Module 5
Questioning Strategies
A. Definition and Purposes of Questions
In the context of a lively and fast-paced exchange in a classroom, questions are
not always obvious. As observed by Dantonio and Beisenherz (2001) and Marzano and
Simms (2014), students routinely report difficulty in identifying some types of questions
during a classroom dialogue—and even whether a question has been asked. Effective
questions are those for which students actively compose responses and thereby become
engaged in the learning process (Borich, 2008; Walsh & Sattes, 2011). The previous
examples show that effective questions depend on more than just words. Their
effectiveness also depends on voice inflection, word emphasis, word choice, and the
context in which they are asked. Questions can be asked in many ways, and each way can
determine whether the question is perceived by your students, as well as how it is
perceived.
Effective questioning lies at the heart of dynamic and participatory learning
experiences, serving as a gateway to deeper understanding, critical thinking, and
meaningful exploration. When a question sparks curiosity, stimulates reflection, or incites
dialogue, it transcends its role as a mere inquiry and becomes a catalyst for intellectual
inquiry and discovery. The spectrum of techniques for formulating questions that actively
engage students is as diverse as the subjects they study and the contexts in which they
learn. From the art of framing open-ended queries that invite students to explore multiple
perspectives to the science of crafting probing questions that challenge assumptions and
stimulate analytical thinking, the possibilities are endless. One of the most potent tools in
an educator's arsenal is the open-ended question. By posing queries that begin with
"why," "how," or "what if," educators invite students to embark on a journey of
exploration and discovery, where there are no predetermined answers but rather a
landscape of possibilities waiting to be explored. These questions encourage students to
think critically, consider alternative viewpoints, and engage in thoughtful dialogue with
their peers.
Similarly, problem-solving questions provide students with opportunities to apply
their knowledge in real-world contexts, fostering the development of analytical skills,
creativity, and resilience. Whether it's tackling a complex mathematical problem,
devising a scientific experiment, or crafting a persuasive argument, problem-solving
questions empower students to become active agents of their own learning, navigating
through challenges and uncovering solutions along the way. At the heart of effective
questioning lies the Socratic method, a time-honored approach that encourages dialogue,
inquiry, and critical reflection. By posing thought-provoking questions that probe the
depths of students' understanding, educators can stimulate intellectual curiosity, challenge
preconceived notions, and foster a deeper appreciation for the complexities of the world
around us. Socratic questions invite students to engage in rigorous analysis, articulate
their reasoning, and defend their ideas, thereby cultivating a culture of intellectual
discourse and inquiry.
Reflective questions offer yet another avenue for engaging students in the
learning process, prompting them to pause, ponder, and internalize their experiences.
Whether it's reflecting on a recent experiment, analyzing the implications of a historical
event, or evaluating the effectiveness of a problem-solving strategy, reflective questions
encourage students to develop metacognitive awareness, identify areas for growth, and
chart their own learning trajectories. In addition to these foundational approaches,
educators can employ a myriad of other questioning techniques to actively engage
students in the learning process. Comparative questions encourage students to make
connections between different concepts or phenomena, fostering a deeper understanding
of underlying principles and relationships. Predictive questions challenge students to
anticipate future outcomes or trends based on existing evidence, encouraging them to
apply their knowledge in new and meaningful ways. Experiential questions draw upon
students' personal experiences, observations, and insights, bridging the gap between
theory and practice and enriching the learning process with real-world relevance.
Collaborative questions promote peer learning and teamwork, encouraging
students to collaborate, communicate, and problem-solve together. Whether it's engaging
in group discussions, completing cooperative learning activities, or participating in peer
review processes, collaborative questions foster a sense of community and shared
responsibility for learning outcomes. By skillfully crafting questions that embody these
principles and techniques, educators can create a dynamic and engaging learning
environment where every question serves as an invitation to explore, discover, and learn.
Whether it's igniting a spark of curiosity, challenging assumptions, or fostering
collaborative inquiry, effective questioning lies at the heart of transformative learning
experiences that empower students to become lifelong learners and critical thinkers.
The teacher behaviors in this chain of events include the activities of structuring,
soliciting, and reacting. At the heart of this chain is soliciting, or question-asking
behavior. Questions are the tool for bridging the gap between your presentation of
content and the students’ understanding of it. The purpose of questioning should not be
lost among the many forms and varieties of questions presented in this chapter. Like all
the ingredients of instruction, questions are tools to encourage students to think about and
act on the material you have structured. The centerpiece of this chain—soliciting or
questioning—is so prevalent that as many as 50 or more questions per class hour may be
asked in the typical elementary and secondary classroom. Sometimes as much as 80
percent of all school time can be devoted to questions and answers. This enormous
concentration on a single strategy attests both to its convenience and its perceived
effectiveness. Indeed, the effectiveness of questions in engaging students in the learning
process hinges not only on their presence but also on their quality and strategic
deployment. While questions possess the potential to catalyze cognitive engagement and
foster deeper levels of understanding, not all questions are created equal in their ability to
actively involve students in the learning endeavor.
Several factors contribute to the effectiveness of questions in stimulating student
engagement and promoting meaningful learning outcomes. Firstly, the clarity and
specificity of questions play a pivotal role in shaping the nature of student responses.
Ambiguous or vague questions may elicit superficial responses or confusion, detracting
from the overall effectiveness of the instructional exchange. Conversely, questions that
are clear, concise, and precisely articulated provide a solid foundation for focused inquiry
and meaningful dialogue. Furthermore, the level of cognitive demand inherent in
questions profoundly influences the depth and sophistication of student engagement.
Questions that prompt students to engage in higher-order thinking processes such as
analysis, evaluation, and synthesis tend to elicit more profound and reflective responses,
fostering a deeper understanding of the subject matter. In contrast, questions that merely
require rote memorization or recall of factual information may yield superficial responses
devoid of critical insight or conceptual understanding.
Moreover, the timing and sequencing of questions within the instructional
sequence are critical determinants of their effectiveness in promoting student
engagement. Strategic deployment of questions at strategic junctures throughout the
learning process can scaffold student learning, elicit formative feedback, and foster a
dynamic exchange of ideas. By interspersing questions within the instructional discourse,
educators can maintain learner attention, reinforce key concepts, and cultivate a
participatory learning environment characterized by active student involvement.
Additionally, the extent to which questions align with students' prior knowledge,
interests, and learning objectives significantly influences their efficacy in engaging
students in the learning process. Questions that build upon students' existing knowledge
base, tap into their curiosity, and resonate with their personal experiences are more likely
to elicit meaningful engagement and foster intrinsic motivation to learn. In essence, while
questions represent potent pedagogical tools for promoting student engagement and
facilitating meaningful learning experiences, their effectiveness hinges on a nuanced
interplay of factors including clarity, cognitive demand, timing, sequencing, and
alignment with students' prior knowledge and interests. By skillfully crafting and
deploying questions that embody these principles, educators can cultivate a dynamic and
enriching learning environment conducive to student growth, development, and academic
success.
