分享一篇剛剛用 deep research 做的報告，我詢問他「該如何問出好問題」，然後請他針對「學習、批判思考、問題解決、創新」等面向去研究，也丟給了他一些問題意識，最後花了 9 分多鐘思考產出這份內容。 我再簡單透過 ai 逐段翻譯（無校正） 後快速看了一遍，覺得是很好的讀物，有很多地方都有共鳴。原本想要把中文翻譯一起 po 上來，但字數爆掉了。歡迎有興趣的人自行複製翻譯參考看看（內文有一些括號內的原本是超連結，我都把連結去掉了，有興趣看原始連結的可以把段落貼在留言，我會補上連結） 我相信裡面肯定有少數幻覺內容（尤其是後面實際案例那邊），但我也認為這樣的彙整對我來說非常有幫助，重點是看了這些東西後有觸發我思考與聯想。 就這樣，分享給大家～ （貼到一半發現即使只貼英文，字數還是爆掉，就分成三篇貼了） How to Ask Better Questions – A Research-Based Report 1. Enhancing Learning & Critical Thinking Frameworks for Structuring Questions: Educators and psychologists have long studied how question design affects learning. Bloom’s Taxonomy offers a hierarchy of cognitive levels – from simple recall of facts to complex evaluation – which teachers use to craft questions that stimulate deeper thinking (Using Bloom's Taxonomy to Ask Critical Thinking Questions | Literacy Minnesota). For example, a lower-level question might ask a student to define a term, while a higher-level question might ask them to analyze differences or hypothesize “What if…?” scenarios (Using Bloom's Taxonomy to Ask Critical Thinking Questions | Literacy Minnesota). Socratic questioning, dating back to ancient Greece, is a disciplined method of asking successive questions to challenge assumptions and uncover underlying beliefs. It focuses on fundamental concepts by asking things like, “Why do you say that?” (to probe reasoning) or “Is there evidence for this?” (Socratic questioning - Wikipedia). This technique pushes people to clarify their thinking, examine assumptions, consider alternative perspectives, and even question the question itself (Socratic questioning - Wikipedia) (Socratic questioning - Wikipedia). Notably, Socrates believed that thoughtful questioning was “the only defensible form of teaching,” as it helps individuals realize what they do or don’t truly understand (Socratic questioning - Wikipedia). Modern iterations of these methods appear in classrooms and counseling – for instance, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy often employs Socratic-style questions to help clients reflect and gain insights (Socratic Questioning in Psychology: Examples and Techniques) (Socratic Questioning in Psychology: Examples and Techniques). Other frameworks focus on self-questioning and metacognition. Metacognitive questioning means “thinking about your thinking” – asking yourself questions about your own understanding and process. Examples include: “What do I know and what don’t I know about this topic?” or “What strategies am I using, and are they working?” (20 Metacognitive Questions That Will Get Students Thinking). Research shows that teaching students to routinely ask such questions (planning how to approach a task, monitoring their progress, and reflecting afterward) can significantly improve their learning outcomes and even foster a growth mindset (20 Metacognitive Questions That Will Get Students Thinking). By pausing to interrogate their own thought process, learners identify gaps in understanding and become more active, self-directed learners. Additionally, incorporating emotional intelligence into questioning means being mindful of how questions are delivered and received. In interpersonal and classroom settings, this involves asking open-ended questions with empathy and genuine curiosity. For example, instead of a blunt “Are you paying attention?”, an emotionally intelligent approach might be, “How do you feel about this idea? Could you tell me more about your perspective?” This style of questioning, coupled with active listening, builds trust. Research on leadership finds that great leaders often ask more than tell – they pose questions like “What do you think is the best course?” or “What else should we consider?” to show respect for others’ ideas (Questions for active listening to become an emotionally intelligent leader). Such open questions encourage dialogue and signal that the questioner is truly listening, which strengthens social and emotional connection (Questions for active listening to become an emotionally intelligent leader) (Questions for active listening to become an emotionally intelligent leader). Cognitive and Psychological Factors: The effectiveness of a question is not only what you ask, but how you ask it. One key factor is phrasing. Slight changes in wording can dramatically alter how a question is perceived and answered. In a teaching context, for instance, directly demanding, “Give me your conclusion on this,” can put a student on the defensive. Rephrasing to, “Would you be willing to share your conclusion?” offers “wriggle room” and invites participation without pressure (Asking Effective Questions | Chicago Center for Teaching and Learning | The University of Chicago). The tone and body language accompanying a question are equally important – a simple “What do you think?” can sound inquisitive and welcoming, or, if delivered with a harsh tone, can feel like an interrogation (Asking