Level Questions (More Interesting Than They Sound!)

Level One, Level Two, and Level Three Questions

It is sometimes helpful to talk about ‘Levels’ of Questions. This concept is not new, and different workshops or different subject areas define the levels a little differently. That doesn’t matter – what matters is clarifying them in a way you can live with in order to give your students a tool for asking better and more diverse questions. These aren’t things I’d quiz my kids on per se – at least not in the sense of having them put stuff in categories and count them right or wrong. They’re tools, not scientific classifications. 

Homesteaders and a Cow on the Roof

Level 1 Questions 

Deal with factual information you can find printed in the story / document / whatever. They usually have ONE correct answer. In other words, Level One Questions Are Answered With Facts.

Level 1 Questions often…

  • clarify vocabulary or basic facts
  • check for Understanding 
  • ask for more information

It is often difficult to ask or answer Level 2 Questions without plenty of Level 1 information!  

Examples:  Who led Confederate forces at the Battle of Gettysburg? When did Abraham Lincoln die? How many people died of disease or other non-combat causes during the Civil War? Where is Antietam?

The Credible Hulk

Level 2 Questions

Deal with factual information but can have more than one defensible answer. Although there can be more than one ‘good’ answer, responses must be defended or opposed with material FROM the story or related materials. In other words. Level Two Questions Are Answered Using Facts.

Level 2 Questions might… 

  • require “Processing” of Information—analyze, synthesize, evaluate, articulate
  • require making inferences from the text
  • seek understanding from someone who knows more or has larger perspective
  • challenge the author (why did you include this but not that, or why was this phrased a certain way?)

Level 2 Questions are often the Meat & Potatoes of Social Studies, and require Level 1 information as support. They seek informed opinions. They are often the stuff we most wish our students could ask, ponder, or answer intelligently.

Come to think of it, they’re the stuff we wish other adults could ask, ponder, or answer intelligently as well.

Examples:  Why did the North win the Civil War? Was Lincoln justified in suspending some rights during the war? To what extent was slavery the true cause of the war? How did the North’s war aims change over the course of the war and why?  

Where the Wild Things Are

Level 3 Questions

Deal with ideas beyond the text but which might be prompted by the story / document / whatever.  The assigned material is a ‘launching pad’ for these sorts of questions, but responding to them requires going well beyond the original material. In other words, Level Three Questions Have Answers Which Go Beyond The Facts.

Level 3 Questions are useful as…

  • “Big Picture” Questions, to make connections 
  • interest-builders, discussion-starters, and thought-provokers
  • ways to get your teacher off topic so you don’t have as much work to do

English Teachers love Level 3 Questions, but in the Social Studies we use them more carefully. Sometimes they’re more appropriate for discussions with your parents, pastors, or best friends. Other times they’re the most important questions there are.

Examples:  Is war ever justified? Did Robert E. Lee go to Heaven? What important enough to be worth killing someone over? Is it true Lincoln’s ghost is still haunting the White House? How would the U.S. be different today if the South had won the Civil War?

Sometimes what ‘Level’ a question best fits depends on how much you know – or how much information to which you have access.

Don’t get too hung up on correct categories so much as expanding the sorts of questions students ask. It’s also important they recognize the difference between arguments over the facts, arguments over how to best interpret the facts, and arguments which can’t be resolves using only facts. I mean, how different would our political worlds be if grown-ups could make this distinction once in awhile?

After Level Questions become comfortable, I find it helpful to vary their angles a bit.

“We have an expert visiting us tomorrow to talk about this subject. If we want to make our teacher look good – and we do – we’ll want to be able to ask thoughtful questions of her. So, pretend this subject is brand spankin’ new to you (like you do every time we review something we’ve covered for two weeks) – what other information would you request if you really, really cared? What parts would you want to know more about, if this were genuinely interesting to you? What could you ask that sounds like a question, but is really just you showing off how much you already know and understand? Finally, what could you ask the expert which would prompt involuntary ‘ooooh’s and ‘aaaahhh’s from the rest of us, it’s so thoughtful and relevant?”

Sometimes what ‘Level’ a question best fits depends on how much information you have available or to which you have access. Don’t get too hung up on correct categories so much as stretching the sorts of questions students ask.