Some research data show that not all questions actively engage students in the
learning process. Early studies estimated that 70 percent to 80 percent of all questions
required the simple recall of facts; only 20 percent to 30 percent required the higher-level
thought processes of clarifying, expanding, generalizing, and making inferences (Corey,
1940; Haynes, 1935). Evidently, little has changed since these early studies. More recent
work in the United States and England indicates that of every five questions asked, about
three require data recall, one is managerial, and only one requires higher-level thought
processes (Marzano & Simms, 2013; Peery, Patrick,B& Moore, 2013). This lopsided
proportion of recall questions to thought questions is alarming. The behaviors most
frequently required in adult life, at work, and in advanced training—those at the higher
levels of cognitive complexity involving analysis, synthesis, and evaluation—seem to be
the least practiced behaviors in the classroom. It would be easy to classify all questions as
either lower order (requiring the recall of information) or higher order (requiring
clarification, expansion, generalization, and inference). But such a broad distinction
would ignore the many specific purposes for which questions are used.
Indeed, the role of questions within the realm of education transcends mere
inquiry; they serve as powerful tools for shaping, scaffolding, and guiding the learning
process. A well-crafted question possesses the inherent capacity to function as an
advance organizer, laying the groundwork for subsequent cognitive engagement and
facilitating the construction of knowledge within the learner's mind. At its essence, a
well-formulated question acts as a cognitive scaffold, providing a structured framework
upon which the learner can anchor their thoughts, ideas, and responses. By delineating
the parameters of inquiry and delineating the contours of expected responses, such
questions serve to orient the learner's cognitive processes, directing their attention
towards salient concepts, principles, and objectives.
Moreover, beyond the mere solicitation of information, well-crafted questions
possess the transformative potential to stimulate critical thinking, foster metacognitive
awareness, and cultivate higher-order cognitive skills. By prompting learners to analyze,
evaluate, and synthesize information in response to carefully crafted prompts, educators
can nurture the development of robust intellectual frameworks and cultivate a deep-
seated understanding of complex concepts. Furthermore, within the pedagogical
landscape, questions function as conduits for meaningful dialogue and interaction,
fostering a dynamic exchange of ideas between educators and learners. Through skillful
questioning techniques, educators can orchestrate thought-provoking discussions,
encourage peer collaboration, and cultivate a vibrant learning community characterized
by intellectual curiosity and scholarly inquiry.
Importantly, the efficacy of questions lies not solely in their formulation but also
in their strategic deployment within the instructional sequence. By judiciously integrating
questions at strategic junctures throughout the learning process, educators can scaffold
learning experiences, elicit formative feedback, and scaffold the acquisition of new
knowledge and skills. In essence, the art of questioning represents a cornerstone of
effective pedagogy, encapsulating the symbiotic relationship between inquiry and
learning. Through the strategic formulation and deployment of well-crafted questions,
educators can empower learners to embark upon a transformative journey of discovery,
inquiry, and intellectual growth, thereby fostering a culture of lifelong learning and
scholarly inquiry.
B. Convergent and Divergent Questions
Questions can be narrow or broad, encouraging either a specific, limited response
or a general, expansive one. A question that limits an answer to a single or small number
of responses is called a convergent question (direct or closed). For these questions, the
learner has previously read or heard the answer and so has only to recall certain facts.
Convergent questions generally ask the learner to respond at the knowledge,
comprehension, or application levels. Convergent questions set up the learner to respond
in a limited, restrictive manner: “What is the meaning of the Latin word via?” “What are
the names of the main characters in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn?” The answers
to these questions are easily judged right or wrong. Many convergent, or closed,
questions are used in the classroom. Up to 80 percent of all questions may be of this type.
Another type of question encourages a general or open response. This is the
divergent question (indirect or open). Divergent questions generally ask the learner to
respond at the application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation levels, requiring higher
order thinking. Divergent questions, therefore, have no single right answer, although they
can have wrong answers. If Jim is asked what he liked about the story he has read and he
says “nothing,” then either he has not read the book or he needs help in better
understanding the events that took place and encouragement to develop a better answer.
You can expect a greater variety of responses from divergent questions than from
convergent questions, which may explain why only about 20 percent of all questions are
divergent. It is easier to determine the right or wrong answer to a convergent question
than to sift through the range of acceptable responses to a divergent question. Divergent
questions often require a follow-up response requiring more detail, new information, or a
follow-up question from the teacher or another student to bring an insufficiently
developed student response back into an acceptable range. In this way, divergent
questions can be a rich source of lively, spontaneous classroom dialogue extending to the
contributions of other students that can make your lessons fresh and interesting.
Classroom researchers have studied the effects on student achievement of asking
convergent and divergent questions. As we have seen, convergent questions are best
suited for developing classroom content at the knowledge, comprehension, and
sometimes application levels; while divergent questions are most suited to promoting
higher order inquiry, concept, and discovery types of learning. Interestingly, while
research has supported the important role of convergent questions for knowledge and
comprehension, and some application for drill, practice, and review, research has not
clearly substantiated that the use of divergent questions is related to gains on tests of
standardized achievement. Although some of the above studies have reported modest
improvements in achievement scores with the use of divergent questioning strategies,
others have not.
Tests of achievement—and particularly tests of standardized achievement—use
multiplechoice items that generally test for behaviors at lower levels of cognitive
complexity. Therefore, the achievement measures in these studies may have been unable
to detect increases in behaviors at the higher levels of cognitive complexity that might
have resulted from the use of divergent questions. Lower order behaviors (e.g., learning
the multiplication tables) can be quickly elicited with convergent questioning strategies
and readily detected with fill-in, matching, or multiple-choice exams at the end of a
lesson. But higher order and authentic behaviors may take longer to build to a measurable
outcome. The diversity of responses normally expected from divergent questions, as well
as the added time needed to build on and follow up on responses, may prohibit large
amounts of class time from being devoted to divergent questioning. Because less
instructional time is devoted to divergent questioning than to convergent questioning,
some study results may simply reflect the imbalance in instructional time, not their
relative effectiveness. The content best suited for teaching higher order behaviors
constitutes only a small amount of the content in existing texts, workbooks, and
curriculum guides. Until more curricula are written to encourage or require higher-level
thought processes, the time teachers actually devote to divergent questioning may not
increase.
Thus the seeming imbalance in the use and effectiveness of divergent and
convergent questioning strategies may have little to do with the effectiveness of the
questioning strategies themselves. Because factual recall will always be required for
higher order thought processes, convergent questions will always be a necessary
precondition for achieving higher-level behaviors (Marzano & Simms, 2014). Also,
because more instructional time is required for higher order questioning, consistent use of
moderate amounts of divergent questioning may be more practical and effective than
intense but brief episodes of divergent questioning. The most appropriate
convergent/divergent question ratio will be about 70:30, when lesson content emphasizes
lower levels of cognitive complexity, to about 60:40, when lesson content emphasizes
higher levels.
