Introduction

The aim of the research is to understand the impacts of student-to-student conversation on learning in technology and design education and is underpinned by dialogism a sub-set of sociocultural learning theory (Skidmore, 2020). Technology and design education, a mandatory subject in New Zealand curriculum was introduced after debate, research and dialogue about the future of New Zealand. The New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007, 2017) outlines effective pedagogy. The curriculum encourages teachers to consider the social and cultural contexts of the student and create a supportive learning community. It encourages student and teacher reflection to enhance and facilitate shared learning. Learning should make connections to prior learning and provide sufficient opportunities for investigation and exploration. Thus, this research was aligned with these values from the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007, 2017).

This research was initially intended to provide insight into primary school teachers and students' use of facilitated intercognitive talk to improve learning in technology and design with a specific focus on student-to-student questioning. It aimed to investigate student-to-student questioning with the eventual aim of introducing a talk-based tool, Technology and Design Observation and Conversation Framework (TOCF) (Appendix1), a tool which assists teachers to observe and encourage students to talk to and question their peers about their learning in technology and design by facilitating intercognitive talk (Fox-Turnbull, 2016; Swathi et al., 2020).

An initial concern of the researcher was that teachers could be overly dependent on the framework and that this would impact the students’ questioning. This was mitigated by the researcher’s presence in the teaching and learning space as she was a trained primary school teacher and teacher educator in technology and design education. However, this concern was unfounded because it became evident very early on that for the framework to be effective the researcher needed to understand the current role and practice of student-to-student talk and questioning within the participatory classrooms. Thus, this became to focus of this research, which aimed to answer the question What is the role of student questioning and what are students and their teachers’ perceptions of the role of student questioning in learning technology education? was to explore the role of talk played in the participatory classrooms and the views of teachers and students on the role talk and questioning played in learning technology and design. This article, therefore, presents and discusses the findings of an investigation into the nature and role of student-to-student talk and questioning in technology and design in junior primary school.

The role of talk and questioning in learning

Bakhtin (1981) stated that learning does not come from within a person but between people collectively searching for the truth. This process he called dialogic interaction. The theory of Dialogism is based on the premise that we learn through talking with others (Wegerif, 2020). Skidmore (2020) suggests that Yakubinsky emphasised the naturalness of dialogue as opposed to monologue, which implies power and authority, whereas interruptibility is a key characteristic of dialogue.

Several researchers have investigated the implications of dialogue in the classroom (Alexander, 2008; Mercer & Littleton, 2007; Wegerif & Major, 2019). Wegerif and Major (2019) particularly reconnect us to Buber’s idea of the ‘space in-between. Through dialogism in education, learning occurs through dialogue, which can be considered as a shared space between the participants, a space where new understandings can develop, and new learning occur. (Yakubinsky & Eskin, 1997) also assists in the understanding of the nature of dialogism in group work in educational settings. For teachers to facilitate deep and meaningful dialogic activity they must give up their power (Skidmore, 2020). Yakubinsky and Eskin suggest a clear link between the type of talk in the classroom and the position of power. When a teacher instigates a teaching sequence that involves obtaining pre-determined answers to a set of questions the talk may appear dialogic but, it is a monologic dialogue with the teacher in the position of power.

Oral communication has an important functional place in the primary classroom but is not often the subject of explicit teaching and learning (Gagnon, De Pietro, & Fisher, 2017, cited in Colognesi et al., 2020). Classroom interaction is very complex and used for multiple reasons every day. Students use talk to collaborate, support, and defend themselves and others to question and query and solve disputes (Warrick & Cook, 2020). Collaborative group work is underpinned by sociocultural theories suggesting that knowledge is constructed and acquired through interaction among peers in goal-oriented tasks (Lantolf, 2010). Dialogic practice is considered an important means of achieving and promoting critical thinking (Liang & Fung, 2020; Sedova et al., 2019). Questioning is a favourite pedagogical strategy undertaken by teachers (Shanmugavelu et al., 2020; Wangru, 2016). Buchanan Hill (2016) defines questions as sentences that are interrogative in form and function with instructional cues that convey instructions, directions or elements to be learned. Early examples of questioning to facilitate critical thinking are attributed to the Greek philosopher Socrates. Since then, questioning to facilitate critical thinking has been an important part of the teaching and learning process. However, Nappi (2017) states 60–80% of questions asked by teachers require students to recall information. Questioning skills need to be developed to facilitate a greater percentage of higher-order question, more effective for student learning.

