Sequences of questions in ECEC

The quality of interactions between children and educators directly influences young children’s learning and development. We know from large longitudinal studies of effective early childhood education provision that back-and-forth exchanges are the locus for concept development, learning inquiry and building relationships (e.g. Mashburn et al, 2008; Tayler, Cloney & Niklas, 2015; see also Romeo et al, 2018). The Effective Provision of Preschool Education (EPPE) study in the UK highlighted the importance of extended interactions (Sylva et al. 2010), followed by the Researching Effective Pedagogy in the Early Years’ (REPEY) identification of sustained shared thinking as central to children’s learning (Howard et al., 2018).

In Australia, the E4Kids study showed that extended interactions encompassing concept development, language modelling and quality of feedback – elements of intentional teaching – were not very common (Tayler, Ishimine, Cloney, Cleveland & Thorpe, 2013). Questions asked by teachers – and by children – are central to these extended interactions. Yet we know surprisingly little about how these questions are designed in productive learning sequences.  Research that has looked at the structure of questions in interactions in early childhood settings (e.g. Siraj & Manni, 2008), has typically focused on single utterances (the question itself) rather than the subsequent sequence, beyond the third turn feedback (Bateman, 2013; Cohrssen & Church, 2017; Lee, 2009). ‘Asking open-ended questions’ as a strategy, for example, does not identify where and how these questions might be most effective. Depending on the (conversational) context, closed questions can extend concept development (e.g. “what’s the opposite of this one?” in exploring bilateral symmetry, see Hedge and Cohrssen, 2019). We need to understand more about how question and answer sequences are constructed.  

Research in conversation analysis (CA) – using methods of microanalysis of video-recorded interactions – has gone someway in responding to this need.  CA research has shown how question design influences the likelihood of children contributing their ideas, positioning the child as expert and qualified to make suggestions (e.g. Bateman, 2015; Houen, Danby, Farrell, & Thorpe, 2019), and that extended pauses that extended pauses create opportunities for children to formulate and contribute their ideas (e.g. Cohrssen, Church, & Tayler, 2014). CA studies of interaction also consider children’s agency when talking with teachers, exploring what rights and resources children have to influence topics and trajectories of learning activities (e.g. Church & Bateman, 2019; Theobald & Kultti, 2012). Notably, intentional teaching is not limited to task-based activities, as skilful teachers extend opportunities for learning by supporting exploration of concepts during play (e.g. Dalgren, 2017; Pursi, 2019).  

  1. What is the best next question?  

  2. How can educators build a series of questions that support and extend children’s understanding of concepts? Note, this understanding is displayed in how children respond (Bateman & Church, 2017).  

  3. How are subsequent questions tied to children’s responses in the prior turn? 

Furthermore, the project responds to current concerns that existing measures of quality in classroom interactions are not sufficiently nuanced to capture where interactions are creating rich opportunities for learning (eg. Durkin et al., 2022; Thorpe et al., 2022). Research using conversation analysis is fit for the purpose of providing this missing detail.

“tying techniques” (Sacks, 1992, c.716) 

“action is constructed through accumulative co-operations” (Goodwin,C. 2018, p. 25) 

format tying in occasioned knowledge exploration (Goodwin, M.H., 2007) and recycling challenges (Goodwin, M.H., 1990)

 

1. Teacher: = >you already saw< so what are the wo:r:ds then i: see 

2.    a::? 

3. Hudson: blue: [hor:se.] 

4. Alice:        [horse][[<looking at me:>.]] 

5. Teacher:    [[<loo[king [at me:>.]]] 

6. Hudson:                [sta:ring at m]e::.= 

7. Teacher: =st↑a:ring that's a good wor:d instead of looking we could 

8.   change it to staring. 

