Ask the 4 Questions¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 2 claims (2 for) · 4 studies (2 quant-synthesis, 1 review, 1 theoretical), q3–q4 · 2 of 4 report an effect size

Description¶

This strategy structures feedback around four questions: What can the student do? What can't the student do? How does the student's work compare with that of others? How can the student do better? Answering all four gives the learner an accurate picture of current performance and a concrete path forward. The same four answers also serve as a clear, jargon-free structure for communicating with parents and caregivers.

Design Implications¶

The framework operationalizes the finding that feedback is most powerful when it addresses the task and the processes behind it, rather than the person Feedback is most effective at task and process levels. [+S]. The first two questions locate performance against criteria; the third supplies a reference standard; the fourth converts diagnosis into actionable next steps. Omitting the fourth question leaves diagnosis without direction, which produces little improvement.

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Careful observation and assessment of learner performance before feedback is given (Assess Performance)
• Clear success criteria so "can" and "can't" judgments are criterion-referenced, not impressionistic
• Specific, actionable improvement guidance — the "how to do better" answer must name a strategy, not just urge more effort
• A climate where gap information is received as help rather than threat Feedback is most effective at task and process levels. [+M]

Constraints¶

• Feedback framed around social comparison (the third question) can reduce motivation for lower-performing students if it invites ability attributions; anchor comparison to criteria or exemplars rather than to peers' ability Feedback is most effective at task and process levels. [~M]
• Time-intensive: answering all four questions meaningfully requires detailed knowledge of each learner's work
• If the "how to do better" answer is vague ("try harder," "be more careful"), the framework degenerates into evaluation without learning benefit
• Less useful for highly fluent performers, where detailed task-level diagnosis adds little; brief, cue-level feedback suffices Feedback is most effective at task and process levels. [~M]

Implementation Variability¶

• Written comments on work, verbal conferences, or a structured feedback form learners complete first and the teacher responds to
• Learners can self-administer the four questions against a rubric, building self-monitoring Self-monitoring improves self-regulation. [+M]
• Peer feedback: pairs answer the four questions about each other's drafts using shared criteria
• Parent-teacher conferences: the four answers give families a concrete, non-jargon account of progress

Target Learners¶

• Developing learners who benefit from explicit diagnosis of gaps between current and target performance Feedback is most effective at task and process levels. [+S]
• Learners building self-regulation, when the questions are gradually handed over for self-assessment Self-monitoring improves self-regulation. [+M]
• All grade levels and subject areas; the questions scale from early literacy to professional coursework

Target Learning Goals¶

• Improving the quality of specific work products through criterion-referenced diagnosis
• Developing self-assessment and revision skills
• Communicating progress transparently to learners and families

Instructions¶

1. Collect and study the learner's work closely; identify what is done well against explicit criteria (Assess Performance)
2. Answer Question 1 — name specific strengths ("You use topic sentences consistently in every paragraph")
3. Answer Question 2 — name one or two specific gaps, prioritized by impact on the learning goal
4. Answer Question 3 — show the learner's work against an exemplar, rubric level, or their own earlier work, not against other students' ability
5. Answer Question 4 — give a concrete next action or strategy the learner can apply immediately (Provide Feedback)
6. Follow up: check whether the improvement action was applied in the next piece of work

Related Strategies¶

• Formative feedback cycles — the four questions supply the diagnostic structure that makes each cycle productive
• Rubric-based self-assessment — learners internalize the first two questions by applying criteria to their own work
• Portfolio conferencing — the four answers organize a conversation about growth over time

Related Elements¶

• Provide Feedback — the element this strategy structures
• Assess Performance — the prerequisite evidence-gathering step
• Self-Assessment — the learner-directed variant of the same questions

Tools¶

• Structured feedback forms or comment banks organized under the four question headings
• Rubrics with exemplar work at each level to ground the comparison question
• Conference note templates for parent meetings

Examples¶

• A Year 5 teacher uses the four questions in reading conferences: she names the decoding strategies the student uses well, identifies fluency as the gap, compares the student's current oral reading to a recording from September, and assigns a paired-repeated-reading routine.
• A writing instructor returns drafts with comments organized under the four headings, then requires students to answer the same four questions about their revised draft before resubmission.
• A basketball coach structures halftime feedback around the four questions, using video clips to show what the player did well, what broke down, how it compares to model execution, and one adjustment to make in the second half.

Key Sources¶

• Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487
• Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. doi:10.1080/0969595980050102
• Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. doi:10.3102/0034654307313795
• Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Solution Tree Press.