. In addition, because of my presence
in the classroom for a large part of the teaching day, I was able to have brief
spontaneous conversations with the teacher before school, after school, and during
the 3–5 minutes between classes. These brief conversations are especially rich
sources of data. Less frequent, extended informal interviews were conducted
with the teacher several times during the school year. These informal interviews
were tape recorded and transcribed. The transcripts and field notes were coded.
During further analysis, the coding was reassessed while the transcriptions were
722 C. J. ROP

re-read and the tapes were replayed. The replaying of interview tapes brought the
events back to the present while allowing me to consider verbal inflection and
other important observations, which were not as evident in the transcriptions
alone. The classroom episodes used in this report were taken from transcriptions
of audio-recorded class sessions. They were chosen as representative examples of a
type of classroom interchange observed repeatedly during the research period.

Findings
This section of this report is structured to do two tasks. First, the data are to be
contextualized with a picture of the school, the teacher and his students. This will
be done by means of descriptive information about the classroom and the teacher,
and through two consecutive and representative episodes – two sets of classroom
interchanges. The episodes create a window through which the reader can view
question-and-answer interchanges and understand the context for the findings and
analyses that follow. The second task is to explicate the rest of the findings – to
present data that show that SIQs hold both positive and negative meanings for the
teacher. This is followed by a brief discussion of the teacher’s response behaviour
strategies for dealing with SIQs, describing patterns of decision making and action
that were consistently observed throughout the year.

The school, the teacher and his students

Oakview High School (pseudonym) is a suburban, Midwestern American public
high school with a primarily Caucasian, middle-class constituency. This school
was chosen for this research because it is in many ways typical of mainstream,
suburban American schools which take pride in high academic standards and a
high percentage of students pursuing higher education after graduation. Chemistry
is strongly recommended, though not required for the college-bound student and
most of the sophomores at Oakview take chemistry. All the chemistry students in
this school indicated their intention to go on to college, several to prestigious
institutions. According to district end-of-year reports, approximately 85 per cent
of the students in this school typically enter college after graduation. Perhaps this
school could be called academically elite because of the emphasis and pride in
academic standards.
The teacher, Jack Kelso, who participated in this phase of study enjoys a
reputation as a good teacher in his district. He coaches the high school football
team and enjoys the relationships with his students that the coaching role affords.
He has been teaching in this school for 5 years and his students and other teachers
consider him to be a very good teacher. Several students explained that the reason
they elected to take chemistry was because they wanted to be in Jack Kelso’s class.
Most of his students also took Physical Science from him as freshmen and say they
enjoyed the experience. Kelso teaches four sections of chemistry and two sections
of physical science every day. Kelso’s explanation for his good reputation is that he
enjoys teaching, and that he tries to make chemistry interesting and covers the
content that will prepare his students for future chemistry courses in high school
and in college. He explains that the science teachers in his school have worked
together to create a science curriculum in which each class’s content leads naturally
to the next class they take. This way, for example, the Advanced Placement
THE MEANING OF STUDENT INQUIRY QUESTIONS 723

Chemistry teacher can make certain assumptions about the content preparation of
his students during Kelso’s introductory chemistry course.
Kelso explains that he plans his class sessions thoroughly so that he knows
where he wants to begin and where he wants to end in each of his 50-minute
lessons. The approximate breakdown of time for these classes is as follows (field
notes and tape recordings):

10 minutes – introductory chat about events relevant to school life, usually

sports of the season.
10 minutes – going over homework assignments.
25 minutes – the lesson of the day.
3–5 minutes – lesson closure or friendly talk similar to the first 10 minutes.

His daily lessons are sequenced in an order that he feels is best designed to reach
particular unit or chapter objectives listed in his textbook. He begins each new
chapter by writing the objectives on an overhead projector and then methodically
teaches to those objectives until the chapter test. The chapter test is based directly
on the objectives and, according to Kelso, a student can succeed if they are diligent
and responsible.

. . . you’ve [a student] got to discipline yourself on the homework but you are also
going to have to perform on the tests. On my tests you can’t fool me because they’re
essay, short answers type of tests. You’ve seen my tests. Define, differentiate, com-
pare, contrast. . . . Even if I show you the test ahead of time, which I do with the
objectives basically, you’ve got to think about process and stuff.

Each day he explicitly includes practice questions that students consider pre-
paration for the test. He provides a review session and a ‘review sheet’ for students
as homework a few days before the test to turn the students’ attention to the
expected performances and knowledge outcomes. The scope and sequence of all
this is designed so that by the time students leave Kelso’s general chemistry class,
they are well prepared for the advanced science classes offered in his school. Kelso
reports that in order for him to accomplish his strongly felt obligation to cover the
book and a certain amount of chemistry content in the allotted 180 class sessions, it
is imperative that things run smoothly. As a consequence of his goals, each lesson
confronts Kelso with immediate, on-the-spot decisions about what to emphasize,
what questions to ask, how to respond to student participation, and perhaps most
importantly, how to know if students really understand the subject matter well
enough to perform well on the chapter tests. Since most of what students and
teacher do is streamlined for preparing students for tests, it is not very practical
or efficient to break from established patterns.
Kelso’s teaching method for the 25-minute lesson for the day usually takes
the form of whole-class discussion, essentially a lecture interspersed with teacher-
initiated questions and student answers . These patterns of discourse are typically
very similar to what Lemke (1990) calls Triadic Dialogue. Occasionally, however,
the nature of this format shifts dramatically when a student initiates a brief
discussion by asking a question that seems to be driven by personal curiosity,
an SIQ.
724 C. J. ROP

Setting the scene

The following two episodes are representative of students’ injection of inquiry
questions into the classroom discourse. In this study, these kinds of incidents
provided contexts for frequent discussions with the teacher about his attitudes
toward student questions.

