Volume 8, number 2 National Teaching and Learning Forum contained two articles that I found particularly striking. The first piece "Pygmalion in the Classroom" by James Rhem, revisited the "Pygmalion" research and concluded that the effects of teacher expectations on student performance were significant both at the k-12 level and in higher education. However, this article did not advance a plan of action regarding professors' ability to monitor and adjust their expectations. The second article, "Visiting as a Student" by Steve Griniski talked about college teachers sitting in on other instructors' classes and the advantages inherent for both parties in that practice. I would like to put forward an idea that is consistent with and builds upon both these pieces. Simply put, college teachers can use research-supported practices that will aid the achievements of all their students. Conjointly, for these practices to become a natural, almost unconscious part of their behaviors, college teachers need to create cohort groups whose members will aid each other in using these practices.

What exactly are these practices? For the most part, I am adapting a list of practices from a program called TESA (Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement). This program was devised by the professional fraternity Phi Delta Kappa, and I have received training in these practices (introductory training in 1989 and advanced training in 1995). These practices are grouped in three different strands with five behaviors in each strand. Strand one--response opportunities--consists of: equitable distribution of response opportunities (typically questions), individual help, simple latency (the time a discussion leader uses between asking a question and calling on a responder, probing a responder, and asking higher level questions. Strand two--feedback--consists of: the affirmation or correction of a students' performance, encouragement or praise of a performance, targeted encouragement (providing reasons why a performance deserves encouragement), active listening, and accepting feelings or opinions of a student. Strand three--personal regard--consists of: proximity, courtesy, demonstrations of personal interest, touching, and desisting (disciplining). I believe that some of these performances are more important or appropriate for higher education, and thus I have adapted the TESA program to one that I will refer to as TEE--Teaching Effectively and Equitably.

The key to using these performances is to be equitable in their administration. The reader is likely aware of research that showing that teachers often treat their students differently based on the teacher's perceptions--oftentimes unconscious--the student's academic ability, gender, or ethnicity. Teachers trained in TESA learn to be systematically equitable in the way they distribute response opportunities, who they probe, who they correct, and with whom they show personal regard, to mention a few of the performances. Research on the k--12 level demonstrates that students in such classes perform better overall, the weaker students because they are being more involved in the class and the stronger because the teacher is attending more to the use of such commonsensical but valuable practices. This is where the cohort group comes in. In simplest terms, these cohorts carry out a "counting" sort of observation where they identify four to six students, then count the number of TESA practices directed toward these target students. In simplest terms, the more even the distribution of these performances are in terms of the target students, the more effective the teacher is being. This is admittedly a simple, almost mechanistic, way of looking at teaching, but it provides a basis of understanding of class dynamics on which an instructor can build. Also, serving as the observer makes one keenly aware of these performances and the effect they have on learners.

TESA has been well known in the k-12 arena for about 20 years, and the effectiveness of these practices on that level has been well documented. Why TESA has not surfaced more at the collegiate level seems a mystery to me. An ERIC search revealed only one document aimed at practitioners in high education (Clarken, 1995). However, given the strength of the record regarding TESA's ability to facilitate higher teacher expectations and more effective teaching practices, I believe that higher education could well benefit from an awareness of effective TESA practices and cohort groups.

Teachers at the k-12 level have been using TESA for a long time, and reports of its success are consistent. The Los Angeles school district requires all its teachers to be trained in TESA, and the state of New York requires the same. However, I believe that the existent TESA model is a bit cumbersome, and should be streamlined and modified, especially for higher ed. folks. I reach this conclusion based on conversations with teachers who have been trained in TESA and in my work with pre-service educators. However, the use of cohort groups is, I believe, central to effective TESA teaching, and the cohort group process you will read about later is more streamlined and elaborate than that devised as part of TESA. The key to implementing these practices is for them to become part of ones natural, almost instinctive teaching practices, and while they seem commonsensical, teachers practice them more rarely than they might believe. Moreover, when teachers do practice them, they have a strong tendency to direct them toward the students they perceive as more able, males and Caucasians. First, I will establish that equity is central to effective teaching. Second, I will develop the TEE practices I adapted from TESA and show how they are operational in the classroom. Last, I will describe how teaching cohort can capitalize upon its membership to make these practices a natural part of each others teaching style, as well as putting more emphasis on the idea of professor-as-teacher, an emphasis I believe may be sadly lacking at many institutions of higher learning.

