This article was downloaded by: [Maria Helena Pedrosa‐de‐Jesus]On: 29 April 2014, At: 01:46Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Research in Science & TechnologicalEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crst20

So much more than just a list:exploring the nature of criticalquestioning in undergraduate sciencesHelena Pedrosa-de-Jesusa, Aurora Moreirab, Betina Lopesa & MikeWattsc

a Department of Education, Research Centre Didactics andTechnology in Education of Trainers, University of Aveiro, Aveiro,Portugalb Centre for Functional Ecology, Botanical Gardens, University ofCoimbra, Coimbra, Portugalc Department of Education, Brunel University, London, UnitedKingdomPublished online: 24 Apr 2014.

To cite this article: Helena Pedrosa-de-Jesus, Aurora Moreira, Betina Lopes & Mike Watts (2014): Somuch more than just a list: exploring the nature of critical questioning in undergraduate sciences,Research in Science & Technological Education, DOI: 10.1080/02635143.2014.902811

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2014.902811

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,

systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

ia H

elen

a Pe

dros

adeJ

esus

] at

01:

46 2

9 A

pril

2014

So much more than just a list: exploring the nature of criticalquestioning in undergraduate sciences

Helena Pedrosa-de-Jesusa*, Aurora Moreirab, Betina Lopesa and Mike Wattsc

aDepartment of Education, Research Centre Didactics and Technology in Education ofTrainers, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal; bCentre for Functional Ecology, BotanicalGardens, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal; cDepartment of Education, BrunelUniversity, London, United Kingdom

Background: Critical thinking is one of the very highest orders of cognitive abil-ities and a key competency in higher education. Asking questions is an importantcomponent of rich learning experiences, structurally embedded in the operationsof critical thinking. Our clear sense is that critical thinking and, within that, criti-cal questioning, is heavily context dependent, in the sense that is applied, usedby critical learners in a contextualised way.

Purpose: Our research deals with enhancing science undergraduates’ criticalquestioning. We are interested in understanding and describing the nature anddevelopment of students’ critical questioning. The purpose is to conceptualisecritical questioning as a competency, into three domains – knowledge, skills andattitudes/dispositions. We have no interest in a taxonomic category of context-free question-types called ‘critical questions’. In contrast, our view is that ‘beinga critical questioner’ trades heavily on context.

Sources of evidence: Four cases are considered as illuminative of the dimensionsof science undergraduates’ critical questioning. Data were collected in naturallearning environments through non-participant observation, audio-taping teacher-students interactions and semi-structured interviews. Students’ written materialresulting from diverse learning tasks was also collected.

Main argument: Our supposition is that one vehicle for achieving university stu-dents as critical thinkers is to enable them not just to ask critical questions, butto be critical questioners. We relate critical questioning to three domains: (1)context, (2) competency and (3) delivery, and propose a model based on illumi-nating examples of the in-classroom action.

Conclusions: The dimensions of the competency-context-delivery model providea framework for describing successful student critical questioning, showing thatstudents’ capacity to be critical can be developed. It is possible, in our view, togenerate critical questioners by means of promoting a true spirit of criticalinquiry. The model also gives important insights into the design of teaching,learning and assessment contexts, where critical questioning could be promoted.

Keywords: critical questioning; critical thinking; higher education; scienceundergraduates; competency

*Corresponding author. Email: hpedrosa@ua.pt

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

Research in Science & Technological Education, 2014http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2014.902811

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

ia H

elen

a Pe

dros

adeJ

esus

] at

01:

46 2

9 A

pril

2014

1. Introduction

Portuguese higher education institutions are undergoing a series of educationalreforms to promote more student-centred approaches to teaching and learning, a con-sequence of the so-called ‘Bologna process’. This is presented as a ‘window ofopportunity to introduce pedagogic and curricular reforms’ (Veiga and Amaral2009), from direct knowledge transmission to the development of knowledge-generation competencies by students. In this vein, the Bologna Working Group onQualifications Frameworks maintains that the ability to think critically is fundamentalto the preparation for life as active citizens in a democratic society. Critical thinkingis seen as one of the very highest orders of cognitive abilities not just in Portugal, ofcourse, but in universities across the world. It is recognised as a key competency inhigher education, particularly for science and technology, in terms of an:

Attitude of critical appreciation and curiosity, an interest in ethical issues and respectfor both safety and sustainability – in particular as regards scientific and technologicalprogress (Commission of European Communities 2005, 15).

In this paper we are concerned with the nature and development of students’critical questioning. Work in this area has shown that a spirit of critical inquirycan improve the quality of teaching and, consequently, the quality of learning(Pedrosa-de-Jesus et al. 2007; Mathews and Lowe 2011. Through students’questions, teachers can design classes that lead in the direction of students’preferences and needs (Maskill and Pedrosa-de-Jesus 1997; Pedrosa-de-Jesus,Almeida, and Watts 2005a, Teixeira-Dias et al. 2005b; King 1992). In thissense, the formulation of questions and question-asking should be promotedsince these are intimately linked to other reasoning skills:

Questioning is one of the thinking processing skills which is structurally embedded inthe thinking operations of critical thinking, creative thinking and problem solving. Itconsists of the smaller micro-thinking skills of recall, comprehension, application anal-ysis, synthesis and evaluation [...] Questions guide knowledge construction in the for-mation and changing of the cognitive networks or schemata (Cuccio-Schirripa andSteiner 2000, 21).

Over the last decade, our work has been based upon learners’ questioning andour central premise is that asking questions is an important component of a richlearning experience. It is the kind of experience one hopes to be provided atevery level of education, in this instance, in programmes for undergraduatesciences. Our supposition is that, if we require university students to be criticalthinkers, then one vehicle for achieving this is to enable them not just to askcritical questions per se, but to be critical questioners in the round. This mayseem like a fine distinction: surely a person who asks a critical question is, perforce, a critical questioner? For us, though, the issue is much more than simplesemantics, we see in the first a form of critical thinking ‘window dressing’, inthe second the sense of ‘critical being’ as advocated by Barnett (1997). In thisdiscussion, we side with Barnett’s warning against the ‘critical thinking industry’,by which he means a mechanistic ‘study skills’ approach to being critical. Rather,we are interested in developing students who are ‘critical questioners’, fosteringthe actions and processes of critical questioning.

