Handbook of psychology volume 7 educational psychology

154

Teaching Processes in Elementary and Secondary Education

CLASSROOM TEACHING PROCESSES AND THEIR

EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT

There was a great deal of research during the second half of

the twentieth century about the nature of classroom teaching,

what it is like, and when it is effective. Although many dif-

ferent teaching mechanisms were identified, two overarching

approaches to teaching emerged—the direct transmission

approach and constructivist teaching.

Direct Transmission Approach

One of the most famous analyses of classroom teaching

processes was conducted by Mehan (1979), who observed

that much of teaching involves a teacher’s initiating a

question, waiting for a student response, and then evaluating

the response—what Mehan referred to as IRE cycles (i.e.,

initiate-respond-evaluate cycles). A hefty dose of such inter-

actions reduces the teacher’s classroom management burden

(Cazden, 1988, chap. 3) because students know what is re-

quired of them during such cycles given their frequent in-

volvement in them. The teacher can go through a lesson in an

orderly fashion, covering what she or he considers to be

essential points. Given that many teachers view their jobs as

covering so much content, days and days of such interactions

make much sense to many teachers (Alvermann & Hayes,

1989; Alvermann, O’Brien, & Dillon, 1990). Such teaching,

however, has many downsides; one is that lower-level and lit-

eral questions are more likely than higher-level questions.

Moreover, this approach to teaching and learning is very pas-

sive, with the discussions often boring and only one student

at a time interacting with the teacher (Bowers & Flinders,

1990, chap. 5; Cazden, 1988, chap. 3); this is direct transmis-

sion teaching, in which the teacher decides what will be dis-

cussed and learned.

Mehan (1979) documented that direct transmission of in-

formation in school is more the norm than the exception. Much

of teaching involves a teacher’s explaining, demonstrating,

and asking questions. The explanations and demonstra-

tions tend to come first, followed by the teacher-led IREs,

sometimes followed by more teacher explanation and de-

monstration if students struggle with the content. Such direct

instruction of information is defensible in that there is sub-

stantial evidence that direct transmission of information from

teachers to students produces student learning (Brophy &

Good, 1986; Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986).

Collapsing across the process-product studies (i.e., investi-

gations correlating teaching process differences with varia-

tions in student achievement), the following conclusions about

effective direct instruction emerged (see Brophy & Good,

1986, for a review, with many of the conclusions that follow

generated by those authors; also see Rosenshine & Stevens,

1986):

• In general, the more academically focused the classroom,

the greater the learning—that is, the greater the proportion

of class time spent on academics, the greater the learning.

The less time spent on low-level management of the class

(e.g., checking attendance, discipline), the greater the

learning. The tasks assigned should neither be too hard, nor

too easy, but rather challenging enough to require the stu-

dents to engage in them—challenging enough so that effort

produces success. The more time the teacher directly

teaches, the greater the learning.

• Achievement increases to the extent that teachers struc-

ture learning. This can be done through provision of ad-

vance organizers, outlines, and summaries.

• Practicing newly-taught skills to the point of mastery,

with the teacher providing support as needed, improves

achievement.

• Teacher questioning improves student learning (Redfield &

Rousseau, 1981). It helps when the teacher’s questions are

clear and when the teacher permits the student time to for-

mulate answers (i.e., the teacher uses wait time). Question-

ing as part of guided practice permits the teacher to check

understanding of concepts being practiced (e.g., a math

skill). Such checking of understanding promotes student

learning.

• Feedback improves achievement—that is, it helps stu-

dents to know when they are correct. Praise should make

clear what the student did well, providing information

about the value of the student’s accomplishment. It should

emphasize that the student’s success was due to effort

expended (Brophy, 1981).

• Seatwork and homework should be engaging rather than

busywork. The teacher should monitor whether and how

well such work was completed.

• Having students work together cooperatively during seat-

work usually improves achievement. 

• Regular review of material improves achievement. 

The direct transmission approach focuses on teaching

behaviors—teacher explanations, questioning, feedback to

students, and assignments. The more teacher behaviors stim-

ulate students to attend to things academic—especially things

academic that are within the student’s grasp (i.e., neither too

easy nor too difficult)—the greater the achievement is; posi-

tive associations have been found between direct teaching

behaviors and student achievement, with a great strength of

Classroom Teaching Processes and Their Effects on Achievement

155

the direct transmission approach being an impressive data-

base of support. 