It stands to reason that treating all students equitably in terms of teacher attention and behavior would increase the academic achievement of ones students in general and improve classroom climate; this reasoning is supported by a plethora of research. I will cite only a small minority of this research. Good (1981 and 1984) clearly establishes the impact of teacher expectations. Cooper and Tom (1984) synthesize a number of studies aimed at teacher expectations based on their perceptions of given students' academic strength or weakness and confirm the idea that students are cognizant of teacher expectations and behave accordingly (the Pygmalion effect). Brandt (1982) confirms these findings in a conversation with renown educational researcher Ronald Edmonds. Certainly, such findings stand the test of time as shown by de Groat and Thompson (1949). The research also confirms a commonly held view that male students get more attention than female students, regardless of the teacher's gender (Cooper, 1987; Jones, 1989; Vandell, 1989). Racial/ethnic attributes in students are also linked to differentiated teacher expectations (Cecil, 1988; Dornbusch, Massey, and Scott, 1975; Dusek and Joseph, 1983). To summarize this research in broad strokes, the Pygmalion effect is widespread and, ironically, is communicated to students in ways that would otherwise be effective teaching practices, if only carried out equity.

The following descriptions of teaching practices will be couched in a traditional lecture-discussion model of teaching. This does not mean that I present this practice as being the most effective, but I do believe it is a commonly used mode of instruction. Secondly, these practices are not limited to lecture-discussion; they are widely used in more inquiry and experientially based instruction,

Equal Distribution of Response Opportunities. Simply put, this is directing questions toward all students, not just the ones who volunteer or those who the professor feels most comfortable in querying. It is my observation that teachers at all levels have a knee-jerk reaction to call on a student who raises his or her hand. This is a habit that can be un-learned, and it is a habit one is wise to address with ones students. I generally use the initial meeting of a course with a comment that goes something like this: "I want to interact with everyone in this class, not just those who are the most eager. This means that I will be calling on everyone, not just those of you who raise your hands or volunteer comments. I promise not to attempt to embarrass you or put you down if I call on you and you are reluctant to respond. However, I reserve the right to help you respond by following up on my initial question with some leading comments. You'll find my behavior a little unusual, but you'll get used to it. And we'll all benefit from it." It has been my experience that the students do get used to it and that we do benefit from this practice. Perhaps twice in the ten years I have implemented TESA I have had a student approach me and ask that I not call on them. I then have a private conversation with that student and basically reiterate what I said just above. If the student is adamant in this request (I remember one student as being such.), I honor it. And I definitely believe my students are more consistently alert to my questions and comments when I direct them equitably.

Delving, Probing, and Correcting. Certainly we all hope to be adroit enough to follow up a question that confounds our students with one that is simpler to respond to, or, if a student has responded and we want them to expand upon their idea, we hope to use Socratic questioning or something closely akin. Sometimes a student response is just off the mark, and we need to gently let the student know that she or he is going down a fruitless direction. However, as the research cited earlier has established, we are not equitable in these practices. It has been my observation in working with other teachers and analyzing my own teaching that this is particularly true when a teacher is working with a student perceived as less able, or a female. For a number of reasons, we feel that we do not want to embarrass the student in question, but if it is a more able student or a male, we are more prone to pursue our questioning or correct a response. To be equitable, a teacher needs to be conscious of this tendency and monitor his or her behavior. This does not mean that all initial questions and therefore their subsequent follow-ups are equally suited for all our students. One would be wise to address simpler questions to less able students, although the issue of gender should have nothing to do with the difficulty of the question. And this does not mean that higher-level questions should be reserved for the students we perceive as the brightest. anything but, as the next practice will address.