2 H. Pedrosa-de-Jesus et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

ia H

elen

a Pe

dros

adeJ

esus

] at

01:

46 2

9 A

pril

2014

2. Noun and verb: critical questions vs. critical questioning

We have no interest, then, in a taxonomic category of question-types called ‘criticalquestions’. Nevertheless, a survey of the literature throws up a vast array of suchlists so that, for example, King (1992) set out lists of questions they categorise as‘critical questions’. In this vein, a review of sources suggests there exists a categoryof questions that are, of themselves, uniquely critical, that fully entail and serve todemonstrate critical thinking. Ruggerio (1996), for instance, generates a list of criti-cal questions. Some examples are:

What are the advantages or disadvantages of...?;What are the pros or cons of...?;What is the best solution to the problem/conflict/issue...?;What should or should not happen...?;Do I agree or disagree...?What is my opinion...?What is my support for my opinion...?These are questions without context or, indeed, seemingly applicable to any con-

tent: they are ‘context free’. In contrast, our view is that ‘being a critical questioner’trades heavily on context, at both a local and a broad disciplinary sense. At adetailed and local level, question-asking is the common way for learners to over-come gaps in understanding, a particular impasse during problem-solving, or resolvedifficult conceptual issues (Pedrosa-de-Jesus, Almeida, and Watts 2005a). In a widercontext, question-asking is central to learners’ ‘enculturation’ into the patterns oflanguage and thought, discussion and criticism that are characteristic of an academicdiscipline such as, for example, biology or chemistry. Our clear sense here, then, isthat critical thinking and, within that, critical questioning, is heavily contextdependent, in the sense that is applied, used by critical learners in a contextualisedway.

We follow Barnett (1997), too, in that he begins with skills for critical question-ing, then progresses through an awareness of the standards of reasoning within disci-plines. His ‘being critical’ is an approach to life to which a university educatedperson should aspire, involving dispositions and abilities to think criticality in orderto act/intervene:

Critical persons are more than just critical thinkers. They are able critically to engagewith the world and with themselves as well as with knowledge (1997, 1).

This view of critical thinking involves attitudes/dispositions and skills (Barnett1997; Ennis 1996, 1997, 1998) and so the simple deployment of a ‘checklist’ ofcognitive skills by individuals in lieu of critical thinking is far less than adequate, is‘thinking without a critical edge’ (Barnett 1997, 17). Our view, in turn, is to concep-tualise critical questioning competency into three domains, namely: knowledge,skills and attitudes/dispositions. The integration of knowledge is crucial since itinfluences the level and type of questions that a critical questioner will ask. Each ofthese three domains is heavily influenced by physical and social elements of theenvironment (Context). The verbal and social editing of questioning (Delivery) willin turn depend on the complex interaction between the qualities of the questionerand its’ surrounding environment.

In the next section we explore these ideas further.

Research in Science & Technological Education 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

ia H

elen

a Pe

dros

adeJ

esus

] at

01:

46 2

9 A

pril

2014

3. Dimensions of critical questioning competency and its relation to context

Being a critical questioner involves both cognitive knowledge, skills and the disposi-tions to apply those skills (see Figure 1) in a specific context. From this perspective,critical questioning is part of a dialogue where individuals and group members seekto share in the ‘unpacking’ of aspects of their individual or shared knowledge andexperience, and work through descriptions, analyses, evaluations and critiques ofthese experiences and the contexts in which they take place. That is, critical ques-tioning can be developed and enacted in the context of specific subject domains and,as an ultimate goal, could be transferable across disciplines and domains.

We argue here and elsewhere (Pedrosa-de-Jesus, Lopes, Moreira, and Watts,2012) that actually delivering a critical question in an educational setting commonlycomes at the end of a series of potential challenges and difficulties. For example,questions are seldom fully formed at the point of utterance, and both the act of fram-ing the question and the process of socially editing the question (tailoring it to a spe-cific contextual setting) come before the act of public sharing. Such processes reston other dimensions, such as personal competency and confidence. Each of thesecan, potentially, hinder the asking of questions.

If teaching, learning and assessment design takes into account these particulari-ties, it is possible to help learners to develop the critical questioner inside them. Themodel we propose provides a framework for describing successful student develop-ment of critical questioning, showing that students’ capacity to be critical can be

Figure 1. Dimensions of critical questioning and its relation to context

4 H. Pedrosa-de-Jesus et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

ia H

elen

a Pe

dros

adeJ

esus

] at

01:

46 2

9 A

pril

2014

brought into being, developed and honed. The discussion of the empirical data wepresent allows us to illustrate some dimensions of the model, giving evidence on howit may be possible to develop critical questioning, as well as environments where thatcompetency could be promoted. First, a closer look at the three dimensions.

i. Contexts for critical questioning

Our sense of context is interactional: in educational settings, in teaching and learn-ing, context is a relational property among people, place and activities. This viewargues that the scope of contextual features is defined dynamically, context is rele-vant to particular physical settings, learning environments, instances of action andparticular parties to that action: context and activity are not separable. That is, con-text is embedded in activity and arises from it.

During learning, it is possible to identify some situations where students reveal acritical approach based on the kinds of questions they ask, or through their com-ments, responses and arguments. In this sense, we delineate a ‘critical questioningcontext’ as entailing setting and the social dimensions. Important aspects of context,then, are the teaching approach and the subject content being taught, which caninfluence, positively or negatively, students’ opportunities to be critical. As we notelater, assessment methods, too, can have positive influences on students’ questioningand development of criticality, particularly when they are aligned with teaching andintended learning outcomes (Pedrosa-de-Jesus and Moreira 2009a). While this is truefor critical thinking, critical questioning also requires effort, and students must bewilling to invest in that effort if they foresee considerable return, principally throughhigher grades. The disposition to think and/or to question critically will be moreeffective if students believe they can influence their academic outcomes (Stupniskyet al. 2008). Even though people may have the skill(s) to think critically, unless thisis demanded of them by some external agency, they may not get involved in suchactivity (Zoller et al. 2000). This is where the design of teaching, learning andassessment plays a fundamental role in providing favourable contexts that will elicitthe willingness and dispositions for students to being critical.

We understand ‘context’ as comprising features related to the learning environ-ment that can affect, or not, the student’s expression of a critical question. We seesituations and contexts in which it is appropriate to be critical (think critically andask critical questions), others where this need not be the case. So, for example, it ispossible to read a novel, or watch a film simply for fun, where notions of criticalityare low. The purpose may be simple enjoyment or escapism, with little intention toundertake any significant critique: what Piaget (1951) once called ‘functional plea-sure’, entertaining ‘just for the fun of it’. In other instances, a university lecture, forexample, on post-colonial literature, then a ‘fully critical mode’ is important. Theessential ingredient here is that students are able to discern appropriate contextswithin which to apply their full critical faculties, and to ‘switch’ accordingly. This isin turn a reference to competency.

ii. Critical questioning competency

Some authors have suggested that a disposition for critical thinking includes threeaspects: a student’s inclinations; his or her sensitivity to opportunities and situationsin which critical thinking might be applied, and the student’s ability to engage in the

Research in Science & Technological Education 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

ia H

elen

a Pe

dros

adeJ

esus

] at

01:

46 2

9 A

pril

2014

cognitive behaviour associated with critical thinking (Perkins et al. 2000). Accordingto Zoller and colleagues, ‘a student’s/learner’s disposition toward critical thinking is,most probably, a necessary pre-condition for critical thinking and constitutes an inte-gral part of the critical thinking capability’ (2000, 572). Here we assume that criticalquestioning encompasses those two dimensions, both skills and knowledge uponwhich criticality will operate, as well as a disposition based on a tendency orwillingness to apply the knowledge and skills (Stupnisky et al. 2008).

