Dissertation Defense
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Dissertation Defense

on

  • 794 views

HOT Question use to improve critical thinking and self efficacy

HOT Question use to improve critical thinking and self efficacy

Statistics

Views

Total Views
794
Views on SlideShare
794
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Recognize and thank committee members as above
  • Observations as a school administrator…According to Liang (2008), the promotion of HOT questions in the classroom is less frequent and deliberate than is needed. According to (Linda Darling-Hammond 2010) this mechanistic form of teaching often accompanies traditional test preparation and can diminish a teacher’s focus on the effective instruction 3. According to Fisher and Frey (2010), teachers inconsistently apply scaffolding techniques in the classroom. This study aims to consolidate this understanding 4. According to an ERIC and EBSCO search, literature exploring the link b/t reader self-efficacy and critical thinking is not available. 5. Common Core State standards emphasis depth rather then breadth of knowledge and target HOT.
  • Student Progress: According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (2008) NAEP achievement in fourth and eighth grades have been stagnant during the past ten-years. While American schools seem proficient at teaching basic reading skills, where there has been marginal growth, students are increasingly challenged to broaden these reading skills to higher levels. Scaffolding: According to Wood and Wood (1996), the teacher is not provided with concrete direction on the “nature of the guidance and collaboration needed that promotes development” (p. 5) 3. Higher Level Thinking: According to Geertsen (2003), the “indiscriminate use of terms such as critical thinking, reflective thinking, and high-level thinking has created unnecessary confusion” (p.1) Therefore, HOT remains as an elusive concept to grasp. 4. HOT Questions: The need to identify a structure to counteract this disparity is therefore important. As a result, Bloom’s revised taxonomy (Anderson, et al., 2001) is an important tool in the treatment to operationalize higher order questions. This pragmatic structure will be more easily understood and implemented in the classroom. A ccording to an EBSCO and ERIC search of more than 1.3 million records and 320,000 full-text articles, a link between higher order thinking and reader self-efficacy was not found.
  • The potential benefits of this research will help determine if scaffolding the development of HOT questions will significantly improve reader self-efficacy and critical thinking. In addition, the study could potentially provide teachers with clear scaffolding steps and questioning strategies that will improve instruction while increasing understanding of student learning. Finally, I hoped to explore the link b/t reader self-efficacy and critical thinking.
  • For the purposes of my study, this is how I defined the following terms: 1. Giancarlo’s definition, (CM3) 2. Organized thinking into six levels (remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating) and represented a pragmatic way to design effective instructional tasks. 3. According to Resnick (2003) higher order thinking resists precise forms of definition…in this study, it was operationalized using Bloom’s revised taxonomy
  • Scaffolding: Vygotsky, (Wood, Bruner and Ross) . In this study, scaffolding will consist of questions, prompts, cues, modeling and dialogue. Clark and Graves (2004) linked scaffolding to the Gradual Release of Responsibility model Self-Efficacy: Bandura
  • The learning principles underpinning this research can be drawn from the following theoretical constructs:
  • Vygotsky (1978, 1986) described the ZPD with two developmental levels: the actual developmental level, which is what the learner can achieve by himself or herself and, the potential level of development, which is established when a learner is assisted by a more expert other. The ZPD is operationalized through the support of a scaffold where both teacher and student are actively engaged in the learning process
  • The review of literature in the area of instructional scaffolding notes that: The term scaffolding was introduced by Wood, Bruner and Ross (1976) in an attempt to operationalize the concept of teaching in the ZPD. They described scaffolding as a “process that enables a child or novice to solve a problem, carry out a task or achieve a goal which would be beyond his unassisted efforts” (p. 90). Just to pick out a couple of studies, Liang and Oliveira Liang (2011) This study was a pretest-posttest, quasi-experimental design with the student as a unit of study. Students in the comparison group were taught short stories using a traditional basal approach and assessed. Students in the treatment group were taught short stories using both the SRE approach. Comprehension and reader responses were significant at the P=.01 level for reading comprehension and reader responses. Oliveira (2009) Qualitative study focused on 15 k-6 teachers who received 1-day of training on questioning. Post treatment, the teachers were video taped during six lessons and their questions coded. The level of student thinking in their responses to teacher questioning improved according to Bloom’s taxonomy…showing that scaffolding student questions increased HOT.
