Observing Teachers Use of Questions and Wait-Time

Kaitlin Sharp
This document presents a five-column chart identifying 20 questions asked by a teacher in a high school English
classroom. After the data is presented there is a reflection on the entire data that I gathered in assessing teacher
questioning in the classroom.
The following are the headings for the columns. Each question is given a number that appropriately describes the
question/answer/response.
Chart Key
Column A Cognitive Level
Column B - Amount of wait-time
Column C Level of difficulty of question
Column D Teacher response to students answers.
EXAMPLE: For the first question the teacher asks, look at Question No. 1, then read across to column A and code
in that column the level of question that the teacher asked.
Question Number
Column A
Column B
Column C`
Column D
1
3
2
2
3
(I.e. Question #1 - the teacher asked an application question (3) and paused for a few seconds (2) for an answer.
However, the students response was not accepted (2) by the teacher and the teacher responded to the incorrect
answer by allowing the student another opportunity (3) to correctly answer the question).
Column A - Blooms Cognitive Levels of Questions: Examples:
1. Knowledge
Can the students recall what they have seen, hear, or
read?
2. Comprehension
Can the student organize facts in various ways?
3. Application
Can the student apply techniques and rules to solve
problems that have single correct answers?
4. Analysis
Can the student explain relationships, make
inferences, and find examples to support
generalizations?
5. Synthesis
Can the student make predictions, solve problems,
or produce original communications?
6. Evaluation
Can the student give opinions about issues and
judge the merit of ideas, problem solutions, art, and
other products?
Column B Wait-time
1. Teacher paused for a few seconds before calling on student.
2. Teacher paused a few seconds after calling on student.
3. Teacher did not pause.
4. Not applicable; student answered readily.
Column C Level of Difficulty of Question
1. Student response was accepted by teacher.
2. Response was not accepted by teacher
Column D Teacher response to students answers
1. Teacher gave a brief acknowledgement of correct answer.
2. Teacher gave gushy praise.
3. Student error was dignified
4. Student error was handled inappropriately.

Data from 20 Questions

Question Number

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Column A
1
4
1
2
1
1
1
2
6
1
5
6
1
4
1
1
1
1
4
4

Column B
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1

Column C
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1

Column D
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Bloom's Cognitive Levels of Questions

Levels 4-6
35%
Levels 1-3
65%

Reflection on Questions and Wait-Time

Kaitlin Sharp
Blooms Cognitive Levels
Sixty-five percent of the twenty questions made the students use their lower-level critical
thinking skills, and about eighty-five percent of those questions were only at the knowledge
level. I was surprised that the teacher did not ask the students any questions that required them
to use application skills. The questions focused on asking the students if they remembered what
they read in the text within the last day or fifteen minutes. However some of the questions did
require them to use other critical thinking skills such as: comprehension, analysis, and
evaluation. Only three questions required synthesis or evaluation thinking skills. I also noticed
that the teacher did not scaffold from lower to higher levels of thinking; the order of the
questions seemed random.
Wait Time
For most of the questions there was not a wait time because a student would call out the answer
after the teacher would ask a question. Unfortunately, not all of the students participated in
answering questions since a few students answered without being called on. Sometimes there
would be two to three students calling out different and/or similar answers at the same time.
Most of the time, students answered the questions without pausing to reflect on the question
because most of the questions that were asked used low-level thinking skills. The students
responding to the questions tended to be advanced students or students that exhibit higher
participation levels than most of their peers on a regular basis. The teacher did not pause between
student responses to one question before going on to the next question. The teacher accepted any
answer that made sense or was partially correct.

Level of Difficulty
The majority of the time the teacher accepted the students answers. Also, the teacher did not
respond to incorrect or partial answers incorrectly. Only one response was not accepted by the
teacher because the students answer indicated that he did not understand what part of the text
the question was referring to. The teacher restated the question and accepted multiple answers
because it was an analysis question. It was logical for the teacher to accept almost all of the
answers because most of the questions only required lower-level thinking skills, so students
could easily recall or find answers in the text.
Teachers Response
The teacher acknowledged students responses with a brief nod of the head since the majority of
the time the students answers were accepted by the teacher. Occasionally the teacher used a
verbal acknowledgement by stating that the students response was a good answer. The teacher
gave a positive response the singular time that a question was not answered correctly. The
teacher restated the question and gave the class a clue to lead them to the correct answer. Most of
the time the teacher would elaborate on the students answer to make sure the class had the
essential information and increase retention through repetition.
Personal Reflection
I was surprised that over half of the questions were knowledge-based and that students called out
answers without pausing to reflect on the question. I learned that teachers should establish a
method to ensure that everyone answers at least one question even when allowing students to
volunteer to answer. I expected to see more transitions from lower to higher level thinking skills.
However, I realized that sometimes the content of the lesson lends itself more to higher or lower
level thinking skills. For example, the observed lesson was the initial reading of a Shakespearian

text, so the teacher was more concerned about making sure the students understood what was
happening due to the language complexities. I appreciated that the teacher gave feedback by
elaborating on the student responses to make sure the entire class had the correct information and
was able to hear the correct answer and important information more than once. This activity and
observation demonstrated to me the need to come prepared to class with a list of multiple
questions for each thinking level. By coming to class with a list of questions and marking down
which questions were asked we provide ourselves with a log of cognitive level of questioning
that we are using in our classroom; this log would be invaluable when reflecting on how we can
improve probing and questioning in the classroom.