Effective Questions | Chicago Center for Teaching and Learning | The University of Chicago). Educators are advised to be mindful of wait time as well. Studies show the average teacher waits less than one second for a student response, yet when instructors pause for ~5 seconds after asking a question, students give longer, more thoughtful answers and support them with evidence (Asking Effective Questions | Chicago Center for Teaching and Learning | The University of Chicago). Allowing silence after posing a question gives people crucial time to think. From a cognitive perspective, open-ended questions (starting with “why,” “how,” “what...”) generally stimulate more critical thinking and detail than closed questions (yes/no or factual queries). Open questions invite explanation and exploration, whereas closed questions are useful for checking basic understanding or prompting a decision. Both have their place, but over-reliance on closed questions can limit deeper discussion. Effective questioners also watch out for biases. The framing effect is a cognitive bias where the way a question is framed influences the answer. Leading questions (those that hint at or contain the expected answer) can distort information. For example, in user research or surveys, framing a question positively – “How much did you love our product?” – will likely yield more positive feedback than a neutral phrasing “What was your experience with our product?” This happens because wording can “put a frame” around how respondents think about the issue (11 Types of Cognitive Biases to Avoid in User Research | Maze). Staying neutral and curious in phrasing helps avoid steering responses. Similarly, confirmation bias can creep in when we only ask questions that confirm our assumptions (11 Types of Cognitive Biases to Avoid in User Research | Maze). A researcher or leader aware of this might deliberately ask disconfirming questions (e.g., “What evidence might contradict my theory?”) to get a fuller picture. Psychological safety plays a role too: if people fear ridicule or anger, they will withhold questions. Classrooms and workplaces that foster an atmosphere of respect and openness (where there are “no stupid questions”) see far more engagement. In short, the psychology of questioning involves being critical of the question itself – checking for biases, ensuring clarity, and being sensitive to context and audience. From Broad Aims to Precise Questions: One hallmark of expertise in learning and research is the ability to refine big, vague problems into clear, answerable questions. Best practices from academic research emphasize that a good question is specific, measurable, and focused (Writing Strong Research Questions | Criteria & Examples - Scribbr). For example, a broad aim like “improve healthcare” is difficult to tackle directly. By asking pointed questions, we can break it down: “Which aspect of healthcare am I focusing on – patient safety, cost, access, or something else?” Then, “What specific problem in that area needs solving?” A researcher might narrow the broad aim to a precise research question such as, “How does the introduction of electronic medical records in hospital X affect the medication error rate over six months?” This question specifies the context, intervention, and outcome of interest, making it actionable. Generally, the process involves identifying the key variables or factors, considering what information is needed, and ensuring the question isn’t too broad to answer. Techniques like concept mapping (jotting subtopics and connections) or the classic 5 W 1 H (who, what, when, where, why, how) can help in generating focused questions from expansive topics. Importantly, a well-defined question gives a project clear direction (Writing Strong Research Questions | Criteria & Examples - Scribbr) – it guides what data to collect or what learning to pursue, and it sets criteria for what an adequate answer will look like. In education, teachers often model this process by taking a big theme and brainstorming with students to arrive at specific questions that students can investigate. Questions for Self-Reflection and Growth: Developing the habit of asking oneself questions is crucial for lifelong learning and intellectual humility. Self-reflection questions turn inquiry inward, prompting us to examine our experiences, biases, and areas for improvement. For example, after completing a project or task, one might ask: “What went well, and what could I have done better?” This kind of reflective questioning helps solidify lessons learned. Another powerful question is “What am I missing or not seeing?” – a prompt for intellectual humility that forces one to consider blind spots. High-achieving individuals often practice “productive failure” by asking: “Why did I fail at this, and what can I learn from it?” rather than simply feeling defeated. Such questions cultivate a growth