This article was downloaded by: [Illinois Institute Of Technology]

On: 02 January 2015, At: 19:36

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Science

Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

Active teaching for higher cognitive

learning in science
a b c
Kenneth Tobin , William Capie & Antonio Bettencourt
a
Florida State University , Tallahassee, USA
b
University of Georgia , Athens, USA
c
Escola Superior De Educacao , Viseu, Portugal
Published online: 24 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Kenneth Tobin , William Capie & Antonio Bettencourt (1988) Active
teaching for higher cognitive learning in science, International Journal of Science Education,
10:1, 17-27, DOI: 10.1080/0950069880100103

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950069880100103

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information
(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor
& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties
whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and
views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The
accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently
verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable
for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly
in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-
licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 INT. J. SCI. EDUC., 1988, VOL. 10, NO. 1, 1 7 - 2 7

Active teaching for higher cognitive

learning in science

Kenneth Tobin, Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA,

William Capie, University of Georgia, Athens, USA, and Antonio
Bettencourt, Escola Superior De Educacao, Viseu, Portugal
Downloaded by [Illinois Institute Of Technology] at 19:36 02 January 2015

The paper reviews research related to teaching and learning higher cognitive level objec-
tives in science from a constructivist perspective. The literature supports an active model
of teaching whereby all students are provided with opportunities for overt engagement in
learning tasks. Factors associated with the learner, delivery of instruction and task manage-
ment interact to influence the quality of learning in classrooms. When students are not
motivated to engage in a task, when they do not attend to instruction, when they do not
understand which cognitive processes to use, or when they cannot accomplish the task,
instruction will falter and the intended learning outcomes will not be achieved. In order to
facilitate learning of higher cognitive level objectives, an active teaching role is advocated
with a focus on monitoring and sustaining overt engagement of all students.

Higher cognitive level objectives such as conceptual understandings and

process skills are frequently listed among the intended outcomes of science
programmes. Despite a variety of curriculum materials available to assist
teachers in implementing a science programme that will provide students
with appropriate learning experiences, evidence suggests that teachers
have difficulty implementing the curriculum in the intended manner.
(Gallagher 1985, Stake and Easley 1978, Mitman et al. 1984, Tobin and
Gallagher 1987). Although teachers should be responsive to the context
in which the curriculum is implemented, changes in the intended curric-
ulum ought to facilitate learning. However, in modifying the curriculum
to meet the needs of learners, teachers may alter activities in ways that
deny students the experience necessary to attain higher cognitive level
objectives.
Science teachers have a responsibility to provide a classroom
environment in which necessary cognitive processing can occur. Conse-
quently, instruction should provide students with opportunities to engage
in appropriate tasks that enable higher cognitive level objectives to be
achieved. This would be a significant challenge even if teachers had to
cater for only one learner; however, there are typically 20 or more stu-
dents in each class and only one teacher. Students must learn together and
share learning resources, including the teacher. In high school science
classes teachers use whole class instruction most of the time (Tobin and
Gallagher 1987). This activity structure limits most students to covert
participation which is likely to be effective for short periods of time and
for certain purposes, such as introducing new content. In order to engage
 18 K. TOBIN ETAL

students more actively, small groups or individualized activities must be

used. The selected group structure will affect the nature of the activity,
the way students interact with one another and with the teacher, the way
that students process information and, consequently, how much they
learn. However, even highly motivated learners working in an appropriate
group structure might still fail to learn in classes where higher cognitive
objectives are pursued. Unless students are able to engage in the required
manner they will not be able to learn from an activity. In such cases tea-
chers may need to provide alternative activities in which selected students
can engage to achieve the same objectives.
The purpose of this paper is to review research related to higher cog-
nitive level learning in science. The research reviewed in the paper
includes the following areas: cognitive demands of works in science class-
Downloaded by [Illinois Institute Of Technology] at 19:36 02 January 2015

rooms; classroom management; delivery of instruction; formal reasoning

ability; grouping of students for instruction; and motivation to learn.
These areas were selected because of the need to synthesize research from
a number of areas in order to explain learning in science classrooms.
Because of the complexity of classroom learning, particularly when higher
cognitive level tasks are involved, a review of one or two variables would
be unlikely to have direct implications for classroom practice.

