A Plan for the Analysis of Teacher-Pupil Interaction in Physical Education Classes

By NEIL J. DOUGHERTY IV

Interaction analysis is a method of objectively recording the verbal inter- action between the teacher and his students. It is a classroom observation procedure to minimize the possibility of observer bias, to permit a systematic record of spontaneous acts, and to scrutinize the process of instruction by taking into account each small bit of interaction. The purpose is to distin- guish those acts of the teacher that in- crease students' freedom of action from those that decrease students' freedom of action, and to keep a rec- ord of both. There is no value judg- ment attached to interaction data; it is merely an objective record of the type of behavior that did, in fact, occur.

The classroom interaction initiated by a teacher is, in most cases, quite different from that which he expects. If asked to rate himself on a continuum from democratic to autocratic, the

About the Author

average teacher would place himself at a point far different from the one dic- tated by some form of objective ob- servation. Interaction analysis offers a dual solution to this problem. First, it provides objective feedback as to the type and quantity of teacher-pupil in- teraction in the classroom. This allows the teacher to see exactly what kind of verbal behavior he exhibits in the class- room, .and what kind of response is given by the students. Second, this knowledge enables the teacher to take steps to bring his actual and his de- sired behavior into closer alignment. The feedback provided by the interac- tion analysis procedure enables the teacher to see where his actual behav- ior fails to measure up to his expecta- tions, and, knowing this, he can take whatever steps he feels are necessary to correct the situation.

Before discussing in greater detail the background and applications of in- teraction analysis, let us examine the procedure involved.

Neil J. Dougherty IV is presently an As- sistant Professor in the School of Education at Rutgers College, New Brunswick, New ANALYSIS PROCEDURE Jersey. He is in charge of the professional preparation program in health and physical the used of education, and teaches both theory and lab the category systems for analyzing ver- courses in teaching methods and develop- mental movement. He is vitally interested bal is the and concerned with the control and analy- of Interaction Analysis.1 This system sis of teaching behavior. Dr. Dougherty was formerly a member of the physical edu- contains ten categories which are clas- cation task force for the Teacher Perform- sified as either direct or indirect ac- ance Evaluation Project of the New Jersey State Department of Educarion. cording to the amount of freedom

40 QUEST

which the teacher grants the students. Direct teacher statements are of such a nature as to restrict the freedom of the student to respond, while indirect statements tend to maximize this free- dom.

The ten interaction categories can be divided into three major areas: ( 1 ) teacher talk, (2) student talk, and (3) silence or confusion. In the area of teacher talk, indirect influence is indi- cated by four observational. categories:

( 1 ) accepting feeling (2) praising or encouraging (3) accepting ideas (4) asking questions

Direct teacher influence is divided into three observational categories:

(5) lecturing (6) giving directions (7) criticizing or justifying authority

Student talk is divided into the follow- ing two observational categories:

(8) responding to the teacher (9) student initiated talk.

but not at the expense of another in- dividual, nodding head or saying "um hm?" or "go on" are included.

Category 3, accepts or uses ideas of students. Clarifying, building, or de- veloping ideas suggested by a student. As teacher brings more of his own ideas into play, shift to category 5.

Category 4, asks questions. Asking a question about content or procedure with the intent that a student answer.

Category 5, lecturing. Giving facts or opinions about content or proce- dure; expressing his own ideas, asking rhetorical questions.

Category 6, giving directions. Direc- tions, commands, or orders which stu- dents are expected to comply with.

Category 7, criticizing or justifying authority. Statements intended to chqnge student behavior from unac- ceptable to acceptable pattern; bawling someone out; stating why the teacher is doing what he is doing; extreme self reference.

Category 8, student talk-response. Talk by students in response to teacher. ~eacher initiates the contact or solicits All periods of silence or confusion are

classified in the tenth and final cate- student statement. Category 9, student talk-initiation.

gory- Types of statements to be included Talk initiated by students. If "calling

on" student is only to indicate who in the various categories are:2 may talk next, observer must decide

Category 1, accepts feeling. Accepts and clarifies the tone of feeling of the students in an unthreatening manner. Feelings may be positive or negative. Predictfng or recalling feelings are in- cluded.

Category 2, praises or encourages. Praises or encourages student action or behavior. Jokes that release tension,

whether student wanted to talk. Category 10, silence or confusion.

Pauses, short periods of silence and periods of confusion in which commu- nication cannot be understood by the observer.

