The Question Intent Matrix: A Framework for Interpreting Emotional and Intentional Layers of Questions in Education
Abstract
Communication in educational and community contexts often hinges not just on what is asked but why and how it is asked. This article introduces Sudhan’s Question Intent Matrix, a novel 2x2 framework for interpreting the emotional and intentional layers behind questions. The matrix is defined by two axes – Emotional Energy (ranging from defensive, low-openness to curious, high-openness) and Intent (ranging from an intent to influence to an intent to understand) – yielding four quadrants of question types: Curious Questions, Check-in Questions, Challenge Questions, and Control Questions. Grounded in communication theory and pedagogical practice, the model builds on foundational ideas including Speech Act Theory, intent-based communication principles, Socratic questioning, and Edgar Schein’s concept of Humble Inquiry. I propose that by “listening for intent” behind questions, educators and community practitioners can respond more effectively, fostering better understanding, empathy, and critical dialogue. The article details the theoretical underpinnings of the matrix, describes each quadrant of the framework, and discusses its practical implications for enhancing communication and learning in educational and community support settings.
Downloads
References
Adebileje, A. O. (2015). Analysing the Correlation between Closed Interrogative English Clauses and Speech Acts in Osita Ezenwanebe’s Adaugo. Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 20(6), 78-83. https://doi.org/—10.9790/0837-20637883
Argyris, C. (1968). Conditions for competence acquisition and therapy. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 4(2), 147-177. https://doi.org/10.1177/002188636800400201
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1992). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. John Wiley & Sons.
Baker, Z. (2021). Reactivity, rationality, emotion and self-protection. Exploring Diary Methods in Higher Education Research: Opportunities, Choices and Challenges, 4. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429326318-10
Baldwin, S., & George, J. (2021). Qualitative study of UK health professionals’ experiences of working at the point of care during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMJ open, 11(9), e054377. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054377
Barber, C., Clark, C. H., & Torney-Purta, J. (2021). Learning environments and school/classroom climate as supports for civic reasoning, discourse, and engagement. Educating for civic reasoning and discourse, 273-318.
Beaman, R., & Wheldall, K. (2013). Teachers' use of approval and disapproval in the classroom. Developments in educational psychology, 153-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/713663753
Bodie, G. D., Vickery, A. J., Cannava, K., & Jones, S. M. (2015). The role of “active listening” in informal helping conversations: Impact on perceptions of listener helpfulness, sensitivity, and supportiveness and discloser emotional improvement. Western Journal of Communication, 79(2), 151-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2014.943429
Çalıkoğlu, B. S. (2022). Are gifted students challenge pursuers? Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity, 9(1), 43-55.
Covey, S. R. (2020). The 7 habits of highly effective people. Simon & Schuster.
Dalim, S. F., Ishak, A. S., & Hamzah, L. M. (2022). Promoting students’ critical thinking through Socratic method: The views and challenges. Asian Journal of University Education, 18(4), 1034-1047. https://doi.org/—10.24191/ajue.v18i4.20012
Ekoro, D. E., & Gunn, M. (2021). Speech act theory and Gricean pragmatics: A review. LWATI: A journal of contemporary research, 18(4), 130-143.
Flusberg, S. J., Holmes, K. J., Thibodeau, P. H., Nabi, R. L., & Matlock, T. (2024). The psychology of framing: How everyday language shapes the way we think, feel, and act. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 25(3), 105-161. https://doi.org/10.1177/15291006241246966
Gibb, J. R. (1965). Defensive communication. ETC: A review of general semantics, 221-229. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1961.tb00344.x
Gustafson, L. P., Short, A. K., & Hamilton, N. W. (2022). Teaching and assessing active listening as a foundational skill for lawyers as leaders, counsellors, negotiators, and advocates. Santa Clara L. Rev., 62, 1.
Kanat, K., & Temel, Z. F. (2025). The Use of Questioning Strategies in the Development of Critical Thinking Skills in Children: A Qualitative Study of the Socratic Method. Early Childhood Education Journal, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-025-01864-4
Kluger, A. N., & Itzchakov, G. (2022). The power of listening at work. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 9(1), 121-146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-091013
Ledwith, M., & Springett, J. (2022). The role of dialogue. In Participatory Practice (pp. 147-168). Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.56687/—9781447365495-010
Liu, X., Huang, Y., Kim, J., & Na, S. (2023). How ethical leadership cultivates innovative work behaviors in employees? Psychological safety, work engagement and openness to experience. Sustainability, 15(4), 3452. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043452
Macnamara, J. (2016). Organizational listening: Addressing a major gap in public relations theory and practice. Journal of Public Relations Research, 28(3-4), 146-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726x.2016.1228064
Nagda, B. R. A., & Maxwell, K. E. (2023). Deepening the layers of understanding and connection: A critical-dialogic approach to facilitating intergroup dialogues. In Maxwell, Nagda, Thompson (eds.) Facilitating intergroup dialogues (pp. 1-22). Routledge.
Paramole, O. C., Adeoye, M. A., Arowosaye, S. A., & Ibikunle, Y. A. (2024). The Impact of Active Listening on Student Engagement and Learning Outcomes in Educational Settings. International Journal of Universal Education, 2(2), 77-89. https://doi.org/10.33084/ijue.v2i2.8898
Powell, M. J. (1985). Conceptions of Literal Meaning in Speech Act Theory. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 133-157.
Rapanta, C., & Macagno, F. (2023). Authentic Questions as Prompts for Productive and Constructive Sequences: A Pragmatic Approach to Classroom Dialogue and Argumentation. Dialogic Pedagogy, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2023.546
Reiland, I. (2024). ‘Austin vs. Searle on locutionary and illocutionary acts'. Inquiry, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174x.2024.2380322
Schein, E. H., & Schein, P. A. (2021). Humble inquiry: The gentle art of asking instead of telling. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Tomasello, M. (2023). Having intentions, understanding intentions, and understanding communicative intentions. In Developing theories of intention (pp. 63-76). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/—9781003417927-5
Waghid, Z. (2024). Cultivating critical thinking, social justice awareness and empathy among pre-service teachers through online discussions on global citizenship education. Journal of Creative Communications, 19(1), 74-93. https://doi.org/10.1177/09732586231194438
Wilkinson, I. A., Reznitskaya, A., & D'Agostino, J. V. (2023). Professional development in classroom discussion to improve argumentation: Teacher and student outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 85, 101732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2023.101732
Wu, W. (2023). Movements of the mind: A theory of attention, intention and action. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/—9780192866899.001.0001
Copyright (c) 2025 Ganga Sudhan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.