A study of the effects of instructional analysis and ...

University of Massachusetts Amherst University of Massachusetts Amherst

ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst

Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014

1-1-1974

A study of the effects of instructional analysis and feedback on A study of the effects of instructional analysis and feedback on

the classroom behavior and student achievement of university the classroom behavior and student achievement of university

teaching assistants. teaching assistants.

Michael L. Koffman University of Massachusetts Amherst

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Koffman, Michael L., "A study of the effects of instructional analysis and feedback on the classroom behavior and student achievement of university teaching assistants." (1974). Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014. 2864. https://doi.org/10.7275/c0r1-bg06 https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/2864

This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected].

https://scholarworks.umass.edu/

https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1

https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1?utm_source=scholarworks.umass.edu%2Fdissertations_1%2F2864&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://doi.org/10.7275/c0r1-bg06

https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/2864?utm_source=scholarworks.umass.edu%2Fdissertations_1%2F2864&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected]

A STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF INSTRUCTIONAL ANALYSIS AND FEEDBACK ON

THE CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

OF UNIVERSITY TEACHING ASSISTANTS

A Dissertation Presented

by

MICHAEL L. KOFFMAN

Submitted to the Graduate School of the

University of Massachusetts in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

February, 1974

Major Subject: Education

u*»*»

(c) Michael L. Koffman 1974

All Rights Reserved

11

A STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF INSTRUCTIONAL ANALYSIS AND FEEDBACK ON THE

CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT OF UNIVERSITY TEACHING ASSISTANTS

A Dissertation

by

MICHAEL Lo KOFFMAN

Approved as to style and content by:

Dr. Robert Miltz, Chairman

Dr. William Lauroesch, Member*

Dr. John Louis, Member

Dr. Patrick Sullivan, Member

£uv,ft LO Qlk-v-.

Dwight W. Allen

February, 1974

iii

I would like to dedicate this completed work to my parents,

Elizabeth and David Koffman, as a small measure

of the love and esteem and gratitude that I hold for them.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study owes a great deal to many persons. First, I

would like to thank my advisor, Dr. R.J. Miltz, who introduced

me to the field of teacher education, and who provided me with

constant support and stimulation.

I would also like to thank Dr. John Louis, who initiated

and supervised many aspects of this project, and Dr. William

Lauroesch and Dr. Patrick Sullivan who contributed to my progress

in so many ways

.

This study would not have been possible without the gener-

ous assistance of the staff and directors of the Clinic to Im-

prove University Teaching project at the University of Massachu-

setts, particularly Dr. Glen Erickson, Bette Erickson and Michael

Jackson.

I would especially like to thank Ric deFreisse, formerly of

that project, for the invaluable time and expertise he devoted to

organizing and processing the data that was collected. His energy

and patience in this regard were truly outstanding.

Finally, I would like to thank the finest teacher I know, my

wife Bobbie. Her wisdom, insight and good judgment have guided

every aspect of my work.

v

A Study of the Effects of Instructional Analysis and Feedback on

the Classroom Behavior and Student Achievement

of University Teaching Assistants (1974)

Michael L. Koffman, B.A. University of Massachusetts

Directed by: Dr. Robert Miltz

The purpose of this study was to evaluate an in-service

teacher education model designed for higher education.

Basically, this model presumes that effective instruc-

tion is related to the level of performance by teachers of

certain recurrent behaviors such as asking questions, pacing,

elaborating, emphasizing, bringing closure, facilitating stu-

dent participation, creating challenge, evaluating, etc. These

behaviors are referred to as "technical skills of teaching.

They are incorporated into a questionnaire and are rated

by the instructor, his students and an instructional specialist

Through analysis of these results as well as a videotape of the

instructor's classroom teaching, certain skills are identified

as "problematic" and in need of change. The desired changes

are sought by various means including successive videotaping

and analysis, successive student evaluations, micro-teaching,

instructor discussions with students or other instructors,

viewing instructional models, referring to specific readings,

etc

.

vi

To test this model a group of 13 in-service graduate

teaching assistants were divided into an experimental group,

a quasi-experimental group and a control group. All subjects

instructed their own section of a required freshman Rhetoric

course designed to improve student writing and expression.

As a pretest the subjects completed self-evaluations,

student evaluations, a 30-minute videotape of their classroom

instruction and an essay-type student achievement test.

Members of the experimental and quasi-experimental groups

individually reviewed their data with instructional specialists.

The experimental group continued to meet with instructional

specialists who provided additional experiences designed to

facilitate changes in instruction.

After approximately eight weeks all subjects completed

a posttest consisting of another 30-minute videotape of their

classroom instruction, student evaluations (using the same

form) and student achievement tests (using a parallel form).

Changes in classroom instructional behavior were analyzed

by means of an adaptation of Flanders interaction analysis.

The results showed observable change in all three groups. The

experimental and quasi-experimental group instructors increased

their "using student ideas," "focusing, summarizing, introduc-

ing or orienting statements" and "lecturing." The percentage

of class time occupied by teacher talking increased and the per-

vii

cent occupied by the students talking decreased. The control

group instructors showed a marked increase in silence in their

posttest lessons. Their "using student ideas" increased only

slightly and their use of "focusing, summarizing, introducing

or orienting statements" and "lecturing" decreased.

In the student evaluations,the experimental group showed

positive patterns of change in the categories of "clarity,"

"evaluation and feedback" and "relating to student responses."

The quasi-experimental group regressed in one category, "re-

lating to student responses," and the control group improved

in one category, "relating to student responses."

The achievement rating indicated that the mean score of

the students in the experimental group improved by 3.33 points

The mean score of the quasi-experimental group remained un-

changed, and the mean score of the control group students

dropped 2 points.

The results tended to support the usefulness of this in-

structional improvement model. The classroom instructional

behavior, student evaluations and student achievement of the

instructors in the experimental group appeared to change in

desirable ways. The classroom behavior of the instructors

in the quasi-experimental and control groups changed less,

and their student evaluations and student achievement for the

most part did not change in desirable ways.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES .

LIST OF FIGURES

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION 1

Statement of the Problem and Hypotheses. ... 1

In-service Teacher Education 1

The Training of Higher Education Faculty in

Instruction 5

The Role of Teaching in the University .... 15

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 18

Teacher Effectiveness Research 18

The Technical Skills of Teaching 24

Micro-teaching ..... 25

Learning Principles 30

Student Evaluations 32

The Inductive - Analytical Approach 34

III. PROCEDURES 43

Treatment. 44

SubjectsSettingInitial InterviewObservationVideotape I

Student EvaluationsInterpretation and Feedback

Follow-up

Additional Data Collection

Videotape II, Student Evaluations

Student Achievement Tests

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter Page

Data Analysis 55

Interaction AnalysisStudent EvaluationsStudent Achievement

IV. RESULTS

Changes in Instructional Behavior: InteractionAnalysis 63

Difference MatricesComparison of Difference Matrices Along

Selected DimensionsFlow ChartsSignificance of ChangesInter-rater Reliability

Student Evaluations 94

Student Achievement 104

Correspondance Among Measures 106

V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 110

Purpose and Procedures 110

Summary of Results 112

Change in Instructional Behavior

Change in Student Evaluations

Change in Achievement

Conclusions 114-

Limitations

Implications for Future Research 119

Summary 121

REFERENCES 122

APPENDICES

A. COURSE INFORMATION AND PRE -VIDEOTAPING IN-

FORMATION FORMS 131

B. INTERACTION ANALYSIS MATRICES 135

C. STUDENT EVALUATIONS 160

D. STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT TESTS 2 °1

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

I. Research Abilities Judged "Essential" Pre-sently and "Acquired" In Graduate School. ... 9

II. Teaching Skills Judged "Essential" Presentlyand "Acquired" in Graduate School 9

III. Teaching Assistant Survey - Maryland 10

IV. Graduate Teaching Assistants Rating of TrainingProgram 31

V. Experimental Group Difference Matrix 64

VI. Control Group Difference Matrix ........ 66

VII. Quasi-Experimental Group Difference Matrix. . . 67

VIII. Comparison of Interaction Analysis Dimensions . 69

IX. Direction of Change on Student Evaluations for

Each Sub-group 80

X. Rater Scores for One Fifteen-Minute Lesson Using

the Flanders 10-Category System 95

XI. Comparison of Student Evaluation Pretest and

Posttest Scores For Individual Items and

Factors 96

XII. Quasi-Experimental Group Student Evaluation

Items and Factors Indicating Change 99

XIII. Control Group Student Evaluation Items and Fac-

tors Indicating Change 101

XIV. Experimental Group Student Evaluation Items and

Factors Indicating Change 102

XV. Student Achievement Scores 105

XVI. Instructional Problems and Improvement Goals of

Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Groups. . . 107

XVII. Correspondance Between Improvement Goals. Behav-

ior Changes, and Student Evaluation Scores for

the Experimental Group 108

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. In-service Teacher Education Components ... 3

2. Biddle's Seven-Variable-Class Model forTeacher Effectiveness 19

3. Relationship of Teacher Indirectness to Pu-

pil Growth 38

4. Relationship of Teacher Criticism to Pupil

Growth 38

5. Student Evaluation Form of the Clinic to Im-

prove University Teaching - Spring 1973 ... 48

6. Twenty-One Technical Skills of Teaching and

Related Student Evaluation Items 52

7. Sequence of Data Collection and Treatment . . 56

8. Seventeen-Category Interaction Analysis

System 57

9. Flanders Ten-Category Interaction Analysis

System ^8

10. Student Evaluation Factors 61

11. Experimental Group Pretest Flow Chart .... 84

12. Experimental Group Posttest Flow Chart. ... 85

13. Quasi-Experimental Group Pretest Flow Chart . 87

14. Quasi-Experimental Group Posttest 1 low Chart.

15. Control Group Pretest Flow Chart 90

16. Control Group Posttest Flow Chart 92

xii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem and Hypotheses

The present study is a contribution to the field of in-

service teacher education at the higher education level. The

purpose of the study was to measure the effects of particular

instructional analysis and feedback procedures on the classroom

behavior, student evaluations and student achievement of univer-

sity teaching assistants.

This purpose may be stated in terms of the following hy-

potheses :

(1) There will be significant differences between the

pretest and posttest classroom behavior of in-

structors who have undergone the instructional

analysis and feedback procedures when measured

by changes in Flanders interaction analysis cate-

gories.

(2) Differences in instructional behavior for this

group will be accompanied by corresponding posi-

tive changes in student evaluations of the in-

structors when measured on student evaluation

questionnaires

.

(3) Differences in instructional behavior for this

group will be accompanied by positive changes

in student achievement as measured on student

achievement tests.

In-Service Teacher Education

The field of in-service teacher education can be understood

in terms of various components of instruction which in-seivice

teacher educators attempt to affect as well as the various means

These components would include the follow-by which they do so.

2

ing: instructional goals, teaching styles, specific methods,

classroom instructional behavior, classroom environment, tea-

cher personal characteristics. The "means" include group sett-

>data collection and analysis tools and teacher educator

role. These components are represented in Figure 1 in grea-

ter detail.

This study dealt narrowly with the component of specific

instructional behaviors, particularly in regard to their direct

observation, analysis and evaluation. The setting was primarily

an individual, one-to-one type, although group settings were ex-

plored. Data collection and analysis tools included student

evaluations, direct classroom observation, videotape analysis,

systematic behavior coding and instructor self-evaluation. The

role of the teacher educator was that of analyst.

At the same time this study sought to contribute to the

research on "teacher effectiveness," that is, to the body of

literature which studies the specific characteristics of in-

structional situations as they relate to student outcomes. It

would seem necessary in fact for the two fields of teaching re-

search and in-service education to be closely connected if the

in-service teacher educator is to serve in any way as a media-

tor tor between educational research and educational practice.

Such a role can be vitally important for a number of rea-

sons. First, there is a growing body of knowledge on the re-

lationship between various instructional components and student

3

CD

CJ

•Hp

p CO

QJ t—l «P a cd o p d oCJ d QJ O -Pcd o p p pa) co o O cd.

E-t P cd i pQJ p qj dCP cd 00 QJ

iC P co

o cd qj

P) pCP

x E pd o dcd o a) iP

P E cd

t-t co d dO CO o X)o cd p •pid 1—l *P >

CO l o o > •pE-i co d X)2 w dW M2o

o CD cd

o P O d CD X)d •POP QJ

2 a) cd *p

Ep a. aj d cd p pC e ft p d 00 oO o CO P QJ oo o d2 o CD « d p Po d •H CP Pw 1—4 M p 1 CD

cd p >p dPi d QJ rP t—

t

w o CO QJ

2 , *H CO i

C_) p 00 CO

< o d xjw d •H 0H p id id

p O Pw CO cd QJ CO

u d QJ S CPM M Ep o> idP4 CD

wCO

1

PO

2 00M d co

•P QJ

id t—<

o >.cd P0) co X)

H d p CO

cd p CPo do- o

co D-. pcd d o

00 H co

d

cd dd do cd

•p i—ico

P CP QJ

o co

d x) Pp d dp cd oCD od co

M r—

•

cd

oo

OOd•pXI0CJ CD

„ EE QJ

O PO CO

P >>CO COCO

cd

r—

<

o POco

•HCO >d p

CD P o 0) CO

00 d -p a. Pd QJ P d d•rl xi cd CO QJ

X) X) d d dd p P rP ocd o co cd Cft

o > EO 0)

0) Piw

p0o

X) co

•P o p d> -p d T—< o

X) QJ cd •HCO d E QJ d pd < 0) i-4 < cd

cd > O o0) 0) Pi d2 •H X

d P wd CJ 0o d <3 p p p•H E o cd o QJ

p O -P P o p ido O P d d CJ oQJ p cd QJ X d cd

< 1 co > X w P QJ

1 1 CD P d p Ep0 cd qj P p co

o i-< CO CO QJ d QJ

CJ d id M CJ

cd o CJ •Hp cd >cd 0) po ' Ep QJ

X CO

d QJ 1

oo cd d dxi d oo Md -p d cd

cd d O P QJ •

o •p P H rHoo cd P o r—i

d qj cd cp o aj

•P Eh d qj cj p>N rP Pi dcd cd i oo

i—i P > p •H

CP o W i-t

1 p 1 QJ

qj cd 44 CO prP P HI oo o QJ CO

Pi ,d CO •p

cd >. P) X

<

CO

Pco

a)

HdQJ

PP•Hp

4

indicating that in given situations, for specific instructonal

goals, with certain populations of students, certain choices

among the type and sequence of curriculum materials, methods,

teaching approach and specific instructional behaviors will

effect those objectives more completely than other choices.

Secondly, there is evidence that instructors are capable

of manipulating their teaching in terms of these components

so as to "improve" their teaching effectiveness.

Thirdly, most classroom instructors, especially at the

higher education level either are not aware of instructional

alternatives or they do not have the support and encouragement

to investigate these in their classrooms.

Finally, the role of the in-service teacher educator gains

importance in reference to the fact that the majority of in-

structors who will be teaching at the higher education level

in the next ten years are teaching in higher education insti-

tutions at the present time.

The first two of the above propositions are the subject

of Chapter II, "Review of the Literature." The third proposi-

tion, concerning instructors' knowledge of teaching components

and instructional alternatives is the subject of the present

chapter. The last proposition, given the present structure of

tenure laws and the trend toward stabilization and even decline

in the growth rate of higher education institutions, is mathe-

matically correct.

5

The Training of Higher Education Faculty in Instruction

In a Report of the President's Commission on Higher Educa-

tion (1947) the following statement was made,

College teaching is the only major learned professionfor which there does not exist a well-defined programof preparation directed toward developing the skillswhich it is essential for the practitioner to possess(p. 1).

After reviewing the graduate programs of fifty institutions

of higher education, Heiss (1970) found that in 757o of the in-

stitutions the teaching assistantship was the primary means for

preparing future college teachers and that "fewer than half of

those who held such appointments were likely to receive adequate,

systematic and continuous guidance from a senior member of the

faculty (p. 39)." Few programs designed to prepare graduates

for teaching were "interdisciplinary" and few graduate students

took coursework in any aspect of teaching. Heiss concluded,

Most graduate faculties have operated on the assump-tion that the process of becoming a researcher re-

quires rigorous exposure to theory and practice,but the art and skill of teaching comes naturallyor develops gratuitously when one is educated for

research. Thus the emphasis in most Ph. D. pro-

grams has been heavily weighted in favor of pre-

paring students to discover knowledge and only in-

cidentally, if at all, on how to impart to others

the nature and value of that knowledge (p. 37).

Arrowsmith (1967), Chairman of the Department of Classics

at the University of Texas, makes the point in much stronger

terms

,

I am suggesting what will doubtless seem paradox

or treason: There is no necessary link between

6

scholarship and education, or between research andculture, and in actual practice scholarship is nolonger a significant educational force. Scholars,to be sure, are unprecedentedly powerful, but theirpower is professional and technocratic; as educa-tors they have been eagerly disqualifying themselvesfor more than a century, and their disqualificationis now nearly total. The scholar has disowned thestudent -- that is, the student who is not a poten-tial scholar -- and the student has reasonably re-taliated by abandoning the scholar. This, I be-lieve, is the only natural reading of what I taketo be a momentous event: the secession of the stu-dent from the institutions of higher learning onthe grounds that they no longer educate and aretherefore, in his word, irrelevant (p. 110).

Eble (1971) published the results of a two-year project

(The Project to Improve College Teaching sponsored by the

Association of American Colleges and the American Association

of University Professors) which addressed the question of pre-

paration for college teaching. His booklet was based largely

on a career development questionnaire sent to faculty members

of 142 different institutions.

To the first question, "My institution (does, does not) have

an effective faculty development system," the response was over-

whelmingly negative.

To question two, "Outside of the departmental program and

budget, my institution provides specific support for (research,

teaching, service)," about 60 percent of the respondents reported

specific support for research, 10 percent reported support for

teaching and even fewer for service. Eighteen respondents said

their institutions offered no support outside of department bud-

7

gets for research, teaching or service.

Question three involved the most common form of institu-

tional support for faculty development, sabbatical leave.

Sixty percent of institutions in the survey conducted some

form of sabbatical leave,but there was much discontent in

terms of the nature of the leave and the selection procedures.

Fewer than one-fourth of these schools awarded leaves for im-

proving one's teaching, a research proposal, or a proposal

for general professional development.

In two other questions concerning specific programs for

the preparation of college teachers in graduate programs, over

half of the respondents reported no specific preparation pro-

gram aside from departmental course work, and none of insti-

tutions that provided some teacher preparation procedures had

a comprehensive program (pp. 3-4).

Other Commission and private studies, particularly those

conducted within the various disciplines (Miller and Wilson,

1963; Nowlis, Clark and Rock, 1968; Many, £t. a_l., 1969; NCTE

,

1970; Mackenzie, 1970; Dean, n.d.) support the conclusion in-

dicated above that not only are college faculty members not

formally trained in instruction, but future college faculty

are not being trained.

This situation is exacerbated at the junior college level

where the role of the instructor centers even more on class-

room instruction. A report submitted to the President and

8

Congress by the National Advisory Council on Education Pro-

fessions Development (1972) stated that instructors at the

junior and community colleges "are inadequate" and "do not

know how to teach" and that teacher education programs are

doing little to help them. The Council recommended in-

service education programs to bring the instruction into

line with the colleges' objectives.

Junior college administrators recently have called for

teacher preparation programs that would aid new instructors

in gaining a broader picture of curriculum and the needs of

students than that usually afforded in a graduate school

"subject-matter-centered" sequence (American Association of

Junior Colleges, 1969). Others (Cohen, 1970) went so far as

to request separate training institutions in which junior

college instructors might be prepared outside the "contami-

nating influence" of the research-dominated universities.

Surveys of faculty members,graduate students and ad-

ministrators also support the conclusion that college in-

structors are insufficiently trained in instruction.

A survey of 1700 University of Minnesota Ph. D.'s gra-

duated in the periods 1935 to 1949 and 1954 to 1956 (Alcia-

tore and Eckart, 1968) concerning the strengths and weaknesses

of their career preparation are summarized in the following

two tables.

9

TABLE I

RESEARCH ABILITIES JUDGED "ESSENTIAL" PRESENTLY

AND "ACQUIRED" IN GRADUATE SCHOOL

Abilities Related to ResearchPer CentEssential

Per CentAcquired

1. Familiarity with research materials andmethods 76.3 88.0

2. Skill and practice in doing research 62.3 86.2

3. Ability to do research, produce artis-tic creations 59.2 81.3

4. Ability to supervise research programs 46.5 41.5

5. Ability to use a wide range of libraryresources 43.6 70.7

TABLE II

TEACHING SKILLS JUDGED "ESSENTIAL"PRESENTLY

AND "ACQUIRED" IN GRADUATE SCHOOL

Abilities Related to TeachingPer CentEssential

Per CentAcquired

1. Skill in lecturing 72.9 27.7

2. Ability to outline objectives and or-ganize courses 71.7 40.0

3. Ability to teach or train others 60.7 35.4

4. Skill in handling discussion 60.5 30.4

5. Skill in planning for effective use of

limited time 58.9 27.0

6. Ability to direct students in use of

library 29.7 42.4

7. Skill in making and using illustrativedevices 20.8 22.8

10

The discrepancy between training perceived as "essential" and

training judged to have been "acquired" in the domain of teach-

ing far outweigh that of the research domain in these results.

In the opinion of numerous college presidents, the know-

ledge of undergraduate education among students in their Ph. D.

programs was much more problematic than the students' preoccu-

pation with research or their specialization in a field (McGrath,

1961).

University teaching assistants in physics at the Univer-

sity of Maryland (Triezenberg,1969) felt that learning to

write course objectives, learning teaching techniques, lec-

turing to classes and being observed by a faculty member were

most lacking in their present graduate program. The results

of Triezenberg ' s survey are represented in Table III.

TABLE III

TEACHING ASSISTANT SURVEY - MARYLAND

General Area of ConcernWas Should be

Part of Experience

Pre-semester orientation covering:

Course objectivesTeaching techniques

Range of teaching experience including:

Discussion of course evaluation

Participation in exam design

Lecture to lab./rec.

Lecture to whole class

Supervision and evaluation by means of:

Regular meetings with faculty

Clearly specified responsibilities

Observation of T.A. by faculty

17 73

6 74

34 88

48 81

64 85

16 55

67 87

65 82

12 77

11

TABLE III (continued)

TEACHING ASSISTANT SURVEY - MARYLAND

Was Should beGeneral Area of Concern Part of Experience

Formal course or seminar:In physics department 17 70In general education 5 27

Organized Instructional Improvement Programs in Higher Education

The response to these criticisms of college instructor pre-

paration has been an increase in both pre-service and in-service

training programs. A variety of such programs are now emerging.

The results of Heiss's study for example were presented in a

keynote address to a conference of the Commission of College Phy-

sics held at the University of Washington (West, et a_l. ,

1970),

where the conference goal was the establishment of instructional

training programs for future college physicists.

Fifty-three physicists from twenty-four institutions and

a large number of graduate students in Physics agreed upon a

model teacher preparation program including: "careful attention

to selection, orientation, training, supervision and evaluation,"

"an apprenticeship program in which the variety and depth of the

research apprenticeship is modeled for teaching and instruction,"

and "an internship program where theory becomes practice in an

atmosphere where feedback is quick and useful (p. ii)." The con-

ference members also advocated a Seminar on College Physics Tea-

ching and constructed a model outline for such a seminar.

12

The Danforth Foundation since 1964 has promoted efforts to

train college instructors via systematic teaching assistantship

programs (Danforth, 1970). One such model began in 1967 at the

University of Michigan's College Teacher Training Program, co-

ordinated through the Center for Research on Learning and Tea-

ching at that University (Koen and Ericksen, 1967). This ap-

proach moves "teaching fellows" through three sequential stages:

first the "apprenticeship" where they participate in workshops,

discussion sessions and limited apprentice teaching with feed-

back; second, teaching "assistant" in their own course or sec-

tion, still with guidance; third, "instructor" assigned to work

with two to four of the stage one trainees.

The program co-ordinator concluded that the stage three in-

structors "can provide adequate supervision." Furthermore, be-

cause the Instructors were committed to teaching they were will-

ing to devote special time and effort to helping the trainees;

they also posed "less of a threat" to the trainees than would a

faculty member (Koen and Ericksen, 1967).

Other institutions have altered the type of degree that

graduate students oriented toward college teaching might re-

ceive. At Washington University in St. Louis, a parallel de-

gree program has been established (Centra, 1972b). Over 100

graduate institutions have established some form of the Doc-

tor of Arts in College Teaching degree. This usually involves

a master's degree in a subject area, three or four education

13

courses, supervised practice teaching and a special educatonal

project (National Faculty Association, 1968).

In terms of in-service teacher education a variety of

aPProaches are also in use. Golden West College has insti-

tuted a kind of "contract" system where individual instructors

specify their teaching goals and agree upon means of measuring

these in conjunction with their department chairman, academic

dean and perhaps an instructional specialist (Cohen and Brawer

,

1969; Cohen and Shawl, 1970).

Some institutions have emphasized self-initiated faculty

projects in teaching and teaching improvement by funding fa-

culty proposals (Mathis, 1972). Programs, materials and pro-

cedures have been organized for faculty self-evaluation and

self-improvement (Mescon, et al., 1969; Boulding, 1970).

