Improving Student Learning Outcomes and Classroom Activity through Probing Prompting in Elementary School Islamic Religious Education
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30605/cjpe.9.4.2026.9834Keywords:
Classroom Action Research, Probing Prompting, Learning Outcomes, Student Activity, Islamic Religious EducationAbstract
This study describes instructional improvement through Probing Prompting and changes in learning outcomes and student activity in Islamic Religious Education. Classroom action research followed the Kemmis and McTaggart model over two cycles of planning, action, observation, and reflection. Participants were 21 students in class V.C at SD Negeri 5 Salamae in Palopo City. Data comprised pre-cycle and end-of-cycle test scores, observations of instructional implementation and student activity, and instructional documents. Descriptive analysis examined class achievement, individual progress, mastery transitions, and activity indicators. Cycle I reflection informed varied probing and prompting questions, expanded response opportunities, requests for reasons and examples, and student support. Mean scores increased from 72.52 to 75.81 and 79.81, while class mastery rates rose from 42.86% to 66.67% and 80.95%. All students improved from Cycle I to Cycle II; compared with the pre-cycle stage, 20 improved and one declined. Four students scored 74, below the minimum mastery criterion of 75. Active participation and attention reached a score of 4 in the final observation, while answering and summarizing remained at 3 throughout Cycle II. The findings show that reflection-based refinement was followed by varied changes in achievement and activity, providing a practical basis for improving questions and tailoring support to students’ needs
References
Alexander, R. (2018). Developing dialogic teaching: Genesis, process, trial. Research Papers in Education, 33(5), 561–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2018.1481140
Amodia-Bidakowska, A., Hennessy, S., & Warwick, P. (2023). Disciplinary dialogues: Exploring the association between classroom dialogue and learning outcomes within and between subjects in English primary schools. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 43, Article 100742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2023.100742
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2018). Classroom assessment and pedagogy. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 25(6), 551–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594x.2018.1441807
Böheim, R., Schnitzler, K., Gröschner, A., Weil, M., Knogler, M., Schindler, A. K., Alles, M., & Seidel, T. (2021). How changes in teachers' dialogic discourse practice relate to changes in students' activation, motivation and cognitive engagement. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 28, Article 100450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2020.100450
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
Dominguez, S., & Svihla, V. (2023). A review of teacher implemented scaffolding in K-12. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 8(1), Article 100613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100613
García-Carrión, R., López de Aguileta, G., Padrós, M., & Ramis-Salas, M. (2020). Implications for Social Impact of Dialogic Teaching and Learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 140. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00140
Gröschner, A., Schindler, A. K., Holzberger, D., Alles, M., & Seidel, T. (2018). How systematic video reflection in teacher professional development regarding classroom discourse contributes to teacher and student self-efficacy. International Journal of Educational Research, 90, 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.02.003
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
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
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(1), 29–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44020-022-00029-9
Lee, H., Chung, H. Q., Zhang, Y., Abedi, J., & Warschauer, M. (2020). The Effectiveness and Features of Formative Assessment in US K-12 Education: A Systematic Review. Applied Measurement in Education, 33(2), 124–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2020.1732383
Muhonen, H., Pakarinen, E., Poikkeus, A. M., Lerkkanen, M. K., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2018). Quality of educational dialogue and association with students’ academic performance. Learning and Instruction, 55, 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.09.007
Rapanta, C., & Felton, M. K. (2022). Learning to Argue Through Dialogue: a Review of Instructional Approaches. Educational Psychology Review, 34(2), 477–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09637-2
Schildkamp, K., van der Kleij, F. M., Heitink, M. C., Kippers, W. B., & Veldkamp, B. P. (2020). Formative assessment: A systematic review of critical teacher prerequisites for classroom practice. International Journal of Educational Research, 103, Article 101602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101602
Šeďová, K., Sedláček, M., Švaříček, R., Majcík, M., Navrátilová, J., Drexlerová, A., Kychler, J., & Šalamounová, Z. (2019). Do those who talk more learn more? The relationship between student classroom talk and student achievement. Learning and Instruction, 63, Article 101217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101217
Stokhof, H. J. M., De Vries, B., Martens, R. L., & Bastiaens, T. J. (2017). How to guide effective student questioning: a review of teacher guidance in primary education. Review of Education, 5(2), 123–165. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3089
Tao, Y., & Chen, G. (2023). Coding schemes and analytic indicators for dialogic teaching: A systematic review of the literature. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 39, Article 100702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2023.100702
Tao, Y., & Chen, G. (2024). The relationship between teacher talk and students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 45, Article 100638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2024.100638
van der Veen, C., de Mey, L., van Kruistum, C., & van Oers, B. (2017). The effect of productive classroom talk and metacommunication on young children’s oral communicative competence and subject matter knowledge: An intervention study in early childhood education. Learning and Instruction, 48, 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.06.001
van Leeuwen, A., & Janssen, J. (2019). A systematic review of teacher guidance during collaborative learning in primary and secondary education. Educational Research Review, 27, 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.02.001
Vrikki, M., & Evagorou, M. (2023). An analysis of teacher questioning practices in dialogic lessons. International Journal of Educational Research, 117, Article 102107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2022.102107
Vrikki, M., Wheatley, L., Howe, C., Hennessy, S., & Mercer, N. (2019). Dialogic practices in primary school classrooms. Language and Education, 33(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2018.1509988
Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The Power of Feedback Revisited: A Meta-Analysis of Educational Feedback Research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 3087. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03087
Xie, W., & Lin, X. (2025). Are dialogic teaching-and-learning programs effective in pre-primary and primary schools? A meta-analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 153, Article 104823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2024.104823
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Hasnita Hasnita, Makmur Makmur, Abdul Rahim Karim
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
In submitting the manuscript to the journal, the authors certify that:
- They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
- The work described has not been formally published before, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal.
- That it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
- That its publication has been approved by all the author(s) and by the responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
- They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
- They agree to the following license and copyright agreement.
License and Copyright Agreement
Authors who publish with CJPE agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
