Claim Support Question¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 4 claims (3 for, 1 against) · 11 studies (5 causal, 5 quant-synthesis, 1 review), q2–q4 · 4 of 11 report an effect size

Description¶

Claim Support Question (CSQ) is a thinking routine developed by Project Zero at Harvard Graduate School of Education in which learners (1) make a claim about a topic or text, (2) identify support — evidence, reasoning, or examples — for that claim, and (3) ask a related question that the claim does not resolve. The routine structures argumentation into a compact, repeatable format that makes reasoning visible and keeps inquiry open rather than closing on a verdict.

Design Implications¶

CSQ operationalizes argumentation by requiring learners to commit to a position and then justify it, which research on argumentation shows improves reasoning quality and conceptual understanding Argumentation improves reasoning and conceptual learning. [+M]. The final question step is what distinguishes it from simple claim-evidence tasks: it pushes learners toward Cognitive Disequilibrium and sustained inquiry rather than premature closure Encountering discrepant or unresolved questions motivates conceptual change. [+M].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• A topic, text, artifact, or phenomenon genuinely open to interpretation — not a single settled fact
• Explicit modeling of what counts as "support" (evidence vs. opinion vs. restatement), ideally via Think-Aloud or a worked example
• Time and norms for learners to share claims publicly and respond to one another's questions

Constraints¶

• With weak prior knowledge, learners generate claims they cannot support, producing fluency illusions rather than learning Learners with low prior knowledge benefit less from minimally guided inquiry. [-S] — pair with Advance Organizers or source material to anchor claims
• If the question step is skipped or treated as an afterthought, the routine collapses into assertion-and-justification and loses its inquiry function
• In large classes without discussion structures, claims go unchallenged; combine with Think-Pair-Share or Discussion Groups

Implementation Variability¶

• Written (exit ticket, discussion board post) or oral (whole-class or small-group discussion)
• Repeated over time on the same topic: learners revisit and revise earlier claims as evidence accumulates
• Reversed order ("Question → Claim → Support") to open a unit rather than consolidate one

Target Learners¶

• Middle school through adult learners; the routine scales in sophistication with the material
• Learners developing disciplinary habits of evidence-based reasoning in humanities, science, and civic education
• Novices need scaffolded source material or modeled claims; more expert learners can apply the routine to primary sources and data Minimally guided approaches favor learners with sufficient prior knowledge. [~M]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Argumentation: constructing and justifying claims with evidence Argumentation improves reasoning and conceptual learning. [+M]
• Epistemic cognition: understanding what makes evidence adequate and what remains uncertain
• Conceptual change: surfacing initial claims so they can be tested and revised

Instructions¶

1. Present the prompt — a text, image, dataset, or event with genuine interpretive room; see Case Studies or Anchored Instruction for rich prompt design.
2. Claim — each learner states a clear position in one sentence. Require commitment before discussion to activate prior knowledge Activating prior knowledge improves learning. [+M].
3. Support — learners identify evidence, examples, or reasoning from the material; the instructor models the difference between evidence and assertion.
4. Question — each learner poses one question the claim leaves open; collect questions to drive the next activity or Discussion-Based Learning session.
5. Revisit — return to claims after further instruction and ask learners to revise them, making conceptual change visible.

Related Strategies¶

• Claim-Evidence-Reasoning (CER) — the science-classroom variant; CSQ adds the open question step
• See-Think-Wonder — a Project Zero routine better suited to initial observation before claims are possible
• Socratic Seminar — extended discussion format that CSQ outputs can feed
• 3-2-1 Reflection — a lighter consolidation routine usable at the end of a CSQ cycle

Examples¶

• Project Zero Thinking Routines Toolbox — the canonical source, with CSQ documented among core routines for understanding: pz.harvard.edu/thinking-routines
• History classrooms — after reading two conflicting primary-source accounts of the same event, students claim which account is more reliable, cite textual support, and ask what additional evidence would settle the question.
• Science discussion — students claim an explanation for a discrepant event (e.g., why ice floats), support it with prior observations, and pose the question that launches the next investigation.

Key Sources¶

• Ritchhart, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K. (2011). Making thinking visible: How to promote engagement, understanding, and independence for all learners. Jossey-Bass.
• Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810–824. doi:10.1002/sce.20395
• Mercer, N. (2008). The seeds of time: Why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 33–59. doi:10.1080/10508400701793182
• Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1