Self-improvement programs are often bolstered by student

evaluations of the faculty member, sometimes conducted by in-

dividual departments or university-wide agencies. One such

program differentiates three levels of student evaluation ques-

tionnaires, each one more specific about the faculty member's

instruction. This allows the faculty member to pinpoint the

unsuccessful aspects of his instruction and to initiate the

appropriate changes (Smock and Crooks, 1973).

Several programs depend upon inter-faculty conferencing,

especially classroom visits between beginning and experienced

faculty (Diekhoff, 1960; Gustad, 1963; Hadgkinson, 1972). At

14

least one program, the Environment for Teaching program at

Stanford's Center for Research and Development in Teaching,

is investigating the link between the "political decision-

making" activities in institutions and teaching, that is,

whether there is any connection between instructors' ability

to participate in the school's overall policy-making, job

satisfaction and teaching performance (Baldridge, 1970).

The most marked trend in in-service education, however,

has been the development of resource and improvement centers

established within and co-ordinated by universities. Typi-

cally these are staffed with experts on multiple aspects of

instruction and the various means of effecting instructional

change. Thus they can instruct faculty or departments in

curriculum design, teaching methods, use of media, etc., as

well as directly observe and critique classroom teaching.

In short, they serve a combined role of resource agent, super-

visor and researcher.

It must be concluded nevertheless that most of these

programs are "shooting in the dark," because so little is

actually known about the effectiveness of instruction. As

indicated in Chapter II, numerous in-service education tech-

niques exist which appear to alter the way in which faculty

members perform, but the vast majority of these do not mea-

sure student outcomes as a criterion of instructional im-

provement . (Burkhart ,1969).

15

The Role of Teaching in the University

The increasing number of improvement centers and the

apparent interest of faculty members, students and adminis-

trators in college and university instruction is probably a

productive trend. Certain qualifications regarding this trend

must be noted however.

One is that although many faculty have felt they were

not trained sufficiently in instruction, they presently feel

that they have gained adequate mastery of instructional tech-

nique through experience. Thus a survey of 1,085 faculty

members at six institutions (Gaff and Wilson, 1971) revealed

that ninety percent considered teaching to be a "major source

of satisfaction in their lives" and all but a few said that

their students viewed them as effective teachers.

Although studies where faculty estimates of their teach-

ing ability are compared to student estimates show that most

faculty overestimate their teaching (Centra, 1972a), the lack

of sophistication, use and credibility of measures of teacher

effectiveness have not made this apparent. It is safe to

say that most university faculty members at present have a

complacent attitude toward instructional improvement programs

This attitude is further supported by the traditional

reward system at most institutions of higher education, where

research productivity is promoted over teaching effectiveness

According to Eble (1971), "Within the profession at large,

16

the forces which work against undergraduate teaching are pro-

bably as great as those which work for it (p. 2)."

The nature of college and university education is also

unique in this regard. The very structure of a residence,

’•campus" college with light class loads for faculty and myriad

educational activities suggests that "a great deal, if not

the greater part 01 the teaching-learning function is real-

ized outside the classroom (Trent and Cohen, 1973, p. 1040)."

In fact, the real impact of university instructors may

be related to such "incidental" or "hidden" factors as their

personalities, life-styles and intellectual habits which stu-

dents "model." Real learning at college may also be due to

the open, "rich," supportive environment which is usually gen-

erated at the college level by faculty individual contact with

students and the non-monitoring of student activities. Au-

thors from Dewey (1939) to Rogers (1969) have advocated such

an environment for fostering such positive outcomes as stu-

dent independence, self-initiation and creativity. Only re-

cently have researchers inquired into this overall environ-

mental impact (Trent, 1970).

The question of instructional improvement for universi-

ty faculty also involves certain philosophical issues. It

is probably true that the United States has undergone a change

in values during the last two decades. The question of whether

the university should adapt itself to this change or attempt

17

to temper the change with traditional academic values is an

important one. Nuthall and Snook (1973) make a strong ar-

gument for retention of traditional academic disciplines

because they teach a unique way of thinking and knowing. The

scholar-teacher role which is largely based on information

transferral is certainly valid if transmitting new know-

ledge to students is an important activity. The rigor of

both the academic disciplines and the knowledge generator

role can be undermined by hasty adoption of such concepts as

"student-centeredness , " "relevance , " "teaching-counseling ,

"

or "individualization."

The real facts are that little is known about the value

of traditional instructional techniques or recently-developed

instructional techniques. Sanford’s observation in 1962 was

reasserted a decade later by the authors of the most recent

review of the literature on research in higher education (Trent

and Cohen, 1973),

The colleges will change only when more knowledge

of what they do and of what they might do has been

produced and made available to educators. The

need for theory is apparent but what is more strik-

ing is the paucity of empirical studies (p. 1012).

18

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Teacher Effectiveness Research

The field of research in education which might be des-

cribed as ’’teacher effectiveness" research generally follows

a paradigm expressed in the following question: "What speci-

fic characteristics of instruction result in what learning

outcomes for what kinds of students in what kinds of educa-

tional contexts (Gage, 1963; Biddle, 1964; Meux, 1967; Cen-

tra, 1972)?" As an hypothesis this question becomes: "The

quality of learning which transpires in a given instruction-

al situation is a function of particular instructional pro-

cedures employed by a particular instructor for particular

students with particular goals in mind (Popham, 1967, p. 2)."

Biddle (1964) represented the teacher effectiveness

question in a seven-variable model depicted in Figure 2. The

import of Biddle's model is that many variables operate in a

given teaching/learning situation, and that reliable state-

ments of teacher effectiveness (statements of cause-and-ef fect

relationships between teaching factors and learning factors)

must control for these variables.

Certain instructors are effective in certain situations

more than in others. To use Biddle's example, "Some teachers

may be inspirational leaders, others warm counselors, and still

BIDDLE'S

SEVEN

-VARIABLE

-CLASS

MODEL

FOR

TEACHER

EFFECTIVENESS

19

v

• c O -° w o w u

Figure

2.

Biddle's

Seven-Variable-Class

Model

for

Teacher

Effectiveness

20

others walking encyclopedias. In certain contexts, each of

these competencies may be highly effective; in others each

might have little or negative effect (p. 19)."

The failure of researchers to grasp the complexity of

teaching/ learning situations is largely at the root of reams

of contradictory research findings. A good example is re-

search in the effectiveness of various curriculum systems

as cited by Rosenshine (1970):

The lack of information on classroom interactionhinders evaluation of a single curriculum ordifferent curricula because without this infor-mation one tends to assume that all classroomsusing the same curriculum materials constitutea homogeneous 'treatment variable.' Such an

assumption is questionable because teachersmay vary widely in what activities they selectand how they implement them. In studies whereteacher behavior in special curricula was com-

pared with the behavior of teachers in 'tra-

ditional instruction. . .there was often signi-

ficant variation in the behavior of teachers

within each group. Although the number of class-

rooms observed in these studies is small, the re-

sults are consistent enough to cause serious doubts

about whether all classrooms using the same curri-

culum constitute a single treatment variable (p. 280)

.

Other studies that have suffered from a too simplified

view of instruction were those seeking the universal quali-

ties of "good teachers." For the most part these studies were

concerned with the personal and social characteristics of tea-

chers rather than their patterns of behavior in the classroom.

The results of these investigations were negligible (Biddle,

1964). In other words, no personal characteristics of teachers

21

or general abilities were identified which could predict suc-

cessful learning outcomes. Around 1960, according to Biddle,

many educational researchers abandoned the field of competence

research as "a simple-minded approach to a vastly more complex

topic: the study of classroom interaction (p. vi)."

Ryans' study (1960) was probably a major influence on the

directions that teacher effectiveness research has taken. Ryans

focused on "teacher characteristics" meaning both "teacher pro-

perties" and "teacher behavior." His sample included approxi-

mately 6000 teachers in 1700 schools across 450 school systems,

and his data was collected over a period of ten years (1950 -

1960).

Ryans rated three dimensions of teacher behavior via di-

rect observation: "warm, understanding, friendly versus aloof,

egocentric, restricted," "responsible, businesslike, systema-

tic versus evading, unplanned, slipshod," and "stimulating,

imaginative versus dull, routine (Ryans, 1964, p. 76)."

Seven teacher properties were considered: "favorable

versus unfavorable opinions of pupils," "favorable versus un-

favorable opinions of democratic classroom procedures," "fa-

vorable versus unfavorable opinions of administrative and other

school personnel," "learning-centered" versus "child-centered"

educational viewpoints, "verbal understanding," "emotional

stability" and "validity of response."

Four student dimensions were also rated: "apathetic-

alert," "obstructive-responsible," "uncertain-confident" and

22

"dependent-initiating." The seven teacher properties were

measured by a self-report inventory consisting of 300 multi-

ple-choice and check— list items relating to personal prefer-

ences,self- judgments

,activities frequently engaged in, bio-

graphical data, etc.

The study moreover did not preconceive the teacher be-

haviors which were rated, rather a year and a half was spent

directly observing classrooms, taking down observational data

and organizing these into rater dimensions. The result was a

document entitled the Classroom Observation Record,

Finally, great care was given to the training of the

raters, including retraining at various intervals to insure

consistency. Raters were advised to focus their attention

sharply "on the specified behaviors or characteristics to be

assessed (Ryans, 1964, p. 13)."

Ryans results were definitely not clear-cut and in some

instances could be considered disappointing. For example,

in the elementary school pupil behavior showTed a positive

correlation with such teacher behaviors and characteristics

as "friendly," "systematic-businesslike," "favorable atti-

tude toward pupils," "favorable attitude toward democratic

classroom procedures." Student behavior appeared to be un-

related to teacher characteristics in secondary school.

The findings that participation in schoollike activi-

ties during childhood and adolescence were significantly re-

23

lated to positive scores on a majority of the ten teacher rat-

ing scales or that teachers in large schools scored higher than

teachers from small schools or that teachers 55 years and above

scored less well than younger instructors on all dimensions ex-

cept "systematic and businesslike classroom behavior" and "learn-

ing-centered viewpoint" may be considered somewhat trivial. The

results did not have much application to actual educational pro-

blems and their solutions.

Ryans study however pointed in many directions. He did em-

ploy direct classroom observation. He arrived at his observa-

tional categories inductively. He included a large number of

variables with careful methodology; and he did produce certain

correlations. He concluded,

We are beginning to pull together factual informa-tion about teacher behavior that permits, for thefirst time, useful descriptions of the dimensionsof teacher behavior and their interrelationshipsand interactions. This should be of significantusefulness to teacher education and to supervi-sion in the schools--a taxonomy and analysis thatmake accurate description possible and that shouldlead to more definitive and operational methodsfor 'acquiring teacher behavior' both in the tea-

cher education program and on-the-job supervision(Ryans, 1964, p. 96).

Programs and research in instructional improvement at

the present time may be classified to some extent in two cate-

gories: (1) those who define, refine and apply a list of tea-

cher competencies more or less generalizeable across different

classroom contexts--a deductive approach, and (2) those who

24

attempt to gather factual information about teacher behavior and

educational process in classrooms in a very descriptive-analyti-

cal manner an inductive approach. Teacher educators who pro-

ceed deductively with a list of teacher competencies perhaps

have more practical mobility. Those who proceed inductively

are perhaps more likely to identify critical instructional var-

iables. The two approaches nevertheless are symbiotic, as Biddle

points out:

The researcher ignores the practical problems of com-petence creation and evaluation at his peril. It isunlikely, however, that significant advances will bemade in understanding teacher competence without aclearer picture of teacher behavior and its effects(p. 20).

The Technical Skills of Teaching

The "technical skills" approach may be considered a com-

promise between high inference "traits-rating" approaches and

low inference "behaviors-ef fects" approaches. The difference

is that in the case of technical skills, instead of a trait such

as "warmth," there is a behavior such as "introduces a new idea."

These behaviors are rated however in terms of an ideal model of

their performance. The discrepancy between the instructor's

actual performance of given behaviors and the ideal performance

creates the basis for instructional change.

According to Gage (1967) technical skills are "specific

instructional techniques and procedures that a teacher may use

in the classroom (p. 607)." The choice of a particular set of

technical skills to rate is somewhat arbitrary. What is im-

25

portant according to Gage is "the attempt to analyze teaching

into limited, well-defined components that can be taught,

practiced, evaluated, predicted, controlled and understood

in a way that has proven to be altogether impossible for tea-

ching viewed in the larger chunks that occur over a period of

an hour, a day, a week or a year (p. 602).

A typical list of technical skills includes the following:

set induction," "probing questioning," "higher order question-

ing," "divergent questioning," "reinforcement," "stimulus varia-

tion," "use of examples," "planned repetition," "nonverbal cues,

"completeness of communication" and "lecturing (Miltz, 1973)."

Micro-Teaching

The technical skills approach was particularly appropriate

to laboratory settings and pre-service teacher training in that

trainees could concentrate on mastering each skill separately,

could view videotapes of teaching models, practice the skill be-

fore a small group of students and compare their performance (al

so videotaped) to that of the model (Allen and Fortune, 1967).

This format was also extremely useful for research as Gage ex-

plains :

Rather than seek criteria for the overall effective-ness of teachers in the many, varied facets of theirroles, we may have better success with criteria of

effectiveness in small, specifically defined aspectsof the teacher’s role. A sufficient number of lawsapplying to relatively pure aspects of the role, if

such laws could be developed, might eventually becombined. .. to account for the actual behavior and

26

effectiveness of teachers with pupils under gen-uine classroom conditions (p. 95).

Most of the subsequent studies using the technical skills

and laboratory approach took place at Stanford University under

the direction of N. L. Gage, Dwight Allen, Robert Bush and Fre-

derick McDonald.

According to McDonald (1973) the first experiment using

micro-teaching was performed by Aubertine (1964) on the subject

of "set induction." Since that time several studies have been

reported: "instructional set" and "cognitive closure" (Fortune,

1965), "cuing" (Unruh, 1967), "reinforcement" (McDonald and

Allen, 1.967), "explaining skills" (Rosenshine 1968, Miltz 1971),

"verbal behavior" (Davis and Smoot, 1969), "modeling" (Orme,

1966; Berliner, 1967; Koran, 1970), "vocabulary, movement in

the classroom, inclusion of content, use of questions, degree

of control and encouragement of student participation" (Beard

,

1969), "listening" and "response" (McKnight, 1970), "attending

behavior" (Salzburg, et al . , 1971; Ramp, et al., 1971), "plann-

ing" (Waimon, Bell and Ramseyer, 1971), "variability in ex-

planatory mode" (Knight, 1971), "evaluating skills" (Legge

and Asper,1972)

.

Although many of these studies attempt to corroborate hy-

potheses about the relationship of these skills to teacher ef-

fectiveness (Allen and Fortune, 1967), the vast majority do

not use student gains as the effectiveness criterion (Rosen-

27

shine, 1973). Furthermore, most of these studies occur singly

rather than in the systematic research designs envisioned by

Gage. Thus, although the general effects of a skill may be

reported with significant results, the experimental manipula-

tion of various sub—aspects of the skill or other situation

variables in general has not taken place. It must be con-

cluded in such a case that a true cause-effect relationship

between the teaching skill and student learning was not deter-

mined.

Two instances of such systematic research have occurred.

The first attempted to determine correlations between dimen-

sions of "explaining skills" and student comprehension (Bel-

gard, Rosenshine and Gage, 1971; Unruh, 1971; Rosenshine,

1971; Dell and Hiller, 1971). Although correlations were

found, the need for numerous other studies manipulating the

variables in systematic ways became apparent:

The conclusions based on correlational evidence...are interesting to examine. Student ratings ofdimensions of the teacher's performance corre-lated with how much the students learned; inaddition, students' self-reported attention to

the lesson also correlated with what they learn-ed. What immediately comes to mind as a resultof these data is the possibility of artifactualor superstitious behavior on the part of the

student. What may be happening is that the stu-

dent observes certain activities in the teacherthat alert the student to paying careful atten-

tion to what is being said. It may be that such

alerting or attention-producing stimuli are sig-

nificant variables in causing the student to

learn--perhaps even more significant than the

form and content factors of the presentation

28

which are supposedly related to good explanatoryexposition (Glaser, 1971, p. 221).

Rosenshine (1973) noted that a second series conducted

at Canterbury University, New Zealand (Wright and Nuthall,

1970; Highes, 1971; and Church, 1971) although not conclusive

have at least achieved a promising research methodology:

In each study the experimenters taught almost iden-tical lessons to existing classes, modifying thelessons only to introduce the experimental varia-tions, and monitoring the tape recording of thelessons to insure high implementation of the treat-ment and fidelity to the content (p. 124).

Often "technical skills" and micro-teaching studies in-

vestigate the laboratory as a teacher training medium, as

opposed to researching the effects of particular skills. The

results of such studies are that in general teachers trained

in the laboratory have exhibited "significant gains" in tea-

ching skills acquisition during successive teaching sessions.

Moreover they have retained these behaviors in their regular

classroom teaching or internship (Allen and Fortune, 1967;

Fortune, Cooper and Allen, 1967; Davis and Smoot, 1969; Lim-

bucher,1969; Borg, Kelley, Langer and Gall, 1970).

One researcher feels that much of what has been written

about micro-teaching is misleading and that "claims for its

effectiveness have very little substance in fact (McDonald,

1973)." McDonald’s point is that although such issues as the

length of the micro-teaching session, the effects of practice

and the transfer of training to subsequent performance are

29

important, the most important research should concern the appli-

cation of behavior modification principles to shaping student

learning; "At the present time only a relatively small number

of student behaviors can be brought under behavioral control by

applying these principles (p. 2)." "Behavior modification sys-

tems have not been developed for teaching complex behaviors

such as problem solving (p. 3)."

At least two exploratory studies have been reported where

"technical skills" and "microteaching" were used effectively

with higher education faculty and graduate teaching assistants

in an in-service education program. In the department of

General Engineering at the University of Illinois (Perlberg

and O' Bryant, 1970) twelve faculty members were videotaped in

their classrooms and discussed their instruction with an in-

structional specialist. At the same time four graduate teach-

ing assistants participated as a group in a micro-teaching

laboratory. According to the authors, "Live observation in

the classroom and discussion between researcher and students

showed a visible change in style of teaching (p. 741)."

Sixteen faculty members in the Dental Division at Tel

Aviv University (Perlberg, £t _al. , 1972) participated in a

series of microteaching sessions with the result that several

participants volunteered to continue the videotaping and in-

structional analysis process in their regular classrooms.

30

Learning Principles

Lawrence Alexander and Robert Davis have investigated

an in-service education approach at the higher education level

which is similar to the technical skills approach but which has

its roots in educational psychology and systems design.

One of their initial studies (Alexander and Davis, 1970)

involved a ten-week in-service education project with thirty

graduate teaching assistants. The instructional concepts and

skills forming the core of the program fell into five cate-

gories: organizing subject matter, classroom management, es-

tablishing a facilitative class atmosphere, evaluating stu-

dent learning or one's own instruction, and providing a model

of professional behavior. Specific behaviors within these

categories included writing and sequencing learning objec-

tives, presenting advanced organizers in class, assessing

student entry skills, asking questions, avoiding threaten-

ing practices, reinforcing participative behavior, giving

recognition to original and thoughtful contributions and

using personal illustrations of problem solving.

The teaching assistants were given a list of these be-

haviors and asked to check those which they thought might be

problematic in their classes. They then videotaped a class

and selected short segments of the tape which were illustra-

tive of these problems. These were shown to their fellow

teaching assistants. The subsequent discussion and problem-

31

solving session was controlled and moderated by the person

whose tape was being shown. During the next week the teach-

ing assistants would attempt to modify their classroom behavior

according to the recommendations that had been made. These were

videotaped and the process repeated itself. Student evalua-

tions and student debriefing about the class were also used

as data collection devices in this model.

A questionnaire asking the participants to evaluate the

various aspects of the program is replicated in Table IV.

TABLE IV

GRADUATE TEACHING ASSISTANTS RATING OF TRAINING PROGRAM

Percent Responding

SA & A N D &

I learned some new teaching skills. 94 6 0

I am more favorably disposed to

teaching as a result of the program. 71 18 11

I could have put the same amount of

time to better use in preparing for

my profession. 18 6 76

Debriefings with peers should beeliminated. 0 0 100

Videotape is a valuable and usefulfeature. 100 0 0

According to the authors,

When they entered the program, most GTA’s were de-

ficient in three general areas related to teaching

competence: command of the subject matter, knowledge

of psychological principles and instructional tech-

nology, and inter-personal sensitivity and communi-

cation skills.

As they began to acquire background concepts and princi-ples... their confidence increased and they were willingto experiment further (p.25).

32

Student Evaluations

Student evaluations of instructors are commonplace.

After much research, the general indication is that such eval-

uations do rate instructors accurately on dimensions important

to student learning (Costin and Greenough, 1971; Frey, 1973).

Systematic use of student questionnaires to improve in-

struction in the manner described by Smock and Crooks (1973)

in Chapter I is rare. Centra (1972b) has demonstrated the

value of such an approach in a two-semester study at five

different types of colleges. In his study a detailed ques-

tionnaire containing items that had been ascertained to con-

tain information which faculty members desired about their

classes, was administered to three groups. The first group

administered the questionnaire and received the results at

mid-semester. The second group administered the questionnaire

at mid-semester but did .not receive the results until the end

of the semester. A third group as well as the first two groups

administered the questionnaire at the end of the semester.

Findings were that no differences occurred between the "ex-

perimental" and "control" groups. Across both groups however

teachers who rated themselves more favorably than their stu-

dents showed the greatest change. This process repeated dur-

ing the second semester resulted in the feedback group scoring

better than a second control group of teachers on several items.

33

The author concluded, "Given enough time ... student ratings did

result in some modest instructional changes for a wide range

of teachers (p. 22)."

The results of student evaluations of teacher effective-

ness however are very similar to the "general abilities" and

"personal qualities" paradigm of early teacher effectiveness

research. A review of this literature (Centra 1972a) indicates

that students learn more from instructors who, according to the

students, "are organized in their lessons, give clear explana-

tions, stimulate their intellectual curiosity, give interesting

presentations of course material, are attentive to students'

reactions, are friendly and are flexible (p. 22)." It is doubt-

ful how much real value this information has for teacher im-

provement.

It is conceivable that extensive use of student queston-

naires in the same instructional situation over a period of time

will identify critical and useful characteristics of effective

teaching in that situation. In a study by Frey (1973) using a

sample of eight instructors of Introductory Calculus and five

instructors of Multidimensional Calculus at the university level,

the profile of the most effective instructor (validated by stu-

dent achievement criteria) was the one who (a) made the stu-

dents "work hard" and "spend a lot of time" in the course, (b)

presented the material well in terms of communicating ideas in

an "unambiguous manner," using examples and illustrations, and

34

(c) was seen as slightly "inaccessible" or impersonal (busi-

nesslike) by students. Instructors who in the judgment of

students made them feel they were learning a great deal, who

o^S'îzed the course in a very logical and orderly way, or

who graded in a fair and accurate manner were not as effec-

tive.

It is questionable in another situation for example a

humanities course with ten students, that the above pro-

file would predict effectiveness. Gump's research in the

effects of classroom environments and "role expectations"

supports this conclusion. The population of students in

calculus might expect mathematics courses to entail hard

work, presentational mode and businesslike manner, without

which factors an instructor's credibility might be damaged,

student attention lag and learning diminish.

If principles of effective teaching which can be used

as a guideline by instructors are to be generated through

student evaluations,then it would appear that this must al-

so be done in specifically defined educational contexts.

The Inductive-Analytical Approach

The inductive approach to the analysis of instruction

also has a broad literature. Rosenshine's (1973) review of

direct observational instruments estimates the number of

systems to be in excess of 120.

35

The inductive approach assumes that the correlates of

teacher effectiveness are not known . The role of the in-

service teacher educator or researcher then is to gather as

much information (data) as possible on what is actually occur

ring in an instructional situation. Only after careful des-

cription does analysis of the data take place, and any judg-

ment of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of behavior pat-

terns are made in reference to the specific context, espe-

cially to the instructors goals (Cogan, 1973). The approach

is very similar to field observation and recording in anthro-

pology.

The observational instruments or category systems men-

tioned above are used as checklists both to facilitate re-

cording and to aid the observor in focusing on specific as-

pects of the teaching/learning situation. Many early re-

searchers (Anderson 1939; Lewin, et al., 1939; Withall, 1949)

were interested in the social-emotional climate in the class-

room. Bales and Strodtbeck (1951) studied "phases in group

problem-solving." Meux and Smith (1964) focused on the logic

of teacher-student and student-student interchanges. Systems

have been developed to record and analyze data on such sub-

jects as group size, speaker and location of speaker in the

room; cognitive and/or affective levels of instruction; tea-

cher and student "roles"; content topics and sub-topics; con-

tent or process orientation; nonverbal behavior (Rosenshine 1973).

36

Such coding of classroom phenomena may take place in the

form of absolute counts of instructional behaviors, sequencies

of behavior or sequences noted in regular time intervals. The

advantage of the last process is that it provides the researcher

and the teacher with a fairly accurate estimate of the amount of

class time occupied by various activities.