Rationale

According to a constructivist epistemology (von Glasersfeld 1981), stu-

dents construct knowledge as a result of personal cognitive actions which
result in unique conceptions which fit with sensory input and prior learn-
ing. The knowledge that a particular student acquires depends on personal
attributes of the learner and the nature of the learning experiences. If
students have different learning experiences, their knowledge construc-
tions are likely to vary substantially. For example, engaging in a covert
manner in a whole class setting by listening to the teacher will result in
different knowledge acquisition than engaging overtly in the same content
area in a small group activity or in an individualized activity. The content
that students encounter and the ways in which they interact with that
content will both influence the knowledge they acquire.
Models for classroom learning also emphasize the personal nature of
learning. For example, the cognitive mediational model (Winne 1985),
assumes that students translate tasks into personal cognitive representa-
tions as they interpret instruction. As a consequence, the tasks that stu-
dents pursue are essentially their own. Instruction is effective because of
the students' cognitive actions. However, the teacher also has a role in
establishing and maintaining an environment which is conducive to learn-
ing. To assist students in learning, the teacher can use cues such as ques-
tions and directions to focus students' cognitive actions as they engage.
During the process of learning, each student must acquire and actively
process knowledge in order to integrate new and previously learned
knowledge and to affect transfer from working memory to long term
memory. Meaning can be enhanced by associating information with
 TEACHING FOR HIGHER COGNITIVE LEARNING 19

known examples which activate target information and peripheral infor-

mation stored in permanent memory. Because students will not engage
appropriately if they do not understand what they are to do, teacher
clarity is important and the pace of delivery needs to be matched to the
cognitive processing capabilities of the learners.
Providing cues does not guarantee that learning will occur. Because stu-
dents who do not attend will not benefit from teacher cues or learn as
intended, classroom management must be effective and designed to meet
the individual needs of students. The teacher should ensure that students
attend to the salient parts of instruction and not be distracted from engag-
ing in the required manner. Students may also avoid engagement in
higher cognitive level tasks because of a fear of failing. This possibility
may necessitate precautions to minimize risks associated with participation
Downloaded by [Illinois Institute Of Technology] at 19:36 02 January 2015

in learning tasks.
How students engage in learning tasks depends to a large extent on
how they are grouped for instruction. All students should be assisted to
engage in a manner which facilitates learning and academic tasks should
be tailored to the needs and abilities of the learners. Because only one
student at a time engages in an overt way in large group instruction, atten-
tion span may be a potential problem. Teachers should select a group
structure which facilitates instruction and provides for active engagement.
Small group activities enable more students to engage in an overt manner
at any given time and offers the possibility of peer assistance and dis-
cussion. Teachers are able to move from group to group, assisting as
necessary, thus stimulating more student participation. Individualized
activities enable all students to engage in an overt manner at a given time.
In addition, students can work uninterrupted and can receive individual
assistance from the teacher. The teacher should monitor student engage-
ment to ascertain who is or is not successfully completing the assigned
tasks in the required manner.
Students who are not motivated are unlikely to undertake the cogni-
tive engagement necessary to learn from instruction. Brophy (1983)
denned motivation to learn in terms of an enduring disposition to value
learning for its own sake, to enjoy the process and to take pride in the
outcomes of experiences involving knowledge acquisition or skill develop-
ment. Brophy noted that motivated students would not necessarily find
engagement in classroom tasks intensely pleasurable or exciting, but
would take them seriously, would find them meaningful and worthwhile,
and would try to get the intended benefits from them.

Review and synthesis of the literature

Cognitive demands of academic work

Science programmes seek to have students engage in higher cognitive pro-

cesses and achieve higher cognitive outcomes. However, evidence suggests
that the implemented curriculum only rarely provides for higher cognitive
level student engagement. Stake and Easley (1978) reported that science
 20 K. TOBIN ET AL

teachers emphasized facts and techniques with little emphasis on inquiry.

