This document reports on a study to develop an empirical method for analyzing and reporting classroom interaction data. Data were collected according to a classroom observation scheme involving the frequency of various interactions (question, answer, or management), the cognitive level of the interaction, the role of the actor, the level of personalization, and the length of the interaction in words. Tape recordings made of 24 upstate New York high school biology and chemistry classes on 6 different occasions during the 1985-1986 school year were analyzed by a panel of expert judges. Each interaction in the randomly selected 10-minute period was classified and the interactions were accumulated. Results of the analysis of these data indicated that observation variables could be grouped into scales that discriminated between teachers, and that the scales were meaningful. (TW)
Authors
- Peer Reviewed
- F
- Publication Type
- ['Reports - Research', 'Speeches/Meeting Papers']
- Published in
- United States of America
Table of Contents
- DOCUMENT RESUME 1
- SE 048 695 1
- AUTHOR Schell Robert E. And Others Analyzing Classroom Interactions. 1
- Between Teacher Discrimination as the Basis for 10p. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association Boston MA Reports - ResearchTechnical 143 -- 1
- NOTE February 25-28 1987. 1
- EDRS PRICE Communication 1
- MF01PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Biology Chemistry Classroom Communication Secondary Education Secondary School Science 1
- Classroom Environment Classroom Observation Techniques Questioning Techniques Science Education Science Instruction Science Teachers Teacher Student Relationship Verbal 1
- ABSTRACT 1
- Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made 1
- BETWEEN TEACHER DISCRIMINATION AS THE BASIS 3
- FOR ANALYZING CLASSROOM INTERACTIONS. 3
- The purpose of this study was to develop an empirical method 3
- Over the last two decades educational researchers have 3
- Gilmore Kane Naccarato 1978 and Erlich Borich 3
- 1979 presented methods for describing teacher behaviors based 3
- Rajaratnam 192 to the operational definition of teacher 3
- Their efforts served to highlight the 3
- One notable contribution was made by Brown Mendanhall 3
- Beaver 1968 who argued that the true test of a reliability 3
- The present study drew 3
- Classroom differences were 4
- Data was collected according to 4
- Data were summarized by counting the numbers 4
- The nineteen variables were available for each of six class 4
- The structure matrix of correlations 4
- Insert Table 1 4
- Tape recordings made of 24 upstate New York high 4
- 1985-1986 school year were analyzed by 4
- Each interaction in the randomly selected ten minute period was 4
- Variables included in the between-teacher 5
- Description 5
- STUDENT 5
- Teacher Initiator No 0 Yes Student Initiator No 0 Yes 5
- Question 5
- Student Answer Classroom Management 5
- Teacher Response to Student Answer Discussion Management 5
- Question Type Evaluative 5
- Memory-recall QUES2 QUES4 5
- Low Convergent High Convergent Divergent 5
- Answer type Chorus Answer 5
- Direct 5
- Student doesnt know answer 5
- Student named 5
- NAMED 5
- Students name used No 0 Yes 1 5
- Length of answers 5
- MEANLEN 5
- Mean Length of Student Answers 5
- Standard Deviation of Answer Length 5
- A stepwise discriminant function based 6
- The associated canonical 6
- Six functions before rotation were 6
- An examination of the rotated structure matrix TABLE 2 of 6
- High 6
- 0.67 student answers .66 memoryrecall questions 0.6S 6
- 0.55 student talk 0.51 and chorus answers 0.35. 6
- Insert Table 2 6
- The second function differentiated teachers who had classes 6
- It was judged to be a measure of problem 6
- Rotated correlations between 7
- Variables ordered by size of 7
- Variable FUNC 7
- FUNC 7
- Discriminant Function 7
- FUNC 3 FUNC S 7
- FUNC 4 7
- FUNC 6 7
- -.09 -.14 STUDENT -.14 -.02 7
- -.13 TEACH ACT3 7
- -.06 -.16 -.08 -.27 7
- -.06 -.27 7
- MEANLEN -.07 -.02 -.12 7
- -.03 -.04 -.13 -.17 7
- SDLEN ANS2 QUES3 ACTS 7
- NAMED 7
- -.20 7
- QUES2 QUES4 7
- -.09 7
- -.07 7
- ANS3 7
- -.02 7
- ACT4 -.06 7
- QUES5 7
- The third function was correlated with only one 8
- It was regarded as a measure of personalization. 8
- The fourth function was correlated with the frequency of low- 8
- The fifth function was correlated with a single discourse 8
- It was labeled does not know and could be a reflection 8
- The final function was a measure of class attempts to 8
- This analysis indicated that classroom obs.lirvation variables 8
- REFERENCES 10
- The reliability of 10
- Journal gi Experimental Education 3A 1-10. 10
- Cronbach L.J. Gleser G.C. NandaH. 10
- Raiaratnam N. 10
- Deoendabilitv Qi ERtkiisKt1. MtOsureeents jhe Theory New York Wilvy. 10
- Erlich 0. Barich G. 1979 10
- Occurrence and generalizability 10
- Gillmore 6.M. Kane M.T. Naccarato R.W. 10
- MGaw B. Wardrop J.L. Bunda M.A. Classroom 10
- NorusisM.J. 1986. SPSSPC Advanced Statistics. Chicago 10
- SPSS 10