I’d never grade my kids specifically on putting questions into the ‘right’ categories. What I do hope to help them think about, however, is the importance of understanding WHAT sort of question is being asked – whether we’re trying to dig around in history or address modern-day dilemmas. So often we think we’re arguing when we’re not even confronting the same sorts of questions. 

For example – global warming. To discuss global warming and what, if anything, to do about it, we first need to determine what facts are available. We may argue about the facts, but at least we’ll be wrestling through the same issue. That’s Level One information, and it matters in this discussion.

We also need to figure out the best way to interpret those facts, once agreed upon. What do they mean, why are they what they are, etc.? Again, we may not agree, but at least we’ll be on the same subject. That’s a Level Two conversation.

Finally, what should we do about the facts and our conclusions? Is the issue important? What’s likely to happen if we purseu Course A vs. Course B vs. Course C vs. just ignoring it? That’s a whole other type of conversation to have – a Level Three issue.

Too often, we never get past one person arguing about what changes we need to make while the other hasn’t yet accepted the basic facts being used as support. Or we think we’re debating what the facts mean when in reality we’re debating the nature of reality or the ethics of hoping the supernatural will intervene at some point. 

Getting on the same level of discussion in no way guarantees consensus, but it’s an essential element of any meaningful progress towards deeper understanding or potential agreement. 

On a smaller, ‘let’s just pass high school first then worry about that other stuff’ scale, Practicing Inquiry helps foster interest. It increases recognition and retention of essential information. It’s foundational to critical thinking. Finally, it’s a critical element of effective reading – Cornell Notes, Dialectic Journals, Annotation, Think-Alouds, etc., all build on the idea that reading is an interaction with the text, and that questions are an essential part of that interaction. But that’s for another page. 

RELATED POST: Asking Good Questions (And You Don’t Have To Mean It)

RELATED POST: My Five Big Questions (Essential Questions in History and Social Sciences)

What Was Your Question?

Take a look at this painting:

Washington Crossing Delaware

It probably looks familiar. It’s titled “Washington Crossing the Delaware”, and shows up in any number of history textbooks. 

It’s also pretty easy to criticize. First and foremost, why the heck is the General standing up in such a flimsy boat? If it’s the middle of the night, why is the sun coming up (or going down)? Why don’t the people in the boat look like they’re soldiers or at least colleagues? What’s up with the chunks of ice? And did they really put wild horses into tiny rowboats to get them across rivers? 

Fair enough, except that those are the wrong questions – or at least… they’re inadequate, if the painting is to be understood. 

For example, wondering why the General is standing sets aside the rather glaring reality that this isn’t a photograph or a historical film, it’s a painting. A better question might be why the artist chose to paint the future Father of our Country standing up, and in such a dramatic posture.

Why would the artist incorporate a sunrise (I assure you there are no sundowns where the American Revolution was concerned) in this scene? What statements might he be trying to make through the types of people he’s placed in the boat and their attire?

What message or point was the artist trying to make? It must have taken a long time to paint – surely he had some goal in mind. 

Suddenly we have something pretty useful – entry points to understanding the message and value system behind this painting and the circumstances in which it was created. Our paradigm shifts from the frustrating analysis of bad history to the unfolding possibilities of good art. Instead of merely explaining away misinformation, we now have a dozen different directions we could take to learn more or speculate more deeply. 

As a bonus, many of those questions lead to some pretty good history. (In case you were worried.)

We just needed to ask different questions. 

It happens with stuff that looks far more concrete as well: 

Sports Injuries

Who knew bicycling was so dangerous? How do you get hurt playing golf? What changed between 1991 and 1998 to make volleyball so much safer?

Nothing wrong with any of those questions, but I respectfully suggest a little effort might produce even more helpful queries:

What were the total numbers of people in the stipulated age range participating in these activities during these years? Why 1991 and 1998 specifically? If this is ‘Figure 1’, what’s in ‘Figure 2’? What were the severities of the most common injuries associated with each sport?

And always always always…

What message or point were the creators of this graphic trying to make? 