An important aspect to be considered here is the individual’s familiarity with thesubject matter, that is: the previous content and procedural knowledge. Personal inter-est in that subject plays an important role by determining the extent to which studentsapply their critical faculties. Although knowledge and skills are interdependent,several authors agree that some general principles of critical thinking transcend spe-cific subjects, having also wider applications and being transferable across disciplines(e.g. Facione, Facione, and Giancarlo 1996; Ten Dam and Volman 2004), eventhough they have to be applied in a contextualised way (Perkins and Salomon 1989).

In this respect, Good et al.’s (1987) notion of passivity suggests that self-awarenessis important. For example, students who perceive themselves as low achievers learn tobecome less involved in class work, to be non-question askers. At the other end, highachievers are sensitive to the cost of question-asking – the cost of asking what appearsto be a stupid question. Also, high levels of perceived academic control by college stu-dents, which ‘reflects students’ beliefs about their influence over their academic suc-cess’, were associated with higher intrinsic motivation, as well as more effort and theuse of self-monitoring strategies more often (Stupnisky et al. 2008, 515).

Perceptions of personal competency (internal/intrinsic features) as well as indi-vidual’s understanding of the features of context (external/extrinsic features) are thencrucial for the development of critical questioning. These, in turn, influence thedelivery process, the last set of barriers for critical questioning. This self-awarenessof personal qualities and contexts, the appreciation of how the environment worksand the sensitivity to social relationship and the learning tasks at hand, is fundamen-tal to enable critical questioning.

Synthesising these points, the recognition of a critical questioner entails individ-ual dispositions, moods, engagement, knowledge, skills, mental and physical states,interests, intentions, and expertise. In this sense, no single list of learned ‘criticalquestions’ would serve the needs of all students, in all situations, at all points oftheir studies. While criticality is made easier through a conducive classroom envi-ronment, there are still issues of personal competency to be broached. The interplaybetween personal competency and context will make possible the delivering of criti-cal questioning, the ultimate goal.

iii. Delivering critical questions

A learner’s questions do not always arrive fully formed at the point of utterance,ready for the asking. Graesser and McMahen’s (1993) study suggests, for example,that questions do not surface when it is socially awkward to ask them. Many peoplehave had the experience of wanting to ask a question but of not doing so. When inthis position, it is not uncommon for even the bravest questioner to begin to articu-late an early question prefaced by ‘Can I ask you something?’, ‘I know this mightsound naïve, but ...’, ‘This might sound a bit silly, but ...’ or ‘I haven’t quite got thisquestion right, but ...’.

6 H. Pedrosa-de-Jesus et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

ia H

elen

a Pe

dros

adeJ

esus

] at

01:

46 2

9 A

pril

2014

The process of delivery provides another series of obstacles, particularly in lec-ture or classroom situations. A large audience format is much more daunting thansmall-group work; a raked lecture theatre more inhibiting than a comfortable tutorialroom; a PowerPoint lecture more restrictive than a participative role-play session.Putting a hand up in a large auditorium brings a multitude of eyes to bear on thequestion-asker and, with this, a level of scrutiny that is often easier avoided. Onestudy of student questions in the context of tutoring sessions found, unsurprisingly,that student questions were 240 times as frequent in tutorial settings as in lectureroom settings(Graesser and Person 1994).

As we note above, we do not see a single set of critical questions, or of skills,that educators can engender in their students, nor are there critical questions specificto particular disciplines, such as biology or chemistry. It is possible, in our view, togenerate critical questioning both from the use of critical standards derived fromwithin the discourses of a discipline, and from standards developed in other subjectareas too. We reinforce here the importance of context (Pedrosa-de-Jesus et al.2012a), those factors comprising the learning environment that can facilitate (or hin-der) the delivery of critical questions. As we note before, critical questioning is con-text dependent, not only in the eliciting and formulation of critical questions, butalso in the crucial phase of social editing and public sharing.

So, context comes before, during and after critical questioning. We identify con-text with the vision of Figueiredo (2005): ‘context cannot be located and delimited.Context is only perceived through its interactions with the learner, the interactionsorganizing the context as much as they organize the learner’s experience. To a largeextent, context is the interactions’ (2005, 130). So, the act of delivering is groundedin on personal competency but also part of context, interchangeable with context.

4. Four cases from undergraduate chemistry and biology

We present examples here in terms of four cases, where we consider students’ criticalquestioning to be illuminative of their competency and its relation to context, throughdelivery. The data we report have been drawn from extended intervention studiesaimed at developing students’ questioning and higher-order learning (Pedrosa-de-Jesus and Moreira 2009a; Watts et al. 2009b; Pedrosa-de-Jesus and Lopes 2010a;Watts et al. 2009b). This broad project began life in 2000 in the development of foun-dation chemistry for first-year science and engineering undergraduates at theUniversity of Aveiro, Portugal (Barbosa, Jofili, and Watts 2004; Pedrosa-de-Jesus,Almeida, and Watts 2005a; Teixeira-Dias et al. 2005b; Pedrosa-de-Jesus, Teixeira-Dias, and Watts 2003; Pedrosa-de-Jesus and Moreira 2009a). In 2007, the projectwas extended to include the teaching of Genetics, Microbiology and Evolution (Wattset al. 2009b), from the Biology department. A range of teaching, learning and assess-ment strategies have been implemented, developed and improved with cohorts ofaround 150 students each academic year to develop their questioning capabilities(Pedrosa-de-Jesus and da Silva Lopes 2011; Pedrosa-de-Jesus et al. 2012a; Pedrosa-de-Jesus and Moreira 2012b). Those intervention studies were not aimed specificallyat exploring critical questioning, although this was something ever-present, since thegoal was to promote overall student questioning and, in particular, to achieve higher-level questioning. Our data has been generated from extended naturalistic observa-tion, fieldwork and individual interviews. Exploring and discussing findings fromdifferent research settings over the years of the project has led us to reflect and to

Research in Science & Technological Education 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

ia H

elen

a Pe

dros

adeJ

esus

] at

01:

46 2

9 A

pril

2014

build upon the main dimensions that support our model for critical questioning com-petency and so, to some extent, our data and our model have ‘fed off each other’.