Constructivist Teaching

In contrast to direct transmission is the constructivist ap-

proach to teaching and learning. An extreme version is dis-

covery learning (Ausubel, 1961; Wittrock, 1966), which

entails placing children in environments and situations that

are rich in discovery opportunities—that is, rather than ex-

plaining to students what they should do, they are left to dis-

cover both what to do and how to do it, consistent with

theories such as Piaget’s that assert learning is best and most

complete (i.e., understanding is most certain) when children

discover concepts for themselves (Brainerd, 1978; Piaget,

1970). Teacher input often boils down to answering questions

that students might pose as they attempt to do a task. 

To be certain, students sometimes can make powerful dis-

coveries, for instance, of strategies during problem solving

(e.g., Groen & Resnick, 1977; Svenson & Hedonborg, 1979;

Woods, Resnick, & Groen, 1975). That said, many times stu-

dents fail when left to discover how to carry out an academic

task. Worse is that sometimes they make errant discoveries;

for example, they may discover weak strategies for solving a

problem or strategies that are just plain wrong (Shulman &

Keislar, 1966; Wittrock, 1966)! For example, when students

are left to discover how to subtract on their own, there are

hundreds of errant approaches that they can and do invent

(Valheln, 1990). 

Short of pure discovery, however, is guided discovery,

which involves the teacher posing questions to students as

they attempt a task. The questions are intended to lead stu-

dents to notice ways that a task could be approached—that

is, the questions provide hints about the concepts the child is

to discover, but the child has to make substantial effort to

figure out the situation compared to when a teacher directly

teaches how to do a task. In recent years, such guided discov-

ery teaching has come to be known as scaffolding (Wood,

Bruner, & Ross, 1976)—Like the scaffolding of a building,

the teacher provides support when needed, with the scaffold-

ing reduced as the child’s mind, which is under construction,

is increasingly able to handle the task. The teacher provides

enough support (hints and prompts) for the child to continue to

make progress understanding a situation but does not provide

the student with answers or complete explanations about how

to find answers. Such guided discovery takes more time than

more direct teaching, however. Moreover, it requires teachers

who know the concepts being taught so well that they can

make up questions in response to student attempts and errors

as they attempt tasks (Collins & Stevens, 1982).

Many science educators favor guided discovery. Tobin

and Fraser (1990) documented that effective construc-

tivist science teachers monitor their students well as they at-

tempt academic tasks, quickly intervening with questions

and prompts when students get off task. Excellent construc-

tivist science teachers continue lessons until they are certain

their students understand what is being taught. The goal of

constructivist teaching is student understanding, not simply

the student’s getting through the task or getting a correct an-

swer. Constructivist science educators require students to

explain their thinking, and they work with students until the

students do understand. In good science classes, all students

are required to be active, for example, attempting to generate

a solution to a problem and discuss alternative problem

solutions with one another (Champagne & Bunce, 1991)—

that is, students do not discover alone but work together to

discover (e.g., doing chemistry or math problems together).

Students learn how to think together (e.g., Newman, Griffin,

& Cole, 1989), which mirrors much of the problem solving

that occurs in the real world (e.g., problem solving by

committees, which is the typical approach to many important

problems in adult life).

Although guided discovery more certainly leads to learn-

ing than pure discovery, there is a cost. The students do ex-

plore less than they do during pure discovery. They tend to

wait for teacher’s guiding questions and prompts rather than

explore the problem or topic on their own (Hogan, Nastasi, &

Pressley, 1999). Even so, when students in Hogan et al.’s

(1999) study were left on their own to solve a science prob-

lem through group discovery, they joked around more and

often were distracted compared to when a teacher scaffolded

their interactions; this finding is consistent with similar ob-

servations in other studies of students in discovery learning

situations (e.g., Basili & Sanford, 1991; Bennett & Dunne,

1991; Roth & Roychoudhury, 1992). Bickering also is com-

mon during pure discovery and student small-group problem

solving (e.g., Nastasi, Braunhardt, Young, & Margiano-

Lyons, 1993). Frequently, only a subset of the students do

most of the work and thinking during such interactions (e.g.,

Basili & Sanford, 1991; Gayford, 1989; Richmond & Striley,

1996). Communications between discovering learners are

often unclear; conclusions are incomplete and sometimes il-

logical (e.g., Bennett & Dunne, 1991; Eichinger, Anderson,

Palincsar, & David, 1991). Despite the problems with dis-

covery and guided discovery approaches, supporters of these

approaches are adamant that it is good for children’s cogni-

tive development to struggle to discover (e.g., Ferreiro, 1985;

Petitto, 1985; Pontecorvo & Zucchermaglio, 1990) because

conceptual disagreements between students can lead to much

hard thinking by the students.

