Angelos 1

Jessica Angelos
Dr. Broad
English 297
7 December 2004

The Art and Importance of Effective Questioning

Prompts in the Writing Classroom
My first day of teaching a high school class, the cooperating teacher gave the
following advice: “Never ask a question you don’t already know the answer to.” Two
years later, I am still haunted by this advice. In addition to contrasting my personal view
of education, this advice contrasts the fundamental purpose of using questioning
strategies. Authentic questions call for new information. Learning occurs when new
information is acquired. Questioning is an integral part of the learning process.
High school is a time of significant amount of change. “Students are not only
unsure of themselves and their place in the world, but they are also uncertain of which
questions to ask themselves to figure it out” (Fredricksen 21). Questions can help student
grapple with meanings and significance of concepts that may appear too abstract at the
offset. Effective questioning strategies implemented into an oral or written discussion
based course can seek to provide answers to these questions as well more standard based
objectives.
Teacher’s questions must give learners an opportunity to communicate their
reasoning processes. With reading and writing, there is no limit to what you can learn
about a text or oneself. The effective questioning prompt will engage the teacher on the
journey with the student through the writing process.
In a composition course, students will constantly be asked to evaluate and
construct texts. Questioning becomes the central force behind motivation and learning
along the writing process. The focus behind effective questioning lies in the fundamental
idea that “writers constantly question themselves as they write, which is part of what
makes the writing process recursive” (Fredricksen 23).
Reasoned and strategic questioning will help advance all students in the
classroom through more effective writing prompts and increased student learning.
Rational for Strategic Planned Questioning
Effective questioning is essential to effective teaching. Many teachers “feel
inadequately prepared in this critical component of effective teaching” (Feldman 8).
This inadequacy is a disservice to us the teacher and to the students. To help eliminate
this shortcoming it is important to dispel some of the common myths associated with
questioning in order to understand better ways to make questioning more effective.
Contrary to popular belief, questioning does not come naturally to teachers.
Effective questioning requires planning and training. While it is true that many effective
questions are spontaneous and responsive to student’s feedback and comment, “teachers
need to plan key questions for guiding discussions to provide direction and structure,
increase engagement, and increase the probability that thinking and understanding
become discussion outcomes” (Wilen 27). Preparing these questions in advance and
making a list of potential answers will help teachers to guide discussion, stay on course,
and add to the learning experience of the learners.
 Angelos 2

One common myth is that the more questions the teacher asks, the more the
students will learn (Wilen 27). The fact is that question quantity should be replaced with
questions quality. Well placed strategic prompts will facilitate increased student learning
and growth. It is not the amount of journal prompts and writing assignments a student
completes, but more specially, the complexity of the learning process the student is asked
to undergo for each set objective.
As students we learn that there are not bad questions. As teachers, there are bad
questions. Similarly, there are good questions that are phrased as “clear, purposeful,
sequential, responsive, adaptable, planed, natural, spontaneous, authentic, and thought
provoking” (Wilen 28). Good questions will keep the intended objective in mind.
Asking good questions is a sophisticated skill that needs practice and thoughtful timing
(Manouchehri and Lapp 564).
Prompt Selection and Tips
As pre-service teachers our expectations run high. The thought of creating
prompts that are objective based but still engaging is an overwhelming one. The most
difficult part of generating a question for a pre-service teacher is narrowing its focus
(Quiocho and Ulanoff 2). When framing a question, it is important to find something to
wonder about, find intriguing, in other words, a “burning question.” When working with
young adults, it is also encouraged that teachers be aware of the rapid changes students
may be experiencing. Teachers are advised to acknowledge the role emotions play in
student’s learning and in their ability to make meaning (Fredricksen 21). It is through
this acknowledgment that students will be engaged and interested in the writing process.
Whereas most students may generally want to be told what to write rather than asked to
“consider the choices and opinion that experienced writers weigh and question” the
ultimate goal is to make writing meaningful ( Fredricksen 23). When a teacher designs a
meaningful writing experience the students are able to “discover and learn how, when,
and which questions to ask as they compose” (Fredricksen 22).
Three Questioning Strategies
With the need for questioning well established, it is essential to examine three
different popular models of questionings strategies. As with utilizing any teaching
method, “one should employ a range of teaching and assessment strategies, which invite
students to learn” (Eckerson 86).
Ainley’s Four Categories of Questions:
Janet Ainley (as quoted in Dickinson) identifies four all inclusive categories of
questions. A notable researcher in mathematics education, this theory identifies four key
categories often found in writing prompts as well as the Mathematics classroom.
- “pseudo- questions- often used to establish or reiterate acceptable behavior
practices:
- genuine questions- in which the teacher seeks information because they do not
know the answer;
- testing questions – for which the teacher knows the answer, and the pupil
recognizes this;
- directing questions – to provoke a pupil to think further
o checking questions – these are used to explore certainty
o opening questions used to encourage exploration
o structuring questions – used to help pupils to organize their thinking”
 Angelos 3

