"You Ask theWrong Questions!"JOHN BAREu.

The teachereffectivenessresearch providesa foundation forteaching thinkingbecause, properlyunderstood, itstresses the searchfor meaning.

arhara-the mother of Lisa, a5th grader-recently asked herdaughter about twoi concepts

Lisa was studying for a rest the nextday

"Lisa, can o(u tell me the differencebetween kinetic and potential ener-g.,

No, Lisa replied."Oka-, can you give me some exam-

ples of potential energ' then'"'Mother' You're asking me the

wrong questions" Lisa said in desperation

"What do vou mean?'"What the teacher is going to ask on

the test is 'Potential energy isand 'Kinetic energy is ' That'sall.'

This situation illustrates the impor-tance of teaching for meaning Thecurrent teacher effectiveness researchis foundational both for learning whatkinetic energy is and for the deeper.more complex understanding of howit relates to potential and other formsof energy and motion

This research, v-hich stems largelyfrom elementary schools where -eare teaching children how to read anddo mathematical computations, pre-sents us w ith structures and processesthat are important at both ends of acontinuum: at one end focusing onhighly structured, sequential content.while at the other end examining com-plex human or physical problemsfrom a Aide variers of perspectivesgenerating multiple meanings and interpretations Teachers in both in-stances are engaged in a similar task:helping students find or create meaning out of experience

Susan and CarolynRecentlh I observed 2nd graders re-viewing fundamental math operations.In the same school I observed 5thgraders engaging in complex reason-ing in their anal!-sis of a WallaceStegner stior. "The Colt" It is interest-ing to see just hox the effective teach-ing research applies to both teachersas they challenge students to thinkabout content at rather different levels,or at different points on the continu-um, from seemingly simple and concrete to more complex and abstract

Susan. the 2nd grade math teacher.,nas reviewing the compo(sition (of thenumber 1'

["lows- many tells. Mark''How mans ones. Jan''Where do wve put the 10, Gloria?'"Where do we put the "' Steven' "

'If wve swish to prove this, what dowe have to d(o Bill'?

She proceeded in this fashion ssithdirect questions t ) ensure that stu-dents recalled just hov to analsze thenumber 1-, hbosv to prove their work ifthey v..ere subtracting 1t from 38 or 9from 18 She maintained that "briskpace'' ve read about in the teachereffectiveness literature (Barnes, 1981 )with man! questions at a lower cogni-tive level She made certain that shegave most students an o(ppnrtunity torespond in order to( ensure compre-hension, and she provided man!s anddiverse examples bohth at the board

Jobn, Bacrell t Ass(c te I'rofi'e.sor. I)qeartmenit of Curricullou. lolt-lait State (i.l-lege, I pp[*9' .lontc cair. NVet' /erseil

18Eii<\i-xiL u i mi

and on a worksheet in front of allstudents She was thus engaged inwhat Rosenhine ( 1983) has called"overlearning to the point whereIfacts and skillsi are automatic

What I witnessed wa;s not the 20minutes that Good (1982) recommends for the developmental phase ofa mathematics lesson This was a review. But many elements of direct oractive teaching ,'ere present: tightlycontrolled teacher structure, a briskpace with manm questions. and a greatdiversit- of examples to check com-prehension The result was active student engagement in the learning taskwith a high degree of succes.

(arola n s task was signiticantly dif-ferent She x.as reviex ing "The Colt"x ith her *th graders. wvho had read thestory some time ago I Ier challenge tothem, after rev iex ing the plot and themaior characters. was to analvze thecharacters using Kohlherg's (19-5)levels of moral develo)pm ent Studentsproceeded to take one character at atime-Pal. ,for exampnlpe-and to ana-I!ze his behavior according to theleels of moral reasoning, adapted andslightli modilied for this purpose

I think he ,Nas a three. because hehad no reallx different ideas of his

I disagree I think he xas a one.because hle reall didcnt kno\\ rightfrom wrong.'

'an o give us s,omIe exa;lmples ofthat. Bethl

Sure" Andc Beth proceeded toelahorate O() her argument

This Interaction proceeded forabhout ten ntinllIleH sith hands raised. Active Teaching: "How many tens. Mark? How many ones, Jan?"

Mtx' 1985 19

"Too often weforget to set thestage for learningby helpingstudents recallwhat they havealready learned."

reasons clearly and openly expressed,until someone said:

"Based on what Steven just said, Ithink he's a five because he reallywanted to change things."

Carolyn finally asked her studentswhy analvzing a story was different, if itwas, from analvzing the fain' tales theyhad read and anal-zed earlier

"Because the characters are present-ed differently. .the-'re more difficultto understand. fairs tale people aresimple-not like humans."