  • As for the review of literature in the area of self-efficacy: Barkley= in his non-experimental study of 400 middle students, found that students with high self-efficacy correlated positively (P<.01) to reading achievement on the Stanford Achievement Test (Correlational analysis was conducted to determine statistical significance between scales of the Teacher and Student Efficacy Beliefs Survey (Barkey, 2006)
  • For the purposes of this study, Higher Order Thinking is defined as a hierarchy of learning that corresponds with Bloom’s revised taxonomy of overlapping levels above Understanding (Anderson, et al., 2001). Critical Thinking is defined as a process of purposeful, self-regulatory judgment. (Defined by the developers of the CM3 (Giacarlo, 2010) In Mosseley, et al, (2005) did descriptive review of 35 theoretical frameworks and taxonomies, Bloom’s revised taxonomy was identified as one of three frameworks to be of greater value due to its value in promoting higher level thinking. Miri, David and Uri (2007), in their longitudinal case study of grade 10 and grade 12 students (N=177), found that purposeful teaching for the promotion of higher order thinking skills enhanced critical thinking of students compared to traditional approaches
  • intact groups will be utilized
  • As discussed later in the chapter, this sample of convenience (n=286) varied marginally depending on the code and value cleaning required for each research questions Different colors here…
  • Change colors
  • Prior to the 8-week treatment, teachers in the treatment group will receive professional development training by this researcher for 3 hours on the topic of teacher questioning and scaffolding. This training focused on 4 areas that I will discuss later. Following initial training, PD will be on-going. As a result, an additional 2.0 hours of professional development followed through out the treatment focusing on a unit of study and HOT question tree
  • One of the goals of this study was to make scaffolding more explicit in the classroom.
  • Chin (2007) noted that teacher questioning can serve to scaffold and advance student thinking Adapted with permission from the work of Fisher and Frey (2010), a scaffolding map identified explicit scaffolding techniques through the use of Questioning: asking clarifying questions, referential questions, heuristic questions and HOT questions; followed by prompts and cues students when misconceptions arose. When prompts and cues did not lead to deeper understanding, then teachers moved to more direct explanations and modeling.
  • Teachers found they needed another layer of support to determine the difference b/t lower order vs. higher order thinking questions. This flowchart scaffolded their thinking and helped teachers understand the dichotomy more explicitly.
  • Higher order thinking in this study was operationalized using Bloom’s revised taxonomy (Anderson, et al., 2001). Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy identifies Applying, Analyzing, Evaluating and Creating as higher order thinking strands. In Bloom’s earlier taxonomy, Knowledge and Comprehension were considered lower levels on the taxonomy; according (Anderson, et al ., 2001), Understanding and Remembering (U/R) correspond to this hierarchy. While Understanding and Remembering represent lower levels in the hierarchy; mastery of these foundational levels were prerequisite to mastery of the next levels (Anderson, et al., 2001).
  • This slide represents the unit of study that assisted teachers to focus on embedding HOT questions into their daily language arts lessons. This unit of study and accompanying activities can be found in your packet and was part of the professional training teachers received prior and during the treatment phase. Important to note: The comparison group followed the grade 6 curriculum derived from the State Standards which did not focus on HOT questions or levels of thinking. The unit of study served as a focus for the treatment and a way to ensure treatment fidelity Emphasize 22 observations…treatment followed… Explain that teachers did 4 weeks of short stories and lt circles
  • The instrument utilized to measure research question one was the California Measure of Mental Motivation (CM3) (Giancarlo, Blohm & Urdan, 2004). The CM3 is a 72-item, self-report instrument designed to measure student critical thinking The CM3 has five scales that include: Mental Focus, Learning Orientation, Creative Problem- solving, Cognitive Integrity and Scholarly Rigor.
  • The instrument utilized to measure RS question 2 is the RSPS, which consists of 32 items that represent 4 scales (Progress, Observational Comparison, Social Feedback, and Physiological States). These four factors were based on the work of Bandura (1977, 1982) and Schunk (1983) related to their basic model of self-efficacy. I used terms self-perceptions and self-efficacy interchangeably
  • In this case, I recorded verbal interactions between the teacher and student, or vice versa, particularly when in the form of a Remembering/Understanding (R/U) or HOT question. At the beginning of this study, this researcher and his advisor observed four 41-minute lessons whereby we coded questions individually. Both the researcher and advisor are certified by the state of Connecticut (certification 092) for Intermediate Supervision and Evaluation and both regularly observe classroom teachers as part of their professional responsibilities.