In separate studies, Tobin and Gallagher (1987) and Gallagher (1985)
found that science teachers emphasized completion of academic work to
the possible detriment of students' understanding of the content. Tea-
chers' emphasis on 'getting the work done' seemed to be associated with
concerns that students cover the content to perform well on tests and to
succeed at the next educational level. Tobin and Gallagher reported that
teachers who felt a responsibility to cover the work in the assigned time,
planned and implemented lessons with a focus on covering the course
content. In most of these cases instruction did not provide opportunities
for students to acquire higher cognitive level outcomes and tests did not
assess them.
Downloaded by [Illinois Institute Of Technology] at 19:36 02 January 2015

A similar trend was reported by Mitman et al. (1984) in a study of 11

junior high science classes. Mitman et al. noted that very few academic
tasks required students to use higher cognitive skills. The authors report-
ed that assessment tasks having most weight assigned to them (e.g. tests)
had low cognitive demands. This situation was exacerbated by a tendency
for teachers to grade worksheets and laboratory reports for completion
rather than for accuracy.
On occasions when teachers have endeavoured to emphasize higher
cognitive level outcomes, barriers to higher level learning were created.
Sanford (1985) described how science teachers and students interacted to
reduce the cognitive demands of academic tasks. In one example, three
students negotiated persistently with the teacher for clarification and
assistance on a higher cognitive level task. The teacher provided more and
more guidance until relatively little work was left to the three students.
Cognitive demands of academic tasks were reduced in other ways in the
Sanford study. For example, students in small groups copied from one
another and, in open book tests, students were able to copy information
that previously had been copied from another source (e.g. the chalkboard
or another student's work). The use of 'safety nets' to prevent students
from failing also reduced the cognitive demand of the work. Examples of
safety nets included: group work, peer assistance, using easy or familiar
content on tests, assigning more marks to memory or procedural com-
ponents of a task, allowing students to revise products after they had sub-
mitted them, peer review of work prior to submission; teacher assistance,
prompts and cues; extra credit assignments; less exacting grading for low
achieving students; grading on completion rather than accuracy; and last
minute review of key content prior to a test.
The implication of these studies is clear. If students are to value
higher cognitive level outcomes, then this value needs to be reflected in
the grading system. Teachers should endeavour to reward students for
successful mastery of higher cognitive level tasks and should actively avoid
the safety nets that reduce the cognitive demands of the work. In
Sanford's study the use of safety nets had undesirable effects on learning,
since students completed tasks without developing understandings that
were intended. However, teachers can also use safety nets to encourage
student participation in academic tasks. For example, if teachers reduce
the 'risk' of engagement by assigning tasks for which marks or grades are
 TEACHING FOR HIGHER COGNITIVE LEARNING 21

not assigned, then students can participate without having to worry about
obtaining the correct answer. In order to learn new higher cognitive con-
cepts and tasks, students must have opportunities for necessary cognitive
processing without the threat of having to earn course credit. Safety nets
should not be used to reduce the cognitive demands of the academic work,
but should be used to encourage active student engagement. If student
motivation is to be established in the comprehensive manner envisaged by
Brophy, the classroom environment must be 'safe and suitable' for student
engagement in higher cognitive level tasks. As well as providing safety
nets to encourage engagement in higher cognitive level tasks, teachers
should ensure that students are given ample opportunities to learn higher
cognitive level concepts and skills before they are assessed.
Downloaded by [Illinois Institute Of Technology] at 19:36 02 January 2015

