ASK FIRST AND TELL LATER:
DEVELOPING CRITICAL THINKING BY DESIGN
JACQUELINE A. MERZ
The George Washington University
jmerz@gwu.edu
“So, what is the question?” is the query educators should ask themselves
during course development. Much time is spent preparing lectures and
power point presentations that rehash class reading assignments. Frequently
little time is devoted to designing questions that facilitate the goal of
developing student critical thinking like that of professionals in our fields.
Through Bloom’s Taxonomy of cognitive objectives educators can construct
hierarchical questions to attain course goals and enhance learning outcome.
The following describes the use of questioning through Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational
Objectives in the cognitive domain as discussed and practiced during a 50 minute workshop at
the 2006 International SUN Conference on Teaching and Learning at the University of Texas, El
Paso.
Educators use a repertoire of teaching methods in their courses. However, the method that
predominates in many classrooms in higher education is the standard lecture interspersed with
occasional questions from the educator or student. My primary teaching and learning method in
graduate courses usually begins with questions that roll into discussion and finally mini-lectures,
hence, my “ask first and tell later” strategy. I find this method quickly engages the learner in
course content, draws the learner into active participation, and appropriately directs students
beyond basic recall to critical reflection and meaningful learning. The use of questions and class
discussions are the tools of the trade for many of us who prefer to be recognized as a “facilitator”
of learning, that is, one who guides learners from the initial stages of comprehending course
content to reflection and ultimately critical thinking on its application in the field of practice.
Bloom’s Taxonomy
Developing critical thinkers is a goal of education. Educators can facilitate that goal by turning
typical course objective statements into well designed questions to be used as an in-class
teaching strategy, rather than only for course assignments or tests. Bloom’s Taxonomy of
Educational Objectives in the cognitive domain (Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl,
1956; Krathwohl, Bloom, & Masia,1965; Anderson & Sosniak, 1994) is a well known scheme
used by educators to develop course objectives. Briefly, the six levels of learning objectives from
lowest to most complex are: 1) knowledge (remembering facts); 2) comprehension
(understanding meaning); 3) application (using learning in new applications); 4) analysis
(breaking the whole into parts for understanding); 5) synthesis (creating a whole from parts); and
6) evaluation (determining worth based on criteria). While knowledge (level 1) questions are
1
used extensively in the classroom to assess learner recall, the last three levels, that is, analysis,
synthesis, and evaluation, promote critical thinking.
Workshop participants practiced developing questions through Bloom’s Taxonomy and affirmed
that this method requires practice, especially in Bloom’s levels 4, 5, and 6. Perhaps the difficulty
lies in our tendency to most often use the first three levels of Bloom (knowledge,
comprehension, and application) in course objectives and for course assignments and exams.
However, the latter three levels, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation levels are more demanding
and require critical thought. (See the Appendix, pp. 5-9 for worksheets, directions, and
references distributed during the workshop. Refer to Brown 2001 in Selected Workshop
References, p. 9 of which a section was used for the workshop exercise.)
Asking Good Questions
Questioning serves many purposes. Firstly, questions help the educator assess student recall and
comprehension of course content. Although this technique is often used in written tests, it is also
an excellent verbal teaching and learning strategy. Secondly, questions can extend thinking
beyond simple recall (what is…?) to applying learning in various situations, making assumptions
and discriminately analyzing concepts. Thirdly, questions help synthesize new learning with
previous experiences to solve problems or identify potential problems and make informed
judgments and decisions through critical thinking.
Good questions should promote learner reflection and active learning, be prepared in advance
rather than impromptu, and focus on the objectives and primary content of the session (Sanders,
1990). A method of good questioning includes: clearly stating the question (Sanders, 1990);
allowing “wait time” (Duell, 1994) for the answer; and stressing the correct response (Sanders,
1990). Two additional elements in questioning protocol are: using probing questions to help
support or clarify a response, or expand thinking; and calling on learners by name to reply to the
question (Sanders, 1990). With the practice of naming a student to reply, the students are more
likely “to try to formulate an answer” (Sanders, 1990, p. 122) in the event that they may be
selected to respond. Although this approach may motivate the learner to prepare for the session,
it has been my experience in graduate courses that unless a student appears to want to respond,
calling on a student by name may put the learner ill at ease which can potentially create an
apprehension that negates both the enjoyment of learning and maintenance of a safe learning
environment.
