Classroom Interaction Analysis
Click here to load reader
-
Upload
don-zian-encarnacion -
Category
Documents
-
view
548 -
download
0
Transcript of Classroom Interaction Analysis
CLASSROOM INTERACTION ANALYSIS ON TEACHER-STUDENTS
MATHEMATICAL ATTITUDE AND ACHIEVEMENT
Submitted to:
DR. AMELIA BIGLETE
College of Education
EDRE 201, Saturday class
11:00am to 2:00pm
Submitted by:
LOVELYN B. LASAC
Master in Arts of Mathematics
College of Science
February 13, 2010
CHAPTER I
Background of the Study
Traditionally, Mathematics teachers have employed paper-and-pencil quizzes
and tests, completed by an individual student without discussion and without other tools
within a fixed time period. These tests were the sole measure of the mastery of the
mathematics objectives.
Mathematics has changed. One of the real challenges of teaching this subject is
to find a proper balance between conceptual understanding and procedural skills.
Without a sound understanding of concepts, skills may be used mechanically and easily
forgotten. For this mere reason, actual classroom interactions should be given such
significant emphasis because these are a large and vital component of the extremely
complex teaching-learning process.
According to Miller (1997), interaction in the classroom is not a new idea. What is
new, however, is our understanding, interpretations and meanings that we assign to
learner interaction. First, a person who remains passive is not a learner. Learning im-
plies activity and hence interactivity. Next, the student who is learning at a distance in-
teracts just as surely as does the student who sits in the classroom with four walls. In
fact sometimes the distance student is far more interactive than the traditional one.
Interactions are indeed the heartbeat of the mathematics classroom.
Mathematics is learned best when students are actively participating in that learning,
and one method of active participation is to interact with the teacher and peers about
mathematics.
In the paper by Clarke, Breed and Fraser in this issue of The Mathematics
Educator, the results of an investigation into the outcomes of the Interactive
Mathematics Program (IMP) undertaken back in the early 1990s are reported. Why is
this important? Because the focus of the analysis was the expanded conception of the
outcomes of classroom practice that included both the cognitive and the affective
consequences of introducing a problem-based mathematics program. The findings
demonstrate that the consequences of a particular curriculum and its associated
classroom practices cannot be adequately characterized solely by the mathematical
performance of the students. Most importantly, the IMP classrooms studied were most
clearly distinguished from conventional classrooms by affective rather cognitive
outcomes. At the time, this was an attempt to embrace a broader vision of valued
classroom practice and significant learning outcomes than could be documented in the
achievement test.
It is in the classroom that patterns of thinking should be set, attitudes should be
shaped and participation can influence the growth of independence and self-direction.
Teaching behavior is the most potent, single, controllable factor that can alter learning
opportunities in the classroom.
Ober (1967) mentioned that all things being equal, teachers who are able to
relate more positively to students and who are aware of and are able to implement a
variety of appropriate instructional behavior will be able facilitate more effective learning.
Banogon (1976) stated that it is necessary then to determine the nature of the
teaching performance of the teachers in the classroom, specifically, their verbal
interaction with the students, and also the way students assess the teachers' behavior
in relation to the total educative process.
It is necessary then to determine the nature of the teaching performance of the
teachers in the classroom, specifically, their verbal interaction with the students, and
also the way students assess the teachers’ behavior in relation to the total teaching-
learning process.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has presented the mathematics
education community with the challenging documents in the Curriculum and Evaluation
Standards and the Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics. To implement
these standards fully will take much in the way of resources and coordinated effort.
However, besides changes in texts or equipment, classroom interactions will also need
to change in both subtle and major ways. After all, it is what goes in each individual
class that really makes differences in students' lives.
Statement of the Problem
The purpose of the study is to determine the impact of actual classroom
interaction analysis on mathematical attitude and performance of both the teachers and
the students occurring in high school Geometry classes using the Flanders Interaction
Analysis System and the constructed questionnaire of the researcher.
Specifically, it seeks to answer the following questions:
1. Is there a significant difference in the interaction among the different phases of a
lecture session?
1.1 introductory phase
1.2 development phase
1.3 culmination phase
1.4 whole lecture session
2. What is the extent of pupil initiation during
2.1 introductory phase
2.2 development phase
2.3 culmination phase
2.4 whole lecture session
3. What is the rate on the emphasis on meaning and understanding of the teacher
during the lecture session to the students?