In this paper, our model is sustained through two cases from Chemistry, Lia andMiguel, and two from Biology, Maria and David. Reporting on these individualcases allows us qualitative insight into how critical questioning can be developed,and illustrates what we consider to be ‘critical questioners’. These four studentswere selected from a large cohort (n = 130 from Chemistry; n = 150 from Biology)characterised by a high diversity in questioning behaviours, so they are not whollytypical cases of the population. Their data is just one part of the full body of datagathered and have been chosen for their richness and expressive content. The casesalso reflect different learning contexts that were designed in order to elicit question-ing from students, from the simple invitation for students to question during lecturesto the design of problem-based episodes, case-based learning and online discussionforums. Throughout, the data have been subjected to qualitative content analysis, atemplate approach (Robson 2002). The four cases below illustrate the natural con-text of the research: the data are primarily descriptive and idiographic (Freebody2003).

Our four cases are sustained by illuminative data for describing dimensions andenvironments associated to the development of critical questioning.

Case 1: Lia

Lia is a first-year Physics student attending Chemistry classes during the first andsecond semesters on her course. Some of the sessions were organised through prob-lem-based applications of chemistry, where students were asked to formulate ques-tions that would allow for understanding, and to propose solutions to the problem.Students were also required to explain the reasons for posing such questions(Pedrosa-de-Jesus and Moreira 2009a). The problem-based cases derived from par-ticular real-life experience where students might apply specific chemistry contentknowledge previously presented in lectures. These problem-based applications weredesigned and used for both formative and summative assessment, alternating forma-tive with summative assignments. This way, students were able to perform a forma-tive assignment and receive teacher feedback (written and oral) at least one weekbefore they had a summative test. After each assignment, the teacher gave feedbackand specific guidelines on how to achieve better performance, aimed at helpingstudents progress in learning and in questioning competency (Pedrosa-de-Jesus andMoreira 2009a). The teacher believes in the real benefits of formative assessment asa tool for learning which, while very demanding and time consuming, is alsoconfirmed and valued by students.

For instance, Lia understood and recognised the importance of obtaining teacherfeedback in order to develop questioning competency:

In the beginning we were kind of disorientated, but then we started to realise what todo and how we should do it. I guess there was some evolution (along the semester) ...so the effect was positive. First, I only asked questions like ‘Why did this happen?’Later, my questions were much, much, better ... The teacher’s feedback helped a lot ...

Here Lia recognises that teacher feedback helped in developing critical questioningalong the semester (context dimension). Also, she is self-aware of her personal

8 H. Pedrosa-de-Jesus et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

ia H

elen

a Pe

dros

adeJ

esus

] at

01:

46 2

9 A

pril

2014

progress in competency development, having a strong sense of what is considered tobe a ‘good question’ (competency dimension). There is no single set of critical ques-tions that Lia might have been taught, nor is there a ‘recipe’ of critical questionsspecific to particular disciplines in situations like this. Criticality arises and is sup-ported by a broader critical context, where the teacher’s role is fundamental inapplying feedback tools effectively. Some examples of questions formulated in thoseproblem-based contexts reveal Lia’s criticality:

Where were the vestiges of the toxic insecticide searched for? Were they also lookedfor in the snails’ shells? Or in the plants on which they feed?

Can DDT react with calcium in a Lewis acid-base reaction, forming for example acompound that would make impossible the dissociation of calcium and consequentlyits’ deposition on the egg shells?

Lia asked relevant questions in diversified settings, being able to formulate criticalquestions (competency dimension). In our view, she is a self-confident student and,as in the other cases, clearly aware of the social dimensions of the classroom, in thisinstance where the teacher’s mode of answering sometimes inhibited other students’questioning:

Sometimes the teacher’s answers discourage students’ from asking questions becausehe doesn’t answer directly ... he explains diverse topics before he gets to the answerthat really matters to us ...

So, Lia recognises some barriers or obstacles for posing questions, but apparently’doesn’t feel intimidated, using her preferential mode of delivery – oral questioning(context and delivery dimensions). In fact, she was very participative and commonlyasked oral questions during lectures because:

Since I go to classes, I prefer to ask the teacher ...

Lia was also challenged by the contents of the sessions, appreciating the subjectsand recognising that engaging and interesting issues would elicit more (quality)questioning:

The subjects that are more interesting will originate major engagement, and conse-quently a higher number and more interesting questions.

Case 2: Miguel

As with Lia’s experiences, Miguel also attended Chemistry classes, having partici-pated in the same problem-based sessions. Miguel also emphasised the importantrole of teacher’s feedback for the development of questioning over the year:

The teacher showed us how to look objectively at the problem and helped in identify-ing the features that should be explored, and we also understood the type of questionswe should raise (…)

Miguel became aware about question formulation and was able to ask relevant ques-tions in diversified settings. He had revealed his sense of being critical in different

Research in Science & Technological Education 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

ia H

elen

a Pe

dros

adeJ

esus

] at

01:

46 2

9 A

pril

2014

types of situations, reinforcing his strong sense of competency development, forexample, when he posted a message to the teacher on the online platform:

Good afternoon! I would simply like to say that I really appreciate your attempt toteach us how to question! It makes us understand better certain contexts, situations andphenomena, making us learn how to systematise our own questions! I would just liketo know why a situation concerning posing questions was already included in the firsttest, since the majority of students weren’t yet prepared to do it! Thank you!

In this message Miguel recognises the value of the teacher’s initiative in developingstudents’ questioning (context dimension), but he is also aware that students, proba-bly including himself, have not yet developed sufficient competency to attain goodstandards in this kind of assessment task. Miguel confirmed this perception when hewas interviewed at the end of the semester:

The first problem-based case was a disaster, I didn’t know what to ask (…) In the lastproblem-based case I’ve followed the teacher’s guidelines and I think I was able to for-mulate some relevant questions … when I was writing some ‘small’ questions, the‘true’ questions also started to appear.

Miguel is clearly aware of his progress concerning question-asking competency,being also conscious of what is considered to be a critical question in these contexts(competency dimension). A few examples of critical questions formulated by Miguelrevealing criticality are:

Why is tungsten at the end of the (carbon) chain? Are there other elements capable ofthe same effect upon the carbon chain?

Since hydrogen transports are starting to be a reality and these nano-tubes are hydrogenreservoirs, both technologies could create a hydrogen reservoir for future transports!My doubt arises in how the hydrogen are stored and how they are used afterwards as afuel.

The opinions from other students attending Chemistry classes were generally veryconsonant with Miguel and Lia’s, confirming the importance of creating trulyinquiry contexts for students’ questioning where they are able to apply and developtheir criticality.

