Think about the last time you asked your students a question in science class. Did it spark discussion, lead to new understanding, or prompt students to recall a fact? The kinds of questions teachers ask matter more than we might realize.

Questioning is a typical technique teachers use in science classrooms to promote students’ inquiry, support their thinking, and assess their understanding. The NGSS Science and Engineering Practices (SEPs) emphasize the role of students’ questions in scientific discourse and sensemaking, but teacher questions can play a critical part in initiating and sustaining students’ active participation in authentic science talk, including asking scientific questions and justifying claims based on evidence (Ernst-Slavit & Pratt, 2017).

We know from research in middle- and high-school science classrooms that the types of questions teachers ask can influence students’ motivation to do and learn science, their understanding of the content, their scientific thinking and reasoning, and their ability to engage in scientific discourse (Chin, 2007; DeLisi, McNeill, & Minner, 2011).  Effective teacher questioning depends on both the content and the format; factors like wait time, talk balance, and question purpose shape discourse and can be used to assess understanding, guide reasoning, and promote reflection.

Although evidence on teacher questions in elementary science classrooms is scant, several studies indicate that open-ended questions requiring elaborated responses—such as explanations, predictions, reasoning, or adding to another child’s response— result in intellectually-richer student discussions (Chen et al. 2016). In one classic early elementary study, the teacher used open-ended questions that engaged students in collaborative sensemaking; findings from this study provided initial evidence that children can participate and learn through interactive classroom discussions (Gallas, 1995) from a young age. Finally, research suggests that teacher questioning contributes to students’ ownership of learning (Banilower et al. 2013; Kawalkar & Vijapurkar, 2013; Zhai & Tan, 2015). Similarly in preschool, recent studies of early science activities have found that teachers’ open-ended prediction and reasoning questions resulted in more linguistically complex responses (Lee, Kinzie, & Whittaker, 2012; Kook & Greenfield, 2021).

Open-ended questions are more effective at promoting higher-level language and thinking, while also supporting the development of skills such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. In contrast, closed questions – those that can be answered briefly and evaluated quickly as either right or wrong – are considered lower-order. These kinds of questions can be useful for supporting students’ recall of factual information, providing structure for conceptual understanding, supporting comprehension and application, and serving as quick checks of comprehension. Although both types of questions are necessary to support children’s science inquiry and learning, recognizing this distinction can help teachers develop questioning strategies that promote richer classroom dialogue, foster students’ higher-order thinking, promote understanding of key concepts, and build a strong foundation for their future science learning. 

Although the open–closed question dichotomy offers a useful shorthand, focusing too narrowly on format can distract from the broader goal: asking purposeful questions that advance student understanding of a phenomenon. As a teacher, asking both open- and closed-ended questions intentionally—and considering the format, content, and purpose of your questioning—can help ensure that all children engage in meaningful science discussions. How can you use both open and closed questions in order to benefit all children?

At EDC, we work directly with teachers to strengthen science teaching by focusing on teacher–student interactions, especially the kinds of questions that can spark inquiry, thinking, and discourse in alignment with NGSS. Through the Center to Advance Elementary Science (CAESART), a federally-funded national research and development center, we are studying how an integrated science literacy curriculum can support students’ early science learning and leverage the relationship between thinking and language to promote that learning. The project’s long-term goal is to build capacity for science education that benefits students and teachers.   

Our work with teachers in the early grades suggests that intentionally planning and using questions that require students to apply critical and creative thinking is a challenging skill that takes time and practice to develop. 

Here are two strategies for asking the right question at the right time:

1. Review and reflect on your questioning practices.

   Record yourself leading a science lesson and then view the recording objectively. Notice the questions you pose. 

   Ask yourself, What was my purpose for asking that question? Was I expecting a specific type of response? If so, what answer was I expecting? How well do my questions address my learning goals for children’s conceptual learning? How well do my questions promote student engagement with the science practices? Did I strike the right balance? Did I scaffold and support children’s scientific thinking and discourse skills? Which questions seemed most effective at sparking discussion?

   This way of stepping back enables you to more clearly observe how both the class and individual students engage and respond, both physically and verbally, to different types of questions. Having this objective point of reference also supports your reflection on which kinds of questions elicit expanded responses from students.

2. Focus on productive prompts rather than asking open/closed questions.

   The concept is not new to science teaching, but for teachers, it often suggests a shift in how to think about the purpose of asking questions. The term productive prompts refers to questions – as well as comments – that are used to support children’s engagement with the practices of science, rather than to evaluate what children know and can do.

   The table below illustrates how productive prompts can be used for different purposes, from sparking curiosity to supporting students in making evidence-based claims.

