Research suggests teachers ask approximately 58,000 questions a year.

That’s a huge amount of questions. And a huge range of opportunities for teachers to get learners thinking, doing and reflecting.

But what is a question?

How can we define questioning in the classroom?

How can we make sense of it?

Questions share a number of traits:

1. In writing, the presence of a question mark. In speech, a specific inflection.
2. The purpose of eliciting information in the form of a response or an action.
3. The use of one or more directional words. That is, words which direct the respondent in how they ought to frame their response.
4. The undertone of command (think of the phrase: ‘A question that demands an answer’).
5. The desire for reciprocity.

These traits are present in most questions (rhetorical questions are, of course, a special case).

Let’s explore each in turn so as understand them a little better.

Consider this:

1.1) What is a question

1.2) What is a question?

2.1) How are you

2.2) How are you?

3.1) Where might be the best place to position a wind turbine

3.2) Where might be the best place to position a wind turbine?

The question mark has the primary function of indicating that the text which precedes it ought to be treated as a question. In cases 1.1, 2.1 and 3.1 it is natural for us to assume that the collection of words is indeed a question. This demonstrates how accustomed we are to the general form which questions take. It also demonstrates that we can use our knowledge of questions to make inferences about items which appear to have most of the elements of a question, though not all of them.

Equally, if we were to say statements 1.1, 2.1 and 3.1 to someone, it is likely they would assume that we were asking them a question. We would probably find it difficult to say the statements without adding an inflection to indicate the fact that they are questions.

The listener would probably think it odd that something which sounds like a question has not been clearly signalled as such.

There are two conventions then, one written and one spoken, which act as signals to the audience that a question has been asked. The functions of these are as follows:

1. To minimise ambiguity.
2. To define that which has been said or written as a question.
3. To close a sentence (in lieu of a full stop).
4. To signify command (a question is asked, it is not said. Consider the difference in the connotations of those two words).
5. Through the combination of points i-iv, to indicate the desire for reciprocity.

Imagine we are interacting with a very young child, one who has not yet developed language.

It would be quite natural for us to ask this child questions: ‘Who’s a good boy then?’ ‘What is it? What’s up sweetie?’ ‘Who likes a tickle? Is it you?’

These questions do not draw a response in language – other than from the speaker, who might choose to answer themselves – but they may draw a physical reply of some sort.

If so, this is not a response to the question as a user of language would respond, but a response to stimulation; the brute information of the senses, before any coatings of culture (and therefore of meaning) have been layered on top.

The act of asking questions of another being who cannot possibly respond in kind throws up a number of interesting points.

First, it suggests the centrality of questioning in our use of language.

Second, it points to the importance of the child acquiring an understanding of the practice of question-asking during their development.

Third, it intimates the reciprocal nature of our experience, both outside and inside of language. We will look at this final point in more detail.

Language is a tool which allows humans to communicate with one another. Words signify things. As do collections of words. Speaker and listener understand (perhaps exactly, perhaps loosely) what these significations are. If I say to you ‘I saw a dog yesterday’, you know that:

‘I’ is a term used to refer to the self. In this case the self is the speaker in question – Mike Gershon.

‘Saw’ is the past tense of ‘see’, meaning to take in visually the sight of something.

‘A dog’ means that there was one thing of that class which we refer to as dogs (the class being defined by a series of aspects which are common, and which have to be found in something for it to be specified as belonging to that class).

‘Yesterday’ means the day before today (today meaning the present period of time, between the hours of 00.00AM and 11.59PM, which we are in – that itself being defined by the mechanical measure of time we have put in place through the use of clocks. Yesterday meaning the same as today except one full cycle of the clock previous).

We could further analyse each of the words in order to reveal that an understanding of the simple sentence I spoke to you actually relies upon and contains an even greater range of knowledge.

What we have shown is sufficient to make the point however. That being, that language is a shared tool which exists independently of any one individual human and which acts as a means to share that which is inside of us (thoughts, sensations and so on) – this includes our experience of that which is outside of us (for example: I did not share with you the dog itself, but my experience of having seen the dog).

Getting back to the fact of asking questions of a child who cannot respond, we can see that the reciprocal aspect of questioning – which is clearly bound up with the nature of language as we have just briefly outlined – is to the fore.

The parent is interacting with their child. They are including them in the language community.

They are modelling for them what the speaking of language is. This is not just through the words though – it is also through the functions and conventions of how those words are put together.

Questions then, are by their nature reciprocal.

Language is a bridge between the separate minds we all possess. Questions play a key part in language. One of their main functions is to provide a starting point for the building of a bridge (the answer is the end point. There may be many bridges, millions in fact; there is, after all, so much we might connect).

We have considered briefly points (i) and (v). Let us now think about point (ii) – that questions are asked to elicit responses.

Based on what has been said so far, we are working under the assumption that when a question is asked it is done so with the expectation of reciprocity and that it is known as a question through the use of a commonly understood convention.

We can deduce from these premises that questions will be asked with the intention of evoking a response.

If all questions are imbued with a sense of reciprocity, and if all collections of words which are questions are signified by a convention, then inevitably the onus is placed on the audience to offer some kind of response.

This need not be spoken or written – it could simply be thought.

