Despite the perceived success of STC®, the teachers and principal wanted to know how well the process was working and why. This curiosity fit well with a goal for school improvement they had set the previous year: to study classroom dynamics and to understand how to develop best-teaching practices across the curriculum. We invited a doctoral student studying special education from a nearby university to conduct an authentic classroom research project, and the quest to study the implementation of an STC® unit was initiated.

Two teachers volunteered to combine their classes of middle school boys to form the study’s sample group. The class met for 2 weeks before the STC® unit was launched, and it was quickly evident that this group of 8 middle school boys would test the mettle of the best-teaching practices! Overall, the boys’ behaviors were characterized by frequent fighting and swearing, verbal aggression, conflict with authority, and a history of multiple school failures. Given these challenges, we decided that the unit, Electric Circuits, might appeal to this group because it provides a number of engaging hands-on activities.

In order to study student engagement during the teaching of the STC® unit, we divided the lessons into different categories so that we could judge student responses in each of the following: writing, talking with peers (about the lesson), talking with teacher (about the lesson), and manipulating materials (hands-on activities).

Every 2 minutes the graduate student checked the lesson category, coded student and teacher behavior, and wrote brief qualitative notes about classroom dynamics and interactions. A research statistician compiled and analyzed the data at the completion of the 8-week study.

Our findings lent a preliminary understanding about which lesson components were most and least engaging to students. We learned that during the implementation of Electric Circuits students were on-task an average of 79% of the time, with a range from 62% to 85%. Moreover, the data showed that students were on-task at a rate of 70% or greater when they were manipulating materials. For example, the graduate student’s notes indicated that when students were engaged with the hidden circuit boxes, the only sound heard for 18 consecutive minutes was an occasional, “I’m right, I’m right!” Conversely, students were more likely to be off-task when talking with peers or when asked to write. We know from experience and the literature that students with emotional and behavioral disorders often find writing to be a difficult task.

Another finding of interest and amazement was that the 2 teachers only had to interrupt instruction for 2% of the time to deal with student misbehavior. In other words, the teachers were able to spend 98% of their time teaching. It is often reported in the literature (Jones, Dohrn, & Dunn, 2004) that teachers spend only about 17% of their time conducting instructional activities. Needless to say, we were excited about this finding because academic engagement serves as a precursor to academic achievement.

The study found students were on-task an average of 79% of the time teachers were able to spend 98% of their time teaching and only 2% of the time dealing with student misbehavior

Although we did not study student learning specifically, there were several indicators that students were learning about circuits. For example, at the beginning of one lesson, during the teacher’s introduction, only one student was seemingly on-task. When students were asked to work in pairs to explore whether wiring circuits to additional batteries would make the bulbs burn brighter, all 8 students were enthusiastically engaged for 17 minutes. The graduate student noted comments indicative of the students’ learning experience: “Check out ours. It’s more lighted up than anybody’s. Can we have more batteries to get it brighter?”

The unit ended on a high note with the students explaining the circuitry they built into their “all-electric” model houses to a parade of hospital employees who marveled at the sophisticated array of bells, switches, and lights. There was no doubt that the students had a much better understanding of electric circuits, and the school staff had a greater knowledge of best teaching practices and an effective science curriculum.

John W. Somers, EdD
Associate Professor of Teacher Education
University of Indianapolis
Indianapolis, IN

Edy Stoughton, PhD
Full-Time Lecturer
Teachers College Columbia University
New York, NY

Katherine E. Stiles
Project Director, WestEd
STC® Curriculum Developer, 1990-1995
Indianapolis, IN

Reference
Jones, V., E. Dohrn, and C. Dunn. 2004. Creating Effective Programs for Students with Emotional and Behavior Disorders: Interdisciplinary Approaches for Adding Meaning and Hope to Behavior Change Interventions. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

	Find out more about STC®
	Learn more about the Electric Circuits unit