John Walkup

Calling on random non-volunteers to answer in-class questions is becoming increasingly popular, with many teachers using numbered Popsicle sticks or playing cards to select students. Calling on random non-volunteers effectively engages all students on academic content, holds all students accountable for learning, and provides a more accurate barometer of teaching effectiveness.

On some occasions, however, teachers may find it more appropriate to call on volunteers (raised hands). As one important example, teachers often ask questions (especially highly rigorous questions) to engage students on academic content, not to check for understanding. In such a situation, the very act of thinking and discussing on the part of the students becomes more important than the answer itself.

Unfortunately, teachers often call on volunteers carelessly, allowing uninterested students to disengage mentally and, as an unfortunate consequence, misbehave. In this teaching tip, I want to illustrate a manner in which teachers can call on raised hands, yet maintain the benefits of random, non-volunteer questioning.

Selection method

We can describe in four steps a powerful technique you can use to question students when the volunteer selection strategy is more appropriate:

1. Query the entire class and make every student think that you will call on random-nonvolunteers.

“I already provided an analogy that compares power and work. In a few minutes, I will call on some of you to share your own analogy.”

2. Place students in informal groups (such as peer-shares) or formal groups to discuss possible responses.

“Get in your groups and discuss your ideas.”

3. Provide adequate wait time for your students to think about the content and discuss possible responses.

“I will call on the first student in about five minutes.”

4. Call on volunteers to respond.

“Rather than calling on some of you, does anyone here have an analogy they want to share?”

Since students thought we would select them, we were able to compel them to engage the question and discuss responses in earnest. However, we also recognized that our weaker students might have struggled to create an analogy—no matter, the very act of discussing possible analogies forced all students to engage the academic content, thus reinforcing their understanding of the current lesson and enhancing active participation.

In the example above, we performed the first three steps because we wanted to compel all students to at least try to conjure an analogy and to provide them support for their efforts. Yet, we chose to call on volunteers in the final step for three reasons: (1) we were not trying to check for understanding, (2) the act of thinking and discussing was more important than the answer, and (3) some of the weaker students would have struggled to arrive at an analogy within the alloted time.

Another interesting application of this method pertains to questions on content learned previously that students may have forgotten.  For example, a teacher teaching a lesson on literary review may want students to try and remember the definition of mood. Calling on volunteers with no real strategy frustrates those students who take longer to remember.  The steps outlined above work equally well in such a situation.

The key to effective questioning centers on meta-cognition—understanding why we choose a particular strategy when we do—the strategy itself becomes another wrench in the professional teachers’ toolbox.