Open and closed questions

I analysed the questions raised by teachers and how they influenced students’

contributions in the learning process. After the preliminary analysis, the questions were arranged into three groups. The first group, ‘closed questions’, required memorised facts to be recalled. There is a clearly distinguishable border between the right and wrong answers, for example: “How many confessions can you find on this page?” and “To which caste did Siddhartha Gautama’s father belong?” If this type of question supports dialogue, the aim would be confrontation. The second group, ‘half-open questions’, focused on understanding the studied material; they could have more than one right answer, but a border still existed between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ answers. Examples in-clude “Describe in your own words the meaning of the word ‘karma’!” or “Find a verse in Dhammapada which confirms one of the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism. Can you explain how it confirms it?” The third group, ‘open ques-tions’, consisted of questions to which a listener could not say if the answer was correct or not. Instead, students reflected upon their opinions or preferences or cited examples from their lives. Examples of these questions are “When would you regard a man to be grown up?” and “Which of the books did you like?” The aim of dialogue, if it emerges, can vary from confrontation to an aspiration to search for common ground.

My first assumption was that more open questions or tasks contribute to an atmosphere in which dialogue can occur, and challenge students to construct their own version of the world and thus make dialogue possible. Could more open ways of asking questions increase students’ readiness to take part in discussions?

In School C, the analysis of the lessons indicates that the readiness to cooperate and the interest of the students increased when the teacher asked closed questions, expecting memorisation or finding the right answer from worksheets. In particular, when students worked in groups of two to six, they discussed the questions with each other and tried to arrive at a common so-lution. In addition, some half-open questions that required students to remember the studied material and had more than one possible answer were appreciated by students. For example, a group task on the main concepts of Hinduism in which students had to explain them in everyday language (based on written work on handouts) inspired students. However, whenever the teacher asked an open question about students’ opinions or preferences, they seemed puzzled and

‘switched off’.

For example, an attempt to discuss an open question in a lesson about holy texts of Hinduism failed. After an overview about the content of holy texts of Hinduism, the teacher’s question “If you could read one of those texts, which one would you choose, and why?” did not find any response from students, they either refused to answer or said that they did not have any opinion. In the task of re-wording the main concepts of Hinduism, they started to work actively again.

During stimulated recall students explained that the information they have is too superficial and they need to know more, some exemplifying extracts from different Hindu sacred texts would be necessary to make a personal decision.

Only one open question encouraged dialogue: after introducing Siddhartha’s birth, the teacher asked students if someone had a special story of his or her birth. A girl from the back row explained how her mother had almost given birth on the street. Other students started showing interest, but still no dialogue took place; the teacher continued with a lesson and the students briefly engaged in side-talk.

To give a closer look at an example I selected an incident, ‘sketches about Hinduism’, from the third lesson in the block about Hinduism in everyday life.

Students had been taught the main tenets of Hinduism and then they moved to the role of the religion in daily life. The students created four groups, each of which had to concentrate on one aspect of Hindu life: ‘Purpose of life’, ‘Holy days’, ‘Prayer’”, and the ‘Four ashramas’. Students read the papers with back-ground information for their sketches. After studying these they prepared drama sketches about what they have learned and they were expected to perform these to the other groups. There was a good distribution of work; almost every student produced something. They could use incense, candles, bells, crayons, articles of clothing, and wigs. Some of the students drew, others thought about the performance. The teacher moved around in order to be available. Students exchanged ideas, asked questions of each other and sometimes of the teacher, and tried to apply the text to what they must perform. There was a friendly atmosphere in the class; students’ body language, smiles, and inclinations showed that they were enjoying their work. The classroom was rather noisy.

In the following minutes, four groups presented their drama sketches to the class, but it was difficult to follow what was shown. The room was flat and they

performed in a very tiny place in front of the class, and it was impossible to see from the benches in the back. It was difficult to understand everything that was in the sketches without having them read. Only the sketch about prayer was accompanied by an oral presentation in which the students acted out an important part of a Hindu life – puja celebrated at home.

After every group had finished the teacher asked the students about their impressions.

Heli: “Which performance caught your attention the most?”

Jane: “The last one!”

Mirjam: “The last!”

Heli: “What did you understand from it?”

Boy Paul: “Nothing.”

Several students muttered something that is unintelligible.

Heli explained briefly the contents of the sketches. For the conclusion and personal reflection, she asked what they liked the most and students shout:

“Everything!” She tried to get some more precise feedback, but nothing came.