The connection between questioning and academic progress is well known. Several taxonomies and models have been developed to provide a structure and focus for questioning to promote learning (Bloom, 1956; Christenbury & Kelly, 1983; Elder & Paul, 2007; Webb, 1997). A more recent focus for investigation in this field is into patterns of interactions between teachers and students, including an investigation into how effective use of questioning techniques increases the probability of achieving instructional goals (Buchanan Hill, 2016; Shanmugavelu et al., 2020; Wangru, 2016). Wangru (2016) identified that the type of question impacted the quality of interaction between students. Referential questions, those where the teacher has no preconceived notion of the answer, tend to create more interaction in the classroom than information questions do. They also suggest that the quality of the conversation also improved with the use of referential questions because they invoke critical thinking. Engage in explicit reasoning by using ‘because’ to explain the reasons for their opinions, asking ‘why’ in their dialogic interactions to seek justifications from their peers, using ‘if’ to make transparent their assumptions and reasons, and using ‘but’ to introduce reasoning or provide a link to it are a number of strategies to assist classroom student to student dialogue (Liang & Fung, 2020).

Claxton et al. (2013) discuss in depth the language of building learning power, putting students at the centre through developing key behaviours: resilience, resourcefulness, reflectiveness, and reciprocity. A critical aspect in the development of these behaviours is students’ ability to ask questions of themselves and their peers. Metacognition (thinking about one’s thinking) and metatalk are key components of these processes. Metatalk brings attention to talk about dialogue, however, talk about talk has not been widely developed as a pedagogical tool to improve student learning and develop critical thinking. (Edwards-Groves & Davidson, 2020). In their study, Edwards-Groves and Davidson (2020) investigated how explicit talk about dialogue shifted teachers and young learners’ participation in dynamic talk; finding that it established a strong foundation for building shared responsibility for contributing to and managing learning.

Recent studies have identified that questioning is useful across several primary learning areas. Eason et al. (2021) identified scripted questions led to parents asking their own additional questions focused on their children’s maths comprehension or engagement and the fewer scripted questions the fewer the non-scripted questions. In the arts, specifically in drama when students discussed an oral performance in small groups, their feedback included more suggestions than when it was written, thus oral peer feedback has the strength to be more convincing than written feedback (Colognesi et al., 2020; Sedova et al., 2019). Young children frequently accompany drawing activities with descriptive, reflective, and social conversation, verbally monitoring, supplementing, and sharing the progress of their drawings (Thompson, 1990). When learning literacy when children were responding to ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions their talk was more cognitively challenging (Paatsch et al., 2019). Juuti et al. (2020) found that in science ideas are argumentative by nature and talk can be dialogic if the teachers and students use scientific ideas to talk about natural phenomena and evaluate competing ideas, however, although dialogic teaching is beneficial for learning, it is seldom used in science classrooms (Larrain et al., 2018).

Student dialogue in technology and design education has been found to give insight into students' learning by teachers (Fox-Turnbull, 2017, 2018). Doyle et al. (2019) recognised the value of engaging students in higher levels of thinking in technology and design including novel approaches to questioning. However, in her study, Swathi et al. (2020) suggested that teachers need to spend time familiarising themselves with potential questions. This study worked on the assumption that the same would apply to young students. It aimed to give further insight into questioning dialogue between students while learning in technology and design. It also enabled some insight into students’ perceptions of how talking to their peers assisted their learning.

Methodology

The study was a qualitative study aimed at developing a deep description of student-to-student talk and questioning during a technology and design unit, drawing on Dialogism, a branch of socio-cultural theory, born from the works of Vygotsky (Fernandez-Cardenas & Reyes-Angona, 2020).