4. What is the rate of the teachers’ encouragement to students’ autonomy and
persistence?
5. What is the rate of the direct teaching of higher-order cognitive strategies?
Significance of the Study
Recognizing that teaching exists at the present moment as part of a chain of
events is only a start. The clinical psychologist talks about classroom events quite
differently than a principal, supervisor or pupil. Yet a common purpose, like deciding to
help a particular child make a better classroom adjustment, would at least focus the
observations and comments. The same can be said about classroom interactions.
The study would be very beneficial to supervisors and cooperating teachers of
the pre-service and even the in-service teachers on the evaluation of their teaching
performance which indeed will reflect the achievement of the students. The assessment
of this interaction analysis will figure out the opportunities of the teachers so an
appropriate remediation should be given for efficient and effective teaching-learning
process.
Someday teacher education will focus more sharply on the care and nurture of
teaching behavior. When this happens, systems of interaction analysis could become
the foundation of a program to prepare teachers because this is the ultimate criterion of
success or failure in the classroom performance.
This research will also give policy maker a head start for developing standards
for attaining high quality classroom environment that encompass suitable curriculum
and teaching practices, thereby ensuring student success.
Having a clear understanding of the mathematics interaction analysis on a
routine basis would keep decision makers and the teachers constantly informed of the
success, limitations and needs of the students.
Scope and Delimitations of the Study
The researcher limited the focus of this study on the junior students currently
enrolled in Mina De Oro Catholic High School in Zone 3, Socorro, Oriental Mindoro.
Observations made were focused primarily on the verbal behavior of the teacher and
students during the lecture session.
Observation were limited to one selected unit in Geometry which was identical for
all the classes, each class using the same text but handles by different teachers due to
limited period of time in which the study was conducted, observations were limited to
the day classes only.
Results of the observations are limited to the Flanders Interaction Analysis
System and the constructed questionnaire aligned with this analysis system. The
researcher will not be liable to any changes in data outside the data collection period.
Secondary information or third party sources such as published materials from
magazines, broadsheets, journals and the internet will also be used to support the
research findings to be presented in this study.
CHAPTER II
Review of Related Literature
Interaction analysis is a label that refers to any technique for studying the chain
of classroom events in such a fashion that each event is taken into consideration.
At the International Centre for Classroom Research at the University of
Melbourne, contemporary technology makes it possible to carry out comparative
analyses of an extended database that includes three-camera classroom video records
of lesson sequences, supplemented by post-lesson video stimulated interviews with
students and teachers, scanned samples of written work, and test and questionnaire
data, drawn from mathematics classrooms as geographically distant as Sweden and
Australia and as culturally distant as Germany and China.
Watanabe (2001) quotes White (1987) as writing “we should hold Japan up as a
mirror, not as to blueprint”. This powerful and appealing metaphor can serve as a
characterization of one of the major uses of international comparative studies of
classroom practice. The agency for the interpretation and adaptation of any
documented practice resides with the person looking in the mirror. There is no
invocation of absolute best practice – the judgment is a relativist one, an instructional
activity with a high degree of efficacy in Hong Kong may retain little effectiveness when
employed in a Swedish classroom, where different cultural values inform and frame the
actions of all classroom participants. Most importantly, we are encouraged to study
Japanese (or South African or German) classrooms not solely for purposes of mimicking
their practices but for their capacity to support us in our reflection on our own practice.
The mutuality of the potential benefit provides further motivation for such research.
In 1960, the Flanders Interaction Analysis technique becomes popular. The
system makes use of a ten category scheme which falls under three broad divisions: a.)
teacher talk, b.) student talk, c.) silence or confusion. The teacher talk is further
subdivided into seven categories, four of which indicates indirect influence. The student
talk on the other hand, is subdivided into two categories: the student talk response and
the student talk initiation.
The instrument consists of an observer’s classifying the statements in the
classroom every three seconds and later tabulating the data in special matrices for
analysis. From these special matrices, the teachers can determine general aspects of
classroom interaction like the percentages of teacher talk and pupil talk. Finding out this
pattern of interaction which the teachers have used with the class becomes evident.
By studying further matrices, the teacher can also determine the specific or some
of the specific aspects of classroom interaction like the amount of student rejection of
teacher’s statements, teacher’s response to stimulate student talk and many other
aspects.
The teacher plays a central role in any assessment of classroom behaviors, the
master magician who inspires, guides and rewards the efforts of the students as they
explore the dimensions of mathematical power. The teacher provides the atmosphere
for observing patterns, making connections and enjoying the beauty of mathematics.