That’s the thing about statistics, or paintings, or analogies, or talking points, or document excerpts, or laws – even when they’re ‘true’ (and they’re not always), they almost always reflect a point-of-view or purpose. 

They exist. Therefore, someone brought them into existence. Often that someone made a plethora of choices along the way to do so – what to include, what to ignore, what to highlight, what to dismiss, how to frame or phrase or color or express, for clarity or obscurity.

What truth to tell. 

A little healthy skepticism in the form of asking the right questions can also act as a filter for the loaded language and passionate diatribes of others, whether legislators or cult leaders. Nothing circumvents clear thinking like a sense of urgency or emergency. 

While Captain Kirk was known for his emotional leadership and a daring, follow-your-gut style, a generation later Captain Picard managed to be a bad-ass without often taking the bait when drama was being flung about. 

[[{“type”:”media”,”view_mode”:”media_small”,”fid”:”524″,”attributes”:{“alt”:””,”class”:”media-image”,”typeof”:”foaf:Image”}}]]

As it turns out, Captain Maxwell had some valid concerns – those Cardassians were up to something. Stay tuned for Kim & Chloe Take the Gamma Quadrant.

But his solutions were flawed, largely because he wasn’t asking the right questions. His course of action was both self-destructive and counterproductive because he didn’t pause to analyze his assumptions. 

Much of our current efforts to ‘reform education’ are based on a similar lack of analysis. Some are simply malicious, but I wonder if often they’re just not asking the right questions. 

Sometimes Questions

I respectfully suggest a few things we should be asking before we break Starfleet Protocol, sell our bicycle, or criticize art:

When we speak of ‘reform’, what do we mean? Do we mean to literally ‘re-create’ the entire system, or is it more like reformatting a hard drive? Is it trying to make things better for individuals, like the ‘reform movements’ of the past, or crack down on them, like when ‘bad kids’ were sent to ‘reform school’? 

Do we mean ‘raise certain test scores’? ‘Produce happier children?’ ‘Graduate students better prepared for college or to hold real jobs?’

What are our goals, exactly?

In California and elsewhere, teacher tenure laws are being attacked and overturned because tenure protects ‘bad teachers’ and kids deserve ‘good teachers.’ Fair enough. 

Why did teacher tenure exist in the first place? Is being ineffective in the classroom the most common reason teachers are punished or fired? Are kids not doing well primarily because they’re ‘trapped’ with these inadequate teachers? Where are the better teachers who we’d prefer take these jobs? Does knowing they can be fired at will make them better? If so, better at what?

What exactly are these students not doing well? Is it test scores, or one of those other things asked above?

The Answer is 42

In Oklahoma and many other states, legislators are tying teacher evaluations to student performance on standardized tests. OK, let’s run with that. 

What will we do with the ‘bad’ teachers? Are they going to be ‘reprogrammed’? Re-educated? By who? Why didn’t we have the people with the good ideas train them the first time?

Are these teachers stupid, or just not trying hard enough? 

Given the number of unfilled positions and the state’s determination to continue cutting taxes, what’s the plan when we’ve fired all of the ‘bad teachers’? 

If teachers are accountable for how their students perform, should the same be true of building principals? District superintendents? 

What about state legislators? 

If these tests are so important, why aren’t more adult professionals taking them? Did they have an inadequate public school education, and that’s why they’re trying so hard to fix it now? If so, should we should make sure they get a better one before letting them do more damage? Isn’t that the whole premise of accountability? 

If they DID get a good education, why won’t they take these same tests to demonstrate what a reasonable expectation it is? How important those things are to know, even years later? 

No, seriously – why? Are they worried there’s not actually much correlation between their scores and their current credibility? Are they worried maybe there is?

What questions are THEY asking about public education? What’s their goal or purpose in what they say and do?

Obviously I have some ideas regarding possible answers to some of these, but others I really don’t. I’m also sure I’m not asking all the right questions myself – that’s the problem with being limited to our own paradigms. That’s why we should always be open to re-examining our assumptions – and to better questions. 

What else should we be asking? I welcome your contributions below. 

Einstein Questions

RELATED: Asking Good Questions (And You Don’t Have To Mean It)