Dillon's (2004) proposition illuminates a fundamental truth about the relationship
between the types of questions posed by educators and the cognitive processes engaged
by students. By advocating for the strategic use of questions that demand analysis,
synthesis, and evaluation, Dillon underscores the pivotal role of higher-level questioning
in fostering deep learning and intellectual growth among students. The distinction
between convergent and divergent questioning lies at the heart of Dillon's argument, with
divergent questions serving as catalysts for expansive exploration and critical inquiry.
Convergent questions, which typically have a single correct answer, may serve a valuable
purpose in certain contexts, particularly when assessing foundational knowledge or
facilitating comprehension. However, it is divergent questions—those that invite multiple
perspectives, interpretations, and responses—that hold the greatest potential for
stimulating higher-order cognitive processes and fostering intellectual creativity.
When teachers pose questions that require analysis, synthesis, and evaluation,
they not only challenge students to engage in deeper levels of thinking but also create
opportunities for meaningful dialogue, collaborative problem-solving, and
interdisciplinary exploration. Through the process of grappling with complex questions,
students learn to think critically, communicate effectively, and make informed judgments
—a skill set that transcends the confines of standardized achievement tests and prepares
them for success in a rapidly evolving world. Furthermore, Dillon's assertion underscores
the importance of aligning instructional practices with broader educational goals and
objectives. While standardized achievement tests may provide a snapshot of student
performance on specific content knowledge, they often fail to capture the depth and
complexity of learning that occurs through the exploration of divergent questions. By
prioritizing the cultivation of critical thinking skills, metacognitive awareness, and
intellectual curiosity, educators lay the foundation for lifelong learning and academic
success that extends far beyond the confines of standardized assessments. In essence,
Dillon's argument highlights the intrinsic value of asking divergent questions in
education, irrespective of their immediate effects on standardized achievement tests. By
embracing the transformative power of higher-level questioning, educators can inspire
students to think deeply, engage meaningfully, and become active participants in their
own learning journey—a journey characterized by exploration, discovery, and intellectual
growth.
Indeed, the consensus among researchers underscores the profound impact of
higher-level questioning on the cognitive processes of learning, validating its
indispensable role in shaping educational practice across diverse instructional contexts.
As educators, understanding and harnessing the power of higher-level questioning not
only enriches the learning experience but also cultivates a fertile ground for intellectual
growth, critical inquiry, and deep conceptual understanding. At its core, higher-level
questioning transcends the rote memorization of facts or the regurgitation of information,
instead beckoning students to embark on a journey of intellectual exploration and
discovery. By posing queries that prompt students to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize
information, educators stimulate higher-order cognitive processes, challenging students to
engage in deep and reflective thinking.
Research has consistently demonstrated that higher-level questioning stimulates
neural pathways associated with critical thinking and problem-solving, fostering the
development of cognitive flexibility and metacognitive awareness. When students
grapple with complex questions that require them to make connections between disparate
concepts, draw inferences from evidence, or evaluate the validity of arguments, they are
actively constructing meaning, refining their understanding, and honing their analytical
skills. Moreover, the effects of higher-level questioning extend beyond individual
cognitive processes to encompass broader learning outcomes and academic achievement.
Studies have shown that classrooms characterized by a culture of inquiry and higher-level
discourse tend to foster greater academic engagement, motivation, and self-efficacy
among students. By providing opportunities for students to grapple with challenging
questions, explore multiple perspectives, and construct their own understanding,
educators cultivate an environment conducive to deep learning and intellectual growth.
Furthermore, the benefits of higher-level questioning are not confined to traditional
academic subjects but extend to interdisciplinary contexts and real-world applications.
Whether it's analyzing primary sources in history, conducting experiments in science, or
solving real-world problems in mathematics, the ability to pose and respond to higher-
level questions equips students with the critical thinking skills and intellectual agility
necessary for success in an ever-changing world.
In light of these insights, most researchers advocate for the integration of higher-
level questioning at some level in virtually every lesson taught. By incorporating higher-
level questions strategically throughout the instructional sequence, educators can scaffold
student learning, elicit deeper engagement, and cultivate a culture of inquiry and critical
thinking. Whether it's initiating classroom discussions, designing problem-based learning
activities, or providing opportunities for independent inquiry, the inclusion of higher-
level questioning enriches the educational experience and empowers students to become
lifelong learners and critical thinkers.
C. Targets and Sequences
Questions at various levels of cognitive complexity can be directed to individuals,
to groups, or to the entire class. Occasionally posing questions over the heads of some
learners and under the heads of others will keep all students alert and engaged in the
learning process (Stipek, 2003). In homogeneously grouped classes, questions can be
spread across individuals, groups, and the full class but differentiated to fit the cognitive
complexity most appropriate for the learners being taught. For examples of general
questions that can be composed requiring more or less cognitive complexity and
prerequisite knowledge. When designing questions, educators must consider the diverse
needs, preferences, and learning styles of their students, as well as the specific
instructional objectives they aim to achieve. In this regard, advance organizers, hints, and
clues can be valuable tools for scaffolding student learning and providing support tailored
to individual learners' needs.
Advance organizers, in the form of introductory statements or cues provided
before posing a question, serve to orient students to the topic at hand, activate prior
knowledge, and provide a framework for understanding. For example, an advance
organizer might provide context or background information related to the question,
present key concepts or vocabulary terms, or outline the structure of the upcoming
discussion. By providing students with a cognitive roadmap and helping them make
connections between new information and existing knowledge, advance organizers can
enhance comprehension, increase engagement, and promote deeper learning. Hints and
clues, on the other hand, are strategically deployed during the questioning process to
provide additional guidance or support to students as they work through a problem or
task. Hints may take the form of prompts, cues, or leading questions that direct students'
attention to relevant information or guide them towards a solution. Clues, meanwhile,
may involve providing partial information or examples that help students make
connections, identify patterns, or generate hypotheses. By offering targeted assistance at
critical junctures in the learning process, hints and clues can help students overcome
obstacles, build confidence, and develop problem-solving skills.
The appropriateness of advance organizers, hints, and clues will vary depending
on factors such as students' prior knowledge and skill levels, the complexity of the
instructional content, and the instructional context. For example, novice learners or
students with learning disabilities may benefit from more explicit guidance and support in
the form of advance organizers, hints, and clues, whereas advanced learners may prefer
greater autonomy and challenge. Furthermore, the effectiveness of advance organizers,
hints, and clues depends on how they are integrated into the instructional sequence and
how they are aligned with instructional objectives. When used strategically and
judiciously, advance organizers, hints, and clues can enhance student engagement,
promote deeper understanding, and foster meaningful learning experiences for all
learners. However, educators must exercise caution to avoid over-reliance on these
supports, as excessive scaffolding may inadvertently undermine students' independence
and problem-solving abilities.