Now, Carolvn's teaching task wasmore complex: her students weremaking judgments based not only ontheir recall of facts, but also fromlistening to the judgments of theirpeers. When I heard Tony say he hadchanged his mind about Pa, I recalledJohnson and Johnson's ( 19'9) re-search relating cognitive developmentto constructive classroom disagree-ments, conflicts, and taking the otherperson's point of view.

Major DifferencesObviouslI, there are significant differ-ences in what Susan and Carolyn wereattempting to do. how they structuredtheir classroom situations on thosedays, and how they interacted withtheir students These differences areespecially evident in four areas

Content: Susan was reviewing high-Iv structured and sequenced material.Knowledge of how to solve arithmeticproblems is well known, or s() it mightseem Because answers are predict-able and controllable, this kind ofcontent lends itself to statements ofbehavioral specificity

Carolvn. on the other hand, wasdealing with a more complex hod' ofcontent, one that had no right orwrong answers that could be measured with the kind of precision that ispossible in teaching equations Herstudents were thinking about a prob-lem given, as Heidegger (1968) noted,to a multiplicit . of meanings': this 'isthe element in which all thought mustmove in order to he strict thought' (p.'1)

Content in both classrooms was sig-nificant. appropriate. and in accord-ance with students cognitive develop-mental levels It would have beeninteresting to analyze the reasoning ofCarolvn's students to see how many ofthem might he using abstract conceptsto support their arguments.

Teacher Roles: Susan was playing anactive, direct role in controlling theclassroom interaction. She posed allthe questions and called on students atrandom to check comprehension.Carolyn similarly directed the discus-sion by posing all the questions, butshe spent much more time sayingnothing and listening to her students'judgments. She didn't even have to askstudents to listen to what their class-mates were saving: they listened auto-matically. Students were in control ofmaking their own judgments andchanging their minds They controlledthe length and the qualitys of the timebecause of Carolvn's nondirectiveness,which was perfectlh appropriate

Thus, teacher control varied fromstrictlx' direct with Susan to moreshared-with-the-students in C:arolvn'sclassr()om.

Engagement Time: Susan may havebeen more concerned with "allocatedtime, engagement rate, and successrate on school activities becausethese factors are all directly related tostudent achievement (D)enham andLieberman, 1980) Carolvn's morefree-flowing discussion was not asconcerned with "success" in answering lower cognitive level questions Asshe said. 'I want the time to go on andon so they can feel free to allow ideastoi come to them when thex're ready.Sort of like brainstorming The moretime some o)f them have, the clearertheir thinking--r the more opportunits they have to think about some-bod! else's argument We do notexpect Carolyn to move through herdiscussiotn at a brisk pace, keeping allstudents verhally inxolsved *with appropriate answers Thinking takes time.and far too mans of us inappropriatelymodel Susan s behavior when con-fronting complex physical, social, orhuman problems

Outconme The learning oiutcimesin Susan's class x cre easily measurable aind highly focused The outcomes \within Carolvn s classroom canalso he observed. They are, however,not as precisel fo)cused and may heapproached froim a varietv of perspectives or levels of diflicults': Did thestudents understand the stor,'? I)o theyknow Kohlberg's levels of moral development' (:an they apply an externalset of standards to a sto r'- I ow' welldo thex reason' For example, can theysuppnrt their conclusions with evi-

20 0 51FF (NSF t F SF F ii',! IF'

20 El , (A AI 1\AI LA_.\l)I HAl (11'

dence? Can they identify assumptions,cause-effect relationships, and counterexamples? These intellectual process-es are more difficult to teach andmeasure, but not impossible

These differences between Susan'sand Carolvn's classrox)ms are directlyrelated to the teacher effectiveness lit-erature that emerges from elementarnand junior high schox)ls, where stan-dardized achievement tests have beenused to observe teachers' "effective-ness.

