Effects of Teacher Wait Time on Discourse Characteristics in Mathematics and Language Arts Classes

Abstract

Ten classes were randomly assigned to a group that received feedback and assistance to maintain an average teacher wait time of between 3 and 5 seconds during a sequence of mathematics lessons. A control group of 10 teachers maintained a regular wait time and received placebo feedback. The study was replicated in a sequence of language arts lessons. The use of an average teacher wait time of between 3 and 5 seconds in whole class instructional settings was associated with higher mathematics achievement and improvements in the quality of teacher and student discourse. In extended wait time classes in the mathematics component of the study, decreases were observed in the number of utterances per unit time, the average length of teacher utterances, the frequency of teacher interruptions, failure of students to respond to teacher questions, the proportion of teacher reacting to student responses, and the proportion of teacher mimicking of student responses. Increases were observed in the average length of student responses, the proportion of teacher soliciting, the proportion of teacher structuring, and the proportion of probing after a student response. Similar results were obtained in the language arts component of the study. Changes in the types of teacher questions were observed also. In mathematics there was an increase in the proportion of questions requiring application of concepts, and in language arts there was an increase in the proportion of questions requiring student comprehension.Teacher discourse is an important vehicle for focusing student cognition. However, for teacher discourse to influence student learning, the infor-191 at LAKEHEAD UNIV on March 15, 2015 http://aerj.aera.net Downloaded from

An investigation of assessment and feedback practices in fully asynchronous online undergraduate mathematics courses

“…In one study of whole class instruction (n=20 classes), Tobin, [35] for example, found "higher mathematics achievement and improvements in the quality of teacher and student discourse" to be associated with an average feedback timing of between 3 and 5 seconds (p.191). In another study based on a comparison of problem solving using a computer software package versus paper (n=64 children), Simmons and Cope [36] suggest that immediate feedback acts to "inhibit moves to a higher level of response" (p.163) and as such "upsets the balance" (p.175) by better enabling procedural, to the detriment of conceptual, knowledge and understanding.…”

Persistent Monologicality amidst Variation in Teachers’ Questioning Practices in Malaysian English Language Classrooms

“…Surprisingly, even when teachers used practices which are more commonly linked to dialogic classrooms (e.g., the use of referential questions, longer and more frequent wait time, and reaction moves such as "probe" and "redirect"), the emergence of student voices and the interaction of these voices were minimal or non-existent. This situation is perplexing considering Malaysian curricular aspirations (MOE Malaysia, 2003;MOE Malaysia, 2012;Pandian, 2002) and earlier research recommendations for dialogicality (Bellack et al, 1966;Brock, 1986;Chang, 2009;Cotton, 2001;Gall, 1984;Honea, 1982;Hsu, 2001;Hussein Ahmed Al-Muaini, 2006;Ingram & Elliott, 2014;Kaya et al, 2014;Morgan & Saxton, 1994;Rowe, 1974Rowe, , 1986Rowe, , 1996Swift & Gooding, 1983;Tobin, 1984Tobin, , 1986Wragg & Brown, 2001;Wu, 1993;Yang, 2010). What could possibly be feeding this persistent monologicality in the classroom?…”

“…In reference to past literature (Bakhtin, 1984;Bellack et al, 1966;Chang, 2009;Cotton, 2001;Gall, 1984;Habsah Hussin, 2006;Hsu, 2001;Morgan & Saxton, 1994;Nystrand, 1997;Reznitskaya, 2012;Tobin, 1984Tobin, , 1986Wertsch & Smolka, 1993;Wragg & Brown, 2001;Wu, 1993;Yuksel, 2009) and the data from this study, the description of each reaction move was refined and is shown in Table 2. To give a reminder to students for them to provide answers, for example, by repeating the question completely or partially, calling the student"s name, using other utterances such as "And?…”

“…And these practices have often revolved around three dimensions of questioning: types of questions, wait time (i.e., pauses initiated or provided by the teacher which could give rise to opportunities for thinking or contemplation of an utterance or a response), and reaction moves (i.e., what the teacher says or does other than mere evaluation succeeding students" responses or unresponsiveness to teacher questions). As identified by earlier studies, to pave way for more dialogic interactions where there are extended and syntactically as well as cognitively more complex student responses, referential questions rather than display questions (elaborated in the following paragraph) (Brock, 1986;Hussein Ahmed Al-Muaini, 2006;Yang, 2010), longer and more frequent wait time, with a proposed range of 2 to 5 seconds (Honea, 1982;Ingram & Elliott, 2014;Kaya et al, 2014;Rowe, 1974Rowe, , 1986Rowe, , 1996Swift & Gooding, 1983;Tobin, 1984Tobin, , 1986, and reaction moves such as "probe", "prompt", and "redirect" (Bellack et al, 1966;Chang, 2009;Cotton, 2001;Gall, 1984;Hsu, 2001;Morgan & Saxton, 1994;Wragg & Brown, 2001;Wu, 1993) are encouraged in teachers" questioning practices. These practices could help improve students" participation and engagement in the classroom.…”

“…For example, in terms of reaction moves, dialogicality would be hindered if teachers ignore or fail to provide any feedback or follow-up to student responses (Tobin, 1986;Wragg & Brown, 2001), unnecessarily interfere with student talk or mimic student responses (Tobin, 1984(Tobin, , 1986, answer own questions (Habsah Hussin, 2006), or simply take up just any or all student responses to the extent that the discussion is rendered messy and unproductive (Groenke & Paulus, 2007). In terms of wait time, it should not be used blindly or homogeneously for just any question asked (Carlsen, 1991;Honea, 1982).…”