Case 3: Maria

Maria is a third-year Biology student, attending a Microbiology course during thefirst semester, and Genetics and Evolution disciplines during the second semester.All the three curricular units have integrated teaching-learning-assessment strategiesaimed at promoting questioning by students.

Maria has recognised and appreciated opportunities to ask questions during classtime valuing the teacher’s role and the importance of questioning for learning:

When we ask, we focus our attention in those topics that we don’t understand, mainlyafter studying ... It is very good to be able to ask our teacher and get an answer ... thisis great because we clarify all our doubts and we can consolidate our knowledge andunderstand better ...[…]

10 H. Pedrosa-de-Jesus et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

ia H

elen

a Pe

dros

adeJ

esus

] at

01:

46 2

9 A

pril

2014

Maria has revealed herself to be self-confident, principally during class time whereshe normally felt comfortable about posing questions, but she was also sensitive andaware of the social context and barriers that can limit question-asking (context anddelivery dimensions):

Most students don’t ask because they are ashamed, well, embarrassed ... ‘What are theothers going to think about their questions?’ But if they don’t ask the questions whenthey don’t know something, they will never understand!

This statement is evidence that, in some cases, a ‘negative’ interaction between apersonal disposition and the social context may inhibit questioning. Maria was alsovery conscious of context, for example, when she refers to the online discussionforum developed in the curricular unit of Evolution. Here, students were required topost questions and comment on other students’ questions, as part of their finalassessment grades, an assessment of both the quantity and regularity of interven-tions, but mainly its quality (Pedrosa-de-Jesus and Moreira 2012b; Pedrosa-de-Jesusand Moreira 2012c). Maria felt that this mode of assessment had played an impor-tant role in learning and that students became more participative and engaged as itwas part of assessment:

Since it was mandatory ... it required students to interact with each other and to doresearch about the contents ... we needed to investigate to be able to understand theother students’ interventions, to understand if these made sense, if they were true ornot ... I have learned a lot by participating in the questioning forum. […]

I think it is important for us to develop these competencies, because we will not bebiologists simply by passing two exams in six months … that does not sum up oureffort, does not reward our work … so I think that experimenting other strategies andother forms of assessment is important in order to help us developing different compe-tencies.

So, according to Maria’s perspective, critical questioning can be ‘triggered’ anddeveloped, in this case by means of assessment requirements. However, the crucial‘trigger’ for her was not only the fact of being assessed, but mainly her engagementwith the topics covered in discussion, which she has much appreciated (contextdimension). She also valued the formative feedback on how to question and partici-pate qualitatively rather than just achieving a final grade. She appreciated the impor-tance of teacher’s feedback and guidelines and the positive influence it had onimproving her questioning techniques:

I think it is important, I’ve learned a lot … It is very important to know the structureand definition of what could be a good intervention, to have ‘model’ examples … If itwouldn’t have counted for assessment purposes, I would have participated anyway, butmy comments wouldn’t probably be so well structured … and perhaps it would nothave risen a chain of discussions and follow up questions.

The following data is taken from Maria’s ‘posting’ on the questioning forum:

This discussion about human evolution is causing a lot of controversy not only in thisforum but also in my own thinking. Sometimes, I just start agreeing with some of theopinions I read, but suddenly these ideas seem so controversial that I can’t stop ques-tioning myself. I have already referred to this, but I have to reinforce it again: Is it

Research in Science & Technological Education 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

ia H

elen

a Pe

dros

adeJ

esus

] at

01:

46 2

9 A

pril

2014

plausible to talk about evolutionary mechanisms in humans?! (...) Shouldn’t we ques-tion ourselves about the evolution of human species when all terms created/used wereidealized for other species?

After several student posts she contributes again:

I have been reading some comments to my last post, and I think that – eventually –my idea was transmitted in a wrong way. I’m only arguing that the disadvantages ofbeing rational sometimes outweigh the advantages, and that makes me reflect a lotabout it. However, I’m really trying to reinforce my disagreement with the terms‘Evolution’ and ‘Sexual Selection’ when applied directly to our own species.

Within this post it is possible to see that Maria has reached strong levels of critical-ity, she has reflected on the entire debate process and the development of her ownthinking concerning evolution and sexual selection. Her criticality has led her toquestion a broader picture of human evolution, one that does not satisfy her any-more, and she invites other people into this dilemma.

Maria has shown other qualities of critical questioning, for example, in Microbi-ology, where problem-based assignments were set and specifically asked for stu-dents’ questions. Students were presented with factual information on theappearance of ‘Legionnaires’ disease in the convention of the American Legion in1976, then requested to:

Imagine that you are part of the research team investigating the cause of the disease.Based on the given information and the knowledge you already possess, formulatequestions whose answers would allow you to obtain evidence that the disease is causedby a microorganism.

Maria’s transcript is as follows:

In order to proceed with this investigation I would try to identify the different diseasesof the individuals. That analysis would be supported by Koch’s postulates which wouldallow me to establish a reasonable causal relationship between the symptoms (disease)of each person and the presence of a particular microorganism (pathogen). I would for-mulate several questions that would help me to develop my research:

Is the pathogenic microorganism present in all individuals that present symptoms ofbeing sick?

Is the pathogenic microorganism, assumed to be responsible for the disease, present ina healthy person?

Was this microorganism present in individuals that had any other disease?

In order to be able to answer these questions I would have to isolate the microorganismthat I suspect to be responsible for the disease and make it growth in a pure cultureand then would have to inject it into a healthy animal. Finally I would have to check ifthe animal will develop the same symptoms of the sick persons. These steps will giveme some clues and help me to answer the research questions I’ve asked. I will be ableto conclude if the microorganisms have caused the disease.

Besides applying the Koch’s postulates (from her previous content knowledge), herquestions clearly reveal an organised understanding of the topics in a relevant and

12 H. Pedrosa-de-Jesus et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

ia H

elen

a Pe

dros

adeJ

esus

] at

01:

46 2

9 A

pril

2014

effective way regarding the solution of the problem. Her responses illustrate thatcritical questions are not generated in a decontextualised form: they are properlycritical in the light of a particular context.

Maria is also a case where we can see that the ‘comfort zone’ for question-asking is only loosely dependent on context (social and setting). For instance,Maria’s oral questioning during class time was quite different in the three observedcurricular units (Genetics, Evolution and Microbiology). During one interview sheexplained the reasons beneath this behaviour:

Researcher: What influences your questioning in the different classes?Maria: Well, I think that is related to my personality. I am a person who com-

municates quite easily, and sometimes I feel that I am too hasty and Idon’t want to steal the opportunity from my colleagues to participate …I try to participate when I know that what I have to say is aligned withthe class. For instance, I remember that we were discussing the role ofreligion in science. And I know that I have a very distinct opinion …even above the issue we were already discussing … so I decided not toparticipate in order to avoid non-productive discussions … that is whysometimes I don’t participate.

