Using higher order questioning to accelerate students’ growth in reading

Peterson, Debra S., & Taylor, Barbara M. (2012). Using higher order questioning to accelerate students’ growth in reading. The Reading Teacher, 65(5), 295-304.

This article describes how elementary teachers in diverse urban schools worked to transform the kinds of talk they did with children about texts, with the goal of raising those students’ thinking to higher levels than had been reached before. The emphasis is on what is called “higher-order questions.” The authors define higher-order questioning as questioning that “requires students to think at a deeper level and to elaborate on their oral and written responses to literature” (p. 297). First, students were taught to respond to higher-order questions both orally and in writing. The ultimate goal, though, was to teach students to generate their own higher-order questions about texts, and then to use their new skills in generating and responding to higher-order questions to engage in student-led, student-centered small group discussions about texts. The article includes several vignettes that capture the kinds of small group discussions the researchers observed.

The authors generated three categories which they used to classify the types of higher-order questions they observed: 1) Theme, 2) Character Interpretation, and 3) Making connections to students’ lives. The texts used with the children were primarily fiction or at least narrative texts. I caught myself speculating on what sorts of categories might have been generated for higher-order questions about nonfiction/expository texts. With the current stress on increasing the emphasis on nonfiction texts, even in the earliest grades, I wondered why the authors chose to focus on narratives. Narrative texts are often thought to be easier to comprehend than expository texts (though I’m not sure I completely believe that is true), and perhaps because this new emphasis on higher-order questions probably was a big change in how reading comprehension was perceived in these elementary schools, working with fiction was seen as the first step. We don’t really get the full rationale for that in this article, though reference is made to an online version of this research report that may contain that information; I plan to check that out.

Other questions raised for me by the article involves my desire for more information on assessments. The students here are described as “making accelerated growth in their reading achievement” (p. 299). On what basis was that assessment made? How exactly was the success of this push for higher-order questioning documented? I realize that this information may well be in the longer online article, but even brief references to the assessments used here would be helpful and desirable, and would have strengthened the article while not necessarily taking up much space or having to go into excruciating detail.

Overall, though, I found the article helpful and hopeful. It provides concrete, authentic examples of what higher-order thinking and talk might sound like in an elementary classroom. Children are portrayed having meaningful and engaging conversations about literature, and that is a breath of fresh air. The recently adopted Common Core Standards may be an impetus toward raising the bar on student thinking, and those standards are referenced briefly in the article. My biggest worry relevant to the push for “higher-order” thinking is that as with any reform linked to high-stakes testing, allocation of scarce resources, and political agendas, there will be the inevitable push toward all things that can be quantified, packaged, and sold. I hope the kinds of change that led to the kinds of student talk that we see in this article won’t ultimately be reduced to formulaic models, scripts, and programs. I worry, but I’m still hopeful that the kind of collaborative work teachers did here to change the way they and their students thought about and talked about texts will be the trend that spreads in this country. The key here was the development of human resources and learning, not the development of materials and models. As long as we as educators keep asking some higher-order questions of our own, we will be on the right track.

Twenty Discussion Prompts:

1. How would you define a “higher-order question”? What makes a question a “higher order” one vs. a “lower-order” one? Give your own examples of higher-order questions. Then give examples of what you consider lower-level questions. What are the differences in the kinds of wording you used to frame the two kinds of questions?

2. Theoretical classifications are sometimes used to label questions as relatively high-level or low-level. Two classification systems that might be used to classify questions are Bloom’s Taxonomy with its six categories and Norman Webb’s four Depth of Knowledge categories. Which of the categories in Bloom’s and Webb’s models could be used to describe high-level questions?

Information on Bloom’s Taxonomy:

http://www.casdk12.net/ghs04/SRB/5-Curriculum/Blooms%20Taxonomy%20chart.pdf


Information on Webb’s Depth of Knowledge:

http://dese.mo.gov/divimprove/sia/msip/DOK_Chart.pdf


3. Look at the two classroom vignettes on page 296 of the article. What seem to be the goals of the first vignette? What seem to be the goals of the second vignette? How else do the two vignettes differ?

4. How has reading comprehension traditionally been assessed? How might higher-order comprehension be assessed? How would/should a focus on higher level thinking change the way reading comprehension is assessed?

