Questions That Make Thinking Visible

The strategy, as published

Exactly as it appears on the card

Part of The Quality of Questions in 04 Questioning & Discussion, where it sits alongside its neighbouring strategies, the infographic and the thinking for the whole area.

Why you might use it

The problem it may help with

Anderson and Krathwohl give you a map of what a question asks a learner to do: remembering, understanding, applying, analysing, evaluating, creating. Without a map like this, questioning tends to settle into one register, and classroom talk becomes thinner than the thinking you want.

The card's caution is as important as the taxonomy itself: these are not a hierarchy of worth. Recall is foundational, not inferior, and a lesson full of analysis questions built on insecure knowledge helps nobody.

What it might look like

One version of it, in a classroom

A history teacher looks back across a fortnight of questions on the causes of the First World War. What year, which countries: remembering. Why did the alliance system raise the stakes: analysing. Was any single country most responsible: evaluating. Nothing about the teaching changes yet; what changes is that the teacher can now see which kinds of thinking are being asked for, and which never are.

Try it

A way to begin

Write down the questions you asked in one lesson, from memory or from your slides, and place each against the six levels. The spread, or the lack of it, is the finding.

What to notice

Reading what happens

• Which levels dominate across a week, and which never appear.
• Whether recall questions are doing their foundational work before you ask for analysis or evaluation.
• What happens to answers when you deliberately ask at a level you rarely use.

Things to think about

Before and while you use it

• The taxonomy is a map, not a ladder to be climbed in every lesson. Which level a class needs next is a judgement about their knowledge, and that judgement is yours.
• This pairs naturally with planning questions before the lesson; the levels are most useful before the room fills up.

Related strategies

Where this connects

• 💡 Plan Questions Before the Lesson Improvised questions default to recall, not because recall is wrong but because planning stops there. Anderson and Krathwohl works as a planning tool: write questions at every level. 04 Questioning & Discussion · The Quality of Questions
• 📈 Surface, Deep and Transfer Hattie and Zierer distinguish surface (what), deep (why) and transfer questions. Each serves a different stage. Reaching transfer before surface is secure sets students up to fail. 04 Questioning & Discussion · The Quality of Questions
• 🔀 Hinge Questions A hinge question is a diagnostic question at a lesson turning point. Wrong answers each map to a known misconception. Responses tell you whether to move on or go back. Never improvise it. 02 Formative Assessment · Elicit Evidence of Learning
• 💬 Retrieval Beyond Facts Factual retrieval builds the schema; higher-order retrieval tests whether students can use it. Secure the foundations first, then push beyond them. Retrieval is not a pub quiz. 01 Retrieval Practice · Retrieval Formats

The wider thinking

Where the evidence sits

Anderson and Krathwohl's revision of the taxonomy is one of the most widely used frameworks for question design; their insistence that recall is foundational, not inferior, is the part most often forgotten. The card’s attribution stands as published: Anderson & Krathwohl.

The fuller picture, sources included, is in further reading and evidence for Questioning & Discussion.