Episode 1. This first episode occurs after the lesson for the day has been concluded
and there is still time before the bell rings signalling the end of class. Normally, in
Kelso’s class, if he provides a closure to his lesson with at least some time to spare,
the remaining time is spent in causal whole-class conversation about sports or
other topical issues. On this occasion, the final two minutes of class is spent dis-
cussing a subject-matter issue initiated by an interested student.
About two minutes before the end of a class session, after Kelso has reached
his lesson closure and while students were waiting for the bell to ring, Cara raised
her hand. (field notes and audio-tape recording, Oct. 9).

Line Cara OK, this is going to sound silly, but it’s serious. [Laughter from
1 other students] If my pencil [she holds it up in the air] is made of
billions of electrons and if they are all moving, even if you can’t,
like see and feel them, why don’t I feel them moving?
5 Kelso It seems like it should be moving around with all that activity.
6 Cara Right, with all those electrons . . .
7 Kelso [interrupting] You have to remember that you take the size of this
stuff, which is beyond microscopic levels and figure out how fast
that electron is circulating around the outside of that thing [points
to a sketch of an atom he made on the chalk board earlier in this
class session], those two things combine to make it happen [pro-
tons and electrons attracting each other]. So . . . this acts like a
barrier just like there is a fence around it.
14 Cara But there are a lot of them so wouldn’t – you know – so the more
you have, the bigger the motion would be?
16 Kelso Well, the more you have, the thing is that they are really packed in
tightly. You just have to accept the fact that these electrons are so
small, so close, and moving so fast in relation to the amount of
space they are covering, they act just like a shell. I mean like a
hard shell [emphasis his].
20 Cara So, they are moving around – but you can’t detect it?
21 Kelso Well, there are ways you can detect it with other experiments.
Like if you goose it with some power, electrons will fly out of
there.
23 Nate Mr K., Miss Brown [their physical science teacher last year] told
us that they are everywhere at once but never at the same place.
25 Kelso That’s true. That’s part of the quantum mechanical model. That
is a good way of thinking if you understand that.
27 Frank What did he say?
28 Kelso About being everywhere at once but never at the same place.
[The bell rings, classroom noise, students stand up and leave the
room.]
THE MEANING OF STUDENT INQUIRY QUESTIONS 725

Episode 2. About 15 minutes into the next day’s class session, 10 October, Kelso
began a discussion about trends on the periodic table: ‘One trend is ionization
energies and oxidation numbers. No one can predict ionization energy completely
but there are things we can tell by looking at the periodic table.’ He then defined
ionization while some of his students wrote the definition in their notebooks. He
picked up a wooden metre stick and struck the demonstration table with its flat
side making a loud slapping sound. Kelso then began to joke about ‘thwacking
atoms’ and making electrons fly off them. He explained that it takes energy to
remove an electron from an atom and that this process is ‘sort of like thwacking
atoms with energy.’ Some of the students laughed and seemed to enjoy the ana-
logy. Kelso began the next segment of the lesson with a question, students called
out their answers, and he responded by asking another question or giving a brief
explanation.
Later, Kelso was explaining ionization energy and describing how one should
look at the periodic table and, using the information on it, predict whether or not
an atom has electrons that might relatively easily ‘fly off the atom’. He explained
that there would be questions like this on the next test and that it would be wise for
students to know how to make these predictions. The word ‘thwack’ had not been
spoken for 15 minutes now when another student called out a question (tape-
recorded classroom discourse, 10 October).

Line James What is a natural thwack?

1
2 Kelso What? [loudly and with emphasis]
3 James What is the thing in nature that thwacks? [classroom laughter]
4 Jill I think you try to push this metaphor too far.
5 Kelso We are just talking about an average size of a thwack.
6 James I’m just saying: Does this work in nature? Does nature do this?
7 Kelso No [3-second pause] No, things do not come along and knock
electrons . . . [another short pause] naturally unless you have a
situation where . . .
9 James [interrupting] So like element 2 [Helium], where it will . . .
10 Kelso [interrupting] I am going to get to that. Hang on to that question.
All right, now, lets continue . . .
12 James [quietly but loud enough to hear] Never mind.
13 Kelso . . . if eight are in the outer level, it is very stable – a noble gas.
And, if an atom has a large nucleus and a small radii (sic) make
stable atoms.

A teacher assigns meanings and value to student inquiry questions

The data suggest that Kelso interprets the meaning of student questions and then
assigns relative value to them. The evidence suggests that he especially values and
actively encourages the student questions that naturally go with the flow of his
lesson plan and are well tuned to his specific lesson content objectives. Such
questions say something to him about student qualities, engagement and under-
standing. He considers them positive contributions to his teaching and his
students’ learning of the content of his course. The data also suggest that he
assigns less value to questions that are not so well tuned to the lesson objectives.
726 C. J. ROP

In fact, Kelso explains that some of these questions, even when tangentially con-
nected to the content, can be intrusive and therefore annoying, frustrating, and can
threaten his teaching efficiency and his students’ learning outcomes.

