|
Teachers and
Students Developing
Questioning Skills |
|
Contents
Introduction
General Guidelines for developing good questioning techniques
Teacher's Check List for Artful Questioning
Wait-Time
Levels of Questions
Bloom's Taxonomy
How to Critique Your Questioning Technique
Question Analysis Form (Sample)
Some Thoughts on Questioning
References
The ability to ask and answer questions is central to learning. For more than two thousand years (since Socrates) the question has been an integral part of teaching. Only within the last decade and a half, however, has extensive research been directed to questions and questioning strategies. The information which has been generated from this research indicates that teachers largely have been asking the wrong questions. We have been focusing primarily on questions regarding the specific information students possessed rather than questions to promote learning.
The use of questioning skills is essential to systematic investigation in any subject area. In such an investigation 1) one asks questions to identify the reason or reasons for the investigation: 2) questions are asked to direct the search for information and to synthesize what has been discovered; and 3) the conclusions resulting from investigations are evaluated via questions. However, using questions to assist students' investigations is a relatively new technique in the schools. In the past, teachers primarily questioned students to ascertain whether or not they were learning the book content and to see if students were paying attention in class.
This shift in emphasis from learning solely content to learning processes is to enable individuals to deal intelligently with their world and their lives. If students can analyze their lives and the lives of others while in the school setting, they will comprehend effectively their reality when they are outside the formal school situation. Education today aims at the creation of a rational being. A rational being does not merely possess an effective memory; he/she must be able to react to data. He/She must be able to think and he/she must be active in seeking an understanding to problems.
Questions should play a central role in the learning process. Because of this, we as teachers need to plan our questions carefully. This doesn't mean script writing; that would negate creative teaching. However, it does mean we need to carefully plan our questions by thinking through possible questions which would guide the students toward further investigation and a deeper understanding of the concepts being stressed.
If a teacher utilizes questions effectively, students will discover that the question is a very valuable learning tool. It is a device through which they can organize their thinking to achieve certain objectives. Students who ask themselves questions as they deal with various learning situations will provide themselves with data and will develop an awareness of where there are deficits in data. This type of knowledge is essential if students are to assume major roles in their learning process.
Although it is essential that teachers ask questions that bring out the educational goals they are seeking, there is more to good questioning technique than simply asking the proper question. The following principles were developed by Richard L. Loughlin and provide an excellent set of guidelines for the teacher who wishes to develop good questioning techniques.
Principles of Questioning
From The Education Forum, 25, (May 1961), pp. 481-482.
Philip Groisser in his book, How to Use the Fine Art of Questioning (Groisser, 1964), has also listed ten procedures and considerations for effective classroom questioning.
Teacher's Check List for Artful Questioning
From: Groisser, Philip L. How to Use the Fine Art of Questioning. Teacher's Practical Press, Inc., 1964, pp. 61-63.
One questioning technique which is essential to the development of higher thought processes is wait-time. This is the amount of time that elapses between a teacher asking a question and calling upon a student to answer that question. The average teacher's wait-time is one second!! In a research project conducted at Columbia University by Mary Budd Rowe the following gains were reported when the teachers in the project increased their wait-time:
| Student Responses Lengthen | If you can prolong your average"wait-time" to five seconds or longer, the length of student responses increases. When wait-time is very short, students tend to give very short answers or they are prone to say, "I don't know." In addition, their answers often come with a question mark in the tone, as if to say, "Is this what you want?" |
| Whole Sentences | . . . .you are more likely to get whole sentences, and the confidence as expressed by tone is higher. |
| Speculative Thinking | Another bonus that results from increased wait-time is the appearance of speculative thinking (e.g., "It might be the water,". . ." but it could be too many plants.") and the use of arguments based on evidence. |
| Shift to Student-Student Behaviors | If the wait-time is prolonged an average of five seconds or more, students shift from teacher-centered show-and-tell kinds of behavior to student-student comparing of differences. |
| Student's Questions Increase | As you increase the wait-time, the number of questions students ask and the number of experiments they need to answer the questions multiply. |
| Teacher's Flexibility Increases | . . .By increasing the wait-time, you buy for yourself an opportunity to hear and to think. |
| Teachers Revise Their Expectations of Students | Wait-time can change your expectations about what some students can do. (Before teachers increased their wait-times, students rated as slow or less apt by teachers had to try to answer questions more rapidly than students rated as bright or fast.) |
| Teachers Increase Their Variety of Questions | As wait-time increases, teachers begin to show much more variability in the kinds of questions they ask. Students get more opportunity to respond to thought rather than straight memory questions. |
From: Carin, Arthur A. and Robert B. Sund. Developing Questioning Techniques: A Self-concept Approach. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1971, p.47.
To summarize, an increase in teacher wait-time sets an atmosphere more conducive to productive questions on higher thinking levels. Students also use the wait-time to organize more complete answers. Some guidelines to assist you in using wait-time more effectively are presented below:
It has been found through the research which has been conducted in the past 15 years that questions may be classified into levels. These levels have been developed into a hierarchy such that each successive level requires the student to utilize more complex cognitive processes to arrive at an answer. The diagram below shows several of the better known classification schemes.