Classroom management

Higher cognitive level learning also depends on effective classroom man-

agement. Capie and Stone (in press) reviewed the research on classroom
management and highlighted implications for science teaching. Teachers
were urged to anticipate decisions about who does what, where, when and
for how long. An important planning role was to provide work for stu-
dents who completed activities such as laboratories or worksheets before
others. Communicating expectations to students was important for a
variety of factors such as hand raising, calling out, moving about the room
and seating plans.
Monitoring student engagement was crucial so that teachers could
ensure that their expectations were translated into classroom behaviour
and engagement. Specifically, Capie and Stone noted that teachers should
be aware that off-task behaviour or passive engagement is a precursor to
more severe disruptions so that minor infractions can be addressed in a
relatively unobtrusive manner. The importance of these elements was
confirmed in a study where differences in classroom management
accounted for more than one-third of between-class differences in science
process skill achievement (Capie et al. 1986).
Gallagher and Tobin (1987) described an interaction between class-
room management and the cognitive demands of the academic work in
high school science activities. When the cognitive demands of the work
were high, students demonstrated task avoidance behaviours that taxed
the managerial effectiveness of the teacher. In the case of a low ability
class of students, the teacher was able to retain control of the class by
changing the activity to one in which students could engage without risk
of failure. In a higher ability class, students returned to the task after a
period of restlessness in which most of the class was off task. These exam-
ples suggest that students may resist teacher attempts to have them engage
for sustained periods when cognitive demands are high.
An implication of these findings is that teachers should plan for cog-
nitive demand and for management. Since students become restless after a
period of high cognitive demand engagement, plans should provide for
 22 K. TOBIN ETAL

engagement on high cognitive level tasks to be interspersed with engage-

ment on low cognitive demand tasks. In addition, teachers should endeav-
our to reduce the risks associated with engagement in higher cognitive
level tasks. The lower ability class in the Gallagher and Tobin study may
have remained on task if the activity had been less public and students
could have engaged without the fear of failing before their peers. Small
group and individualized modes of engagement may be of more use for
higher cognitive level tasks because engagement for individuals is rela-
tively more private.

Delivery of instruction
Downloaded by [Illinois Institute Of Technology] at 19:36 02 January 2015

Two variables that teachers can control in order to assist students to

benefit from instruction are clarity and the pace of delivery. Instruction
needs to be clear so that it is potentially comprehensible. Land (1981)
reported significant relationships between teacher clarity and science
achievement. There is some evidence to suggest that teachers can increase
their clarity by planning for major discussion points and by using a long
wait time as instruction is delivered. Less than one second of wait time is
provided in science classes for speakers to process subsequent discourse
(Tobin and Capie 1982). Tobin (1987) reviewed 40 studies on wait time in
science and reported that the quality of student engagement and achieve-
ment on higher cognitive outcomes improved substantially when an
average wait time of between three and five seconds was maintained. Each
of the changes was consistent with an interpretation that additional time
was used for student cognitive processing.
Another type of wait time also benefits student cognitive processing.
Rowe (1983) reported that science achievement increased when instructors
provided two minutes for thinking after every eight minutes of instruc-
tion. The pause enabled students to read over their notes and to clarify
concepts with peers as well as to think about what had been taught in the
preceding eight minutes of instruction.
An implication for teaching higher cognitive outcomes in science is to
provide three to five seconds of silence between speakers during dis-
cussions and lectures. In addition, teachers might provide discussion or
review breaks after every eight to ten minutes of lecturing.

Formal reasoning ability

Students must be capable of engaging in the required manner even when

they understand what to do and have time to think. This potential limi-
tation may be particularly critical with certain types of outcomes such as
when higher cognitive level concepts and process skills are pursued.
Recent reviews of research in science teaching (Bettencourt 1985, Lawson
1985) indicated that variation in cognitive development is significantly
related to variation in science achievement. Of 26 middle and high school
studies reviewed by • Bettencourt, only three did not report a significant
 TEACHING FOR HIGHER COGNITIVE LEARNING 23

and positive relationship between developmental level and science

achievement.
Research has also shown that formal reasoning ability is associated
with student engagement in academic tasks in science classes. In three
related studies with samples of middle school students (Newton and Capie
1982, Tobin 1986; Tobin and Capie 1982), student formal reasoning
ability was reported to be significantly related to engagement in higher
cognitive level tasks such as investigation planning, comprehending and
interpreting results. Tobin and Gallagher (1987) reported that high school
students with higher levels of formal reasoning ability engaged overtly in
higher cognitive level tasks to a greater extent than did students with
lower levels of formal reasoning ability. The authors attributed this inter-
action pattern to the predominant use of the whole class setting. Teachers
Downloaded by [Illinois Institute Of Technology] at 19:36 02 January 2015