mindset, framing setbacks as opportunities to gain insight. Socratic self-questioning is also useful: “Do I really understand this concept, or am I just familiar with the terms?” forces an honest self-assessment of one’s knowledge. In fact, a goal of Socratic education was to instill intellectual humility in learners – to help them distinguish what they know from what they merely think they know (Socratic questioning - Wikipedia). By regularly questioning our own assumptions and thought processes, we become more open to new information and less prone to the overconfidence that can stunt growth. Journaling is a common practice for this: writing answers to prompts like “What assumption did I challenge today?” or “How did I show curiosity?” can reinforce a habit of reflection. Over time, self-questioning builds a mindset where uncertainty and curiosity are welcomed as the start of learning, rather than avoided. It teaches one to be comfortable saying “I don’t know – let’s find out,” which is the gateway to growth. Questioning in Education & Multidisciplinary Fields: In teaching and learning, questions are catalysts. Good questions posed by instructors can spark curiosity, but encouraging students to ask their own questions may be even more powerful. Research in science education finds that students’ questions are a “potential resource” for deeper understanding – they drive meaningful inquiry and engagement (Students' questions: a potential resource for teaching and learning ...). This is the premise of inquiry-based learning, where a lesson might start not with a teacher’s explanation, but with a question (often generated by students themselves) that leads to investigation. For instance, instead of teaching a physics formula upfront, a teacher might ask, “What causes an object to fall?” and have students brainstorm and experiment – their questions and hypotheses guide the lesson. Students who learn to formulate questions approach learning more actively, almost like young researchers. Indeed, one study noted that young children ask hundreds of questions a day, but this number drops as they progress in school (How to Use the Question Formulation Technique in the Classroom | Edutopia). Initiatives like the Question Formulation Technique (QFT) aim to reverse that trend by explicitly teaching K–12 students how to develop and refine their own questions, thereby boosting critical thinking and curiosity (How to Use the Question Formulation Technique in the Classroom | Edutopia) (How to Use the Question Formulation Technique in the Classroom | Edutopia). Questioning also plays a pivotal role in multidisciplinary research and collaboration. When experts from different fields work together, they must ask many questions of each other to find common ground: “What does this term mean in your discipline?”, “What approach would a biologist/engineer take to this problem?” In such settings, no one can be a know-it-all – success comes from being a willing learn-it-all through asking and listening. For example, in developing medical technology, a doctor might ask an engineer about feasibility, while the engineer asks the doctor about patient needs and clinical constraints. By questioning each other, they uncover insights that neither field could reach alone. A well-framed research question in an interdisciplinary project will often combine perspectives (e.g., a question at the intersection of economics and environmental science might be, “How might policy X impact both economic growth and carbon emissions?”). The act of formulating that integrated question requires dialogue across disciplines. In higher education and research, it’s often noted that “the quality of research is driven by the quality of the research question.” A clear, focused question helps diverse teams align on the problem they’re solving. In summary, whether in a classroom or a cross-functional team, a culture that values questions – from basic clarifications to profound inquiries – tends to be more engaged, critical, and innovative. 2. Problem-Solving & Innovation High-Impact Questioning in Consulting: Top consulting firms (like McKinsey, BCG, Bain) are in the business of solving complex problems, and they train their consultants in systematic questioning techniques. A common saying is that consulting is 90% about asking the right questions. Consultants approach a client’s problem by breaking it down into smaller questions – an approach sometimes called an issue tree or logic tree. For example, if a client asks, “How do we increase our profitability?”, a consultant will formulate sub-questions: “Is the issue revenue-related or cost-related (or both)?”, “Which products or segments are underperforming and why?” Each sub-question leads to analysis. This method reflects the MECE principle (Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive) – ensuring that their questions cover all aspects of a