Foundational ElementsWithin the teacher effectiveness re-search we have a knowledge base('craft knowledge." as some call it)that structures and supports the learn-ing task, just as the shell of a newlyconstructed house frames all the indi-vidual and creative appointments with-in the finished dwelling To use adifferent analogs. this craft knowledgema!- provide the underlyving structurefor growth of the musician, frommemorizing the scales to creating im-provisations or variations on a themehb Beethoven Learning scales and im-provising themes require understand-ing the relationships. for example, be-tween C Major and Minor and betweentriads. lifths. and sevenths. Individualswho do not understand these termsand how thes are derived will have adifficult time grow,'ing from the rotelearning phase to the point vwhere theycan think niusicalls-that is, indepen-denth

Structure for LearningThis research presents us with a well-delineated pattern Tfr teacher behav-ior Barnes ( 1981 ) presents these ele-ments of systematic instruction": (I)preparing students for the lesson. (2)teacher presentation of the lesson, (3)student practice after presentation.and (- ) evaluatio n o f student learning

Good (1982) presents this modelfrom the Missouri Mathematics Pro-gram: (1) dails reviex.x (2) develop-ment, (3) seatwxork. (-i) homeworkassignment. and (5) special reviews

It seems superfluous to reiteratethat all teaching nleeds structure, hutthis research has re emphasized rtwosignificant aspects of this structure:lesson preparation and development

Barnes identifies four specific be-haviors in her revievx that should beundertaken during the preparationphase: ( I ) secures students' attention,

(2) states objectives. (3)gives or seeksa rationale for the lesson, and (4)reviews previous content.

Similarly, Good's rezteu, phase in-cludes reviewing "the concepts andskills associated with the homework."In the next phase, detelopment, hebriefly focuses on prerequisite skillsand concepts It is important, he sug-gests, for students to see how conceptsare related to each other.

Another important notion here isproviding a clearly understood frame-work for learning. This frameworkconsists of students' prior knowledge,the cognitive structures (or schema)within which thev integrate suchknowledge, and the new objective andits rationale. Too often we forget to setthe stage for learning by helping stu-dents recall what then have alreadylearned and how this may fit into anoverall framework for the new skillsor knowledge Such practices haveproven helpful in increasing studentreading comprehension (Duff- andothers. 1984 )

On reading this research literaturefor the first time. I began to under-stand more clearly why graduate stu-dents sometimes said, in the middle ofthe semester ''I'm lost I don't knowwhere all this fits." I found it wxasnecessan- at the ven- beginning of thesemester to attempt to create a struc-tured overniew of all the major con-cepts, showing salient relationships,and to return to that evenr week tohelp students integrate new learningswithin this structure-in other words.to make it more meaningful.

It was evident to me when I ohb-served Susan's classrooxm that studentsachieved such a high degree of suc-cessful recitation during this reviewpartl- because thev had a clear aca-demic focus The\- had mastered theprerequisite skills and thes under-stood the relationships between tensand ones. and how to prove theserelationships. In Carol!n's classroom,similarlI, students had mastered thedifferent levels of moral development.They knew the ston' and they knewhow to evaluate characters with a setof criteria. True. Carolvn did not fol-low the lesson format presented byBarnes. Good. or Rosenshine, but theprinciple of building on prior learn-ings that are well integrated withincognitive structures could be seen inthe ensuing discussion.

EnvironmentBarnes' summary identifies two keyelements of the learning environment:task orientation and affective supports.

The terms "work." "task." or "academi-callv-oriented" usuallv describe class-rooms where teachers expect and requirestudents to pay attention, work persistentlytoward completion of assignments. to ex-hibit cooperative attitudes, and in general,to concentrate on academic activities rath-er than socializing (1981. p ').

All of these behaviors were certainlyevident in Susan's and Carolyn's class-rooms. The 2nd graders were mostattentive, raised their hands to partici-pate. and socialized veryn little. Cooper-ation could be seen in their lack ofcompeting for the teacher's attentionwith shout outs and "Ooooo. me. me.me!

It was in Carolvn's classroom thatthe cooperative attitudes w-ere evenmore evident. Here. students listenedattentively, not only to the teacher butto each other as well.

Of even greater importance for therelationship between teacher effec-tiveness research and so-called "high-er" levels of thinking are the "highachievement expectations" evident inthis 5th grade Carolyn was using anactivity suggested to her for giftedstudents, but her class was composedof average students Her challenge tothese students and their enthusiasticand intelligent responses once againdemonstrated to me the truth of thesupposition that we often signihficantlIunder-challenge our students to think.

"Another broad variable. a warm.supportive environment.' w as alsoconsistenthl found to be positively re-lated to student achievement in mostof the studies reviewed here.."(Barnes. 1981. p 9) Barnes lists thefollowing teacher behaviors as con-tributing to such an environment

1 Accepting student contributions2 Giving specific praise3 Respecting student contributions

to the class-4 Maintaining an orderly classroomNeither Susan nor Carolyn were

"gushy" in their praise of students.Thes were businesslike in respondingto student contributions. More impor-tant, however, were their acceptanceof and respect for student contribu-tions Both Susan and Carolyn commu-nicated a sense that each child's state-ment or question was v-er important.Moreover, I had a sense that the teach-

