Key points
- “Cold Call” is a term lacking in definition
- Randomised questioning and teacher-selected questioning are structurally different practices – so both cannot be described as “Cold Call”
- Randomised questioning is well intentioned, but equitable instruction cannot be achieved by lottery
- Executed with a high degree of teacher judgment, Cold Call can be a powerful lever for responsive and inclusive teaching
Cold Call: Teacher-led or lottery?
At the very heart of responsive teaching lies the need for teachers to promote participation and thinking. In this spirit, many schools are implementing “Cold Call”.
In this post, I want to argue three things:
- The term “Cold Call” requires definition
- We should use different terms to discriminate between randomised questioning (e.g. popsicle sticks) and teacher-directed questioning (the teacher using judgment to select specific students to respond)
- Randomised questioning is well intentioned, but is not compatible with the aims of responsive and inclusive instruction
What does “Cold Call” mean?
Across the field, the term “Cold Call” holds no shared meaning. “Cold Call” is used to describe both randomised questioning (e.g. the teacher pulling a name at random on a popsicle stick) and teacher-selected questioning (the teacher using judgment to strategically select particular students to respond).
This is a serious problem of definition, with implications in implementation.
Selecting a student to share by randomised draw is fundamentally different to carefully selecting specific students to respond to specific prompts for different purposes.
(I suspect many people consider the differences between these approaches to be minor. In my experience, the differences are in fact major and structural.)
We will never agree on terms universally, but it is important that we at least clarify the terms we use, and that we use different terms to discriminate between approaches.
Clarifying terms
Here is how I codify the two approaches at hand.
Random Call: Without asking for a volunteer, the teacher uses a randomised method (e.g. popsicle sticks) to select a student to respond
Cold Call: Without asking for a volunteer, the teacher uses their judgment to select a specific student to respond to a specific question or prompt
[In my view, schools can use whatever terms they like; what matters is that different practices are carefully codified so that we are not talking at cross purposes.]
Why would we randomise questioning?
Lots of teachers use randomised methods (e.g. popsicle sticks) to choose students to respond to questions. Teachers tell me they like Random Call for lots of reasons, but one reason that is always cited is that randomising questions makes it fairer.
But, hang on. Is it really fair?
Fairness is not achieved by chance
Many children think fairness is achieved when everyone gets the same. Some children think it’s fair if everyone has an “equal chance”. But adults in education know that equity can only be achieved when everyone gets what they need to succeed.
Responsive teaching then can only be achieved when expert teachers give different students different things. This applies to everything teachers do, including the daily routines they establish for questioning in the classroom.
What is the function of teacher questioning?
To better understand why randomness is not fair, let’s first consider why teachers question students in the first place.
Sometimes we question students to provide crucial opportunities for thinking, rehearsal, and explanation. All children need this, but at particular times in any given lesson, some children will need this a bit more than others.
Sometimes we call on students purely to support skill practice. “/p/, /a/, /n/, pan. Your turn.” Some students will benefit from this kind of individual skill rehearsal more than others, in different times of different lessons.
Sometimes we ask students questions purely to secure success for them. “And what type of source is it? Exactly, a primary source. Great.” At certain times, some children need this assurance much more than others.
I could go on, because we are nowhere near the end of the list of different functions for teacher questioning – but the big idea here is clear.
We cannot afford to randomise such a critically important aspect of instruction.
Cold Call can be inclusive
Executed with care, and a high degree of judgment, Cold Call is in fact a major lever we can pull to promote equity and inclusion in our classrooms. It involves teachers thinking carefully about who they will call on, when, to respond to what, and under what conditions. Using popsicle sticks doesn’t develop the decision-making skills required.
Support and scaffolds will be added for some students, and removed for others. Difficulty of questions can be ratcheted up and down, levels of praise adjusted to be more specific or more general – all moves that are sensitive to the specifics of context and a teacher’s deep knowledge of their students.
If you’re keen to learn about how to implement Cold Call well, you might like to check out a previous edition of The Implementation Edit – Laying the Foundations for Cold Call.
And if you have feedback, or a different perspective, I’d love to hear from you.
Staffroom reflections
- When we say “Cold Call” in our school, what do we really mean?
- What assumptions about fairness sit behind our current approach to questioning?
- How could deliberate and differentiated Cold Call allow us to target instruction more precisely — offering more rehearsal, more stretch, more reassurance to different students at different times?