One way of framing questions for diverse classes—and therefore differentiating
your instruction—is to design them so different responses at various levels of complexity
are required. You can accept less complex responses as being just as correct as more
complex answers if they match the level of the questions being asked. Although the
responses from some learners may not be complete, you can evaluate them in terms of the
cognitive complexity required by the question and the students’ ability to respond to it.
Therefore the elaboration given and depth of understanding required may be less for one
type of learner than for another.
Questions can also vary according to the sequence in which they are used. Recall
that the most basic question sequence involves structuring, soliciting, and reacting.
However, many variations are possible. One of the most popular sequences employs
divergent questions that lead to convergent questions. Many teachers begin the
structuring-soliciting-reacting process by starting with an open question that leads to
further structuring and then asking subsequent questions that involve recall or simple
deduction. This general-to-specific approach can take several twists and turns. Indeed, the
selection of a specific questioning sequence should be guided by a thoughtful
consideration of several key factors, including behavioral objectives, instructional
content, and student ability levels. By tailoring the questioning sequence to align with
these variables, educators can maximize the effectiveness of their instructional practices
and create a learning environment that is responsive to the diverse needs and abilities of
their students.
The practice of "funneling" questions—adding conditions of increasing specificity
to a question—has long been a common strategy employed by educators to scaffold
student learning and guide them towards deeper understanding. By gradually narrowing
the focus of a question, educators can help students build upon their existing knowledge
and skills, clarify their thinking, and arrive at more precise and nuanced responses.
However, while funneling is a widely used questioning technique, empirical evidence
suggests that there is no one-size-fits-all sequencing strategy that is inherently more
effective than others in promoting student achievement.
Research in the field of education has explored various questioning strategies and
their impact on student learning outcomes, including funneling, divergent questioning,
and problem-solving questioning. While some studies have found positive correlations
between certain questioning strategies and student achievement, others have yielded
mixed or inconclusive results. The effectiveness of a questioning strategy is likely
influenced by a multitude of factors, including the nature of the instructional content, the
cognitive abilities of the students, and the instructional context in which the questioning
occurs. Moreover, the impact of questioning strategies on student achievement may vary
depending on the specific learning objectives being addressed. For example, funneling
questions may be particularly effective for guiding students through complex problem-
solving tasks or facilitating deep conceptual understanding in certain subject areas. In
contrast, divergent questioning techniques may be more suitable for promoting creativity,
critical thinking, and exploration of multiple perspectives.
It is also important to recognize that the effectiveness of questioning strategies
may be mediated by factors such as teacher expertise, instructional quality, and student
engagement. Skilled educators who are adept at posing thought-provoking questions,
eliciting meaningful responses, and facilitating productive classroom discussions are
likely to achieve better results regardless of the specific sequencing strategy employed. In
summary, while funneling is a commonly used questioning strategy in education, there is
no conclusive evidence to suggest that any one sequencing strategy is inherently more
effective than another in promoting student achievement. Educators should consider a
range of factors—including instructional objectives, student characteristics, and
instructional context—when selecting and implementing questioning strategies to support
student learning and achievement. Additionally, ongoing research and reflective practice
can help educators refine their questioning techniques and optimize their effectiveness in
promoting student engagement and learning.
Behavioral objectives serve as a roadmap for instructional planning, delineating
the specific knowledge, skills, and attitudes that students are expected to demonstrate as a
result of their learning experiences. When designing a questioning sequence, educators
should carefully align their questions with these objectives, ensuring that each question
serves as a strategic stepping stone towards the attainment of desired learning outcomes.
For example, if the objective is to develop students' analytical skills, the questioning
sequence may begin with lower-level questions that prompt students to identify key
concepts or facts before progressing to higher-level questions that require analysis,
synthesis, and evaluation. Similarly, the instructional content being taught plays a crucial
role in shaping the questioning sequence. Educators should consider the complexity,
depth, and scope of the content when determining the types of questions to pose. For
example, if the instructional content is highly conceptual and abstract, educators may
choose to begin with questions that help students establish a foundational understanding
of key concepts before progressing to more complex and nuanced inquiries. On the other
hand, if the content is more concrete and procedural, educators may focus on posing
questions that prompt students to apply their knowledge in real-world contexts or engage
in problem-solving activities.
Additionally, the ability level of students should inform the selection of a
questioning sequence that is appropriately challenging and scaffolded to support their
learning needs. Educators should consider factors such as prior knowledge, cognitive
development, and language proficiency when designing questions that are accessible and
engaging for all students. Differentiated instruction strategies, such as providing varied
levels of support or offering alternative question formats, can help ensure that students of
diverse abilities are able to participate meaningfully in the questioning process. In
summary, the specific sequence of questioning chosen by educators should be
thoughtfully tailored to align with behavioral objectives, instructional content, and
student ability levels. By considering these factors in tandem, educators can create a
dynamic and responsive questioning sequence that fosters deep engagement, promotes
critical thinking, and supports the achievement of desired learning outcomes for all
students.
D. Levels of Questions
As we have seen, as an effective teacher you must be able to formulate divergent
and convergent questions, to target questions to specific types of learners, and to arrange
questions in meaningful sequences. You also must be able to formulate questions at
different levels of cognitive complexity. One of the best known systems for classifying
questions according to cognitive complexity is the taxonomy of objectives in the
cognitive domain that was presented in Chapter 5. This system has the advantage of
going beyond the simple recall-versus-higher order thinking dichotomy frequently used
in the research cited previously to provide learning outcomes at intermediate levels of
cognitive complexity as well. Considering a continuum of question complexity, which
fills the space between these ends of the scale, is useful in the art of asking questions.
To avoid the overuse or disconnected use of questions at the knowledge level, ask
yourself, “Do the facts required by my questions represent task-relevant prior knowledge
for subsequent learning?” If your answer is “no,” you might consider assigning text,
workbook, or supplemental materials that contain the facts, instead of incorporating them
into your question-asking behavior. If your answer is “yes,” then determine in what ways
learners will use the facts in subsequent lessons and raise questions that will eventually
help form more complex behaviors. Your students may not need to be able to recite the
names of the presidents, the Declaration of Independence, or the elements in the periodic
table, because these facts may not be task-relevant prior knowledge for higher order
outcomes. However, your learners will likely need to recite the multiplication tables, the
parts of speech, and the rules for adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing signed
numbers, because these facts will be used countless times in completing exercises and
solving problems at higher levels of cognitive complexity. Always take time to ask
yourself, “Are the facts I am about to teach relevant for attaining the desired outcomes of
subsequent lessons?” By doing so, you will avoid asking knowledge questions that may
be trivial or irrelevant.
