Pre-Reading: Generating Questions¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 3 claims (2 for, 1 mixed) · 10 studies (4 review, 2 causal, 2 quant-synthesis, 2 theoretical), q1–q4 · 2 of 10 report an effect size

Description¶

Before reading a text, learners generate questions they expect or hope the text will answer. The instructor may scaffold this with a topic, title, headings, or images, and learners record their questions to revisit during and after reading. The strategy combines two mechanisms: activating relevant prior knowledge and creating an information gap that the text can close.

Design Implications¶

Generating questions before reading converts reading from passive reception into goal-directed search, which improves attention allocation and comprehension monitoring Active learning improves exam performance. [+M]. Questions also function as prequestions: attempting to anticipate answers before study enhances later learning of that material even when the anticipated answers are wrong High-confidence errors improve retention. [+S]. Teaching students how to generate generative, text-connectable questions — rather than yes/no or purely factual ones — is what drives the effect; trained question generation reliably improves comprehension across grade levels Rosenshine et al. (1996) [+S].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• A visible "hook" into the text — title, headings, images, or a short excerpt — so questions are grounded rather than arbitrary
• Explicit modeling of good question forms (Think-Aloud or worked question examples: "Why…?", "How does X compare to Y…?")
• A structure for recording questions (KWL chart, question log, discussion board) and returning to them after reading
• Time during reading to seek answers, and a follow-up (Class Discussion or written response) that closes the loop

Constraints¶

• Prequestions direct attention toward the questioned content and away from un-questioned material, impairing recall of the latter Prequestions in video lectures improved learning of prequestioned content but reduced learning of non-prequestioned content. [~M] — if only some topics are prequestioned, coverage of the rest suffers
• For learners with strong prior knowledge of the topic, pre-reading questions add little and can consume time better spent reading Guidance becomes less effective as expertise increases. [~M]
• Untrained question generation produces shallow, factual questions with minimal comprehension benefit Rosenshine et al. (1996) [-M] — the strategy requires instruction, not just assignment
• Questions that cannot plausibly be answered by the text create frustration and off-target reading

Implementation Variability¶

• KWL charts (Ogle, 1986): learners list what they Know, what they Want to know, and later what they Learned — the "W" column is the question-generation step
• Guided peer questioning: students use trained question stems to quiz a partner before or during reading King (1992) [+M]
• Instructor-posed prequestions: the instructor supplies the questions instead of learners generating them; cheaper but forfeits the strategy-training benefit
• Reciprocal teaching: question generation is one of four comprehension strategies students rotate through in small groups (Palincsar & Brown, 1984)
• Pretesting variant: learners attempt to answer questions before reading rather than generate them; both versions produce a pretesting benefit Richland et al. (2009) [+S]

Target Learners¶

• Novice readers and students with limited topic knowledge, who otherwise read without a retrieval structure Active learning improves exam performance. [+M]
• Students learning self-regulated reading strategies; question generation is trainable even in upper-elementary grades Rosenshine et al. (1996) [+S]
• Less valuable for expert readers with strong domain knowledge, who already generate questions spontaneously Guidance becomes less effective as expertise increases. [~M]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Reading comprehension of expository text: locating and integrating key ideas
• Strategy acquisition: internalizing self-questioning as a transferable reading habit
• Curiosity and engagement: closing information gaps sustains attention through longer texts
• Prior knowledge activation: surfacing and testing existing beliefs against the text

Instructions¶

1. Present the text's title, headings, and visuals; ask learners to predict what the text will explain (Advance Organizers).
2. Model generating one or two generative questions aloud, showing how to convert headings into "why" and "how" questions.
3. Have learners write 2–3 of their own questions and share them (Class Discussion or pair exchange).
4. Learners read with their questions visible, marking where the text answers each one.
5. After reading, revisit the questions: answer them, note what the text did not answer, and revise understanding — connecting this step to Application or a short written response.

Related Strategies¶

• Activating Prior Knowledge — question generation is one of the most reliable activation moves; the questions surface what learners already believe
• Reciprocal Teaching — embeds question generation among three other comprehension strategies during reading
• Embed the KWL strategy across inquiry phases to guide question generation and question-quality monitoring

Examples¶

• KWL (Ogle, 1986) — A widely used elementary expository-reading routine: the "Want to know" column is the generated question set, revisited in the "Learned" column after reading.
• Reading Apprenticeship — A disciplinary-literacy framework in which instructors think aloud their own questioning of texts and students build personal question logs before and during reading.
• Prequestions in video lectures — Embedding questions before video segments improved learning of the questioned content but reduced attention to non-questioned content (Carpenter & Toftness, 2017), so designers should prequestion across all key topics rather than a sample.

Key Sources¶

• Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 181–221. doi:10.3102/00346543066002181
• King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and notetaking-review as strategies for learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 303–323. doi:10.3102/00028312029002303
• Richland, L. E., Kornell, N., & Kao, L. S. (2009). The pretesting effect: Do unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15(3), 243–257. doi:10.1037/a0016496
• Carpenter, S. K., & Toftness, A. R. (2017). The effect of prequestions on learning from video presentations. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(1), 104–109. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2016.07.014
• Ogle, D. M. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. The Reading Teacher, 39(6), 564–570. doi:10.1598/rt.39.6.11