Higher-level Questioning. I will not discuss the issue of higher level questioning in detail, but I will define higher-level questioning as those inquiries which ask the student to go beyond factual information that she or has (or should have) read, seen, heard, or whatever as part of the preparation for a given class session. For example, a history teacher might ask her or his students, "Why did public opinion react so strongly to the Watergate cover-up?" This would be a lower-level question if an appropriate response were to be found in the assigned reading. However, were the same question to be asked and the answer had to be pieced together from several sections of the reading and/or other sources of information and requiring the students' judgment, it would be a higher-level question. One might ask, "How do you explain the public's differing reactions to the Watergate cover-up and the Lewinski cover-up?" assuming an appropriate response was not included in one piece is the preparatory materials. We tend to reserve such questions for the students we perceive as most able, and ask comprehension level questions of the less able. I propose that we direct higher-level questions, especially open-ended ones where a variety of responses can have some validity, to students we perceive as less able. For example, the earlier illustration might be slightly re-phrased in this manner: "What do you think of Clinton and the way the American public viewed the Lewinski cover-up?" and then call on a less able student. After the student's initial response, one might probe and delve in a manner that asked the student to compare his or her response with the public's reaction to Watergate. It is obvious that one must be careful not to be too apparent in the differing levels of difficulty directed at students of differing abilities lest the students see through this strategy.

Latency. Latency, or "wait time" as it is also known is simply this: a more than "normal" pause between exchanges. The more common type of latency (type one) occurs when a teacher asks a question and chooses a respondent. While research varies regarding the exact length of time a teacher should use, we know that most teachers practice very little latency, typically less than or about one second. I advocate that a teacher should wait at least three seconds when asking a question, especially a higher level question. Initially, this is very difficult. As a prompt for latency, I identify a part of the physical landscape, a window or a clock if such is positioned in the back of the classroom. After I ask a question I look to this feature and focus my attention on it. While this is initially disconcerting to my students who expect me to be scanning their ranks, it is effective in reminding me to practice latency. It also serves to remind me to be equitable in my selection of respondents as well as lessening my attention to the obvious volunteers, students who have raised their hands or verbalized a response.

The second type of latency involves the pause in discussion after a student has responded. This is referred to as "type two" latency. If an instructor gets in the habit of letting a student's comments hang in the air for two or three seconds, this sends a signal to all the students that this response is worth reflecting upon and evaluating. It has been my observation that, when type two latency is used, students are more attentive to their peers' ideas because the focus is taken away from the instructor. Again, this seems slightly bizarre when one first begins to practice it, but it does create a more thoughtful and honoring classroom climate. It also helps me in formulating my response to student input.

(In a later section I will discuss how latency and these other practices are "counted." Suffice it to say at this point that I count latency differently than the other practices delineated here, and in a manner that differs from the original TESA model.)

Encouragement. The original TESA program uses the term "praise" in lieu of my terminology, but I prefer "encouragement" because it connotes a support of student ideas and work, rather than a Pavlovian reward of same. We are more curt in our encouragement of student responses, according to some of the research mentioned earlier as well as comments by my instructors in my advanced TESA preparation. We are more prone to simply mumble "uh huh" when a student of perceived lesser ability responds in an acceptable fashion, but when one of "favorites" responds in a similar fashion we are more likely to be more emphatic, e.g. "You got it!" However, I believe that a still better practice is that of precise encouragement, the next practice to be delineated.