156

Teaching Processes in Elementary and Secondary Education

The case in favor of guided discovery has grown stronger in

recent years, with many demonstrations that good teachers can

scaffold students as they work on difficult academic tasks

(Hogan & Pressley, 1997b), including learning to recognize

words (e.g., Gaskins et al., 1997), use comprehension strate-

gies to understand texts (e.g., Pressley, El-Dinary, et al., 1992),

solve math problems (e.g., Lepper, Drake, & O’Donnell-

Johnson, 1997), and figure out scientific concepts (Hogan &

Pressley, 1997a). Student errors can be revealing about

what students do not understand and be used by a teacher to

shape questions and comments that cause students to think

hard about misconceptions and sometimes come to better

conceptions.

Direct Transmission Versus Constructivist Approaches

to Teaching

Kohlberg and Mayer (1972) starkly contrasted direct trans-

mission and constructivist views of instruction. Both require

teachers to do more than do methods favored by romantic

views of development and schooling inspired by Rousseau’s

(1979) Emile. Rousseau made the case there that education at

its best left the child alone to explore the world. Perhaps the

most famous school in modern times conceptualized along

such romantic lines was A. S. Neill’s (1960) Summerhill.

Learning proved to be anything but certain at Summerhill,

however (Hart, 1970; Hemmings, 1973; Popenoe, 1970;

Snitzer, 1964). It is notable that there have been no serious,

large-scale attempts to implement romantic education since

Summerhill—reflecting (at least in part) an awareness grow-

ing out of that experience that, when Mother Nature is left in

charge, children’s intellectual development is not as certainly

upward as Rousseau proposed.

Kohlberg and Mayer (1972) were very critical of trans-

mission approaches, focusing on the behavioral underpin-

nings, which did not put any value on understanding—only

on observable performances. Kohlberg and Mayer, who

adopted a Piagetian perspective, believed that the centerpiece

of education should put the child in situations that are just a

bit perplexing to the child and just a bit beyond the child’s

current understanding. Hence, the child who has single-digit

subtraction mastered is ready to try double-digit subtraction.

The good teacher provides such a child with some double-

digit subtraction problems and perhaps hints about how

double-digit subtraction is like single-digit subtraction

but does not teach the child how to do double-digit subtrac-

tion in a step-by-step fashion. 

Constructivist-oriented educators in the Kohlberg tradition

were particularly interested in how to increase students’ abil-

ity to reason about difficult social and moral problems. Their

hypothesis was that letting children discuss such problems to

come up with solutions was the route to cognitive growth.

During such discussions, many challenges would stimulate

the participants to think hard about social and moral dilemma

situations, with the result that students would develop and in-

ternalize more sophisticated reasoning skills. The teacher

should play the role of one of the participants in the conversa-

tion, gently nudging the participants to think about some

possibilities not yet offered in the conversation (e.g., What

about——?). In fact, when students have opportunities to par-

ticipate in such discussions about moral dilemmas, their social

and moral reasoning skills do improve—consistent with

Kohlberg’s theory—although the effects are more pronounced

among secondary than among elementary students (Enright,

Lapsley, & Levy, 1983).

Since Kohlberg and Mayer (1972), the direct transmission

versus constructivist debate has played out many times in

American education. For example, in recent years, there has

been a huge debate about how to teach beginning reading—one

side favors direct instruction of word recognition competen-

cies (i.e., phonics), and the other favors an approach known as

whole language, which includes learning to recognize words

through discovery as children experience great children’s liter-

ature and write their own compositions (Pressley, 1998; see

chapter by Pressley on literacy in this volume). Consistent with

how those favoring direct transmission have made their case in

the past, those favoring direct teaching of reading have

amassed a great deal of scientific evidence that direct teaching

of phonics and related skills produces more certain word recog-

nition than less direct teaching. The National Reading Panel

(2000) report was particularly systematic in reviewing all of the

evidence favoring such a direct instruction perspective. Con-

sistent with traditional constructivist arguments, whole lan-

guage proponents feel that direct teaching of word recognition

does not result in a complete understanding of reading; they

have produced an impressive array of evidence that children’s

understandings are more developed in whole language con-

texts (e.g., Dahl & Freppon, 1995; Graham & Harris, 1994;

Morrow, 1990, 1991; Neuman & Roskos, 1990). For ex-

ample, experiences with literature increase children’s under-

standing of the structure of stories (e.g., Feitelson, Kita, &

Goldstein, 1986; Morrow, 1992; Rosenhouse, Feitelson,

Kita, & Goldstein, 1997). Children’s comprehension of ideas

expressed in text increase when they have conversations about

literature with peers and teachers (Van den Branden, 2000).