The use of the inductive approach in terms of coding systems

has had promising results. Eighteen studies reported by Flanders

(1971) indicated that in all cases attention to their teaching

behavior using category systems as well as practice and feed-

back allowed teachers to incorporate desired behaviors into their

instruction.

Eleven of the studies supported the proposition that by

learning how to code instruction by means of interaction analy-

sis categories and by interpreting their own teaching as well as

the teaching of another person, instructors tend to become more

"responsive" to student ideas. Although the results were less

clear, there was a concomitant tendency for teachers to become

more "flexible," that is, to consciously alter their teaching

mode from "direct" to "indirect" depending on the context.

Three of the studies wherein the Minnesota Teacher Atti-

tude Inventory was administered, indicated that the attitudes

of college students toward teaching and programs for the pre-

paration of teachers became more positive among those who

studied interaction analysis.

37

In six other studies conducted by Flanders, all with pre-

high school populations,

it was apparent that more student-

centered modes ("when students have opportunities to express

their ideas, and when these ideas are incorporated into the

learning activities") predicted increased student learning

and more positive student attitudes toward the teacher and

the learning activities (Flanders, 1970, p. 401).

The importance of "flexibility" is indicated by Soar (1968)

who studied 54 elementary classrooms in an effort to identify

the optimum relationships between pupil initiation and teacher

initiation with regard to various cognitive tasks. The results

of Soar's study for tasks requiring creative thinking (Curve A),

very little abstract reasoning (Curve B) and pronounced abstract

reasoning (Curve C) are depicted in Figure 3.

These data indicate that the optimum point of indirectness

for the creative task was not even reached in these classrooms,

and that it was reached sooner for the less abstract task than

for the more abstract task. In other words the data suggest

that instructional tasks of a lower cognitive order are opti-

mally taught in an instructional mode characterized by more

direct teacher behaviors and initiation, and that instructonal

tasks of a "higher" cognitive order are best taught via less

teacher initiation and more teacher indirect behaviors.

Figure 4 represents these results in relationship to "tea-

cher criticism." Here the indication is that direct teacher

38

RELATIONSHIP OF TEACHER INDIRECTNESS TO PUPIL GROWTH

n

I

a3CL

Low] [ ! ;

Teacher indirectness index High

Figure 3. Relationship of Teacher Indirectness to Pupil Growth

RELATIONSHIP OF TEACHER CRITICISM TO PUPIL GROWTH

Lqvv Teach** cwticufw rndex Hrgh

Figure 4. Relationship of Teacher Criticism to Pupil Growth

39

behavior in terms of teacher criticism contributes to pupil

growth in both the creative and less abstract tasks--not how-

ever to the more abstract tasks. In regard to the former,

continued critical teacher behavior tends to be productive

for the less abstract tasks past the point where such behavior

ceased being productive for the creative tasks. The teacher

who does not adjust the extent of his criticizing to the

particular task at hand reduces his effectiveness.

The present study incorporates the methodology of many

of the studies mentioned above, specifically the "technical

skills" approach, videotape feedback, instructional specialists

and student evaluations. These were incorporated into an in-

service teacher education model at the higher education level

by Allen and Melnick (1972). This study is the third in a

potential series of studies testing the effectiveness of that

model

.

Melnick (1972) completed the pilot study for the model at

the University of Massachusetts with a sample of seven faculty

members from the department of Computer Science. His complete

model involved eight sequential steps. First was an initial

interview to bring out the faculty member's needs and expecta-

tions in reference to instructional improvement. Second was

a video recording of thirty minutes of the faculty member's

classroom teaching. Third was a fifty-four item student eval-

uation based on a list of twenty-four technical skills of teaching.

49

The faculty member also rated himself on each item in the eval-

uation and predicted for each item what he believed the student

response would be. The faculty member and students also in-

dicated what they believed were the instructor's five strongest

and five weakest skills, and the three skills that he should

most improve on. The fourth step was the computer processing

of this data. Next was the identification of a teaching pro-

blem determined by the faculty member and an instructional spe-

cialist using all the data collected. This involved (step five)

a preliminary review of the data by instructional specialist and

faculty member together, a more intense review of the data by

each one separately (step six),and a final session isolating

a particular teaching skill which was judged most crucial for

improvement (step seven). The last stage of the model was the

faculty member's participation is certain "treatment and train-

ing" activities relating to this skill. These might include

micro-teaching, further videotapes of the classroom, viewing

films of model instructors, reviewing certain literature, ana/

or continued consultation with the instructional specialist

(Melnick, p. 32).

For the most part Melnick 's study was devoted to the iden-

tification of teaching problems and not the systematic eliminat-

ing of these problems. Much time was spent in the development

of instrumentation. No formal evaluation of the teacher improve-

ment was made. There was interest on the part of these faculty

41

to continue in this improvement process at a future time.

A second study (Noam, 1973) following this eight-step

model was conducted at the University of Massachusetts with

thirteen faculty members from the Chemistry Department.

In this study greater emphasis was placed on having facul-

ty members show change in the teaching skills which were iden-

tified as problematic. The procedures followed for enacting

this change were for the most part those sketched by Melnick.

In addition, Noam taught a demonstration lesson in one of the

Chemistry classes,conducted data review sessions with faculty

and students together, and convened two meetings of the faculty

members to discuss chemistry instruction in general. Toward

the end of the semester a final videotape was taken and analyzed

together with the initial videotape of these faculty. A ques-

tionnaire was also distributed which asked the instructors to

evaluate this improvement process.

An interaction analysis of the pairs of videotapes revealed

that the faculty members had in fact changed in the desired man-

ner. In general the percentage of instructor question-asking,

student responding and teacher clarifying or expanding on stu-

dent ideas (all goals of this group) increased significantly.

However, since there was no control group in this study,

it is not possible to know if the changes which took place were

due to the treatment. A second administration of the fifty-

four item questionnaire was not made, so that changes in the

42

students' evaluations of the instructors' teaching skills could

be observed. No achievement data was collected.

The faculty response to the improvement process was posi-

tive. Seventy-six percent of the participants indicated they

would have liked to continue improvement procedures. An equal

percentage believed they had gained new insights. All stated

that they had become aware of teaching problems. Only thirty-

nine percent felt that the process had given them an opportunity

to practice new skills (Noam, p. 63).

43

CHAPTER III

PROCEDURES

A slightly altered version of the Allen and Melnick model

(1972) discussed in Chapter II was investigated in this study.

A group of graduate teaching assistants were divided into

two experimental groups and a control group. All subjects com-

pleted a pretest which consisted of a half-hour videotape of

their classroom instruction, student evaluations and a student

achievement test.

Members of the two experimental groups individually re-

viewed their videotapes and student evaluations with the help

of an instructional specialist. One experimental group con-

tinued to meet with instructional specialists who provided them

with additional procedures for enacting changes in classroom

instruction.

After approximately eight weeks all subjects completed

a posttest consisting of the same components: a half-hour video-

tape, student evaluations and a student achievement test. All

participants including the control group reviewed their stu-

dent evaluations and videotapes at the conclusion of the study.

The pretest and posttest videotapes were analyzed along

seventeen dimensions using an adaptation of Flanders Interaction

Analysis (Amidon and Flanders, 1971). The student evaluations

were reduced to numerical scores along thirty-one individual

44

items and ten factors. The student achievement data was rated

by three subject matter specialists. These ratings and scores

were used to test differences among the three groups. The re-

mainder of this chapter describes procedures for (a) treatment,

(b) additional data collection and (c) data analysis.

Treatment

Subjects . The subjects were thirteen graduate student

teaching assistants (seven female and six male) who were teach-

ing a required Freshman Rhetoric 100 course at the University

of Massachusetts during the Winter-Spring semester of 1973.

All of the subjects had taught the course the previous semes-

ter, and some had additional teaching experience at the uni-

versity or secondary level. Nine were teaching one section of

the course during that semester and four were teaching two sec-

tions. The majority of the subjects were graduate students in

the English department; two were in the Linguistics department

and one in the Botany and German departments.

The total group was divided into an experimental group of

five, a quasi-exper imental group of four and a control group of

four by means of a table of random numbers. Three members from

the experimental and quasi-experimental group were then randomly

assigned to each of three instructional specialists. Two con-

trol group members were similarly assigned to each of two addi-

tional instructional specialists.

Participation in this study was considered part of the

45

general staff development program for instructors of this course.

This program was conducted by the Rhetoric 100 course director

and consisted of several weekly staff meetings where the theor-

etical bases for such a course as well as certain recommended

instructional methods were discussed. This staff development

program was attended by all subjects and did not include in-class

observation and instructional analysis by the course director.

Setting . Rhetoric 100 was basically a writing course with

more emphasis on the students' ability to see life situations

with increased awareness and to express their ideas with in-

tellectual accuracy, than on traditional writing mechanics. This

was considered a new and experimental orientation for this course

at the University. Students customarily wrote one or more short

papers a week and class activities most often revolved around the

analysis, discussion and evaluation cf these papers. Published

literature as well as the more technical aspects of writing were

discussed later in the semester.

Initial Interview . Each participant in the two experimental

groups underwent an initial interview wherein the theory, pur-

poses and procedures of the treatment model were described. At

the same time the instructional specialist filled out a course

information form which included a statement by the teaching assia-

tant about his perceived instructional problems, if any. The in-

structional specialist also gave the teaching assistant two of

the student evaluation forms, one to be filled out as a self-

46

evaluation and the other as a prediction of the students' eval-

uation.

At the conclusion of the interview a class was chosen to

be videotaped and a pre-videotaping form was given to the in-

structor. This solicited information on the objectives and pro-

cedures for that particular lesson. Both the self-evaluaton

,

prediction of student evaluation and pre-videotaping information

were returned to the instructional specialist before the video-

taping. The control group members underwent a much shorter in-

terviewing process with the primary focus on establishing times

for the videotaping and administration of student evaluations.

No attempt was made to explain to the control group the theory

and procedures of this improvement model nor were they informed

of the specific treatment of the other participants. They were

told that at the conclusion of the second series of data collec-

tion procedures their data would be reviewed with them by an in-

structional specialist if they so desired.

Observation . To familiarize themselves with the general

setting of the class and the particular style of the teaching

assistant, the instructional specialists observed at least one

class meeting. At that time if not before, the students were

informed of the teacher's participation in an instructional

improvement program which included videotaping and student

evaluations

.

Videotape I. A thirty-minute videotape was taken in the

47

instructors’ classrooms according to the following general for—

• the first fifteen minutes of class, the middle ten minutes,

and the final ten minutes.

Student Evaluations . The students filled out a thirty-

one item evaluation of the instructor at the end of the class

that was videotaped (Figure 5). The evaluation was designed

to elicit student ratings of the instructors' performance of

twenty-one technical skills of teaching (Figure 6). (Appendix

C contains descriptions of each of these skills.)

Interpretation and Feedback . The student evaluations

were tabulated by computer and this data as well as the video-

tape were made available to the teachers in both experimental

groups. (Appendix C contains a sample of the ’'Crosstabulations,"

"Best Skills" and "Weakest Skills" sections of the computer

printout for student evaluations.) The instructors ' s self-

evaluation, prediction of student evaluations and the actual

mean scores of the student evaluations on each item were listed

on a single three-column page.

The instructors and instructional specialists then met

for an interpretation conference. The focus of the conference

was the identifying of teaching skills which were believed to

be both important to the instructors’ courses and "problematic."

Extreme differences between the students' rating of particular

skills and the instructors' ratings were one index of problem

skills. Another was instances of skills that were rated well

48

STUDENT-CENTERED ANALYSIS OF TEACHING (SCAT)

DIRECTIONS:

We would like your opinion of your instructor'sfollowing teaching behaviors or skills. Pleaseand circle one of the responses as follows:

performance of each of thelead each ite:r. carefully

E excellent to very good performance in this are

S satisfactory performance in this area

I I would like to see some improvement in this area

I! -I—s tron 2-Lv recorr.enc improvement m this area

0 does not apply - (please use sparingly)

1. When beginning a class, lesson, or new instructionalactivity, the instructor usually makes clear whathe/she hopes to accomplish.

2. The instructor usually gets me interested at thebeginning of each class session and learningactivity.

3. The instructor presents new ideas and information atan appropriate pace, i.e. neither too fast nortoo slow.

4. The instructor arranges and presents material in aclear, well-organized fashion.

5. In this instructor's class it is usually possibleto know which points are most important, andto see the relationships between topics.

The instructor knows when to elaborate on a topicand he/ she elaborates effectively by using examplespointing out relationships, 3nd/cr giving meredetailed explanations.

7. The instructor provides useful summaries at appro-priate times, (e.g. at end of class session or endof unit.)

8. When the instructor reaches the end of any segmentof a presentation, he/ she effectively "wraps it up"by summarizing, checking for comprehension, relatingthe covered material to what is to come, and notingwhether or not the material will be taken up again.

E S I I! o

E S 1 I! 0

E S I II o

E S I T! 0

E S I II 0

E S I II 0

E S I I! 0

E S I II 0

Figure 5. Student Evaluation Form of the Clinic to Improve

University Teaching - Spring 1973

49


Again, your response choices are:

E excellent to very good performance in rhis are.-.

S satisfactory performance in tin's nmI 1 would like to see some improvement in this area

I! I strongly recommend improvement in this area

0 docs not apply - (please use this sparingly)

9. The Instructor has an effective presentation style E S I I! 0(e.g. voice quality, choice of words, body movements,etc.

)

10. The instructor inspires excitement and interest E S I I! 0in the subject matter.

11. The instructor is creative and imaginative in his/her E S I 11 0teaching methods.

12. The instructor makes students feel free to disagree E S I II 0with him/her, with fellow students, or with theread? r.gs.

13. The instructor gives open-minded presentations, of a E S I I! 0

variety of points of view.

14. The instructor relates che topics to a wide range of E S • I I! 0

fields, situations, applications, and interests.

15. The instructor encourages independent thought and, E S I I! 0

when necessary, helps students find the necessary .

resources to pursue independent study.

16. The general design of this instructor's course E S X II 0

(number jr.d choice of lectures, discussions, reading,

papers, examinations) is appropriate.

17. The level of difficulty and the amount of work in this E S I 11 0

course are about right for me.

18. The instructor allows students to work ojt alternative E S I I! 0

ways of achieving course objectives and helps students

who want to do this.

19. The instructor is an effective discussion loader E S I I' 0

(encourages contribut ioas, keeps the discussions

focused, doesn't dominate, etc.)


University Teaching - Spring 1973 (continued)

50


Remember, your response choices are:

E excellent to very good performance in this area

S satisfactory performance in this area

I I would like to see some Improvement in this area

XI I strongly recommend improvement in this area

0 does not apply- (please use this sparingly)

20. The instructor invites students to share their

knowledge, experiences, and opinions at appro-

priate times.

21. The instructor encourages students to listen and

to respond to each other.

22. The instructor uses questions effectively (e.g.

to focus attention on important points, to check

on student understanding, to get students to

think, etc.).

23. The instructor restates students’ questions for

clarification and answers them in a way that

the whole class understands.

E S i I ! 0

E f> I 1 ! 0

E S I 1! 0

E S 1 I ! 0

24.

The instructor provides encouragement and E

opportunity for student questions, suggestions,

comments or criticisms regarding any aspect of

this course.

25. The instructor seems to know when students are E

confused, bored or frustrated.

26. The instructor answers questions, or encourages E

and helps others to answer them, with understand-

ing and clarity.

27. The instructor demonstrates his/her active inter-

est in students as individuals by being easy to

approach, patient, and willing to help.

28. The instructor makes clear to students what is

expected of them and how their performances are

to be evaluated.


University Teaching - Spring 1973 (continued)

51


Remember , your response < h" i ' es arc:

F. excel lent to v*.-rj jjorid performance in this area

S sat i s_f uc_t_o_r y per ! ornvmcu in this area

I 1 would likt to see sore improvement in this area

I! 1 strongly recommend improvtsr.ent in this area

0 does not apply- (please use this sparingly)

29. The instructor evaluates student work in a clear E

and consistent wav.

1110

30. The instructor keeps the students posted on their E

pro.', teas tin < quest ion-, in class, individual

conferences, and appropriate quizzes and test...

31. The Instructor openly talks about questions of E

"right and wrong" as they relate to his/her

subject matter (e.g. does not avoid discussing

controversial Issues).

I! 0

I I! 0


University Teaching Spring 1973 (continued)

TWENTY-ONE TECHNICAL SKILLS OF TEACHING

AND RELATED STUDENT EVALUATION ITEMS

52

1- Set Induction (items 1 and 2)

2. Logical Organization (items 4 and 5)

3. Pacing (item 3)

4. Elaboration (item 6)

5. Closure (items 7 and 8)

6. Expression (item 9)

7. Inspiration /Charisma (item 10)

8. Level of Challenge (item 17)

9. Treatment of Divergent Views (items 12 and 13)

10. Defining and Expanding Relevance (item 14)

11. Facilitating Student Participation (items 19 and 20)

12. Facilitating Student-Student Interaction (item 21)

13. Asking Questions (item 22)

14. Answering Questions (items 23 and 26)

15. Choosing Appropriate Modes and Materials (items 11 and 16)

16. Instructional Flexibility and Individualization (items 18 and 27)

17. Facilitating Independent /Creative Inquiry (item 15)

18. Monitoring Student Response (items 24 and 25)

19. Making Expectations Clear (item 28)

20. Evaluation (items 29 and 30)

21. Defining and Expanding Ethical Contexts (item 31)

Figure 6. Twenty-One Technical Skills of Teaching and RelatedStudent Evaluation Items

53

below the overall rating. Where the skills that were rated low

could be viewed in terms of a more general problem domain, such

as "discussion leading" or "clarity," then a clearer vision of

what behaviors might undergo productive change in the classroom

was obtained.

this conference, or a second follow-up conference,

the instructional specialists attempted to clarify low skill

ratings by pointing out specific classroom episodes with the use

of the videotapes. On occasion the instructional specialists

used interaction analyses .or pointing out classroom behavior

patterns that might aid the interpretation of the ratings and

indicate productive change directions.

In the conference the videotape viewing process was focused

by the instructional specialist. The tape would be stopped at

various places where data appeared that might relate to the

student evaluations. Also, when the instructors had acknowledged

the desire to alter their instruction in specific ways, the in-

structional specialists in reviewing the videotape often would

stop the tape at points where the desired behavior changes might

have been appropriate.

Follow-up . The experimental group also engaged in follow-

up activities designed by the instructors and the instructional

specialists. Such activities were specific to the particular

change goals and included the following: successive videotaping

and feedback sessions focusing on the appearance and reinforce-

54

merit of specific behaviors; micro-teaching with feedback from stu-

dents as well as instructional specialists; videotape viewing and

group discussion of instruction in the classroom; videotape view-

ing and group discussion among several of the instructors; admin-

istering and interpreting additional student evaluations; obtain-

ing additional student feedback in the form of in-class audio-

tape recordings made be selected students; obtaining lesson spe-

cific achievement data; planning lessons; reading specific mater-

ials. Each member of the experimental group spent approximately

ten additional hours in follow-up activities.

Additional Data Collection

Videotape II,Student Evaluations . Approximately eight

weeks after the inception of the treatment process a final thir-

ty-minute videotape and set of student evaluations were completed

for both experimental groups and the control group. The same

student evaluation questionnaire was used for the posttest as

was used in the pretest.

Student Achievement Tests . During the second week and dur-

ing the eighth week of the treatment process an essay-type exam

was administered to the classes of all subjects. Two forms of

this exam were constructed by the course director. Half of both

experimental groups and the control group received one form of

the exam as a pretest. This sequence was reversed for the post-

test.

55

Data Analysis

The sequence of data collection and treatment for this

study is summarized in Figure 7.

Interaction Analysis . The first fifteen minutes of all

pretest and posttest videotapes were selected for the analysis.

This segment of each tape was the most standardized across all

subjects--ref lecting the first fifteen minutes of each class.

Two of these segments were transferred to one thirty-minute

tape and coded for rating.

Four raters were then trained in a seventeen-category

system of interaction analysis (Figure 8) developed for this

study by subscripting categories from Flanders' ten-category

system (Figure 9) (Amidon and Flanders, 1971). This training

consisted of approximately six hours of supervised practice in

using this system to analyze videotapes. Three of the four rat-

ers had had several hours of previous experiences using inter-

action analysis systems. Raters did not know which tapes were

pretest and which posttest. An audio-tape counting off three-

second intervals was played together with the videotape during

the rating. One tape segment was rated by all four raters and

the inter-rater reliability computed according to the follow-

ing Scott coefficient (Flanders, 1967, pp. 161-166):

coefficient "pi" = —1 - P e

SEQUENCE

OF

DATA

COLLECTION

AND

TREATMENT

56

to

fe pD to

O cu

fe HOp CO

fe d co & cu ofe cu 6 •iHH •H > cdo Ci tu 3u tu •rl »—

M <5 pd p •H pM CO > CO

to

PCO

P cuM i—i •H

1—

1

td P> CJ

(Ua w <cd p pp d do tu <ucu Td Tdt> P P•H p p> CO CO

fe 1* \ I

d> toO >—

'

fe CO cu COO P o 4->CO d CO

i-J cu cu Q)c H d Ci EhH o <uP •r~l CD p CO 4-J

fe d p d d c c£ CU cd o o O dJi—

i

cu E > •H o •rl gfe •H a> Ci P P <DW > > CU cd d cd >fe Ci cu CD P 0 P CDX cu •H P 1—1 •H M • i—l •Hw p id O w cd p M cd p

1 d o > cd > oM H <C E tu W p CU w <jCO o a. CO M > :co CO

P-t

DOPiO

H2

WP-i

Xw

CO cu CO

p o pCO d co

CU cu cu

H d Ci H0 •H o Td •r4 E•H CU Ci p cu p CU

> > CU cd d o cd >Ci cu CD P o 0 P CU

CU •H P T“

1

•H Ci M i—l •r-i

p id O M cd P fe M cd Pd o > cd > oM C E CU w p CL CU w <1

cd

•Hp

pd0)

TdPPCO

CC)

pO0)

Td•H

pcCU

TdPPCO

0)

naCl

CU

pd o

fe-

ed

po

pdtu

TdppCO

pdcu

TdppCOo

Figure

7.

Sequence

of

Data

Collection

and

Treatment

57

SEVENTEEN -CATEGORY INTERACTION ANALYSIS SYSTEM

1. Instructor accepts or discusses student feelings

2. Instructor praises or compliments

3^ Instructor relates to student responses

a. by simple acknowledgement or encouragement

b. by restating, clarifying, incorporating or expandingthe response

c. by probing or encountering

d. by redirecting the response to other students

e. by correcting or disapproving

4. Question-asking

a. lower order recall or convergent questioning

b. higher order divergent or evaluative questioning

5. Lecturing

a. focusing, summarizing, introducing, orienting statements

b. all other lecturing

6. Giving directions

7. Criticizing or justifying authority

8. Student talk - responding

9. Student talk - initiating

10.

Silence or confusion

a. silence

b. confusion

Figure 8. Seventeen-Category Interaction Analysis System

58

FLANDERS TEN-CATEGORY INTERACTION ANALYSIS SYSTEM

1 * Accepts Feeling : accepts and clarifies the feeling tone ofthe students in a nonthreatening manner. Feelings may bepositive or negative. Predicting or recalling feelingsis included.

woISwDt-J

Praj- se s or Encourages: praises or encourages student ac-

tion or behavior. Jokes that release tension, but notat the expense of another individual; nodding head, orsaying "urn hm?" or "go on" are included.

EhowPit-H

oM

3. Accept s or Uses Ideas of S tudent

s

: clarifying, building,or developing ideas suggested by a student. As teacherbrings more of his own ideas into play, shift to Cate-gory 5.

wo52

.J

$3

4.

5.

6

.

Asks Questions : asking a question about content or pro-cedure with the intent that a student answer.

Lecturing: giving facts or opinions about content or

procedures; expressing his own ideas, asking rhetoricalquestions

.

Giving Directions : directions, commands, or orders withwhich a student is expected to comply.

Ho§wQ

*5

Eh

Eh

W

EhCO

7. Criticizing or Justifying Authority : statements intendedto change student behavior from nonacceptable to accept-able pattern; bawling someone out; stating why the teach-er is doing what he is doing; extreme self-reference

.

Student Talk - Response : talk by students in response toteacher. Teacher initiates the contact or solicits stu-dent statement.

Student Talk - Initiation : talk by students, which theyinitiate. If "calling on" student is only to indicatewho may talk next, observer must decide whether studentwanted 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 observor.

Figure 9. Flanders Ten-Category Interaction Analysis System

59

where PQ is the proportion of agreement, and Pe is the propor-

tion of agreement expected by chance which is found by squaring

the proportion of tallies in each category and summing these

over all categories. Scott's coefficient can be expressed in

words as the amount that two observors exceeded chance agree-

ment divided by the amount that perfect agreement exceeds chance.

