Question Answer Relationships¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 5 claims (1 for, 3 mixed, 1 against) · 11 studies (5 causal, 4 quant-synthesis, 1 review, 1 theoretical), q1–q4 · 5 of 11 report an effect size

Description¶

Question Answer Relationships (QAR) is a questioning strategy in which learners are explicitly taught a taxonomy of question types based on the source of the answer: Right There (answer stated in one place in the text), Think and Search (answer assembled from multiple places in the text), Author and Me (answer requires combining text information with prior knowledge), and On My Own (answer comes entirely from the learner's own knowledge and experience). Instruction proceeds by labeling questions with the category, having learners sort questions into categories, and finally having learners generate their own questions of each type. The goal is metacognitive: learners stop treating all questions the same way and instead ask "where does this answer live?" before searching.

Design Implications¶

QAR improves comprehension by making the question–text relationship explicit, which reduces unproductive search and helps learners recognize when an answer cannot be found by scanning alone Making text structure and task demands explicit improves comprehension outcomes. [+M]. The National Reading Panel identified question generation and comprehension strategy instruction — of which QAR is a canonical example — as having solid experimental support [+S]. Because the four categories are few, concrete, and mutually distinguishable, the taxonomy itself is easy to learn and apply, consistent with principles of Clear Structure and Chunking.

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Texts rich enough to support all four question types (narrative and informational)
• Explicit modeling of how to classify a question and justify the classification (Think-Aloud works well here)
• Gradual release: teacher-labeled questions → student sorting → student question generation
• Discussion of why a question belongs to a category, not just the label
• A set of authentic questions spanning all four QAR types, drawn from texts learners are actually reading
• Explicit teacher modeling of how to classify a question and justify the classification (Think-Aloud style narration where available)
• Gradual release: modeled → guided sorting → independent application, with learners eventually writing their own questions
• Texts rich enough to support both literal and inferential questions
• Texts with questions already attached, or a question set the teacher can classify in advance
• Explicit instruction on the four QAR categories with labeled examples of each
• Guided practice classifying questions before learners answer them independently

Constraints¶

• Over-reliance on the labels can reduce questioning to a sorting exercise; learners must still construct the answers, not just categorize them [-W]
• Less effective when texts are trivially short or when all questions are surface-level "Right There" items — the taxonomy has nothing to discriminate
• Transfer beyond the trained genre is limited if instruction uses only one text type [~M]
• If teachers use QAR labels to justify asking mostly low-level questions, the strategy reinforces shallow reading rather than correcting it [-M]
• Effectiveness drops when QAR is taught as a labeling drill on isolated questions rather than applied to connected text Strategy instruction transfers poorly when taught decontextualized from authentic reading. [-M]
• Weaker for learners whose decoding is not yet automatic — the strategy presumes comprehension-level processing Automatic word recognition frees resources for comprehension. [~M]
• Over-reliance on the four labels can lead to mechanical sorting without genuine evaluation of where an answer lives; teachers must keep justification of classifications central
• Less useful for tasks where the answer location is genuinely ambiguous or where questions are poorly constructed
• Over-reliance on the four labels can become a mechanical sorting exercise; benefits diminish when classification is drilled without discussion of why a question maps to a category Strategy instruction effects weaken when taught as routines without flexible application. [~M]
• Less effective with learners who lack the prior knowledge needed for "Author and Me" and "On My Own" questions Activation improves learning. [~M]
• The two-level version (In the Book / In My Head) is more manageable for younger learners; the four-category version can overload them Cognitive overload degrades learning. [-M]
• Effects fade if instruction stops at classification; learners must go on to answer questions using the appropriate strategy

Implementation Variability¶

• Two-category version: some implementations collapse to "In My Head" vs. "In the Book" for younger learners
• Question generation: learners write their own questions of each type, shifting from answering to interrogating the text
• Cross-curricular adaptation: applied to primary sources in history or data interpretation in science, where "Author and Me" becomes "Source and Me"
• Digital adaptation: question-type badges in reading platforms prompt learners to identify the QAR type before answering
• Two-category simplified version (In the Book / In My Head) for younger or struggling readers
• Extended to writing: students generate questions of each type for peers, deepening understanding of question structure
• Adapted for content areas (science, social studies) where "Author and Me" questions require disciplinary prior knowledge
• Digital adaptations: question-type tagging in reading platforms and adaptive quizzing systems
• Two-level QAR ("In the Book" vs. "In My Head") for elementary learners; four-level for upper elementary and beyond
• Student-generated questions: learners write questions of each type, deepening understanding of the text–question relationship
• Cross-curricular adaptation: applied to mathematics word problems (what does the problem give me vs. what must I know?) and to source evaluation in history