Researcher: And what about Microbiology classes?Maria: Well, in Microbiology I have participated a lot, more than in Genetics,

because… well, it might seem insignificant but, during Microbiologyclasses there were only students from my course. In Genetics there aremany students from three different courses [Biochemistry and Biotech-nology] in the class. I felt more comfortable in the smaller class withonly colleagues from the same course as mine […] and it also influencedthe fact that the teacher was always saying that we, Biology students,never participated in classes, only the students from other courses did…[…] Besides that I remember that I was less focused on Geneticsbecause … I think it was also related to the day we have Genetics –Friday morning … and besides that I pretty much like Microbiology,more than Genetics.

In this excerpt we can identify contextual circumstantial (Friday morning, subjectmatter) and social factors (teacher, colleagues from different courses) that haveinfluenced Maria’s disposition to being critical – or not.

Case 4: David

David is a first-year Biology student. However, this was not his first experience atuniversity. Before taking up biology, he attended a degree course in InformaticsEngineering at another Portuguese university for one year. When enjoyment fadedon that course, he decided to move to Biology at Aveiro.

During his interview, when asked to express an opinion on the strategies thatwere implemented in Biology curricular units, David also chose to describe his firstexperience at the university:

Well, I am in a privileged position, because I can compare this year with the other uni-versity where we had nothing similar to this, I basically attended classes … Andbesides being one of the best universities in Portugal, it is quite possible that an excel-lent secondary student arrives at the course and starts having low assessment grades.And why? … Because the opportunities for students to question were missing! The

Research in Science & Technological Education 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

ia H

elen

a Pe

dros

adeJ

esus

] at

01:

46 2

9 A

pril

2014

teachers were nice and available, but the classes were traditional lectures and we justsolved exercises … there were no opportunities to ask, to debate.

He then contrasts that situation with the context of microbiology where studentquestioning was promoted, for instance in the problem-based cases:

In my opinion, I prefer that way, being ourselves to pose the questions based on thecontents previously learned, rather than memorizing things and answering. That waywe apply our knowledge and try to figure out different solutions for approaching theproblem. If someday we’ll have the luck to do research, no one will tell us to answerthis or that, we will need to be able to question things, right?

Also, in that particular situation, he refers to assessment as one additional and effec-tive way to incentivise students to question, with positive effects on learning:

For instance the strategy of problem-based cases in Microbiology has obliged studentsto apply their knowledge, being one effective way to make us see which knowledge isstill missing, to fill the gaps.

Within this interview David showed that, like Maria, he is aware of the strategiesthat elicit questioning, considering those opportunities very important for learning:

It represents an opportunity to ask questions, the questions don’t have to be about fac-tual contents … they can be about other stuff more related to our daily life. The debateis very important, we can discuss and confront different opinions … this has majoradvantages for us.

This opinion was an illustration of David’s competency in critical questioning, asare his posts on the discussion Forum (on Evolution), as follows:

Mark Ridley, in his book Evolution1, published in 1993, writes: “About 3 million yearsago, a single ancestral species split into two; and there is a comprehensive fossil recordof the change at the time of the split.” (Chapter 3 – The Evidence for Evolution, P. 54)“In a typical “artificial selection” experiment, a new generation is formed by allowingonly a certain minority of the current generation to breed. The population in almost allcases will respond: the average in the next generation will be moved in the selecteddirection.” (Chapter 3 – The Evidence for Evolution, P. 39) What intrigues me is thepossibility to measure evolution in the lab. Is there any interest in measuring evolu-tion?

After some other peers’ interventions:

[…] Citing Isabel “Many scientists believe that there is interest about measuring evolu-tion, and they make experiments and design research projects. Others do not carebecause they have other interests” Isabel, when I measure length I use a ruler. When Imeasure mass I use a scale. When I want to measure Evolution what do I use?

In the sequence of another discussion on the online forum, David stated:

Joaquim infected me with his question about mankind and how this particular speciesdoes not follow the rule of the fittest. We don’t see it much, but there are still peoplewho put their life in danger to help others … this can be considered as counterproduc-tive in the light of the gene war. What are the justifications for this behaviour?

14 H. Pedrosa-de-Jesus et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

ia H

elen

a Pe

dros

adeJ

esus

] at

01:

46 2

9 A

pril

2014

Certainly not genetic … Are there other living beings that also show this altruisticbehaviour?

David is very provocative, revealing self-confidence and demonstrating willingnessto question and to develop questioning. David sees himself as a curious person andrevealed a growing mastery of critical questioning. Although, if the questioningforum contents had not been integrated in assessment, David would not have partici-pated and revealed his competency:

I’m being honest, if it wouldn’t count for assessment purposes I wouldn’t have partici-pated. Although I think it was important, but I really preferred the face-to-face debate.

The fact that the questioning forum was a compulsory activity made him participate,put in effort, reveal and develop his competency, and surpass his limitations con-cerning written expression, which led to learning gains and very positive effects onhis final grade.

Clearly, David recognises and uses his preferential mode of delivery (oral ques-tions), despite identifying some barriers related to oral questioning during classes.He was a regular participant during classes, even though he assumes to be a shy per-son. However, this does not represent a real obstacle, since he intervenes orallyexactly when he considers it is important:

I am a little bit shy, but normally, during classes I participate many times, I may evensay something wrong, but I try to participate […] particularly if I am face-to-face witha teacher, I pose all the questions I need to ask (…) I might regret it afterwards but, ifI have to talk, I talk. […] I hesitate more about participating in large lectures or confer-ences. During a conference I could have the best question of the world, but I wouldn’tdefinitely raise my hand (to participate)!

Despite valuing questioning, David also noticed he needs to study, before he asks.In his opinion, not every question is a positive occurrence during class time since itcan interrupt the class rhythm. According to him, questions need to be pertinent andrelevant:

During classes there is a problem, we can’t be interrupting and asking the teacher allthe time, otherwise he won’t be able to lecture anything. And if we do that we are alsoaffecting our colleagues, right? We should only ask the questions that are really impor-tant (…) It is normal not to learn all information during a lecture, that is why we haveto study.

Synthesising, David recognises the importance of questioning and it’s positiveconsequences on learning. He was aware of the many opportunities for asking ques-tions and recognised the importance of assessment in developing that competency,which strongly motivates him to participate in different contexts. David demon-strates willingness to question and to develop questioning, being able to ask relevantand critical questions in diversified settings. He is sensitive to social context,identifying some barriers to the delivery of questions, but revealing self-confidencein surpassing it.