Comprehension questions require some level of understanding of facts the student
has committed to memory. Responses to these questions should show that the learner can
explain, summarize, or elaborate on the facts that have been learned. In responding to
each of these questions, the student acts on previously learned material by changing it
from the form in which it was first learned. For example, the teacher does not ask
students to define capitalism; rather the request is, “In your own words, what is
capitalism?” This requires translation or conversion of the original definition (the
teacher’s) into another one (the student’s). There is an important step in moving from
knowledge-level questions to comprehension-level questions. Knowledge-level questions
require no cognitive processing at the time of the response, but comprehension-level
questions do. In the former case, the learner may only think about the material once—at
the time it was originally learned. In the latter case, the learner must actively think about
the content twice—once when the facts are memorized and again when they must be
composed into a response in a different form. Although fact questions must logically
precede comprehension questions, comprehension questions are superior to knowledge
questions in terms of encouraging longer-term retention, understanding, and eventual use
of the learned material in more authentic contexts.
Application questions extend facts and understanding to the next level of
authenticity. They go beyond the memorization and translation of facts. Application
questions require the student to apply the facts to a problem, context, or environment that
is different from the one in which the information was learned. Thus the student can rely
on neither the original context nor the original content to solve the problem. Your job in
forming application questions is to present your learners with a context or problem
different from that in which they learned the material. Application questions encourage
the transfer of newly learned material to a new and different environment. Answering
application questions requires two related cognitive processes: (1) the simultaneous recall
and consideration of all the individual units (facts) pertaining to the question and (2) the
composing of units into a single harmonious sequence, so that the response becomes
rapid and automatic. Application questions ask students to compose previously learned
responses under conditions approximating real-world problems. You can see that action
sequences require two precedents: (1) learned facts and understandings acquired from
knowledge and comprehension questions and (2) the use of previously learned facts and
rules in new contexts. The number and quality of your application questions will
determine how rapid and automatic your learners’ action sequences become.
Many beginning teachers inappropriately believe that application questions should
be reserved for the end of a unit or even the end of a grading period. But as you have
seen, they are essential whenever a rapid, automatic response involving facts or rules is
desired or when an action sequence is the lesson goal. Also remember that practice
immediately following the presentation of content will better promote your learners’
ability to reproduce that behavior at a later time. The quality of your application
questions will be determined largely by how much you change the problem, context, or
environment in which the students learned the facts or rules. If the change is too small,
transfer of learning to an expanded context will not occur, and your “parrots” will recite
facts and rules from the earlier context. But if the change is too great, the new context
may require a response beyond the grasp of most of your learners. The key to asking
questions that require the transfer of learning to new problems or contexts is to be sure
you have taught all the lower order behaviors relevant for exhibiting the behavior in a
new context. The easiest way to accomplish this is to change the context only a bit at first
and then gradually shift to more unfamiliar contexts.
Analysis questions tend to promote behaviors in the form of concepts, patterns,
and relationships. They generally signal the start of the processes of concept learning,
inquiry learning, and problem-centered learning and the beginning of the change from
direct (telling) to indirect (e.g., problem-centered) instructional strategies. However, the
majority of analysis questions will lack a single best answer, which is common with the
teaching of facts, rules, and action sequences. Consequently, you will have to evaluate a
much broader range of responses at the analysis level. Even though you may not be able
to anticipate all these responses, you can prepare yourself psychologically by shifting to a
less regimented, more deliberate, and slower pace, thus giving yourself more time to
evaluate students’ answers and to compose thoughtful responses. You should expect
some responses for which a definitive response on your part may not be possible within
the confines of your question-and-answer session.
Questions at the synthesis level ask the student to produce something unique or
original—to design a solution, compose a response, or predict an outcome to a problem
for which he or she has never before seen, read, or heard a response. This level often is
associated with directed creativity (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Marzano & Kendall,
2008), in which not all responses may be equally acceptable. The facts, rules, and action
sequences, along with any analysis questions that have gone before, may define the limits
and directions of the synthesis requested. Even more diversity in answers can be expected
with synthesis questions than with analysis questions. Therefore, your preparation for
diversity is critical to how your students receive your synthesis questions. For example, a
question asking for ways to identify undiscovered elements, other than by using the
periodic table of elements, opens up many possible responses. Some may not be
acceptable (“Consult an astrologer”), but others may be (“Analyze minerals from the
moon and other planets”). You will want to accept all reasonable answers, even though
your own solutions may be limited to only a few, and keep in mind that some initially
less acceptable responses can be built into more accurate, plausible, or efficient responses
with additional questioning.
Questions at this highest level of cognitive complexity require the student to form
judgments and make decisions using stated criteria. These criteria may be subjective
(when a personal set of values is used in making a decision) or objective (when scientific
evidence or procedures are used in evaluating something). In each case, however, it is
important that the criteria to be expressed is clearly understood, but it need not be valued
by everyone else. Evaluation questions have the distinct quality of confronting the learner
with authentic problems much as they appear in the real world, as indicated by the list of
higher order thinking and problemsolving behaviors in Appendix C. Because making
decisions and judgments is a primary task in adult life, it is essential that classroom
experiences link learners to the world in which they will live, regardless of their age or
maturity. Unfortunately, evaluation questions are often reserved for the end of a unit.
Moreover, evaluation questions are sometimes considered more suitable for the middle
and high school levels than the elementary grades. Both misconceptions have reduced the
impact of evaluation questions on learners and reduced their opportunities to transfer
what they have learned to the world outside of the classroom. If learners are to cope with
real-world problems, they must learn to do so starting at the earliest grades and then
throughout their schooling. Therefore, your ability to ask evaluation questions that tap
into the experiences of your learners can bring the world to your learners at their own
level of knowledge and experience. This is one of the most valued abilities that you can
have when asking questions.
E. Probe
Use soliciting probes, which ask for new information, following a response that is
at least partially correct or indicates an acceptable level of understanding. This time, you
are using the probe to push the learner’s response to a more complex level (e.g., “Now
that you have decided the laboratory is the best environment for discovering new
elements, what kind of experiments would you conduct there?” or “Now that you have
taken the square root of that number, how can you extend the same idea to find its cube
root?”). A soliciting probe builds higher and higher plateaus of understanding by using
the previous response as a stepping stone to greater expectations and more complete
responses. This involves treating an incomplete response as part of the next higher-level
response—not as a wrong answer. The key to probing for new information is to make
your follow-up question only a small extension of your previous question; otherwise the
leap will be too great and the learner will be stymied by what appears to be an entirely
new question.
Probing questions serve as a means to deepen students' understanding, encourage
critical thinking, and extend their learning beyond the surface level. When students
encounter probing questions, they are prompted to revisit their initial response or
understanding and delve deeper into the underlying concepts or principles at play. Rather
than simply seeking a correct answer, students are challenged to consider alternative
perspectives, analyze the problem from different angles, and synthesize new information
to arrive at a more comprehensive understanding.
