Brainstorming 'Stuff We Want to Know About'¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 3 claims (2 for, 1 against) · 9 studies (4 quant-synthesis, 2 causal, 2 theoretical, 1 review), q1–q4 · 4 of 9 report an effect size

Description¶

Learners and instructors co-create an ongoing list of questions and topics of interest related to course content, typically generated from a stimulus (a phenomenon, text, image, or event) and maintained publicly across a unit or term. The list functions as both a motivational device — giving learners voice and choice — and an instructional map, since selected questions can drive inquiry projects, case explorations, and discussions.

Design Implications¶

Brainstorming learner questions converts curiosity into a durable instructional resource, but its payoff depends on what happens next: questions that are curated, revisited, and pursued produce learning, while questions that are merely collected do not. Autonomy over what to investigate reliably raises intrinsic motivation and engagement Autonomy supports intrinsic motivation. [+S], and having choice among learning options improves motivation and performance Patall et al. meta-analysis on choice. [+S]. Generating questions also activates prior knowledge, which improves comprehension of subsequent instruction Activation improves learning. [+M].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• A stimulus rich enough to provoke genuine questions (an anchoring phenomenon, provocative text, or demonstration) rather than an open-ended "any questions?"
• A public, persistent record of the list (chart paper, shared doc, question board) that is revisited and revised, not discarded after day one
• Instructor willingness to curation: mapping learner questions onto curriculum objectives and being transparent about which will be pursued, which answered briefly, and which parked
• A structure for pursuing selected questions — Choice Boards, inquiry projects, or Case Studies

Constraints¶

• Unguided pursuit of learner-generated questions is a form of minimal-guidance instruction and is ineffective for novices, who lack the background knowledge to evaluate or pursue questions productively Kirschner, Sweller & Clark on minimal guidance. [-S] — the list must be paired with instructor scaffolding, not replace instruction
• Questions can drift from curriculum objectives; without explicit curation and mapping, time is spent on tangents with little transferable learning [-W]
• If the list is generated once and never revisited, the activity functions as a one-off engagement trick; the motivational benefit of autonomy depends on learners seeing their questions actually shape instruction [~M]
• Dominant voices can colonize the list; without individual silent generation first, the brainstorm reflects a few learners' interests [-W]
• Question generation and curation consume substantial class time, creating tension with content coverage goals [-W]

Implementation Variability¶

• KWL charts — a lightweight variant where "What do we Want to know?" is one column of a reading-comprehension routine, revisited in the "What did we Learn?" column
• Question Formulation Technique (QFT) — learners produce, refine, and prioritize their own questions in a structured protocol, shifting ownership of question quality to students
• Driving Question Boards — in phenomenon-based science curricula, the class list is organized around an anchoring phenomenon

Related Strategies¶

• Embed the KWL strategy across inquiry phases to guide question generation and question-quality monitoring