The teacher values SIQs because they help him diagnose student attitudes and
abilities. Kelso considers a student question that relates closely to the subject
matter to be a valuable assessment tool. He assumes that if a question is tuned
to the content he is trying to teach, the student must be engaged and responsive.
Thus, the evidence suggests that Kelso uses these inquiry questions to make
assumptions about three student characteristics that he values highly in his class-
room: the natural inquisitiveness of students who are interested in the subject
matter and are ‘true learners’, the intellectual capability of students, and student
understanding of subject matter. Each of these teacher assumptions is briefly
discussed below.

Teacher assumption 1. When a student regularly asks SIQs, it means s/he is

naturally inquisitive, interested in the subject matter and therefore a ‘true learner’.
Kelso described Nate, a student who regularly asks inquiry questions in class,
as having an inquisitive nature. ‘[Nate] is extremely, naturally inquisitive.’
Describing Nate as naturally inquisitive suggests that Kelso believes that Nate’s
questions come out of his personality, his nature. ‘He is really interested in his
learning.’
In describing John, another student who consistently gets good grades in his
classes, Kelso connects the asking of SIQs with being inquisitive and interested
in learning the content of his lessons. ‘John takes in a lot of stuff, he’s interested,
he’ll ask you questions, and he really enjoys learning.’ Kelso seems to be saying
that John’s interest naturally leads to questions and that interested students ask
questions in class. Kelso calls John and Nate ‘true learners’ because in class
they are interested, always pay attention and always try to ‘absorb information’
and to ‘take it all in’. Kelso explains that John and Nate act the way they do because
they really want to learn chemistry and that their good grades come naturally
from this desire to learn. The work they do and their classroom participation
are for that purpose. In Kelso’s view, what separates true learners from others
in the class is a motivation to learn subject matter and not merely ‘going for the
grades’.
‘Even though he (John) won’t do any work, he is a learner though, he’s a true
learner . . . . But grades are kind of an arbitrary thing that just kind of floats out
there.’

Teacher Assumption 2. When a student regularly asks SIQs, it means he/she is

bright and can do very well in school.
Kelso explains that questions can reveal whether or not his students have the
intellectual capacity to learn and understand the subject. He explains that certain
students, like John, actually can ‘take in a lot of stuff’ as he teaches and that he is a
‘really bright kid’. It is not just that he asks questions in class, but the nature of the
questions he asks reveal this about him. His questions are ‘legitimate’ – closely
related to the subject of the lesson – and he asks them in an ‘intelligent manner’ –
well timed and respectfully asked.
THE MEANING OF STUDENT INQUIRY QUESTIONS 727

But he (John) does ask legitimate questions. If he doesn’t get something, he puts that
hand up and he asks an intelligent manner. I give him a lot of credit for that. A lot
better that most of the kids I have. So that can carry him a long ways
To Kelso, a student must be engaged with the subject matter and able to under-
stand at an impressive level to ask interesting questions that are closely related to
the lesson topics for the day. This asking is a tribute to a student’s intelligence.
Asking in an intelligent manner is another quality of a good student. Kelso
describes John as one of few who ask intelligent and legitimate questions better
than most of his other students and that this ability will ‘carry him a long ways’
into his future. This refers to being savvy about school protocol and a respectful
attitude. This second meaning is also important for anyone to learn and practice if
one is to be considered a good student.
In a similar way, Kelso relates Nate’s inquiry questions to his reputation as a
good student. He states that Nate is also ‘a really bright kid’. Kelso considers him
brighter than most of his peers and describes Nate as ‘right up there with the top 5
per cent of his class’. In Kelso’s chemistry class, Nate regularly outperforms most
of his peers and regularly gets perfect scores on his tests and other assignments.
He (Nate) is a pretty good student really. . . . He likes to understand what the material
is and he’s very good about asking. If he doesn’t understand something, he’s real good
about asking questions. I give him a lot of credit for that.
Nate likes to understand and he is ‘real good about asking questions’. Kelso seems
to be saying that if a student is good about asking questions, he asks good questions
and asks them in an intelligent and legitimate manner similar to what John does
(above).
According to Kelso, asking legitimate and intelligent questions is quite closely
related to ‘doing well’ in class. However, he explains that doing well doesn’t
necessarily mean getting the best grades or performing at the top of their class
academically or having an excellent grade-point average. During our conversa-
tions, he uses two of his students as examples to make his point. He explains
that ‘[Kara] asks questions and she is doing really well even though she is not
an ‘‘A-student’’’. Janna also asks questions in class and her questions, like Kara’s,
reveal her ability to test ideas and search for understandings in intelligent dialogue
with him. He explains that ‘Janna also talks in class often and is willing to push on
problem ideas in dialogue [with me]’. The implication is that not all students have
the desire, ability or propensity to ‘push on’ ideas that are problematic. And, it is
significant that this intellectual process is in dialogue with Kelso, the teacher and
that students like Kara and Janna are able to push on ideas and hold their own in
an intellectual conversation with their teacher. Not all students are willing or able
to do this. The ones who can are revealed by the questions they ask in class, even
more so than by the grades they earn.