Research in Science & Technological Education 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

ia H

elen

a Pe

dros

adeJ

esus

] at

01:

46 2

9 A

pril

2014

5. Integrating the four cases: a model for critical questioning

Our four cases give insight into what we consider to be critical questioners in lightof the dimensions of context, competency and delivery. The data from the fourcases, collected from diverse contextual settings, illustrates some of the key featuresof the proposed model. We have underpinned each dimension with indicators fromobservable features, such as questioning behaviours or data from interviews (seeTable 1). Collating these features is not an attempt to provide a standardised check-list, instead to present and recognise some complexities inherent to this competency,above the skill of posing critical questions per se.

Table 1. Critical questioning dimensions.

16 H. Pedrosa-de-Jesus et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

ia H

elen

a Pe

dros

adeJ

esus

] at

01:

46 2

9 A

pril

2014

Table 1 sets the frame for our model of ‘Context-Competency-Delivery’ andreduces the richness of our interview data to key elements in each part. So, forexample, we set Lia’s in-class questioning in the context of the Teaching and Learn-ing strategies used in the lectures, through the problem-based assignments, and inter-pret the manner in which she grew in her competence to ‘verbally edit’ herquestions so that she was able to comment on her own improvement. Miguel wasinfluenced by the teacher’s help in identifying features within the subject matter, andhis practice too, over time, made for self-improvement in delivery. Maria’s com-ments highlight the possible negative effects of the teacher’s influence, and sheseems to grow through her online delivery of questions through the course. David isclearly taken by the science subject matter in the online interactions, and his deliv-ery, too, seems to grow in sophistication as he shapes his questions and responses.

6. Final considerations

It has been our aim to explore the nature of being a critical questioner: it is notenough just to ask critical questions. In this light, a person who asks a critical ques-tion is not per force a critical questioner. Our sense is in line with Barnett’s notionof ‘critical being’ (1997), refusing a mechanistic approach to being critical throughasking standardised ‘prompt’ questions independent from context. The use of pre-pared lists of critical questions is not simply a ‘lazy tool’ that might – or might not– be used constructively within teaching and learning; they are also indicative of amindset that sees classroom questioning as the prerogative of the teacher. We areinterested in developing students who are given opportunities to be ‘critical ques-tioners’, not just by formulating critical questions but also by fostering the otheractions and processes entailed in critical questioning.

Our notion of critical questioning relates to critical inquiry, so that critical ques-tioners investigate problems, ask probing questions, pose new answers that challengethe status quo, generate new information that can be used appropriately, questionauthorities and traditional beliefs, and challenge received dogmas and doctrines.Critical questioners are curious, challenge authority, internalise, practise scientificand critical thinking as well as questioning. Critical questioners have the motivation,inclination to drive and involve themselves in meaningful critical thinking, whilemaking decisions and/or solving problems (Facione, Facione, and Giancarlo 1996).To this extent, they have the capacity to ‘switch on’ an appropriate ‘critical orienta-tion’ (Mathews and Lowe 2011) that drives their questioning within a conducivecontext. This context for critical questioning is fundamental in ensuring that the lastset of barriers, i.e. the delivery process, is accomplished. The process of social edit-ing and public sharing of critical questioning is embedded and arises from thedimensions of context and personal competency.

Our four selected cases look to illuminate and illustrate some of the dimensionsof being a ‘critical questioner’: context, competency and delivery. We have identi-fied contexts where students have constructed meaningful questions, opened issues,raised problems, searched for clues, chased faint trails, queried uniformity, ques-tioned orthodoxy, challenged authority. Critical questioning cannot be understoodwithout consideration of this kind of contexts. A critical questioning environmentshould be focused on the needs of the questioner, implying the delivery ofresponses, answers and explanations for incorporating new knowledge and under-standings. This sense of context addresses features of the setting and social milieu;

Research in Science & Technological Education 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

ia H

elen

a Pe

dros

adeJ

esus

] at

01:

46 2

9 A

pril

2014

it is a relational property among people, place and activities that cannot be dissoci-ated; it implies working with others and within resources and addressing effectivecommunication skills.

Our research has been driven by a broad project seeking to develop student ques-tioning generally over their undergraduate years, questioning that is fostered by thedesign and adoption of diversified teaching, learning and assessment strategies, witha wide range of participants. This project has provided a rich database from natural-istic settings in higher education, building towards a model capturing the nature ofcritical questioning. The data gathered throughout these years in very diverse con-texts for teaching, learning and assessment gives us a more holistic view of whatunderlines the development of critical questioning competency. Understanding thedimensions of critical questioning enables the designs of teaching, learning andassessment that will, in turn, foster further the processes of critical questioning. Webelieve that the presented model is a useful tool towards the design of more effectivestrategies to promote the development of critical questioning. Our work has focusedon enhancing the critical questioning competency of students, acknowledging therole that context and personal disposition plays in this, and illuminating examples ofthe in-classroom action.

It is possible, in our view, to generate critical questioners by means of promotinga true spirit of critical inquiry that will improve the quality of teaching and, conse-quently, the quality of learning.

AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank Professors A. Almeida, A. Correia, F. Gonçalves & S. Mendo, fromthe Department of Biology of the University of Aveiro, Portugal, and all the studentsinvolved in this research.

Funding

We acknowledge the financial support of Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT),Portugal, [POCI/CED/59336/2004], [SFRH/BD/27871/2006] and [SFRH/44611/2008].

Note1. Ridley, Mark - Evolution. Boston: Blackwell, 1993. VIII, 670 p. ISBN 0–632-03,481-5.

ReferencesBarbosa, R., Z. Jofili, and M. Watts. 2004a. “Cooperating in Constructing Knowledge: Case

Studies from Chemistry and Citizenship.” International Journal of Science Education 26(8): 935–949.

Barnett, R. 1997. Higher Education: A Critical Business. Buckingham: SRHE/Open Univer-sity Press.

Commission of European Communities. 2005. Proposal for a Recommendation of theEuropean Parliament and of the Council on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning.Accessed December 6, 2010. http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/doc/keyrec_en.pdf

Cuccio-Schirripa, S., and H. E. Steiner. 2000. “Enhancement and Analysis of Science Ques-tion Level for Middle School Students.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37 (2):210–224.

18 H. Pedrosa-de-Jesus et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

ia H

elen

a Pe

dros

adeJ

esus

] at

01:

46 2

9 A

pril

2014

Ennis, R. H. 1996. “Critical Thinking Dispositions: Their Nature and Assessability.” InformalLogic 18 (2&3): 165–182.

Ennis, R. H. 1997. “Incorporating Critical Thinking in the Curriculum: An Introduction toSome Basic Issues.” Inquiry: Critical Thinking across Disciplines XVI (3): 1–9.

Ennis, R. H. 1998. “Is Critically Thinking Culturally Biased?” Teaching Philosophy 21 (1):15–33.

