Wait-Time ticks all the boxes: it’s easy to describe, easy to implement and it just makes sense. In case you haven’t heard of it, Wait-Time is the teaching technique of asking the class a question, pausing 5-10s and then asking one student to respond. It is classically linked to research (Rowe, 1986) which shows that the typical time a teacher waits for an answer is less than a second.
But as with so many things in education, making sense isn’t the same as making a difference. What are teachers hoping will happen when we ask a question and then wait? Presumably we imagine thirty keen minds puzzling over the answer in silence until a name is called. When you say it aloud, it sounds optimistic.
Here are some hypotheses about what is really happening:
- Nothing – it’s just a stressful 10 second pause where some pupils lose the thread.
- Some pupils think (and hopefully benefit in some way) and some don’t.
- Everyone thinks (and hopefully benefits) – even if they don’t speak.
So, I have some questions:
- Does Wait-Time lead to better performance within the lesson, even for the students who don’t get called to answer? Researchers could test this using a randomised control trial with an outcome assessment.
- Does Wait-Time lead to long term learning gains? Again, this could be tested.
In the meantime, I don’t think Wait-Time does any harm. I just wouldn’t prioritise valuable CPD time and teacher working memory on it over something that we know works well.
Ben
Rowe, M. B. (1986). Wait Time: Slowing Down May Be a Way of Speeding Up! Journal of Teacher Education, 37, 43-50.
Reading for Learning 