Questions that support reflection and sense-making in STEM education

Guiding prompts are familiar aspects of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) teaching. In laboratory courses, instructors often use structured questions to help students reflect on procedures, interpret results and connect practice to theory. Traditionally, many instructors, including us, have relied on directed prompts: questions that guide students towards an expected answer.

For example, in a second-year organic chemistry laboratory, we might ask: “What is the purpose of adding acetic acid in the biodiesel experiment?” or “Why must the aqueous tea solution be cooled before dichloromethane is added during the caffeine extraction?” These questions are clear, concise and familiar, aligning closely with how many of us were taught.

Generic prompts can give students greater autonomy and flexibility to express their ideas, as we discussed in an earlier Campus article. Directed prompts, on the other hand, follow a focused, bottom-up pathway: they narrow students’ attention to a specific concept and typically imply a limited range of acceptable answers. When aligned with instruction, they efficiently assess factual or procedural understanding. Yet their structure can also fragment learning. Students with different backgrounds, language proficiencies or prior experiences, for example, might struggle to determine what kind of response is expected, even when they understand the underlying science. By contrast, prompts that are more open-ended, yet not vague, can encourage students to organise, connect and articulate understanding using their own conceptual resources.

• Use scripted conversations to fill knowledge gaps
• ‘Support is not remedial. It is pedagogy’
• Four ways to shape the future of analytical labs now

Students responding to generic prompts develop more coherent understanding during complex science projects, whereas directed prompts more often elicit unproductive reflection, as research has shown. However, as our own construct has diverged from science education researcher Elizabeth A. Davis’ generic prompt framework, a new term is needed to avoid confusion. Rather than “generic prompts”, we discuss “open disciplinary prompts”, which are still open-ended but anchored in the disciplinary context. 

This article examines how open disciplinary prompt design shapes students’ reflective thinking and sense-making in STEM laboratories. Specifically, it introduces a thinking-pathway lens for understanding prompts, articulates practical principles for prompt design, and highlights equity-oriented implications for diverse STEM classrooms.

Rethinking prompts: directed versus open disciplinary prompts

Not all prompts are equally effective at fostering deep understanding. Some questions prompt students to produce an answer, while others encourage genuine reflection and sense-making.

For instance, in the biodiesel experiment, a directed prompt might ask: “What is the purpose of adding acetic acid?” This question focuses students on a single reagent and suggests a specific response.

Generic prompts allow students to choose the focus of their reflection, whether on content understanding, project goals or their own learning processes. Open disciplinary prompts provide scaffolding for students regarding the goals and purpose of the prompt. For example, they might be asked: “My thoughts about kinetics are… (Use at least one observation from today’s experiment and one prior concept, such as collision theory, activation energy or reaction mechanism).” Rather than directing students towards a single explanation, this prompt invites them to integrate observations, prior knowledge and chemical principles in multiple, equally valid ways.

Designing prompts that promote reflection

Our definition of open disciplinary prompts, although open-ended, still includes structure that emphasises connections among ideas. By this definition, these prompts are not unstructured but grounded in disciplinary relationships and include light scaffolding to support novice learners.

For example, students might be asked: “How did your choice of reaction conditions, work-up and purification steps influence the yield and purity of your product? What do your observations reveal about the challenges of controlling highly reactive intermediates in organic synthesis?” Similar prompts can invite reflection on equilibrium: “My current understanding of equilibrium is… How do today’s results support or challenge that understanding?” or experimental design: “What aspects of today’s procedure most influenced the outcome? Why?”

Because students can begin from different points, such prompts enable diverse learners to engage while remaining aligned with disciplinary expectations. In practice, prompts with overly constrained contextual detail often increase students’ cognitive load without improving the quality of explanations. Broader prompts, by contrast, help students focus on relationships among ideas rather than procedural recall.

Directed prompts continue to play an important role, particularly later in sequences as students consolidate knowledge. Open disciplinary prompts, however, are especially effective early on, helping students build confidence, articulate prior knowledge and make sense of new ideas.

Supporting all students, not just high performers

A common concern is that open-ended prompts favour high-performing students while others might respond superficially. This concern reflects a misunderstanding of well-designed prompts. When prompts are carefully constructed with clear expectations, they can guide all students, from novices to experts, to reflect meaningfully.

By inviting multiple routes to explanation, open disciplinary prompts encourage students to evaluate evidence, connect concepts and reason. For example, in our lab classes, students might first draft an explanation, compare it with peers’ interpretations and then revisit experimental data to refine their reasoning. This iterative process fosters metacognition, helping students become aware of their assumptions and thought processes.

Practical tips for instructors

• Start with prompts that are broad yet anchored in key concepts. Avoid vague questions that could elicit opinions or unsupported statements.
• Include light scaffolding for novice learners, such as prompts to connect observations to prior concepts or experimental results.
• Pair open disciplinary prompts with opportunities for discussion, revision or reflection to help students refine their ideas.
• Use a mix of directed and open disciplinary prompts throughout the learning sequence. Early reflection supports sense-making; targeted prompts consolidate knowledge later.

Why this matters

Carefully designed prompts centred on reflection and sense-making are a powerful pedagogical tool. They support learning across a broad range of students by promoting thoughtful engagement, structured reasoning and the integration of prior knowledge with new experiences. By focusing on the thinking a prompt invites rather than the answer it elicits, instructors can create learning experiences that are both rigorous and inclusive.

Prompts that encourage reflection are not merely nice to have. They are essential for helping students develop deep understanding and transferable thinking skills. When thoughtfully designed and supported by discussion or feedback, these prompts enable students to engage meaningfully, build confidence and take ownership of their learning.

Karen Ho is laboratory instructor in the department of chemistry and physics at Mount Royal University in Calgary, Canada. Douglas B. Clark is professor in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary, Canada.

If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.