tended to call on .high formal thinkers who could usually be relied on to

provide an answer from which others could learn. As a result of their
participation, high formal thinkers were able to engage in cognitive pro-
cesses likely to enhance achievement. However, engagement for the
majority of students was constrained to be covert only. This majority con-
tained those with low formal reasoning ability who may or are likely to
encounter learning difficulties. An irony in these findings is that those
with higher formal reasoning ability have the intellectual tools necessary
to learn in a covert manner; yet they monopolized whole class inter-
actions, preventing those with lower formal reasoning from obtaining the
practice that they needed.
Tobin and Gallagher (1987) reported that high school science tea-
chers utilized a whole class interactive mode most of the time. Teachers
used this setting for a range of activities which included introduction of
content, review of previously learned content, provision of instructions for
laboratory activities, and interpretation of findings of laboratory investiga-
tions. Teachers endeavoured to engage students by calling on them one at
a time to participate in instruction. Only five to seven students were rou-
tinely involved in whole class activities while there was an equal number
of students who were rarely involved in interactions of any type in the
whole class mode. This 'unequal' involvement in instruction was per-
ceived to be a major problem because of the predominant use of whole
class activities. Tobin and Gallagher concluded that teachers should plan
to use whole class settings for less time in science lessons and should
endeavour to increase the amount of time allocated to small group and
individualized activities.
Working in small groups can increase student motivation to learn.
Brophy (1983) noted that in order to enhance student motivation to learn,
teachers ought to provide opportunities for students to interact with peers
and to have overt engagement in academic tasks. Content also needed to
be presented so as to make abstract content more related to personal expe-
riences, concrete or familiar. In a review of research on interaction pat-
terns in small groups, Webb (1982) stated that research relating
interaction in groups and achievement generally showed that giving and
receiving help were positively associated with achievement and that off-
task and passive behaviour were negatively related to achievement. Webb
 24 K. TOBIN ETAL

noted that although the relationship between giving explanations and

receiving explanations and achievement was positive, not all studies
obtained significant results. Webb attributed these non-significant results
to the complexity of the task and the degree of accuracy of explanations.
Especially in the case of complex content, explanations to others might be
beneficial to the explainer, but inaccurate explanations could not be
expected to benefit other group members. The evidence provided by
Webb provides an indication of the importance of closely monitoring
activities to ensure that productive interaction occurs in groups.
In a review of 46 studies of learning in groups, Slavin (1984) reported
that 29 showed cooperative learning to have significantly positive effects
on student achievement. Fifteen studies showed no difference and two
Downloaded by [Illinois Institute Of Technology] at 19:36 02 January 2015

studies showed significantly higher achievement for a control group than

for a cooperative group. More detailed analyses revealed interesting trends
in the results. Of 27 studies that used group study and group rewards for
individual learning, 24 found positive effects while three found no differ-
ences. In contrast, of nine studies of group methods that did not use group
rewards, none found positive effects on achievement. Slavin's analyses
indicated that group rewards for individual performance were critical to
the effectiveness of cooperative learning methods. Slavin (1984) stated that
attempts to create more effective instruction by improving the quality of
instruction, time on task and so on may be ineffective without consider-
ation of incentives directed at increasing student motivation to learn.
The implication of the research is that academic tasks need to be
matched to the capabilities and experiences of students. Learning groups
and individual learning tasks are obvious ways to accomplish this goal
since they allow differentiated activity as well as a motivating structure.
Teachers should examine the cognitive demands of academic tasks and
carefully prescribe activities that will enable each student to engage in the
appropriate manner. A particular concern is whether or not students can
use formal reasoning ability. Those who can use formal reasoning modes
are able to deal with abstractions and can learn from recitation more
readily than students who cannot use formal reasoning. To assist students
with limited formal reasoning ability, teachers should use demonstrations
and aids to make instruction more concrete and relate the content of in-
struction to examples in everyday life that might be familiar to students.
In addition, small group and individualized activities enable more stu-
dents to have direct concrete experience with science content.