problem without overlap. The consultant’s art lies in asking questions that uncover hidden information and challenge assumptions. As one consulting expert noted, “Questions are dynamic and strategic. They glean insight and answers… assist the assessment of culture, values, norms, emotions, and reactions.” (A Consultant’s Art of Questioning) In other words, consultants don’t only ask about hard data; they ask about human factors and context (“What does the team see as the biggest hurdle?”) to fully understand the problem landscape. Consultants are trained to be active listeners who use questions to guide conversations. During client interviews or team meetings, they employ a mix of clarifying questions (“Can you explain how this process currently works?”) and probing questions (“Why do you think this strategy failed? What evidence do we have?”). They often start broad and then “funnel” questions to specifics – a technique known as the funnel approach (10 Effective Questioning Techniques. For instance, in diagnosing a company’s issues, a consultant might begin with, “How do you assess the company’s overall health right now?” Once a broad picture is painted, they drill down: “You mentioned supply chain delays – what causes those? Who is responsible for forecasting demand? Why is that step not working?” This iterative 5 Whys style of inquiry (pioneered by Toyota, and beloved in consulting) keeps asking “Why?” to peel back layers of symptoms and reach the root cause ( Complete Guide to the 5 Whys Exercise | Atlassian ) ( Complete Guide to the 5 Whys Exercise | Atlassian ). A consultant at Toyota might ask, “Why did the machine stop? (A fuse blew) – Why did the fuse blow? (Overloaded motor) – Why was it overloaded? (Bearing not lubricated) – Why no lubrication? (Maintenance was not on schedule) – Why no schedule? (Lack of standard process).” By the fifth why, the core issue (lack of maintenance process) is revealed, and now it can be addressed. This persistence in questioning rather than jumping to conclusions is drilled into consultants from day one. To train this skill, consulting firms conduct case interview practice and problem-solving workshops where trainees must continuously ask questions to gather information. They learn to avoid being biased by initial answers and to keep probing systematically. An experienced consultant might say that asking an effective question in a client meeting is “like throwing a strike right down the middle” – it should be clear, on point, and yield useful information (A Consultant’s Art of Questioning). If a question is too vague or indirect, the answer might be rambling and not actionable. If it’s too narrow, you might miss bigger issues. Therefore, consultants refine questions in real-time: if a client’s answer is unclear, they follow up with, “Let me rephrase – what specific metrics are you using to measure success here?” The consulting mindset treats every engagement as a hypothesis to be tested with questions. They even question the client’s initial problem statement; often the consultant’s value is in realizing the client might be asking the wrong question. For example, a client asks how to increase market share; the consultant, after careful inquiry, might determine the better question is how to improve the product or customer experience, which in turn drives market share. This reframing can be key to innovation and effective problem-solving. Questioning in Business & Decision-Making: Beyond consulting, in everyday business management, strong questioning skills are linked to better decisions and more innovative teams. Leaders who foster open dialogue will ask their teams questions like: “What are we not considering that could impact this plan?”, “Why do we think customers will prefer this feature?”, or “How will we measure success?”. By asking rather than just telling, leaders invite team members to contribute information and ideas that the leader themselves might not have. This not only leads to more informed decisions but also increases team buy-in. In meetings, effective managers use active inquiry to surface potential risks (e.g., “What could go wrong if we implement this change? Let’s brainstorm possible failures.”) and to spur creative thinking (e.g., “If budget were no issue, how would we solve this?”). In design thinking, a field that combines business and creativity, the phrasing of questions is a deliberate tool. A famous approach is framing challenges as “How might we…?” questions. For example: “How might we make the online checkout process more enjoyable for customers?”