The observational technique in in- teraction analysis is basically quite

A Plan for the Analysis of Teacher-Pupil Interaction 41

simple. Every three seconds the ob- server records the category number of the interaction he has just observed. These numbers are sequentially re- corded at the rate of one notation every three seconds unless more than one type of interaction occurs within the three-second interval, in which case a11 types of interaction noted are re- corded. After the observation period (usually one complete lesson), the numbers are placed in a matrix for in- terpretation and analysis.

For use in physical education classes, two modifications should be made in the Flanders System. The first is the addition of an eleventh category, and the second is a means of subdividing the teacher talk categories into inter- action with the entire group and inter- action with individual^.^

The new category, category 11, is used for periods of meaningful non- verbal activity. All periods of silence during which the student is engaged in meaningful productive activity are recorded. This category allows a more meaningful classification of such things as developmental exercises or indi- vidual practice on motor skills during times when there may be no verbal in- teraction; but which, because of their importance in the physical education program, should be differentiated from simple silence or confusion.

The teacher talk categories (1-7) should be subdivided whenever the teacher is speaking to an individual rather than to the entire group by placing an "i" behind the number in the category o5served as it is recorded

on the observation sheet. This subdivi- sion, while it is not entered in the matrix, does provide some insight into the amount of attention the teacher gives to individuals as opposed to the class as a whole. It is felt that this addition, through the quantification of the amount of individual attention given to the students, enhances the ability of the interaction analysis tech- nique to differentiate between various styles of teaching.

A copy of the interaction categories is included in Appendix A.

Interpretation of the matrix. At the conclusion of the observation period, the tallies are recorded in an eleven row by eleven column table called a matrix. Before making any entries, the observer must place a 10 before the first tally and after the last. The num- bers are then entered into the matrix in pairs so that each number (with the exception of the first and last 10) is used twice. If the extra 10's were not added, two tallies would be lost. An example of the coding procedure fol- lows :

Suppose an observer had just re- corded the following series of tallies.

42 QUEST

Place a 10 before and after the group of numbers.

Now enter the numbers in the matrix in pairs (the second example has brackets to denote the pairs). The first pair, 10-8 would be entered in row 10 column 8. The second pair would be entered in row 8 column 4 and so on until each number, with the exception of the first and last, has been used twice. The completed interaction matrix4 for the above figures is shown in Figure 1. To check the tabulations

FIGURE 1 INTERACTION MATRIX

*This category was added by the author and is not included in the original Flanders Matrix form.

for accuracy, total the numbers in each row and each column. The total of row 1 should equal the total of col- umn 1, row 2 should equal column 2 and so on. Further, the total number of tallies in the matrix should be one less than the total amount of observa- tion numbers on the original record. Ordinarily a separate matrix is made for each separate lesson or classroom activity.

The completed matrix allows a mul- titude of analyses and descriptive ob- servations. The simplest of these is an examination of the percentage of tal- lies in each category. For example, in the earlier illustration there were 10 tallies, and 3 of them were in row 8. Dividing the tallies in row 8 ( 3 ) by the total number of tallies ( l o ) , we find that 30 per cent of the classroom interactions was in the form of student talk-response. Another simple analysis can be made by totaling the number of "., 9 ,

I s recorded and dividing that num- ber by the total number of tallies in categories 1-7. This provides an ac- curate account of the percentage of teacher talk that was to individuals. The percentage of silence that was in the form of meaningful non-verbal be- havior can be found by dividing the number of tallies in category 11 by the number of tallies in category 10 plus category 1 1.

There are many other areas of the matrix which can be examined to pro- vide a wealth of objective information concerning teacher-student interaction. The following are areas of major con- cern in physical education. Definitions given are taken directly from Teacher

A Plan for the Analysis of Teacher-Pupil Interaction 43

ZnfEuence, Pupil Attitudes, and Achieve- ment by Ned A. Flander~,~ and all due indebtedness to the author is hereby acknowledged.

Extended indirect influence. This area of the matrix, located in the area of intersection of columns 1-3 and row 1-3, represents the emphasis that the teacher gives to using student ideas, extending and amplifying student statements, and accepting and enlarg- ing upon student feelings.

Extended direct influence. The area of extended direct influence is located at the intersection of columns 6 and 7 and rows 6 and 7. It indicates the teacher's emphasis on criticism and giving lengthy directions. Tabulations in this area suggest heavy focus on the teacher's use of authority.