(Dickinson 4-5).
This theory works to identify the categories and corresponding sub-category but does not
seek to evaluate a hierarchy of questioning methods. Each category carries a specific
purpose with intended answers in mind. Central to each of the questioning type is the
underlying objective of the series of questioning. These categories reiterate the point that
daily objectives should be clear and thus drive effective questioning. Each question may
take the form of open, closed, or leading prompts in this model. It is important to note
that studies have found open ended questions resulted in more ‘hands up’ and “fuller
answers,” whereas closed questions received more often one word answers and were
answered quickly (Martin 18).
The intended objective of the students’ responses is what will ultimately classify
the question type. These intended responses align with the lesson’s objective.
Whereas Ainley’s findings classify structuring type, the widely learned Bloom’s
Taxonomy adds insight to structuring specific questions.
Blooms Taxonomy of Educational Objectives
In many pre-service teacher education classes, Blooms Taxonomy of Educational
Objectives is the only questioning strategy presented. Within Bloom’s Taxonomy,
Lower level questioning with prompts such as “when” and “where” as based on the
principle of data recall. Whereas higher order questions ask learners to answer detailed
prompts of “how” and “what if.” Blooms taxonomy is divided into three domains. The 6
levels found within the cognitive domain are often the basis for choosing a questioning
strategy.
The six levels in the cognitive domain, as cited in Learning to Teach, is described
here.
- Knowledge- Student can recall, define, recognize, or id specific information.
- Comprehension- Student is asked to define in own words, summarize, or
recognize information.
- Application- Student applies information in writing, reading, performing
- Analysis- Student can see larger picture of concept and break into
relationships/parts.
- Synthesis- Student can gather information from various sources to create own
original work.
- Evaluation – Student can “apply a standard n making judgment on the worth
of something”
(Arends 61).
Similar to Ainley’s questioning types, Bloom’s taxonomy classifies questioning
styles for a variety of objectives. The common belief is that higher level cognitive
questions will elicit higher level answers from the students. However, “researchers have
found approximately 50 percent congruence between the cognitive levels of teacher
questions and students’ responses” (Wilen 28). In dialogue discussion, more students do
not necessarily become engaged simply based the level of questioning. This link can be
made to a writing based curriculum as well. Students may not always respond in full to
higher order thinking questions when the expectations for such questions are not clear.
To bridge the gap between teacher expectations and student responses, teachers need to
prepare their students better. Students should be informed of the expectations of the
teacher and the “relationship of the thinking and demonstrating the relationship” with
 Angelos 4

various types of questions and answers (Wilen 28). This adds to the support that writing
prompts should be strategic and varied depending on the objective.
The order in which the questions are asked do not tend to influence the students
learning. Starting with low level questioning is encouraged when intent is to reviewing
facts and concepts. Higher order questions and progressing to lower is effective when
students are asked to devise possible solutions to a problem. Both strategies are viewed
as just as effective and equally as useful. Depending on the writing objective, the
ordering of prompts should be varied to reflect the objective.
Socratic Questioning
“Socratic questioning is the oldest, and still the most powerful, teaching tool used
to help students think critically, analytically, and independently” (Moore and Rudd 24).
When defined in its broadest terms, Socratic Questioning can create an educational
environment where “students actively process knowledge and construct their own
understanding” (Eckerson 86). When done successfully, the teacher is able to lead
students to finding their own answers by taking students on a journey of strategic
questioning in order to reach conclusions. The basics of Socratic Questions include a
model of four components as pictured below.

Conflicting Views – How does the student’s

thinking conflict with other points of view?

Origin and Implications and

Sources- How did Student’s Point Consequences –
the student arrive of View What follows from
at this point? this point of view?

Support. Reasons, Evidence, and Assumptions-

Can the student support the point of view with
reasons and/or evidence?

(Moore and Rudd 24).

When teaching using the Socratic questioning technique the instructor must be
familiar with the material and be able to anticipate the student’s answers to develop
further questioning. Each component pictured represents an opportunity for the teacher
to question the students. Tips for using the Socratic questioning method include planning
a list of probing questions that will logically guide students to reasoned answered based
on the questions and each of the components, and to not be afraid of pauses.
 Angelos 5