The process of answering a probing question often mirrors that of solving the
original problem, albeit with added layers of complexity or nuance. Students must draw
upon their existing knowledge and skills, apply relevant strategies or techniques, and
engage in higher-order cognitive processes such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.
However, the probing question may introduce additional variables, constraints, or
considerations that require students to think more critically and creatively about the
problem at hand. For example, if the original question asked students to solve a simple
mathematical equation, a probing question might ask them to generalize their solution to
apply to a broader set of problems or to consider how changing certain parameters would
affect the outcome. Similarly, if the original question prompted students to analyze a
historical event, a probing question might ask them to evaluate the implications of
different interpretations or perspectives on the event.
By challenging students to grapple with probing questions, educators can foster
deeper engagement, promote higher-order thinking skills, and encourage a more
sophisticated understanding of the subject matter. Probing questions not only provide
opportunities for students to apply their knowledge in new contexts but also stimulate
intellectual curiosity, promote metacognitive awareness, and cultivate a mindset of
inquiry and exploration. Moreover, probing questions can serve as a formative
assessment tool, providing valuable insights into students' understanding, reasoning
processes, and areas for further development. By analyzing students' responses to probing
questions, educators can identify misconceptions, address gaps in understanding, and
tailor instruction to meet the diverse needs of learners. In summary, the process of
answering probing questions involves applying the same cognitive processes as finding
the right answer to the original question, but with added complexity and depth. By
challenging students to think critically, analyze problems from multiple perspectives, and
synthesize new information, probing questions promote deeper learning and foster the
development of essential skills for success in school and beyond.
Use redirecting probes to channel the flow of ideas instead of using awkward and
often punishing responses, such as “You are on the wrong track,” “That’s not relevant,”
and “You are not getting the idea.” Probes for redirecting responses into more productive
areas can accomplish the needed shift less abruptly and more positively, without
discouraging students from offering other responses. A probe that accomplishes this
purpose moves the discussion sideways, setting a new condition for a subsequent
response without negating a previous response. An important consideration during
questioning and probing is how long to wait before initiating another question.
Sometimes your wait time can be as effective in contributing to the desired response as
the question or probe itself, especially when you give students time to thoughtfully
compose their answers.
When wait time is too short, students may feel rushed or pressured to respond
quickly, leading to shallow, incomplete, or inaccurate answers. This can undermine the
quality of student participation and inhibit deep cognitive processing. Moreover, short
wait times may disproportionately disadvantage certain students, such as English
language learners or students with learning disabilities, who may require additional time
to process information and formulate responses. As a result, a short wait time can impede
student engagement, hinder comprehension, and contribute to feelings of frustration or
disengagement. Conversely, when wait time is too long, students may become
disengaged or lose focus, leading to a decline in attention and participation. Excessive
wait time can also disrupt the flow of instruction and waste valuable instructional time
that could be better spent on other learning activities. Additionally, prolonged periods of
silence may create an uncomfortable or awkward atmosphere in the classroom, further
exacerbating students' reluctance to participate. As a result, a long wait time can hinder
the pace of instruction, impede learning progress, and detract from the overall
effectiveness of the lesson.
To optimize the duration of wait time in the classroom, educators must strike a
careful balance that allows for adequate student reflection and participation without
sacrificing instructional efficiency. By providing a moderate amount of wait time—
typically around three to five seconds—educators can create a supportive learning
environment that promotes thoughtful engagement, encourages deeper cognitive
processing, and allows for meaningful student contributions. This brief pause allows
students the opportunity to process the question, formulate their thoughts, and prepare a
thoughtful response, while still maintaining an appropriate pace of instruction and
maximizing learning opportunities. Moreover, educators can employ various techniques
to scaffold student participation and support comprehension during wait time, such as
providing verbal or visual cues, using think-pair-share activities, or offering opportunities
for collaborative discussion. These strategies help to mitigate the negative effects of both
excessively short and excessively long wait times, fostering a dynamic and inclusive
learning environment where all students feel valued, supported, and empowered to
actively engage in the learning process.
When posing divergent questions that invite students to explore multiple
perspectives, consider alternative solutions, or generate creative ideas, it is essential to
allow for a longer wait time to accommodate the cognitive processes involved in
weighing and considering various responses. Divergent questions, by nature, encourage
students to think critically, analyze information from different angles, and engage in
open-ended exploration. In order to fully participate in this process, students need
sufficient time to reflect on the question, generate their own ideas, and consider the
contributions of their peers before formulating a response. Therefore, a longer wait time
is warranted to support the depth and complexity of thinking required for divergent
questioning. Conversely, when posing convergent questions that have a single correct
answer or require students to recall specific facts or information, the wait time may be
shorter. In these instances, students are often expected to provide quick, precise responses
based on their existing knowledge or understanding of the material. The emphasis is on
accuracy and speed, rather than exploration or reflection. As a result, a shorter wait time
may be appropriate to maintain the flow of instruction and keep students actively
engaged in the learning process.
However, it is important to note that even when asking convergent questions,
providing some wait time is beneficial. Allowing students a brief moment to process the
question and formulate their responses can enhance comprehension, promote active
engagement, and reduce anxiety. Additionally, incorporating wait time into convergent
questioning can encourage students to think more critically about their answers and
consider alternative perspectives, even in situations where there is a clear "correct"
response. Ultimately, the length of wait time should be carefully calibrated to align with
the cognitive demands of the question and the instructional goals of the lesson. By
striking the right balance between providing adequate wait time for thoughtful reflection
and maintaining an appropriate pace of instruction, educators can create a supportive and
inclusive learning environment that fosters deep understanding, critical thinking, and
meaningful engagement among all students.
Wait-time 1 refers to the amount of time a teacher gives a learner to respond when
first asked a question. In a classroom with a short wait-time 1, learners do not have much
time to think before answering the question. In such a classroom, the teacher is repeating
the question or calling on another learner to answer the same question after only a two- or
three-second period of silence. Wait-time 2 refers to the interval of time after a learner’s
first response until the teacher or other students affirm or negate the answer and the
teacher then moves on. In a classroom with a long wait-time 2, the teacher waits several
seconds before asking a follow-up question, correcting the answer, or otherwise
commenting on what the learner said, giving that learner and others time to rethink,
extend, or modify a response.
In a classroom with a short wait-time 2, the instructional environment is marked
by a rapid pace of questioning and interaction between the teacher and students. Wait-
time 2 refers to the amount of time that elapses between the teacher posing a question and
a student responding. In classrooms characterized by short wait-time 2, this interval is
typically brief, with the teacher quickly moving on to the next question or topic before
students have had sufficient time to formulate and articulate their responses fully.
Frequent interruptions of learners before they finish answering are a common feature of
classrooms with short wait-time 2. As soon as a student begins to respond to a question,
the teacher may interject with feedback, clarification, or redirection, cutting short the
student's opportunity to express their thoughts fully. This pattern of rapid-fire questioning
and response can create a sense of pressure or anxiety among students, as they may feel
compelled to respond quickly or risk being interrupted.