A computer program was developed for this study (deFreisse,

1973) which converted the interaction analysis scores to a 17 x

17 matrix and (by collapsing the subscripted categories) also

converted them to a Flanders 10 x 10 matrix. The program also

produced the following special measures: Ratio of Indirect Teach-

er Behaviors to Direct Behaviors (i/D Ratio), a Revised I/D Ratio,

Total Indirect Behaviors (Extended Indirect),Total Direct Be-

haviors (Extended Direct), Total Teacher Talk, Total Student

Talk, and the Student /Teacher Talk Ratio (Amidon and Flanders,

1971). When the f irst and second videotape scores of each in-

structor were submitted, the program computed a Difference Ma-

trix. This matrix for examining differences between the first

and second videotaped instructional episodes was completed for

all three groups in the study.

Because many of the categori esi n the 17-category system

appeared not to have been sufficiently differentiated by the

raters, the Flanders 10-category system was used for most of

the interaction analysis and interpretation. This was done in

three ways: (1) through comparisons of the Difference Matrices,

60

(2) through comparisons of selected interaction analysis cate-

gories, and (3) through flow charts generated from each group

matrix.

Student Evaluations A numerical score was assigned to

each of the values in the student evaluation instrument (E S

I I! 0). The mean score for each item in the pretest and post-

test evaluations of each group was computed and compared. Com-

parisons were also made by means of t-tests. This procedure

was repeated for groups of items within ten factors derived

by means of factor analysis (Figure 10). (The factor matrix

is contained in Appendix C).

Student Achievement . Three raters were trained by the

Rhetoric 100 course director to rate the student writing tests

along three dimensions: (1) "literacy," indicating the techni-

cal correctness of the writing, (2) "focus," indicating the

ability of the writers to organize their ideas around a cen-

tral purpose, and (3) "felicity," indicating the awareness dis-

played by the writer of his reader as evidenced in the use of

rhetorical devices.

Ten matched pairs of student papers from each subject's

class were rated by all three raters on each dimension. In the

case of subjects with two class sections, only the section that

was videotaped was used in the achievement rating.

The scores on the three dimensions were summed for each

student and a mean score determined for each subject's class.

61

STUDENT EVALUATION FACTORS

FACTOR 1: All items

FACTOR 2: "Clarity and Presentation (items 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 3, 4)"

FACTOR 3: "Interest (items 2, 10, 25, 9, 11)"

FACTOR 4: "Clarity (items 1, 5, 6, 7, 8)"

FACTOR 5: "Evaluation and Feedback (items 28, 29, 30)"

FACTOR 6: "Relating to Student Responses (items 23 and 26)"

FACTOR 7: "Relating to Student Needs (items 25 and 27)"

FACTOR 8: "Discussion Leading (items 19, 20, 21, 22)"

FACTOR 9: "Openness (items 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 24, 27, 31)"

FACTOR 10: "Course Design (items 16 and 17)"

Figure 10. Student Evaluation Factors

62

A total achievement rear score for the five classes in the

ex!>er r. * s. _ group ana tne I cur classes in the quas i-exper : -

rental and control croups was carpeted tor pretest and tcsttest

?*^-scns cetveen trese scores were aided tv t-tests.

The results, interpretations and conclusions of these pro-

cedures are given detailed treatment in the following charters.

63

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

Changes In Instructional Behavior: Interaction Analyses

In order to represent the characteristic patterns of in-

structional behavior for the experimental, quasi-experimental

and control groups, a seventeen-category system of classroom

behavior coding was employed in analyzing both pretest and

posttest videotapes. The scores derived from this system were

later reduced to a ten-category system (Amidon and Flanders,

1971). The results of both coding systems were displayed on

matrices for interpretation. (Matrices not directly discussed

in sections of this chapter are included in Appendix B.)

Difference Matrices

.

In order to identify changes in in-

structional behavior within each group from pretest to post-

test videotaping, three Difference Matrices were computed.

As indicated by the 10 x 10 Difference Matrix for the experimen-

tal group (Table V), substantial changes appear to have occurred

in at least five column totals (3, 4, 5, 8, 9) and three cells

(3-3, 5-5 and 9-9). The amount of student talk in the classes

of the experimental group decreased by I0.717o, that is, 10.717,

more of the first lesson was occupied by student talk than the

second lesson (columns 8 and 9). The amount of lecturing in-

creased by 12.217<> (column 5). The time occupied by teacher

questioning decreased by 4.907<> (column 4). The amount of ac-

64

TABLE V

EXPERIMENTAL GROUP DIFFERENCE MATRIX

Categories

. . . 1 ,I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I 8 I

i I

G I

I

0 I

I

0 I

I

0 I

1

0 1

I

0.O0!

0 I

t

0 I 0 I Tallies

•Of 00 I oiooi 0.00 1 0.00 1 o - n o i o r o o i

1

O.OCII

3*001I

0.0CI Percents

20 I -10 I

I

-1 I

1

-14 I -i I i i 1 I

I

o -n 71

-11 I *7 I -8 I

o * o 01

0 .59I 0 *00 1

I

0 « 8 4 I o-o’J oVl 0*661I

0-381!

0*471

0 I -2 I 57 1 2 I 0 I -2 I o I -3 I "7I 5 I

3I I I I 1 I J I

0*351• 0 • 0 0 I 0-121 4.261 0-221 0-051 0 ;1? I 0 • 00 I 0-171 0*38!

4

0 I 2 I -4 I

I

-39 I

I

3 I

I

1 I

I

0 I

I

-35 I

I

-14 !

I

- 3 I

I

• 0 • 0 0 1 0-131 0*251 2-231 0-231 o V* o -no 1 2 • 0 3 I 0-8410 • 0 1 i

5

0 I 3 I

I

1 I

1

-6 I

I

1^4 I

I

: 3 I

I

3 I

1

-2 I

I

4 I

I

1 I

1

o l3 I• o • o o i 0 - 2 1

1

0 • 0 7 T 0-271 11-861 0 • 1 9 I 0 • 2 o i 0 • 11 I0

’ 30 J

o I 2 l 0 I 0 I 0 I -3 i 0 I -1 I 0 1 -1 I

6

0 . 0 0 I o : 1 3i 0.001 0.001 0-0,1I

o r !?iI

o . no i

I

0.061I

3-00!I

0.05i

0 I 0 I 1 I 1 I 3 1 0 I 5 I 0 I *1I 1 I

7 I I I I 1 I 1 I

• 0 • 0 01 0-00 1 0*0 71 r • n 7 T

0 * 2 o l 0 -00 1 0-3410 • 01 !

0 ' 0 6 I 0*0 ?I

0 I -24 I < I -10 I -1 I l I 0 I -40 I 0 I -14 I

8 I I i I I I I 1 I

• 0 • 0 0 I 1.371 0.361 0-561 0 - 0 4 I 0 -0 71 o • no I 1.77! 0-0^1 0*851

0 I - i 7 I -2 I -9 I -3 I 0 1 -2 I 2 I .85 I -7 I

9 I I I I ! I I I I

• 0 • 0 0 1 0-971 0 • 0 4 1 n .49I 0-1 7 I o'oo I 0 • 1 2 l 0-131 4-491 0 • 4 o I

0 I •4 I -6 I -14 l n 3 2 I 3 I 6 I •13 1 14 I

10 I I I i I I I 1 I

• o • 0 0 1 0 • 2 4 I 0 .36I 0 • «0 1o • n 9

1

0 [1 4 1

0 - ?0 I 0-5lIa.74l 1 .

2

61

0 I -50 I 50 I -89 I 155 I T 3 I in I -84 I -153 I -12 I

I I I I I I I I I

TOTALSo • o 0

1 2 - 8 ?I 4 • 1 01 4 * 9 o

I 12- 2 1I 0;l51 0

.68I 4 - 1 4 I 6-571 0* 051

I/D RATIO 0.130

REVISED I/O RATIO — -0-0?3

EXTENDED INDIRECT -- 3.187

EXTENDED DIRECT 0.155

fEACMER TALK 10.650

STUDENT TALK ------- -10.714

STU/TEAC TALK RATIO -0.304

65

cepting and using student ideas (column 3) increased 4.10%.

Finally, though the percentage is small, the amount of teach-

er praise decreased 2.82% (column 2).

The remaining four columns changed insignificantly (col-

umns 1,6, 7 and 10). The 3-3 cell, indicating continuous

using or expanding on student ideas increased by 4.26%. Con-

tinuous lecturing (cell 5-5) decreased by 4.49%. Reinforce-

ment and praise (column 2) was particularly decreased follow-

ing student talk (cells 8-2 and 9-2).

The Difference Matrix for the control group (Table VI)

indicates notable changes in question-asking (column 4), lec-

turing (column 5), both student talk categories (columns 8

and 9) and silence (column 10). Columns 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 did

not change noticeably.

Question-asking by the instructors in the control group

(column 4) became 5.17%, less of the total lesson. Lecturing

was 7.9 7% less. Teacher initiated student talk (student talk -

response, column 8) decreased by 6.3 1% while student initiated

talk increased 10.57%, and silence increased 5.96%,. Heavy change

cells for the control group were cell 4-4 (continuous teacher

question-asking, -3.78%,); cell 5-5 (continuous lecturing,

-8.30%,); cell 8-8 (continuous student responding, -4.72%,);

cell 9-9 (continuous student initiated talk, +7.46%,) and cell

10-10 (continuous silence, +3.43%,).

The quasi-experimental group (Table VII ) showed strong

66

TABLE VI

CONTROL GROUP DIFFERENCE MATRIX

Categories1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I 8 I 9 I 10 I

* ****** ****** ****** ****** ****** * * * * * * * * * * * * * • * * * • * * * *

1 I 0 I 0 I 1 I n i 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I Tallies{ 1

0,091I I i I I I

o.odi 0.001 0.091 o.ooi oToni 0. 001 0 . ool 0- 0 0 i O.OOI Percents

0 I 4 I 3 I 1 I 2 1 l i 0 I 1 I 1 I 2 I

2 I I I I I I 1 I

0 • o Q 1 0-341 0-24 1 0 • 0 7 I 0-171 o-oî 0 • 00 1 0 - 0 9 I0

*09 I O'l 71

l I 0 I 11 I -2 I -5 I 0 I 0 I 1 I 0 I 9 I

3 I I I I I I I

0.091 o.ool 0.891 0.191 0-441 o r o o i 0 . ool 0 • 091 O' oil 0-771

0 I 0 I 2 I -4? I -7 I i i 0 I -19 1 9 I 1 I

4 I I I I I I I I

0 • 0 Q1 0 on 1 0-171 3.781

0. ft T I 0 : o

9

1

0 00 1 1- 7 1 *0

6810 • 0 2 I

0 I 3 I 0 I -1? I -97 I 0 I 0 I 7 I 6 1 1 I

5 I I I I I I I I

O' op 1 0-251 0 • 0 0 1 i * 1

6

1 8.

3

n I 0 • 00 1 0 no 10

591O’ 5 1

I O' 061

0 I 0 I 0 I l t -1 I 1 I 0 I 0 I 1 I 2 I

6 I I I i I I I I

o • o 0

1

o * o 6

1

0 • 00 1 0 • 0 9 I 6 • 0 910V 0 no I 0 •00 1

3 •691 O’l 71

0 I 0 I 0 I n i 2 1 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 1 0 I

7 I 1 I I I I I

0 ' 0 0 1 o • c 6 1 0 • 00 1 n • no 1 0-171 o • o n i 0 •00 1 0 •00 10 • on I 0 • 00 1

0 I l I -6 1 -12 I 1 I 0 I 1 1- 52 I ’3

I 1 1

8 I I I I I I ,1

0* 00 1o o

61 0-5411 • o

7 1o * n

7 10 *. 0 o

10 •n

9 I 4 -7pi0•271 0*0 ?I

0 I 5 I 4 I 2 I 9 I 0 I 1 I 1 I 9 I 15 I

9 I I I I I I I I

0 • 0& 1 oîi 0-341 0 . i6

1

0-771 0 • 0 0 1 0. 0 9I 0 • 0

9 1 7 • 4 ft I 1 • 2 6 1

0 I 2 I -1 I 7 I 4 I 1 I 0 I -6 I 24 I 42 I

10 I 1 I I I I I

.541l

0 . 00 I 0.171 0.091 (i .571 0 . 3 n I o : o =9

1

0 . OO I 0 2 •04 1 3.431

2 I 15 I 13 I-56 I -92 I 4 I 2 I

• 69 I l 6 I 73 I

1 I I I I I I I

TOTALS* 0 .1 7

l

1.231 i . o i i 5.171 7.971 0:341 0 .171 6 .31110 . 571 5.961

I/O RATIO 0.017

REVISED I/D 3ATI1 -- -0-035

EXTENDED INDIRECT -•? 1,213


TEACHER TALK -10.217

- 4.261STUDENT TALK -

stu/teac tal< ratio 0.167

67

TABLE VII

QUAS I -EXPERIMENTAL GROUP DIFFERENCE MATRIX

Categories* 1 .1 2 13 14 |5 16 17 18 19 I lO I

* 01 01 01 01 01 0! 01 01 01 0 iTallies1 * I . I I I 1 I 1 I 1

1-« 0 • 0 0 I o.ool 0.00! o.odl 0>OM C 1 0 0 I Q.ncl 0*001 0*00! 0 » oo iPercents

* 01-21 51 01 01 -1 I ? I -3 l -4 I -4 I

2 * I . I I I I I 1 I 1 1

• 0 • 0 0 1 0.161 0.74 1 n.Oll 0 • 0 1 0 r 0 **1 0.161 0*241 3 * 331 0 * 32 1

+ 0 I 1 I 30 I 7 1 1 I 0 I 0 I 2 I 2 I 3 1

3 I I 1 I I I 1 I I I

.* o.oQi 0.041 2.491 0.581 0.031 o : oo i o.noi 0.16! 3*161 0.251

• 0 1 0 I 2 1 -37 1 -4 I = 2 I o I 4 I *2 I 6 I

4 *1 . I I 1 I I 1 1 I I

••

o *o0

1

o -on l 0 • 1

6

I 2.951 0*3^1 0 *1*1 0*03 * 0*351 0 * 1 5

1

0-511

* 0 I -3 1 11-11 114 l -5 I -1 1 -6 I 0 I 0 I

5 * 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 I I

•#

o • o o i 0*241 0*0*1 0*3*1 9.751 0 * 4 1

1

o*n*l 0*471 3 * 00 I 3*3-1

• 0 1 -2 I 0 1 0 1 *3 I -59 I o I -2 I -1 I -2 1

6 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I I I

0 • 0 0 * 0*1*1 n • o5 1 o • od

I

0*241 4 : a o i 0 • 0 0 1 0* 1*1 3* 0*1 0*1-1

• 0 I a i -11 0 1 0 I 0 I -4 1 S I t I 0 1

7 #I I 1 i 1 I I 1 I I

•• coOi o • c 6

1

0*0*1 . 00 I o*ooi o*oo ! 0*331 o*ooi 3*0*1 o « o o i

* 0 I 3 I 2 i a : -8 1 -1 I -1 I 59 I -5 1 1 I

8 * I I I i 1 I 1 I I I

# 0*001 0-251 0 - 1 7 I 0.661 g.651 0*0*1 o*o*i 7.4 C !3 • < r 1 0*0*1

• 0 1 -3 I -21 -31 -3 I -1 I -1 I 0 I -115 I -3 I

9 • 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1

*0 * col 0 • 2 4 I C . 1

6

I <. ?4 1 0*241 0*0*1 0*0*1 o-oei 9* 31 I 0 • 23 I

• 0 I 3 I 11-71 7 1 0 I 1 I 4 I *3 1 -4 I

io•

I I

0*2*11 I

0*0 91 o- 561I

0 * 1R i

I

1 0 5 1

l

o-o 9 *

1

0*3411

0*?3l1

0*2*1

* 0 I -3 I 42 1 -33 I 99 1 -69 1 -4 I 96 I -1*2 I -3 I

» I 1 I 1 I I I I I I

TOTALS* 0* 2ll 3.491 ?,561 a* 54i 5 : 6 ! 1 0* 3?I 7.361 1 3' * 7 I O' 1^1

I/O RATIO -0.035

9EVISE0 I/O 7 A Tn -* 0.444

EXTENDED INDIRECT — 4.456

extended direct -5.041

TEACHER TALK - 3.359

STUDENT TALK - -3.232

STU/TEAC T*L< RATH -0.031

68

changes in accepting and using student ideas (column 3), in

question-asking (column 4), in lecturing (column 5), in giv-

ing directions (column 6) and in both student response and

student initiation (columns 8 and 9).

The amount of class time devoted to using student ideas

in the quasi-experimental group (column 3) increased 3.49%.

Lecturing (column 5) increased by 8.587>. Giving directions

(column 6) decreased by 5.617.. Student response (column 8)

increased by 7.364, and student initiation (column 9) decreased

by 10.59%. In terms of notable cell changes, continuous use of

student ideas (cell 3-3) increased by 2.49%; continuous ques-

tion-asking (cell 4-4) decreased by 2.957.; continuous lecturing

(cell 5-5) increased by 9.757.; continuous direction-giving (cell

6-6) decreased by 4.807.; continuous student response (cell 8-8)

increased by 7.407. and continuous student initiation (cell 9-9)

decreased by 9.317..

Comparison of Difference Matrices along Selected Dimensions.

The numerical scores (number of three-second tallies),the per-

centage of the total second videotape lesson that these repre-

sent, the change in the number of tallies and the change in the

lesson percentage from the pretest videotape along a number of

significant dimensions are listed in Table VIII for all three

groups in the study.

From this table it is possible to see more clearly how each

group changed from pretest to posttest lesson. Several important

69

TABLE VIII

COMPARISON OF INTERACTION ANALYSIS DIMENSIONS

EXPERIMENTAL CONTROL QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL

1. AcceptsFeeling

23

1.54

+23

+1.54

2

.17

+2

+ .17

0

0

0

0

Tallies forsecond lessonPercent of

second lessonlst/2nd lessonsdifference (tallies)lst/2nd lessonsdifference (percent)

2. Praise 54 40 293.62 3.43 2.39-50 +15 -3

-2.32 +1.23 -.21

3. Uses 195 63 71

Student 13.09 5.40 5.84Ideas -50 + 13 +42

+4.10 +1.01 +3.49

4. Asks 120 118 120Questions 8.05 10.11 9.88

-89 -56 -33-4.90 -5.17 -2.56

5. Lecturing 508 368 52934.09 31.53 43.54+155 -82 +99

+12.21 -7.97 +8.58

6. Giving 8 2 2

Directions 0.54 .16 .16-3 +4 -69

-0.15 + .34 -5.61

70

TABLE VIII

COMPARISON OF INTERACTION ANALYSIS DIMENSIONS (continued)

EXPERIMENTAL CONTROL QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL

7. Criti-cizing

12

.81

+2

+ .17

2

.17

+2

+ .17

4

.33

-4

-.32

Tallies for

second lessonPercent of

second lessonlst/2nd lessonsdifference (tallies)lst/2nd lessonsdifference (percent)

8. Student 208 119 203Talk- 13.96 10.20 16.71Response -84 -69 +88

-4.14 -6.31 + 7.63

9. Student 206 234 141Talk- 13.83 20.05 11.60Initiation -123 126 -132

-6.57 10.57 -10.59

10. Silence- 156 215 116Confusion 10.47 18.42 9.55

-12 +73 -3

-.05 +5.96 -.13

Cell 3-3 142 36 46

9.53 3.08 3.79+57 +11 +30

+4.26 + .89 +2.49

36 43 60

2.42 3.68 4.94-39 -42 -37

-2.23 -3.78 -2.95

Cell 4-4

71

TABLE VIII


EXPERIMENTAL CONTROL QUASI -EXPERIMENTAL

Cell 5-5 452 313 483 Tallies for

30.34 26.82 39.75second lessonPercent of

+154 -87 +114second lessonlst/2nd lessons

+11.86 -8.30 +9.75difference (tallies)lst/2nd lessonsdifference (percent)

Cell 8-8 139

9.33-40

-1.77

74

6.34-52

-4.72

166

13.66+89

+7.40

Cell 9-9 122 169 11710.20 14.48 9.63

-85 +89 -116-4.49 +7.46 -9.31

Cell 10-10 77 121 485.17 10.37 3.95+14 +42 -4

+ 1.26 +3.43 -.23

3a. Acknow- 42 34 28ledge- 2.82 2.91 2.30ment -47 +15 +12

-2.70 +1.25 +1.00

54 42 403.62 3.60 3.29-54 -23 +19

-3.07 -2.11 +1.58

3c. Probing

72

TABLE VIII


EXPERIMENTAL CONTROL QUASI -EXPERIMENTAL

3d. Redi- 9 8 2 Tallies forrecting

.60 .69 .16

second lessonPercent of

second lesson-11

-.64

+6 0 lst/2nd lessonsdifference (tallies)

+ .51 0 lst/2nd lessonsdifference (percent)

5A. Orient- 89 10 65ing 5.97 .86 5.35

+19 -12 +15+1.63 -1.07 +1.28

I/D Ratio .426 .372 .291 Second Lesson-.130 + .017 -.005 lst/2nd lessons

difference

Revised I/D .944 .951 .959Ratio -.023 -.035 + .444

Extended 14.966 7.798 7.819Indirect +3.187 +1.213 +4.486

Extended .403 .171 .000Direct + .155 + .084 -5.041

Teacher 61.745 51.328 62.140Talk +10.660 -10.217 +3.359

Student 27.785 30.249 28.313Talk -10.714 +4.261 -3.232

Stud. /Teach- 7450 7589 T456er Talk Ra- -.304 +.167 -.081tio

73

patterns emerge.

First, there appears to be much more parity between the

changes that took place in the experimental and quasi-experi-

mental groups compared to the control group. For example, in

column 3, using student ideas, the experimental and quasi-

exP®t tr.en i_al groups gained 4.10% and 3.49% respectively, while

the control group gained only 1.017*.

In column 2,lecturing, although the final percentages

for all three groups on the posttest are similar (34.097,,

31.537, and 43.54/,) the tendency for both experimental and

quasi-experimental groups was to increase the amount of direct

teacher influence, that is, to increase lecturing, while for

the control group the tendency was to decrease direct in-

fluence. Since the absolute number of tallies is very high,

these percentage differences indicate substantial change.

Remarkable here is the fact that as indicated in the

above analysis, using student ideas (column 3) in the experi-

mental and quasi-experimental groups also had a tendency to

increase. In other words, both the experimental and quasi-

experimental instructors tended to be both more ’’direct" and

more "indirect” in their teaching as witnessed by the second

videotape. This change pattern is described by Flanders (1970)

as "flexible." The control group showed only a slight incease

in "indirect" teaching and a decrease in "direct" teaching.

Cells 3-3 and 5-5 reflect these similarities and differ-

74

ences. The 3-3 cell for the experimental and quasi-experimen-

tal groups increased 4.26% and 2.49% respectively, and .89%

for the control group. The percentages for the 5-5 cell were

+11.86% and +9.75%, for the experimental and quasi-experimental

groups, and -8.30%, for the control group.

The special measure of "extended indirect" from Table

VIII (which totals the number of tallies and percents in the

intersections of columns 1,2,3 and rows 1, 2, 3 of the ma-

trix) and the "total teacher talk" measure further support

the "flexible" pattern of the experimental and quasi-experi-

mental groups. The total number of indirect behaviors in-

creased 3.18%, for the experimental group, 4.486%, for the

quasi-experimental, and 1.21%, for the control.

In terms of total teacher talk, which totals columns

1 through 7 of the matrix, the experimental group showed an

increase of 10.77%, from 51.08%, to 61.74%,. The control group

decreased from 61.545%, to 51.82%,. The quasi-experimental

group reflected the experimental group with an increase of

3.35%, from 58.78%, to 62.14%,.

The total student talk (columns 8 and 9) ,ratio of stu-

dent talk to teacher talk, and cells 8-8 and 9-9 also tended

to differentiate between the experimental and quasi-experimen-

tal groups on the one hand and the control group on the other.

Both the experimental and quasi-experimental groups showed

decreases in the amount of time occupied by students in class

75

(the sum of columns 8 and 9). For the experimental and quasi-

experimental groups the decrease was 10.71% and 3.23% respec-

tively. For the control group there was an increase of 4.26%.

The resulting student /teacher talk ratio was -.304 experimen-

tal, -.081 quasi -experimental and +.167 control. Cells 8-8

and 9-9 taken together indicate a total decrease for the ex-

perimental and quasi-experimental groups in continuous student

talk (-6.26 L and -1.91/c). The control group increased 10.897o

in these combined cells.

There is also an interesting difference among the groups

in terms of "silence or confusion" (column 10). This is an

important classification in that the amount of silence and

the placement of silence indicates a great deal about the

pace or rhythm of the instruction. The amount of silence for

both experimental and quasi-experimental groups remained ap-

proximately the same for both lessons. Silence or confusion

in the classes of the control group increased by 5.9670 .

For the most part this increased silence in the control

group occurred in the 10-10 cell. In this cell the total se-

cond observation number of tallies was 121, an increase of 42

tallies and 3.437>. In other words, there was a marked in-

crease in extended (six seconds or more) silence in the con-

trol group. There was also an increase of 15 tallies in the

control group's 9-10 cell indicating more silence after a stu-

dent contribution or a change in student speakers.

76

The patterns for category 4, question-asking, were large-

ly the same for all three groups. As indicated in Table VIII

the total number of tallies during the second observation of

the experimental, control and quasi-experimental groups was

120, 118 and 120. The number of tallies and percentage of

instructor questioning decreased in all three cases: -89 tal-

lies experimental, -56 tallies control, -33 tallies quasi-

experimental .