Sustained student talk. Sustained student talk would be indicated by a build-up in the matrix cell located at the intersection of row 9 and column 9. This would indicate student to stu- dent communication.,

Z/D ratio. The I/D ratio provides an indication of the relative number of indirect and direct teacher statements recorded. It is found by dividing the total number of tallies in columns 1, 2, 3, and 4 by the total number of tallies in columns 5, 6, and 7 plus the total of columns 1 , 2 , 3 , and 4.

Revised Z/D ratio. A revised I /D ratio is used in order to find out the kind of emphasis given to motivation and control in the classroom. The number of tallies in columns 1, 2, and 3 is divided by the number of tallies in columns 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 to find this revised ratio. This provides informa-

tion about whether the teacher is di- rect or indirect in his approach to motivation and control.

Percentage of teacher talk. The per- centage of teacher talk represents the amount of the total class time during which the teacher is speaking. To find the percentage of teacher talk, the to- tal number of tallies in columns 1 through 7 is divided by the total num- ber of tallies in the matrix.

Percentage of student talk. The per- centage of student talk represects the amount of the total class time during which a student is speaking. The per- centage of student talk is found by di- viding the total number of tallies in columns 8 and 9 by the total number of tallies in the matrix.

BACKGROUND

Successful methods of analyzing classroom behavior have been devel- oped by Withall,6 Amidon and H ~ n t e r , ~ Stilwell,* Flander~,~ and others. With very few exceptions, such methods rely on an analysis of the verbal interaction within the class- room. The primary distinction among these methods lies in the manner in which the types of interaction are cate- gorized. Galloway,lo attempting to de- termine the best system for measuring non-verbal behavior, found that the various methods were clouded by ver- bal behavior and were, on the whole, less efficient than verbal interaction analysis systems. He concluded that no satisfactory procedure for describ- ing non-verbal communication had, as yet, been developed.

44 QUEST

FLANDERS SYSTEM OF 2. Helps make educational theory INTERACTION ANALYSIS operational.

3. Helps develop insight into teach- The Flanders system is different inn behavior.

from other such techniques primarily because it records not only those events which occur in the classroom but also the sequence of their occur- rence. This is possible because the data recorded by the Flanders system can be interpreted in two ways. First, the actual frequency of each category can be tabulated, thereby providing a sta- tistical analysis of the interaction ob- served. A second method of interpret- ing the data is by tabulating the matrix to provide a descriptive analysis of the results based on the seauential na- ture of the observations.ll

Interaction analysis, says Flanders, "is a method of summarizing what (the teacher) actually does in the class- room in such a way that he is free to make his own judgments of value about his classroom behavior."12 "In- teraction analysis," he contends, "has proven to be very useful as a teacher training device. Teachers and research observers report that they learn more about teaching during observer training and in subsequent observations than at any other time."13 Interaction anaiy- sis should, therefore, provide an excel- lent method of both teaching and evaluating distinct styles of teaching.

Results of a questionnaire distrib- uted to colleges and universities throughout the United States by Ami- don and Simon14 indicate that the major strengths of the Flanders system are :

1. Provides objective feedback.

Simon, in a later study,15 added the following reasons for using the Flan- ders system:

1. Easy to learn. 2. As a measure of classroom cli-

mate it has both face and empiri- cal validity.

The Amidon and Simon studyl6 also listed the major limitations of the Flanders system named by those re- sponding to the questionnaire. These limitations are :

1. Difficulty of training observers. 2. Nature of the categories of the

matrix, i.e., they concentrate on verbal skills only, and they fur- ther require that distinctions be made between categories in ac- cordance with fairly rigid guide- lines which may not be satisfac- tory in all situations.

3. Reactions of teachers and stu- dents to the system, i.e., they very often fear it as an evaluative tool, or become very defensive upon finding that their actual classroom performance belies their espoused philosophy.

It is the second criticism, the nature of the categories of the matrix, which has the greatest import for the field of physical education.

MODIFICATIONS OF THE FLANDERS SYSTEM

The Flanders system is concerned only with verbal behavior in the class- room, "primarily because it can be

A Plan for the Analysis of Teacher-Pupil Interaction 45

observed with higher reliability than can non-verbal behavior. The assump- tion is made that the verbal behavior of an individual is an adequate sam- ple of his total behavior."17 The as- sumption of the primacy of verbal be- havior, however, is not entirely true in the case of physical activities, where so much of the class time is spent in non- verbal movement. Therefore, some modifications of the Flanders system are necessary if interaction analysis is to be truly effective in physical educa- tion classes.