  • This study is a quasi-experimental research design with a pretest-posttest comparison group. Intact classroom groups were utilized and as a result there was no random selection of participants to comparison and treatment groups. This design was selected to investigate the impact that scaffolding the development of HOT questions in the classroom had on students’ critical thinking, readers’ self-efficacy and the frequency of HOT questions
  • Because three of the four tests conducted in the study used the same participants’ pretest and posttest scores as sources of data, a more stringent alpha level was utilized to guard against a Type 1 error. Using a Bonferroni technique, the alpha value of p <.05 on the basis of the data being collected to assess the relationship between expected and observed frequencies. OR The three research questions all have the commonality of utilizing the same individuals as sources of data. Because of this similarity a Bonferroni adjustment technique was used.
  • Research question one consisted of one independent variable with two levels (treatment and comparison groups); the focus on grade six students was a constant; and five dependent variables (Mental Focus, Learning Orientation, Creative Problem-solving, Cognitive Inquiry and Scholarly Rigor) as measured by the CM3 used to examine critical thinking. A Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was applied to determine if there was a significant difference between the dependent variables based on the independent variable of treatment and comparison groups. After code and value cleaning, the data were examined to review normality and homescedasticity.
  • Research question one consisted of one independent variable with two levels (treatment and comparison groups); the focus on grade six students was a constant. There were four dependent variables (Progress, Observational Comparison, Social Feedback, and Physiological States) as measured by the RSPS used to examine reader self efficacy. A Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was applied to determine if there was a significant difference between the dependent variables based on the independent variable of treatment and comparison groups. After code and value cleaning, the data were examined to review normality and homescedasticity.
  • Research question one consisted of one independent variable with two levels (treatment and comparison groups); the focus on grade six students was a constant. Data were collected from 22 observations in treatment and comparison classrooms on the frequencies of HOT and U/R questions for both teachers and students. A chi-square was applied to measure if the scaffolding of HOT questions will be significantly different between expected (pretreatment) and observed (post treatment) frequencies. Criteria: First, sample size and “expected frequencies need to be sufficiently large for the chi-square to function as intended. Second, expected values of less than five cannot be evident in more than 20% of the cells and values need to be greater than zero. Third, data must be reported in raw frequencies and be independent. A two-group (treatment/comparison) independent chi-square test was utilized with a four category response (HOT/UR) variable (Huck, 2008).
  • * actually significant to p<.01 level
  • After receiving the eight-week treatment focusing on scaffolding the development of HOT questions, teachers and students in the treatment group asked significantly more higher order thinking questions than teachers and students from comparison group. Conversely, teachers from the treatment group asked significantly less U/R level questions. Students in the treatment asked less U/R level questions, but this difference was not a major contributor to the Chi square (R=-1.61).
  • Research question four examined the relationship between critical thinking (Mental Focus, Learning Orientation, Creative Problem-solving, Cognitive Inquiry and Scholarly Rigor) and reader self-efficacy (Progress, Observational Comparison, Social Feedback, and Physiological States). A bivariate Pearson correlation was utilized to measure the strength of this relationship. This researcher decided to utilize a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient r reported as a decimal between -1.00 and +1.00 (Huck, 2008).
  • This slide demonstrates that five subscales of an instrument correlate positively to three-out-of-four subscales of another instrument, at the alpha level of .001 Hence, certain dimensions of critical thinking were correlated with certain dimensions of reader self-efficacy at the p <.001 level. The strength of this relationship varied according to the scale; for example Physiological states correlated with Mental Focus in the high positive range .744; while Observation Comparison correlated with Mental focus a low positive level .320 All levels significant, except PROGRESS!!!
  • Possible reasons: -Progress defined as present level of performance compared to past level of performance -Small SD of .54 indicates very little variability from the mean possibly due to homogeneous group of high achieving students -The lack of information available in the literature might be an area of future study; certainly a reason for this exploration in this study
  • Quasi-experimental design---could not control for class variability. Length of treatment-only 8 weeks…students could be familiar with instruments. I tried to minimize this by NOT providing student feedback. Study can only be generalized to a similar community comprising of similar demographics. Consider studies with similar homogeneous population Adherence to Treatment protocols-internal threat to validity controlled by classroom observations and the unit of study.