Consider for example, when one reads a textbook containing questions. The author has clearly intended that the reader should take account of these, though it is likely they will do so in their mind, rather than through speech.

The traits of reciprocity and response-elicitation are closely linked. Both point to the fact that questions reach out to other minds.

The difference, however, is that reciprocity refers to the general nature of questions, and response-elicitation refers to the specific act that a questioner is seeking to induce.

Let us look at some examples to make this clearer:

1. What did you buy today?
2. How much are these?
3. I’m worried about Johnny, what do you think we should do?

In case (1), the questioner is seeking to elicit very specific information. They want to bridge the gap between their own mind and the mind of the person they are speaking to regarding what has been bought.

This may be for a number of reasons, for example:

• They may be worried about money.
• They may be interested or may want to give the appearance of being interested.
• They may want to create an opportunity to talk about something they themselves have bought.

The list of motives we could ascribe to such a question is long.

Suffice to say, whatever the motive, there is contained within the question a general sense of reciprocity: ‘I am asking this. I am signalling that it is something that is being asked through my use of the convention. Therefore, I am showing that I want to create something with you – a conversation, an exchange, an airing of views or whatever.’

At the same time, the particular elements of the question combine to request a response; in this case, what that is will probably prove to be quite specific.

Here, we will do well to connect point (iii). That is, the use of directional words – words which give the person being questioned an idea of what sort of a response is being requested.

Let us exemplify this, as well as continuing to distinguish between reciprocity and response-elicitation, by looking at case (2).

‘How much are these?’ is a statement which is likely to be used in a shop or market. It is underpinned by a sense of reciprocity – the questioner has not just picked up the item and placed it in front of the seller.

Nor have they gesticulated at it while pointing at their wallet. Having said that, you may be prepared to argue that the nature of the question militates against reciprocity; the questioner is seeking a highly specific response; they are after a small piece of information which they can use in conjunction with other things they know about or feel toward the item in question.

Any question is only one half of a bridge though.

In this case, it is still open to the person being asked the question to take it as an opportunity to talk at length, ask another question or provide a narrative which explains the price which is being requested.

This gives us a sense of how reciprocity and response-elicitation exist at one and the same time. It also further supports the contention that they share some aspects as well as having points of difference.

Now let us turn to the idea of directional words.

‘How much are these?’ has the function of response-elicitation (think how put out the person would be if the shopkeeper ignored them) and the inherent sense of reciprocity.

The scope of these two aspects is limited by the structure of the question itself. There are two parts: ‘How much’ and ‘are these’. We analyse them thus:

• ‘How much…’ indicates to the person being questioned that a specific piece of information is being requested. It signals that this information ought to be numerical or, at the very least, in reference to the number system (for example: a lot).

The ‘how’ directs the listener through negation (it is not who, what, when, why or where) and through indication (‘how’ suggests that one ought to specify from within a range of possible options).

The ‘much’ indicates what range of possibilities the ‘how’ is referring to in its request for specification. Therefore, we know that we are to specify from the range of numbers or terms which signify numerical degree.

• ‘…are these’ indicates that the specific quantitative measure is in relation to an object which is present (and, we might infer, this object is being physically indicated by the speaker in such a way that the listener is made aware of to what they are referring).

The ‘are’ points to the numerical degree being that which is the case at the present moment in time.

The ‘these’ indicates the object to which the preceding words are referring – that thing in the world about which the question is being asked; the items about which the questioner would like to elicit information.

Let us now think about how the words might direct the response of the person to whom the question is being posed.

First, the use of ‘how much’ pushes any response in a certain direction.

True, the shopkeeper could ignore this and say something like: ‘they are beautiful, aren’t they?’ But this is less likely than them responding in accordance with the significations conjured up by the two words.

Second, the term ‘are these’ clearly directs the shopkeeper’s attention to certain items about which the person wants to know. They are unlikely to respond by talking about something completely different.

We have then, two points of which we need to be aware:

• Questions may contain individual words or collections of words which indicate a specific type of response, a specific area in which a response ought to sit, or a style of responding which ought to be adopted. This is exemplified above through the case of ‘How much…’

• Questions may contain individual words or collections of words which indicate what the question is about. This is exemplified above through the case of ‘…are these’.

It is fair to say that most questions, perhaps all questions, will contain these two elements.

The latter is not of great importance – all sentences need to be about something. If we ask a question it will only function correctly if the listener understands what it is we are asking about.

The former, on the other hand, is very important. In order to illustrate why, let us consider the case as a matter of form versus content.

Here is a question:

‘How big is X?’

This question could be asked innumerable times with X being replaced on each occasion by a different word:

• How big is France?
• How big is a fox?
• How big is a football?
• How big is Barry?
• How big is reggae music?

Throughout, the form of the question remains the same while the content changes. Such changes allow us to find out information of the type indicated by ‘how big is…’ concerning all manner of different things.

What must be noted though, is that the form of the answers is likely to be roughly the same in each case. It will vary to some degree due to the different means of measurement we use for the various items.

But it is likely to hold to a similar style in each case.

This is because, generally, the form of the question has greater power in directing the response than the content of the question.

This is a really important point for us to remember when we are asking questions in the classroom. It bears repeating:

Generally, the form of a question has greater power in directing responses than the content of the question.