Teacher assumption 3. When a student regularly asks SIQs, it means s/he

understands the subject of the lesson
Analysis of the data supports a third assertion about the meaning of student
questions for this teacher: Kelso considers SIQs an indicator of student under-
standing of the content of his lesson. They are indicators in at least two ways. In
the first place, Kelso describes inquiry questions as a tool students themselves
can use to test their own understandings. Second, the teacher can use student’s
728 C. J. ROP

questions to assess the depth of student understandings. This makes student ques-
tions a very important tool for the individual for determining whether or not s/he
actually understands the subject matter that is being taught. Kelso explains that
students themselves need to be aware of what they don’t understand so that they
can clear up any conceptual difficulties they might have. Inquiry questions help
them do this.
I think Allison sometimes is that way, too. If she doesn’t understand, she asks ques-
tions . . . you know, Nate, Jeff, John and Cara, too, if they’re not getting something
their hand goes up and they have a question. [They have an] awareness of it, this isn’t
making sense the way it should. . . . So, ‘I don’t know how to do that.’

The awareness of personal sense-making both stimulates the question but also
becomes more evident in the question asking itself. The understanding is about
‘getting something’ or ‘knowing how to do’ this or that. (For a more detailed
description of student perspectives on understanding content and how to do school
work, see Author 1999). Not all students are so self-aware. Travis, according to
Kelso, is an example of one who is not.
Travis isn’t real self aware about how much he knows or doesn’t know. You know,
Nate and John, the other kids, I think are pretty aware they just don’t understand
what they are doing. I’m not sure Travis understands what he doesn’t know.

Kelso also believes that inquiry questions students ask help teachers diagnose
student understanding of content. According to Kelso it takes a ‘strong teacher’ to
monitor student questions and make an informal assessment of student under-
standing, most often on the spot when the question is asked. For Kelso, the
most revealing form of inquiry-question asking is when students engage each
other and turn to each other instead of always focusing their questions on the
teacher. On a particular occasion, Kelso was reflecting on and discussing student
questions during an interview and brought up this variation of student question-
ing: ‘[John] and Nate and Hans, when they are together in class throw questions
back and forth, which I thought was really good – the questions were really good.’
Although students rarely ‘throw questions back and forth’ in Kelso’s class,
when they do, it marks a departure from the traditional teacher–student–teacher
dialogue pattern he uses. This is similar to the student–student–teacher–student
form of dialogue which Lemke (1990) describes as closer to the language and
discourse of science and something all science teachers should strive for. Kelso
seems to agree that this form of dialogue is good and should be encouraged. He is
also saying that the questions themselves, as a product of this dialogic pattern are
good. He seems to be saying that when students engage each other, they engage
with the topic at hand. One result of all this is good questions. In this way, the
questions become indicators of intellectual engagement.
So far, all the inquiry questions students ask indicate positive traits of good
students. It is important to note that in order for questions to be valued in this way
by Kelso, the subject of the questions must be closely tuned to the teaching
objectives of day’s lesson plan. The questions that are valued clearly go with the
carefully planned flow of the lesson. On reflection, Kelso indicates that the diffi-
cult part of all this is deciding if the topic of the student question is too far ‘off
track’ or not. Some questions are thoughtful and related to the subject, but may
not serve to support the direction of the lesson, and he wonders, with the very
limited time he has, whether encouraging and/or allowing this form of discourse is
THE MEANING OF STUDENT INQUIRY QUESTIONS 729

justifiable. This brings us to the next section of this report. Although Kelso asserts
that SIQs are a good thing, he also suggests that in certain cases, these student
questions may be less than desirable.

Although the teacher sees the value of SIQs, sometimes they threaten to
redirect the flow of the lesson and are therefore problematic and
disruptive
Although Kelso seldom says negative things about his students, his frustration
with some types of SIQs are revealed in conversation. He finds some student
questions are annoying or difficult to deal with. These potentially redirect the
flow of the lesson and therefore they are considered problematic and disruptive.
He describes three types of questions or questioning behaviour that are disruptive
and those are described below. The first type he calls ‘off-the-wall’ questions.
Others might be good questions but are so frequent that they are annoying – too
much of a good thing. Still others might be worthwhile but very distracting to
everyone else in the class because they are only tangentially related to the lesson.