This study involved extensive participation by the researcher, classroom teachers and students in the study. It was carried out in a small rural school in the South Island of New Zealand. Most students came from a range of rural contexts and support industries. In New Zealand, most rural children spend considerable time out-of-doors and are familiar with tinkering and making things. Convenience sampling was used for selecting the school and teachers. Three teachers of children in Years 0–4 (5–9 years of age) were initially recruited, however, student and teacher interviews only occurred in two of the three classrooms as the third teacher was unable to participate at the last minute. Students participated in a technology and design unit centred around props and costumes for their class items in the upcoming school production. The Year 1–2 item was based on the book ‘Wake-Up Bear’ by Lynley Dodd and in Year 3–4 Synchronised Swimming. The unit was planned to meet the requirements of technology education as envisaged in The New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007, 2017). The initial brief for the unit is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The initial design brief

Full size image

Data included a focus group interview with two participant teachers-TS and TD, focus group interviews before and after the unit with students from two of the classes (Class H, years 1–2 and Class M, years 3–4), researcher observation, planning documents, student and teacher generated artefacts, final student technological outcomes. In both classes, students worked in small groups of four to five. Group audio recordings were undertaken while students were working in groups.

All participants were voluntary and consented to be part of the research. They were informed of their right to withdraw from the study anytime, via the initial information letter. Only children whose parents consented were included in the research, although all children participated in the planned technology and design learning. The school was accessed through the principal and Board of Trustees chair. Participants were aware that anonymity was not able to be guaranteed because of the school uniform worn by participants in photographs taken as data however every action was taken to safeguard participants. All participants are referred to using pseudonyms.

Inductive thematic coding was used to analyse the findings. All audio recordings were transcribed and coded and recoded in an Excel spreadsheet. The researcher was the only coder, thus inter-coder reliability was not applicable. Relevant photographs were also loaded into the same spreadsheet for analysis.

Results

The study investigated the role talk played in participant classrooms and the views of teachers and students on the role talk and questioning played in learning technology. Results are reported in line with three key findings: teachers’ views of classroom talk, students’ views on talk and the nature of students’ questions while undertaking technology practice.

Teachers’ views of classroom talk

The two participating teachers were interviewed five days into the study. TS, a male teacher with three years of teaching experience, described himself as having ‘average experience’ teaching technology and design. He stated “Technology -I’ve done a few things and have a couple of times. I’ve worked through the process, the proper process of designing and all that sort of things”. TD was in her fifth year of teaching at the time of the interview. She had undertaken some technology and design professional development when first at the participatory school but admitted that she still found the distinction between technology and design education and technology tools confusing.

I still get confused between, and it’s the same with the kids, they have such a focus it being electronics rather than literally anything. So even as myself as a teacher having to separate myself from thinking technology is just electronics like it’s not just electronics.

Both teachers were aware of the value of talk in the classroom. TD referred her former Year 13 art teacher to assist her in the articulation of her view on the value of talk.

In Year 13 I had a wonderful art teacher, and he said he hates museums and art galleries because people think they can't talk. And he said, “I mean people need to share their ideas about what they are seeing. When you can't talk to people in these spaces are made to be quiet and harsh”. And he said that is “so wrong”. And I feel like it as the same in the [class]room.

However, both teacher participants struggled to implement in-depth student dialogue for a range of reasons. TS admitted that sometimes that giving his students the freedom to talk was challenging. He was happy for students in his classroom to talk within boundaries, “I generally don't mind as long as it doesn't get out of control” but then went on to say “Sometimes…I know I'm guilty of this myself, is that sometimes I take over. And I actually just don't sit there and let the kids talk”. TD indicated that talk had a place in her classroom but within boundaries.

As long as the kids are being respectful about it. As they have ideas coming out that means they are wanting to share it. So, I don't know, as long I think the kids have a mutual understanding that if I'm talking, they shouldn't but then they always have a chance to share.

However, she also found classroom noise could become a distraction, “I still like manners in my classroom, I am someone who is quite sensitive to noise. I don't like a lot of noise”. She also believed that classroom talk was also dependent on the age, attitudes, and skills of individual children “I think it just depends on the age of the kids, but I think it also just depends on the kid”.

Students’ views on talk

Questions in the focus group interviews explored students’ understanding of the role talk and questions played in their learning. In Class H when initially asked whether talking to other people would assist their learning in technology and design all but one answered negatively. The exception, Ingrid, recognised that talking to her teacher might help her. She stated, “Yes…Yes your teacher…. because she helps you learn……because if you don’t know something you can just go up to her and ask her and then you can learn that word”. At this point, Hannah changed her response from ‘no’ to ‘yes’, recognising that she learned when her peers called out answers to questions previously unknown as demonstrated in the sequence below.

