Student-Generated Questions in PBL¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 4 claims (3 for, 1 mixed) · 13 studies (4 quant-synthesis, 4 theoretical, 2 causal, 2 review, 1 associational), q1–q4 · 4 of 13 report an effect size

Description¶

Student-generated questions in project-based learning (PBL) positions learners as the originators of the inquiry that drives a project: rather than receiving a teacher-posed driving question, students identify what they genuinely want to find out and refine those curiosities into investigable questions. This is carried out through structured question-generation routines (brainstorming, question-storming, question formulation protocols), followed by criteria-based refinement — sorting open vs. closed, prioritizing, and converting vague wonderings into researchable questions that anchor the project.

Design Implications¶

Question generation activates prior knowledge and creates an information gap that learners are motivated to close, converting project work from task completion into genuine inquiry Autonomy over learning goals supports intrinsic motivation. [+M]. The quality of student questions is not fixed: explicit instruction in question-asking strategies substantially improves the depth and cognitive level of questions students produce Teaching question-asking strategies improves the quality of student-generated questions and subsequent learning. [+S]. Generated questions also function as self-explanation prompts — articulating what one wants to know surfaces gaps in understanding Self-explanation improves conceptual understanding. [+M].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• A topic space broad enough that authentic student questions are possible; if the answer is predetermined, generated questions become decoration
• Explicit scaffolds for question formulation (e.g., the Right Question Institute's Question Formulation Technique), since untaught question-asking tends toward low-cognitive-level questions Teaching question-asking strategies improves the quality of student-generated questions and subsequent learning. [+S]
• Criteria and routines for refining questions: open vs. closed, investigable vs. speculative, prioritization against project constraints
• Ongoing Coaching and Class Discussion to revisit and revise questions as inquiry progresses

Constraints¶

• Novices generate questions that are often superficial or off-target; without strategy instruction and refinement protocols, question generation consumes time without improving learning Teaching question-asking strategies improves the quality of student-generated questions and subsequent learning. [-S]
• Full autonomy over question selection can overload working memory and misdirect inquiry when learners lack domain knowledge to judge what is central Productive failure improves conceptual learning only when followed by structured instruction. [~M] — exploration first works when consolidated later
• Question generation adds time and curriculum flexibility; in tightly content-constrained courses it competes with required coverage
• Students accustomed to teacher-posed tasks may experience open question-asking as anxiety-producing rather than motivating until norms are established

Implementation Variability¶

• Full ownership: students generate, select, and drive all project questions (authentic PBL, community-connection projects)
• Constrained generation: teacher sets the problem context; students generate the sub-questions within it — a middle path that preserves autonomy while bounding scope
• Question refinement cycles: initial questions are treated as drafts, revised after first inquiry rounds, mirroring how real researchers iterate
• Individual vs. collaborative generation: group question-storming produces more diverse questions; individual generation ensures all students practice the skill

Target Learners¶

• Students disengaged by traditional instruction; autonomy over the inquiry question increases ownership and persistence Autonomy over learning goals supports intrinsic motivation. [+M]
• Intermediate and advanced learners with enough prior knowledge to ask productive questions; complete novices need more framing Productive failure improves conceptual learning only when followed by structured instruction. [~M]
• Students developing self-regulated learning capacity, since question-setting is a core self-regulation move (goal setting and strategic planning) Self-monitoring improves self-regulation. [+M]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Inquiry and research skills: formulating, refining, and pursuing investigable questions
• Conceptual understanding: questions that surface prior conceptions and gaps support deeper processing Self-explanation improves conceptual understanding. [+M]
• Motivation and ownership: connecting project work to personally meaningful questions Autonomy over learning goals supports intrinsic motivation. [+M]
• Metacognition: evaluating what one knows and what one needs to find out

Instructions¶

1. Launch with an entry event or phenomenon — a provocative scenario, artifact, or Case Studies opening that creates authentic curiosity before any question generation.
2. Run a question-storming round — students produce as many questions as possible without evaluation, individually or in groups, using a protocol such as the Question Formulation Technique.
3. Teach question criteria explicitly — distinguish open vs. closed, investigable vs. speculative, and model upgrading vague questions into researchable ones (Coaching).
4. Prioritize and select — groups converge on driving and sub-questions, checking them against project constraints and learning goals.
5. Plan and conduct inquiry — students pursue their questions through research, data collection, or Application in authentic contexts.
6. Revisit and revise questions — build in structured checkpoints (Class Discussion) where questions are refined as understanding grows.
7. Close the loop — students answer their original questions in a public product and reflect on how their questions changed.

Related Strategies¶

• Driving-question design (teacher-posed) — the complementary approach; a hybrid gives the teacher the frame and students the sub-questions
• Case-based learning — cases supply the rich context from which student questions emerge (Case-Based Learning)
• Collaborative inquiry — group question generation and investigation extend this strategy (Collaborative Inquiry)

Related Elements¶

• Coaching — supports question refinement without taking ownership away from students
• Class Discussion — the venue for question-storming, prioritization, and revision cycles
• Case Studies — rich entry contexts that provoke genuine questions
• Application — pursuing generated questions through authentic project work

Patterns That Use This Strategy¶

• Collaborative Inquiry — student questions define the inquiry agenda
• Case-Based Learning — questions emerge from case analysis
• Cognitive Apprenticeship — question generation plays the role of articulation and exploration phases

Examples¶

• Right Question Institute — Question Formulation Technique — a structured protocol (produce, improve, prioritize) used in K-12 and higher education to make student question generation a routine instructional event.
• PBLWorks (Buck Institute) — gold-standard PBL project designs in which students develop sub-questions under a project frame, with question revision built into project milestones.
• Science inquiry classrooms — students observe a phenomenon (e.g., a discrepant event), generate "I wonder" questions, then select one to investigate experimentally, with the teacher coaching investigability rather than supplying the question.

Key Sources¶

• King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 338–368. doi:10.3102/00028312031002338
• Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). Students' questions: A potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1–39. doi:10.1080/03057260701828101
• Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 369–398. doi:10.1080/00461520.1991.9653139
• Rothstein, D., & Santana, L. (2011). Make just one change: Teach students to ask their own questions. Harvard Education Press.
• Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Emergence of progressive-inquiry culture in computer-supported collaborative learning. Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Computer support for collaborative learning - CSCL '97, 6(2), 171-175. doi:10.3115/1599773.1599794