Some SIQs that disrupt the flow of lesson are just ‘off the wall’. The easiest of these
questions for Kelso to deal with are the questions that are not in any apparent way
connected to the content of the lesson. In describing questions Erin sometimes
asks in class, Kelso laughs and reveals some of his good-natured frustration with
her questions. For example, during a lesson on energy and chemical reactions,
Kelso used table sugar in one of his examples. Erin interrupted him by calling
out a clearly tangential question: ‘What would happen if sugar was on the moon?’
Instead of answering her, he jokingly said: ‘And they say we don’t have a drinking
problem at Oakview School.’ The classroom erupted in laughter, Kelso made no
further reference to her question and regained control of his agenda. In reflection,
after the lesson, he explained to me: ‘Erin is always bringing up these ‘‘off-the-wall
things’’ like ‘‘What would happen to sugar on the moon?’’ ’
During a different lesson in November, there was an interplay of student
participation and teacher questions about light and other forms of energy. The
conversation moved to light wavelength and frequency. When there were only a
few minutes left in the class session a student called out a question that seemed
quite unrelated to the topic of the lesson: ‘What are sparklers?’ Kelso looked at her,
paused, smiled and then said: ‘I want to take the last few minutes to introduce the
next chapter.’ On this brief exchange, his strategy of ignoring the question with a
smile indicated that he did not feel the question deserved attention.
On another occasion, during a lesson about ionic bonds and bonding, Kelso
mentioned that salts are examples of compounds that bond ionically. Carolyn
began a brief question sequence that quickly led Mike to ask a relatively unrelated
SIQ. Kelso efficiently shut off the sequence with a quick answer, a ‘put off’
[Mike’s description], and a new question designed to bring the class back on track.
Carolyn: Is table salt ionic?
Kelso: All salts are ionic.
Mike: What about ice?
Kelso: [Turning to Mike] Ice is a crystal of water. We will talk about states of matter
later. [Turning to the rest of the class] Would ZnF4 be ionic or covalent?
730 C. J. ROP

These ‘off-the-wall’ type of questions were actually quite frequent. They were
also quite easily dealt with. In the last situation, Mike’s question could have led the
class into a discussion about different kinds of crystals and crystalline structure.
However, this lesson was designed for students to focus on ionic bonds and ionic
bonding. Kelso’s strategy kept the discussion on track. When student questions
were so obviously off focus, he most often dealt with them quickly and efficiently.
He sometimes made a joke of the situation and sometimes he just ignored the
question. More often, he just gave a quick answer, put the student off in one
way or another, and then brought the discourse back to his lesson focus.

Some SIQs are so frequent that they are annoying. Although SIQs that are not very
closely related to the lesson content objectives are rather easily dealt with, other
student questions present different problems that are not so easily solved. One
assertion is that Kelso is annoyed when a few individual students ask more often
than what he considers their fair share. For example, Nate asks more SIQs than
anyone in his class. He was observed asking questions daily, sometimes several
questions during each class session. When asked about the frequency of Nate’s
questions, Kelso explained that Nate asks so many questions that he sometimes
gets ‘overbearing’ and he gets ‘carried away’. ‘He gets kind of . . . well, you don’t
want to answer. It’s not that you sit down and we’ll talk about this stuff after class
because I gotta get through this lesson.’
In describing this tendency to ask too many questions, Kelso explains that
even his peers get annoyed by this constant questioning: ‘Kids will even tell him to
shut up. So that’s one of the bad parts of it. You know, he just asks so many
questions. He just goes on and on.’
The following interplay is another example of how student questions coming
one after another tested Kelso’s patience. On one particular occasion, at the begin-
ning of the class session, Kelso was reviewing one of his lessons on light and
wavelengths. To give his students a visual example, he threw a tennis ball across
the room to one of his students. The student caught it and threw it back. This
started an interplay of questions and answers that pressed beyond what he
expected and intended with the analogy. Although he tried to shut off the sequence
by making a joke, students persisted on this track until he regained control of his
agenda with a gentle rebuke. His annoyance was very evident in the tone of voice
and his body language. This was not missed by his students.
Kelso: Anything that moves has a wavelength that depends on a lot of factors.
[Referring to the trajectory of the tennis ball].
Jason: A bullet has a shorter wavelength than a tennis ball?
Kelso: The theory is . . .
Jason: [interrupting] Is there a point where there is no wavelength?
Kelso: Theoretically, no. [Laughs, then changes his voice and throws up his hands]
It’s just a theory folks!
Hans: Why, does it depend on mass?
Kelso: It’s just part of a theory!
Carolyn: [sarcastically] I love this class. It’s so much fun [apparently responding to
the tension in the room].
Kelso: [seriously] All right, lets start going over this stuff.

Some SIQs are worthwhile on their own, but distracting when only tangentially related
to the lesson. Some SIQs are difficult for Kelso to deal with because they are good
THE MEANING OF STUDENT INQUIRY QUESTIONS 731

questions but only tangentially related to the content of the lesson. For example, in
one episode, Hans raised his hand and asked if solar flares added energy to the
atmosphere. Although solar flares might be somewhat related to the lesson objec-
tives, which focused on energy in the atmosphere, Kelso had to decide if spending
time on Hans’s question would threaten his lesson plan. Kelso put Hans off by
saying ‘We can’t get into that now.’ During an informal interview after this lesson,
Kelso described Hans’s question as only tangentially related and therefore dis-
tracting.
We can’t do it [get through this lesson] if we talk about solar flares right now or
something like that. We were talking about energy at the time so it was related, but it
was tangential.’’
Kelso discussed how difficult it was to turn aside Hans’ questions: ‘And so, it’s
hard to deal with because he has a lot of questions that are legitimate.’ The ques-
tions may be legitimate; however, Kelso explains that he is reluctant to let anything
redirect the focus of his lesson. He explains that if Hans, Nate and other students
were really that interested, they would be willing to come in after school for these
discussions. Repeatedly, especially at the beginning of the year, Kelso extended
the offer to students who asked questions that he considered worthwhile but dis-
tracting from the lesson to come after school to discuss them. He said things like:
‘If you want to discuss that, come in after school.’ Or, ‘That’s really an interesting
question. We could discuss that after school but, for now, I need to cover this
objective.’

