Living the science of learning research
AuthorDr Nina HoodCategoriesTeaching
Hinge questions: What are they and what impact do they have?
Back
Date17th Oct 2022AuthorMegan Issott MCCT CTeachCategoriesTeaching
I was first introduced to multiple choice hinge questioning (MCHQ) as part of my Chartered Teacher Status qualification (CTeach) as a tool for assessing students’ misunderstandings (Wiliam 2018). This focus on misunderstanding is significant. Prior to this work, my questioning and assessment had focused on checking that students understood, with the main idea in my mind being ‘have students understood x?’. The creation and use of MCHQ shifted my thinking to asking: ‘What errors are students making and why?’. If we can understand the errors students make, and more importantly the misconceptions that students hold that result in those errors, then we understand what needs to be re-taught and how. As a result of this re-teaching, students develop accurate knowledge which can be developed over time.
How is a MHCQ different from other questions?
First, it is a multiple-choice question that requires all class members to answer it simultaneously, for example via cards or whiteboards. Second, it is a carefully constructed question where all answers could be possible - they are not random. The incorrect answers should be distractors for students who have a misunderstanding about the topic being assessed. Third, they should take between one and two minutes to answer, so that they overcome the problem often associated with questioning that teachers do not wait long enough for students to respond (Black & Wiliam 1998: Wiliam 2018 & 2015). Finally, they are responsive: student answers can impact the next steps of the lesson, either for the whole class, small groups, or individuals (Bromley 2017, Christodoulou 2016). Harry Fletcher-Wood examines their application in history teaching in a 2014 blog. He argues that while the cognitive rules of history may not be as clear as within maths and sciences, these questions do have value. While he identifies challenges with their application and creation, he ultimately promotes them as a tool for humanities teachers. This led me to develop their application in my sociology teaching; while what follows is contextual to my A level sociology classroom, it should have lessons for other teachers in social sciences and humanities who may be unsure about how to use MCHQs in their contexts.
What can MCHQ look like in sociology?
In my classroom, I would show the question on the board and give students 1-2 minutes to think about the answer in silence and then write it on a whiteboard. Then, based on their answers and our discussion, I would teach the next steps – having planned multiple different ways to proceed in advance. I focused my MCHQ on critical concepts needed for students to be successful in sociology that I had taught directly. Sometimes the misconceptions needed to create the distractors were identified in advance, through staffroom discussions, and other times in the course of teaching or marking. These were then used to create MCHQ at the start of the following lesson.
For example, a question planned prior to teaching:
How do you define the term reliable?
- It means I trust it to be true, e.g., my friend is a reliable source of information
- Reliable means that it works, e.g., my car is reliable
- It means I can repeat something to get the same results every time
- I am unsure
This MCHQ assesses prior learning, instead of discussing how students use the term reliable and how it has a precise meaning in the research methods of sociology. This question is constructed using typical answers from that discussion. If all students select ‘c’, they can be asked to write this down to remind them this is the definition that will be used from now on. If students select other answers, we can discuss their reasons for choosing them, and then the teaching of ‘c’ can take place with examples given that illustrate the difference. Thus we save time on discission, teaching is focused on direct vocabulary instruction, and students can be clear in their minds on how different definitions of the term ‘reliable’ can be used beyond lessons.
Here is an example MCHQ I planned as a result of misconceptions identified during previous teaching:
According to South, what is the difference between water pollution and dumping of toxic waste in the developing world?
A) There is no difference; both are green crimes that pollute our water systems
B) Only the dumping of toxic waste is illegal; general water pollution is not always a crime and so Traditional Criminologists do not consider it an environmental crime
C) Both harm the environment, but toxic waste in the developing world happens because people are trying to avoid laws in the developed world that aim to protect the environment
D) I am unsure
This second question was created after teaching the difference between primary and secondary green crime. It was clear at the end of a lesson that students were not able to articulate exactly the difference between the crimes. In this question answer ‘a’ is incorrect: it fails to recognise that there is a distinction between primary and secondary crime. Answer ‘b’ is correct if you are a Traditional Criminologist and reflects the views of Emmon and Situ. Answer ‘c’ explains South’s argument clearly and explains the relationship between primary and secondary green crime. The answers that students gave helped me identify how much reteaching was required. The ‘unsure’ option also helps to discourage students from guessing.
What did I learn?
The value of MCHQ is in the planning; if through creating a MCHQ you discuss misconceptions in advance of lessons, then teaching can be adapted to avoid the error and then the question can be used to check that teaching has been successful. For example, when introducing the McMafia story it became clear that students had no knowledge of the Cold War and the breakup of the USSR, so some historical teaching was needed before even beginning to introduce this term. Further, MCHQs are excellent as whole class assessment and ensuring all students engage in review – they focus the mind and make sure all students understand core ideas. While MCHQs take time to construct and require good subject knowledge and experience (it is difficult to identify misconceptions in advance if new to a topic, and MCHQ can’t be developed well during live teaching), they are a valuable tool that I will continue to work to master.
Megan teaches sociology at Long Road Sixth Form College.This article is a brief summary of her work for the Chartered Teacher Status Video Reflection Journal and Research Based Improvement Project (RBIP). For more information about Chartered Teacher Status see here.
References
Black, P and Wiliam, D (1998) ‘Inside the Black Box: raising standards through Classroom Assessment’ The Phi Delta Kappan Vol. 80 No.2 pp. 139-44, 146-48 Accessed online via http://www.academia.edu/download/40440148/Black_Wiliam_blackbox1998_1.pdf (7th December 2020)
Bromley, M (2017) ‘Teaching Practice Hinge Questions’ on Sec Ed: The Voice for Secondary Education accessed online via https://www.sec-ed.co.uk/best-practice/teaching-practice-hinge-questions ( April 17th 2021)
Christodulou, D (2016) ‘Improving formative assessment‘ in Making Good Progress: the Future of Assessment for Learning Oxford University Press: Oxford (pp. 163-169)
Fletcher-Wood H (2019) Responsive Teaching accessed online via https://improvingteaching.co.uk/responsive-teaching/ (December 2021, January 5th 2022)
Wiliam, D (2015) ‘Designing Great Hinge Questions’ in Questioning for Learning, Vol 73:1 pp. 40-44 via https://nwrpdp.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/rpdp-leading-for-impact-ts-5-el-questioning.pdf (accessed April 17th2021)
Wiliam, D (2018) Embedded Formative Assessment Solution Free Press: USA (2nd Edition) (pp. 83-121)