. This phrasing has a few benefits: “How” assumes there are solutions out there, “might” grants permission to suggest even out-of-the-box ideas (not every idea will work, and that’s okay), and “we” emphasizes collaboration. According to design experts, constructing HMW questions helps teams focus on the right problems in a positive, opportunity-oriented way (Using “How Might We” Questions to Ideate on the Right Problems). This technique was introduced at Procter & Gamble in the 1970 s and later popularized by IDEO, a global design firm (Using “How Might We” Questions to Ideate on the Right Problems). By keeping the question broad enough (but not too broad), it encourages divergent thinking. During brainstorming sessions, a well-phrased question like that serves as a springboard for idea generation – it’s inviting and open, yet targeted at a real issue. In contrast, a poorly phrased question (e.g., “How can we fix the website?”) might be either too vague or too prescriptive, leading to fewer creative ideas. Innovation-focused questioning often employs techniques such as “What if…” and scenario-based questions. Companies like Google have used “10 x thinking,” which involves asking, “What would we do differently if we needed to improve this product tenfold?” This kind of question forces radical rethinking rather than incrementalism. Another example is the use of premortem questions for risk mitigation: before launching a project, the team asks, “Let’s imagine it’s a year from now and the project failed – what likely went wrong?” Identifying those hypothetical failure points through questioning allows the team to address them in advance (a proactive twist on postmortems). In sum, whether it’s for designing a new product, making a strategic decision, or troubleshooting an ongoing issue, effective leaders and innovators use questions to illuminate blind spots and challenge conventional wisdom. They understand, as Albert Einstein famously did, that spending time to figure out the right questions leads to better answers: “If I had an hour to solve a problem, I’d spend 55 minutes determining the proper question to ask, and 5 minutes on the solution,” he said (Einstein and questioning - A More Beautiful Question). This mindset prevents teams from rushing to solutions before fully understanding the problem. Techniques and Their Impact on Innovation: Different questioning techniques can be deliberately employed to drive innovation and problem-solving. We’ve touched on 5 Whys and How Might We, but there are others: The 5 Whys Technique: Originating from Toyota’s founder Sakichi Toyoda, this is a simple yet powerful tool for root cause analysis. By repeatedly asking “Why?” you push beyond superficial answers. Its impact on problem-solving is profound – it shifts the focus from blaming symptoms to fixing underlying processes ( Complete Guide to the 5 Whys Exercise | Atlassian ). Organizations that use the 5 Whys (in manufacturing, healthcare, software post-mortems, etc.) often discover that what seemed to be an isolated mistake was actually due to a flawed system or assumption. By addressing that, they innovate better processes. Additionally, practicing the 5 Whys trains teams to adopt a critical thinking habit, continually digging deeper. This can spill over into an overall culture of not accepting things at face value – a driver of continuous improvement. “How Might We” Questions: As discussed, HMW questions are central in innovation workshops and design sprints. Their impact comes from how they frame the creative process. For example, instead of saying “We have a problem: customers find our app confusing,” turning this into “How might we make our app so intuitive that even a first-time user navigates it with ease?” sets a solution-oriented tone. It encourages optimism (“there is a way, we just haven’t figured it out yet”) and collective ownership (“we” will figure it out). According to the Nielsen Norman Group, using HMW questions helps generate more creative solutions while ensuring the team stays focused on real user needs, rather than pet ideas (Using “How Might We” Questions to Ideate on the Right Problems) (Using “How Might We” Questions to Ideate on the Right Problems). Many companies credit the HMW method for breakthrough ideas, because it helps avoid the trap of jumping to one solution – instead, teams often generate multiple HMW questions for different angles of a challenge and then brainstorm multiple ideas for each. “What If” and Lateral Questions: Innovators often pose hypothetical or even absurd questions to stretch thinking. Questions like “What if our constraint X was removed – how would we solve this then?” or “What if we had to solve this problem without using any money?” can yield creative approaches that traditional thinking misses. Techniques like SCAMPER in creativity are essentially structured questioning: (Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put to another use, Eliminate, Reverse) – each prompt is a question about how you might transform an existing idea. For example, “What can we combine from two products?” or “What can we eliminate to simplify this service?” Such prompts systematically force an innovator to consider changes that wouldn’t occur naturally.