Advertisement

Classroom climate and instruction: New goals demand new approaches

  • John E. Penick
  • Ronald J. Bonnstetter
Article

Abstract

Uniformly, science teachers express the same goals for their students, goals that emphasize attitude, communication, creativity, and application of knowledge. Yet, the traditional role of the teacher ignores these goals and focuses on attainment of knowledge, rarely going on to applications. This paper suggests, rather specifically, how to provide instruction that leads to the expressed goals. These specific behaviors come from a three-part model where expressed goals define the role of the student and the student's roles are, in turn, stimulated by the teacher.

Key words

Classroom climate science instruction role of teacher 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, H. H., and Brewer, J. E. (1946). Studies of classroom personalities, II: Effects of teachers' dominative and integrative contacts on children's classroom behavior.Applied Psychology Monographs No. 8.Google Scholar
  2. Bonnstetter, R. J. (1984). Characteristics of teachers associated with an exemplary program compared with science teachers in general, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.Google Scholar
  3. Bronowski, J. (1965).Science and Human Values, Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Dillon, J. T. (1981), Duration of response to teacher questions and statements.Contemporary Educational Psychology 6: 1–11.Google Scholar
  5. Dresman, H. (1982). Classroom climate: Contributions from a European country.Studies in Educational Evaluation, 8: 53–64.Google Scholar
  6. Elkind, D. (1989). Developmentally appropriate practice: Philosophical and practical implications.Phi Delta Kappan, 70: 113–117.Google Scholar
  7. Good, J. E., and Brophy, T. L. (1991).Looking in Classrooms, 5th ed., Harper Collins, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Goodlad, J. (1983).A Place Called School. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Harms, N., and Yager, R. E. (1981).What Research Says to the Science Teacher, Vol. 3, NSTA, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  10. Krajcik, J. S., and Penick, J. E. (1989). Evaluation of a model science teacher education program.Journal of Research in Science Teaching 26(9): 795–810.Google Scholar
  11. Mullis, I. V., and Jenkins, L. B. (Eds.) (1988).The Science Report Card: Elements of Risk and Recovery, ETS, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  12. Myers, L. H. (1988). Analysis of student outcomes in ninth grade physical science taught with a S/T/S focus versus one taught with a textbook orientation, unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.Google Scholar
  13. Penick, J. E. (1992). STS instruction enhances student creativity. In Yager, R. E. (Ed.),The Status of Science-Technology-Society Reform Efforts around the World, International Council of Associations for Science Education, Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  14. Project 2000+, (1992). Toward scientific and technological literacy for all: A world conference for 1993, UNESCO, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  15. Raviv, A., Raviv, A., and Reisel, E. (1990) Teachers and students: Two different perspectives? Measuring social climate in the classroom.American Educational Research Journal 27(1): 141–157.Google Scholar
  16. Rogers, C. (1969).Freedom to Learn, Merrill, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Tobias, S. (1990).They're not Dumb, They're Different: Stalking the Second Tier, Research Corporation, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
  18. Withall, J. (1948). The development of a technique for the measurement of social emotional climate in classrooms, unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
  19. Withall, J. (1969). Evaluation of classroom climate.Childhood Education 45(7): 403–408.Google Scholar
  20. Withall, J. (1972). Research in systematic observation in the classroom and its relevance to teachers.Journal of Teacher Education 23(3): 330–332.Google Scholar
  21. Yager, R. E., and Penick, J. E. (1983). School science in crisis.Curriculum Review 22(3): 67–70.Google Scholar
  22. Yager, R. E., Tamir, P., and Mackinnu (1991). The effect of an STS approach on achievement and attitudes of students in grades 4–9. Manuscript submitted toAmerican Educational Research Journal.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • John E. Penick
    • 1
  • Ronald J. Bonnstetter
    • 2
  1. 1.Science Education CenterUniversity of IowaIowa City
  2. 2.Curriculum and InstructionUniversity of NebraskaLincoln

Personalised recommendations