Motivation to learn

Logically and empirically there is a strong case to suggest that students

must be motivated to attend to instruction and to engage in learning tasks
in order to learn in classrooms. Brophy (1983) identified numerous vari-
ables that could be altered by teachers in order to increase student motiva-
tion to learn in classrooms. One of the more obvious areas of potential
influence relates to task selection and design. Brophy stated that, when
appropriate, teachers should select knowledge or skills that are worth
 TEACHING FOR HIGHER COGNITIVE LEARNING 25

learning and that the purpose of the work should be clearly communicated
to students. When designing and selecting tasks, teachers should endeav-
our to arouse student motivation by including novelty, variety, fantasy,
simulation and game-like features whenever appropriate. If science lessons
contain features such as these, teachers may also be able to address other
variables to enhance student motivation to learn. Brophy described how
teachers used techniques such as demonstrations and divergent questions
about higher level objectives to stimulate student interest, appreciation,
curiosity, suspense and cognitive conflict during instruction. In addition,
teachers could actively attempt to influence student motivation by model-
ling interest and enthusiasm for learning.
Furthermore, Brophy (1983) reported that student motivation to
Downloaded by [Illinois Institute Of Technology] at 19:36 02 January 2015

learn increases when work is challenging and related to students' interests.

Challenge and interest might be accomplished by providing students with
some choice of academic tasks during selected science lessons. Alternative-
ly, students could be provided with some autonomy over task involvement
during activities. In each case, the effect is to make students more
responsible for their own learning by allowing them to select assignments
in which they are interested. Having made the choice, students may be
stimulated to undertake the necessary cognitive processing.
Brophy (1983), stated that teachers should endeavour to prepare stu-
dents for active learning by ensuring that they are familiar with the learn-
ing objectives and by using advance organizers to facilitate understanding.
During instruction the teacher should provide informative feedback on
understandings and misunderstandings so that students know why certain
answers are right and why others are wrong. The final step in this process
is to assist students to monitor learning effects so that they can diagnose
their own learning strengths and weaknesses. One way of accomplishing
this might be for the teacher to model task related thinking and problem
solving during instruction.
The effects of motivation on academic work are pervasive. Motivation
is not restricted to a few practices or to particular parts of the lesson. It
involves a host of interactive behaviours as well as organizational elements
of the lesson. Consequently, teachers should actively seek opportunities to
incorporate motivation to learn when planning and implementing science
lessons.

Implications

The main implication of the research reviewed in this paper is that active
learning of higher cognitive level skills necessitates active teaching. If stu-
dents are to achieve the cognitive outcomes of a science programme, tea-
chers must monitor student engagement to ensure that activities are
operating as intended. When students are not motivated to engage in a
task, when they do not attend to instruction, when they do not understand
which cognitive processes to use, or when they cannot accomplish the
task, instruction will falter and the intended learning outcomes will not be
achieved. Teachers must observe and listen to students as they work. In
 26 K. TOBIN ETAL

many cases intervention will not be necessary while on other occasions

carefully selected cues will be needed to re-focus engagement along more
productive lines.
Before proceeding with new content, teachers need to answer the fol-
lowing questions about instruction: Are the instructional objectives
appropriate for this course and for these students ? Are the students
engaging in a way that will enable them to achieve the objectives? Have
the students achieved the objectives ? When each question has been
answered in the affirmative for each student, teachers should proceed to
the next objective. As a lesson progresses, student engagement changes
and the activities needed to support that engagement change as well. A
necessary condition for effective learning is to use a group structure that
Downloaded by [Illinois Institute Of Technology] at 19:36 02 January 2015

provides students with opportunities to engage in the manner required to

achieve the instructional objectives. One group structure will not always
be suitable for all learners and all tasks. Research and common sense
suggest that teachers should use a blend of whole class, small group and
individualized activities at appropriate times so that active student learn-
ing can take place for all students.
Science education courses must de-emphasize learning from lectures
and texts in favour of more active modes of learning. The teacher's role in
providing such an emphasis is to adopt strategies to monitor student
engagement and understanding. Research on teaching has indicated that
the development of such strategies requires extensive practice and feed-
back in simulated settings or classrooms.

