A3.3 Category 2 Use of Questions
Category purpose. The purpose of asking questions is to get the crew to participate, focus the discussion on important topics, and enlist the crew in discussing the topics in depth.
Questions are the primary instrument the facilitator uses to keep the analytic load on the crew. The four markers below decompose the questioning pattern into its operational components: how often (volume), where the focus stays (the crew's analysis vs the instructor's interpretation), how deep the questions push, and whether the questions build crew-to-crew exchange or only crew-to-instructor exchange. The marker structure mirrors the FSF / NASA five-pattern question taxonomy reproduced in A1.4 Facilitation Techniques (set-the-scene, lead-to-topics, deepen, follow-up, redirect-to-crew).
Behavioural markers
The four markers for Category 2, scored on the 1-to-5 scale defined in A3.1 Purpose and Directions:
- Volume and direction. Asks an appropriate number of questions to get crew talking & guide them to important issues.
- Focus on the crew. Avoids answering for the crew when they do not respond immediately or correctly, and uses a pattern of questioning that keeps the focus on the crew.
- Probing and depth. Uses probing and follow-up questions to get crew to analyze in depth and to go beyond yes/no and brief factual answers.
- Crew-to-crew interaction. Uses questioning techniques to encourage interaction and sharing of perspectives among crew members.
The category also carries an "Overall rating of Questions" line, which is the total of the four marker scores.
Rating standards
The 20 rating-anchor descriptors for Category 2, reproduced verbatim. Rows are the four markers; columns are the five rating levels (Poor 1, Marginal 2, Adequate 3, Good 4, Very Good 5).
| Marker | Poor (1) | Marginal (2) | Adequate (3) | Good (4) | Very Good (5) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Volume and direction | Rarely asks questions to get crew talking or lead them to issues. | Occasionally asks questions to get crew talking & lead them to issues. | About half of the time asks questions when necessary to get crew talking & lead them to issues. | Frequently asks questions when appropriate to get crew talking & lead them to issues. | Consistently asks questions as appropriate to get crew talking & lead them to issues. |
| 2. Focus on the crew | Usually answers for the crew when they do not respond immediately or correctly. | Occasionally avoids answering for the crew when they do not respond immediately or correctly but generally answers for them rather than keeping focus on the crew. | Generally avoids answering for the crew when they do not respond immediately or correctly, and uses a pattern of questioning that keeps the focus on the crew. | Predominantly rewords questions or otherwise avoids answering for the crew when they do not respond immediately or correctly and predominantly uses a pattern of questioning that keeps the focus on the crew. | Consistently rewords questions or otherwise avoids answering for the crew when they do not respond immediately or correctly, and consistently uses a pattern of questioning that keeps the focus on the crew. |
| 3. Probing and depth | Rarely uses probing and follow-up questions to get crew to analyze in depth. Usually settles for yes/no and brief factual answers. | Occasionally uses probing and follow-up questions to get crew to analyze in depth but generally settles for yes/no and brief factual answers. | On average uses probing and follow-up questions to get crew to analyze in depth and to go beyond yes/no and brief factual answers but steers crew to predetermined answers as much as emphasizes self-discovery. | Frequently uses probing and follow-up questions as a tool to evoke in-depth discussion and optimize crew self-discovery, pushing crew to go beyond yes/no and brief factual answers. | Consistently uses probing and follow-up questions as a tool to evoke in-depth discussion and optimize crew self-discovery, while forcing crew to go beyond yes/no and brief factual answers. |
| 4. Crew-to-crew interaction | Rarely uses questioning techniques to encourage interaction among crew members. | Occasionally uses questioning techniques to encourage interaction among crew members. | On average uses questioning techniques to encourage interaction among crew members. | Frequently uses questioning techniques to encourage interaction and sharing of perspectives among crew members. | Consistently uses questioning techniques to encourage substantial interaction and sharing of perspectives among crew members. |
How to read the marker progression
Markers 1, 3, and 4 progress along a frequency dimension: from "rarely" (Poor) through "occasionally" (Marginal), "about half of the time" or "on average" (Adequate), "frequently" (Good), to "consistently" (Very Good). Marker 2 progresses along a behavioural-quality dimension that operationalises the FSF / NASA "avoid answering for the crew" rule: the language at Adequate ("generally avoids... and uses a pattern") is the operational floor; at Good and Very Good the descriptor adds the specific technique ("rewords questions or otherwise avoids answering") that distinguishes a competent facilitator from a merely-restrained one.
Cross-reference to the FSF / NASA question taxonomy
The four markers compress the five-pattern FSF / NASA question taxonomy. The mapping:
- Marker 1 (volume and direction) covers FSF / NASA pattern 1 (set-the-scene) and pattern 2 (lead-to-topics).
- Marker 2 (focus on the crew) covers FSF / NASA pattern 5 (turn crew questions and comments back to them).
- Marker 3 (probing and depth) covers FSF / NASA pattern 3 (deepen the discussion) and pattern 4 (follow up on crew topics).
- Marker 4 (crew-to-crew interaction) is implicit across patterns 4 and 5 of the FSF / NASA taxonomy and explicit in the levels-of-facilitation criterion ("crew members address each other directly and interactively rather than merely respond to the instructor"; reproduced in A1.2 Instruction vs Facilitation).
The compression is operational: the rubric trades the FSF / NASA taxonomy's pedagogical specificity for a smaller marker set the evaluator can score in real time during a debrief observation.
Connections
- A3.1 Purpose and Directions. The 1-to-5 scale and the rubric's overall framing.
- A3.2 Category 1 The Introduction. The introduction category, whose role-setting is a precondition for any questioning behaviour to score well.
- A3.4 Category 3 Encouragement. The encouragement category, which is the listening counterpart to this category's questioning.
- A1.4 Facilitation Techniques. The FSF / NASA five-pattern question taxonomy upstream of these markers.
- A1.2 Instruction vs Facilitation. The "Criteria for Effective Instructor Facilitation" that frames the questioning discipline.
- 3.5 Questioning. The classroom-questioning chapter; the foundational treatment of questioning technique that this debrief-specific rubric assumes.
- 7.3 General Debrief Techniques. The debrief-questioning treatment that pairs with this rubric.