Dissertation Defense Dissertation Defense Presentation Transcript

  • EFFECTS OF SCAFFOLDING HIGHER ORDER THINKINGQUESTIONS ON READER SELF-EFFICACY AND CRITICAL THINKING OF SIXTH GRADE STUDENTS Jason L. McKinnon Western Connecticut State University March 31, 2012 1
  • Dissertation Committee Primary Advisor Frank LaBanca, EdD Secondary Advisors Marcia A.B. Delcourt, PhD Jennifer Mitchell, EdD Reader Michael Hibbard, PhD 2
  • Rationale1. The promotion of higher order thinking (HOT) questions in the classroom is inconsistent.2. Teachers spend considerable time preparing students for standardized tests in grades 3-12.3. Clear scaffolding steps are not readily available for classroom teachers.4. Link between self-efficacy and higher order thinking is not evident in the literature.5. Common Core State Standards encourage higher order thinking. 3
  • Statement of the Problem 4
  • Potential Benefits of the StudyReader Self-Efficacy and Critical Thinking 5
  • Definition of Key Terms Critical Thinking is defined as a process of purposeful, self- regulatory judgment. Bloom’s Taxonomy (revised) provides a way to organize thinking skills into six levels, from the most basic to the higher order levels. Higher order thinking is a systematic way of using the mind to confirm existing information using various degrees of abstraction. 6
  • Definition of Key Terms Scaffolding is defined as a course of action that enables a child or novice to solve a problem, carry out a task or achieve a goal which would be beyond his unassisted efforts. Self-Efficacy is defined as a person’s belief in their ability to acquire new information or complete a task or activity to a prescribed level of performance. Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) describes a relationship where a learner can acquire greater independence, skills and knowledge with skilled help. 7
  • Review of LiteratureThe learning principles underpinning this research can be drawn from the following theoretical constructs:• Sociocultural Theory – Vygotsky (1978) Social interactions play a significant role in a child’s development.• Social Cognitive Theory – Bandura (1986) One’s social cognition frames behavior within an interactive context of personal thoughts and beliefs regarding one’s own ability or performance. 8
  • Review of Literature• Zone of Proximal Development: Vygotsky (1978, 1986) Learning Zone 9
  • Review of Literature (scaffolding) Researchers Sample Study Findings SizeLiang (2011) n = 85 Impact of the Scaffolding student middle Scaffolded Reading responses to short school Experience (SRE) on stories produced a students student learning in significant result reading. compared to a traditional basal program. (p < .01)Oliveira (2009) n = 15 Teachers were Student-centered offered training on a questions were typology of questions found to establish framework exploring longer student the degree of responses and student- promote higher centeredness of levels of thinking as teacher’s oral measured by Bloom’s questions. taxonomy. 10
  • Review of Literature (self-efficacy)• Bandura defines self-efficacy as a person’s judgments of his or her ability to perform a task (1996).• Self-efficacy exerts its influence through four major processes: cognitive, motivational, affective, and selective processes (Bandura, 1993). Researchers Sample Size Study Findings Barkley (2006) n = 400 Students with high Results indicated that middle self-efficacy scores when grades six, seven school predicted reading and eight grade students comprehension students demonstrated achievement on the efficacy beliefs, there Stanford Achievement was a positive Test. correlation to reading achievement. (p < .01) 11
  • Review of Literature (HOT & CT) Researchers Sample Size Study FindingsMoseley, et al. Review of Thinking Skills Bloom’s revised(2005) 35 Frameworks for Use in taxonomy was theoretical Education and identified as one of frameworks Training. three frameworks to and be of greater value in taxonomies. promoting higher level thinking.Miri, David, & Uri n = 177 Purposeful teaching Students who received(2007) high school for the promotion of instruction that students higher order thinking fostered higher order skills: A case for critical thinking skills thinking. improved critical thinking in science. (p < .01) 12
  • Research Question 1Is there a statistically significant difference in the critical thinkingskills of students who have participated in an instructionalscaffolding intervention focused on higher-order thinkingquestions and those who have not? 13