9.   (0.7) 

10. Teacher: blue horse blue horse what do you see:. (0.2) i: see a::? 

11.   (0.4) 

12. Teacher: mmmmmm [let's give Georgiana a peep.] 

13. Hudson:        [ < green  frog  >     ] 

14. Teacher: you think a green frog? what do you think Alice? 

15.   (1.1) 

16. Hudson: a purple cat! 

17. Alice:  °purple cat°. 

18. Teacher: purp[le ca::t?   ] 

19. Hudson:     [a blue horse]. 

20. Teacher:  what do you think Georgiana? (0.3) i'll give you a little pee:p? 

21.   (1.3)  

22. Hudson: A GOldfish! 

23. Georgiana: ooh (0.6) ooh (0.2)uh? 

24.   (0.3) 

25. Georgiana: a fro:g. 

26. Teacher: what colour frog. 

27. Hudson: a [green frog.] 

28. Georgiana:   [green frog.]= 

29. Teacher: = a green frog so what are the wo:rds. 

30.   (0.5) 

31. Teacher: [<i s>]ee: a::? 

32. Georgiana: [green]- 

33. Georgiana: gr[een frog]. 

34. Alice:  [green frog]. 

35. Hudson: [green frog] ∙hhh sta:r[i:ng  at] (me). 

36. Teacher:                        [sta:ring] (.) what's another 

37.   ↑word for looking? 

38.   (0.3) 

39. Hudson: st[a:  ri-  ]. 

40. Teacher:   [>we can s]ay< looking? (.) or s[ta:ring]? (.) what's 

41.   a[nother word]. 

42. Hudson:                                   [staring]? 

43.     [or pe e:  ]ki:ng. 

44. Teacher: ↑pee:king! that's a good one peeking at me::. i see a green 

45.    frog peeking at me:. there he is ((pointing to picture in 

46.    book))green frog? 

47. Teacher: green frog green frog what do you see (0.4) i see a:::,  

48.   (0.2) 

49. Teacher: >who do we think's< next Georgiana? 

50. Georgiana: °i don't know°.= 

51. Teacher: =hmmm have a little guess? 

52. Hudson: a- 

53.   (0.6) 

54. Teacher: think about your book at h[o:me and what] animals are in  

55.   it. 

56. Hudson:                           [ < white >   ] (0.4) <dog>? 

57. Teacher: hmmmm white dog it could be? wha[t do you think]. 

58. Georgiana:             [ white  dog   ]?= 

59. Teacher: =you think the white dog [(was next)]. 

60. Hudson:             [GOLD FISH]! 

61. Teacher: $what do you think it might be Alice$? 

62.   (0.7) 

63. Teacher: °shall I give you a little peep°? 

64.   (0.3) 

65. Hudson: gold fish- 

66. Teacher: °ooh?° 

67. Hudson: purple cat. 

68. Alice:  °purple c[at°. ] 

69. Teacher:          [hehuh]p(h)urple c(h)a:t. so what are the words?  

70.   (0.2) see a::? (0.4) [purple cat-] 

71. Hudson:                      [purple cat] (0.2) [↑pee:king at me:.= 

72. Alice:                                              [looking]- 

73. Teacher: =[↑peeking at me, do we know any ↑other words] for looking. 

74. Georgiana:  [ < that's  my  shoe: >                    .] 

75. Hudson: peeking looking (0.5) a:nd, 

76. Teacher: <staring>?= 

77. Hudson: staring.= 

78. Teacher: =and, 

79. Hudson: glancing? 

80.   (0.4) 

81. Teacher: ↑glancing what a good word that is (.) glancing at me that 

82   means looking as ↑well doesn't it. 

83. Hudson: $yeah$. 

84. Teacher: phwhh you're thinking of some good ones today Hudson? .hhh 

 

Explain the structural properties of sequences of questions in high-quality interactions.

References 

Bateman, A. (2013). Responding to children's answers: questions embedded in the social context of early childhood education, Early Years: An International Research Journal, 33(2), 275-289.  

Bateman, A. (2015). Conversation analysis and early childhood education: The co-production of knowledge and relationships. London: Ashgate/Routledge.  

Bateman, A. & Church, A. (2017). Children's knowledge-in-interaction: Studies in conversation analysis. Singapore: Springer.  

Church, A. & Bateman, A. (2019) Methodology and professional development: CARM for early childhood education. Journal of Pragmatics, 143(1), 242-254.  

Church, A., Bateman, A. & Danby, S. (forthcoming, 2022) Conversation analysis for early childhood educators. In A. Church & A. Bateman (Eds.) Talking with children: A handbook of interaction in early childhood education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  

Cohrssen, C. & Church, A. (2017). Mathematics knowledge in early childhood: Intentional teaching in the third turn. In A. Bateman & A. Church (Eds.) Children’s knowledge-in-interaction: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 73-89). Singapore: Springer. 

Cohrssen, C., Church, A., & Tayler, C. (2014). Pausing for Learning: Responsive Engagement in Mathematics Activities in early Childhood Settings. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 39(4), 95–102.  

Dalgren, S. (2017). Questions and answers, a seesaw and embodied action: How children respond in informing sequences. In A. Bateman & A. Church (Eds.) Children’s Knowledge-in-Interaction: Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 37–56). Singapore: Springer.  

Durkin, K., Lipsey, M. W., Farran, D. C., & Wiesen, S. E. (2022). Effects of a statewide pre-kindergarten program on children’s achievement and behaviour through sixth grade. Developmental Psychology, 58(3), 470–484.  

Hamre, B.K., Pianta, R.C., Downer, J.T., De Coster, J., Mashburn, A.J., Jones, S.M., Brown, J.L., Capella, E., Atkins, M., Rivers, S.E., Brackett, M.A. and Hamagami, A. (2013). Teaching through interactions: Testing a developmental framework of teacher effectiveness over 4,000 classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 113(4), 461-487. 

Hedge, K., & Cohrssen, C. (2019). Between the red and yellow windows: A fine-grained focus on supporting children’s spatial thinking during play. SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019829551 

Hoey, E. M., & Kendrick, K. H. (2017). Conversation analysis. In A. M. B. de Groot & P. Hagoort (Eds.) Research methods in psycholinguistics: A practical guide (pp. 151–173). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. 

Houen, S., Danby, S., Farrell, A., & Thorpe, K. (2019). Adopting an unknowing stance in teacher–child interactions through ‘I wonder…’ formulations. Classroom Discourse, 10(2), 151-167. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2018.1518251  

Howard, S., Siraj, I., Melhuish, E.C., Kingston, D., Neilsen-Hewett, C., de Rosnay, M., Duursma E. & Luu, B. (2018). Measuring interactional quality in pre-school settings: introduction and validation of the Sustained Shared Thinking and Emotional Wellbeing (SSTEW) scale, Early Child Development and Care, DOI:10.1080/03004430.2018.1511549 

Lee, Y-A. (2007). Third turn position in teacher talk: Contingency and the work of teaching. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(6), 1204-1230.  

Mashburn, A. J., Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., Downer, J. T., Barbarin, O. A., Bryant, D., … Howes, C. (2008). Measures of classroom quality in prekindergarten and children’s development of academic, language, and social skills. Child Development, 79(3), 732–749. 

Mondada, L. (2018) Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: Challenges for transcribing multimodality, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51:1, 85-106. 

Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom Assessment Scoring System™: Manual K-3. Paul H Brookes Publishing.  

Pursi, A. (2019), Play in adult-child interaction: Institutional multi-party interaction and pedagogical practice in a toddler classroom.  Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 21, 136-150  

Romeo, R. R., Leonard, J. A., Robinson, S. T., West, M. R., Mackey, A. P., Rowe, M. L., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2018). Beyond the 30-million-word gap: Children’s conversational exposure Is associated with language-related brain function. Psychological Science, 29(5), 700–710. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617742725 

Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on conversation, Volume 1 and 2. Oxford: Blackwell.    

Sylva K. , Melhuish E. , Sammons P. , Siraj-Blatchford I. and Taggart B. ( 2010) Early Childhood Matters: Evidence from the Effective Pre-school and Primary Education Project. London: Routledge. 

Tayler C., Cloney, D.,& Niklas, F. (2015). A bird in the hand: Understanding the trajectories of development of young children and the need for action to improve outcomes. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 40(3), 51-60. 

Tayler, C., Ishimine, K., Cloney, D., Cleveland, G and Thorpe, K. (2013). The quality of early childhood education and care services in Australia. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 38, (2), 13-21. 

Theobald, M., & Kultti, A. (2012). Investigating child participation in the everyday talk of a teacher. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 13 (3), 210–225.  

Thorpe, K., Houen, S., Rankin, P. et al. (2022) Do the numbers add up? Questioning measurement that places Australian ECEC teaching as ‘low quality’. Australian Educational Researcher, DOI 10.1007/s13384-022-00525-4.