Nt'.s 1985 21

NIA' 1985 21

er was genuinely attempting to thinkherself into the children's frame ofmind in order to understand theirreasoning. This is what Buber called"imagining the other side," or visualiz-ing the child's world view. Communi-cating this sense of respect is as impor-tant in these two classes as it is for ahigh school teacher challenging stu-dents to hypothesize about the originof galaxies. or for a college professorwho wishes students to consider thisproposition: A woman should be President before the turn of the century

Of all the factors mentioned in thisarticle, it seems to me that creating thiswarm, supportive environment is perhaps the sine qua non for higher-levelthinking. Without trust, open commu-nication, and a willingness to tolerateand encourage differences, little think-ing can xccur. Thinking requires whatBronowski called 'this constant adven-ture of taking the closed system andpushing its frontiers imaginatively intothe open spaces where we shall makemistakes' (19-8, p 113) Going he-vond the known into those new-, unex

plored territories and continentswhere we seek to make new connections and discoveries is risks businessfor the 5th graders anal yzing Stegner'sstory and reconsidering his originalperspective. The same is true for theadult reconsidering his analysis of apoem or her role as a professional

Instructional ProcessesOne of the wash in which teacherspromote intellectual expli(ratioin )I'new ideas-as Carol In did-isthrough their verhal interaction wxithstudents The teacher effectiveness re-search speaks to several w-as- in hic(hwe prI)l)ite learning cf basic skillsand higher level mental processesBarnes' summary cites these differentteacher behaviors

I Varies question l evels2 Probes, rephrases. promplts3 Waits fo)r some resp)onse-i Provides answer to ques.i()ln5 Asks prot-ess questions ( 't )w x

did y()iu get that alnsx-er' )6 Stresses studenlts' undeCrsandingIClII

of meaningSus;an and ( alrilnl1 and te;ac-lers in

higher grades use these pro)cesses asthe situaticon demands The researdld(oes niit sa; x- e ask oi)I! recall cluestions; it sav s v -e ask the kinds iof t(LIue-tiiens yxe need in cirder t) m;lintain

that acti'e intera;ctio)n so vital to learning

Both Susanl and (;arl-iin asked ditferent kinds cf questi(lins to recall in-formation, ti explain ainswers xwithgreater clarit t, hbuiId (in p-revioiuscomments Neither one, during m!obsenration. asked the pro)cess question, "How did you get that answer>These process questicns seen t() heseldom used in classrooms. perhapsbecause we are so "right answer" oriented Were we more dialogic in ciurthinking ahbout teaching and learning.we might strive to lind wvhat Socratesmight call the students' level or pi(intof ignorance from xxhence Wxe couldbegin to build news and meaningfuilrelationships

Finally, Rosenshine s recent summarv of teacher effectiveness researchstresses "overlearning" cenain fundal-mental skills to the point where the!become "automatic' 1983, p 33- )

Susan's students suolidly knew theiraddition and subtraction processesBut what did Carols-n's students knoxw

IJIt (..\rII)\M l.l)[ RI)IIIII'

Reflective Thinking: "Can you give us some examples of that, Beth?"

well? They had learned, back in Sep-tember, October, and November. thatwhat was important in this 5th gradewas thinking for yourself as well asthinking about what other people sayand showing everybody the courtesyof attentive listening.

Systematic Instruction andThinkingWhat helps all of these elements fittogether is our definition of thinking.If thinking is the accumulation ofknowledge.'then certain teaching strat-egies are in order: presenting informa-tion, making certain it is received, andrecalling it on demand. Freire (19"4)called this the banking concept" ofeducation

If, however, we accept HannahArendt's defnition of thinking, we willproceed differentlx. Thinking is "thequest for meaning" as opposed to thethirst for knowledge that is verifiableprimarily through rules of logic.Thinking proceeds hb means of "anal-ogies. metaphors. and emblems" thatare the "threads bh which the mindholds onto the world Thinking al-wars 'generalizes.' squeezes out ofmany particulars . whatever meaningmav be there" (Arendt. 19- " )

Thinking, therefore, is a process ofsearching for and creating meaninginvolving the mind's creations--sm-bols, metaphors. aInallogies-in .an attempt to establish relationsiips he-tween the xexrld of particilars aid theideas and concepts that give themstructure For ex.ample. 2nd gradersfiguring out one math problem mustknow hos\ this problem relates to thegeneral concepts of tenllS, ones. lndproofs before the\ caln accimnplish thetask with understa;ncding (Carolhin's 5lhgraders are making the chara;cters inThe Colt" more meatningful bh apply-

ing a different set of lenses (Kolhl-berg's stages olf moiral tlevelopment)to them Thinking becomes nmorecomplex Ia. x-e milN-e fronm 2nd to 5thgrade. but it is still thinking. searchingfor meaning

