Teacher Behavior Does Make a Difference In Hands‐On Science Classrooms*

Shymansky, James A.; Penick, John E.

doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.1981.tb09998.x

Cited by 31 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other studies, vinelli et al, 1979;Shymansky & Penick, 1981) demonstrated that students who are not restricted by the teacher's directive behavior consistently exhibit lower frequencies of teacher dependency behavior than students in more teacher-structured classes. Such behavior resulted in more time exploring and less time watching the teacher.…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

The influence of classroom climate on science process and content achievement of community college students

Haukoos

Penick

1983

J Res Sci Teach

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of two specific classroom climates on learning of science process skills and content achievement in college level science classes was studied. Two classroom climates were established and designated as discovery classroom climate (DCC) and nondiscovery classroom climate (NDCC). The term discovery denotes the degree of freedom the teacher established in classroom interactions, both verbal and nonverbal. Verbal interactions were monitored with the Science Laboratory Interaction Categories. These data indicate that students in the two classroom climates achieved equally as well on learning of biological content of the course, but students in the discovery classroom climate achieved significantly higher scores in science process skills as measured by the Welch Science Process Inventory. This study, conducted in a large, suburban community college, offers some useful information to the person who has educational goals beyond, but including, the learning of science information and concepts, and possibly science process. Students in the less directive discovery climate learned as much content as those in a more directive comparison class-they lost nothing of what is traditionally sought in a college science class. In addition, the discovery climate facilitated the development of science process skills which were significantly better than the comparison class. A five-week intensive class using the discovery climate was found t o provide as much content acquisition as the ten-week nondiscovery climate.Over the years, science educators have usually written or modified curricula and implemented various instructional strategies to improve science education. Classroom climate, the dynamic interaction of all elements operating in the classroom, is often neglected. Since classroom climate is not just an assemblage of content or scientific knowledge or a simplistic reading strategy operating alone, it is often overlooked while the emphasis turns to modification of the content or its presentation.Classroom climate is partially derived from the amount of intellectual freedom granted to students by the teacher. This freedom, in turn, derives from the amount of directness or indirectness in the teaching. Direct verbal behavior of the teacher-lecturing, giving directions, reciting facts, criticizing, or praising-tends to minimize the variety of possible student responses.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 92%

The influence of classroom climate on science process and content achievement of community college students

Haukoos

Penick

1983

J Res Sci Teach

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whether or not teachers are consciously aware of their classroom behavior, they develop quite consistent interaction patterns that change surprisingly little from one classroom context to another. Understanding the learner and promoting desired goals depends a great deal on how teachers interact with students (Shymansky & Penick, 1981;Tobin & Garnett, 1988;Weiss et al, 2003). The Decision-Making Framework illustrates that a teacher's behaviors and the resulting interaction pattern will interact with other decisions and significantly influence the teaching and learning process.…”

Section: Framework For Teacher Decision-makingmentioning

confidence: 95%

Promoting Effective Science Teacher Education and Science Teaching: A Framework for Teacher Decision-Making

Clough

Berg

Olson

2008

Int J of Sci and Math Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Learning and effective teaching are both complicated acts. However, many administrators, teachers, parents, and policymakers appear not to recognize those complexities and their significance for practice. Fueling this perception, recommendations from isolated research findings often neglect the complexities in learning and teaching, and when implemented in classrooms often fall well short of the advertised effect. Consequently, education research is generally ignored, and the resulting research-practice gap raises concerns regarding the utility of university-based teacher education, and education research more generally. However, the strength of education research resides in the synergy resulting from its integration into a unifying system that guides, but does not determine, decision-making. Dewey (1929) argued for teacher decision-making guided by education research, but recently several writers have justly criticized education researchers for not providing comprehensible assistance to educators and policymakers (Good, 2007;Shymansky, 2006;Windschitl, 2005). This paper proposes a decision-making framework for teaching to help beginning and experienced teachers make sense of education research, come to understand crucial teacher decisions, and how those decisions interact to affect student learning. The proposed decision-making framework for teaching has significant utility in the design of science methods courses, science teacher education programs, effective student teacher supervision experiences, and professional development workshops.

show abstract

“…In a summary of the results of seven studies done with elementary and junior high students using hands-on materials, Shymansky and Penick (1981) compared student performance from observations in teacher-structured (TS) and student-structured ( S S ) classrooms. Students in the SS classrooms were less dependent on the teacher and displayed more productive behavior than students in the TS classrooms.…”

Section: Task Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

The relation of locus‐of‐control orientation and task structure to problem‐solving performance of sixth‐grade student pairs

Main

Rowe

1993

J Res Sci Teach

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the relationship of locus-of-control orientations and task structure to the science problem-solving performance of 100 same-sex, sixth-grade student pairs. Pairs performed a four-variable problem-solving task, racing cylinders down a ramp in a series of trials to determine the 3 fastest of 18 different cylinders. The task was completed in one of two treatment conditions: the structured condition with moderate cuing and the unstructured condition with minimal cuing. Pairs completed an after-task assessment, predicting the results of proposed cylinder races, to measure the ability to understand and apply task concepts. Overall conclusions were: (I) There was no relationship between locus-of-control orientation and effectiveness of problem-solving strategy; (2) internality was significantly related to higher accuracy on task solutions and on after-task predictions; (3) there was no significant relationship between task structure and effectiveness of problem-solving strategy; (4) solutions to the task were more accurate in the unstructured task condition; (5) internality related to more accurate solutions in the unstructured task condition.Intelligence, wrote Dewey (1931), gives us the power to see the world for what it is and to reflect upon what it might become. Dewey (1930) believed that acting with intelligence is the "key to freedom" (p. 278). He saw intelligence as transforming desire to will, in the spirit of inquiry, by observing, gathering facts, making systematic plans based on accumulated evidence, keeping track of events and analyzing them as they happen, varying plans to change the course of action when necessary, then drawing conclusions and making decisions based on evidence. Stemberg (1984) describes intelligence essentially as a mental process involving problem solving. The process he describes incorporates three domains or spheres: contextual, componential, and experiential intelligence. The contextual domain relates to the ability to adapt to changes, as needed, based on evidence gathered. The componential sphere focuses on the underlying component processes by which intelligent behavior is accomplished: planning an approach to a problem before trying to solve it, noting progress in solving the problem, and changing strategies as needed to reach appropriate 0

show abstract

Teacher Behavior Does Make a Difference In Hands‐On Science Classrooms*

Cited by 31 publications

References 9 publications

The influence of classroom climate on science process and content achievement of community college students

The influence of classroom climate on science process and content achievement of community college students

Promoting Effective Science Teacher Education and Science Teaching: A Framework for Teacher Decision-Making

The relation of locus‐of‐control orientation and task structure to problem‐solving performance of sixth‐grade student pairs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About