Teacher response behaviours associated with SIQs

In this study, although SIQs hold both positive and negative sets of meanings for
Kelso, and although in conversation he reflects conflicted views about his
responses to student questions, the data on his actual responses shows a surpris-
ingly clear pattern. The data in this study consistently support the patterns cap-
tured by the two transcripts of classroom exchanges included previously – that
class time that is designated for the lesson must not be disrupted by side journeys
regardless of their intellectual potential. On the other hand, class time outside this
framework may be available for limited pursuit of student questions. If a student
question comes during the course of a lesson (Episode 2), a time dedicated to
reaching his teaching objectives for the day, he will, with only a very brief inter-
change, put the student off and regain control of the discussion.
This striking distinction between the teacher’s responses in the two types of
situations is revealed in the vignettes. In James’s case (Episode 2), the question
came right in the middle of the lesson. Spending time attending to the question,
even a couple of minutes, might jeopardize Kelso’s teaching objectives for the day
and so he brings the discourse back on track with minimal disruption. In the case
of Cara’s question (Episode 1), however, the lesson objectives had been met before
she asked her question and the remaining minutes were up for grabs – free time.
Consequently, Kelso feels free to surrender some control over the classroom
agenda by addressing his attention to the student question.
Kelso’s desire to honour students’ interest in learning and his conflicting need
to cover content efficiently, create a difficult choice – to spend valuable class time
on the question or not. Part of his struggle is that he recognizes the discouraging
732 C. J. ROP

impact that such an inflexible focus might have on student curiosity. ‘It is real
hard to say, ‘‘Nate, I gotta get through this lesson, you know? That’s really neat
but . . . ’’.’
In spite of this internal conflict, when students force a decision with their
questions during the course of a lesson, Kelso invariably opts for efficiency.
After briefly ‘honouring’ the question, he regains control of his agenda by gaining
control of the discourse. Some of the phases he uses to accomplish this are: ‘You
don’t have to know this right now’, or ‘I’ll explain this later’, or ‘I’ll give you
examples later’. On rare occasions, he responded with ‘I don’t know.’ For example,
on one occasion, after a brief interplay between students that was related to
instruction about spectro-analysis, Carolyn turned to her teacher and asked a
related question that probed for a deeper explanation of photons and light waves:
Carolyn: If light is made of photons, how can they travel so fast in waves?
Kelso: This is too much physics for us to handle right now. . . . I can’t go into this very
much because I can’t test you on it, this is physics (not chemistry).

Discussion
Jack Kelso identifies his students’ inquiry questions, when related closely to his
lesson content objectives, as indications of interest in the subject matter and of a
desire and capacity for learning. He finds SIQs useful for assessment of under-
standing by both student and teacher. He wants to honour student questions but
they can also threaten teaching efficiency, especially if they are slightly off focus or
tangential to the lesson objectives. They can be annoying, overbearing, and a test
to one’s patience when they are too frequent and when they compete for valuable
class time. Some of these questions are rather easy for him to deal with. He merely
laughs them off. However, much of the questioning behaviour can’t be so easily
dismissed. Student questions that are thoughtful but slightly off focus or that are
good questions that occur too frequently for comfort, present a difficult dilemma.
There is little doubt that Kelso believes student questions are valuable in his
classroom and that he is reluctant and uncomfortable in his dismissal of them. It is
important to note, however, that the positive meanings he assigns to the questions
are primarily diagnostic – they give him clues about student interest, ability and
comprehension and they may give students information about their learning.
Given these meanings, it is entirely understandable that he would choose to deflect
the questions that threaten what he sees as his primary task – thoroughly covering
the expected material.
It is important to recognize the seriousness with which this teacher regards his
commitment to his students’ learning and to his role as part of a team of science
instructors. Given the framework within which he thinks and works, the decisions
he makes about dealing with student questions make solid sense. Kelso describes a
‘strong teacher’ and a ‘good teacher’ as one who delivers content efficiently and
always ‘covers the book’. He considers this his professional responsibility as a
member of the science department of his school. Kelso explains that curriculum
decisions were made collaboratively in committee and that, consequently, the
other science teachers are expecting him to hold up his end of the bargain. He
says that everyone expects that when students go on to higher-level science
courses, students will have thoroughly covered the curriculum. He explains that
the good teacher is efficient, possesses good time-management skills, and organizes
THE MEANING OF STUDENT INQUIRY QUESTIONS 733