This is an awesome responsibility that requires persistence, reflection, creativity and
genuine respect for students and their divergent teaching. An excellent teacher is one
who provides the opportunity for all of his students to make an A, clearly defines
objectives, look beyond isolated concepts, models mathematical questioning and
thinking, makes the central focus in the classroom, and instills confidence. Students
mirror the attitudes and beliefs of teacher.
Bellack (1965) used a totally different conceptual framework to study classroom
language pattern. Utilizing 15 teachers and 345 pupils in the high school, he viewed
classroom discourse as a game played with language. His analysis of classroom
language yielded several valuable insights among which are the following:
1. The teacher is responsible for structuring, soliciting and reacting, while the
students is ordinarily limited to responding. In other words, the teacher dominates the
verbal activities in the classroom.
2. The basic unit of verbal interchange is the soliciting and the responding
pattern. This in Flanders' system is question and answers on the part of the teacher and
the students, respectively.
3. About 50% to 60% of the total discourse in most classrooms were spent in
fact-stating and explaining.
Bellack empirical evidence suggests that the class is teacher dominated, subject
matter centered, and the primary responsibility of the students is to respond to teacher's
soliciting moves.
In 1972, Bellack and his collaborators in their study concentrated on the
language in the classroom and they assumed that it’s primary function was
communication of meaning. In their analysis of interaction, they found it helpful to
identify what a teacher or pupil was doing. Pedagogically, with what he was saying and
what emotional meaning he was conveying in the communication. They identified them
in terms of functions in the classroom and called them moves, namely: structuring
moves, soliciting moves, responding moves and reacting moves.
According to Bowers and Soar (1962), analysis of classroom interaction can best
proceed if attention is directed to the personality characteristics of the teacher and
pupils. When personality data are collected, using an inventory that has some degree of
external validity and these date are related to happenings in the classroom that is, pupil
behavior, the evidence appears to show that personality factors do contribute to a
classroom social interaction.
In the Philippines, a number of studies have been conducted on verbal
interaction between teachers and students. Masuliñgan (1970) found that social studies
classes were student-dominated. This means that students in Social Studies express
themselves more than in their English classes.
Pambid (1971) and Pagunsan (1971) made separate studies in the University
High School on verbal interaction and found similar findings. The former conducted her
study in Mathematics and Social Studies; the latter, in Biology classes. Both found that
the teacher talk dominated student talk; student talk was more responsive that initiatory;
and pattern of verbal interaction between teachers and students was teacher initiated,
to which the students responded.
Japson (1972) had similar findings. Teacher talk dominated student talk,
teachers’ questions were followed by student response, and were followed by teacher’s
acceptance, praise and encouragement. The type of teacher talk that seems to
stimulate student talk is asking questions.
Pedillas (1973) also found that classes were dominated by teachers. Teacher
questions were followed by pupil response, which in turn was followed by acceptance.
Pupil response was followed by teachers questions. Teachers gave extended lectures
unbroken by questions; there was little discussion or questioning by pupils.
Banogon (1976) discovered that one’s own behavior in the classroom, the
teacher can gain insight into his strengths and weaknesses in dealing with his students.
It is a means for self-evaluation which is necessary for improving teaching. Teachers
should take into account the students’ perceptions teaching performance sine the
students are the best judge of a teacher’s behavior in class. Evaluation of the teaching
performance, therefore, should not be the sole responsibility of the supervisors and
principals.
On the study made by Tezon (1977), she found out that teachers are accustomed
to telling of facts and explaining to students leaving no room for development of
students’ skills in critical thinking. Students tend to respond to teacher’s solicitations
rather than they themselves initiating the move or reacting to them. Teacher provides
very little opportunity for the development of the analytical and evaluative processes. All
classes were teacher-dominated. This is probably due to the inherent Filipino nature;
students are not vocal in expressing themselves. Non-verbal behavior was actually
involved in the teaching-learning situation especially in the laboratory class sessions.
Studies on interaction analysis were widely spread in different levels. It seems
that in general, teachers who are identified as indirect in their influence on their student
produce students who have high achievements. Since the students are given freedom
to participate in classroom discussions they have opportunity to think and reason. Also,
on the basis of the researches, it seems fair to talk student’s evaluation of teachers in
terms of some scale which can be observed by them can be one of the basis for the
teacher’s improvement in dealing with his students.