  • Research Question 2Is there a statistically significant difference in students’ self-perceptions of themselves as readers who have participated inan instructional scaffolding intervention focused on higher-orderthinking questions and those who have not? 14
  • Research Question 3Is there a statistically significant difference in the frequency ofhigher-order thinking questions asked by teachers and studentsparticipating in an instructional scaffolding intervention focusedon higher-order thinking questions and those who have not? 15
  • Research Question 4Is there a statistically significant correlation between criticalthinking skills (Mental Focus, Learning Orientation, CreativeProblem-solving, Cognitive Inquiry and Scholarly Rigor) andreading self-efficacy (Progress, Observational Comparison, SocialFeedback, and Physiological States)? 16
  • Design of StudyMETHODOLOGY 17
  • Methodology: Description of Setting• Suburban community of approximately 24,000 people• Homogeneous population: 93.4 % white• Median household income: $105,000• Two middle schools in the same district serving approximately 1,300 students 18
  • Methodology: Description of Sample• n = 286 students• Sample of convenience• Intact classroom groups of grade 6 students• Four teachers participated in this study – 2 teachers from treatment (6 classes per teacher) – 2 teachers from comparison (6 classes per teacher)• 8-week study 19
  • Methodology: Description of Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample PopulationGroup n n n n N RQ 1 RQ 2 RQ 3 RQ 4Treatment 129 121 124 129 116Comparison 157 154 157 157 135Total 286 275 281 286 251 20
  • Methodology: Description of Sample Teacher Group Masters Degree ExperienceTeacher A Treatment Yes 11-yearsTeacher B Treatment Yes 20-yearsTeacher C Comparison Yes 16-yearsTeacher D Comparison Yes 16-years 21
  • Methodology:Study Timeline & Data Collection January February March April to May June 22
  • Methodology: TreatmentTreatment teachers received training in:•Explicit scaffolding of strategies and steps through ascaffolding map•Decision making tree to determine if questions arehigher order thinking questions•Scholarly description of questions using Bloom’srevised taxonomy (2001)•Unit of study that supported the development of HOTquestions 23
  • A 24
  • BFigure 6. Decision making tree to assist teachers in determine level ofthinking. Adapted with permission from Critical thinking and formativeassessments, by N. Moore and T. Stanley (2010). 25
  • C 26
  • D 27
  • InstrumentationThe California Measure of Mental Motivation (CM3)(Giancarlo, 2010)• Instrument that measures critical thinking according to five scales: – Mental Focus, Learning Orientation, Creative Problem- Solving, Cognitive Inquiry, and Scholarly Rigor• 4-point Likert-type Scale• Confirmed validity and reliability• Test administered pre- and post treatment 28
  • InstrumentationThe Reader Self-Perception Scale (RSPS) (Henk & Melnick, 1995)• Instrument measures student perceptions of reading self-efficacy -Progress, Observational Comparison, Social Feedback, and Physiological States• 5-point Likert-type scale• Measures four areas related to Bandura’s model of self-efficacy• Confirmed reliability and validity• Test administered pre- and post treatment 29
  • InstrumentationThe Classroom Practice Record (CPR)(Westberg, Archambault, Dobyns, & Salvin,1993)• Observational tool designed to collect descriptive information by coding specific information and interactions• Inter-rater agreement established at 82%• Calculation of Cohen’s Kappa = .77 (Curdy, 2009). 30
  • Research Design Group Pretest Treatment Posttest Treatment group(Scaffolding HOT O X O questions)Comparison group (Traditional O O instruction) 31
  • Research Design• Level of Significance: – Bonferroni correction set at p<.017 for research questions one, two, and four (.05/3 = .017) – Research question three set at alpha level = .05• Type of Data: – Interval-level data in the form of subscale means (CM3 & RSPS) – Categorical level data in the form of the CPR 32
  • Research Design-RQ 1Code and Value Cleaning Pretest and Posttest Effects• Data screening • Verification of normality• Visual Inspection for (Skewness & Kurtosis) missing values • Shapiro Wilkes utilized (no• Pretest descriptive statistics significance) • Homoscedasticity (Box’s M) • Groups did not differ 33
  • Findings- RQ 1• CM3 administered upon completion of the 8-week treatment• Subscales reflect SD ranging from 6.62 to 8.93• Means ranged from 27.92 to 34.39• MANOVA test revealed no significance differences between the posttest means with Wilks’ Lambda = . 97 F(5,269) = 1.43, p = .21 34
