1. Most teachers are unaware of their behavior and its impact on learners. As a result, teachers tend to dominate communication, overuse factual questions, do less to motivate, and generally neglect to emphasize meaning as much as they would like. (Withall, 1969; Good & Brophy, 1991; Tobias, 1990) 
2. Science teachers judged by others to be effective and successful: 
• provide a stimulating, accepting environment 
• have high expectations of themselves and students 
• are models of active inquiry 
• expect students to questions facts, teachers, and knowledge 
• stress knowledge application 
• do not view the classroom walls as a boundary 
• are flexible in their time, schedule, and curriculum 
• put in far more than the minimal time 
• are confident in their ability to make a difference. (Penick & Bonnstetter, 1993) 
3. Where attempts have been made to include teaching about the history and philosophy of science (e.g., historical case studies, articles, discussions and activities that more accurately reflect the nature of science), they have been found effective in improving the students' understanding of this concept. (Cossman, 1969; Crumb, 1965; Klopfer & Cooley, 1963) 
4. Directive teacher behaviors produce anxieties in students and reduce the learning of new concepts. (Flanders, 1951; Cogan, 1956) 
5. To direct a child to engage in manipulative or verbal interactions which he cannot engage in mentally tends to erect knowledge superstructures which crumble under the slightest cognitive stress. (Almy, 1966) 
6. Long term learning is characterized by personal involvement, self-initiation, a sense of discovery, pervasiveness, self-evaluation, and meaningfulness. (Rogers, 1969) 
7. Students copy their teacher's behavioral patterns. If the teacher tries to dominate students, then students try to dominate each other. If the teacher accepts students, then students are accepting of each other. (Anderson & Brewer, 1946) 
8. Teachers can encourage creativity in students by: 
• accepting unusual ideas, questions, or products; 
• providing opportunities for creative work; 
• showing students their ideas have value; 
• asking students to examine causes and consequences in order to make personal evaluations; 
• providing an environment in which it is safe for students to risk, question, experiment, and test; 
• allowing students to make decisions and choices; 
• reducing student anxiety; 
• allowing students to decide on closure of an idea, experiment, or train of thought; and 
• allowing students opportunities to take leadership responsibility. (Penick, 1982) 
9. Praise correlates sometimes positively, sometimes negatively, but usually not at all with learning ... praise is generally over-rated. (Brophy, 1979b) 
10. Many teachers wait less than one second after asking a question before they answer or rephrase the question. Extending this to three or five seconds causes student: (a) responses to increase in length and number, (b) confidence increases, (c) speculative thinking, questioning, and comparison to increase. (Rowe, 1974) 
11. High-rated children receive more opportunities to engage in verbal exchanges with their teachers than low-rated children. (Good, 1970) 
12. Direct, teacher-oriented instruction is effective, but only to the extent that basic skill mastery is the primary goal. (Brophy, 1979a) 

Almy, M. (1966). Young Children's Thinking. New York: Teachers College Press. 

Anderson, H.H. & Brewer, H.M.(1946). Studies of teacher's classroom personality I: dominative and socially integrative behavior of kindergarten teachers. Applied Psychology Monographs, No. 6. 

Brophy, J. (1979a). Advances in teacher research. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 15(1):1-7. 

Brophy, J. (1979b). Teacher Praise: a functional analysis. Occasional Paper No. 28, Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University. 

Cogan, M.L.(1956). Theory and design of a study of teacher-pupil interaction. Harvard Educational Review (16)4. 

Cossman, G.W. (1969). The effects of a course in science and culture for secondary school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 7(3): 274-283. 

Crumb, G.H. (1965). Understanding of science in high school physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 3(3):246-250. 

Flanders, N.A. (1951). Personal-social anxieties as a factor in an experimental learning situation. Journal of Educational Research 45. 

Good, T.L. (1970). Which pupils do teachers call on? Elementary School Journal 70: 190-198. 

Good, J.E. & Brophy, T.L. (1991). Looking in Classrooms, 5th ed. New York: Harper Collins. 

Klopfer, L.E. & Cooley, W.W. (1963). History of science cases for high schools in the development of student understanding of science-the HOSC instruction project. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1(1):33 

Penick, J.E. (1982). Developing creativity as a result of science instruction. In What Research Says to the Science Teacher, vol. 4. Washington: National Science Teachers Association. 

Penick, J.E. & Bonnstetter, R.J. (1993). Classroom climate and instruction: new goals demand new approaches. Journal of Science Education and Technology 2(2): 389-395. 

Rogers, C. (1969). Freedom to Learn. Columbus, OH: Chas. E. Merril Publishing Co. 

Rowe, M.B. (1974). Wait-time and rewards as instructional variables. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 11(2):81-94. 

Tobias, S. (1990). They're not Dumb, They're Different: stalking the second tier. Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation. 

Withall, J. (1969). Evaluation of classroom climate. Childhood Education 45(7): 403-408.