8
JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 23, NO. 4, PP. 335-342 (1986) THE EFFECTS OF TEACHERS’ WAIT-TIME AND KNOWLEDGE COMPREHENSION QUESTIONING ON SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT JOSEPH P. RTLEY I1 Department of Science Education, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602 Abstract The purpose of this experimental study was to investigate the effects of varied teacher wait-time durations and cognitive questioning levels on student achievement. Thirty preservice teachers taught a science lesson in which the length of wait-time and percentage of high and low cognitive questions were prescribed. The lessions were audio-taped to insure fidelity to the scripted lessons. At the end of the lesson a criterion referenced test was administered. The results of this test were used as the dependent variable. Analysis of achievement results indicated significant differences attributable to teacher wait-time and cognitive questioning level. Attempts to attribute differences in pupil achievement to variations in the cognitive level of teachers’ questions have been inconclusive. Winne (1979), in a descriptive summary of 18 such studies, concluded that student achievement is not affected by level of teacher questioning. Rousseau and Redfield (1980), using meta-analysis on 14 of the same studies reviewed by Winne, found that predominant use of higher cognitive questions did promote student achievement. Although correlational studies have identified positive relationships between these variables, experimental studies have been unable to establish causal linkages (Riley, 1981). Research on another questioning variable, wait-time, has shown more positive results in influencing student behavior and achievement. (Rowe, 1974; Anshutz, 1975; Tobin, 1980; 1983; 1984). Tobin (1983), in an experimental study, found that questioning wait-time was signif- icantly related to science achievement. One can logically assume that a learner would benefit from having more time to respond to high than to low cognitive level questions. However, research indicated that teachers evidence an average wait-time of about 1 second with no apparent adjustment for the cognitive level of the question (Kowe, 1974). Evidently students are expected to respond as quickly to comprehension ques- tions as they are to knowledge level questions. The unsuccessful attempts of previous research to identify achievement advantages of one cognitive questioning level over 0 1986 by the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0022-4308/86/040335-08$04.00

The effects of teachers' wait-time and knowledge comprehension questioning on science achievement

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: The effects of teachers' wait-time and knowledge comprehension questioning on science achievement

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 23, NO. 4, PP. 335-342 (1986)

THE EFFECTS OF TEACHERS’ WAIT-TIME AND KNOWLEDGE COMPREHENSION QUESTIONING ON SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT

JOSEPH P. RTLEY I1

Department of Science Education, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602

Abstract

The purpose of this experimental study was to investigate the effects of varied teacher wait-time durations and cognitive questioning levels on student achievement. Thirty preservice teachers taught a science lesson in which the length of wait-time and percentage of high and low cognitive questions were prescribed. The lessions were audio-taped to insure fidelity to the scripted lessons. At the end of the lesson a criterion referenced test was administered. The results of this test were used as the dependent variable. Analysis of achievement results indicated significant differences attributable to teacher wait-time and cognitive questioning level.

Attempts to attribute differences in pupil achievement to variations in the cognitive level of teachers’ questions have been inconclusive. Winne (1979), in a descriptive summary of 18 such studies, concluded that student achievement is not affected by level of teacher questioning. Rousseau and Redfield (1980), using meta-analysis on 14 of the same studies reviewed by Winne, found that predominant use of higher cognitive questions did promote student achievement. Although correlational studies have identified positive relationships between these variables, experimental studies have been unable to establish causal linkages (Riley, 1981). Research on another questioning variable, wait-time, has shown more positive results in influencing student behavior and achievement. (Rowe, 1974; Anshutz, 1975; Tobin, 1980; 1983; 1984). Tobin (1983), in an experimental study, found that questioning wait-time was signif- icantly related to science achievement. One can logically assume that a learner would benefit from having more time to respond to high than to low cognitive level questions. However, research indicated that teachers evidence an average wait-time of about 1 second with no apparent adjustment for the cognitive level of the question (Kowe, 1974). Evidently students are expected to respond as quickly to comprehension ques- tions as they are to knowledge level questions. The unsuccessful attempts of previous research to identify achievement advantages of one cognitive questioning level over

0 1986 by the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0022-4308/86/040335-08$04.00

Page 2: The effects of teachers' wait-time and knowledge comprehension questioning on science achievement

336 RILEY

another may be due in part to the omission of wait-time as an interacting variable. This study addresses this problem by combining wait-time with cognitive questioning level.