While the intention behind short wait-time 2 is often to maintain a brisk pace of
instruction and keep students actively engaged, the unintended consequence may be that
some students feel marginalized or disengaged from the learning process. Students who
require more time to process information or formulate their thoughts may struggle to
keep pace with the rapid-fire questioning, leading to feelings of frustration or inadequacy.
Moreover, frequent interruptions can disrupt the flow of students' thinking and inhibit
their ability to develop and articulate coherent responses. Instead of fostering deep
understanding and critical thinking, short wait-time 2 may promote surface-level
engagement and encourage students to provide rushed or incomplete answers in order to
keep up with the pace of instruction.
To mitigate the negative effects of short wait-time 2 and promote a more inclusive
and student-centered learning environment, educators can adopt strategies to encourage
thoughtful reflection and extended discourse. One approach is to increase wait-time 2,
allowing students more time to process questions and formulate responses before being
prompted for an answer. By giving students the opportunity to think deeply and express
themselves fully, educators can foster a culture of respect, collaboration, and intellectual
inquiry in the classroom. Additionally, educators can implement techniques such as
think-pair-share or small-group discussions to provide students with opportunities for
peer interaction and collaborative problem-solving. These collaborative learning
activities not only give students more time to reflect on questions but also promote active
engagement and social interaction, enhancing the overall quality of classroom discourse.
By recognizing the importance of wait-time 2 in facilitating meaningful learning
experiences and adjusting their instructional practices accordingly, educators can create a
more supportive and inclusive classroom environment where all students feel valued,
heard, and empowered to participate actively in the learning process.
F. Culturally Responsive Questioning
Sociolinguistics is the study of how cultural groups differ in the courtesies and
conventions of language, rather than in the grammatical structure of what is said.
Sociolinguistics examines the rules of culture-specific questioning that govern social
conversation: with whom to speak, in what manner, when to pause, when to ask and
answer questions, how to interrupt a speaker, and so on. Sociolinguists study, for
example, aspects of communication as revealed by the average length of utterances, time
between utterances, speech rhythms, and rules for when, how, and about what people
converse. Researchers have pointed out that classrooms and schools are governed by
linguistic, sociocultural, and social interaction codes that can diverge from those found in
the homes, peers, and communities of immigrant children. Delgado-Gaitan (2006), for
example, point out that pedagogical practices in the schools they studied in California
contradicted culturally sanctioned patterns of sharing, leadership, and oral storytelling
among Mexican American students. Rather than change interaction patterns to
accommodate the students, teachers in mainstreamed classes attributed students’ lower
performance to “deficiencies” and insisted on Anglo norms of interaction that were at
odds with the students’ culture. Among the aspects of communication and interaction
most frequently studied are wait time, rhythm, participation structure, and language.
Different cultures often have different wait times. Navajo children, for example,
are raised in a culture that allows longer responses (wait-time 2) than Anglo culture.
Some studies show that Navajo children speak in longer sentences and volunteer more
answers when given more time to respond. In contrast, in Hawaiian culture, interrupting
is a sign of interest in the speaker and in what he or she is saying. Conversely, a long
wait-time 2 suggests to Hawaiian learners that the speaker is uninterested or bored with
the conversation. Other studies of Hispanic and African American learners appear to
suggest that optimal wait times are culture- and even context-specific (Banks & Banks,
2009). Although this research does not make specific prescriptions, it does suggest that
teachers must determine how to pose a question and the appropriate wait time between
questions and answers within the cultural context and learning history of their learners.
Conversational rhythm pertains to the tempo, inflections, and speed of
conversations between two speakers. Some researchers have found that African
American children and their mothers converse using rapid rhythms and a “contest” style
of interaction. Mothers encourage their children to be assertive. Directions for household
chores and children’s responses to them take on an almost debate-like tone with the
mother directing or calling and the children responding. Tannen (2005) suggests that this
style of interaction creates a high-energy, fast-paced home environment, which contrasts
with the low-energy, slow-paced environment of the typical classroom. Some authors
suggest that this contrast between the pace and style of conversation at home and in
school may be one reason some African American children are inappropriately referred
for behavior problems in the classroom. Similarly, some Anglo teachers may overreact to
the conversational style of African American adolescents, which may explain the
disproportionate referral of these children to programs for learners with behavior
disorders. Some teachers have preferred to allow African American learners to use in the
classroom the conversational style they bring from home. As was noted in Chapter 2,
CALP (Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency) focuses on solutions that require
more culturally sensitive links to interventions from the school and educational system
that can improve the performance of students who may be linguistically different from
the mainstream. In other words the school’s role is not to eliminate or diminish a child’s
use of his or her home language, dialect, and culturally ingrained learning style but rather
to add to them by providing a rich and natural instructional environment that mitigates
the effects contextual factors have on school learning. This includes the teaching of
listening, speaking, reading, and writing related to the subjects taught in school.
The typical classroom conversation occurs in a one-to-one, question-and-answer
structure or format. The teacher looks directly at a student, asks him or her a question,
and waits for an answer before making a follow-up response. Tharp and Gallimore (1991)
observed that such a participation structure results in very little participation by Hawaiian
and Navajo children. For these children, both at home and in the community, the typical
participation structure when adults are present involves a relatively small group of
children together with an encouraging, participating, but nondirective adult in an informal
setting. In research, when the classroom participation structures were based on those
found in their cultures, both Hawaiian and Navajo children, who rarely participated in
classroom discussions or question-and-answer formats, became surprisingly verbal.
Sociolinguists point out that children are more comfortable in classrooms where
the sociolinguistic patterns (wait times, rhythms, participation structures, etc.) are
compatible with those of their home and community. Some teachers and schools may
view African American and Hispanic children as less verbal (Delgado-Gaitan, 2006). Yet
when observed in a familiar home or neighborhood environment, they use vibrant,
expressive, and creative language patterns. Researchers have observed that the
sociolinguistic patterns of the typical U.S. classroom make certain minority-group
learners uncomfortable. This in turn causes those learners to participate less in class, to
participate in ways that Anglo American teachers view as deficient or inappropriate, and
to achieve less. Researchers generally agree that immigrant children’s school success can
be explained more by a strong home culture and positive sense of ethnic identity (which
should be preserved at school) than by assimilation.
Because much questioning is conducted in the formal language of the classroom,
you should know your learners’ language abilities. Approximately five million students
—about 10 percent of the school-age population—have a primary language other than
English. For some, English is their dominant language in the receptive mode (listening,
reading); for others, English is their dominant language in the expressive mode (talking,
writing). It is not unusual to find bilingual learners who choose, for example, Spanish as
their dominant means of speaking but English as their dominant means of listening
(Banks & Banks, 2009; Valencia, 2010a,b). This allows the teacher to speak and be
understood in English, even though at least some of the learners’ communications to the
teacher might be in Spanish. Knowing your learners’ dominant means of expression will
provide more opportunities to engage all of them in the learning process.