Column 2, praise (indicating both extended general praise

as well as short encouragement and prompting) decreased in the

experimental group by 2.82%,, remained approximately the same

in the quasi-experimental group and increased by 1.23% in the

control group.

Flanders' special i/D Ratio, the relationship of indirect

teaching modes (columns 1 - 4) to total teacher talk (columns

1 - 7) is intended to trace instructor tendencies toward greater

or lesser "control" over the classroom. As described in the pre-

vious discussion the experimental and quasi-experimental goups

tended to become both more indirect and more direct: the over-

all result was a decrease in their i/D Ratio (-.130 experimen-

tal, -.005 quasi-experimental). The i/D Ratio for the control

group increased by .017.

The remaining categories of Table VIII which have not been

discussed (Column 1, Column 6, Column 7) and special measures

(Revised I/D Ratio, Extended Direct) do not offer very much

77

Information. Column 1 (accepts feeling) clearly showed differ-

ences among the groups (+1.54% experimental, +.7% control) but

the number of tallies in this category was minimal, including

none at all for the quasi-experimental group.

Columns 6 and 7 also accounted for a minor percent of the

total behavior observed: 25 tallies or .32% of the total 7,854

tallies of both observations for all groups fell into category

7. One hundred tallies or 1.237. fell into category 6, which was

also a special case because one continuous segment (59 tallies)

of one lesson concerned giving directions.

Since the Revised i/D Ratio has only categories 6 and 7

as the denominator and since Extended Direct is the total of

the 6-6, 6-7, 7-6 and 7-7 cells of the matrix, these measures

yielded little useful information.

The 17 x 17 interaction analysis matrix was designed to

identify teaching patterns in a classroom more specifically.

This was accomplished by adding to the 10 x 10 matrix seven

categories. However, category 4b (higher order questioning)

was not discriminated well enough for raters during their

training. Categories 3e and 10b contained almost no tallies.

The remaining four categories are also listed in Table VIII.

Category 5a (focusing, summarizing, introducing, orient-

ing) was differentiated from the general category of lectur-

ing. According to the data, the experimental and quasi-exper-

imental groups increased markedly in this category: 19 tallies

78

1*63% for experimental, 15 tallies 1.28% for quasi-experimen-

tal. The control group decreased by 12 tallies -1.07% in this

category. It is also noteworthy that the vast majority of

these orienting statements occurred in continuous sequence.

Of .the 89 tallies in 5a for the experimental group, 78 occurred

in the 5a-5a continuous cell; for the quasi-experimental group,

50 of 65 tallies occurred in the 5a-5a cell. Only 4 of the con-

trol group’s 10 tallies in 5a occurred in the 5a-5a cell.

Category 3a, indicating the very brief almost perfunctory

’yes," "very good," "right" kinds of teacher encouragement and

prompting of student contributions was separated from category

2, praise. At the second videotape observation the experimen-

tal group exhibited much less of this kind of behavior (-47

tallies, -2.70%). Both the control group and the quasi-experi-

mental groups however increased these behaviors: +15 tallies

1.25/o for control, +12 tallies 1.00a, for quasi-experimental.

In terms of category 3c, both the experimental and con-

trol groups decreased: -54 tallies -3.07% experimental, -23

tallies -2.11% control. The quasi-experimental group increas-

ed by 19 tallies +1.58%. In this data then there does not

appear to be a strong relationship between student-centered-

ness in terms of using student ideas (category 3) where the

experimental and quasi-experimental groups increased markedly

and student-centeredness in terms of probing or encountering

student ideas (category 3c), where only the quasi-experimental

79

group increased.

Category 3d, also separated from the general category

of questioning, showed a definite decline in the experimental

group (-11 tallies, -.64%) and a definite increase in the con-

trol group (+6 tallies, +.51%). The quasi-experimental group

for the most part did not exhibit redirecting behaviors.

As illustrated in Table IX, of sixteen categories and

special measures in the interaction analysis, half involved

the experimental and quasi-experimental groups changing in

one direction while the control group changed in the oppo-

site direction. Two showed all three groups moving in the

same direction but with the experimental and quasi-experimen-

tal groups moving much more decidedly in that direction. Five

involved some other combination.

The eight measures wherein the experimental and quasi-

experimental groups move in the same direction and the con-

trol group in the opposite direction are based on observational

categories which account for 79.84% of the total classroom be-

hîvior fn both pretest and posttest videotapes of the combined

groups (columns 2, 5, 8, 9, 10). If the instance where both

experimental and quasi-experimental groups increase decidedly

more than the control group (column 3) is added, this figure

rises to 86.91%. In other words, if this 86.91% of the two

videotaped classroom lessons of the Rhetoric sample were view-

ed through these particular interaction analysis categories,

DIRECTION

OF

CHANGE

ON

STUDENT

EVALUATIONS

FOR

EACH

SUB-GROUP

80

5-1

CD

-CPo

r—l CO

cO a4-4 PC o04 Ci 0)

e o Ci•H oP r—

1

2CD cdCL p pX c pW pq

<U •H rO5-4 Ci r—

1

04 04 crC CL cd

& X r—

1

w •HCO 1 6c *r-l •H0 co CO•H cd

CO C3 0)

C O' COCD C6 X) cd•H c -Gn cd o

r—4 co acd CL p4-4 P oc o 5-4

CD p oe o•H rH5-4 r—

1

o04 cd CiCL p pX C cw 04 o

e oCD •H5-i Ci 04

04 04 pn CL •1—

1

X CO

w oCO 1 CLC •r-l CLO CO o•iH cd

CO P 04

c oi O004 Ge o 1 cd

C Gcd

| o

apopo

oppcoocCO

-GHIn

6-2

mJ- O mLO O r-t

• I T—

I

P t-4 Oa> co j_i

Q< fl 4J

X P cw o* ou

O VO NON IT) ,-1

• • •

\t cm cnI I

• I r—

4

P -P oCL) CO f—

i

CL cd 4J

x p cW O' ou

S-2O o LOo CM• • •

CM r—

1

1 1

1 + 4"

•i 1 1

Ci •H 004 CO CiCL cd pX P cw O'. o

oCO

OO

00 r-to U-N r-l• • •

CO r-l CM1 + 1

•1 r-l

Ci •rl O04 CO ClCL cd PX P cw O' o

ot

oCO

O r-lvoom• • •

• +

• I 1—

I

L 'H o0) CO LiH c0 uX P cW O*' o

o•

X)CO

6-2

O ON i—

1

«-! Mf O• • •

<t O H+ + +

4-)

O N vo rod) CO CO HCl r-l CM•H • • •

T3 CO <f HC + +

• I r-l

P *H Oa) co LICL cO -PX P CW O' O

oCO

_ • I oC L 'H La) 0) CO 4-1

X) CL Cd GC X p O04 W O'OpXw

vO(T"-

»H 00 rH CO rv.CM rH CO CM 140 ON CM uoCO CM CM • • • • c •

• • • CM 00 O co oCNJ 1 r-l rH + 1 i—

i

1 rH1 + + 1 +

6-2

UO ro VOS-200 00 r^ o LO rô rH ON VD CM o OO o T—

1

• • • • • • r—l o O1 1 LO rH r-l rH • • 9

4* + + 1 i 1 +

• I r—

I

L 'rl o0) CO L4CL CO 4-1

X P cW O' O

oCM

• I r—

I

P -H OdJ co LCL (0 44x p eW O' o

uliO

9i rH

| i—

i

• 91 rH Ci •r-4 o Ci H oON Ci •r4 o 04 CO r-l 04 CO p

a) CO C4 CL cd p a ctf pX) CL cd P X P c X 2 cC X P c W O o w O' ocd w O' 0 u oO • •• O cd

co rH in

L t4 OCD co LiCL (0 44x p cW O' O

o Teacher

Talk

Exper.

+10.660

Quasi-

+3.359

Control

-10.217

DIRECTION

OF

CHANGE

ON

STUDENT

EVALUATIONS

FOR

EACH

SUB-GROUP

(continued)

81

3a)

rC+J

o

r—

1

CO

3 a4-) 3 a3 o 3(D 3 04 oE o 44 44•H O o3 r-4 X3 3 r—

1

p 4-* 4-1 0X c 3 44

w (14 P 4-1

E 3a> •pH O3 3 i—

1

Oa) 04 44

-3 a CO 3.X 1 1 3w •rH -3

3 1 E Eh3 •pH •Ho (44 CO•r4 (0 T—

f

CO 3 04 X)3 oi b0 04

3 3 PE X) cO 44

•r-4 C -3 3P to o p

r—H 3 a3 p 3+-> 3 oC O 304 3 oE O•H r—l

3 t-4 o0) 3 3a 4-» +J

X 3 3w 3 O

E a0) •pH

44 3 304 3 4-1

-3 a •r4

X 3w o

3 1 a3 •3 pO 3 o•H 3CO 3 33 oi oo04 3E X) 3•H 3 Pp 3 O

o•H4-4

3PPr-1

3 1—

1

pEh O CO cO

ro o t—

l

3 • • •

3 1 1 +PO • 1 i

—

i

3 3 •H o3 3 3 3JH P 3 4->

X 3 3• w O' O

X) O34-1

CO

82

m every category it would be observed that the experimental

and quasi -experimental groups changed, changed in the same

direction, and changed in contrast to the control group.

Flow Charts . A useful way of displaying interaction

analysis data is through flow charts. These are constructed

from interaction analysis matrices in the following way: (1)

a certain minimum number of tallies in each cell to be repre-

sented on the flow chart is chosen, (2) all "steady state"

cells (5-5, 4-4, 3-3, etc.) with this number of tallies or

more are represented on a chart in proportionately sized box-

es and all transition cells (4-8, 5-4, 3-4, etc.) with this

number of tallies or more are represented by connecting ar-

rows, and (3) all other "steady state" or transition cells

are added as necessary such that there is an arrow leading

to and exiting from each box. (For purposes of interpreta-

tion certain transition cells or steady state cells are en-

tered which have a total number of tallies below the es-

tablished minimum number.)

The minimum number of tallies chosen for this interpre-

tation was 20. The number of tallies in each flow chart en-

tered through these procedures is approximately 80% of the

total tallies recorded for the same lesson on the 10 x 10

matrix. Thus what these flow charts represent are the most

typical patterns of instructional behavior that one would ob-

serve in these classrooms eighty percent of the time.

83

The pretest flow chart for the experimental group (Fi-

gure 11) depicts large amounts of lecturing (5-5), student

initiated talk (9-9) and student responding (8-8). The amount

of teacher question-asking (4-4) and the amount of using stu-

dent ideas (3-3) are approximately equal.

The general "flow" of the instruction is to and from the

teacher’s question-asking (4-4). Thus the transitions from

lecturing to question-asking (5-4),silence to question-asking

(10-4), student initiated talk to question-asking (9-4), stu-

dent i esponding to question-asking (8-4) and teacher praise

(2-2) to question-asking (2-4) are all solid lines on the flow

chart (twenty or more tallies). This indicates a more or less

teacher-centered mode, perhaps recitational . There is also a

strong student-centered tendency, as evidenced in the relative-

ly large number of using student ideas (box 3-3).

The most typical instructional sequence is from question-

asking to student responding to short praise to question-asking.

After treatment the experimental group (Figure 12) showed

a tendency to become more teacher-centered and more student-

centered, a result which Flanders terms "flexibility" or the

tendency of teachers to alternate their basic instructional

modes in response to different instructional situations (Flan-

ders, 1970).

Lecturing for the experimental group increased by 154 tal-

lies or approximately 507c The use of student ideas increased

EXPERIMENTAL

GROUP

PRETEST

FLOW

CHART

84

Figure

11.

Experimental

Group

Pretest

Flow

Chart

EXPERIMENTAL

GROUP

POSTTEST

FLOW

CHART

85

Figure

12.

Experimental

Group

Posttest

Flow

Chart

86

57 tallies or 70%. Whereas the instructional patterns in the

experimental group's pretest flowed toward teacher question-

asking from five different directions, in the posttest this

flow was from only two directions (lecturing to question-asking,

and using student ideas to question-asking). The instructional

patterns in the experimental group's posttest flowed mainly

toward the 3-3 box, clarifying and using student ideas.

The most typical instructional sequence in the posttest

was from question-asking (4-4) to silence (10-10) to student

responding (8-8) then equally to short praise (2-2) and to

using student ideas (3-3). The tallies in the 2-2 box more-

over tended to flow to 3-3. Student talk decreased by approx-

imately 307o .

The quasi -experimental group's pretest flow chart (Fi-

gure 13) is characterized by large amounts of lecturing (5-5)

and student initiated talk (9-9), very similar to the experi-

mental group. The amount of student response in this group

was much less than that of the experimental group (77 tallies)

and the amount of continuous teacher question-asking (4-4) was

slightly greater.

The s tudent-centeredness (3-3) of the quasi-experimental

pretest group was very little (16 tallies) compared to the pre-

test 85 tallies of the experimental group. The quasi-experimen-

tal group also contained a pretest lesson involving prolonged

direction giving .

QUASI

-EXPERIMENTAL

GROUP

PRETEST

FLOW

CHART

87

Figure

13.

Quasi-experimental

Group

Pretest

Flow

Chart

88

The primary flow of the quasi-experimental group's in-

struction in the pretest was in two directions: toward teach-

er lecturing (48 tallies from four directions) and toward si-

lence (54 tallies from four directions). The most typical

instructional sequence was from question-asking (4-4) to si-

lence (10-10) to lecturing (5-5) to silence (10-10) to ques-

tion-asking (4-4).

In the quasi-experimental group's posttest (Figure 14)

the primary instructional pattern was from question-asking

to silence to lecturing to silence--almost exactly the same

as in the pretest. The shift that occurred for the experi-

mental group toward student-centeredness (3-3) as well as

teacher-centeredness (5-5) was approximated but to a much

lesser degree by the quasi-experimental group.

The control group pretest (Figure 15) was similar to the

other two groups in that lecturing (5-5) and student respond-

ing (8-8) were relatively large categories. The control group

however was characterized in the pretest by more lecturing

(400 tallies) than the other two groups and a lesser amount

of total student talk (206 tallies). There was more silence

in the control group, roughly twice as much as the experimen-

tal group. The control group was also similar to the quasi-

experimental group in terms of the small amount of using stu-

dent ideas (3-3) displayed.

QUASI

-EXPERIMENTAL

GROUP

POSTTEST

FLOW

CHART

89

o CNJ

Figure

14.

Quasi-Experimental

Group

Posttest

Flow

Chart

CONTROL

GROUP

PRETEST

FLOW

CHART

90

I

Figure

15.

Control

Group

Pretest

Flow

Chart

91

The general flow of the instructional patterns in the

control group's pretest videotape as in the experimental

group's, was toward question-asking (76 tallies from four

directions;. There were two sequences that were dominant:

question-asking to student response to question-asking and

question-asking to silence to lecturing to question-asking.

The control group posttest showed a marked drop in

question-asking, which was also true for the experimental

and quasi-experimental groups. There was also a marked de-

crease in lecturing, which ran counter to these other two

8r<-)UPs • Also in contrast was the control group's increase

in total student talk and silence.

The dominant flow of the control group's posttest in-

struction was toward silence (10-10), 69 tallies from four

directions

.

The most typical instructional sequence was from ques-

tion-asking to silence to student initiation to silence--

and then either back to question-asking or to lecturing.

The instructional pattern shift then in the control group was

toward the strengthening of the silence-student initiation,

student initiation-silence sequences, with the intervals of

student initiated talk and silence being much longer.

Significance of Changes . The use of statistics to es-

timate the significance of the changes in instructional be-

havior discussed above was judged to be inappropriate to

IONTROL

GROUP

POSTTEST

FLOW

CHART

o

Figure

16.

Control

Group

Posttest

Flow

Chart

93

the present study primarily because the sample size, thirteen,

broken up into three groups was exceedingly small.

According to Flanders (1970),who has conducted studies

of a similar nature with larger numbers of teachers, the in-

creased or decreased behavior in any one category does not

need to be large in order to be significant:

It is important to place these changes in teach-ing behavior into a reasonable perspective. Theincreased use of Category 3, for example, is on-ly a matter of 4 or 5 percent. A control groupmight average around 8 percent Category 3, whilethose who study interaction analysis are morelikely to average from 3 to 5 points higher (p. 358).

In which case several of the instructional behavior

changes revealed in the present study might be considered

significant changes, including for example Category 3 in the

experimental and quasi-experimental groups.

Inter -Rater Reliability . Rating reliability among the

four interaction analysis raters was estimated by the Scott

coefficient reported by Flanders (1967). One fifteen minute

videotaped teaching segment was scored by all raters and the

scores compared.

The resulting reliability estimates were extremely

varied, ranging from a low of .4657 (Rater 1 and Rater 4)

to a high of .7808 (Rater 2 and Rater 4). The test case re-

ported by Flanders (1967, p. 163) indicated a reliability of

.8899.

Table X represents the four raters’ scores on the rater

reliability tape in each of the categories of the 10-category

system. It is apparent from this table that the greatest part

of the discrepancy among the raters occurred in differentiat-

ing "student talk - response" from "student talk - initiation."

The difference between a student "initiation" where the

student's ideas, views or information go beyond what was re-

quested by the instructor--and a student "response," can be

a very difficult distinction to make on a videotape recording,

especially where the microphone is not aimed at student speak-

ers .

If categories 8 and 9 were considered as one category,

the racer reliability would be much greater.

Student Evaluations

A thirty-one item questionnaire asking students to eval-

uate their instructors on a number of technical teaching skills

was administered twice to all groups.

Pretest and posttest comparisons between items were aided

by t-tests. Comparisons were also made between clusters of

items suggested by factor analysis. (Detailed representation

of this data appears in Appendix C).

Table XI contains a summary of these comparisons. As

indicated, only a few of the thirty-one questionnaire items

or ten special factors showed any real change. The disparity

between the three groups in terms of the items that did appear

95

TABLE X

RATER SCORES FOR ONE FIFTEEN -MINUTE LESSON

USING THE FLANDERS TEN-CATEGORY SYSTEM

Category Rater 1 Rater 2 Rater 3 Rater

1. Accepts Feeling 0 0 0 0

2. Praises or Encourages 7 20 12 19

3. Uses Student Ideas 20 18 15 15

4. Asks Questions 37 28 32 35

5. Lecturing 44 54 47 .44

6. Giving Directions 0 6 0 3

7. Criticizing 0 0 0 0

8. Student Talk-Response 153 105 49 72

9. Student Talk-Initiation 31 83 128 92

10. Silence or Confusion 18 11 17 18

TOTALS 310 325 300 298

96

TABLE XI

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATION PRETEST AND POSTTEST SCORES

FOR INDIVIDUAL ITEMS AND FACTORS

EXPERIMENTAL QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL CONTROL

Var

.

Diff. in

MeanT-Value Diff. in


MeanT-Value

1 . +.2076 1.32 .00 .00 +.1118 .80

2. -.0433 -.35 -.0945 -.69 +.1212 .80

3. +.1407 1.05 +.1258 .70 -.1852 •1.19

4. -.0744 -.54 +.0322 .27 +.2058 1.29

5. +.2393 1.61 +.0570 .42 -.0564 -.36

6 . -.0038 -.03 -.2778 -1.77 +.1673 1.26

7. +.2771 1.61 +.0983 .54 -.0104 -.06

8. +.1516 .90 -.1293 -.70 +.0357 .19

9. -.1268 -1.31 -.2916 -1.97* +.1964 1.47

10. +.0388 .34 -.0763 -.47 +.0687 .60

11. -.1245 -1.05 -.0782 -.53 +.0160 .10

12. -.1189 -1.44 -.2684 -2.11* +.0771 .68

13. +.1697 1.23 -.1242 -.71 +.0291 .22

14. +.3328 1.97* +.0638 .28 -.0714 -.52

15. +.1542 .73 -.2703 -1.10 -.0808 -.35

16. +.2607 1.87 +.0960 .56 -.2707 •-1.60

17. -.0648 -.50 -.2128 -1.27 +.1964 1.47

18. +.1021 .40 -.2231 -.93 +.2030 .88

19. -.0761 -.71 +.0539 .39 +.1429 .79

significant at the .05 level

97

TABLE XI (continued)



EXPERIMENTAL QUAS I -EXPERIMENTAL CONTROLVar

.

Diff. in


MeanT-Value Diff. in T

Mean-Value

20. +.0040 .05 -.2785 -2.51* +.0075 .05

21. -.0011 -.01 +.0598 .43 +.1268 .93

22. -.0763 -.78 -.0501 -.42 +.1626 1.18

23. +.4083 2.74* -.3352 -1.83 +.1701 1.07

24. +.0180 .16 -.0336 -.19 -.1240 -.93

25. +.0561 .42 -.0952 -.58 -.2589 -.93

26. -.0522 -.52 -.1389 -.86 +.2133 1.51

27. +.0353 .34 -.1326 -.94 -.0056 -.04

28. +.4055 2 . 70* -.0941 -.54 +.3891 2.19*

29. +.2341 1.59 +.1405 .96 +.0216 .13

30. +.1830 1.06 -.5084 -2.04* -.2396 1.25

31. -.0098 -.05 -.1715 -.75 +.2265 1.16

FI +.0860 1.53 -.1021 -1.16 +.0558 .63

I’2 +.1335 1.55 -.0137 -.13 +.0381 .37

F3 -.0399 -.51 -.1270 -1.17 +.0547 .47

F4 +.1743 1.91 +.0497 .48 -.0504 -.45

F5 + .2744 2.38* -.1534 -1.14 + .0571 .41

F6 +.1780 1.82 -.2370 -1.74 +.1918 1.53

F7 +.0457 .50 -.1139 -.91 -.0822 -.64

98

TABLE XI (continued)



Var. Diff. in



MeanT-Value

F8 -.0373 -.55 -.0538 -.58 +.1100 .92

F9 +.0999 1.28 -.1294 -1.05 +.0401 .43

F10 +.0980 .90 -.0584 -.41 -.0372 -.31

to change is difficult to interpret. All of the notable differ-

ences that occurred for the quasi-experimental group were nega-

tive. No two of these negative items appear in any one factor

however, so there is no evident "pattern" of change. Items 12

and 20 might be viewed in terms of the instructors' relating to

students and their openness, keying from the words "feel free,"

"invites," and "share" (see Table XII, for a list of apparent

change items in the quasi-experimental group). These data point

perhaps to increased restrictiveness in this group's classrooms.

Items 6 and 23 point to poor performance in terms of "clarity."

Item 9 concerns presentation style and item seventeen refers to

the curriculum design.

The remaining student evaluation items for this group

show no change. Twenty-one of the thirty-one student evaluation

items and all seven factors showed very slight decline in the

ratings

.

TABLE XII

QUAS I -EXPERIMENTAL GROUP STUDENT EVALUATION ITEMS AND FACTORS

INDICATING CHANGE

"The instructor knows when to elaborate on a topic and he /shee laborates effectively by using examples, pointing out rela-tionships, and/or giving more detailed explanations."Mean: -.2778 T-Value: -1.77

The instructor has an effective presentation style (e.g. voicequality, choice of words, body movements, etc.)."Mean: -.2916 T-Value: -1.97*

"The instructor makes students feel free to disagree with him/her,with fellow students or with the readings."Mean: -.2684 T-Value: -2.11*

"The level of difficulty and the amount of work in this courseare about right for me."Mean: -.2128 T-Value: -1.27

The instructor invites students to share their knowledge, experiences

,and opinions at appropriate times."

Mean: -.2785 T-Value : -2.51*

"The instructor restates students' questions for clarificationand answers them in a way that the whole class understands."Mean : -.3352 T-Value: -1.83

"The instructor keeps the students posted on their progressthrough questions in class, individual conferences, and appro-priate quizzes and tests."Mean : -.5084 T-Value : -2.04*

"Relating to Student Responses (items 23 and 26)"Mean: -.2370 T-Value: -1.74

100

The control group showed noticeable change in five items and

one factor (Table XIII).

Patterns in this data however are also difficult to de-

lineate. Item 4 might be interpreted with item 9 to suggest

a general improvement in the instructors' classroom presenta-

tions. The positive direction of item 17 is offset by the

negative direction of item 16, both items referring to course

design. Item 26 points to a more positive relating to student

responses and item 28 suggests improved instructor procedures

for evaluating students. None of these items form a clear

trend with their related items as indicated by the low factor

scores throughout the control group. To some extent Factor

6, "relating to student responses (items 23 and 26)" is an

exception, but not a definitive one.

The experimental group showed marked change in ten in-

dividual items and three factors (Table XIV). Two of these

items showed change in a negative direction (items 9 and

12 ).

