A conversational title about Random Call

Many schools use icypole sticks as a core technique for questioning. This aims to increase engagement, accountability to learning, and spread of participation. It can work well, but here’s why we should think critically about the practice.

In many classrooms, some students contribute a lot while others disengage. Great schools work hard to remedy this. They build systems for equitable participation. If icypole sticks support more students to think and participate, that’s a good thing. But is it equitable?

Young children think fairness is achieved when everyone gets the same, but adults know that fairness is achieved when everyone gets what they need. Equity cannot be achieved by lottery.

Teacher questioning serves many purposes. It provides crucial opportunity for thinking, rehearsal, and explanation. Student responses open doors to feedback and behaviour-specific praise. All children need this, but at times, some children need this much more than others.

Teacher questioning also serves to build momentum and secure success. Sometimes we ask students questions not to challenge their thinking, but to secure success. “See? You did know it. You’re on a roll now.” At times, some children need this much more than others.

Questioning can also be used to activate prior knowledge. Teachers might ask a question purely for the purpose of bringing related knowledge into working memory before introducing a new concept. Some children, more than others, may need to rehearse this knowledge out loud.

Because teachers know all this, they tell me that they “fake the stick”. They draw an icypole stick, and then say a name that is not on the stick. We have now introduced an element of improv drama into our teaching. Experts will likely manage it. What about the graduate?

What exactly is happening in this very moment? Do the children see through us? Are we modelling honesty? Is it respectful of students’ intelligence? Has a jar of icypole sticks become the tail that’s wagging the dog?

We have alternatives. All-student response systems (like Mini Whiteboards or Think-Pair-Share) provide ripe conditions for directed questioning. With lots of evidence about what students are thinking, we can use directed (and differentiated) questioning.

After all students have had a chance to think/talk/write, teachers can ask different questions to different children. Some students will need scaffolds. Other students will be asked to extend a response to show reasoning. There is fairness in variance.

Without icypole sticks, how will we be sure that we’re hearing from different students (over a series of lessons)? This is a good question to ask. There are simple ways of monitoring spread of participation. The simple class list is a good start.

Like most practices in teaching, randomised questioning can be implemented well by the expert, but I’ve seen enough of this practice to be wary. I think it sends the wrong message about equity, which sits at the very heart of what we are here to do.

Share your thoughts