The proposed study recognizes the demand in addressing mathematical
classroom interaction analysis on teacher-students behavior and performance. One of
the best ways to emphasize the importance of this area is to understand fundamental
concepts and skills and promote positive regard to teacher and students achievement.
Conceptual Framework of the Study
This study utilizes two instruments in analyzing the impact of the classroom
interaction on the teacher-students mathematical attitude and achievement. One
instrument is based on Flanders Interaction Analysis System. This instrument will record
classroom communications.
The second instrument is based on the constructed questionnaire of the
researcher. This instrument will be used to determine the attitude of the teachers and
students towards mathematics. Also, the appropriate teaching approach of the teachers
in accordance to the learning capacities and capabilities of the students is taken into
consideration.
The researcher will provide specific actions corresponding to the actual
classroom interaction.
Hypotheses
The research hypotheses are:
1. There is no significant difference in class interaction among the different
phases of a lecture session.
2. The extent of student initiation does not differ during the phases of a lecture
session.
3. There is almost the same rate on meaning and understanding,
encouragement of students’ autonomy and persistence and direct teaching of
higher-order strategies.
Definition of Terms
Category System
It refers to a set of mutually exclusive categories exhaustive of teachers and students
classroom behavior which are perceived as influencing teaching-learning situation
(Evan and Balzer, 1970)
Classroom Interaction
It refers not to one system, but to many systems for coding spontaneous verbal
communication, arranging the data into a useful display and the analyzing of the results
in order to study patterns of teaching and learning (Flanders, 1970)
Culmination Phase
The summing up of the unit lesson where all the concepts are already clarified
Development Phase
It refers to the on-going advancement of the different principles and concepts
Direct Teacher
A teacher who limits and restricts students’ freedom, always gives commands and
justifies his own self as an authority
Evaluation Phase
It refers to those that grades, praise or blame, commend or criticize something
Flanders System of Interaction
It is an observational tool, consisting of 10 categories for describing the behavior of
teachers and students as they interact
Indirect Teacher
A teacher who encourages students to participate in the classroom discussions. He
accepts students’ feeling, gives praise and accepts and clarifies student ideas
Interaction Analysis
The technique used for the classification of events which need to be observed and
recorded
Introductory Phase
It refers to that part in the class session where the concepts and principles are
introduced
Observational System
It refers to any systematic technique for the purpose of identifying, classifying, and
qualifying specific teaching activities (Ober, 1967)
CHAPTER III
Methodology (Banogon, 1976)
Research Design
The proposed study attempted to described and analyze teacher-student
interaction in the third year high school Geometry classes in Mina De Oro Catholic High
School in Socorro, Oriental Mindoro. The instrument used in interaction analysis is the
Flanders Interaction Analysis System. Using this system of interaction analysis, the
recorded instructional verbal interactions were classified and grouped into categories.
Three teachers and their students were used as the sample. Each class was
observed daily for the duration of one whole unit lesson which was identical for all the
classes. Observations were made for the whole period and accompanied by taping of
the class verbal discourse.
Instrumentation
To described and analyze the interaction between teachers and students,
Flanders interaction Analysis System was used. This system consists of 10 categories,
7 are assigned to teacher talk, 2 to student talk and 1 to short period of silence or
confusion. Statements are classified as either direct or indirect in terms of whether they
tend to restrict or limit student participation and freedom through teachers’ giving of
commands, directions and criticisms; or stimulate students to participate through
teacher’s praise, encouragement and clarification of students ideas. Categories 1- 4
identify the indirect influence; categories 5 – 7 represent direct influence; categories 8
and 9 are for student talk; and the category 10 for silence or confusion. To get a vivid
description of the verbal interaction between the teachers and students, questionnaires
were constructed by the researcher partly based on Flanders Interaction Analysis
System. The questionnaires answered by the students and teachers.
Procedure
Before the researcher was able to use the Flanders System of Interaction
Analysis, she had to memorize the categories with the corresponding number and
coded sample written classroom discourses. For a dry-run, she observed and coded
sample classroom interactions in Mina De Oro Catholic High School Geometry classes.
The questionnaires were pre-tested in the same school after the observations. Both the
teachers and students were requested to answer the questionnaires.
Statistics Used
The mean of the student-given ratings from each class was taken so that there
was only one score for every item.
To determine whether there is a significant relationship between students and
teachers given ratings, Pearson Product – Moment Coefficient of correlation was used.