Precise Encouragement. Precise encouragement is effective because it suggests why or how the student response has merit. It also fits neatly within the practice of delving and probing. Let me illustrate. Returning to our discussion of presidential cover-ups and the public's reaction, a student might have responded in this fashion: "I think that the American people were more forgiving of the Lewinski deal because we tend to view sex as a more private issue than we would a President directing operatives of his political party to tamper with the other party's political strategies." The instructor, if using precise encouragement, might respond in this fashion (after using a few seconds of type two latency of course), "I think you've got a real good point in distinguishing between arenas of behavior based on their "publicness." However, can we explain the whole of this difference based only on this distinction?" If the student seemed perplexed, one might delve by saying, "Besides the issue of publicness, what other differing circumstances might factor in here? What about the state of the economies between these two eras?" I will freely admit that precise encouragement is more difficult and requires more cognitive dexterity than some of the other practices I have discussed, but when done properly, it contributes strongly to a thoughtful and caring classroom climate. As always, a key concern is equity. Are we using this sort of encouragement with students at all levels?

Proximity. It seems obvious that students that are located nearer the instructor will be more involved in the discussion and connected to the instructor than students more distantly located. How can an instructor makes this proximity more equitable? First, the instructor needs to monitor her comfort level with students. Does the instructor find herself standing near the students "like her" in terms of some attribute: gender, race, intellectual interests, and so on. Secondly, how does the instructor use the room. If she is tied to the lectern, it is likely that she will have more proximity with those students immediately before her. Thus, to be more equitable and effective in connecting with her students the instructor should move purposeful about the room, space permitting. I use group work extensively in my courses, and while I use student cohort groups to some degree, I make sure that I ask these cohort groups to sit in different parts of the room on different days. I also use randomly assigned groups quite often, and this leads students to be grouped about the classroom in varying patterns. After group work, the groups report out on their discussion. Because their seating arrangements have been varied, this allows different students to be proximus to me on different days, even if I do get caught up in the center of the room. Also, I find it helpful to stand on the opposite side of the room from the group reporting out. This causes the group to speak to the whole room, not just me, and is more likely to encourage student to student discussion across groups. This practice of physically shifting the students with regularity also reduces the effect of the "teacher's 'T,'" a phenomenon that exists because the instructor is more likely to look at and address those students immediately before her (the first row if students are seated in that manner) and the students down the middle of the room, assuming that the instructor has positioned herself in the front center of the room. It has been my observation that I do tend to gravitate to front center of the room during sessions without group work; by catching myself at this, I move about more freely.

What exactly constitutes proximity? TESA suggests that proximity is operationally defined at being within three feet or arm's length of a student. I prefer to extend this range to about five or six feet, and I imagine this distance to be the space that would allow the student and I to touch hands, were we to extend an arm to each other. This seems a more appropriate distance for the collegiate classroom where we spend less time working with our students on projects and writing assignments in-class and spend more time talking with our students about such projects, assignments, and ideas central to the course we are teaching.

Individual Help. If you asked most k-12 teachers, they would tell you that the large majority of the time they spend assisting students with seatwork and so on is devoted to their less able students. However, research has demonstrated that this is not the case. It has been my observation that there are obviously needy students who might capture their teacher's attention, but if the student is not demonstrably needy, the teacher tends to direct his attention to either needy students or students he teacher perceives to be particularly engaged in the task at hand. While opportunities for individual helping probably exist to a lesser degree at the collegiate level (labs being an exception), there are still occasions when college instructors, especially those of a constructivist orientation, have students involved in individual or group projects while in class. If their tendency is the same as k-12 teachers, they are likely not be equitable in their attention without assistance. This assistance can be obtained by self-monitoring and via the cohort groups I will explain later. I also believe that the higher up students go in their educational careers, the less likely they are to actively demonstrate confusion and neediness of the instructor's attention. Thus, learning to be equitable in individual helping is of great importance to collegiate instructors.

Attentive Listening. Attentive listening (TESA uses the term active listening), to define it operationally, is the use of ones body to demonstrate that one is attending to a student's comments, questions, or concerns. It is all too easy for an instructor, his head swimming with the flow of conversation and his instructional objectives, to devote less than his full attention to a student, even though the instructor wants nothing more than an interactive, conversational classroom climate. It is also human nature to tend to devote more of this sort of attention to students one perceives as being particularly able. As with the rest of the practices I have described, the goal of the effective and equitable instructor is to be consistent with active listening. Again, self-monitoring and cohort groups are central to improvement in this regard.