References
BETTENCOURT, A. 1985, Review of Research on Formal Reasoning Ability : Implications for
Teaching Science (University of Georgia, Athens, GA).
BROPHY, J. 1983, Conceptualising Student Motivation. Educational Psychologist, Vol. 18,
pp. 200-215.
CAPIE, W. and STONE, J. W., Effective classroom management: An analysis of critical skills
for science teachers. Science Education. In press.
CAPIE, W., CRONIN, L. and PADILLA, M. 1986, The relationship between TPAI scores and
learner achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educa-
tional Research Association, Los Angeles.
DOYLE, W. 1983, Academic work. Review of Educational Research, Vol. 53, No. 2, pp.
159-199.
GALLAGHER, J. J. 1985, Secondary school science (Interim Report) (Institute for Research on
Teaching, Michigan State University, East Lansing).
GALLAGHER, J. J. and TOBIN, K., 1987, Teacher management and student engagement in
high school science. Science Education, Vol. 71, pp. 535-555.
LAND, M. L. 1981, Actual and perceived teacher clarity - Relations to student achievement
in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 139-143.
LAWSON, A. E. 1985, A review of research on formal reasoning and science teaching.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 22, No. 7, pp. 569-617.
MITMAN, A. L., MERGENDOLLER, J. R., PACKER, M. J. and MARCHMAN, V. A. 1984, Scienti-
fic literacy in seventh grade life science : A study of instructional process, task completion,
student perceptions and learning outcomes. (Far West Laboratory for Educational
Research and Development, San Francisco, CA).
NEWTON, R. E. and CAPIE, W. 1982, Effects of engagement quality on integrated process
skill achievement in grade 7 and 8 science students of varying ability levels. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science
Teaching, Wisconsin, April.
 TEACHING FOR HIGHER COGNITIVE LEARNING 27

ROWE, M. B. 1983, Getting chemistry off the killer course list. Journal of Chemical Educa-
tion, Vol. 60, No. 11, pp. 954-956.
SANFORD, J. P. 1985, Comprehension-level tasks in secondary classrooms (Research and
Development Center for Teacher Education, The University of Texas at Austin).
SLAVIN, R. E. 1984, Students motivating students to excel: Cooperative incentives, co-
operative tasks, and student achievement. The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 85,
No. 1, pp. 53-63.
STAKE, R. E. and EASLEY, J. A. 1978, Case studies in science education. Vols. 1 and 2.
(Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation and Committee on
Culture and Cognition, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champagne).
TOBIN, K. G. 1987, Using wait time to improve the quality of classroom discourse. Review
of Educational Research, Vol. 57, pp. 69-95.
TOBIN, K. G. 1986, Student task involvement and achievement in process oriented science
activities. Science Education, Vol. 70, pp. 61-72.
TOBIN, K. G. and CAPIE, W. 1982, Relationships between classroom process variables and
Downloaded by [Illinois Institute Of Technology] at 19:36 02 January 2015

middle school science achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 14, pp.
441-454.
TOBIN, K. G. and GALLAGHER, J. J. 1987, Target students in the science classroom. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 24, pp. 61-75.
VON GLASERSFELD, E. 1981, The concepts of adaptation and viability in a radical construc-
tivist theory of knowledge. In I. E. Sigel, D. M. Brodzinsky and R. M. Golinkoff
(eds.), New Directions in Piagetian Theory and Practice (New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates), pp. 87-95.
WEBB, N. M. 1982, Student interaction and learning in small groups. Review of Education-
al Research, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 421-445.
WINNE, P. H. 1985, Steps toward promoting cognitive achievements. The Elementary
School Journal, Vol. 85, No. 5, pp. 673-693.