Although I am comfortable waiting nearly a minute for graduate students to ponder before
offering a meaningful response to a tough question, Sanders (1990) notes “fifteen seconds may
seem like an eternity to the inexperienced instructor” (pp. 121-122). However, “pause” (Sanders,
1990) or “wait time” (Duell, 1994) is essential for the learner to reflect on what is asked and
draw from experiences to intelligently respond. Sanders (1990) suggests that student non-verbal
feedback may provide an indication for the length of time to pause, but Duell (1994) reports
apparently conflicting findings:
…no evidence could be found that extended wait time enhances either low-level
or higher level achievement. In fact, extending it from 3 s [seconds] to 6 s
[seconds] led to a significant decrease in higher level achievement. No matter
2
how logical or satisfying it might be to believe that giving a student more thinking
time before they begin their answers to questions, these experiments found no
evidence to support the hypothesis that just extending wait time for university
students will enhance higher level achievements (p. 412).
Duell (1994, p. 412) does caution about generalizing his findings to “typical university
classrooms” (students who volunteered for the study were awarded course points). Based
on my years of teaching experience, I have found that some reasonable amount of time is
required for a student to respond to a question, despite the discomfort or awkwardness
that silence may be for the instructor. The exact length of time to wait depends on many
variables such as, student motivation, degree of student preparation for a session, and
difficulty of the question.
Repeating the answer offered by one student will often encourage responses from other students
who may offer a different perspective or embellish the initial response which, in turn, often
opens meaningful discussions between learners-professor and learners-learners. Regardless of
the number of responses, facilitators must provide feedback to acknowledge that each response
was heard, reinforce the accurate responses and correct misunderstandings. Additionally, writing
both the question and student responses on a visual (whiteboard or overhead transparency) is a
good method to eliminate student time to recall the question and more time to think about the
answer, and visually acknowledges student responses. The difficulty lies in what level of
questions to ask and when to ask them. To a great extent these issues can be addressed during
course design.
Course Design and Questions through Bloom
After developing course objectives through Bloom’s Taxonomy, various teaching and learning
strategies are selected to help accomplish each objective in Bloom’s cognitive domain. Strategies
for knowledge (level 1) may include lectures and movies, and for comprehension (level 2)
objectives student presentations and discussions can be used. Simulations and student projects
are appropriate for application (level 3) objectives. Problem-based scenarios and case studies
address levels 4 and 5, analysis and synthesis respectively. Exercises that require making
judgments based on criteria are appropriate for level 6, evaluation. (Refer to United States
Department of Agriculture for a comprehensive list of instructional strategies.)
Prior to each class session, questions should be carefully prepared to stimulate student thinking
for each learning objective planned for the session. The level of question in Bloom’s Taxonomy,
that is, lower or higher order, will depend on the educator’s purpose. For example, level 1
questions may ask students to recall, or for level 2 explain, the discussion from a previous
session or the assignment the student prepared for the current session. Although a typical
sequence of questions may start at level 1 and move up the hierarchy, I most often begin the
questioning with a level 3 (application) question or higher order questions. For example, I may
open the initial course session in my graduate learning theory course by asking “how might you
apply from what you learn in this course to your practice as a professional?” or “what do you
want to learn from this course for your professional development?” These questions are attempts
to make initial connections between classroom learning and professional practice and set the
stage for a case study or problem-based scenario planned for a future session.
