Why classroom questions often fail, and how to fix them

Ever experienced with silent classrooms when asking open-ended questions? This excerpt from Chapter 3 of Teaching Meaning breaks down why “guess what’s in my head” questions fail and how to fix them.

There’s a common problem with encouraging students to explore ideas and express their understandings. Many students offer poor answers or don’t participate. This often discourages teachers.

There are two separate reasons why this occurs. Maybe the students feel they don’t know enough to contribute. But, many times, the problem lies elsewhere:

Frequently, students don’t understand what their teacher expects.

When I volunteered on a farm in Ecuador, I’d often discuss ecology and agriculture with my host. One day, he asked me what would happen to the grounds if the farm were abandoned. I had no idea what he was expecting: Could he be talking about who could use the land? The soil fertility without fertilisers? Whether the coffee trees would produce as much fruit, or if the banana trees would dry out?

After waiting some time, he answered it for me. It would develop into a forest. I had known that, but the question was ambiguous, and the situation made me feel silly (despite having much to contribute). These types of questions are often called “Guess what’s in my head”, and they cause problems. Here are a few examples:

• Can anyone explain the cause of World War II?
• What did you notice in that experiment?
• Which word should you use here?
• What is a chord?
• Why does the LED work?

The term “guess what’s in my head” is a good one. We can’t know what the person is referring to. Remember that properties (aspects) are just differences. Yet none of these questions explicitly states a difference. They’re all questions about “the thing itself” without a comparison. Without any explicit variation, it’s impossible to know what aspect of a concept the teacher is referring to.

The problem with open questions

Open questions widen the possibilities available to students. They either allow a variety of answers or a variety of ways of presenting an answer. Widening the possibilities is necessary if we’re to encourage students to explore concepts. But when students can’t see exactly what the teacher is referring to, the variety of possibilities can seem limitless.

Most students likely suffer a sort of mental paralysis. They weigh up the odds and realise their best bet is not to bother. Others have a punt nonetheless, and the teacher gets something random. These students perceived it as a guessing game, and they were right.

Unfortunately, when students don’t participate well, the problem tends to get worse. Teachers may shift from exploration to questioning for agreement.¹

Teachers are, of course, eager to help students come to a response. But this tends to mean that teachers shift away from prompting inferences to asking simple recall questions.² For example, these could be gap-fills in which students must state a key word missing from a teacher’s sentence.

The variety of possibilities is severely reduced, and guessing is again encouraged; the opportunity for exploration is lost. Consider this dialogue from a lesson:³

T: Can you explain to me, why doesn’t this motor work?
Ss: [silent]
T: Why doesn’t this motor work? Because the motor must uses____?
Ss: [silent]
T: The current is____? Large or small?
S: Large.
T: Large.

It’s unclear whether the students knew anything; maybe they did. Their silence only indicates confusion over the question’s ambiguity. Maybe, like me, they felt silly once the answer was revealed. The lack of response urged the teacher to close their questions, and the chance for exploration ended. What can we do instead?

A better way to ask

Clearly, teachers need to develop a shared culture of dialogue and a willingness to make mistakes. Students should understand their role in the conversation as co-contributors; their responses matter and shape what comes next.

Beyond this, however, to feel confident in participating, students need to know both the context and the distinction being discussed. The context is implied by whatever is being taught: the topic, concept, or model. Still, it can be referred to directly: “In this model/novel/historical event/circumstance…”. The distinction can be referred to by using variation, a difference.⁴

If you remember, varying a single aspect catches our attention. To do this, within your question, compare whatever you’re talking about with something else. For example, instead of asking me, “What would happen if the farm were abandoned?” the farmer could have asked, “Do you think the types of plants on the farm would stay the same or change if we abandoned it?”.

Now the aspect is clear; we’re talking about the species on the farm. I would answer that it would change but getting that bit right isn’t what’s important. It’s the fact that we’re now both on the same page to explore an idea together. Next, he could ask why I thought the species would change, and the discussion could begin.

Likewise, I recently observed a colleague teaching about evolution to young students and asked, “How are polar bears adapted?”. No one participated.

He asked me how he could have improved the question. I suggested asking something like, “In terms of evolution, which polar bear is more adapted, one with long fur or short fur?”. And once students have made a choice, ask them to justify their answer. This way, the students would have understood what the teacher meant by the term adaptation and that he was referring to the polar bear’s characteristics.

With teachers and students in sync, exploration can be fruitful. Here are some generalisable examples:

✕
Question: Why is X as it is?
Expectation: Not specified.
Following question: X is this way because it has two ______?

✓
Question: Which is more similar to X? or Which is more evocative of X?
Expectation: Choice of A, B, or C.
Following question: Why did you choose your answer?
Expectation: Open answer.

✓
Question: How would X be different (from normal) if it were in this other context?
Expectation: Choice of A or B.
Following question: Why did you choose your answer?
Expectation: Open answer.

✓
Question: How would X be different (from normal) if I changed it in this way?
Expectation: Choice of A, B, or C.
Following question: Why did you choose your answer?
Expectation: Open answer.

✓
Question: Why is Z, an alternative variety of X, not seen more often?
Expectation: Choice of A or B.
Following question: Why did you choose your answer?
Expectation: Open answer.

A simple trick can expand this further: before deciding, students can discuss their ideas with a partner. The class can then vote on their choice (in my class, by raising their hands). This gives two benefits:

• Firstly, participation and exploration increase as students discuss in pairs, which is less intimidating than speaking to the whole class.
• Secondly, by having them vote (by raising arms), the teacher gains instant information on the class’s thinking. They can then gain more information by asking for deeper answers from a few selected students. After which, the class can even vote again, if they agree or disagree with their classmate’s answer.

As an example, here is a pattern that is often enacted in my classroom:

1. Discuss a difference/change/variation.
2. Offer a multiple-choice question about the difference.
3. Have students converse in pairs.
4. Have the students vote on the options sequentially (so you can see who is voting for what) by raising their hands.
5. Choose how to proceed according to the votes, for example:
   a) Split vote: Ask two students, who voted differently, to justify their answers, and then have the class vote on which answer they agree with.
   b) Low confidence voting: Ask students to spend more time discussing in pairs before voting again on the original question.
   c) High confidence: voting on the incorrect answer: Ask several students to justify their answers to try to reveal what the students have perceived.

Notice how this scheme is the opposite of what’s normally observed: In promoting exploration, teachers often widen the possibilities by asking an open question. If the question fails, they then narrow the possibilities by asking closed questions.

In my scheme, I start with narrowed possibilities: multiple choice. This lowers the stakes, and the students feel able to explore how one answer differs from another. They can be given time to think and discuss in pairs. These conversations allow them to explore and compare a partner’s idea with their own.

The students themselves may begin opening the possibilities as they follow the consequences of choosing one answer over another. After voting, I widen the possibilities further by asking students to justify their choice. I may also then ask other students to explain why they agree or disagree with the answer they’ve just heard.

In short, a sequence that begins with open possibilities may create confusion, which leads to a closing of possibilities. In contrast, if teachers begin with narrow possibilities (using variation), the clarity it brings can naturally lead to fruitful exploration. Combining questions about differences with hands-up voting produces a viable form of exploratory conversation.

If this post has resonated with you, read the rest in Teaching Meaning: What Works When Telling Isn’t Enough. Download Chapter 1 for free here.

Notes

1. Also, of course, teachers being observed often feel pressured to show that their students can answer correctly. ↩︎
2. Tsui et al., Questions and the Space of Learning. ↩︎
3. Ibid., p.129. ↩︎
4. I first wrote about this idea in Difference Maker. ↩︎