Probing-Prompting Questioning for Fifth-Grade Science Learning: Evidence from a Two-Cycle Classroom Action Study in Indonesia
Keywords:
classroom action research, dialogic teaching, formative assessment, rimary science, probing-prompting, teacher questioningAbstract
Teacher-centred recitation can restrict pupils’ opportunities to explain, revise, and connect scientific ideas. This study examined learning changes during a probing-prompting questioning intervention in a fifth-grade integrated science and social studies class in Gorontalo Province, Indonesia. Collaborative classroom action research involved 20 pupils, including 10 girls and 10 boys, across a pre-intervention stage and two action-reflection cycles. Achievement records and structured activity observations provided the quantitative evidence. An exploratory within-pupil reanalysis used the Friedman test, exact permutation Wilcoxon comparisons with Holm adjustment, Kendall’s W, Cochran’s Q, exact McNemar tests, and normalized gain. Mean achievement rose from 50.00 (SD = 17.77) before the intervention to 67.55 (SD = 15.93) in Cycle I and 82.50 (SD = 7.86) in Cycle II. The stage difference was substantial, χ²(2) = 30.70, p < .001, W = .77, and the pre-intervention to Cycle II normalized gain was .65. Mastery increased from 15% to 55% and 90%, Q(2) = 22.53, p < .001, while observed activity increased descriptively from 46.25% to 60.95% and 78.40%. Probing-prompting appears useful as a dialogic and formative scaffold for making pupil thinking visible and refining instruction. However, the one-class design, non-equivalent stage measures, short duration, and unreported instrument reliability preclude a strong causal claim. Controlled studies should use validated parallel tests, independent observation, retention measures, and fidelity checks. Keywords: classroom action research; dialogic teaching; formative assessment; primary science; probing-prompting; teacher questioning
Downloads
References
Alexander, R. J. (2018). Developing dialogic teaching: Genesis, process, trial. Research Papers in Education, 33(5), 561–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2018.1481140
Anisah, T., & Carlian, Y. (2020). Penerapan model pembelajaran probing prompting untuk meningkatkan kemampuan berpikir kritis siswa madrasah ibtidaiyah. Al-Aulad: Journal of Islamic Primary Education, 3(2), 98–106. https://doi.org/10.15575/al-aulad.v3i2.9047
Cui, R., & Teo, P. (2021). Dialogic education for classroom teaching: A critical review. Language and Education, 35(3), 187–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2020.1837859
Cui, R., & Teo, P. (2023). Thinking through talk: Using dialogue to develop students’ critical thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 125, 104068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104068
Dominguez, S., & Svihla, V. (2023). A review of teacher implemented scaffolding in K-12. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 8(1), 100613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100613
Fembriani, F., & Gewahi, M. (2021). Pengaruh model probing-prompting terhadap hasil belajar IPA peserta didik kelas V. Jurnal Ilmiah Kontekstual, 2(2), 61–68. https://doi.org/10.46772/kontekstual.v2i02.398
Hennessy, S., Calcagni, E., Leung, A., & Mercer, N. (2023). An analysis of the forms of teacher-student dialogue that are most productive for learning. Language and Education, 37(2), 186–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2021.1956943
Howe, C., Hennessy, S., Mercer, N., Vrikki, M., & Wheatley, L. (2019). Teacher-student dialogue during classroom teaching: Does it really impact on student outcomes? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(4–5), 462–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2019.1573730
Jannah, O. D. N., Fajrie, N., & Kurniati, D. (2023). Kemampuan pemahaman konsep IPA menggunakan penerapan model pembelajaran probing-prompting dengan media permainan kelereng. PENDASI: Jurnal Pendidikan Dasar Indonesia, 7(2), 251–262. https://doi.org/10.23887/jurnal_pendas.v7i2.2435
Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2014). The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4560-67-2
Kirk, M., Tytler, R., & White, P. (2023). Critical thinking in primary science through a guided inquiry pedagogy: A semiotic perspective. Teachers and Teaching, 29(6), 615–637. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2023.2191181
Laird-Gentle, A., Larkin, K., Kanasa, H., & Grootenboer, P. (2023). Systematic quantitative literature review of the dialogic pedagogy literature. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 46, 29–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44020-022-00029-9
Manoppo, R., Pomalato, S. W. D., Zakiyah, S., & Puloo, M. M. L. (2022). Pengaruh model pembelajaran probing prompting terhadap hasil belajar siswa pada materi segiempat. Jambura Journal of Mathematics Education, 3(2), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.34312/jmathedu.v3i2.15604
Maryam, S. M., Usman, U., & Ramadhany, M. (2024). Penerapan model pembelajaran probing prompting untuk meningkatkan hasil belajar matematika peserta didik. Saintifik, 10(1), 60–66. https://doi.org/10.31605/saintifik.v10i1.453
Mercer, N., Dawes, L., & Staarman, J. K. (2009). Dialogic teaching in the primary science classroom. Language and Education, 23(4), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780902954273
Osborne, J. F. (2019). Not “hands on” but “minds on”: A response to Furtak and Penuel. Science Education, 103(5), 1280–1283. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21543
Usman, M., Adys, H. P., Rosmaladewi, R., & Asnur, M. N. A. (2023). The application of probing prompting learning models in mastering foreign language vocabulary. International Journal of Language Education, 7(4), 702–710. https://doi.org/10.26858/ijole.v7i4.58366
Wang, J., Wang, Y., Moore, Y., Sneed, S., Thacker, B., & Hart, S. (2024). Analyzing the patterns of questioning chains and their intervention on student learning in science teacher preparation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 22, 809–836. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-023-10408-4
Yao, Y., Amos, M., Snider, K., & Brown, T. (2024). The impact of formative assessment on K-12 learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Research and Evaluation, 29(7–8), 452–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2024.2363831
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
