The phrase "a question higher order" is not correct in standard written English.
It seems to be an attempt to describe a type of question, but it lacks proper grammatical structure.
Example: "In our discussion, we should focus on a higher-order question that encourages critical thinking."
Alternatives: "a higher-level question" or "an advanced question".
I understand what you were saying [addressing a participant who rated the question higher order] about 'making a determination,' but to me, these are too gray, and there's not one right answer…" In the end, five of seven Rater Team participants rated this question as case advancement.
I understand what you were saying [addressing a participant who rated the question higher order] about 'making a determination,' but to me, these are too gray, and there's not one right answer…" R1: "The order [answer] I would have chosen is not one of the options".
The Instructor Team called the question higher order and placed it in the case so that students would encounter it right after they were given information about complementary base pairing, DNA replication, and polymerase chain reaction (PCR).
One Rater Team participant repeatedly argued that one controversial question was higher order, because it was "difficult," and that another controversial question was not higher-order, because it was "not extra hard".
They were surprised to learn the Rater Team did not agree the question was higher order: I1: "I don't know why, but my students did much better on this question than they have previously, at least [that is] my perception".
We addressed the question whether higher order CPK gene disruption mutant plants display more strongly impaired ABA responses.
Participants did not say that all difficult questions are higher order; rather they said that a higher-order question is not easy.
It is widely believed that constructed response written questions test higher order cognitive processes in a manner that multiple-choice questions cannot, and consequently have higher validity.
We considered PRQ and IPRQ as questions of a taxonomically higher order, resembling K2 ("application and reasoning"), as described by Ware and Vik [ 14], or resembling level II ("understanding and being able to interpret data"), and occasionally level III ("use of knowledge and understanding in new circumstances") by Palmer and Devitt [ 15].
But we can raise a higher order question: for what reason(s) do modal ascriptions work in the way that Spinoza claims they do?