The three factors ("evaluation and feedback," "clarity,"

and "relating to student responses") were especially positive,

indicating that the experimental group instructors had improved

in such specific ways as making expectations clear for the

course and for individual lessons, evaluating clearly and con-

sistently, explaining and summarizing ideas, and restating,

101

TABLE XIII

CONTROL GROUP STUDENT EVALUATION ITEMS AND FACTORS

INDICATING CHANGE

4. "The instructor arranges and presents material in a clearwell-organized fashion."Mean : +.2058 T-Value : 1.29

9. The instructor has an effective presentation style (e.g.voice quality, choice of words, body movements, etc.)."Mean : +.1964 T-Value : 1.47

16. "The general design of this instructor's course (number andchoice of lectures, discussions, reading, papers, examina-tions) is appropriate."Mean : -.2707 T-Value : -1.60

17. "The level of difficulty and the amount of work in this courseare about right for me."Mean : +.1964 T-Value : 1.51

26. "The instructor answers questions, or encourages and helpsothers to answer them, with understanding and clarity."Mean : +.2133 T-Value : 1.51

28. "The instructor makes clear to students what is expected ofthem and how their performances are to be evaluated."Mean: +.3891 T-Value: 2.19

F6 "Relating to Student Responses" (items 23 and 26)Mean: +.1918 T-Value: 1.53

102

TABLE XIV

EXPERIMENTAL GROUP STUDENT EVALUATION ITEMS AND FACTORS

INDICATING CHANGE

1. "When beginning a class, lesson, or new instructional ac-tivity, the instructor usually makes clear what he/she hopesto accomplish."Mean: +.2076 T-Value : 1.32

l-

1

"1 this instructor's class it is usually possible to know

which points are most important, and to see the relation-ships between topics."Mean : +.2393 T-Value : 1.61

7. "The instructor provides useful summaries at appropriatetimes, (e.g. at end of class session or end of unit).Mean : +.2771 T-Value : 1.61

9. "The instructor has an effective presentation style (e.g.voice quality, choice of words, body movements, etc.)Mean : -.1268 T-Value : -1.31

12. The instructor makes students feel free to disagree withhim/her, with fellow students, or with the readings."Mean : -.1189 T-Value : -1.44

14. "The instructor relates the topics to a wide range offields, situations, applications, and interests."Mean : +.3328 T-Value : 1.97*

16. "The general design of this instructor's course (number andchoice of lectures, discussions, readings, papers, examina-tions) is appropriate."Mean : +.2607 T-Value: 1.87

23. "The instructor restates students' questions for clarifi-cation and answers them in a way that the whole class under-stands."Mean : +.4083 T-Value : 2.74*

28. "The instructor makes clear to students what is expected of

them and how their performances are to be evaluated."Mean: +.4055 T-Value: 2.70

103

TABLE XIV

EXPERIMENTAL GROUP STUDENT EVALUATION ITEMS AND FACTORS

INDICATING CHANGE (continued)

29. "The instructor evaluates student work in a clear and consis tent way."Mean: +.2341 T -Value : 1.59

F4 "Clarity (items 1, 5, 6, 7, 8)"Mean : +.1743 T -Value : 1.91

F5 "Evaluation and Feedback (items 28, 29,30)"Mean : +.2744 T -Value : 2.38*

F6 "Relating to Student Responses (items 23 and 26)"Mean: +.1780 T-Value: 1.82

104

clarifying and answering student questions. The overall change

factor for the experimental group (FI) was decidedly higher than

that of the control group and quasi-experlmental group.

Student Achievement

All groups in the study completed student achievement

tests. Two forms of the test were used, each one given to half

the students as a pretest and reversed as a posttest. The in-

tervening period between pretest and posttest was approximately

eight weeks. The tests were rated by three subject matter spe-

cialists according to three dimensions: "literacy," "focus,"

and "rhetorical felicity."

The results of these ratings (Table XV) indicate that none

of the groups underwent dramatic changes in achievement. It is

notable however that the average student achievement scores of

the experimental group gained 3.33 points. The scores for the

quasi -experimental group remained roughly the same. The scores

or the control group decreased by 2 points.

The achievement scores of three of the five classes in

the experimental group advanced. Three of four classes in the

quasi -experimental group advanced. Two of four classes in the

control group advanced.

Six classes received test "x" first and seven received

test "o" first. Four of the six test x - test o sequence classes

improved their achievement ratings by the second test. Four of

the seven test o - test x sequence group improved their achieve-

105

TABLE XV

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT SCORES

EXPERIMENTAL GROUP:

pretest:

post test:

Mean

79.933

83.266

Standard Deviation

10.363

5.861

T-Value

1.34

QUAS I -EXPERIMENTALGROUP Mean Standard Deviation T-Value

pretest

:

73.750 9.725 .06

posttest: 73.583 14.061

CONTROL GROUP Mean Standard Deviation T-Value

pretest: 82.417 7.948 .46

posttest

:

80.417 15.442

106

ment ratings. The mean score for the two tests across the

entire sample differed by 3 points.

Correspondence Among Measures

The instructional problems (defined in terms of techni-

cal teaching skills) identified by the experimental and quasi-

experimental groups after the initial data analysis and feed-

back process centered on issues of "clarity," "student parti-

cipation" and "evaluation/feedback." The specific goals of

these instructors concerned improving questioning skills,

eliminating vagueness, focusing, clarifying goals and stan-

dards, summarizing and reinforcing (Table XVI).

The factors from the student evaluations in which the

experimental group showed marked improvement were "clarity,"

"relating to student responses" and "evaluation and feedback."

These factors included specific questions concerning clarify-

ing lesson objectives to students, organizing ideas, summariz-

ing, restating and clarifying student questions, making expec-

tations clear and evaluating student work.

The instructional behaviors which showed marked changes

in the experimental group were an increase in lecturing, an

increase in orienting statements and an increase in accepting

and using student ideas.

There would appear to be a logical relationship between

the improvement goals of the experimental group, the results

of the student evaluations and the observed instructional be-

INSTRUCTIONAL

PROBLEMS

AND

IMPROVEMENT

GOALS

107

COfdZDoPio

<H2:

HPiPiP-I

XwI

t—

I

COcZDO'

3H2

PiwP-I

xwPio

c0Oo4-1

c<0

E<0

>Odae

1—

1

CO

Eco

T“—

i

-CO

odPi

00d•Hco•pH

4J

CO

a>

z>

c

r

c•r4

CO

co

a)

d

00cO

>

<mo

4-1

edoEcO

a)

pp4-1

CD

0dX<0

Pi

co•H4-1

co

a.•HO•r4

4-1

dcO

cp

4-1

cco

X)p4-1

CO

<Mo

PiucO

hJ

00a•pH

d34-1

O3d4-1

CO

X)ccO

CO

CO

CO

cCO

>•H4-1

CJ

<0

J-l

d(0

rC0cO

<04-J

CO

CO

cO

<0

dOd

ec#s

001 4J

d 40 c•H O (L>CO

d X e<D0 d O0 d

<4-1 Oco M-lX r—

H

£40 d •pH

-XO Q)60 U

*--l

d 60 M-l4J d 04J

CCO

X)p4-1

CO

X)(0

XIc(0

4-1

XCO

CO

opX)(0

Pi

do•r4

4-1

CJ

<0

d•pH

xi

4-1

4-1

•pH

x)cO

PP

X<4-1

CO

doE

X) CO

C a)

<0 >a. -HC/0 4J

44 (0 CO•i-4 2 CO

M J4 OcO

co 00o dd *r4

CO 4J

ddPU *r4

O XO <0

d(0

jd x4J d

co

co

co 00d cCO *r-4

d PD0 od d1-1 CP

0co •pH4J 4-1

d <M d<0 O dX r—

4

d CO d4J +J >CO r—

1

co

d<4-1 CO XO CO d

d d4J

d X Jsid d CJCP d d

40CO CO XPP CO CO4-1 0 CO

CP <Md d0 d CO COa d >

0 •pH

4J

CJ

CO

d r—

1

00 <M CO0 0 d E CO CO•r4 •pH 0 dCO <M d O <4-1 dCO O d d O Xd (0 co a>0 -X O co -X CJCO O d d O 0•r4 d 0 r—

H

d dO 2 0 0 a

<4-1

o

<0

-d4J

CO

CO

dco

dCJ

d1—

1

X)d dd *r4

d<0 COCO 4-1

d *r4

P dO 0CJ

d00 Od *H•H 4-1

X d<+4 P

d d<4-4

d •pH Ed d > cr dCO

401-4

0CO O

COd

r—Hco

NE X 4-1 d 0 •pH

d CO d d 0 dE•r4

4-1

(0

dOE

X!d

CO

4-1

dco

Eco

d•r4

P<0 crQ. 0)

CO d

00d•pH

do

CO

<0

pc

r

co

co

CO

dCO

p00d>

00d

•pH

do

<J

co

1

-OO

X)dd

do00

00d

•pH

x

d<0

4J<4-1

o

co

dO

OEd

co

PP

CO

CJ

pXICO

Pi

CO

CP(0

d

CO

upX)CO

Pi

CO

doE

xi co

d co

<0 >CP «HCO 4-1

pco

X)dd

CO

d0oIP

a>4-1

d <4-i

<0 oX)d co4J 4J

CO 1—

I

d<4-4 CO

O CO

•pH 4-1

+j d Xd d dip

•pHcp d

0 CO co•pH PP co4-1 4J 0d CPd d d(P 0 d CD

CP, d4-1 >> 0d 4J CO CO(0 •H X COX d 4-1 <0d d r—H+j T—

1

COC/D 0 d E

•rH 0<H <4-4 e 0O 0 d d

CO CO

Pi p: <j COCJ 0 e dd d 0 pH

P 0 0

co

CP

d -C0 X CO•H f—

4

dCO CO 0CO 4-1 •r-4

d d 4JCJ d dCO CO i-4•H 40 (0X •r4 d

.—4

CO CO XCO X dd d

r—H <0

0 d co

0 4-1

60 E dd •rH

•pH CO 0d d ad 0X •H 4-4

4J d44 d d0 4-1 -1d d d40 (0 OX CO CP(0 <0 ECO d •pH

<M CP(0

CO a> Nd N •pH

0 •,-4 co

E d dd 2

CO 60 aCO d EZD O w

do•pH

4-1

ddr—

I

d>co

Xdd

-XCJ

d40XCO

CO

CO

>•r4

4-1

oCO

<4-4

<4-| WCO co

d<4-4 dO X

CO

PJ CJ

0 Od dhJ CP

3-0030 TVLNaHIR3TXaanoao

TVLN3RIH3JX3-

1

SV06

CORRESPONDANCE

BETWEEN

IMPROVEMENT

GOALS,

BEHAVIOR

CHANGES,

AND

STUDENT

EVALUATION

SCORES

,

(EXPERIMENTAL

.

GROUP)

.

Improvement

Goals

Behavior

Changes

Student

Evaluation

Scores

108

CO

-r-'.

J-i

O ~P MOO

fcl LO

C -•pH r—

I

a) co

oo gd qj

cd ppd 'HO WQJ

> P•H *Hp p•pH C£j

W rHo aP-4 Z

CD

ep

- pm *h

po ^p oo cd

cd ,adt) d

pC Q)

>H pQJ d00 Cd Cd

cd

-C c =o o o

>H rnQJ P> cd

•H dffiP H CM*H Cd

to > •>

O QJ COP-f C CM-

CO

QJ

co

cO

p cxo CO

P -ft

CO QJ

O PiCP =

pf N

o 00 ^—

*

Ip d cd CO <ro •pH LTd dd cn p o rMp d >"> dp r^l QJ P d 0)CO P •pH o 'p Od 0 p oo p '—•H oo o QJ d

0) P 0 ood p d cd o d•H cd •H o •H

a)

u' /

QJ

v—

X

inCO

CO CD co cdcd 00 cd p c i

QJ d QJ d o dp P QJ •H oo p o E P •Hd d d QJ O P•H p H P d CO

o cd d C1J

d QJ d p QJ d<3 rH <3 CO Pi cr

po oo 00p d <d d CDCJ •pH m ctfd LO p p a)p d (X adp QJ p QJ •pHco p •pH 0 od 0 p oo o 4-J

•rH 00 o QJ cd cQJ P a)

d P d cd d Td•H cd •p o •p p

o +JQJ M-/ p a) CO OOco co CO CDcd 00 cd p cd 00 >.QJ d a) d 0) c PP •H p QJ p •H 0O p o E C.J CO 00d p d QJ d d QJp •H P •H po cd d cdd QJ d p d d u<! r—

1

<3 CO < cd

OOd•HCO

doopPOPodPpCO

C•H

QJ

CD

cd

QJ

pod

cd a;

i•pH

i1

B 00 p 00 1

PP «4_j

re

P d p d p P oco •p 00 •pH p •pH T)

cd •pH p 0) cp cp > cp P o o cdo 'p •p cr dP co MP p p d a ocP cd qj o oo cd p 0 u0) rP > d i“—

1

•pH •pH,n O *P p •pH o d p 3B P d d o cd o o

00 P CJ O P 0 p CO p od d B QJ 0 •pH 6 CO rP o a,•rH •p •<—

>

B p •rH p cdp aj P £> cd CO p 1—

1

> od O p P 4-Jp p P QJ p p d +J cu P d -d cr p d d Q) 00d QJ 9 C P o cd d (U gp co E cd d B cd w a) •pHp cd CO QJ •p p cd o 4JCO QJ QJ d co O d CO co 0) h oP •pH d *P P CO d p p 0d o p QJ cd d CO p p d o M-Hd d cd CX 0 p p cx o p c c •pHcd M B CO 00 Pi d CO o E M •p^ d

(items

109

havior changes of these instructors. This relationship is illus-

trated in Table XVII.

In other words, the instructors in the experimental group

appeared to change the instructional behavior which they in-

tended to change as judged by an analysis of pretest and post-

test videotaped lessons, and these changes appear to have been

lecognized and reported by the students through the student

evaluation items.

no

chapter v

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Purpose and Procedures

The purpose of this study was to test a particular model

for the improvement of instruction at the higher education level.

This model was characterized both by its focus on evaluating and

changing a discrete number of technical skills of teaching (ques-

tion-asking, elaboration, pacing, etc.), and its data collection,

analysis and treatment procedures. These included an initial

interview with the instructor, classroom videotaping, student

evaluations, an instructional specialist working individually with

the instructor, and various follow-up procedures.

A gi oup of thirteen graduate student teaching assistants,

all of whom were teaching a required freshman Rhetoric course

were randomly divided into three groups: experimental, quasi-

experimentai and control. The first group completed each phase

oi the instructional improvement model including follow-up pro-

cedures occupying approximately ten hours time. The second group

completed onJy the first phase of this model, ending with the

identification of teaching skills which could be improved. The

third or "control" group completed only the data collection steps

in the model.

All three groups also administered a specially devised stu-

dent achievement test to their students during the fourth week of

Ill

the semester, while the initial data collection was taking place.

A final student achievement test, videotape and student evalua-

tion were completed approximately eight weeks later, at the con-

clusion of the semester. The class size, course goals and stu-

dent assignments were similar across all sections of the course.

The pretest and posttest videotapes were analyzed and com-

pared by independent raters through a seventeen-category inter-

action analysis instrument adapted from Flanders (1971). The

achievement tests were analyzed and compared by three subject

matter specialists using a rating system constructed by the course

director. Student evaluations were computed in terms of fre-

quency counts and mean scores for each item and for ten general

factors. Changes in achievement test scores and student evalua-

tion items and factors were computed statistically by means of

t-tests. Changes in classroom instructional behavior as identi-

fied through interaction analysis were interpreted from the in-

teraction analysis matrices and flow charts representing these

matrices.

The major assumptions of the study were that the analysis

of instruction by higher education instructors using the focus

and procedures of this improvement model would result in: (1) the

identification and alteration of "problematic" teaching skills,

(2) positive change in related student evaluation scores and

(3) greater achievement as measured on pre- and post- achievement

tests

.

112

It was also assumed that instructors not exposed to the

analysis and feedback aspects of this model would not manifest

these results (or would not manifest them to the same extent).

Finally, it was assumed that instructors who were exposed only

to initial analysis and feedback without follow-up procedures

either would not manifest these results or would manifest them

to a lesser extent.

Summary of Results

Change in Instructional Behavior . The results of analyz-

ing the pretest and posttest videotapes of all three groups re-

vealed that the experimental group's general instructional pat-

tern changed from a heavy emphasis on instructor question-asking

with extended student responding and initiating to one with a

heavy emphasis on the instructor's expanding and clarifying stu-

dent ideas with extended instructor lecturing. This might be

described as an increase in "flexibility" (Flanders, 1970).

The control group's general instructional pattern shifted

from a heavy emphasis on question-asking with extended instructor

lecturing to heavy emphasis on silence with extended student talk

evolving out of that silence. This might be described not as a

trend toward student-centeredness on the part of these instruc-

tors but rather a general lessening of their overt involvement in

the class.

The quasi -experimental group shifted slightly from a gen-

eral pattern emphasizing lecturing and question-asking and si-

113

lence to one emphasizing lecturing, question-asking, student re-

sponding and silence.

Flow charts of the overall instructional patterns in the

three groups illustrated that the quasi-experimental group shifted

much less than either the control or experimental group, and that

the control group appeared to shift less than the experimental

group.

In general the two experimental groups changed in the same

direction and changed in contrast to the control group. For ex-

ample they did more clarifying and expanding of student ideas.

They lectured more and made more "orienting statements." They

also showed less silence in their classrooms, in which the ratio

of student talk to teacher talk decreased.

The extended treatment group changed more than the limited

treatment group in each of these change dimensions.

Changes in o tudent. Evaluations . Of thirty-one items on the

student evaluations, three showed positive significant change in

the experimental group; three showed significant negative change

in the quasi-experimental group and one showed significant posi-

tive change in the control group.

The experimental group improved in "defining and expanding

relevance," in "relating to student ideas" and in "making expec-

tations clear."

The quasi-experimental group regressed in "expression,"

"facilitating student participation" and in "evaluation."

114

The control group improved in "making expectations clear."

Only one general factor for any of the groups changed signifi-

cantly. This was the "evaluation and feedback" factor in the ex-

perimental group. Two other factors in that group ("clarity" and

"relating to student responses") were very close to significant

change

.

Changes in Achievement . Although none of the differences

between pretest and posttest achievement scores were significant,

it is noteworthy that the mean achievement score of the experimen-

tal group students gained 3.33 points while that of the quasi-ex-

perimental group students did not change and that of the control

group students decreased by 2 points. The scores were a sum of

three independent scores representing a rating of the mechanics

of writing, clarity of purpose and rhetorical ability.

Conclusions

Despite numerous methodological problems and limitations

discussed below, it may be said that the results of this study

tentatively support the assumptions. The classroom instruction-

al behavior,student evaluat ions and student achievement of the

instructors in the experimental group did appear to change in

desirable ways, whereas the classroom behavior of the instructors

in the quasi-experimental and control groups changed less, and

their student evaluations and student achievement for the most

part did not change in desirable ways.

The fact that the observed instructional behavior changes

115

and the student evaluation changes of the instructors in the ex-

perimental group tend to correspond with their stated problems

and improvement goals suggests that the behavior changes in this

group were intentional and were related to the treatment process.

The follow-up treatment moreover appears to have been im-

portant in that the quasi-experimental group altered its behavior

in the same directions as the experimental group (having expressed

similar change goals) but did not change to the same extent.

Finally,the achievement data tentatively support the con-

clusion that clarifying and expanding student ideas, making orient

ing statements and lecturing are critical variables in the in-

struction of this particular kind of course. Instructors who

manifested more of these behaviors from their first to their se-

cond videotape tended to be rated higher by students and to gen-

erate higher student achievement.

One interpretation of the control group's videotape post-

test results is that the instructors in the control group shift-

ed their teaching style to one that relied much more on student

initiation. Given the extremely long periods of silence that

characterized these posttest videotapes however it seems probable

that the students found this role difficult. A content analysis

of these lessons might have indicated a lack of purposefulness

and direction in the student talk.

The increased active participation of the instructors in the

experimental group both through lecturing and through clarifying

116

and/or expanding on student contributions suggests that this

group identified instructional goals and learned certain instruc-

tional behaviors through their involvement in the treatment pro-

cess which related to improving their presentations and increas-

ing their "student-centeredness." The sharper dichotomy between'

teacher-centered and student-centered instructional modes for the

experimental group indicates both greater perceptiveness and grea-

ter flexibility on the part of these instructors in choosing the

appropriate instructional mode to fit different contexts.

Limitations

Although the results suggest that this instructional improve-

ment model is effective in promoting valuable instructional change,

this conclusion must be qualified in numerous ways.

In the first place, since this mode of treatment was the on-

ly mode tested in this design, then it is possible to conclude

not this particular treatment but any systematic in—servic.e

educational treatment of higher education instructors will result

in productive behavior change.

More specifically, Flanders (1970) and others (Amidon and

Hough,1967) have achieved similar results with primary through

secondary school instructors without the use of videotape feed-

back and student evaluations. Their instructors, trained in

interaction analysis, tended to become both more distinctly tea-

cher-centered and student-centered ("flexible") in the classroom,

and their students showed corresponding gains in achievement.

117

This suggests two hypotheses. First, since interaction

analysis was used in this study as a feedback procedure by at

least two of the three instructional specialists, then exposure

to interaction analysis may have been the critical variable in

the change process — videotaping, student evaluations, etc.,

being superfluous. Second, since two different instructional

analysis procedures tended to produce similar results, then

the critical variable for change may lie in the very act of in-

structors observing, analyzing and attempting to improve their

teaching -- a question of "mind set" -- and not in a particular

improvement model.

In addition, because few situational variables were mea-

sured and the range of the measuring instruments was limited,

it is not possible to know in this study whether other instruc-

tional variables (such as the instructor's overt level of enthu-

siasm or his belief in the value of the subject matter) or in-

structor personality variables or student personality variables

or slight variations in curriculum or method were related to

the results.

The use of random selection did not insure a normal distri-

bution of such variables among the three groups. Thus it is ob-

vious from the pretest flow charts of the groups that the experi-

mental group is much more predisposed to student-centered in-

structional behaviors than the other two groups. One plausible

conclusion of this study then is that the treatment will generate

118

"flexibility" in instructors whose initial instructional patterns

are predisposed to "flexibility."

Other variables that were not measured in this study were

the actual treatment of the instructors by the instructional

specialists. In this study the instructional specialists worked

with instructors from both the experimental and quasi-experimen-

tal groups. It is possible that the treatment given to the ex-

perimental group was qualitatively different rather than quanti-

tatively different.

Furthermore,without having some measure of this treatment,

it is impossible to know what role the instructional specialist

plays in the overall model. All instructional specialists in

this study might have been characterized by client-centeredress

which fostered student-centered instructional change in the ex-

perimental groups through modeling, not through the treatment

procedures of the model.

Also, although the course goals and procedures were to a

large extent standardized, there were numerous deviations a-

mong instructors. The writing sample and the achievement rat-

ing system were composed by the course director to fit an over-

all model; some instructors with different specific goals might

have generated strong student gains in respects not measured on

the achievement test.

Finally, the results of the data in the present study were

not conclusive. With five instructors or less in each group it

119

was not possible to ascertain the level of significance for

changes in classroom instructional behaviors as recorded in the

interaction analysis categories. Furthermore, of thirty-one

items and ten factors in the student evaluations of each group,

only three items and one factor in the experimental group ac-

tually showed significant positive change (at the .05 level),

while the only tnree items that showed significant change for

the quasi-ex.perimental group changed in a negative direction.

Moreover one of the significant change items in the experimental

group also changed significantly in the control group, indicat-

ing a variable operating in the experimental situation other

than the treatment. Although trends existed for achievement

gains by the experimental group and losses in the control group,

much of the variance can be attributed to chance.

Implications for Future Research

Certainly replication of this study with a larger sample

is highly recommended. It would also be important in future

studies of this kind to measure more of the situational varia-

bles. This includes the use of additional instruments such as

those measuring non-verbal behavior as well as expansion of the

measuring instruments used in this study. The achievement test-

ing particularly should attempt to measure outcomes that are as-

certained as congruent with the specific goals of individual in-

structors .

Closely measuring a wide range of instructional variables

120

is especially necessary if the research on cause-effect relation-

ships or "laws" in instruction is to be advanced. Such research

depends on making correlations between specific instructional

variables and specific learning outcomes across a number of well

defined instructional contexts.

In order to generalize the present model, it would also

be important to apply it in different instructional contexts.

This includes different academic departments and student grade

levels as well as different instructional styles. In terms of

the latter,

it might be recommended that videotaping and inter-

action analysis be used first to identify groups of instructors

with distinctive styles. Members from each group could then be

randomly assigned to treatment and non-treatment groups.

For the purpose of improving the treatment model itself, it

would be necessary to (1) test it in similar conditions against

other models, and (2) measure more closely each variable in the

model and vary these under experimental conditions.

The apparent regression in the quasi-exparimental group

in this study in terms of student evaluations suggests another

line of future inquiry: whether improvement programs such as the

one presented here, when enacted on a short-term basis without

follow-up, can actually do more harm than good.

Finally, it would seem important for future studies to ad-

dress the question of the videotape medium itself in terms of

its propensity to foster certain kinds of instructional change

121

vis-a-vis other data collection and feedback media. It is possi-

ble for example that instructors viewing themselves on videotape

will be more inclined to alter their apparent relationship with

students rather than relationships of a less overt and more in-

tellectual nature. The latter might be better promoted through

written transcripts of the classroom or even audiotape.

Summary

Compared to many previous studies in the field of in-ser-

vice teacher education, the present study was exemplary in its

attempt to deal with the complexities of instructional situations.