Hannah: Yes, when someone’s calling out.

Researcher: Tell me about that Hannah.

Hannah: They tell you what they think, and you tell them what you think and then they are joined up [gestures with her hands coming together].

When asked who might help them with their technology Class H stated that their teachers or parents might help them. Students in Class M understood the assistance potential from a wider range of people, including neighbours, engineers and professionals, as illustrated in the following quote, “You’re talking to people [and]going to learn to make this car, you think I might be best to talk to an engineer”; and tools, “there’s a game that helps you learn. The game is Duolingo. It’s like talking to people who use different words then you like, you could be like other people”.

Students in Class M were also aware of the benefits of talking to people who are able to help them. Hope recognised their teacher’s questions facilitated deeper thinking. She stated.

because she [teacher] asked a question and you have to try and work them out in your brain. What goes on in there when you’re not saying it out loud, but you are thinking so if she asks you a question you have to think about what you know and what you don’t know. You might have to go away and find out about it and you’re learning more words as you go on but you also understand what you’re reading because you know what that words mean.

The post-focus group interviews evidenced quite a change in understanding of the role of talk and questions in learning. In Class H there was evidence that the students understood that questions from peers assisted their thinking. Jen said “You try hard think about the question it makes you think about it, doesn’t it? Something that you might not of thought of before but the question helps to make you think you do” She went on to say, “so we were able to think and talk about what might work and what might not work together” suggesting that dialogue with her peers helped clarify her thinking. Zana supported Jen’s views but suggested what might happen with a lack of dialogue, “No cause then you wouldn’t have their ideas and don’t know what are your neighbour’s ideas and then it would be like an old piece of rubbish”. Cam summed this new insight very succinctly, “It makes your brain go because you are talking and helps me think”.

Class M demonstrated further sophistication in their understanding of the importance of dialogue during their technology and design practice. Adam said, “They can explain like step-by-step instructions” and Hemi said, “You can talk to each other like where to put things”. Jane stated “Okay so do not do it or do it. Is there something else that you could do when two people disagree? You can discuss the differences like a different thing” thus emphasising her understanding of the importance of compromise in collaborative technology and design practice. Hannah indicated an increased understanding of the value of dialogue in collaborative technology and design practice as evidenced below.

Like it okay so, they can give you their opinion if you like it or not. Like what colour? Helps you and gives you their ideas so you can put your ideas and their ideas together to make up something will it be good.

Students’ questions while undertaking technology practice

After the initial focus group interviews and near the beginning of the unit the researcher introduced to students to the importance of talking to each other to assist their own and others’ learning. Group roles for the students were established by identifying and explaining four set roles, aimed to assist learning and inclusion. In the first lesson, students were given a role card indicating their role for that lesson as seen in Fig. 2. It was envisaged that students’ roles would change each lesson.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Group Role Cards

Full size image

Initially the ‘questioners’ were asked to focus on asking of one question from the TOCF: Why do you think this? This was the only question used by the TOCF. Aimed to facilitate students talking about their reasoning for their answers to each other. However, analysed data showed that the questioners did not fulfil their role, with no evidence of them asking of the specified question. However close analysis of questions asked by the students to their peers identified three subthemes of questions asked by peers in their group work: Reassurance and Clarity, Extended Learning and Consensus and Peer Approval.

  • (i) Reassurance and clarity

The first subtheme was characterised by the students checking with each other to ensure they knew what to do or that they were doing the correct thing or reassuring each other that they were on the right track or doing well. Examples of questions asked in this subtheme include:

“What are you doing?” (Unidentified boy, Class H); “What do you think we should do?” (Hope, Class H), “Do you want it small or big?” (Ingrid, Class H); “That’s good [points to an oval drawn by a girl]. Now we start colouring in?” (Ingrid, Class H) and “Do you like our lion? ROAR!” (Edgar, Class H).