The students’ interest waned, and their attention turned to other things. Nobody gave any thoughtful explanations.

In School D the teacher asked only half-open or open questions, usually not in a personal way but on an intellectual level. There was a certain routine in the class. After Peter asked a question, students had three to five minutes to write down their thoughts, sometimes followed by discussion in pairs. If there was no volunteer to answer the question, the teacher selected students sequentially to answer. Peter subsequently reflected upon the answer so that the student could argue. Usually, no discussion occurred among the students. In addition, the setting of the classroom did not support dialogue among students, as they sat in ascending rows, one behind another, without facing each other.

In an interview, Peter explained that he deliberately avoids personal issues.

He argued strongly against encouraging students to talk about their religious experiences and convictions at school. He does not want to make students vulnerable by open talks about their own religious convictions. Still, he sees the need for personal reflection, as it is crucial for the understanding of the subject (for example, a task to bring out the most important issues from a selected reading). The other possibility is to make them find arguments (for or against, sometimes in line with their own opinion and sometimes regardless of it) about a belief of some religion, such as “What problems can be created by the idea of a chosen nation?” and “Find the reasons why God is not portrayed in Judaism”.

The students gave their (anonymous) feedback on the course, revealing that discussions were the most valuable part of the lessons. Having open questions in classroom situations was a new experience for them.

“The best part of the lessons was discussion, expression of own opinions and viewpoints. This skill does not appear by itself and it must be practised. Usually students are not given this opportunity, now and again you must follow what the

teacher has taught and to write down what is correct for the teacher; but I think that our own views and notions remain in us and we are not given the opportunity to express them.” (Student 29)

Students have, for many years, learned by listening to the teacher; they are used to this approach and have mastered it. The new approach seemed difficult and challenging, but very useful to many students.

“I have learned to think in religious education lessons. Not that I was unable to do it before but in these lessons I felt mental stimulation and I liked it.” (Student 25) Both the value of challenging one’s own way of thinking and the need to discover one’s own views were brought forward. In looking for three components of dialogue, as described in 1.2.2, deeper understandings of oneself, of others and of the subject, all of them are mentioned by students in their feedback:

“I liked that there was an opportunity to think, express your own opinion, argue.

And there were no concrete wrong or right answers. The course gave us the opportunity to develop ourselves, broaden our horizon. We could find relations between ourselves and aspects of different religions.” (Student 22)

The students valued not only their own improvements but also had the chance to listen to the opinions of other students. They noted that it is the only lesson where they can learn to know each other more:

“I liked the structure of lessons, especially where we had to answer the questions. It was not so important for me if I was able to say my opinion to the class but this part of thinking and analysing – it helped to look at things from different angles. Listening to others’ responses helped also to learn more about classmates.” (Student 19)

The task of reflecting upon their own ideas and exploring different religious concepts was challenging because their knowledge about religions was felt to be too superficial to contribute to an open discussion. Some students reported that they felt bad when they did not have any thoughts but were asked to contribute;

others did not regard it as a sufficient reason to avoid discussions.

“The teacher’s interesting thoughts have made me think often. I had a possibility to think a lot during religious education lessons, although I did not always get good ideas, but you must try hard. There is often a fear that you do not know the topic enough and you can miss the point with your answer, but it is not a sin to make a mistake.” (Student 1)

Summary

Only a limited amount of dialogue occurs during the lessons, and it is usually restricted to student-teacher conversation on the level of confrontation. Open questions are rare in both schools, also half-open questions were seldom asked in School C; they are usually answered briefly and as though they are closed questions – namely, with only one answer. Theoretically, teachers are aware of the need to use more open questions in order to stimulate an analytical and more personal approach to the subject. In practice, however, the teacher’s motivation to use open questions and dialogue between students decreases when open ques-tions consistently fail to elicit a response. Only a very systematic use of open questions, as in School D, proved to be successful and stimulating for students.

More personal contributions and dialogue add to students’ understanding and enable them to find common ground, but this is only possible if the atmosphere in a group is believed to be safe enough by students or the teacher. The teacher can create (or avoid) situations and atmospheres in which dialogue is possible.

If the teacher believes that sharing religious convictions by students can harm them, the topic is avoided; students can have a distant and more academic perspective. The students appreciate the possibility of expressing their views even though they rarely showed the initiative to volunteer a contribution or engage in dialogue.