Bloom’s-Based Extension Questions

Let’s think briefly about using Bloom’s taxonomy to structure extension questions.

These questions are supplements to the main work of the lesson.

They are called extensions because they are intended to extend the thinking of those learners who get onto them.

For this reason, the top three levels of the taxonomy (analysis, synthesis and evaluation) are of most use to us, whenever we plan such questions.

This is because these levels make the greatest cognitive demands on learners; something we absolutely want to be doing if we are seeking to extend thinking.

Here are three approaches you can use when planning extension questions.

Strategy One: Repeatable Questions

Plan a set of extension questions based on evaluation and synthesis that are relevant to your age-group and/or subject and which you can call on repeatedly in a range of situations.

Such questions might be generic in design, or they might be question stems you can use to quickly build suitable questions when you need them.

Either way, the aim is to have tools on hand that you can use again and again, without the need for additional planning, meaning that you are always ready to challenge learner thinking.

Strategy Two: Create-Your-Own Extension

When learners complete an activity, present them with a list of Bloom’s keywords (analysis, synthesis, evaluation or all three) along with a couple of exemplar questions.

Challenge them to create and then answer their own extension question.

As an alternative, if more than one learner has completed the activity, you can ask learners to create extension questions that they then pose to each other.

This creates a nice sense of competition and means the learners in question have a subsequent opportunity to discuss their questions and answers with each other.

Here’s a word list for the top three levels of the taxonomy:

Analysis Keywords:

• Analyse, Appraise, Categorize, Compare, Contrast, Differentiate, Discriminate, Distinguish, Examine, Experiment, Explore, Investigate, Question, Research, Test.

Synthesis Keywords:

• Combine, Compose, Construct, Create, Devise, Design, Formulate, Hypothesise, Integrate, Merge, Organise, Plan, Propose, Synthesise, Unite.

Evaluation Keywords:

• Appraise, Argue, Assess, Critique, Defend, Evaluate, Examine, Grade, Inspect, Judge, Justify, Rank, Rate, Review, Value.

Strategy Three: Shoe Box Extension

Create a range of extension questions you can use repeatedly (similar to above).

You can develop these yourself or you can turn the exercise into an activity by inviting learners to help you develop them (scaffold it by sharing the word lists).

Write each question on a separate slip of paper.

Fold these up and store them in a shoe box (or something similar).

When learners complete the main activity, invite them to grab the shoe box and to pick out an extension question.

This creates a nice sense of mystery around the process (what question will I pick out?), increasing motivation and engagement.

You can go a step further by decorating and naming the shoe box.

For example, you might cover it with sparkly wrapping paper and call it ‘The Super-Powered Extension Box of Big-Thinking Questions’.

Or something similar 😉.

Develop Mastery Through Stepped Questioning

A useful activity you can develop based around the taxonomy is stepped questioning.

This is where we present learners with a series of questions that gradually move up the levels and, as a result, become increasingly challenging.

It’s like presenting a series of steps that lead towards mastery.

Here is an example:

1. What can you remember about the video? (Knowledge)
2. How would you explain the plot of the film? (Comprehension)
3. How could you use the plot to explain real-life situations? (Application)
4. What motivated the main characters to behave as they did? (Analysis)
5. If you could rewrite the film, how would you make it different? (Synthesis)
6. Do you agree that the film is overly sentimental? Why? (Evaluation)

Question one is the simplest, questions five and six the most challenging.

The framework is clear: a set of questions, each a step up, in terms of the cognitive demands it makes, from the last.

You can present a set of questions like this as a single activity, with learners working individually or in pairs to answer them.

Such an activity is differentiated because there is an expectation that some learners will get further than others, depending on the prior knowledge and understanding with which they meet the questions.

Another option is to verbally pose a series of questions in this way.

This sees us working with individual learners, pairs or small groups and asking them a series of stepped questions with the aim of developing knowledge and understanding.

The discussions that ensue let us push learner thinking.

If we know the taxonomy off-by-heart, we can come up with a set of stepped questions off -the-cuff, tailoring these so they closely meet the needs of our learners.

A great benefit of stepped questioning is that all learners get to experience challenge.

Using our example from above, if we set this series of questions for the whole class, we might anticipate our most-able learners getting to question six, and our least-able learners potentially finding question 3 or question 4 highly challenging.

If it does play out like this, everyone has been challenged within the same activity, finding the level of questioning that is right for them at this moment in time.

(Stepped questioning isn’t limiting, though, as there is no explicit expectation that some learners will get to the end and others won’t. Anyone could effectively get to anywhere. And this open-ended, non-limited nature of the approach is another reason to recommend it.)

Concrete to Abstract Questioning Based Around Bloom’s

We are familiar with the way in which the taxonomy characterises the different cognitive processes as being steps on a path to mastery.

Another way to think about this is as a continuum that, roughly, runs from more concrete to more abstract thought.

Knowledge and comprehension, the first two levels of the taxonomy, are concerned with the recall and explanation of facts – of information we have concerning the world.

Application and analysis, levels three and four, see us using what we know.

Here we are beginning to engage in more abstract cognition because we are starting from our understanding, rather than from the world itself.

Finally, synthesis and evaluation, the top two levels, ask us to manipulate our already reasonably abstract thoughts to a further degree, meaning that these two levels are like a second remove from the first phase of concrete recall and explanation.

This way of thinking gives us a different perspective from which to view the taxonomy.

Thought of in this way, we can call on it to pose questions based on whether we think learners will benefit more from a concrete or a more abstract engagement with the lesson content.

For example, we might spend some time talking to a learner who is struggling with their work.

From our discussion we identify that their ability to think about the content in an abstract way is hampered by their lack of certainty over the meaning of a series of key concepts.

This leads us to conclude that questioning of a concrete order would most likely be beneficial in helping them to secure their understanding.

I do not attempt to suggest that this is hugely different from the earlier points regarding the application of the taxonomy.

It is simply a different way to think about the framework and how we can apply it.

Some teachers find thinking in the context of a continuum running from concrete to abstract a more useful approach.

Often, they argue that this better reflects the reality of learner knowledge and understanding.

I share the approach here to offer you a different means by which to employ the taxonomy, should you wish to use it.