Target Learners¶

• Elementary and middle-grade readers still treating comprehension as literal retrieval [+S]
• Struggling readers who over-apply a "find the word" strategy to inferential questions [~M]
• English learners, who benefit from the explicit, named categories [~M]
• Less necessary for proficient readers who already flexibly allocate search effort [~W]
• Upper elementary through secondary readers who can decode but answer comprehension questions inconsistently [+M]
• Struggling readers who treat all questions as literal look-up tasks and miss inferential demands
• English learners, when paired with accessible vocabulary and syntax instruction, because the categories make question demands explicit
• Less beneficial for advanced readers who already flexibly allocate search effort [~W]
• Upper elementary through secondary readers who over-rely on literal retrieval [+S]
• Multilingual learners, when paired with Activation of prior knowledge needed for "In My Head" questions

Target Learning Goals¶

• Reading comprehension, especially distinguishing literal from inferential understanding
• Metacognitive monitoring: knowing when an answer requires text search versus reasoning
• Question generation as a comprehension and discussion skill
• Reading comprehension, particularly inferential and integrative questions
• Metacognitive awareness of task demands — knowing what kind of thinking a question requires
• Test-taking strategy and self-regulated reading
• Question generation as a higher-order comprehension activity
• Reading comprehension: distinguishing literal from inferential understanding
• Metacognition: monitoring whether one is answering from the text or from one's own knowledge
• Question-asking: learning to generate and evaluate questions of different cognitive types

Instructions¶

1. Introduce the four QAR categories with one worked example of each, modeling the classification decision aloud.
2. Present a short text with pre-written questions; classify each together, asking "where does this answer live?"
3. Have students sort a mixed question set independently, then compare and justify classifications in pairs.
4. Move to answering: for "Think and Search" and "Author and Me" questions, require learners to cite the text parts they combined.
5. Have students generate their own questions of each type and exchange them — question generation is itself a comprehension activity [+S].
6. Fade the labels, prompting only "What kind of question is this, and how do you know?"

Related Strategies¶

• Activating Prior Knowledge — the "Author and Me" and "On My Own" categories depend on learners deliberately drawing on background knowledge
• Reciprocal Teaching — shares the goal of making comprehension strategies explicit; QAR's question-type awareness feeds its questioning role
• Annotating — marking where answers come from in the text supports the "Think and Search" category
• Question Generation — the extension phase where learners author questions by type
• Think-Aloud — the modeling method for making classification decisions visible
• Teachers should make task demands explicit, compelling, varied, and metacognitively supported when assigning text-study tasks

Examples¶

• Raphael's original materials — Taffy Raphael's QAR instructional sequence, widely reproduced in reading methods textbooks and basal reading programs since the mid-1980s.
• Reading Rockets — practitioner guide to implementing QAR in elementary classrooms: readingrockets.org
• Newsela or similar leveled-text platforms — teachers layer QAR labels onto the built-in quiz items, prompting students to classify before answering.
• Raphael's original program (1986) — middle-grade students taught QAR showed improved ability to answer inferential questions and better awareness of answer sources.
• Question-Answer Relationships in basal reading programs — many published ELA curricula (e.g., Houghton Mifflin's reading series) embed QAR labels on comprehension questions.
• Mathematics adaptation — teachers classify word problems by whether needed information is given in the problem (Right There / Think and Search) or must be supplied from known facts (Author and Me / On My Own).

Key Sources¶

• Raphael, T. E. (1986). Teaching question answer relationships, revisited. The Reading Teacher, 39(6), 516–522.
• Raphael, T. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1985). Increasing students' awareness of sources of information for answering questions. American Educational Research Journal, 22(2), 217–235. doi:10.3102/00028312022002217
• National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read. NICHD.
• Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1
• Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 317–344. doi:10.1016/0361-476x(83)90019-x
• Raphael, T. E. (1986). Teaching question answer strategies, revisited. The Reading Teacher, 39(6), 516–522.
• Raphael, T. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1985). The effect of metacognitive awareness training on question-answering behavior. Journal of Educational Behavior, 10(1) [no DOI — see also Raphael & Pearson, 1985, in Reading Research Quarterly, 20(4), 428–446].
• National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. NICHD.