Both direct observational data and student evaluational data and

achievement data were collected, analyzed and compared.

The results of these analyses and comparisons suggest numer-

ous directions for valuable future research.

The apparent correspondance between the stated improvement

goals of the instructors, the observed changes in instructional

behavior and the changes in certain student evaluation categories

among the experimental group instructors in this study tend to

support the conclusion that instructors can decide to alter their

instruction in productive ways and that students do detect and

respond to such changes.

In light of the paucity of in-service teacher education pro-

grams and models at all levels of education7-but especially at

the higher education level, the results and implications of this

study are important and deserve additional investigation.

122

REFERENCES

Alciatore and Eckert. (1968). Minnesota Ph. P 's EvaluateTheir Training . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

Alexander, L.T. and Davis, R.H. (1970). Developing a Sys-tem Training Program for Graduate Teaching Assistants.Michigan State University. (Mimeo.)

Allen, D.W. and Melnick, M.A. (1972). The Clinic to ImproveUniversity Teaching . W.K Kellogg Foundation Grant. Am-herst: University of Massachusetts. (Mimeo.)

Allen, D.W. and Fortune, J.C. (1967). "An Analysis of Micro-teaching: A New Procedure in Teacher Education." InMicro-teaching : A Description . Stanford, Calif.: Schoolof Education, Stanford University.

American Association of Junior Colleges (1969). In-serviceTraining for Two -Year College Faculty and Staff: A Sur-veY OI Junior and Community College Administrators.Faculty Development Project. Washington, D.C.: AAJC.

Amidon, E.J. and Flanders, N.A. (1971). The Role of theTeacher in the Classroom . Minneapolis, Minn.: Associa-tion for Productive Teaching.

Anderson, H.H. (1939). "The Measurement of Domination andof Socially Integrative Behavior in Teachers' Contactswith Children." Child Development

, 10, pp. 73-89.

Arrowsmith, W. (1967). "The Future of Teaching." In Lee,C.B.T. (ed.) (1967). Improving College Teaching .

American Council on Education: Wa-.hington, D.C.

Aubertine, H.E. (1964). An Experiment in the Set InductionProcess and I ts Application to Teaching . UnpublishedDoctoral Dissertation. Stanford: Stanford University.

Baldridge, J.V. (1970). "Images of the Future and Organiza-tional Change." Research and Development MemorandumNo. 58. Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford Center for Researchand Development in Teaching.

Bales, R.F. and Strodtbeck, F.L . (1951). "Phases of GroupProblem Solving." Journal of Abnormal Social Psychol-ogy, 46, pp. 458-496.

123

Beard J.W. (1969). Teacher Effectiveness and Style as Relat-P_art c 1 pat 1°n in a Science Curriculum Workshop!

Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. StanfordTTt'anf ordUniversity.

Belgard, M., Rosenshine, B.

,and Gage, N.L. (1971). ''Effec-

tiveness in Explaining: Evidence on Its Generality andCorrleation with Pupil Ratings." In Westbury, I. andBe Hack

,A. (eds.) (1971). Research Into Classroom

Processes . New York: Teachers College~Pr^s7^

Berliner, D.C. (1967). A Comparison of Different Modelingprocedures in the Acquisition of a Teaching Skill.New York: Paper Presented at AERA Meeting.

Biddle, B.J. (1964). "The Integration of Teacher Effective-ness Research." In Biddle, B.J. and Ellena, W.J. (eds.)

.... .

Contemporary Research on Teacher Effectiveness.New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

~

Borg, W.R.,Kelly, M.L., Langer

,P. and Gall, M. (1970). The

Minicourse : A Micro-teaching Approach to Teacher EducaT”tion. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Macmillan Educationai“si^-vices

.

Boulding, K.B. (1970). "The Task of the Teacher in the So-Cial Sciences." In Morris, W.H. (ed.) (1970). Effec-tive College Teaching . Washington, D.C.: AmericanAssociation for Higher Education.

Burkhart, R.C. (ed.) (1969). The Asse ssment Revoliition: NewViewpoints for Teacher Evaluation . Buffalo, New York:State University of New York, Division of Teacher Edu-cation and Certification.

Centra, J.A. (1972a). The Utility of Student Ratings forInstructional

. Improvement . PR 72-16. Princeton: Edu-cational Testing Service.

Centra, J.A. (1972b). Strategies for Improving CollegeTeaching . ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education.Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University.

Church, R.J. (1971). "The Effects of Systematic Changes inStandard Four Science Lessons." Educational ResearchNewsletter

, 4, pp. 15-30.

Cogan,M.L. (1973). Clinical Supervision . Boston: Houghton

Mifflin Company.

124

Cohen,A.M and Shawl, W.F. (1970). "Coordinating Instruction

Through Objectives." Junior Coll ege Journal, 41(2). Dn.1 7—19

•

Cohen, A.M. and Brawer,F.B . (1969). Measuring Faculty Per-

formance. ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior Colleges, Mono-graph No. 4. Washington, D.C.: American Association ofJunior Colleges.

Cohen, E.( 19 70). Faculty for Teaching-Learning: ProposedNew Graduate Centers for the Systematic Preparation ofCommunity Col lege Teachers . ED 038 133. "(Mimeo.

)

Cos tin, F. and Greenough, W.T. (1971). "Student Ratings ofCollege Teaching: Reliability, Validity and Usefulness."Review of Educational Research, 41, No. 5, pp. 511-535.

Danfourth Foundation (1970). "Teaching Improvement Grants."Danfourth News and Notes

, 6(2), pp. 1-7.

Davis, O.L. Jr. and Smoot, B.B. (1969). Effects on the Ver-bal Teaching Behaviors of Beginning S_ec_ondar~TeachingCandidates 1 Participation in a Program of LaboratoryTeaching . Paper Presented at AERA Meeting? Austin:University of Texas.

Dean, D. (n.d.). Preservice Preparation of Colle ge BiologyTeachers : A Search for a^ Better Way . The Commission onUndergraduate Education in the Biological Sciences.

deFreisse, R. (1973). A Compute r Program for Displaying In-terac.tion Analysis Coding Systems . Amherst: Universityof Massachusetts. (Mimeo.)

Dell, D. and Hiller, J.H. (1971). "Computer Analysis ofTeachers' Explanations." In Westbury, I. and Bellack,A. (eds.) (1971). New York: Teachers College Press.

Dewey, J. (1939). Experience and Education . London: Collier-MacMillan.

Diekhoff, J.S. (1960). Tomorrow's Professors . New York: Fundfor the Advancement of Education.

Eble, K.E. (1971). Career Development of the Effective (. legeTeacher . Washington, D.C.: American Association of CollegeProfessors

.

125

Flanders, N.A. (1970). Analyzing Teach ing Behavior. ReadingMassachusetts: Addi son-Wesley

.

Flanders, N.A. (1967). "The Problems of Observer Training and

??a* 7^lllty *" In Amidon

>E * J * and Hough, J.B. (eds.)U

_

Interaction Analysi s: Theory, Research and

Application. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wes ley

.

Fortune, J.C., Cooper, J.M. and Allen, D.W. (1967). "The Stan-ford Summer^Micro-teaching Clinic, 1965." The Journalof Teacher Education

, 18, Winter, pp. 389-393.

ortune, J.C. (1965). Instructional Set, Cognitive Closure,

£.n_ l£st Anxiety in the Presentation of Social StudiesContent. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Stanford:Stanford University.

Frey.^P.W. (1973). Student Instructional Ratings and FacultyPerformance. New Orleans: Paper Presented at AERA Meeting

Gaff, J.G. and Wilson, R.C. (1971). "The Teaching Environment.AAUP Bulletin

, 57(4), pp. 475-493.

Gage, N.L. (1968). "An Analytical Approach to Research onInstructional Methods." Phi Delta Kappan, 6, pp. 601-606.

Gage, N.L. (1963). "Paradigms for Research on Teaching." InGage

,N.L. (ed.) (1963). Handbook of Research on Teach-

ing . Chicago: Rand McNally.

Gump, Paul V. (1964). "Environmental Guidance of the Class-room Behavioral System." In Biddle, B.J. and Ellena,W.J. (eds.). Op. Cit.

Gustad, J.W. (1963). "Orientati on and Faculty Development."The Educational Record

, July, pp. 195-213.

Heiss,A. (1970). Challenges to Graduate School. San Francis-

co: Jossey-Bass.

Hodgkinson, H. (1972). "How to Evaluate Faculty When You Don’tKnow Much About Them." The Research Reporter, 7, no. 3.Berkeley: University of California.

Hughes, D.C. (1971). "The Effects of Certain Conditions ofPupil Participation and Teacher Reacting on the Achieve-ment of Form 2 Pupils." Educational Research Newsletter,4, pp. 12-14.

126

Knight, L.E. (1971). Anfor Variable Use ofUnpublished DoctoralUniversity.

Investigation of Teacher PreparationMathematical Instructional Modes.Dissertation. Stanford: Stanford

Koen,^R. and Ericksen (1967). An Analysis of the SpecificFeatures Which Characterize 'the More Successful Programsfor the Recruitment and Training of College Teachers

.

University of Michigan: Center for Research in Learningand Teaching.

Koran, J.J. (1970). The Relative Effects of Imitation VersusProblem Solving on the Acquisition of Inquiry Behaviorby Intern Teachers . Technical Report No. 11. '

Stanford:Stanford Center for Research and Development in Teaching.

Legge^W. and Asper, L. (1972). "The Effect of VideotapedMicroteaching Lessons on the Evaluative Behavior of Pre-Student-Teachers." Journal of Teacher Education 27pp. 263-266.

'

Lev/in, K., et al. (1939). "Patterns of Aggressive Behavior

in Experimentally Created 'Social Climates.'" Journalof Social Psychology

, 10, pp. 271-299.

Limbacher, P.C. (1969). "A Study of the Effects of Microteach-ing Experiences Upon Practice Teaching Classroom Behavior."In Dissertation Abstracts International, 30, p. 189.

McDonald, F.J. (1973). A Behavior Modifi cation View of VideoPlayback : Microteaching . New Orleans: Paper Presentedat AERA Meeting.

McDonald, F.J. and Allen, D.W. (1967). Training Effects ofFeedback and Modeling Procedures on Teaching Performance.Final Report. Research Project No. OE-6-lO-OTCh uTsTOffice of Education. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University.

McGrath, E.J. (1961). The Quality and Quantity of CollegeTeachers . New York: Columbia University Teachers College.

MacKenzie, N., Eraut, M. and Hywel, C.J. (1970). Teaching andLearning : An Introduction to New Methods and Resources inHigher Education . Belgium: Unesco and the InternationalAssociation of Universities.

McKnight,P.C. (1970). Behavioral Responsiveness of Teachers

in Verbal Interactions with Students . Unpublished Doc-toral Dissertation. Stanford: Stanford University.

127

Many, W., et al.

, (1969). In-service Education in AmericanSenior Colleges and Universities : A Status Report.Northern Illinois University, DeKalb: College “oTEdu-cation.

Mathis, B.C. (1972). "Center for the Teaching Professions -Northwestern University." In Alexander, L.T. and Yelon,S.!.. (eds.) ( 1972 ). Instructional Development Agencies’i_n Higher education

,

East Lansing, Michigan: MichiganState University.

Melnick, M.A.^ (1972). A Clinic to Improve University Teaching.Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Amherst: Universityof Massachusetts.

Mescon, M.H.,et al. (1969). Toward a Faculty Self-Appraisal

System . Research Paper Number 49. Bureau of Businessand Economic Research. School of Business Administration.Atlanta: Georgia State College.

Meux, M.O. (1967). "Studies of Learning in the School Setting."Review of Educational Research

, 37, No. 5, pp. 539-561.

Meux, M.O. and Smith, B. (1964). "Logical Dimensions of Teach-ing Behavior." In Biddle, B.J. and Ellena, W.J. Op. Cit .

Miller, W.S. and Wilson, K.M. (1963). Faculty Development Pro-cedures in Small Colleges - a. Southern Survey. SouthernRegional Education Board.

Miltz, R.J. (1973). Micro-teaching - a Description . Amherst:School of Education, University of Massachusetts. (Kimeo.)

Miltz, R.J. (1971). Development and Evaluation of a Manual forImproving Teachers 1 Explanations . Unpublished DoctoralDissertation. Stanford: Stanford University.

National Advisory Council on Education Professions Development.(1972). In Centra, J.A. (1972b). Op. Cit.

National Faculty Association of Community and Junior Colleges(1968). Guidelines for the Preparation of Community/Junior College Teachers . Washington, D.C.: NationalFaculty Association of Community and Junior Colleges.

Noam, J. (1973). Development and Evaluation of a Model forImproving University Teaching . Unpublished DoctoralDissertation. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.

128

Nowlis, V., Clark, K.E. and Rock, M. (1968). The GraduateStudent as Teacher . American Council on Education.

Nuthall, G. and Snook, I. (1973). "Contemporary Models ofTeaching." in Travers, R.M.W. (ed.) (1973). SecondHandbook of Research on Teaching . Chicago: Rand Mc-Nally and Company.

Orme, M.E.J. (1966). The Effects of Modeling and FeedbackVariables on the Acqui sition of a Complex TeachingStrategy . Unpublished. Doctoral Dissertation. Stan-ford: Stanford University.

Perlberg, A., ej: aH. (1972). "Microteaching and VideotapeRecordings: A New Approach to Improving Teaching."Journal of Medical Education

, 47, pp. 43-50.

Perlberg, A. and O'Bryant, D.C. (1970). "Videotaping andMicroteaching Techniques to Improve Engineering In-struction." Engineering Education

, 60, pp. 741-744.

Popham, W.J. (1967). Development of a Performance Testof Teaching Proficiency . Final Report, U.S. OfTiceor Education Project Mo. 5-0566-2-12-1. Washington,D.C.: U.S. Office of Education.

Ramp, E., Ulrich, R. and Dulaney, S. (1971). "DelayedTimeout as a Procedure for Reducing Disruptive Class-room Behavior: A Case Study." Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis

, Vol. 4., pp. 235-240.

Report of the President's Commission on Higher Education(1947). To Improve Learning

,Vol. 4, 16. Washing-

ton, D.C.

Rogers, C.R. (1969). Freedom to Learn . Columbus, Ohio:Charles E. Merrill.

Rosenshine,B. and Furst, N. (1973). "The use of Direct

Observation to Study Teaching." In Travers, R.M.W.(ed.) (1973). Second Handbook of Research on Teaching .

Chicago: Rand McNally and Company.

Rosenshine, B. (1970). "Evaluation of Classroom Instruction."Review of Educational Research

, 40, No. 2, pp. 279-300.

Rosenshine, B. (1968). Objectively Measured Behavioral Pre -

dictors of Teacher Effectiveness in Explaining . Un-published Doctoral Dissertation. Stanford: StanfordUniversity.

129

Ryans D.C. (1964). "Research on Teacher Behavior in theContext of the Teacher Characteristics Study." inBiddle, B.J. and Ellena, W.J. (eds.). Op. Git .

Ryans, D.G. (1960). Characteristic s of Teachers: TheirDescription, Comparis on, and Appraisal. Washing tonD.C.: Amer i

c

arTcouneTT-on~ûâtioru

’

Salzburg, B.H., etal. (1971). "The Effect of Intermittent

eedback and Intermittent Contingent Access to Play onPrinting of Kindergarten Children." Journal of AppliedBehavioral Analysis

, Vol. 4, pp. 163-172.

Sanford, N. (1962). "Research and Policy in Higher Education."In Sanford, N. (ed.) (1962). The American College.New York: John Wiley.

'

Smock, R. and Crooks, T. (1973). A Plan for the Comprehen-sive Evaluati on of College Teaching . New Orl^T:Paper presented at the AERA Meeting.

Soar, R.S. (1968). "Optimum Teacher-Pupil Interaction forPupil Growth." Educational Leadership

, 26, pp. 275-

Survey of the National Council of Teachers of English (1970).In Eble

, W. (1971). Op. Cit.

Trent, J.W. and Cohen, A.M. (1973). "Research on Teachingin Higher Education." In Travers, R.M.W. (ed.) (1973).Second Handbook of Res earch on Teaching, Chicago: R.andMcNally.

Tient, J.W. "Revolution, Reformation, and Re-evaluation." InSampson, E.E.

,Korn, II.A. and associates, Student Acti-

vism and Protest . (1970). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Triezenberg, D. (1969). "Graduate Student Survey - Fall 1969."University of Maryland. (Mimeo.)

Unruh, W.R. (1967). The Modali ty and Validity of Cues toLecture Effectiveness Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.Stanford: Stanford University.

Waimon, M.D.,Bell, D.D. and Ramseyer, G.C. (1971). The Effects

of Microplanning on the Performance and Attitudes of Pro-spective Teachers

.

New York: Paper Presented at AERA Meering.

130

West, R.W.,et al. (1970). Graduate Preparation for Teaching

pissing Component.. Commission on College Physics

.

College Park: University of Maryland.

Withal 1 ,J. (1949). "The Development of a Technique for the

Measurement of Social-Emotional Climate in Classrooms."Journal of Experimental Education

, 17, pp. 347-361.

Wright, C.J. and Nuthall, G.A. (1970). "Relationships Be-tween Teacher Behaviors and Pupil Achievement in ThreeElementary Science Lessons." American Educational Re-search Journal

, 7, pp. 477-491.~

131

APPENDIX A

COURSE INFORMATION AND PRE-VIDEOTAPING INFORMATION FORMS

132

Course Information Form

1.

Department

2. Name of teacher

3. Course title

4.

Catalogue description of course (type in from catalogue).

6 .

7.

Prerequisites

Other courses

For which, if

in sequence

any, programs is this course a requirement?

8. How many students are enrolled?

9. How many of the enrolled students are:

a. Freshman? c. Juniors?

b. Sophomores? d. Seniors?

10.

What is the structural format of the course (i.e., threelectures a week, one lecture group and two discussiongroups, etc.)?

11.

How are student grades determined?

12. Are grades (check appropriate responses): pass/fail?satisfactory/unsatisf actory? A through F

13. Try to get and attach: a. syllabus c. assignmentsb. reading list d. examinations

14. Generally, what are the informational, skill, and affectivecourse objectives? (Please list on back of this sheet.)

15. What is the presumed relationship between what happens inclass and the work which students are asked to do outside class?

133

Course Information Form (continued)16.

If this course is in any sense experimental (either inobjectives or teaching patterns), describe.

17.

Has the teacher had any particular highs or difficultieswith this course? If so, describe.

18.

If there are others now teaching this course, who and/orhow many?

134

Name

Date of class

Pre -videotaping Information

To enhance our understanding of the videotape of yourclass, would you please take a few moments to answer thequestions which follow? Please note that neither specificbehavioral objectives nor an elaborate lesson plan are be-ing requested. The intention is merely to provide a frameof reference for the videotaped class.

Would you please complete this and give it to me beforeclass?

1.

Generally, what are your objectives for this class (i.e. toelaborate on specified concepts or processes, to introducea new topic, to review previously considered material, togo over assigned readings, etc.)?

2.

How do you hope to accomplish those objectives (i.e. bylecturing, class discussion, asking questions, etc)?

3.

What do you expect students to have done to prepare forthis class?

4.

What do you exp-ct students to do during class?

5.

If you think it would be useful, would you describe whatwas done in the immediately preceding class?

THANK YOU

135

APPENDIX B

INTERACTION ANALYSIS MATRICES

10 x 10 Pretest and Posttest Matrices for Each Sub

17 x 17 Pretest and Posttest Matrices for Each Sub

17 x 17 Difference Matrices for Each Sub-group

group

group

136

EXPERIMENTAL GROUP 10 x 10 PRETEST MATRIX

Categories

• •

*1 .

J 2. I 3 1 4 1 5 I 6 ! 7 1 8 1 9 l 10 1

1

0 I

1

0 I

I

0 1

I

0 1 0 I

1

0 I

I

0 1 0 I

J

0 1 0 1 Tallies•

0.00 1 0,061 0 . 00 I 0.00! 0 . 0 n i c r 0 0

1

0 . 00 1 o.ool 0 - 0 0 I 0,001 Percents0 ! 15 I 14 I ?0 I 9 1 0 ! 0 1 15 I 17 1 14 1

2 I I It

1 I I J

•0 I 0 0 I 0.931 0.871 1.241 0.561 0 r 0 0

1

0 . 00 1 0.931 1-051 0,871

0 t 2 I 85 I 17 I 11 1 2 1 0 1 7 1 >8 I 3 1

3 1 I I 1 1 l 1

• o • o Q1 0*12* 5.271 1-05I 0-6*81 0-12! O'OO 1 0.631 l- 1?1 0 ’ 1 ?I

0 I 0 I 4 I 75 1 6 I 0 1 0 1 63 1 26 I 41 1

4 t 1 1 I I l 1

• • o • oa i 0 -GO I 0«25I 4.651 0-371 0 *00 1 0 *00 2 3 . 9 1

1

i-241 2,541

0 1 1 I 0 I 26 I 2’8 1 3 1 0 1 5 l 7 I 13 1

5 i I 1 I 1 1 l

• 0-051 0 • 0 0 I 1 .61 I 18.471 0 • 1 9 I 0 • 0 0 1 0 • 3 1

1

0-831 0-812

0 1 0 I 0 i 0 1 1 1 4 I 0 1 , 2 1 0 1 4 I

6 1 I I 1 1 1 I

• O-OQ! 0 • 0 6

1

0 • 0 6

1

0 • 0 d i 0.662 0-251 0 • n 0 * 0-121 0 • 0 0 l 0 • 25

1

0 1 0 1 0 1 0 I 0 I 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 I 0 I

7 I I 1 1 1 1 I

• 0 • 0 Q 10 -00 1 0 -00 1 0 *00 1 0 *00 1

0 ;00 1 0-00 1 0 -0 6!0 * d

6

1

0 ' 00 I

0 t 47 I 18 1 22 1 5 1 1 1 0 I 179 I 3 1 17 t

8 ! I I I I 1 1

. • 0 • 0 01 2.911 1 • 1 2 I 1.361 0

• 3 1I

0 ;061

0 • 00 1 u-ioi o-1 9 1 1-0 51

0 1 34 I 15 1 22 I 6 1 0 1 2 I 0 1 2'7 I 13 I

9 1 I I 1 I I I

.0.091 2.111 0.931 1.361 6.371 0 r 0 0

1

0.121 0.00114.691 0.811

0 1 5 1 9 I 27 I 17 I 1 1 0 I 20 I 26 I 63 1

io 1 I 1 I 1 1 1

• 0 • 0 01 0-3(2 0-561 1.671 I'D’ 1

0 lo6 > OÔO 5 1*281 1-6, I 3 • 9 1

X

0 1 104 I 145 I 209 1 353 1 11 1 2 I 292 l 329 I 163 1

1 1 1 1 1 l I

TOTAL 0* of)1 6,451 8,991 {2.961 2 t . e«u

0:6fl I 0-l2» 1®. io* 2 q' 4 q1 10-822

I/O RATIO 0.556

revised i/d Ratio -- 0.967

EXTENDED indirect -* 11-779

EXTEN0FD oiRECT ---- 0.248

teacher talk 51.095

student talk 38.500

stu/teac TAL< RATlD 0.754

137

EXPERIMENTAL GROUP 10 x 10 POSTTEST MATRIX

Categories

» i i 2. I 3 1 4 1 5 I 6 I 7 I 8 1 2 1 10 I

i

0 I

I

0 I

I

0 I

I

0 I

I

0 I

I

0 1

I

n I

I

0 I 0 I o i Tallies

•o.ooi 0.001 O.OOI 0,001 0.041 olooi 0.001 o.ooi 0-001

1

o.ooi Percents0 I 5 I 13 I 6 I 8 I 1 I 1 I 4 1 •0 I 6 I

2 I I I I I I I J

• 0 • 0 0 1 0-341 0-371 o-V 0-541 o i o7

1

o-o 71 O'? 7 ! 3-6710

' 4 0 I

0 I 0 1 142 1 19 I 11 I 0 I 0 I 4 I i 1 I 8 I

3 1 I I I II

• O' 0

0

0 • 0 0 1 9.531 1.281 0-741 0:00 * o- oo 1 0-271 0*741

0• 5 4 I

4

0 1

1

2 I

J

0 I 36 I 9 I l i 0 I 28 I 6 I 38 I

0 • 0 6

1

0-131 o • o 6 1

1

2. 4?I1

0 * 6 T 1 o[ o

7 1

1

o- no 1 ! . 8 6

1

0- 4o !