The Friedman’s Two-Way Analysis of Variance Way may also be used to find the
significant difference between the ratings given by both the teachers and students.
QUESTIONNAIRE
Please fill the blanks:
Name ______________________________________ Date _______________
Name of School ________________________________________________________
Subject _______________________ Teacher ___________________
Instruction:
Rate each item independently using a five-level, process-based scale that addressed
the items in approximately the following terminology:
1 – Poor
2- Fair
3 – Good
4 – Very Good
5 - Excellent
Emphasis on meaning and understanding Rate
- Communicates that math problems cannot always be solved quickly
- Communicates that some problems have ore than one answer
- Focuses on what students do know rather than what they don’t know
- Uses informal assessment to provide feedback to students
- Emphasizes that math is useful and makes sense
- Provide opportunities to restate and formulate problems
- Provides opportunities to ask questions, consider different possibilities
- Expresses math through pictures, diagrams, graphs, words, symbols
or numerical examples
- Uses variety of mathematical tools, models, manipulative, calculators,
or computer
- Provides opportunities for students to plan, invent, or design
mathematical ideas, projects, activities or products
Encouragement of students’ autonomy and persistence Rate
- Students learn at their own pace
- Students who perform with difficulty are not labeled as failures
- All students are expected to be able to learn mathematics
- Students work on extended assignments or investigations
- Speed is not an important factor in determining students’ achievement
- Students are encouraged to think and be persistent and self-directed
- Students work together to develop mathematical thinking skills
Direct teaching of higher-order strategies Rate
- Teacher helps students to formulate and refine hypothesis
- Opportunities are given for collecting and organizing data
and information
- Teacher helps students to learn and practice a variety of strategies for
doing mathematics
- Teacher encourages students to reflect on their own problem-solving
methods and strategies
- Students are asked to explain concepts orally and in writing
- Opportunities are given to work with open-ended or poorly defined
real-life problems
- Students are provided situations in which they enjoy doing mathematics
Bibliography
Textbooks and Journals
Amidon, Edmund (1967). Interaction Analysis: Theory Research and Application.
Massachusetts. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Barr, George and Rees, Ruth (1984). Diagnosis and Prescription. Some Common Math
Problems. London. Harper and Row Publishers.
Bellack, Arno (1966). The Language of the Classroom. New York: Columbia University,
Teachers College Press.
Flanders, Ned (1970). Analyzing Teacher Behavior. Massachusetts. Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company.
Kulm, Gerald (1994). Mathematics Assessment. What Works in the Classroom. San
Francisco. Jossey – Bass Publishers.
Owens, Douglas (1993). Research Ideas for the Classroom. Middle Grades
Mathematics. New York. Macmillan Publishing Company.
Rosenbloom, D., Torrance, E., Flanders, N. (1966). Characteristics of Mathematics
Teachers that Affect Students Learning. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Online References
Clarke, David (2004). Teaching Classroom Learning and Learning Classroom Research.
The Mathematics Educator. University of Melbourne – Australia
Ulep, Soledad. Student Learning in Mathematical Interactions. National Institute for
Science and Mathematics Education Development. University of the Philippines –
Quezon City
Unpublished Master’s Thesis
Banogon, Corazon M. (1976). Spoken Classroom Interaction Between Teachers and
Students in Mathematics Classes. Unpublished Seminar Paper, University of the
Philippines.
Japson, Lilia (1972). A Descriptive Analysis of Teacher-Student Interaction in the First
Year Science Classes. Unpublished Seminar Paper, University of the Philippines.
Masiluñgan, Juanita (1970). Descriptive Analysis of the Secondary Teachers’ Classroom
Teaching Techniques. Unpublished Seminar Paper, University of the Philippines.
Pagunsan, Carmen (1971). A Study of Teacher-Student Interaction in High School
Class. Unpublished Seminar Paper, University of the Philippines.
Pambid, Judith (1971). The Performance of Student Under Student Teachers and
Supervising Teachers: A Comparative Study. Unpublished Seminar Paper, University of
the Philippines.
Pedillas, Eden Eva (1973). Pattern of Verbal Interaction in the Classroom of Selected
Elementary School Science Teaching at OAS North Elementary School OAS District.
Unpublished Seminar Paper, University of the Philippines.
Tezon, Corazon (1977). Classroom Interaction in Chemistry Class and Laboratory.
Unpublished Seminar Paper, University of the Philippines.