5. Look at your state’s standards for reading. Which outcomes would you consider “higher-order” outcomes?

For an example of one state’s document, see the Missouri Grade Level Expectations for Communication Arts, which may be accessed at:

http://dese.mo.gov/divimprove/curriculum/GLE/


6. Look at the Common Core Standards that have recently been adopted by many states. These standards have been described as “rigorous” and involving a high level of thinking that students will need for later success in college and careers. Do you think the Common Core Standards represent high-level thinking? Why or why not?

For information on the Common Core Standards, go to:

http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards


7. Look at the Table on page 297 of the article, which lists three types of higher- order questions (Theme, Character Interpretation, Making connections to students’ lives) and gives examples of each type of question. Do you agree that the example questions are high level questions? Why or why not?

8. Discuss how the following kinds of teacher talk suggested by the article’s authors could help scaffold higher-order thinking:

• “If someone were to ask me that question, I might answer it this way . . .”

• “Please tell me more about that.”

• Complete the following: “I followed my dream when . . . “

• “Each of you will have a special role in your discussion group.”

• “If you agree with something one of your group members says, say ‘I agree with that because . . . “
• “Remember to follow the four discussion guidelines we have posted here on the wall.”

9. Look at the exchange between Mr. Flemings and Jorge on page 298. Do you think the “coaching” Mr. Flemings provided has actually helped Jorge respond at a higher level?

10. Look at the four “discussion guidelines” from Ms. Mallory’s third grade classroom (page 298). Are these guidelines sufficient? Are they developmentally appropriate? What cultural norms do they reflect? Can you think of examples where these guidelines might conflict with students’ cultural norms?

Kathryn Au’s classic research with Hawaiian students revealed that in some cultural backgrounds, typical response patterns might differ from the kinds of response patterns traditionally honored in most schools, which involve orderly turn-taking. The Hawaiian children in Au’s study were used to response patterns where several group participants might chime in together, and they got in trouble with their teachers for not taking turns. Look at this research at the following link and discuss its significance in light of this article and today’s culturally diverse classrooms.

For an article by Kathryn Au on culturally responsive teaching, see:

http://www.reading.org/General/Publications/ReadingToday/RTY-0912_culturally_responsive.aspx


11. Scan through the discussion among the children called Long, Molly, Khalid, Jack, and Samantha on pp. 298-299. Identify places in the discussion where you think you can spot “higher-order thinking” and explain why those comments caught your eye.

12. Why does a discussion of theme in a text often lead to higher-order thinking? Do you think the children whose discussions are presented here really understood the notion of theme, at least at an appropriate level for their age?

13. Some people believe teachers should not ask young children, or children who are still struggling to acquire basic literacy skills, to engage in the kinds of higher-order thinking about texts that the authors of the article recommend. What might be the rationale behind such a belief? What might be the rationale for building higher-order thinking even if basic reading and writing skills have not yet been mastered? What do you think?

14. The vignettes in the article seem to be mostly about fiction texts; there is one biographical text described, but the text seems to still be a narrative. The three categories the authors used to classify questions (Theme, Character Interpretation, Making connections to students’ lives) seem more suited to narrative text than to expository texts found in various content areas. How would higher-order discussion of nonfiction/expository texts look? What categories might be proposed to classify higher-order thinking about nonfiction texts?

15. Read through the section under the heading “Classroom Examples of High-Level Questioning” (pp. 299-301). The authors show examples of questions in their three classification categories (Theme, Character Interpretation, Making connections to students’ lives). Using a text you use (or might use) with your own present or future students, attempt to generate a few higher-order questions that could be classified under each category. If possible, share your questions with other educators. Critique each others’ questions, and discuss any challenges or difficulties that arose as you attempted to generate your questions.

16. Is it always necessary for a student to identify with a character or to connect a text to prior experience if that student is to fully comprehend and appreciate that text? For what kinds of texts would making such connections be relatively easy? For what kinds of texts would it be a challenge?

17. Teachers in the study reported here made instructional changes with the help of their colleagues. Why was such support and scaffolding so critical to the change process?

18. What kinds of administrative support were needed to make sure the required level of collaboration could occur? What kinds of resources needed to be present, and allocated, in order to make instructional change possible?

19. The project is presented in the article in a way that makes it seem as if all of the teachers involved were fully on-board for the change, but realistically, in most change processes, some resistance may be observed. What kinds of resistance might emerge when a school is working to move students into higher-order thinking? How might that resistance be met with by those supporting the change?

20. Describe the role of the literacy coach in the change process. What were some specific literacy coach behaviors that facilitated the processes of professional learning and instructional change?