his lessons well. Time is short and Kelso knows that detours can mean not reach-
ing all the objectives for the day. Frequently, in class, when there are distractions,
he tells his students: ‘We need to keep moving. I need to cover these objectives
before the next test.’ If he doesn’t cover his teaching objectives, he considers that
he has let his students down. He explains that he worries about having them come
to him and say: ‘That’s not fair, you never covered this in class.’ The problem, as
he explains it, is that there is just so much to cover in less than 180 very short, 50-
minute class sessions. Tobin and Gallagher (1987) also found a similar attitude in
the high school science teachers in Australia. Their teachers also focused on con-
tent coverage, and this did enable them to complete their curriculum in the
planned time. But the authors also say that this focus was taken ‘probably at the
cost of higher cognitive learning’ (p. 74).
These teacher attitudes explain clearly why, when student questions or student
initiated discussions seem to lead the discourse in an unanticipated and unplanned
direction, Kelso most often responds by taking back control of the discourse. He
explained to me that even when questions represent thoughtful inquiry he doesn’t
often feel free to spend much time on them. He can’t afford to be drawn off his
specific agenda for too long a time. In Kelso’s perspective, any pedagogic decision
he makes has implications for the department and the school in general. This
makes pedagogic efficiency a priority. Tangential questions or even some closely
related questions, those same questions that mean so much in relation to student
learning (see above), will potentially rob him of his teaching time and are often
interpreted as threats to teaching efficiency.
Student questions, however, have value that goes beyond these diagnostic
purposes. One of the primary goals in secondary science instruction is to engage
students in scientific inquiry and develop in them scientific habits of mind (AAAS
1989, 1993). To accomplish this, it is necessary that intellectual engagement
should be authentic (Watts and Alsop 1995, Watts et al. 1997a). One significant
indicator of authentic student engagement with science and scientific thinking and
understanding, is inquiry questions (Lemke 1990). Students need to be actively
involved if conceptual change is to happen (Driver 1989). Student questions play a
major role in student conceptual learning and development of that understanding
(Yehudit and Herscovitz 1999). Question asking is a component of good thinking,
a valuable learning task for anyone, and a vital part of problem solving.

Implications
It is easy to agree that the culture of school and classrooms needs to be reshaped to
support and encourage the kinds of student engagement that those in this study
were attempting. Science educators can enthusiastically endorse the idea that class-
rooms should be characterized by a spirit of inquiry in which student questions are
encouraged and respected (Fisher 1990). In fact, some may agree with Shodell’s
(1995) assertion that the central role of science instruction in high schools should
be to teach students to ask better questions. However, it is much more difficult to
imagine specific ways for this to happen in actual schools with particular teachers.
Such change would necessitate that both teachers and students are given the free-
dom and time to learn, and the knowledge and confidence that real intellectual
engagement is compatible with both immediate and future goals. The dilemma
that this teacher faces stems primarily from the institutional curricular pressures
734 C. J. ROP

placed on him. He knows that National (AAAS 1993, NRC 1996) and his State
Standards for Science Education (Michigan State Board of Education 1991) tell
him to ‘emphasize understanding over content coverage’ (p. 3). He also knows that
the science department in his school is expecting him to ‘cover the book’ before he
sends his students on to higher-level science courses in high school and college.
In planning daily pedagogic strategies, it is important for teachers to realize
that relying heavily on whole-class interactive teaching might in itself be proble-
matic for encouraging student inquiry and engagement. There are two aspects to
this: a whole-class interactive teaching strategy creates a context which makes
encouraging SIQs difficult. By its nature this pedagogical approach tends to
have an internal trajectory. As discussed above, SIQs tend to deflect that trajectory
and thus threaten the lesson itself. Other, more individualized teaching strategies
can offer a climate more conducive to addressing the intellectual curiosity of par-
ticular students. Additionally, in the whole class discussion method, any digres-
sions, by definition, take up class time for all students. Although in Kelso’s class,
some of the most powerful and intellectually engaging student inquiry was repre-
sented in the frequent SIQs that were asked during this teaching strategy, it must
be noted that only a select few ‘bright’, ‘true learners’ in a class of 24 students
actually participated in this way. The majority of the students in Kelso’s class
never asked SIQs, nor did they generally appear to be very engaged with the
questions that were asked. Therefore, during any time that might have been
directed toward addressing the SIQs, the rest of the class tends to be disengaged.
This finding is similar to that of Tobin and Gallagher (1987), whose focus was on
teacher-directed questions and the patterns that developed in teacher-student dis-
course. They raised fundamental questions about the impact of student question-
ing on the rest of the class and about the role of the whole-class instructional mode
on participation patterns. They suggested that teachers should use whole-class
interactive strategies less and small group instruction more often.

Similarly, individualized activities that promote higher cognitive engagement should

be considered as an alternative to the relatively covert types of engagement that are
possible in whole class settings. (p.74)

In planning their curriculum, teachers like the teacher in this study, who feel
pressure to cover ‘too much content for one course’ should also realize that cover-
ing less might in fact result in more student understanding. Because it is un-
reasonable to cover everything of importance, teachers should take the time to
discuss carefully which concepts are vital for their students and which are not.
Gardner (1999) is convinced that teachers should abandon the ‘content coverage’
model completely, and turn their attention to a teaching model. This means that
one of the most important criteria for deciding what and how to teach is whether or
not individual students understand more about their world after a lesson than
before. Another criterion is whether or not a lesson will actually make a significant
difference in the adult life of the individual student. In deciding this, one might
ask: ‘Which set of related concepts awaken student curiosity and wonder about the
natural world so that students step off into a lifetime of self-motivated learning?’
The alternative might be ‘Which concepts and performances encourage mindless,
algorithmic school work that has little connection to student interest or a sense of
authentic inquiry?’
THE MEANING OF STUDENT INQUIRY QUESTIONS 735

Educational researchers also need to take Jack Kelso’s dilemma seriously.