All the ieacher effectineness researchstresses tills search i -()r e111C;nllngBarnes ( 1981 ) stpeaks iof the teachersemphasizing "students uncderstlandingiof meaning ''" Good ( 1982. p I1). inspeaking of the Slissouri Math Program, noted that 'the instructicona;l ac-tixitv is initiated andi rev-ieswed in thecontext iof meaning" The stress that

"The real danger inusing teacher effec-tiveness research isthat it may becomeprescriptive, a set ofbehaviors to bechecked off bythe supervisingadministrator."

both these researchers place on askingprocess questions "losow did you getthat answer"--is evidence that stu-dents are being challenged to think.not merelr recite information mind-lesshl In a 3rd grade I recenth oh-served, students wvere coloring in achart with nouns and many compara-tive adjectives (tall. taller. tallest. forexample) W'hen I asked xwhat thevwere doing, a fesw said. 'Coloring in allthe er and iest wxords"' Thev didn'tknow hows adjectives related to nounsor other adjectives This was a mle-chanical operation w ithout mealninigbevond coloring in the letters

Goodlad (1984) has noted that al-most half the earl- elementarn schoolstudents he interviewed for his mas-sive Stud! of Schooling did not clearl-understand what their teachers want-ed them to do We must ensure thatlearning includes not onlh know-singhow to define kinetic energy hut.more important. hiowi to use this con-cept to explain aind compare physicalphenomena.

ConclusionI have attempted to provide a; p;tialrefutation for tile claim that currentresearch oin teacher effectiveness hasno significant implicaltions for thinkingat higher grade levels or in morecomplex humianl situations. Bx coinsid-ering the structure, en ironment.teaching processes, arid the nature ofthinking itself. this research mav befoundational for more comlplex think-ing

It is true that thinking in Susan'sclass is more convergent and concernscontent that is much more hierarchicaland structured than in Carolyn's class.However. if, with Gilbert R.vle (1979).we view thinking as more like path-creating than path-following, we willsee the child's first spelling of "cat" asa thoughtful endeavor.

The real danger in using teachereffectiveness research is that it maybecome prescriptive, a set of behav-iors to be checked off by the supervis-ing administrator. Active teachingshould become what Good calls an"orienting concept" that fosters reflec-tive thinking about our own teachingprocesses and their intended and un-intended outcomes \W'e should usethis research to stimulate our criticaland imaginative thinking about how tohelp children. adolescents. and adultssearch for and create the relationshipsthat result in meaningful learning.0

Rele'rences

Arendt, Hannah Thinking II T7he .Ve'}orker, November 28. 19-. pp 114-163

Barnes. Susan Sil-7esLS of Selected Re-search opt Teading Findings Austin. TexResearch and Delvelopment Center forTeacher Education. 1981

Bronowxski. !acob The, Orgins ojl Knoul-edge and Iniagination New I laven YaleU'niversitx Press. 19-8

Denhanm. Carolsyn. and Lieberman. AnnTime to Learnt 'ashington. DC U S De-panment of Education and National Insti-tute of Education, 1980

Duffy. Gerald. Roehler. ILura: and Ma-son. Jana Comprelh.zopl IunrncthonNew York: Longman. 198,'

Freire. Paulo Pedagotg of ti Op-pre,sed New ifork Seabun' Press. 19-4

Goiod, Thomas Clas',rooml ReseardW7a/ We ,Knowo and W1at W .We Need toKnot' Austin. Tex Research and Develop-ment Center f(or Teacher Education. 1982

Cxx)dlad. John A I'/ace (allerl sichoolP!rpec-ts ./o- tlhe -tture Ne- York:McGravw Itill. 198-i

lHeidegger. Maonin lhai ls C(lled Thlink-ing' New- York: Harper Torchhookxs. 1968.

Johnson, David. and Jhnson. Roger'Confliil in the Classroonm Controverxsand Learning Re7ieil' of Fducattonal Re-s.earc- 49 eWinter 19L-9) 51--0

Koihlberg. L-rence \loral Educationftor a Mor.al Transition. Fducational lead-ers7ip 33 (October 19O- ) 40-'-5

Rosenshine, Barak 'Teaching Functionsin Instructional Progrmnis FletneltuaniScidool loinzal (March 198A)

Ry-le, Gilbert On Th/nk/n,1 Totox a.1 NJ.Rowan and inlefield, 19-9

MIxA 1985

Copyright © 1985 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved.