Teachers’ use of open questions: investigating the various functions of open questions as a mediating tool in early literacy education

References

• Alexander, R. J. (2008). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk (4th ed.). Cambridge: Dialogos.
   Google Scholar
• Almeida, P., & Neri de Souza, F. (2010). Questioning profiles in secondary science classrooms. International Journal of Learning and Change, 4(3), 237–251.
   Google Scholar
• Andersson, E., & Sørvik, G. O. (2013). Reality lost? Re-use of qualitative data in classroom video studies. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 14(3), Art. 1doi.org/10.17169/fqs-14.3.1941.
   Google Scholar
• Andersson-Bakken, E. (2015). Når åpne spørsmål ikke er åpne: Hva karakteriserer lærerspørsmål i en litterær samtale? Nordic Studies in Education, 34(3–4), 280–298.
   Google Scholar
• Andersson-Bakken, E., & Klette, K. (2015). Teachers’ use of questions and responses to students’ contributions during whole class discussions: Comparing language arts and science classrooms. In K. Klette, O. K. Bergem, & R. Astrid (Eds.), Teaching and learning in lower secondary schools in the era of PISA and TIMSS (pp. 63–84). Chapter 5. Dordrecht: Springer Publishing Company
   Google Scholar
• Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 685–730.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. London: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Barnes, D., Britton, J. N., & Torbe, M. (1986). Language, the learner and the school (3rd ed.). London: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Bjørkvold, T., & Svanes, I. K. (2021). Writing practices on tablets with speech synthesis in grade 1 and 2. International Journal of Educational Research, 107. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101742
   Google Scholar
• Blikstad‐Balas, M., & Sørvik, G. O. (2015). Researching literacy in context: Using video analysis to explore school literacies. Literacy, 49(3), 140–148.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyd, M. P., & Markarian, W. C. (2011). Dialogic teaching: Talk in service of a dialogic stance. Language and Education, 25(6), 515–534.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse. The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth: Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815–843.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124-130.
   Google Scholar
• Corti, Louise & Thompson, Paul (2004). Secondary analysis of archive data. In Clive Seale, Giampietro Gobo, Jaber. F. Gubrium & David Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp.327-343). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Corti, L. (2007). Re-using archived qualitative data where, how, why? Archival Science, 7 (1) 37-54. doi:10.1007/s10502-006-9038-y
   Google Scholar
• Croom, B., & Stair, K. (2005). Getting from q to a: Effective questioning for effective learning. Agricultural Education Magazine, 78(1), 12.
   Google Scholar
• Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2003). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (3rd ed.). N.J: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Gilje, Ø., Ingulfsen, L., Dolonen, J. A., Furberg, A., Rasmussen, I., Kluge, A., … Skarpaas, K. G. (2016). Med ARK&APP. Bruk av læremidler og ressurser for læring på tvers av arbeidsformer [Use of means for learning and resources for learning across work formats]. Universitetet i Oslo.
   Google Scholar
• Gillies, R. M. (2014). Developments in classroom-based talk. International Journal of Educational Research, 63, 63–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammersley, M. (2010). Can we re-use qualitative data via secondary analysis? Notes on some terminological and substantive issues. Sociological Research Online, 15(1), 1–7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawkins, L. K. (2015). Purposeful talk: Conceptualizing narrative writing conference genres and how they shape teacher-student interactions in primary-grade classrooms (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses A&I database. (UMI No. 3719066)
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, M., & Heritage, J. (2013). Teacher questioning: The epicenter of instruction and assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 26(3), 176-190.
   Google Scholar
• Irwin, S. (2013). Qualitative secondary data analysis: Ethics, epistemology and context. Progress in Development Studies, 13(4), 295–306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James, I., & Carter, T. S. (2007). Questioning and informational texts: Scaffolding students comprehension of content areas. Forum on Public Policy, (2007(1), 1–13. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1099153.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Klette, K. (2009). Challenges in Strategies for Complexity Reduction in Video Studies. Experiences from the PISA + Study: A Video Study of Teaching and Learning inNorway. In T. Janík & T. Seidel (Ed.), The power of Video Studies in Investigating Teaching and Learning in the Classroom. (s. 61-82). Münster: Waxman.
   Google Scholar
• Klette, K. (2010). Blindness to change within processes of spectacular change? What do educational researchers learn from classroom studies? In A. Hargreaves (Ed.), Second international handbook of educational change (pp. 1001–1015). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Klette, K., Sahlström, F., Blikstad-Balas, M., Luoto, J., Tanner, M., Tengberg, M., … Slotte, A. (2018). Justice through participation: Student engagement in Nordic classrooms. Education Inquiry, 9(1), 57–77.doi:10.1080/20004508.2018.1428036.
   Google Scholar
• Kleven, T. A. (2008). Validity and validation in qualitative and quantitative research. Nordisk pedagogik, 28(3), 219-233.
   Google Scholar
• Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langer, J. A., & Close, E. (2001). Improving literary understanding through classroom conversation. National Research Center on English, Learning Achievement.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, Y., & Kinzie, M. B. (2012). Teacher question and student response with regard to cognition and language use. Instructional Science, 40(6), 857–874.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindblad, S., & Sahlström, F. (1999). Gamla mönster och nya gränser: Om ramfaktorer och klassrumsinteraktion [Old patterns and new framing: On framefactors and classroom interaction]. Pedagogisk Forskning I Sverige, 4(1), 73.
   Google Scholar
• Lombard, M., Snyder‐Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 587–604.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Long, M. H., & Sato, C. J. (1983). Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and functions of teachers’ questions. In H. W. Seliger & M. H. Long (Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 268–285). Cambridge: Newbury House.
   Google Scholar
• Macbeth, D. (2003). Hugh Mehan’s “Learning lessons” reconsidered: On the differences between naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 239–280.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maxwell, J. A., & Chmiel, M. (2014). Generalization in and from qualitative analysis. In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 540–553). Los Angeles: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• McKeaney, E. C. (2009). Teacher-student writing conferencing in an era of measurement-driven reform: Are we developing a generation of voiceless authors? University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI3358454
   Google Scholar
• Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mercer, N. (2010). The analysis of classroom talk: Methods and methodologies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 1–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Education and Research. (2006/2013). Kunnskapsløftet [Knowledge promotion]. Author Oslo.
   Google Scholar
• Myhill, D. (2006). Talk, talk, talk: Teaching and learning in whole class discourse. Research Papers in Education, 21(1), 19–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myhill, D., & Dunkin, F. (2005). Questioning learning. Language and Education, 19(5), 415–427.
   Google Scholar
• National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the national reading panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
   Google Scholar
• Nunan, D. (1996). The self-directed teacher: Managing the learning process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nystrand, M. (2006). Research on the role of classroom discourse as it affects reading comprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 40(4), 392–412.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendergast, C. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. Language and literacy series. New York: New York Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nystrand, M., Wu, L. L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D. A. (2003). Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes, 35(2), 135–198.doi:10.1207/S15326950DP3502_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ødegaard, M., & Klette, K. (2012). Teaching activities and language use in science classrooms: Categories and levels of analysis as tools for interpretation. In D. Jorde & J. Dillon (Eds.), Science education research and practice in Europe: Retrospective and prospective (pp. 181–202). Rotterdam: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Olinghouse, N. G., & Wilson, J. (2013). The relationship between vocabulary and writing quality in three genres. Reading and Writing, 26(1), 45–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ongstad, S. (2015). Competing disciplinarities in curricular L1. A Norwegian case. In S. Penne & E. Krogh (Eds.), Paradoxes and negotiations in Scandinavian L1 research in languages, literatures and literacies (Vol. 15, pp. 1–28). International Association for the Improvement of Mother Tongue Education (IAIMTE) Oslo.
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, J., & Chin, C. (2010). The role of discourse in learning science. In K. Littleton & C. Howe (Eds.), Educational dialogues (pp. 100–114). New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Sahlström, F. (2012). “The truth lies in the detail”: On student and teacher epistemic-stance displays in classroom interaction. In B. Kaur (Ed.), Understanding teaching and learning: Classroom research revisited (pp. 79–90). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Säljö, R. (2001). Læring i praksis : Et sosiokulturelt perspektiv [Learning in practice: A sociocultural perspective]. Oslo: Cappelen akademisk.
   Google Scholar
• Säljö, R. (2005). Lärande och kulturella redskap: Om lärprocesser och det kollektiva minnet. Norstedts akademiska förlag, Stockholm.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, H., & Higgins, S. (2006). Opening classroom interaction: The importance of feedback. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(4), 485–502.
   Google Scholar
• Statistics Norway. (2021, 2 March). Kindergartens. Retrieved from https://www.ssb.no/en/utdanning/statistikker/barnehager
   Google Scholar
• Stenbacka, C. (2001). Qualitative research requires quality concepts of its own. Management Decision, 39(7), 551–556.doi:10.1108/EUM0000000005801
   Google Scholar
• Stevens, R. (1912). The question as a measure of efficiency in instruction: A critical study of class-room practice. Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Suggate, S., Schaughency, E., McAnally, H., & Reese, E. (2018). From infancy to adolescence: The longitudinal links between vocabulary, early literacy skills, oral narrative, and reading comprehension. Cognitive Development, 47, 82–95.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svanes, I. K. (2016). Individuell veiledning på barnetrinnet - Hva gjør læreren når elevene arbeider individuelt i norsktimen? (Doktorgrad). Universitetet i Oslo, Oslo
   Google Scholar
• Trageton, A. (2003). Å skrive seg til lesing: IKT i småskolen [Write to read: ICT in the initial education]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
   Google Scholar
• Twiner, A., Littleton, K., Coffin, C., & Whitelock, D. (2014). Meaning making as an interactional accomplishment: A temporal analysis of intentionality and improvisation in classroom dialogue. International Journal of Educational Research, 63, 94–106.doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2013.02.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaish, V. (2013). Questioning and oracy in a reading program. Language and Education, 27(6), 526–541.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wallerstedt, C., Pramling, N., & Säljö, R. (2014). Learning to discern and account: The trajectory of a listening skill in an institutional setting. Psychology of Music, 42(3), 366–385.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a socio-cultural practice and theory of education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wragg, E. C., & Brown, G. (2001). Questioning in the secondary school. London, UK: Routledge Falmer.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, K.-Y. (1993). Classroom interaction and teacher questions revisited. RELC Journal, 24(2), 49–68. doi:10.1177/003368829302400203
   Google Scholar