  • (ii) Extended learning

The second sub-theme was characteristics by questions that assisted students in their learning within the given context. Had questioners used the questions asked of them, this is the sub-theme where they would have been situated. Examples of questions asked in this subtheme included: “Can you like knit a costume?” (Angus, Class M); “But you should need ahead if you are going to have masks?’ (Unidentified boy, Class H); “Oh! Would it [a material] be good for Pyjamas?” (Bryan, Class M); “We need to draw the clothes, do we need to do the top?” (Edgar Class H); “What shall we do now? We are not searching out pools. Oh my God. Shall we search for 'sea animals’ to design? Ok, I'll write s e a a n i m a l s- sea animals, or sea horse?” (Adam, Class M); “Why did you think that cream one was bad?” (Lily, Class M). This comment refers to an activity where students were asked to match the fabric to a costume as seen in Fig. 3.

  • (iii) Consensus and peer approval

Fig. 3
figure 3

match the best fabric to the costume activity worksheet

Full size image

The third subtheme was characterised questions asked to ensure that the whole group agreed with the decisions made by individuals and to gain the approval of peers within the group. Examples of questions asked in this subtheme included: “Shall we do a circle?” (Unidentified boy, Class H); “What colour do I need, yellow?” (Hope, Class H); “Ah, is that too much whiskers? Ah! It is like a cat” (Edgar, Class H).

Students’ views on technology

In the pre-unit focus-group interview the students in Class H thought that technology was about tools, as exemplified by this quote “Technology is what you need to like make stuff” or about making things. Cam stated, “You might stick or glue some things together” and Ant suggested it was “to learn stuff So when we get older, we can make things like go-karts and planes. They help us go around the world”. The students in Class M also understood that technology was but tools, with the prevailing view that it is electronic in nature. One child stated, “Things you can playthings on” and another said, “Like clocks like things have power”. However, there was some understanding of technology practice emerging as exemplified in the following quote “can’t build a house without knowing how to do it. You need a plan”.

The post unit focus-group interviews took place on after the final day of teaching, when most groups of students had designed and developed their outcomes to mock-up stage. Some Class H participants continued to be quite specific, identifying that technology was the artefacts they had designed and made. Zana said, “You have like props and have like shows and stuff…we're going to use them”. Hope recognised a difference between a previous unit, which involved the students planning a go-cart, “because last time we looked at carts, now we are making stuff”. However, others had a broader view of technology after undertaking the unit as best evidenced by Edgar, who understood that some technology is about a modification to meet a need, “It’s when you make something, then you draw something and then try to make something…… it is the thing that we need to change and it could be about making a prop for something”. And Ron recognised that technological practice is not always successful and understood the value of failure. He stated.

because sometimes gonna try and try and try like the guy who did the first light bulb…. because he took lots of tries [to] make it go. He did 10000 ways, because sometimes they can be wrong and sometimes they can be right.

In Class M also expanded their view, although not quite letting go of the idea that technology uses power. This is most clearly evidenced by Hannah who said,

Everything that's got power is technology and some things that don’t have power are technology. Like the stuff in shows. Like for our swimming things you would use the tarpaulin to make it look like a swimming pool. And the swimming caps make it look like we are swimming.

Her reference to swimming came from the context of their class item- a synchronised swimming skit. Her group designed the ‘sea scene’ on the front of a tarpaulin representing the water pool. Lily also understood a wider view of technology after the unit. She said “Pretty much anything is technology, like buildings and things” She also recognised technology beyond her classroom experience “We wouldn’t have kitchens stuff in the household so we couldn’t cook stuff”.

These results indicate that students developed a deeper understanding of technology and design and technology practice during the unit. It also suggests that although the TOCF implementation did not go according to plan, students did gain a deeper understanding of the role of talk and questions played in learning technology and design.

Discussion

Dialogue undertaken by the participants in this study was set within an identified authentic context- the technology and design unit and was characterised by interruptibility as suggested by Skidmore (2020). During the unit students advanced and explained their understanding of technology and design. The activities the students undertook during the unit were heavily dependent on questioning as they worked collaboratively on group designs. This suggests social interaction played a key role in developing their understanding of technology. These findings further support previous research by Fox-Turnbull (2016) and Fox-Turnbull and Swathi (2020). In this study students used questions for a range of reasons, one focused on ‘extended learning’; the other two are more managerial in nature. These findings support Warrick and Cook’s (2020) suggestion that questioning is a powerful pedagogical strategy. However, this infers questioning as a teacher’s tool. These findings suggest questioning as a tool for students can assist in learning. Student participants in this study used questioning to collaborate, support and defend themselves as evident in the subthemes ‘reassurance and clarity’ and ‘consensus and peer approval’. Liang and Fung (2020); Wangru (2016) both identify the potential of questioning for students. This study also highlights the need for purposeful teaching of questioning with careful scaffolds in place to develop questioning skills in students to maximise the potential impact of student-to-student questioning.