Problem

Does teacher wait-time and cognitive questioning level effect pupil achievement?

Sample

The design required a two-step sampling procedure. Thirty preservice teachers were randomly assigned to treatments. The preservice teachers then randomly selected five elementary pupils from their assigned classrooms. This was the first intern ex- perience for the preservice teachers and because of this they were only allowed to work with small groups. Based on Rowe’s findings (1974), it was not felt that this would be a serious threat to generalizability. Rowe states, “we found that whatever pattern the teacher exhibited when working with four children, closely resembled the pattern displayed when carrying on a discussion with a whole class” (p. 83). Due to problems with tape recorders and tapes, data were collected on 26 of the 30 teachers. These procedures, taking into account subject mortality data, resulted in an N of 129. These subjects represented an even distribution of pupils of grades 2-5.

Treatment Procedures

Thirty preservice teachers were assigned scripted lessons containing specified questions and wait-times. The cognitive level of questions used in the lessons were categorized using Bloom’s Taxonomy and were classified as comprehension, knowl- edge or a 50/50 combination. The research literature on wait-time has suggested the existence of a mean wait-time threshold of between 3 and 4.5 seconds. Wait times falling outside this range are thought to have no detectable changes in the level of outcome variables. According to Tobin and Capie (1983), the inability of some wait- time studies to produce significant results may be attributable to the failure of par- ticipating teachers to reach the required threshold. The wait-times for this study were assigned at 1, 3 and 5 seconds to test mean wait times both in and out of the hypc 21- esized threshold. Wait-time was defined as the pause that follows a teachers’ question. This has been termed “wait-time one” by Rowe (1973). Teachers controlled this pause by requiring students to wait until called upon before responding to questions. The 30 minute lesson was based on the time and location mini-lesson taken from the Teuching Improvement Kit (Popham, 1972). These mini-lessons contain an explicit, measurable objective suitable for a 15-30 minute lesson. This lesson was selected because it was a replicable, published lesson focused on a limited set of clearly defined objectives. The lesson’s objectives covered knowledge and comprehension levels of Bloom’s taxonomy.

The teachers were provided an hour practice session to familiarize themselves with increased wait-time. Working with a peer, they audio-taped themselves and measured their relative wait-time using a stopwatch. The treatment lessons were au- diotaped to ensure fidelity to the assigned wait-time. The wait-times were measured with a servo-chart recorder. This instrument graphically records a speaker’s voice

Page 3: The effects of teachers' wait-time and knowledge comprehension questioning on science achievement

EFFECTS OF TEACHERS’ WAIT-TIME 337

pattern and allows pauses between utterances to be measured within an accuracy of one-tenth of a second. An estimate of wait-time was obtained for each teacher by averaging all the questions asked in the lesson. Discriminant analysis of this data indicated that eight of the twenty-six teachers were misclassified based on their actual wait-time. For analysis purposes, student criterion measures of the misclassified teach- ers were reassigned to the proper group as determined by the discriminant analysis data. The observed average wait-time for the assigned one, three, and five second groups were actually 1.17, 3.35, and 5.9 seconds, respectively.

Criterion Instruments

A 25-item achievement test was administered to students at the end of the lesson. Fifteen (15) of the questions were taken from the posttest provided with the Popham Teaching Improvement Kit. These questions were judged by a panel of experts to be measuring at the comprehension level of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Ten additional items were constructed by the author and judged to be testing at the knowledge level. Reliability was determined using split-half procedures and found to be 0.87 for the total test. The reliabilities for the subtests were: knowledge 0.85; comprehension 0.79. A generalizability coefficient of 0.97 indicated that the wait-time measures were re- liable for differentiating teachers on the basis of their average wait-time.

Design and Analysis

A 3 X 3 factorial design with all factors fixed was used to analyze the data for differences in group means and significant interactions. Analysis of variance was used to detect differences among the means. The individual was chosen as the experimental unit. All hypothesis testing and post hoc analyses were done at the 0.05 level of significance.

Results

Testing the Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1-There is no difference in student science achievement due, or related to the effects of cognitive level of teachers’ questions.