   Goal of the Prompt	Sample Productive Prompts
   Spark curiosity and support students’ thinking	What does this make you think about?
   Encourage students to create representations of their ideas	How could we use these materials to build something that shows our different ideas?
   Support questioning and exploration of phenomena	What do you think will happen? What do you think we will observe?
   Support collecting and recording observations	How could you record your observations?
   Encourage comparison and pattern-finding	When you both tried that, what did you notice was similar? What was different?
   Use mathematics to describe and organize information	How does this measurement compare to our prediction?
   Support generating claims based on evidence	Why do you think that happened / looked / sounded the way it did?
   Engage students in argument from evidence	Do you agree or disagree with that idea? Why?

Productive prompts can promote learners’ inquiry and stimulate critical thinking. However, recent studies of science teachers’ questioning practices have shown a continued reliance on closed questions designed for factual recall rather than deep thinking (e.g., Morris & Chi, 2020). Thus, the ability to craft questions that are responsive to what students are doing, observing, and thinking is a complex skill that is central to the current vision of effective science teaching. 

• Adjust how many and what kinds of prompts you use to be responsive to students’ behavior and willingness to engage at any given point. For example, when children are busy exploring, questions and comments can be distracting.
• Use “why” questions judiciously and with caution. Focus on framing “why” questions at this grade level as “Why do you think...” questions, especially with children who are used to being asked questions that are evaluated as correct or incorrect. Ensure that children have had multiple experiences on which to draw before asking them to suggest or explain why something happens the way it does.

By incorporating productive prompts into your practice, you can open the door for richer conversations that build students’ science thinking from the earliest grades.

To learn more about our work, visit caesart.edc.org. 

References

Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., Malzahn, K. A., Campbell, K. M., & Weis, A. M. (2013). Report of the 2012 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education. Horizon Research, Inc. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED541798

Chen, J., Hand, B., & Norton-Meier, L. (2016). Teacher roles of questioning in early elementary science classrooms: A framework promoting student cognitive complexity. Research in Science Education, 47(2), 373–405. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1135353 

Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815–843. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20171

DeLisi, J., McNeill, K., & Minner, D. (2011). Illuminating the relationship between inquiry science instruction and student learning: Results from three case studies. Paper presentation. Annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), April 3-6, 2011.

Ernst-Slavit, G., & Pratt, K. (2017). Teacher questions: Learning the discourse of science in a linguistically diverse elementary classroom. Linguistics and Education, 40, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2017.05.005

Gallas, K. (1995). Talking their way into science: Hearing children’s questions and theories, responding with curricula. Teachers College Press.

Kawalkar, A., & Vijapurkar, J. (2013). Scaffolding science talk: The role of teacher interventions in the inquiry classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2004–2027. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.604684

Lee, Y., Kinzie, M. B., & Whittaker, J. V. (2012). Impact of Online Support for Teachers’ Open-Ended Questioning in Prek Science Activities. Teaching & Teacher Education, 28, 568-577. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.01.002

Kook, J. F., & Greenfield, D. B. (2021). Examining variation in the quality of instructional interaction across teacher-directed activities in Head Start classrooms. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 19(2), 128–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X20942956 

Morris, J., & Chi, M. T. H. (2020). Improving teacher questioning in science using ICAP theory. The Journal of Educational Research, 113(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2019.1709401 

Zhai, J., & Tan, A. L. (2015). Roles of teachers in orchestrating learning in elementary science classrooms. Research in Science Education, 45(6), 907-926. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9451-9 
 

Cindy Hoisington is a nationally recognized early childhood education expert, professional development specialist, and instructional designer. She designs and develops science, STEM, and computational thinking curricula for pre-K–grade 4.

Hoisington has reviewed, advised, and written extensively for educational media. She co-facilitates the NAEYC’s Early Childhood Science Interest Forum. She holds an MEd in Early Childhood from Bridgewater State College and received a BS in Biology from the University of Massachusetts. She has completed postgraduate work in STEM Leadership.
 

Jessica Mercer Young, principal research scientist, is a developmental psychologist, early childhood expert, and co-leader of EDC’s successful Young Mathematics program. She began her career as a preschool teacher. For over 20 years, her education R&D has provided new insights into learning and cognition; improving early STEM learning; and creating authentic, engaging, and innovative learning experiences that bridge formal and informal spaces.

A frequent presenter and widely published author, Young shares her findings with teachers, researchers, and families. Young holds a PhD in Applied Developmental Psychology from Boston College and an EdM in Human Development from Harvard.
 

NOTE: Funded by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) and the National Science Foundation (NSF), CAESART benefits from a long-standing commitment to research and innovation in education.

The research reported here is based upon work supported by equal joint funding from the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, and the U.S. National Science Foundation through Grant R305C240014 to Education Development Center, Inc. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the Institute, the U.S. Department of Education, or the National Science Foundation.

The mission of NSTA is to transform science education to benefit all through professional learning, partnerships, and advocacy.