Courtesy and Personal Interest. Some of us are very prone to share personal comments and conversations with students while others of us take a more aloof stance. The key here, as earlier, is to be equitable in this regard: either spread such attention around to all ones students in a class on an equally occasional basis, or refrain from it altogether. In small schools, such as the one where I teach, it is easy to be inequitable. An athlete walks in with a letter jacket on, and I want to ask her about the volleyball game the previous night. A student sits in the front row wearing a T-short flaunting a facsimile of an M.C. Escher print, and I tend to strike up a conversation about the artist. Obviously, these practices can be counter-productive during actual instructional time, but I find such relationship-building worthwhile if carried out in the minutes before or after the actual session. The key is to look for something to comment on with all students, or, if students initiate such conversations, not to spend too much time being chatted up by a minority of the class.

The TEE cohort group exist so that its members can visit each other's classes and make observation of classroom instruction and interaction. For the purposes of TEE cohort groups, the content explored in the observed instruction is incidental to the process of the group. This does not mean, of course, that content is incidental, but it does allow instructors of different academic disciplines to joint together in one cohort group.

A cohort group can be as small as two members, but it has been my experience that three or four is a better number. The reason for this larger number is largely incidental to actual TEE practices; instead observing a larger number of ones colleagues allows one to pick up on and borrow more teaching techniques that one would observe were one only to visit one other instructor's classroom.

How does an actual TEE observation work? One instructor (the observer) locates himself in a point in the classroom where he has a pretty good view of the students. That observer would complete the top portion of the TEE Observation Form. Once classroom interaction begins, the observer counts the identified practices. In the case of latency, the observer simply counts the number of times the teaching instructor practiced type one and type two latency. For all the other practices, the observer counts these practices as they are directed to the four to six "target" students as identified on the top part of the form. These practices are coded to the target students at which they are directed. For example, each time the teaching instructor directed a question or comment to a target student, the observer would put a tally mark in that student's column, let us say student "A" in this case, in the row labeled "Equal Distribution of Response Opportunities." The observer would continue this practice throughout the lesson. It is not absolutely necessary that the observer stay for an entire lesson, but I would recommend that the observer stay in the classroom at least thirty minutes, and that he arrive early enough to complete the top part of the form before much classroom interaction begins.

After the observation, the teaching instructor and the observer meet. The observer shares her observations by showing the teaching instructor the completed form. They then dialogue about the findings, and the observer can, but does not necessarily have to, cite some observations as a partial basis for the findings. Typically, other conversations regarding the lesson come up, and a more general discussion of teaching ensues. It has been my experience that the teaching instructor is quite surprised by the degree to which he has been inequitable in these practices and limited in his ability to practice latency.

The key for these cohort groups to work effectively is twofold. First, the observations and conversations must occur with some frequency, especially in the beginning stages of this development. As mentioned earlier, the key to being effective in the use of such practices is for them to become almost automatic. We do not want our facilitation of content to be compromised by our attention to technique. Thus, the cohort groups need to meet often enough to reinforce these skills. Second, the members of the cohort must receive some instruction in TEE practices. This article would serve well as a springboard for that instruction.

It has been my experience that when beginning this process, the cohort members need to become comfortable with the observation form and its use in scoring. To this end they can, as a group, visit another instructor's classroom, identify the same students, observe and score the same lesson, then compare their results. In addition to clearing up any misunderstandings they might have about the TEE practices, this gives them needed practice in working with the observation form. To this end, beginning observers might limit their counting to less than the ten practices. They might, for example, agree to score only the first five practices for one practice session, then the other five for another lesson. I also sometimes use video tapes of instruction for training purposes. This allows greater flexibility because one can stop the tape and discuss what has been observed, and, if the tape is of ones own teaching, it can be a humbling and amusing experience.