|
Structured |
<---------------------------> |
Open-ended More complex cognitively Greater student involvement |
|
| Bloom: |
Knowledge--Comprehension--Application--Analysis--Synthesis--Evaluation |
||
| Sanders: |
Memory--Translation--Interpretation--Application--Analysis--Synthesis--Evaluation |
||
| Aschner: |
Memory--Reasoning--Evaluating or Judging--Creative Thinking |
||
| Carner: |
Concrete.... Abstract.... Creative |
||
| Pate & Bremer: |
Convergent.... Divergent |
||
For our study of questioning levels we will use Bloom's categories of educational objectives to classify questions. A summary of this scheme is given below:
Bloom's
Taxonomy
Cognitive Domain
Highest
|
6
|
Evaluation: | requires that the student make an assessment of good or not so good, according to some standards. |
|
5
|
Synthesis: | requires the student to find a solution to a problem through the use of original, creative thinking. |
|
4
|
Analysis: | requires that the student solve a problem through the systematic examination of facts or information. |
|
3
|
Application: | requires that the student solve or explain a problem by applying what he/she has learned to other situations and learning tasks. |
|
2
|
Comprehension: | requires that the student think on a low level such that the knowledge can be reproduced or communicated without a verbatim repetition. |
|
1
|
Knowledge: | requires that the student recognize or recall information. |
Lowest
From an examination of the above charts, it is evident that memory is the only thought process upon which all other kinds of thinking is based. Robert Gagne emphasizes the need for acquiring broad, generalized knowledge (lower level thinking which is primarily memory) before moving on to higher thinking levels.
While the memory level of thinking is basic to all higher thinking processes, the research shows overwhelmingly that teachers use memory questions in over 70% of their teaching time. It was also found that teachers overemphasize fact questions in their examinations. An analysis of questions used in textbooks also revealed that memory or fact questions are predominantly used here. If we expect students to engage in more creative and stimulating thought processes, we, as teachers, must encourage them by asking higher level questions.
How to Critique Your Questioning Technique
In order to improve your questioning skills, you need to determine what types of questions are presently being asked during a typical lesson. Once present questioning levels have been assessed, goals can then be set for elevating the levels of these questions.
Procedure
Question Analysis Form (Sample)
In using Bloom's Taxonomy to classify questions, the chart below may be used. Questions should be written on the left-hand margin and then classified according to one of the six categories. If the questions, for example, are creative they should be classified under either the synthesis or evaluation categories. In evaluating your questions you should endeavor, as much as possible, to classify them objectively. You should not use, for example, the synthesis level unless you really think it requires a student to put together information in his/her mind in a form new to him/her.
| Questions |
Knowledge |
Comprehension |
Application |
Analysis |
Synthesis |
Evaluation |
| 1. What hypothesis would you make? |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
| 2. How would you solve the problem? |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
| 3. What inference would you make? |
|
|
|
|
X |
|
| 4. What is the name of the capital of Rhode Island? |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
| 5. What would happen to the cake if it were cooked 5 minutes longer? |
|
|
X |
|
|
|
| 6. What is the most significant scene in Hamlet? |
|
|
|
X |
|
|
| 7. How would you find the area of a triangle having two sides that are equal? |
|
X |
|
|
|
|
| Totals |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
Some Thoughts on Questioning
(from Sanders, 1966)
(p. 159)
To put the emphasis
on thinking into practice in a classroom, a teacher must present subject matter
from sources in addition to the text. He/She must develop a sensitivity to ideas
that are useful in instruction and evaluation. Pertinent ideas take such forms
as these:
(p. 158)
The textbook is weak in that it offers little opportunity for any mental activity
except remembering.
(p. 156)
A reasonable rule of thumb for an academic course is that a minimum of one-third
of the time allotted to questioning in both instruction and evaluation should
be devoted to levels above memory.
(p. 158)
While studying a topic in preparation for instruction, the teacher should be
on the lookout for the big working ideas -- the generalizations, values, definitions,
and skills that are important enough to deserve emphasis. These are the ideas
that best lead to higher level questions.
(p. 157)
...the more knowledge a teacher has, the better chance he/she has to fashion
learning on all levels appropriate for his/her students. Another advantage of
scholarship is that it gives a teacher more confidence in subjective evaluation.
The teacher who avoids the synthesis and evaluation categories is often the
one who has not had enough experience in his/her subject field to be able to
give a convincing judgment of the quality of a student's work. (p. 162) An important
rule in framing questions is that questions designed for grading should reflect
the same kind of thinking used in instruction. It is wrong to ask a variety
of levels of questions in instruction but revert to the memory category in evaluation.
It is equally wrong to conduct instruction on the memory level in order to save
higher level questions for an examination. The best way to avoid these errors
is to compose examination questions and instructional questions at the same
time and make a determined effort to keep them parallel.
Mistakes to Avoid
(p. 169)
As with any idea in education, a special concern for questions poses certain
dangers. Teachers who strive for higher level questions may lose interest in
the bread-and-butter memory question. They become so intrigued with sending
students through intellectual labyrinths that they neglect fundamental knowledge.
They may tend to cater to the capacities of superior students. Simple questions
designed for slow learners are just as necessary as complex ones in all categories.
Subjective questions are important and have a challenge of their own but should
be mixed with a liberal number of objective ones. There is satisfaction in giving
the one right answer to an objective question and being told the response is
correct.
Aschner, M.J. (1961). Asking questions to trigger thinking. NEA Journal, 50, 44-46.
Bloom, Benjamin S. (ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Company, Inc.
Carin, Arthur A. & Sund, Robert B. (1971). Developing Questioning Techniques (A Self-Concept Approach). Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.
Carner, R.L. (1963). Levels of questioning. Education, 83, 546-550.
Groisser, Philip L. (1964). How to Use the Fine Art of Questioning. Teachers Practical Press, Inc.
Hunkins, F.P. (1972). Questioning Strategies and Techniques. Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon.
Pate, R.T. & Bremer, N.H. (1967). Guided learning through skillful questioning. Elementary School Journal, 67, 417-422.
Sanders, N.M. (1966). Classroom Questions: What Kinds? New York: Harper and Row.
Home | Faculty Services | TA/AI Services | Publications | Resources | Research | About CTE
September 18, 2002
The University of Texas
at Austin
Copyright © 2002 Center for Teaching Effectiveness
Contact CTE