The participating teachers mainly referred to teacher-directed talk when asked about talking in the classroom and did not indicate their understanding of and views on the role facilitated group dialogue played in learning. This is not surprising as neither mentioned the cognitive benefits of structured dialogue and high-level questioning in their classroom. The majority of questions asked by teachers required recall of information. Nappi (2017), Claxton et al. (2013) and Clarke (2008) and Mercer and Littleton (2007) suggest that this is not uncommon, but can be that it can be rectified. It is also interesting to note that both teachers indicated that they required respect and were hesitant about lack of control and increased noise when students worked collaboratively in groups and aligned with Yakubinsky and Eskin’s (1997) view of questioning and power relationships.

Despite these reservations, the participating teachers allowed dialogic conversation, with questioning to occur during the study with results showing that students in both classes made gains in their understanding of technology and design. During their post-unit focus group interviews students reflected on the role talk and questioning played in their learning (metatalk). Students in both classes recognised that they used questions to ask their teacher, peers, or parents for help. Again, not surprizing given their age. In addition, the data shows that a more sophisticated understanding of dialogue emerged. Hannah and Jane’s comments about the merging of ideas between people support Wegerif and Major’s (2019) connection with Buber’s concept of the ‘in-between space’, by intimating that their conversations allowed them to arrive at understandings that neither conversation participant had previously. This further supports Edwards-Groves and Davidson’s (2020) findings that talk talk facilitated some students’ understanding of the power of talk to achieve new learning. The findings also suggest the potential of developing skills in students to ask higher level questions and require of each other, deeper thinking to assist their own and others’ learning. Several models assist with this (Bloom, 1956; Elder & Paul, 2007). The question from TOCF initially introduced to the students was a higher-level question and required students to reflect on and justify their thinking. It was also based on ‘reflection’, one of the five desirable behaviours for learning identified by Claxton et al. (2013) and used by Fox-Turnbull (2018) in the TOCF because of its relevance and importance to technology and design practice.

Conclusion

The study highlights the potential for student-to-student questioning to advance learning in technology and design through the sharing of ideas and facilitating collaborative thinking. Asking questions to peers also assisted students with a sense of belonging, as they clarified ideas and checked in with peers, as they sought assurance and clarity. When teachers model the asking of higher-level questioning and assist students to do the same, they develop opportunities to increase the depth of learning for their students in technology and design.

Although findings do not advance understandings about the use of the TOCF (Fox-Turnbull, 2018) for facilitating dialogue in technology and design they do suggest that the students understand that talking to peers can assist their learning in a number of ways. This would suggest a readiness to further develop a questioning culture within primary technology classrooms. Swathi et al. (2020) suggested that teachers need to become very familiar with the questions from the framework before implementing its use in the classroom. This study shows that the same is true for and possibly even more important for students. They should be prepared for and taught the reasoning and relevance of questioning and the protocols of asking predetermined questions as a tool for learning.

For the TOCF framework to be truly tested as a tool to assist student-to-student dialogue in technology and design a longer study is recommended. In future participatory classrooms, considerable time needs to be taken in establishing a classroom climate within which the asking of deeper questions to enhance dialogue is modelled by teachers. Also, where students engage in carefully scaffolded metatalk, and ask deep-level questions of their peers as a part of their normal classroom practice, thus outlining potential future research.

There were several limitations in this study. The first was that the data gathering period was too short, in part decreased by the sickness of the researcher and high levels of student absence. The study occurred at the tail end of the COVID-19 pandemic when New Zealand still had isolation requirements for all people feeling unwell or identified as close contacts. Another limitation related to the researcher’s role. She was the main teacher in the unit, preparing and planning all the activities. Although this worked well for the students, had the researcher been only focussed on data gathering additional useful data may have been gathered.