Ideally, this type of questioning would work well in establishing foundations to

major writing assignments. Setting clear expectations of the students to meet each of the
components in an assignment provides an opportunity to be creative but still maintaining
a clear objective of reasoning methodology. However, this is a time consuming and
potentially individualized approach to questioning. This type of questioning lends itself
especially well as written responses and dialogue for graded writing assignments.
Socrates was notorious for never giving his students the answers. This could be a
frustrating adaptation for the students who are expected to be told which changes to
make. However, if the objective is for students to push their own ways of thinking and
reasoning, Socratic Questioning lends itself well to such objectives.
Recursive Questioning
Similar to a piece of writing never truly being finished, questioning cannot stop
after the initial questions. Once the prompt is given for an assignment, the questioning
cannot end. Questioning can also lend itself easily through the revision process. The
three effective questioning strategies examined above continue throughout the recursive
writing process. One way to continue effective questioning strategies is to implement
them into a section of the writing process often rushed over in the student’s writing
stages. Students know they have to pre-write, draft and then revise. They have it drilled
into their heads. However, the missing link is when students assume revision is
synonymous with simply rewording. Students will need to be shown that “revision is a
chance to clarify thoughts and organize them purposefully” (Fredricksen 26). Strategic
questioning used in revision is one way to show the importance of the entire writing
process.
Used in an eight grade writing classroom, the following “Revision Bulls Eye
Chart” shows how effective questioning can help narrow students mind into zoning in on
different aspects of the revision process. In starting broad with evaluating ideas and
eventually focusing on the detailed conventions, Jim Fredricksen has created a model
with clear expectations guided by strategic questions.
 Angelos 6

Ideas- Am I writing what I want my audience to know?

• Ask yourself questions to see what you have to say
• Specialized narrative directions
• For informational piece use text frames and define.

Organization – Is the piece easy-to follow for my target readers?

• Start with familiar information

• Connect the familiar information with new info

The Spotlight- Do the important ideas stand out?

• Provide examples, quotes, etc. from other sources
• Use “for example” and “for instance”
• Explain how examples and quotes connect with your ideas.

Sentence Fluency – Are the sentences clear and varied?

• Begin sentences with familiar information
• End sentences with new information
• Vary the length of the sentences

Word choice – Did I pick just the right words to express my ideas and feelings?

• Create images: use snapshots and brushstrokes

• Use concrete nouns: the names of people, titles of outside
sources
Conventions – Do errors distract my readers?

• Check spelling and punctuation

• Double check the punctuation of quotes

(Fredricksen 27)

By making alterations in a few keys ways to reflect individual assignment

objectives, this Bulls-Eye Method shows how effective questioning can walk students
though a reasoning process of revision strategies and assist them in gaining an
understanding of the writing process. Furthermore, it reiterates the concept that the
revision process is equally as importance as pre-writing and drafting. By providing
insightful questions of all types and for all purposes, students will better gain the
reasoning and strategy behind organizing and presenting their personal ideas.
Final Discussion
 Angelos 7

Questioning is at the core for all discussion and understanding oral and written in
the classroom. While many pre-service teachers may not have been equipped with
effective questioning strategies there are a few key tips to keep in mind.
First and foremost, the teacher must identify the lesson objectives clear in
advance. This objective will guide the type and structure of questioning strategy chosen.
Two questions to ask oneself are “How does this concept relate to the ones the class has
discussed, and how do I asses where the students realize the connections?” and “If my
goal is to measure the different layers o student understanding of this concept, what
questions should I ask them?” (Manouchehri and Lapp 565) In keeping these three
fundamental ideas in mind, questions will naturally become more poignant, structured,
and strategic. As with any teaching methodology, variety with strategic intent is
paramount.
The effectiveness of questioning will constantly improve with time and practice.
With questions planned before class and adapted to meet the needs of students, the
experience of both teacher and student promises to be a true learning experience for all
members of the classroom, teacher and students alike.
 Angelos 8

Works Cited
Arends, Richards I. Learning to Teach: Fifth edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002
Dickenson, Paul. “Teachers’ Questions” Mathematics Teaching 171 June (2000): 4-7
Eckerson, Todd. “Socrates was a Bad Teacher: the Case Against Socrates.” Independent
School 60.1 (2000): 84-91.
Feldman, Sandra. “The Right Line of Questioning.” Teaching Pre K-8 33.4 (2003): 8
Fredricksen, Jim. “Cultivating the Questions in the Minds of Young Writers.” Voices
from the Middle 9.1 (2001): 21-28.
Manouchehri, Azita, and Lapp, Douglas A. “Unveiling Student Understanding: The Role
of Questioning in Instruction.” Mathematics Teacher 96.8 (2003): 562-66
Martin, Nikki. “Questioning Styles.” Mathematics Teaching 184 S (2003): 18-19.
Moore, Lori, and Rudd, Rick. “Using Socratic Questioning in the Classroom.” The
Agricultural Education Magazine Nov-Dec (2002): 24-25.
Quiocho, Alice M.L., and Ulanoff, Sharon H. “Developing Inquiry Questions:
Encouraging Reflective Practice in a Language and Literacy Methods Course.”
Action Teacher Education 25.4 (2004): 1-8
Wilen, William W. “Exploring Myths About Teacher Questioning in the Social Studies
Classroom.” The Social Studies 92.1 (2001): 26-32.