3
The large group format may then change to small groups to discuss “what is learning?” Although
this may appear to be a typical question of recall based on assigned readings to prepare for the
session, students may also compare their past experiences with the assigned readings to develop
a definition of learning. After discussion of the replies from the small groups, I may provide a
short recap of the reading assigned for the session followed by “how does your definition of
learning compare to the definition presented by……or the theory of…?” This comparison
question moves students into analysis, level 4 of Bloom’s hierarchy. Following responses to my
question from individuals or small groups, I may begin a mini-lecture to extend student thinking
and/or correct misinterpretations. Hence, the “ask first and tell later” strategy serves several
purposes. It extends thinking beyond recall, moves in and out of various levels of Bloom’s
Taxonomy, stimulates critical thinking, and provides me with an assessment of what is
understood and where to begin the telling lecture. This process continues throughout the course
and culminates in a final exercise, a problem-based scenario or case study for which all the levels
of Bloom are addressed.
An important requirement in my courses is to maintain a safe learning environment, one that
does not permit personal criticism and opens the door to free exchange. Students can be tasked to
establish ground rules to permit expression of ideas, support collegial discussion, and assist in
classroom management during interactions
Questions that require thinking beyond mere recall, collaborative learning through open
discussion, meaningful feedback, and a safe environment can easily be planned when designing a
course and have proven to be very effective methods of teaching and learning in my courses.
Although this may be a change for those who predominately lecture, I highly recommend
experimenting with the “ask first and tell later” strategy to actively engage learners with course
content and better develop our students to think like professionals in our fields.
References
Anderson, L. W. & Sosniak, L. A. (Eds.). (1994). Bloom’s taxonomy. A forty-year retrospective
(Ninety-third yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Part II, pp.927). Chicago: The National Society for the Study of Education.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (1956).
Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook
I: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay.
Duell, O. K. (1994, Summer). Extended wait time and university student achievement.
American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 397-414.
Krathwohl, D. M, Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1965, reprinted). Taxonomy of educational
objectives. The classification of education goals. Handbook II: Affective domain
(pp. 186-193). New York: David McKay Company.
Sanders, R. E. (1990). The art of questioning. In Galbraith, M. W. (Ed). Adult learning methods
(pp. 119-129). Malabar, FL: Krieger.
United States Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service. National
Employee Development Center. Instructional Systems Design (ISD), Specifying
instructional strategies. Bloom’s Taxonomy. Retrieved on February 18, 2006 from:
http://www.nedc.nrcs.usda.gov/isd/isd8.html
4
Appendix: Workshop Materials
Ask First and Tell Later: developing critical thinking by design
Dr. Jacqueline Merz
The George Washington University
“So, what is the question?” is the query educators should ask themselves during course
development. Much time is spent preparing lectures and power point presentations that
rehash class reading assignments. Frequently little time is devoted to designing questions
that facilitate the goal of developing student critical thinking like that of professionals in
our fields. Through Bloom’s Taxonomy of cognitive objectives, working groups will
practice a method of hierarchical question construction for use throughout their courses.
Learning Objectives: Given a brief reading assignment for content of question construction and
a summary of Bloom’s Taxonomy of cognitive objectives, participants will be able to:
1. Develop at least one question for each of the six primary levels in the cognitive domain
of Bloom’s Taxonomy.
2. Argue when higher-level questions might be posed within a course to be most effective
for different student levels of experience.
3. Assess various learning formats and teaching strategies when higher-level questions
would be most appropriate in assisting in the development of student critical thinking as
observed in our fields.
Workshop Outline
10 minutes
 Workshop purpose and overview
 Discuss Bloom’s Taxonomy of cognitive objectives and distribute session materials
20 minutes
Scenario: Your department decided that the foundational course you teach will include
group projects to better prepare students for their aspired profession, and/or enrich the
learning required in their current profession to work in groups, e.g. committees, projects,
work processes. You assign the reading you have in hand to your class and design
questions aligned with the 6 levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy of cognitive objectives to
facilitate a class discussion on the reading.
Directions:
 Break into working groups of 4-6 individuals. Each group should be composed of
educators in the same or related discipline if possible.
 Read the article provided
 As a group, construct one question for each of the 6 levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy
to address your class discussion on “groups” based on the scenario above.
 Post the group questions for discussion.
15 minutes (all participants convene to large group)
 A spokesperson for each group presents their group’s questions for discussion
 Complete objectives 2 & 3 above
5 minutes – Q & A
5
Worksheet
Bloom’s Taxonomy of Cognitive Objectives
Levels:
1. Knowledge, 2. Comprehension, 3. Application, 4. Analysis, 5. Synthesis, 6. Evaluation
Lowest
Highest
Degree of difficulty
Directions:
Using the reading as context, develop one question in each level of the taxonomy, and if the
group composition permits, include in your questions if possible relevance to your discipline.
Level
1. Knowledge
remembering facts
Associated Verbs
define
discuss
identify
label
list
name
outline
quote
recall
recite
restate
summarize
Sample Question Leaders…..
Who are…………
What is…………
Where did….……
When…………..
How many………..
Your questions related to the reading:
Level
2. Comprehension
understanding meaning
Associated Verbs
Sample Question Leaders…..
associate
describe
elaborate
estimate
explain
identify
How might one go about……
What is the meaning of………
Why do you think…………..
In your own words, explain……
Can you provide examples……..
interpret
modify
outline
paraphrase
relate
predict
Your questions related to the reading:
6
Level
3. Application
using learning in
new situations
Associated Verbs
Sample Question Leaders…..
build
compute
construct
demonstrate
employ
illustrate
How might this apply in….
How would you use this method to…
Given…what would happen if….
What other way can you use….
If you were…how would you…..
model
operate
practice
represent
show
solve
Your questions related to the reading:
Level
4. Analysis
breaking the whole
into parts for
understanding
Associated Verbs
categorize
conclude
contrast
debate
diagram
distinguish
discriminate
examine
infer
order
separate
question
Your questions related to the reading:
7
Sample Question Leaders…..
What is the relationship between….
How would you classify…………
How does this compare to…….
Based on what assumptions…….
What evidence supports……….
Level
Associated Verbs
Sample Question Leaders…..
assemble
compile
combine
create
design
develop
How would you…to include….
What other methods…………..
What solutions would you……..
What could be done to modify…..
How would you design a different…
5. Synthesis
creating a whole
from parts
generate
invent
organize
plan
propose
rebuild
Your questions related to the reading:
Level
6. Evaluation
determining worth
based on criteria
Associated Verbs
Sample Question Leaders…..
appraise
assess
critique
determine
estimate
grade
What would be the first priority….
How would you justify…………..
What is the significance of…………
To what extent do you think…..
How effective was ……………
judge
rate
rank
score
support
value
Your questions related to the reading:
8
Ask First and Tell Later: developing critical thinking by design
Selected Workshop References
Anderson, L. W. & Sosniak, L. A. (Eds.). (1994). Bloom’s taxonomy. A forty-year retrospective
(Ninety-third yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Part II).
Chicago: The National Society for the Study of Education.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (1956).
Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook
I: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay.
Brown, B. L. (2001). Group effectiveness in the classroom and workplace. ERIC Clearinghouse
on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education. Practice Application Brief no.15. Retrieved
on February 11, 2006 from: http://www.cete.org/acve/docs/pab00024
Clark, D. (1999; 2001). Learning domains or Bloom’s Taxonomy. Retrieved on January 1, 2006
from: http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html
Exploration in learning & instruction: the theory into practice database. Retrieved on January 5,
2006 from: http://tip.psychology.org/taxonomy.html
Fowler, B. (Contributor). (1996). Critical thinking across the curriculum. Bloom’s taxonomy and
critical thinking. Longview Community College. Retrieved on January 20, 2006 from:
http://www.kcmetro.cc.mo.us/longview/ctac/blooms.htm
Krathwohl, D. M, Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1965, reprinted). Taxonomy of educational
objectives. The classification of education goals. Handbook II: Affective domain
(pp. 186-193). New York: David McKay Company.
Sanders, R. E. (1990). The art of questioning. In Galbraith, M. W. (Ed). Adult learning methods
(pp. 119-129). Malabar, FL: Krieger.
Types of questions based on Bloom’s taxonomy. From Bloom, et al. 1956. Retrieved on January
15, 2006 from:
http://www.honolulu.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/teachtip/quest
ype.htm
9