The treatment means are provided in Table 1. Analysis of variance indicated a significant difference related to cognitive level of teachers’ questions on the compre- hension subtest. Table I1 contains the analysis of variance summary tables. The New- man-Keuls procedure indicated that the 50% Knowledge/Comprehension level group scored significantly higher than the comparison groups. Based on this data hypothesis 1 is rejected.

Hypothesis 2-There is no difference in student science achievement due or related to the effects of wait-time. The treatment means used in this analysis are presented in Table 111. Analysis of variance indicated significant differences related to teacher wait-time. Post hoc analysis of the differences among means on the total test indicated that students of teachers using long wait-time scored significantly higher than students of teachers using medium and short wait-time. The multiple cornparison results of the comprehension test indicated significant differences among all groups

Page 4: The effects of teachers' wait-time and knowledge comprehension questioning on science achievement

338 RILEY

TABLE I Achievement Means (Least Squares) of Cognitive Level Groups

Cognit ive Level Know Comp T o t a l

Ques t ion Level Sub-Tes t Sub-Tes t Test

~~~~ ~

100 X Comprehension 7.98 8.43

50% Knowledge Comprehension 8.49 11.31

100% Knowledge 8.20 9.06

16.58

19.81

17.27

with students experiencing long wait-time outscoring those experiencing medium wait- times and they in turn outscoring students in the short wait-time group. Based on these results hypothesis 2 is rejected.

A summary of the multiple comparison results for main effects is provided in Figure 1.

Hypothesis 3-There is no significant interactions between wait-time and cog- nitive level of teachers questions.

Interactions on the total achievement and knowledge test were found to be non- chance occurrences. Tables I1 and IV provide the interaction results of the analysis of variance. Figure 2 provides a graph of the interaction found on the knowledge test. The same interaction pattern was reflected in the total test.

TABLE I1 Analysis of Variance Summary Table for the Total Test

Source of Var ia t ion

Mean - df Suare F - P

W a i t - T i m e (A) 2 106.48 3.75 .02

Q u e s t i o n Level (B) 2 123.83 4.35 .01

(A) X (B) 4 74.93 2.63 .03

Page 5: The effects of teachers' wait-time and knowledge comprehension questioning on science achievement

EFFECTS OF TEACHERS’ WAIT-TIME 339

TABLE I11 Analysis of Variance Summary Table for the Comprehension Test

Source of Var ia t ion

Mean d f Square F E

Wait-Time ( A ) 2 59.21 4.28 .015

Quest ion Level (B) 2 98.24 7.11 .OOl

( A ) X ( B ) 4 28.15 2.04 .093

Conclusions and Implications

It can be concluded from the analysis of the comprehension subtest that there is strong evidence of a nonchance difference attributable to the use of a 50% combination

Wait-Tme - - - X short X medium X long

(16.81) (17.97) (19.51)

w Total

- - X short X medium X long

(8.47) (9.40) (10.94) Comprehension

- - - X short X medium X long

(7.71) (8.57) (8.40) Knowledge

cognitive Levd

- - - X Comp. X Knowl. X Knowl. & Comp. Total

(16.58) (17.27) (19.81)

- - X Comp. X Knowl.

(8.43) (9.06)

- X Knowl. & Comp.

Comprehension (11.31)

- - - X Comp. X Knowl. X Knowl. & Comp.

(7.98) (8.20) (8.49) Knowledge

Fig. I . the same line differ significantly (p < 0.05).

Multiple comparison summary figures (any two means not underlined by

Page 6: The effects of teachers' wait-time and knowledge comprehension questioning on science achievement

340 RILEY

TABLE IV Achievement Means (Least Squares) of Wait-Time Groups

Wait - Time Know Comp Total

Long X = 5.9 sec. 8.40 10.94 19.51

P S t

Medium x = 3.3 sec. 8.57 9.40 17.97

Short 51 = 1.1 sec. 7.71 0.47 16.81

of high and low cognitive questions. Students in this group scored significantly higher in achievement than did students in the 100% high and 100% low cognitive questioning groups. The results indicate that teachers can improve student acquisition of science comprehension objectives by asking a combination of knowledge and comprehension level questions. Learners derive more benefit from a combination of these cognitive level questions than from exclusive use of either one of them. The study was unable to find differences attributable to the use of varying cognitive questioning levels on the knowledge subtest.

v) 9.5

0 9.0 Y p?

W v) c 8.5

2 7.5 - I 1: 7.0

6 . 5

6.0

I I / I 1 l K = 8.20

8 1.17 3.35 5.9

A v e r a g e Group W a i t - T i m e I n Seconds

Fig. 2. (knowledge test).

Interaction effects of wait-time with teacher’s cognitive questioning level

Page 7: The effects of teachers' wait-time and knowledge comprehension questioning on science achievement