Emphasize other forms of communication—including the visual, kinesthetic, and
tactile modalities—to supplement your teaching objectives, thus bringing a multisensory
approach to your teaching. Be sensitive to cultural differences. For example, providing
frequent, meaningful praise and encouragement can set the stage for learning more
efficiently than repeatedly reciting rules and warnings, which may not be fully
understood by some of your learners. Evaluate the reading level and format of the
materials you use. When selecting or differentiating materials, you may find a Spanish
version of comparable content and reading level. After a trial period, evaluate the
materials again and adjust the reading level accordingly. Do not confuse language
proficiency with subject-matter achievement or ability. Bilingual children, in comparison
to monolingual children, show superior performance on tests of analytical reasoning,
concept formation, and cognitive flexibility. Other research shows that learners who are
fluent in two or more languages have a better knowledge of language structure and detail,
understand that words are arbitrary symbols for other words and actions, and can better
detect grammatical errors in written and spoken communication (Portes & Rumbaut,
2006). It is also important to note that CALP researchers suggest that children from
economically impoverished areas who speak a nonstandard form of English may suffer in
school as a result. But they also note that all languages are equally complex and equally
effective for use in learning and problem solving (Oakes & Lipton, 2006). Linguists have
demonstrated that languages cannot be ranked in terms of intellectual sophistication.
Consequently, intellectual impairment or slow cognitive development does not result
from the primary language a learner speaks, regardless of how nonstandard that language
is.
One of the most common question-asking problems of beginning teachers
involves use of the complex, ambiguous, or double question. This is a question so long
and complicated that students have easily lost track of the main idea by the time they
have heard the entire question. Sometimes a teacher unknowingly packs two (or even
more) questions within this complicated structure. Because such a question is delivered
orally and not written, students have no way of rereading the question to gain its full
intent. It is unfortunate that this type of question is sometimes so complicated that even
the teacher cannot repeat it precisely when asked, thus providing different versions of the
same question. Another common mistake is to accept almost exclusively the answers you
expect. Recall the discussion in Chapter 2 regarding the bias that teachers sometimes
have about whom they call on and interact with in classroom exchanges. Bias can extend
to favorite answers as well as to favorite students. When teaching new content, you
naturally strive to become more secure and confident by limiting the answers to those
with which you are most familiar. Your first reaction will be to discourage responses at
the edge of what you consider to be the appropriate range. This range is directly related to
the openness of your questions. Open questions encourage diversity, and it is this
diversity that often catches the beginning teacher off guard and forces an expansive
question into a limited one.
If this exchange were to continue for very long, it would no doubt turn off many
students, if only because they know their responses cannot be entirely wrong, even if they
are not what the teacher wants. What does the teacher want? The desired answer is
probably that the early settlers came to America because of religious persecution in their
European communities. The last student’s response, “To build houses and churches,” was
a perfect opportunity for a probe that simply asked “Why churches?” Unfortunately, this
teacher missed that opportunity in favor of waiting for the exact response, because he or
she was unable or unwilling to build on the existing responses. This teacher may have a
long wait, in which case valuable instructional time may be lost by calling on student
after student in the hope that the single acceptable answer will eventually emerge.
Answers that are just what you are looking for are always desirable, but remember that
partially correct answers and even unusual and unexpected ones can become effective
additions to the discussion through the use of probes. The solution to this problem is to
use probes that build gradually toward your targeted responses.
Perhaps the most serious fault of all in question asking is not being certain of why
you are asking a question. Remember, questions are tools that support the teaching and
learning processes. Your first decision in composing questions is to determine whether
your lesson is teaching facts, rules, and action sequences or concepts, patterns, and
relationships. If the former is your goal, compose convergent questions at the knowledge,
comprehension, and application levels. If the latter is your goal, then ask divergent
questions at the analysis, synthesis, and evaluation levels. If you have not determined
where you are on Figure 8.1, you will likely ask the wrong types of questions, and your
questions will lack logical sequence. They may jump from convergent to divergent and
move back and forth from the simple recall of facts to the acquisition of concepts and
patterns. Your students will find your questions confusing, because your ideas will not be
linked by any common thread that they can follow, and you will be seen as being vague
or lacking the ability to connect content in meaningful ways. Therefore it is important
that you decide in advance where your questioning strategy is going and then move
toward this goal by choosing appropriate questions and levels of cognitive complexity.
Finally, it is important to note that just because your goal may be convergent or divergent
questions, this does not mean you cannot vary your questioning strategy across the levels
shown in Figure 8.1. Questions should vary across types of learning, gradually moving up
the rigor and relevance framework; for example, from knowledge to application to
analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, with increasing relevance to the world of your
learners beyond the classroom. Keep in mind your ultimate aim is to choose the best
combination of questions to reach the goal for your lesson.
Needless to say, both outcomes demoralize the student, who either is deprived of
the chance to give a complete right answer or is shown to have a response so incorrect
that it is not even worth hearing in its entirety. Neither of these outcomes may be
intended, but this is how your students may see it. Your job is to use student responses to
build to other more complex outcomes. Probes to elicit new information, to go beyond an
already correct answer, and to provide hints and clues after a wrong answer are
particularly useful, because they extend to your students the right to give a full and
deliberate response—right or wrong. Teachers who frequently interrupt student responses
because of a desire for perfect answers, a dominant personality, or talkativeness may
ultimately produce frustrated learners who never learn to give full and thoughtful
responses or to participate voluntarily.
Ample means are available for dealing with misbehavior, and such means are far
more effective than using questions. Questions are instructional tools that should be
prized and protected for their chosen purpose. To misuse them or to use them for any
other purpose may affect how your students perceive your questions (“Did I get the hard
question because the teacher thinks I’m smart or because I’m being punished?”). Such
conflicts can drain students of the energy and concentration needed to answer your
questions and may forever cast doubts on your motives. Conversely, questions can be
implicit rewards when used correctly. The opportunity to shine, to know and display the
correct answer in front of others, and to be tested and get an approving grade are
rewarding experiences for any learner. Consequently, every learner, regardless of ability
level or knowledge of a correct response, should periodically have these experiences.
Do not ignore students who have difficulty responding, and do not accept wrong
answers. Instead, occasionally try a broader criterion than correct/incorrect to help all
students share in the emotional and intellectual rewards of answering questions. For
example, try rewarding the most novel, most futuristic, most practical, and most thought-
provoking answers along with the most accurate response. This will let every learner
share in the challenge and excitement of answering questions. Thus questioning is
another tool that can be used to differentiate your instruction and add to your teaching
menu. Because of the almost endless variety of questions, using them may well be the
most flexible tool on your menu.