Direct Transmission and Constructivism

Kohlberg and Mayer (1972) believed that if students were

taught, they could not then discover. Another possibility,

Motivational Processes

157

however, does exist. Kohlberg and Mayer (1972) are correct

in their assertion that when a teacher teaches directly (i.e., ex-

plains a concept), understanding is incomplete. Even so, un-

derstanding is complete enough so that the student can at least

begin to apply the new knowledge or use the new skill that

was just explained. To do so correctly, however, might re-

quire some help from the teacher (i.e., scaffolding), with un-

derstanding of the new idea or procedure increasing as the

student, in fact, does use it—that is, by attempting to use what

has been taught directly, the learner constructs a much more

complete understanding. That direct transmission and con-

structivism are not completely incompatible has stimulated

new thinking about how teaching can be done better.

For example, what has emerged in the beginning reading

debate is a middle position calling for instructional balance of

direct teaching of skills and whole language experiences (i.e.,

reading of literature, composition; see Pressley, 1998; also

see chapter by Pressley in this volume). Advocates for bal-

anced literacy instruction make the reasonable assumptions

that learning how to sound out words is more certain if taught

directly and that reading of real literature provides especially

rich practice of word recognition. Writing also provides

much opportunity to explore and experiment with words,

with the knowledge of letter-sound combinations tried out

and stretched in many ways as children try to figure out how

to spell the words they want to put in their stories.

That direct transmission and constructivist literacy experi-

ences can be coordinated was documented explicitly by

Pressley, El-Dinary, et al. (1992) in their work on the teach-

ing of comprehension strategies to elementary students. The

teachers they studied first explained and modeled a small

repertoire of comprehension strategies to their students, in-

cluding predicting based on prior knowledge, asking ques-

tions during reading, constructing mental images during

reading, seeking clarification when confused, and summariz-

ing. Then, over a long period of time, the teachers scaffolded

students’ use of the strategies as they read in small reading

groups. Brown, Pressley, Van Meter, and Schuder (1996)

demonstrated that a year of such scaffolded practice at the

second-grade level resulted in more active reading and

greater comprehension of what was read. Collins (1991) and

Anderson and Roit (1993) produced comparable outcomes

in the later elementary grades and at the middle school level,

respectively.

Learning of comprehension strategies as conceived by

Pressley, El-Dinary, et al. (1992) was highly constructivist

(Harris & Pressley, 1991; Pressley, Harris, & Marks, 1992).

The students did not apply the strategies mechanically;

rather, they worked at flexibly adjusting the strategies relative

to the demands of reading tasks. Students discussed among

themselves their strategy attempts and alternative understand-

ings of texts (e.g., how their summaries of a text differed).

Teachers did not direct students to use particular strategies as

they read text, but rather provided general prompts to be ac-

tive and to experiment (e.g., What might you do if you’re not

sure you understand?). They also encouraged students to use

what they were learning during reading in class across the day

(e.g., When you are reading for social studies, try some of the

strategies.).

As we offer these examples from reading that represent a

balancing of direct instruction and constructivist experiences,

we are also reminded that direct transmission versus con-

structivist battles continue to be fought. A prominent one is in

mathematics education, with the National Council of Teach-

ers of Mathematics (2000) arguing strongly for constructivist

mathematics teaching and many traditionalists favoring di-

rect teaching of skills (e.g., Dixon, Carnine, Lee, Wallin, &

Chard, 1998). 

Summary

Although both direct instruction and constructivist advo-

cates can point to research supporting their favored teaching

mechanisms, the alternative that enjoys increasing support is

instruction that involves both direct transmission and con-

structivist elements. The invention of such teaching does in-

spire some extreme advocates both of direct instruction and

of constructivist teaching to assert their positions even more

adamantly, resulting in conflicting and sometimes confusing

advice presented to teachers. Such recommendations must be

sorted out in the teacher’s own mind, which was one motiva-

tion for researchers interested in teaching processes to study

teacher thinking.