As Griniski pointed out in "Visiting as a Student," the simple process of closely watching someone else teach can have a powerful effect on the observer. He finds himself attending to some of the nuances of instruction and thus, in theory at least, augmenting his use of same in his own instruction. While I hardly believe that TEE is a comprehensive approach to observing instruction and improving ones own and ones colleague's, I do believe it is a methodical one and a great starting point for reflection and improvement. Furthermore, the practices identified in TEE have a strong track record in keeping students engaged, communicating instructor expectations, and thus helping students--all students--learn.

Works Cited

Brandt, Ron. 1982. "On School Improvement: A Conversation with Ronald Edmonds." Educational Leadership 40(December): 12-15. As cited in Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement TESA Coordinator Manual. 1995. Phi Delta Kappa: Bloomington, Indiana.

Cecil, Nancy Lee. 1988. "Black Dialect and Academic Success: A Study of Teacher Expectations." Reading Improvement 25: 34-38. As cited in Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement TESA Coordinator Manual. 1995. Phi Delta Kappa: Bloomington, Indiana.

Clarken, Rodney H. 1995. "Toward bias-free Teaching: Gender Equity in the Classroom." Paper presented at the United Nations Non-Governmental Forum on Women. Bejing, China. August 31--September 8.

Cooper, Harris M., and David Y. Tom. 1984. "Teacher Expectation Research: A Review with Implications for Classroom Instruction." Elementary School Journal 85(September): 77-89. As cited in Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement TESA Coordinator Manual. 1995. Phi Delta Kappa: Bloomington, Indiana.

Cooper, Pamela J. 1987. In or Out of the Pumpkin Shell? Sex Role Differentiation in Classroom Instruction Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication association, Boston, November 5-8.

de Groat, Albert F. and George G. Thompson. 1949. "A Study of the Distribution of Teacher Approval and Disapproval Among Sixth-Grade Pupils. The Journal of Experimental Education 18(September): 57-75. As cited in Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement TESA Coordinator Manual. 1995. Phi Delta Kappa: Bloomington, Indiana.

Dornbusch, S., G. Massey, and M. Scott. 1975. "Racism without Racists: Institutional racism in the Urban schools." Publications Office, Stanford Center for R and D in teaching, Stanford University. As cited in Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement TESA Coordinator Manual. 1995. Phi Delta Kappa: Bloomington, Indiana.

Dusek, Jerome B. and Gail Joseph. 1983. "The Bases of Teacher Expectancies: a Meta-Analysis." The Journal of Educational Psychology 75(3): 327-46. As cited in Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement TESA Coordinator Manual. 1995. Phi Delta Kappa: Bloomington, Indiana.

Good, Thomas L. 1981. "Teacher Expectations and Student Perceptions: A Decade of Research. Educational Leadership 38(5): 415--21. As cited in Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement TESA Coordinator Manual. 1995. Phi Delta Kappa: Bloomington, Indiana.

--------. 1987. "Two Decades of Research on Teacher Expectations: Findings and Future Directions." The Journal of teacher Education (July-August). As cited in Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement TESA Coordinator Manual. 1995. Phi Delta Kappa: Bloomington, Indiana.

Grineski, Steve. 1999. "Visiting as a Student." National Teaching and Learning Forum 8(2): 7-10.

Jones, M. Gail. 1989. "Gender Issues in Teacher Education." Journal of Teacher Education 40(January-February): 33-38.

Rhem, James. 1999. "Pygmalion in the Classroom." National Teaching and Learning Forum 8(2): 1-4.

Vandell, Kathy. 1989. Equitable Treatment of Girls and Boys in the Classroom. Washington D.C.: American Association of University Women. As cited in Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement TESA Coordinator Manual. 1995. Phi Delta Kappa: Bloomington, Indiana.