Research Matters - to the Science Teacher
No. 9601 Oct 23,
Using Research to Improve the Quality of Classroom
by J. Nathan Swift, Professor Emeritus of Education,
C. Thomas Gooding, Interim Provost and Vice President for Academic
Affairs, and Patricia R. Swift, Research Associate, State University
of New York, Oswego, NY 13126
Studies conducted by the staff of the Classroom Interaction
Research Laboratory at the State University of New York at Oswego
reveal that teachers find it difficult to engage in guided
discussions with their students. In many cases, discussions change
into drill or lectures, as teachers strive to cover the material. We
believe that interactive discussions should occur more often than
usual. This idea led us to study ways in which teachers can become
more successful discussion leaders and questioners.
At our Laboratory, we listened to hundreds of audio tape
recordings of middle school and high school science discussions. We
prepared transcripts of these discussions. Careful analyses followed.
We classified questions and other teacher-student interactions.
Pauses in dialogue were measured. We counted the students' words and,
whenever possible, we noted the sex of the students. Many other
factors were evaluated in an effort to describe typical interaction
patterns and to facilitate the development of increased effectiveness
of teacher-led questioning and discussion.
Our first major study was a research project funded by the
National Science Foundation, and entitled "Wait Time and Questioning
Skills of Middle School Science Teachers" (Swift & Gooding, 1983,
p. 721-730). The study was designed to determine the effects of
allowing longer pauses in the classroom for teachers and students to
think and interact. We found that without special training wait time
in teacher-student dialogue is short. Pauses average only 1.25
seconds between teachers' questions and replies by students (wait
time 1) and only .55 seconds between the students' replies and
subsequent comments by teachers (wait time 2).
In the middle school study of thinking time, we asked 40 teachers
to tape record a discussion in one of their classes each week for 15
weeks. Most of the interactions were fast-paced drill, review for
tests, with emphasis on low-level memory questions, or lectures'
punctuated by brief questions designed to keep the students alert.
Few teacher-student interactions could be classified as discussion or
inquiry lessons intended to develop the intellectual processes of
students. We found that students typically do not ask questions in
classroom discussions, nor are they encouraged to do so. Thus it
seems that, while research has revealed that memory-level drill and
lecture are not the best tools for learning, teachers persistently
follow these strategies.
We were able to help teachers slow the rapid pace of instruction
with the introduction of a wait time feedback device (Wait Timer
[tm]) in each of their classrooms. The device consists of
voice-activated switches and a variable timer that triggers an amber
light. The light is activated when a person is speaking. The light
remains on as a signal to allow thinking time to occur. When three
seconds elapse, the light goes out, indicating that it is appropriate
for another participant to enter the discussion. Introduction of the
Wait Timer resulted in changing interactive behavior to include more
extensive use of evaluative questions, longer student responses, and
improved level of student participation in discussion.
Increasing thinking time to at least three seconds following a
high cognitive level question and a quality reply is crucial. That
pause helps students extend and enrich their answers. This time also
facilitates more effective follow-up questions by the teacher and
A second project was supported by the National Science Foundation.
This study entitled "Increasing the Effectiveness of Biology and
Chemistry Instruction through Research Applications" enhances the
ability of high school biology and chemistry teachers to use
effective skills for questioning and discussion. The results of the
first phase of this study revealed that even though high school
students are developmentally more advanced than middle school
students and the content more complex, high school teachers have some
of the same difficulties in guiding discussions effectively. Teachers
of biology experience greater difficulty in moving beyond the memory
level of questioning than chemistry teachers. More of the discussion
in the biology courses was at the lowest level of Bloom's taxonomy as
redefined for science by Blosser (Education Associates, 1973),
whereas the chemistry courses were found to involve a greater
proportion of evaluative questions and analytical thinking. Of
special interest in regard to this finding is that the high school
biology course contains a large technical vocabulary of more than
1,100 terms to be memorized. Chemistry, by contrast, has an
analytical focus with lower emphasis on definitions. Teachers of
biology may be focusing on memory level learning, at the expense of
the analytical and ethical issues that are inherent to the field of
biology. In an effort to achieve mastery at the memory level, some of
the most exciting and important biology may be omitted (Gooding, J.
N., Swift, Schell, P. R. Swift & McCroskery,1990).
To help teachers address concerns of a mutual interest to them and
to the research laboratory staff, we are developing a Teachers as
Researchers Project in selected high schools in central New York. Our
goal is to move from the linear model of research and development,
with its "top down" approach, to a collaborative model that
incorporates classroom teachers in all phases of research from
problem definition to evaluation.
Our focus is on the quality of questioning and discussion in the
classroom. We have invited teacher researchers to join with us on
mutually designed studies on wait time, questioning skills, student
and teacher attitudes, and a variety of related topics influencing
effective teaching and learning. The science teachers involved in the
Teachers as Researchers Project report that the opportunity to
participate in the project reduces their sense of isolation and leave
them exhilarated and motivated to teach science. Working on shared
professional concerns is perceived as vital to their continuing
growth as teachers.
The most direct implication for this project, as a facet in the
improvement of teaching, is that teachers want and need professional
development opportunities. They make sacrifices of time and energy in
order to access programs where they are offered partnerships in
research on classroom teaching. This approach, wherein the teacher
researcher is creatively involved in the selection, design,
implementation, analysis, and outcome assessment of research
programs, is worthy of further study. We see this as a practical way
to move research findings into professional practice.
Education Associates. (1973). Handbook of
Effective Questioning Techniques. Worthington, OH:
Gooding, J. N., Swift, Schell, P. R., Swift, & McCroskery,
(1990). Journal of Research in Science Teaching,,
Swift, & Gooding. (1983). Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 20, 721-730.
Research Matters - to the Science Teacher
is a publication of the National Association
for Research in Science Teaching