EFFECTS OF TEACHERS’ WAIT-TIME 341

TABLE V Analysis of Variance Summary Table for the Knowledge Test

Source of Variation

Mean - P df Square F

Wait-Time ( A )

~~-

2 8.30

-

1 . 8 5 16

Question Level (B) 2 2.77 . 6 2 .54

( A ) X (B) 4 10 .97 2 .45 .05

Unbiased estimates of the treatment effects on the comprehension subtest support the research hypothesis that wait-time influences student achievement. The wait-time findings are congruent with those reported by Tobin (1980), indicating that the use of an extended wait-time will lead to higher science achievement. The results of the main effect, wait-time, indicated that, on the test measuring science comprehension objectives, the longer the teacher wait-time, the greater the student achievement. This finding does not lend support to the existence of a wait-time threshold phenomena on science comprehension achievement. The results indicate that wait-time, beyond the three second threshhold identified in the literature, can have positive effects on student comprehension. No significant differences in achievement due to wait-time could be identified on the knowledge level test.

Interpretation of the interaction occurring on the knowledge test suggests that extended wait-time may be inappropriate for knowledge or low level questions. The advantage of long wait-time observed on the comprehension test was not evident on the knowledge test. In fact, as wait-time increased from medium to long, achievement scores of students in the low question group declined. A possible implication of this finding is that a wait-time threshold phenomena may exist for low or knowledge level questions. The cognitive demand made on students responding to low level questions does not require extended time for processing. Teachers’ who extend the wait-time of knowledge level questions beyond three seconds should not expect corresponding improvement in student achievement.

In summary, the results of this study indicate that for achievement of compre- hension level objectives, a combination of low and high cognitive level questions with long wait-time appears more effective than the other tested levels of questioning and wait-time duration. The results suggest that for achievement of knowledge level ob- jectives, low level questions with wait-times of medium duration may be more effec- tive than the other tested levels of questioning and wait-time durations. No wait-time threshold phenomena appeared on the outcome variable, comprehension. However the results suggest evidence of a threshold of about three seconds on knowledge achievement.

Page 8: The effects of teachers' wait-time and knowledge comprehension questioning on science achievement

342 RILEY

References

Anshutz, R. J. (1975). An investigation of wait-time and questioning techniques as an instructional variable for science methods students microteaching elementary school children (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, 1973). Dissertation Ab- stracts International, 35, 5978A (University Microfilms No. 75-06, 13 1).

Bloom, B. S. , Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. Krathwohl (Eds.). (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.

Fletcher, H. J. (1968). Possible interpretive problems in analysis using group means as the experimental unit. Psychological Bulletin, 69(3), 157-160.

Popham, W. J. , Baker, E., Millman, J., & McNeil, J. D. (1972). Teaching Improvement Kit. Los Angeles: Instructional Appraisal Services.

Riley, J. P. (1981). The effects of preservice teacher’s cognitive questioning level and redirecting on student science achievement, Journal of Research in Science Teach- ing, 18(4), 303-309.

Rousseau, E. W., & Redfield, D. L. (1980). Teacher questioning. Evaluution in Education, 4, 5 1-52.

Rowe, M. (1973). Teacher Science as Continuous Inquiry. New York: McGraw- Hill.

Rowe, M. (1974). Wait-time and rewards as instructional variables, their influ- ence on language, logic and fate control: Part one-Wait time. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11, 263-279.

Tobin, K. G . (1980). The effect of an extended teacher wait-time on science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17, 469-475.

Tobin, K. G . , & Capie, W. (1983). The influence of wait-time on classroom learning. European Journal of Science Education, 5( l), 35-48.

Tobin, K. (1984). Effects of extended wait-time on discourse characteristics and achievement in middle school grades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(8),

Winne, P. H. (1979). Experiments relating teachers’ use of higher cognitive 779-79 1.

questions to student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 49, 13-50.

Manuscript accepted September 5, 1986