In their book Windows into Science Classrooms, Tobin, Kahle, and Frasher address a problem that is associated with science teachers' attempt at creating higher-level cognitive learning environments. Many of the issues discussed in their work focus on the classroom management behaviors exhibited by science teachers. These authors, who take a strong stand in favor of constructivism (students build or construct their own knowledge structures), point out that in the two classrooms that they studied, the level of cognitive thinking tended to hover near the bottom of Bloom's taxonomy in the cognitive domain.
What can teacher's do, and specifically, what management strategies might science teachers employ to raise the cognitive level of thinking of students. Let's explore this a bit. Floyd H. Nordland, one of the contributors to Windows into Science Classrooms, describes how teacher behavior can influence the cognitive level of learning activities. He describes this scene in one teacher's classroom:
Peter (a high school biology teacher) is positioned in front of the demonstration desk expounding on the human repiratory system. The students are seated behind long horizontal benches. They are quiet and attentive to Peter's lecture presentation and many of them are taking notes.Peter: The nervous system has the most critical oxygen requirements of any tissue of the body. In fact, brain tissue deprived of an oxygen supply for as short a time as one or two minutes will produce irreparable brain damage.At the front bench to Peter's right, Jeffrey's hand shoots up. Peter continues lecturing either unaware of Jeffrey's insistent hand-waving or studiously avoiding it.
Peter: Are there any questions?Peter carefully scrutinizes the entire class before somewhat reluctantly calling on Jeffrey.
Jeffrey: I was watching Sixty Minutes on the television recently and they talked about an American kid who was under water for a long time. I think that it was about fifteen or twenty minutes. When they pulled him out, they were able to revive him and apparently there was very little brain damage. How can you explain this?Peter: Well, I don't know anything about that as I don't watch Sixty Minutes.
Peter continues with some disparaging comments about the negative aspects of watching too much television and Jeffrey's excellent question is never acknowledged intellectually. Thus an opportunity to teach and learn at the application, synthesis or analysis level is lost and the instruction continues at the lowest possible cognitive level.
A simple management decision could have resulted in a high cognitive level discussion and exploration of the case that Jeffrey described. Unfortunately this opportunity was lost. What are some management decisions science teachers can make to improve or raise the cognitive level of thinking in their classrooms.
In a study to investigate the management of comprehension and other higher level cognitive tasks, Julie P. Sanford found that there are a number of management strategies that appear to foster higher level thinking in the science classroom. Sanford found that in order for teachers to successfully engaged students in comprehension level tasks, the teachers should:
1. create an aura of accountability around the task to force students to attempt it.2. provide a variety of safety-net devices to keep students from failing at the task.
Sanford reported that in order to make students accountable, "teachers raised the price of noncompliance," by making the following types of management decisions: making the task count more toward a final grade, and sending messages home to parents indicating little or no progress on research reports.
Sanford's safety nets appear to be interesting management devices to encourage students to take risks while attempting higher level cognitive tasks. In general she explained that these safety nets were designed to reduce the individual's risk of failure, thereby increasing the chance that students would attempt the tasks. Here are some management strategies that were found to be effective:
1. Small group work: Team learning in which the individual student's work was pooled was more effective than individual students turning in their own "lab reports."2. Peer assistance: Allowing students to help each other.
3. Test procedures: One technique was to balance difficult material with very familiar or easy material on the test. Another technique was to count the higher level questions on test less than the easy questions so lack of success on high level questions did not result in failure.
4. Revision option: Giving students the option of revision papers and products before being turned in for a final grade.
5. Teacher assistance: Teacher made time to answer questions, and help clear up difficulties.
6. Extra credit assignments
7. Providing models of successful products for students to examine.
8. No-risk pop quizzes: students receive extra credit for perfect papers or for each correct answer; no penalty for incorrect ones.
9. Conducting review sessions
10. Using a flexible grading system allowing the teacher to reduce the value of assignments on which the whole class did poorly.