  • Research Design-RQ 2Code and Value Cleaning Pretest and Posttest Effects• Data screening • Verification of normality• Visual Inspection for (Skewness & Kurtosis) missing values • Shapiro Wilkes utilized (no• Pretest descriptive statistics significance) • Homoscedasticity (Box’s M) • Groups did not differ 35
  • Findings- RQ 2• RSPS administered upon completion of the 8-week treatment• Subscales reflect SD ranging from .51 to .96• Means ranged from 3.50 to 34.50• MANOVA test revealed no significance differences between the posttest means with Wilks’ Lambda = . 98 F(5,269) = 1.16, p = .37 36
  • Research Design-RQ 3• Research question 3 utilized the CPR to record the frequency of HOT & U/R questions• Chi-squares require that certain criteria be satisfied (Huck, 2008)• 2x4 Independent Chi-square was utilized with a four category response variable (Huck, 2008) 37
  • Findings- RQ 3• The chi-square value* (x2= 940.16, df = 3, p<.05) demonstrates that there is a significant difference between the observed (posttest) and expected (pretest) data.• Standardized residual values above the absolute value of two were identified as major contributors to the chi-square.• Key Finding: teachers & students in the treatment group asked significantly more HOT questions than teachers and students from comparison group. * p < .01 38
  • Findings- RQ 3 (continued) Treatment Comparison Observed Expected a Standard Residual b Observed Expected a Standard Residual b Teacher 102 45 8.50 30 49 -2.71 HOTTeacher U/R 26 116 -8.36 131 158 -2.15 Student 81 7 27.97 10 7 1.13 HOTStudent U/R 12 19 -1.61 17 17 0.00 39
  • Research Design-RQ 4• A correlation conducted posttest only (n = 251).• A student’s CM3 score was compared to their RSPS score• Scatterplots were created to visually inspect for outliers (Huck, 2008).• A bivariate two-tailed Pearson correlation was conducted to measure the relationship. 40
  • Findings- RQ 4 Scale Name 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.1. Mental Focus 12. Creative Problem Solving .608**3. Learning Orientation .582** .784**4. Cognitive Integrity .578** .515** .494**5. Scholarly Rigor .588** .809** .819** .577**6. Progress -.078 .035 .039 .047 -.0097. Observation Comparison .320** .569** .524** .349** .545** .0638. Social feedback .374** .687** .546** .372** .559** -.008 .689**9. Physiological States .744** .616** .618** .475** .616** .044 .663** .659*** significant at .05; **significant at .01; ***significant at 0.001 41
  • Findings- RQ 4• Progress subscale from RSPS: – When I read, I don’t have to try as hard as I used to. – I am getting better at reading. – When I read, I need less help than I used to. – Reading is easier for me than it used to be.• Progress subscale Mean= 4.44; SD = .54 (little variability) 42
  • Limitations of Study1. Quasi-experimental design2. Length of treatment3. Study generalized to similar population4. Adherence to treatment protocols 43
  • Implications for future researchResearch Findings Implications for Relation toquestion future research the literature HOT question use Examine if HOT question Broadening the study alone did not impact use beyond a treatment across disciplines and student critical period of 20-weeks could content-specific 1 thinking. impact critical thinking subjects would skills of students. enhance students’ abilities to apply skills (Halpern, 1998). HOT question use Examine how teacher Lengthen treatment alone did not impact feedback concerning beyond 20-weeks for reader self-efficacy. student question use students to 2 improves student self- appreciate their efficacy. growth (Graham & Weiner, 1996). 44
  • Implications for future researchResearch Findings Implications for Relation toquestion future research the literature -Explicit scaffolding - The use of HOT -Broadening the study techniques in the area questions and Bloom’s across disciplines and of HOT questions taxonomy is one tool that content-specific 3 were found to be a teacher can use in the subjects would successful to promote classroom. A search for enhance students’ HOT question use. related tools to promote abilities to apply skills question use is needed. (Halpern, 1998). -Certain dimensions -Future research could be -The lack of literature of reader self-efficacy aimed at widening this in this area prompted correlate with certain relationship to include this exploration. 4 dimensions of critical academic achievement in thinking. other core subjects. 45
  • THANK YOU! 46