The idea of modifying the Flanders system is not without precedent. Lam- bert, Goodwin, and Roberts suggested the following modifications of the Flanders system in order to increase its sensitivity and usefulness: l8

1. Separate category 7 (criticizing and justifying authority) into mild criticism and strong criticism.

2. Separate category 10 (silence and confusion) into the two separate areas.

Bauch19 used a reciprocal modification of the Flanders system to determine the effect of feedback on class inter- action with pre-kindergarten teachers. This modification provided an effec- tive analysis of the observed teacher- student behavior. G0ebe1,~O in a study using interaction analysis to determine what classes using programmed in- struction did that was different from other classes, found it necessary to modify category 10 because in pro- grammed instruction silent periods might frequently occur but not neces- sarily imply a negative learning climate.

Goebel also felt that the teacher, at any given time, might not have a pupil who needs assistance, and so might be quietly moving through the room ob- serving and waiting for requests for assistance. Since Goebel felt that there were no true periods of silence or con- fusion, he made all 10's stand for "si- lence of learning." This problem is much the same as that occurring in a physical education class, where stu- dents, at any given time, may be en- gaged in silent, but nevertheless pro- ductive activity.

APPLICATIONS OF THE FLANDERS SYSTEM IN

RESEARCH

Use in modifying teacher behavior. The primary research application of the Flanders System of Interaction Analysis has been as a vehicle for modifying teacher behavior. In this capacity the Flanders System has met with considerabIe success. GunnisonZ1 found that teachers trained in inter- action analysis tended to become more indirect in their methods of instruction. This finding was corroborated by Stor- lie,22 HilI,23 Wilson,24 and Moskowit~.~5 Yulo,*6 however, found that while in- teraction analysis was useful as a tool in making intern teachers more aware of their teaching, it did not result in any significant changes as compared to a control group. The findings of Zahn27 support the belief that training in interaction analysis can positively affect teacher behavior, but also adds another dimension. He found that in- struction and supervision of student

46 QUEST

teachers through the use of interaction analysis led to more positive teachiig attitudes. One of the most inclusive lists of the effects of training in inter- action analysis has been provided by Kirk. He concluded that training in interaction analysis had the following effects:

1. Teachers trained in interaction analysis talked less than the con- trol group.

2. Teachers trained in interaction analysis gave fewer directions than the control group.

3. Teachers trained in interaction analysis tended to react to their pupils' spontaneous discussions by asking more questions.

4. Pupils of teachers trained in in- teraction analysis talked more than the control group.

5. Pupils of teachers trained in in- action analysis persisted longer once they began talking.

6. Pupils of teachers trained in in- teraction analysis entered into discussions more freely.

7. Pupils of teachers trained in in- teraction analysis believed that there was somewhat less direct influence on them and that the teacher spoke less as time went on.

8. Training in interaction analysis did not affect the teacher's atti- tude toward his students as re- corded in the Minnesota Teacher Inventory and the Teaching Sit- uation Reaction Test.

These findings were generally sup- ported by the results of a study by Sis- ter M. Joanice Finske,2O who also found the teachers trained in interac- tion analysis to be more flexible and more sensitive to the impact of their verbal influence on pupil involvement.

Use of interaction analysis to deter mine the effects of direct vs. indirec teaching. Direct teachiig is that typ~ of teaching which tends to minimia the freedom and variety of response which the student can make in an in structional situation. Indirect teachinl is that type of teaching which tends tc allow the student maximal freedom o verbal response.

Powell,30 in a study to determine tht effects of teacher influence over ar extended period of time, found thai students who were taught by indirecl methods for the first three years 01 schooling displayed higher achievemenl throughout that period. During the fourth year of this study, however, the results were mixed and virtually ran- dom.

Furst31 attempted to relate the teach- ing process to student achievement. After comparing fifteen teachers and 345 students in seven metropolitan New York high schools, she concluded that the most effective and productive teaching was that in which:

1. The teacher displayed a high de- gree of indirect influence.

2. There was a moderate amount of teacher structure.

3. Provisions were made for maxi- mum pupil participation.

4. Pupils received immediate posi- tive reinforcement.

5. The teaching was geared to mul- tiple cognitive levels.

6. Class activities proceeded at a moderate pace.32

F l a n d e r ~ , ~ ~ too, found that indirect teaching methods produce more achievement. His major conclusion, however, was that the students who

A Plan for the Analysis of Teacher-Pupil Interaction 47

displayed a significantly better attitude were those who had been exposed to flexible patterns of teacher influence. This included periods of predominantly indirect influence as well as periods of predominantly direct influence. Flan- ders noted, however, that the indirect teachers were far more likely to pro- vide this flexibility of influence than were the direct. "The difference be- tween direct and indirect teachers," he said,

may be interpreted in terms of the different roles the teacher is able to play in the classroom. The direct teachers could not shift their style of interaction as much as the indi- rect teachers. Because the direct teachers had fewer ways of working with students, they could provide only a limited number of roles. On the other hand, the indirect teachers were able to adopt many different roles.34

These findings tend to support the theory that every teacher should be able to effectively vary his teaching be- havior to meet the needs of the particu- lar situation in which he may find himself.

Weber35 tested the assumption that certain teacher behaviors foster pupil creativity more than others. He dis- criminated between teaching behaviors through the use of interaction analysis. Weber concluded that indirect teaching behavior supports the conditions of psychological safety and freedom nec- essary for fostering creative patterns and provides a means by which stu- dents are better able to express their creativity.

Use of interaction analysis to dis-

criminate between patterns o f teaching. While there has been a great deal of research comparing the effects of the indirect teacher vs. the direct teacher by using interaction analysis to con- trol the behavioral differences between the two groups, there have been fewer studies in which interaction analysis was used to discriminate between ex- isting instructional methods.

U r b a ~ h ~ ~ used Flanders Interaction Analysis to determine whether a teacher uses a repeating pattern of verbal instructional techniques and whether there are certain instructional patterns common among teachers. He found that while recurring patterns of verbal instruction do exist for each teacher there was a great deal of varia- tion among .teachers. S ~ r b e r ~ ~ was able " to differentiate between traditionally prepared first-year teachers and gradu- ate teaching interns through the use of interaction analysis. Sorber also found that the procedure yielded a good deal of useful information concerning the teaching patterns of each of the groups. G i a m m a t t e ~ ~ ~ was able, through the use of interaction analysis, to differentiate between the patterns of teachers at different grade levels and determine trends within each group.

It appears that the Flanders System of Interaction Analysis is a useful tool for detecting different trends or pat- terns common to a teaching situation, if such trends, in fact, exist. Further- more, the Flanders System, with some modification, has proven itself useful in the analysis and modification of teaching patterns in physical education. Only when one can describe teaching

48 QUEST

behavior in concrete terms and can prove objectively whether a given type of behavior did or did not occur, can he hope to modify teaching methods with any efficiency. To assert that any one method of teaching is better than another, we must first be able to prove whether the tested methods are dis- tinctly different, and, if so, exactly where that difference lies. Clearly, there is still a great need for research and study

REFERENCES

1. Amidon, Edmund J., and Flanders, Ned A. The Role o f the Teacher in the Classroom. Minneapolis: Association for Productive Teaching Inc., 1967.

2. Flanders, Ned A. Teacher Influence, Pu- pil Attitudes, and Achievement. U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, Coopera- tive Research Monograph No. 12. Washington, D. C.: Government Print- incz Office, 1965.

3. Dougherty, Neil Joseph IV. "A Com- parison of Command, Task, and Indi- vidual Program Styles of Teaching in the Development of Physical Fitness and Motor Skills." Unpublished Doc- toral dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1970.

4. Amidon and Flanders, op. cit. 5. Flanders, op. cit. 6. Withall, John. "The Development of a

Technique for the Measurement of So- cial-Emotional Climate in Classrooms." Journal of Experimental Education, XVII (March, 1949), 347-361.

7. Amidon, Edmund J., and Hunter, Elizabeth. Improving Teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1966.

8. Stilwell, Merle Eugene. "The Develop- ment and Analysis of a Category Sys- tem for Systematic Observation of Teacher-Pupil Interaction During Ge- ometry Problem-Solving Activity." Un- published Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 1967 (microfilm).

9. Flanders, op. cit. 10. Galloway, Charles Millard. "An Ex-

ploratory Study of Observational Pro-

cedures for Determining Teacher Non- Verbal Communication." Dissertation Abstracts, 23, 381 1 , 1963.

11. Lambert, Philip; Goodwin, William L.; and Roberts, Richard. "A Note on the Use of Flanders Interaction Analysis." Journal of Educational Research, MVIII (January, 1965), 222-224.

12. Amidon and Flanders, op. cit., p. 4. 13. Flanders, Ned A. "Analyzing Teacher

Behavior." Educational Leadership, XLX (December, 1961), 179.

14. Amidon, Edmund J., and Simon, Anita. "Implications for Teacher Education of Interaction Analysis Research in Stu- dent Teaching." Presented to the Ameri- can Educational Research Association, Chicago: February 1965. (ERIC # ED. 012 695.)

15. Simon, Anita. "The Effects of Training in Interaction Analysis on the Teaching Patterns of Student Teachers in Fa- vored and Non-Favored Classes." Un- published Doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1966 (microfilm).

16. Arnidon and Simon, op. cit. 17. Amidon and Flanders, op. cit., p. 6. 18. Larnbert, et al., op. cit. 19. Bauch, Jerold Paul. "The Relationship

Between Feedback from Observation and Teacher Verbal Behavior in Pre- Kindergarten Classrooms." Dissertation Abstracts, 29, 826-A, 1968.

20. Goebel, Laurence Gayheart. "An Analy- sis of Teacher-Pupil Interaction When Programmed Instruction Materials Are Used." Dissertation Abstracts, 27, 982-A, 1966.

21. Gunnison, John Pierre. "An Experi- ment to Determine the Effects of Chang- ing Classroom Behavior Through Train- ing of Student Teachers in the Use of the Flanders Interaction Analysis Sys- tem." Dissertation Abstracts, 29, 1464-A, 1968.

22. Storlie, Theodore R. "Selected Charac- teristics of Teachers Whose Verbal Be- havior Is Influenced by an In-Service Course in Interaction Analysis." Disser- tation Abstracts, 22, 3841, 1962.

23. Hill, William Morris. "The Effects on Verbal Teaching Behavior of Learning Interaction Analysis as an In-Service Education Activity." Dissertation Ab- stracts, 27, 2084-A, 1966.

24. Wilson, Richard William. "An Analysis of the Effect on Teacher-Student Inter- action Resulting from an In-Service

-- 'P961 'S~EZ 'EZ 'sj3v.ilsqv uo!lvlrass!a cG.s!st([~uv uo!] -3elaluI JOJ sa!loZ?ale3 elosauu!,q aql 8u!sn s~aq3ea~ ICreluaural3 30 su~a~led uo!pala?ul,, '3 Iaaqzgq 'oaqleurure!f) .8~

'5961 '~915-991 E '9~ 'SJ~~J~S~V uo!Jvl.iass!a ,;suv Islaq!? 30 sa8allo3 WOJJ saal8aa q?!~ srrtaluI Sulq3ea~ alenpelf) pue s1aq3eal hreluamala JeaA-lsl!d pa~edald t(lleuo!]!pe~~ 30 spaaN L]!@~oslad pue sulalled uo!l>e -1aluI moolssel3,, .qdlex uena '~aqros

'L96 1 'V-8LEE 'Lz 'sl3V.ilSq V uO!lVl -rass!a ,;8u!q3sa~ 30 sulalled 8~gln3 -ax 30 LP~IS v., 'aIea PLOI~ 'q3wn '9~

'(V'JOJ3!w) L961 'E!U~A~~SUU~~ 'e!qdlap~~!qd 'h!sla~!un a~drua~ 'uo!leuass!p Ielopoa paqs!I -qndun ,,'L$!~!leal3 pdnd pue lo!Aeqaa JaqseaL,, -1apwxaIy P.IOJI!M '1aqaM '55

'LtI 'd '.P!9Z 'VE '~p 'do 'slapueld -EE

-951 'd '-jp 'do '$sln& 'ZE ' (u~'Jo.I~!uI) ~961 'e!ue~lLs

-nuad 'e!qdlapel!qd 'Ll!sra~!un aldura~ 'uo!lellass!p lelol3oa paqsf~qndun ,,%I! -q3~~ looq3g q8!~ u! pale3!unuruio3 sZu!uea,q 30 s!saqluLs B pue s!sLleuy Jaqund y :uroo~ssel~) aql 30 sa8enS -uex ald!gin~ au,, 'd euoN 'Is1nd

*(UIIYOl3 -!") 8961 'e!UT?A1dSUUad 'e!ydlapq!qd 'L~!SJ~A!U~ aldmal 'uo!y?pass!p Ielol

-ma paqsgqndun ,,-tuauraha!q3v ~!dnd pue lo!r\eqaa ~aq~a~,, 'x ueA3 '1[aM0d 'OE

'L961 'v-LI IZ '82 'S13v.llS -9v tko!yv~.iass~a ,,-s.~aqz~ea~ luapnls u! Ll!l!q!xald 30 luaurdo~a~aa aql uo s!sL -1euv uo!pe.~a~u~ qZnolq1 yjeqpaad 30 13aga aqL,, '=!"of 'm lals!S 'aqsu!d '62

' (UI1!J013!") 68 I-L8 1 'P961 'E!uEA~~sKIu~~ 'e!qd -1qqqd 'Lj!s~a~!un aldura~ 'uo!lr?lJas -s!p 1e10130a paqsgqndun ,;sJaq3eaL luapnls apw9 ale!paurlaluI 01 s!sL -1euv uo!psJaluI 30 uraqsLs s$osauu!Ey aql lu!q3eaL 30 sl3ag3,, 'Kalgaf 'YJ!~ '82 - (uI~'Jo~~!uI) 596 I 'e!ue~~Lsuuad 'e~qdlap -cl!qd 'L$!sla~!un aldwa~ 'uo!leyass!p 1eloj30a paqs!lqndun ,;sxaqseaL luap -nlS Zu!s!,uadns u! s!sLleuv uo!l3e~alu1 30 asn au,, 'P!Aea P"Y!X 'UVZ 'LZ

'L961 'v-IZS '82 's13v.i~sq y uo!~v~.iass!a ,;sulaluI a3ua!3~ ql!~ a3!haa r(los!A.Iadng e se s!sLleuy uo!laelaluI 30 maqsLg slapueld aql 30 uo!qe~o1dxa uv,, .same[ qd@x 'oInA '92

'(m1yo13~) 9961 'e!myLsuuad '~!qd[ap~l!qd 'Ll!sla~!un aldura~ 'uo!ze~ -.~ass!p Ielopoa paqsgqndun ,;laq3aa& juapnls J!aqL pue slaqseaL 8upwado -03 30 sulallsd 8urq3sa~ pm sapnl!lly aql no s!sLleuy uo!yelaluI ui Ou!u!e~L 30 paga aqL,, .apmlJa9 'Z~!MOYSOW -SZ

'L961 'V-266 '82 'S13V.ilS -qv uo!yvl.iass!a ,,'we.18old uope3np~

QUEST

APPENDIX A

CATEGORIES FOR INTERACTION ANALYSIS (Amidon and Flanders)

1 . ACCEPTS FEELING: Accepts and clarifies the feeling tone of the stu- dents in a non-threatening manner. Feelings may be positive or negative. Predicting or recording feelings included.

2. PRAISES OR ENCOURAGES: Praises or encourages student action or u behavior, jokes that release tension, but not at the expense of another id-

dividual; nodding head or saying "um hum?" or "go on" are included.

4 . ASKS QUESTIONS: Asking a question about content o r procedure with the intent that a student answer.

3 m

5 . LECTURING: Giving facts or opinions about content o r procedures; ex- pressing his own ideas, asking rhetorical questions.

3. ACCEPTS O R USES IDEAS OF STUDENTS: Clarifying, building, or developing ideas suggested by a student; as teacher brings more of his own ideas into play, shift to category 5.

_ 6. GIVING DIRECTIONS: Directions, commands, or orders with which a 0 2 student is expected to comply.

6- 7 . CRITICIZING OR JUSTIFYING AUTHORITY: Statements intended to change student behavior from non-acceptable to acceptable pattern; bawl- ing someone out; stating why the teacher is doing what he is doing; ex- treme self-reference.

8. STUDENT TALK-RESPONSE: Talk by students in response to teacher. Teacher initiates contact or solicits student statement.

9. STUDENT TALK-INITIATION: Talk by students which they initiate. If "calling on" student is only to indicate who may talk next, observer must decide whether student wanted to talk. If he did, use this category.

10. SILENCE OR CONFUSION: Pauses, short periods of silence, and periods of confusion in which communication cannot be understood by the ob- server.

1 1 . MEANINGFUL NON-VERBAL ACTIVITY: Periods of silence in which the student is engaged in meaningful productive activity.*

i: Place an i behind any of the teacher talk category numbers when the teacher is addressing his statements to an individual rather than to the entire group.*

* These items were added by the author and are not included in the original reference.