Facione, P., N. Facione, and C. Giancarlo. 1996. “The Motivation to Think in Working andLearning.” In Defining Expectations for Student Learning, edited by E. Jones. 67–79.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Figueiredo, A. D. 2005. “Learning Contexts: A Blueprint for Research.” Interactive Educa-tional Multimedia 11: 127–139. Accessed January 20, 2012. http://www.ub.es/multimedia/iem

Freebody, P. 2003. Qualitative Research in Education: Interaction and Practice. London:Sage.

Good, T. L., R. L. Slavings, K. H. Harel, and H. Emerson. 1987. “Student Passivity: A Studyof Question Asking in K-12 Classrooms.” Sociology of Education 60: 181–199.

Graesser, A. C., and C. L. McMahen. 1993. “Anomalous Information Triggers QuestionsWhen Adults Solve Quantitative Problems and Comprehend Stories.” Journal of Educa-tional Psychology 85 (1): 136–151.

Graesser, A. C., and N. K. Person. 1994. “Question Asking during Tutoring.” American Edu-cational Research Journal 31: 104–137.

King, A. 1992. “Facilitating Elaborative Learning through Guided Student Generated Ques-tioning.” Educational Psychologist 27 (1): 11–126.

Maskill, R., and H. Pedrosa-de-Jesus. 1997. “Pupils’ Questions, Alternative Frameworks andthe Design of Science Teaching.” International Journal of Science Education 19 (7):781–799.

Mathews, R. S., and K. Lowe. 2011. “Classroom Environments That Foster a Disposition forCritical Thinking.” Learning Environments Research 14: 59–73.

Pedrosa-de-Jesus, M. H., and B. da Silva Lopes. 2011. “The relationship between teachingand learning conceptions, preferred teaching approaches and questioning practices.”Research Papers in Education 26 (2): 223–243.

Pedrosa-de-Jesus, M. H., and B. Lopes. 2010a. “A Study of the Relationships betweenTeaching Approaches and Questioning Practices.” In Exploring Styles to Enhance Learn-ing and Teaching in Diverse Contexts - Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference ofthe European Learning Styles Information Network, edited by H. Pedrosa-de-Jesus,C. Evans, Z. Charlesworth, and E. Cools, 349–362. Aveiro: University of Aveiro. ISBN:978-972-789-312-6.

Pedrosa-de-Jesus, H., and A. C. Moreira. 2009a. “The Role of students’ Questions in Align-ing Teaching, Learning and Assessment: A Case Study from Undergraduate Sciences.”Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 34 (2): 193–208.

Pedrosa-de-Jesus, H., and A. C Moreira. 2012b. “Promoting Questioning Skills by BiologyUndergraduates: The Role of Assessment and Feedback in an Online Discussion Forum.”Reflecting Education 8 (1): 57–77.

Pedrosa-de-Jesus, M. H., J. J. Teixeira-Dias, and M. Watts. 2003. “Questions of Chemistry.”International Journal of Science Education 25 (8): 1015–1034.

Pedrosa-de-Jesus, H., P. Almeida, and M. Watts. 2004b. “Questioning Styles and Students’Learning: Four Case Studies.” Educational Psychology 24 (4): 531–548.

Pedrosa-de-Jesus, H., P. Almeida, and M. Watts. 2005a. “Orchestrating Learning and Teach-ing in Inter-Disciplinary Chemistry.” Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics andTechnology Education 5 (1): 71–84.

Pedrosa-de-Jesus, H., P. Almeida, J. J. C. Teixeira-Dias, and M. Watts. 2007. “Where learn-ers’ Questions Meet Modes of Teaching: A Study of Cases.” Research in Education 78:1–20.

Pedrosa-de-Jesus, M. H., B. Lopes, A. C. Moreira, and D. M. Watts 2012. “Contexts forQuestioning: Two Zones of Teaching and Learning in Undergraduate Science.” HigherEducation 64(4): 557–571.

Perkins, D. N., and G. Salomon. 1989. “Are Cognitive Skills Context Bounded?” Educa-tional Researcher 18 (1): 16–25.

Research in Science & Technological Education 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

ia H

elen

a Pe

dros

adeJ

esus

] at

01:

46 2

9 A

pril

2014

Perkins, D., S. Tishman, R. Ritchhart, K. Donis, and A. Andrade. 2000. “Intelligence in theWild: A Dispositional View of Intellectual Traits.” Educational Psychology Review 12:269–293.

Piaget, J. 1951. The Psychology of Intelligence. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Robson, C. 2002. Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientist and Practioners

Researchers. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Ruggerio, V. R. 1996. Becoming a Critical Thinker. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Co.Silva Lopes, B., A. C. Moreira, and M. H. Pedrosa-de-Jesus. 2012c. ““Questions in Biol-

ogy”: Designing an Online Discussion Forum for Promoting Active Learning about Evo-lution.” In Contributions to the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable DevelopmentVol. 33, edited by F. Gonçalves, R. Pereira, W. Leal Filho, and U. M. Azeiteiro,235–254. Environmental Education, Communication and Sustainability, Frankfurt amMain: Peter Lang. ISBN: 978-3-631-61347-4.

Stupnisky, R. H., R. D. Renaud, L. M. Daniels, T. L. Haynes, and R. P. Perry. 2008. “TheInterrelation of First Year College students’ Critical Thinking Disposition, PerceivedAcademic Control, and Academic Achievement.” Research in Higher Education 49:513–530.

Teixeira-Dias, J. J. C., H. Pedrosa-de-Jesus, F. Neri de Souza, and D. M. Watts. 2005b.“Teaching for Quality Learning in Chemistry.” International Journal of Science Educa-tion 27 (9): 1123–1137.

Ten Dam, G., and M. Volman. 2004. “Critical Thinking as a Citizenship Competence: Teach-ing Strategies.” Learning and Instruction 14: 359–379.

Veiga, A., and A. Amaral. 2009. “Survey on the Implementation of the Bologna Process inPortugal.” Higher Education 57: 57–69.

Watts, M., H. Pedrosa-de-Jesus., A. Moreira, B. Lopes, and P. Almeida. 2009b. “The Ques-tion of Context: The Context of Questions.” Paper presented at the 2nd InternationalSeminar on Research on Questioning, Universiy of Aveiro, Portugal, November 18–20.

Zoller, U., D. Ben-Chaim, S. Ron, R. Pentimalli, and A. Borsese. 2000. “The Dispositiontoward Critical Thinking of High School and University Science Students: An Inter-IntraIsraeli-Italian Study.” International Journal of Science Education 22 (6): 571–582.

20 H. Pedrosa-de-Jesus et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

ia H

elen

a Pe

dros

adeJ

esus

] at

01:

46 2

9 A

pril

2014