Definitions of good science preparation for students need to be significantly
reshaped at many levels before we can expect teachers to re-examine their content
coverage orientation. Teachers will need training, professional development pro-
grammes, and continual support to help them construct better curricula for their
courses. Secondary teachers need preparation in curriculum theory, development,
and evaluation that complements a strong academic background in their discipline.
According to Hawkes (1992) a major difficulty in accomplishing the practical,
classroom side of curriculum development is that researchers don’t agree on
which fundamentals are of most worth in high school courses. If the ‘experts’
can’t agree, the tendency is to keep adding content to the curriculum just to
make sure all the bases are covered. To be sure, in America, the National and
State Standards are invaluable efforts to guide teachers in these decisions. They
tell teachers to welcome curiosity, reward creativity, and encourage the spirit of
healthy questioning, avoid dogmatism, and promote aesthetic responses (AAAS
1989: 149–150). However, teachers often complain that the standards are not much
help in deciding which and how much content a high school course should contain.
Meanwhile, teachers like Kelso remain within a framework that defines good
teaching as covering a huge amount of content efficiently. This means that good
student questions and self-motivated inquiry frequently get in the way. One im-
portant agenda for research is to seek ways to provide current and up-to-date
guidance for teachers that will help them determine which concepts of chemistry
(or any other subject) are actually vital for their students to master.

References
American Association for the Advancement of Science AAAS (1989) Project 2061:
Science for all Americans (Washington, DC: National Academy Press).
American Association for the Advancement of Science AAAS (1993) Benchmarks for
Science Literacy (New York: Oxford University Press).
Brown, G. and Wragg, E. (1993) Questioning (London: Routledge).
Carr, D. (1998) The art of asking questions in the teaching of science. School Science
Review, 79, 47–50.
Crawford, T., Kelly, G. J. and Brown, C. (2000) Ways of knowing beyond facts and laws
of science: an ethnographic investigation of student engagement in scientific practices.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 237–258.
Creswell, J. W. (1998) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five
Traditions (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).
Dillon, J. T. (1988) The remedial status of student questioning. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 20, 197–210.
Driver, R. (1989) Changing conceptions. In P. Adey, J. Bliss, J. Head and M. Shayer (eds),
Adolescent Development and School Science (London: Falmer), 79–99.
Erickson, F. (1986) Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock (ed.),
Handbook of Research on Teaching (New York: Macmillan).
Fisher, R. (1990) Teaching Children to Think (Oxford: Blackwell).
Gardner, H. (1999) The Disciplined Mind: What All Students Should Understand (New
York, NY: Simon & Schuster).
Glesne, C. and Peshkin, A. (1992) Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction
(White Plaines, NY: Longman).
Hawkes, S. J. (1992) Why should they know that? Journal of Chemical Education, 69, 178–
181.
736 THE MEANING OF STUDENT INQUIRY QUESTIONS

Jackson, J. E. (1990) ‘I am a fieldnote’: fieldnotes as symbol of professional identity. In R.

Sanjek (ed.), Fieldnotes: The Makings of Anthropology (Ithaca: Cornell University
Press), 3–33.
Lemke, J. L. (1990) Talking Science (Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex).
Martin, B. and Brouwer, W. (1993) Exploring personal science. Science Education, 77, 441–
459.
Michigan Board of Education (1991) Michigan Essential Goals and Objectives for Science
Education (K-12) (East Lansing, MI: Michigan Center for Career and Technical
Education).
National Research Council NRC (1996) National Science Education Standards
(Washington DC: National Academy Press).
Rop, C. J. (1999) Student perspectives on success in high school chemistry. Journal of
Research in Science Education, 36 (2), 221–237.
Sanjek, R. (1990) The secret life of fieldnotes. In R. Sanjek (ed.), Fieldnotes: The Makings of
Anthropology (Ithaca: Cornell University Press), 187–271.
Shodell, M. (1995) The question-driven classroom: student questions as course curriculum
on biology. The American Biology Teacher, 57, 278–281.
Stake, R. (1995) The Art of Case Study Research (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).
Tobin, K. and Gallagher, J. J. (1987) The role of target students in the science classroom.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24 (1), 61–75.
Watts, M. and Alsop, S. (1995) Questioning and conceptual understanding: the quality of
pupil’s questions in science. Science Education Notes, 76, 91–95.
Watts, M., Alsop, S., Gould, G. and Walsh, A. (1997a) Prompting teachers’ constructive
reflection: pupils’ questions as critical incidents. International Journal of Science
Education, 19, 1025–1037.
Watts, M., Gould, G. and Alsop, S. (1997b) A question of understanding: pupils’ ques-
tions for conceptual understanding. School Science Review, 78, 101–107.
Watts, M., Gould, G. and Alsop, S. (1997c) Questions of understanding: categorizing
pupils’ questions in science. School Science Review, 79, 57–63.
Yehudit, D. J. and Herscovitz, O. (1999) Question-posing capability as an alternative
evaluation method: analysis of an environmental case study. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 36, 411–430.
Yin, R. K. (1990) Case Study Research: Design and Method (Newbury Park, CA: Sage).