I

2.551

0 I 4 I l i 20 I 45? I 0 I 3 I 3 I ll I 14 I

5 I i I I i I I

•o.ooi 0.271 0.071 1.34! 50-341 olooi 0.201 0.201 9-741 0.941

0 I 2 I 0 I 0 I 1 I 1 1 0 I 1 I 0 I 3 I

6 I I I I I I 1 I

. o • o 0J 0-131 0 • 00 I 0 - 00 I 0-671 0 :0 7 1 o • no • 0-071 9 ’ 0 0 I 0 • 2 0 1

0 I 0 I 1 1 1 I 3 I 0 1 5 l 1 I 0 I 1 I

7 I I I I ! l I I

. 0 • 0 0 T o • o 6 1 0 - 07 1 n • o 7 t 6 • ?o I o-oo* 0-341 0 • 0

7 I9 ' 0 0 1 0 ' 0

7 *

0 I 23 I 22 I 12 I 4 1 2 I o I T39 I 3 I 3 I

8 I I I I I 1 I

. 0 • 0 0 1 1,541 1.49! o • 8 i i 0-271 o [ 1 3 * o- oo 1 9.3319

’ 2 o 1 0* 20 *

0 I 17 I 13 I 13 I 3 I 0 1 0 I 2 1 1*2 I 6 I

9 I I I I I i I I

. 0 • 00 1 1.141 0-371 0-37'0

• 2 n I 0 1 0 0 *o • no 1 0-131 1 9

• 20 1 0• 4 0 *

0 I 1 1 3 I 13 I 17 I 3 I 3 I 26 I 13 I 77 I

io I 1 I I I I I I

O' oo 1 0 - 07 » 0 • 2 6

1 0-871 1 .1 4 I 0 : 2 0 * 0 • 2 0

1 1-741 9-871 5 . i7 1

0 I 54 I 195 1 120 I 508 I 8 I 12 I 208 I 256 I l56 I

I I I I I I 1 I

t^tal O' 00 I 3,621 1 3 . o9

1

8• 0 5

1

34 •o^ I 0-541 0.8^13.961 13-831 1 0 • 4 7

*

I / D 9 A T I 0.4261 / D 9 A 1 1 0.426

REVISED i/D -- 0.944

EXtENDED INDIRECT -- 14.966


TEACHER TALK - 61.745

STUDENT TALK 27.795

STU/TEAC TALK RATIO 0.450

138

QUASI -EXPERIMENTAL GROUP 10 x 10 PRETEST MATRIX

Categories

1r

! 2 I 3 1 4 1 5 16 I 7 I 8 19 1 10 1

{

0 1

I

0 1

I

0 1

I

0 1

1

0 ! 0 1

| |

0 I

1

0 1 0 1

l I

o.ooi o.ooi

o 1 Tall ies

• 0 0 I o.ooi 0.001 0.001 o.onl OToot o.ooi1

o.ooi Percents

?

0 I 7 I 2 I 5 I 3 I 1 i n I 3 1 4 1 7 I

,oo i 0.571 0.161 0.4(1 0.741 0 : o B

I

I

o.ooi1 1

0.241 J.33I1

0 . 5 7 |

0 1 0 I 16 I 3 I 6 1 0 1 n I 0 I 4 1 0 I

3 I 1 I I 1 I I I I 1

.• o o ' 0 -00 1 1.361 0-241 o

.491 o [on I 0 -00 1 0*00 10

' 33 1 0 *00 I

0 I 1 I 0 I 97 1 lo I 2 1 0 I 18 I 6 ! 19 I

4 ] I I I I 1 I 1 I I

.o.ooi 0.081 o.ooi 7.89! o . a 1

1

o t 1 6 1 o.ooi 1.461 3.491 1.541

0 I 4 I 0 I 18 I 369 I 6 I 1 I 6 1 4 1 22 I

5 I I I I I I I I 1 I

0 • 0 Q1 0-331 0 • 00 1 1 . 4 6 I 3 o . o t I 0 :4?I 0 - 0*31

0< 49 I

j> 33

I

1.79J

0 I 2 1 0 I 0 1 4 1 »9 1 0 I 3 1 11 2 1

6 1 1 I 1 t I I I I I

. Q'Ofll 0 .

1

6 I 0 • 00 1 o * n o 1 6-331 4 :a0 I 0 - 0 'J

I

0-241 j - o8 1 0*1 6

1

0 I 0 I 1 I i i 2 1 0 I 4 I 0 1 0 1 C I

7 I I I i I 1 1 I 1 I

o • o 6

1

o • o 6

1

o*o1

’ 1 0-0»l o

•

1 61 o [on

I

q.331 0 • 00 1 0 •00

l

0 • 00 I

0 I 8 I 3 I 3 1 in I 2 i 1 I 77 l 7 1 4 I

B 1 I 1 1 l i I I I I

•0,001 0.651 0.241 0.24! o.hi'i o : 1 6

I

0.081 6.261 0*57! 0.331

0 I 8 I 7 I 7 ! 3 1 1 I 1 I 0 I 233 1 13 I

9 I I I I 1 I 1 I I 1

. 0 • 00 1 0.651 0.571 0.57! 0-241 o’ o3 1 o • n 9 1 o • 0 0 1 1 3 • 9 4 1 1.0*1

0 I 2 1 0 I 19 ! 23 I 0 1 l I 8 1 14 I 52 I

10 1 I 1 1 1 i 1 I I

0.651 i

•i 4

1

1

4.231. 0 ’ 0 D 1 0.1*1 0*00* 1.54! 1

• ® 71 o[oil o-

o

9 I

0 I 32 I 29 I 153 ! 430 I 71 | 8 I 115 I 273 ! 119 I

I 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 I

9.671TtT als* 0 • 0 0 I 2.661 2. 36112. 44134. 961 5.77! 0.651 9. 35122-201

I/D RATIO 0.2 96

revised i/o ratm -- 0.515

EXTENDED INDIRECT — 3.333


50 .

7

q nTE T ALK

STUDENT talk * 31.545

STU/TEAC TAL< S*T10 0-537

139

QUASI -EXPERIMENTAL GROUP 10 x 10 POSTTEST MATRIX

Categories*1 1213 14 t 5 16 17 le I? I 10 I

* o 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 (II 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 I n'.ii.' .

i * i i i i i i i i i i- ues

* 0 . o o i P : 0 6 1 o.ooi o.ooi 6 • 6 o I olooi o.ooi o.oot 9.001 0 . 0 0 1 Percents* 01 51111 51 3! 01 2 I 01 ol 31

2 * I . I I I 1 . I l 1 I I

* 0 * 0 Q1

0 • 4 1 1 O ' 9 !1

O ' 4!

1 0'?’ 1 0 * 00 * 0*1 6J0 • 0 0

1

0 * 0 01

0* 2 51

* 0 I 1 1 46 I 10 I 7 I 0 I 0 I 2 1 2 I 3 1

3 * I . 1 I 1 I „ I I i I I

.

* 0*001 0 • 0B 1 3.791

0 . 8?1 0.581 0 ; 00

l 0 * 00 l()

* 1 6 13 ' 1 6 1 0*251

* 0 1 1 1 2 1 60 I 6 1 0 I 0 I 22 I 4 I 25 I

4 1 l I I 1 1 1 I 1 1

.

* 0*051 o* oftl 0 • 1 6 1 4,941

0• 45 i 0 • 0 0 I

0 • 0 01 1 • 8 1 1 8*331 2 • 0

6 1

* 0 1 1 I 1 1 17 I 493 1 1 I 0 1 0 1 4 l 22 l

5 I I I I I I I I 1 1

•*

0 ’ 0 Q1 0 - 0

3 1 0 • 03 1 1 . 4 Q

I

39 .

7

7 1 oio*i n • 00 1 0 • 00

1

3*331 1 • 3 1

1

0 1 0 I 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 l 11 0 I 0 1

6 * 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1

*0 • 0 (3

1 o-ooi 0*001 0.001 0 • 03 I o-ool 0 • no 1 0 • 0 91

3 * 0 0 '• 0 • 0 0 I

* 0 l 0 1 0 I 1 1 2 1 0 1 n I 0 1 1 I 0 1

7 # I I I I l I I 1 I I

«* 0 • 0 0 I 0.061 O.OOI 0* 0 8 I 0*151 o-ool o.ooi o-ool 0 • 0 B 1 O-ool

* 0 1 11 I 5 I 11 I 2 1 1 1 0 1 166 1 2 I 5 I

8 * I I I I I I I 1

0 • 0 0 1 1 3 . 6 6 I

I 1

* o.ooi 0.911 0

.

41 I.

0.911 0 • 1 6 I oTo*! 3*16! 0*911

* 0 I 5 I 5 I 4 1 0 1 0 I 0 1 0 1 117 1 10 1

9 • I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I

0*921* 0*00' 0 • 4 1 1 0 • 4 1

1

0 - 33 ! 0 • (in I 0 * 0 0 I 0 • no I 0 • 00

*

5.631

* 0 1 5 1 1 I 1? I 25 l 0 1 21 12 1 it 148 I

to* I

0*00!

1

0 • 4 1

1

I

n * 09

1

1

p • 99 I

I

2 • 05 I

1

0*00lI I

0- 1*1 0

. 99 I

I

3• 5 1

1

1

3.951

# 0 I 29 I 71 1 120 I 529 1 2 I 4 I 203 1 14

1 I 116 1

« I I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1

T nT ALS* 0 • 0 0 1 2-391 5.841 9 . 881 43.541 0 ;l 61 0

.

33 ! 16. 7 * I n* 60 1 9.551

i/D 0.291

REVISED 1 /D 5 a T

I

3 -- 0.959

EXTENDED INDIRECT -- 7.819

extended direct ---- 0.000

TEACHER talk - 62.140

student talk 2 B .313

STU/TEAC TALK RATIO 0.456

140

CONTROL GROUP 10 x 10 PRETEST MATRIX

Categoriesn TT 13 14 15 ! 6 17 18 l > 1 10 |

*(•********•**•***•*****•**•*•**•*•**»*••***•••*•**•••••••*•*•« oi oi oi ci oi oi oi oi oi oi Tallies

{ * I l i 1 I i I I l t

* OiOOi o I o o i o.ooi o.ooi o.ooj o.ooi o.ooi o.ool 3.001 0.001 percents

* 01 01 61 71 31 01 oi 21 31 212 * 1 . I I l 1.1 I

j

1

}

* 0 *

0

0 1 0 * 0 nl 0

*

76

1 0

•

6 1 1 6*261 o*oo J o*oo* cl 81o’? 61 o*i B1

» 01 21 25 I 91 71 01 01 3! 31 113 * 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I

* 0 • 0 0 I 0 1 18 I 2.191 0.791 0 . ft 1 l 0: 00 1 0 • 0 0 1 0 * 261 0 • 26 1 0 • 0 9 I

* 0*1 *1l" 01 85 1 13 I 01 0 l 40 1 3 1 32 I

4 * 11 I 1 1.1 1 1

* 0*00! 0 •

0

9

1

0 • 0 G 1 7 « 4 61 1 •

1

4 1 0• 0 0

1 0 • 0 0 1 3 • 5 11 0^261 2

•

e 1

1

* 01 11 0 I 32 I 400 1 It 0 1 31 2 1 11 1

5 « 1 1 1 1 1 i I 1 1 1

* 0 > 00 1 0 • 09 1 0 • 0 0 1 2 . 3t I 35 • 1 ?I 0*0 9

1 0 HO 1 0*2 61 J*! 81 0

•

97

1

6

*

7 *

«

8

*

*

*

*

9

*

\0

T?mS*

01 01 01 0 ! 11 II °I 1 1 31 01

, 1 I 1 I

.I 1 I 1 1

0*001 0 . 06 1 0 • 0 6 1 0 • 0 0 1 6 • 6 9

1

0 ; 09 *

01 01 01 01 61 01 oi oi 61 01I 1 I 1 1.1 l * *

0 • oo 1 0 -

0

6 1 0 • 0 0 1 0 • 0 6 1 o:2 1 i.2i2Si.2:22i.2l2Si-212!li.Sl22!

0 I {2 1 12 1 19 1 61 01 0 1 126 1 71 61J | I I I I • l ‘

o • o 0

1

1 :

0

5

1

1. 051 I- 67

' 0-531 o:oo*_o;ooJiro 8|j:

8 iJ_o:53 i

pi 7J 31 61 ll 01 ol ol ‘01 11 1

I I I I 1 I 1 l 1

0 , c 0 1 0

•

6 i 1 o*26i n.531 0 •

0

9

1

0 loo * o-ool_o:ool_ 7

:o 2 l_o

:

9 _i

*"

2

*

1

*2 I 1.6 1 19 I 0 1 0 1 1 4 I 1 0 I

7

9

1

J J J I I I I *

O.OOI O'.lBI 0.191 1 .401 1.671 0:001 0 . 00 1 1.23 1 0 • S ^ 6 * 9 **

Ol ?5 I 5 q I 1 74 l 4 5 o 1 2 1 0 1 l 93 l l- 9 I l* 2

j

| | | I 1 1 1 I

0 . o 0 1 2 *

i

9 3 4,391,5.28139.5,1 o ;1B|

0 ’

i/O 9 AT 10 0.355

revised i/o Ratio -* 0.996

EXTENDED indirect -* 6.595

EXTENDED DIRECT ---* 0.098

TEACHER talk - - 61.545

STUDENT TALK - 25.998

stu/tEac tal< RATIO 0.422

141

CONTROL GROUP 10 x 10 POSTTEST MATRIX

Categories1 I 2 I 3 l 4 I 5 I 6 17 I 8 I

i

0 I

I

1 1

J

0 1

1

0 1 0] 0 I 0 I 0 I Tallies0 . 0 9 I o.onl o.ool 0.091 0*001 0.001 o.ool o.ool 3-001

I

0.001 Percents

pJ

11 I 8 I 5 I 11 0 I 3 I 4 1 4 I

0,001 0 i 34 I 0.941 0,691!

0.4MI I

0 To 9 l O.ool 0.261 0.34 1

I

0.341

3 I

36 I

I

7 !

I

7 I

j

0 1 0 1 2 t 3 I 10 I

0.09| o; 1 7

1

3.091 0.601 0.1711 1

0 T 0

0

1 0.001 0.171 0-261I

0.861

4

0 1 1 1

I

2 I

I

43 I

I

6 !

I

11 0 1

? f

21 I ll I 33 1

0*03* 0 -0 91 0-17! 3.691 0 -51 I

• l

0 -o 91 0-00* 1 ,8(, I

I

2.831

5

0 I 4 I

I

0 1

I

20 I

1

313 I

j

11 0 I 10 I 9 1 12 I

0 • 0 0 I 0-341 o » o 6 1 1 • 7{ I ?6.R5I 0 - 09

l 0-00

I

0 . 86 I 3-691I

i • 0 3 I

0 I 0 1 0 1 1 I 0 I 2 I 01 0 I 1 I 2 I

6I I I I I

•0 . 0 0 I o.oni o.ooi 0.091 0.011 0 Tl 7 J 0.001 0.001 3*091 0,17]

7

o I 0 1

I

0 I

i

0 I

I

2 I

I

01 01I I

0 I 0 I 0 I

I

• 0 • 0 0 I o • o 6

1

o.ool o.ool 0-171 o-ool 0 • 0 0

I

0-00l a-oni 0 • 0 c I

0 I 13 I 6 I 7 I 7 I 01 11 74 I 4 I 7 I

8 I 1 I I i : J

• 0 • 0 pI 1 . 11

1

0 • 5 1 I 0" 6b I 0

• 6 0 I 0*00I 0 •

0

9 i 6.341 3-341 0 • 6 0 I

9

0 1 12 I

I

7 I

l

8 I lo I 0 1 1 I 1 I 169 I 26 I

0* 01)1 1 • 031 0- 6 0> Cl. 69 I 0 .8M1 l

0-00 ! 0-0 91o- o

91 14-4811

2*231

0 I 4 I 1 I 23 I 23 I 11 0 1 8 I 34 I l2l I

10 I I I 1 I 1

0 * 0 01 0-341 o- o

91 1-971 1' 9 7 I

c • c9

10 0 0

1

0.69I ?' 9

1I

1 O'

3

7j

2 I 40 1

I

63 I

1

118 I 368 I 6 1 2 I 119 I ?34 I 215 I

TOTALS 0’1 71 3.431 5.4511

0

• 1 i 1 3l-53l 0- 5 l I o-l 71 10 ‘ 2o * 2 0* o51

I

i8.4?1

i/O RATIO --

REVISED I/O ratio 0.951

extended indirect 7.798

EXTENDED DIR ;CT -- 0.171

TEACHER TALK

STUDENT TALK 30.249

STU/TEAC TAt.4 RATIO 0.599

EXPERIMENTAL

GROUP

17

x

17

PRETEST

MATRIX

142

*O

CD •

O• *

*CD

< *CD -f*

. *

*« CD*

O*

*CD

*co -*

** CD

•

*

•

* CD» *

>o **

• +M CD

CD *in *

**-• * *-« *

* CD<X *in *

*

*CD

CD *^ *

*

•— -D —. —CD

CD CDIII * •

ro -* o

CO

0)

•Huocoa>

pcd

o

* CDCTrO *

a i cdn *ro * 'cd

*

• * f CDCD CD

crro cd

% +

. CDCD CD

< •ro * cd

«

. 4i 1CCD CD

• i -CSJ * CD

+

- « XD •

CD CD

H * CD+

*•

H CD

<=> CD

CD

I czCD CD

c\

j

'O

oCD

+ *

cv

CD i

CD CD

<X

K;

ro

• r^CVJ

COK»

uro

osi

vO

CD*• •*«

Qro

UJro

inro i

O' i

ro i c\jC\J l

H •

(M N |

• I

I — — ,

I O' I

• *0 HII • I

01 CD | o° * CD CD I CD CD

‘ *“ » — I — — — |

•— I *-• .

•IT I

C\J I C\J

• r

CD i

• —• •

* (\ i .

’ ^ * — — — I

CD I CDI

I vOi in

ro i

• i

CD I

I

• ^ |

N t

^ I

• I

ro i

» i— ~ ~ • — —• ~ i

• i *-»

CD •

>0 I 'CD• I

O I

O'

—• —» — I •—CD I

CD I C\J

— I

f\J 1

I

I

— —• I •—< •

O I

CD I

I

I

I —

CDO

• ~ ~ I

I oCD

I CDCD

* * *

* — — I

CD I I CD I I

* « * I * +

m

EXPERIMENTAL

GROUP

17

x

17

PRETEST

MATRIX

(continued)

**-*

CD *O *1

¥¥ H* *-i

CD ¥* *

*in

¥O* *

*

*CM

¥CO -+

¥

CD. **

COo in

CM

O'

fO rHITCM

* incn roin ¥ cm

*

*

*in *

* M'<* * -W-l

M- *

in

>cin

NCO

* CD¥ CD CD

III *fO ¥ o

*

* CD* CD CD

CD '»* »- • '

fO CD*

¥ sT¥ yri I CDO *

to * CD¥

• IOCD CD

cc ¥ro * cd

• ¥

CDCD CD

•

ro * o*

• ¥ so¥ ri CD

* ¥ .

CM * o«

* * CD I

• CD CD+

H # CD#

* ¥ ¥• +

CQ.in

% ¥ •

#

’ C*

f CD O CD

I CD

I CDCD CD

OCM

I CDCD

I •-

CD *

CD CD

CD

* *

*7

fN

O'n. otocm

H

roo

* * *

o

143

inin

tro

inCM* * r

¥ ¥ ¥

-X

I

•

I o• inI y-i

I

O I o• l CM

cd i roi

1 • i —° --*oCD

CD .

I CMI O'» CM

• — t —• —

*

I Cl I

CD I IO• I COCD I CM

I

' —« » »-» MO I

CD I CD• IN

» I O5 I TU

v- O I CC

oCO

¥ ¥

CD

TlTALS*

0.c0

I0i93l

5.521

8.991

6.7„*1

iÎ

0.

12l

3.471

t.

55

14.

3^117,

54I0-

6flI

0•

0

0

1le

•

1

0

120

•

4019»

861

O’

561

EXPERIMENTAL

GROUP

17

x

17

POSTTEST

MATRIX

144

00-0

j£I•

0Xo0-

0

fOO’P

Io0*oJu0•

0

j^.O

jOO.C

,,0.0

r

00•

0T00T0

tOcIo

,oo.o

,ooT

EXPERIMENTAL

GROUP

17

x

17

POSTTEST

MATRIX

* IV* H CD

CD *CD * CD

• *

* Tf* *-r rv

<* * tHCD * CD

* HH

O *+

i

4»

ro

<o•

* ro. **

• *•* CD

• *>o *

CDCD

I oI CD CDI •

• CDI

* CDi ro c\j

i •

• —• •

r^ i rv

145

fO I ^• » NCD I

rvo o

*r

CD I

I

I •—I

i roi

ocsi rvj

LA

cvi

:t=> t

^ i ro<3io ro• i ro •

a> t • th o (

^ i CDro I CD CD

• >c* ro

ID * Ola * ro m-

* CvJ

rvCM

<IA

•— | •—4 I—» •—

*

i <r i > fvCM & M* CV

I

l

I CD

fo*i '<**>

I

I • *—« »—

•

CD I CDcd i ro cm

» •- i •CD I CD

I

l CD I I CDo i ro cm• i

CD 0 CDI

I

K I > fvH I O sO» rv

CM

OCO

* -oCD *

4r

* CD* CD CD

CD ** •

ro * cd

CM• «

* oC ) «ro *

m-IA

. • '

HCD *ro

CD!CD

CD CD

• —I

I CMI CMI

COM-

• r^cc

I CDCM U>

o

*

CD-X *KJ *

roicCM

CM * CD+

. * CD »

« CD*

H *

. *

. *CDLA

*

O

I CMI A)

» I * *

I

I CD I ICCD I CD CDi*| I •

CD I CDI_ I

CD I I

* » n *

roCM

* *

00

TOTALS*

i»

a*

Io*

6iJ2•

®?113.o9^

3>6?I

O^D

1

(TOO

13•

29I3*

54I

5.

97J28

,

I0•

1o»

8lIi2*

96Il3

’

83I

10'00

I0*

471

QUASI

-EXPERIMENTAL

GROUP

17

x

17

PRETEST

MATRIX

146

—• * —• «

* oCDO *

• 'll

-H

* CD*

CD -tt

CD | oI

CD I >0o I c\| tH• I

CD I CD

roro

• i

* CD

CK «*

CD+

CO '

CD

**

.

* CD* I

o *

vr »

c\j i m-

i

i —

•

ro »

ro i cm

• cm• in cmI T"f •

• CO

(-4

CD | ,

I

i roi

CM

-X3

•— — e .

CD I oCD | CD CD

I • I i •

CD | CDI

• I —• —ic: i cco I H CD

cd i ir ro• i •

CD « o .

I

CD I O• I

O *. >

ro roro

i

i ^ i

i

i cc

i •

cp

•* CDCO *in *

— * ~ i — —

^

* CD I CD* CD CD I CD CD< * • •

LA * CD I CD

9 OI

fc CDCO *

*

*CD

<x

*

*O

III •*

ro *•*

*CDm mi

ro

* : C" I C# l O ' C I CD IC

ro *

.

crro

—• •— I

cr; i laiH CD i n

• « >n *

cd i in

i

o .

CVJ rH i

' cr I

a i o I CD G I CD

I CD

CM

* CD

CD f <CDCD • CD CD• I •

O I CDI

' —• I

I oI H

CD I O » »CDrl CD I CD CD I CD CD

•* • • I •ci a i a» i

»o I lO I ‘CZ

* *

CMiDro

*

cj

iia

* * * i * *

• CDCD CD

airo

<M-

* *

CC

— I

ic I

I

13 I I

* * * I

QUASI

-EXPERIMENTAL

GROUP

17

x

17

PRETEST

MATRIX

(continued)

*CD

a ¥CD ft

*

o<CD ft

• ft

* ro

o *ft

ft oCO *

ft

H• ft

ft

—• ft —« *

-It

ft IA* ft

'O ft

147

r\;

^r

C\J

K)ro

rvin

'Ocvj

coo

roroCVJ

COCD

I •cvj

I •-

CNIT

CO

*Cn ¥ y~i

in ¥ ro¥

¥¥ CVJ

IA ¥

¥-ft

vC . Mcvj

IAC\J

GOO

ft ro¥ O

III 4 .

rO ft oft—1ft «-i ^

ft CDft CD OO 'ft »> • *

fO ft CJft

•*+ft •— —• —

•

* * crft • a i o

OftfO ft i CD

ft

*-* ft —• •—• ft ICD

ft o ocr ft

fO ft CD• ft

•“* ft

roft

• ft —

.

• CD

O

» CDO

in

ft ro OJi *

ft *

ft

ft ODft IOft

ro i oro i o cd

T tH ro

CVJ

IAGO O

IA

CO

cvj i

CVJ

ITro i

CD CD I O

>Cgo ^r

• vCvJ

H I CDI

» — _ —

.

O I CDCVJ H I CD CD

COro

roro

tH i cd

o i oi

CD I

CD I I

CD • CD• I

CD I

o-

CO I

• I

CD |

ro i

+—*i

'T I

I

-•*-* I

i

\r i

• i

rvi i

i

ro i

H I

* I

CO I

ocvj

TOTALS*

0*001

l.

3nl

l.ocl

2.361

QUASI

-EXPERIMENTAL

17

x

17

POSTTEST

MATRIX

148—• « — .

* OGC *o *

*

•*

* o<* *CD *

• *•-* *

* CD*

o **

* CD

CO -*

*

*« CD0*

* +* o

• *'O o•

I

CD I CD• I

CD * »-

I

*-• I

CD I

CD I CD

r

* CDCD *in *

*—• * .

*-* CD

<T *in *

• *

•CDCD *-cr *

I c: i

CD 9 Y-t

* l

CD I

I

• »— I <~i

CD •

CD I O• r

CD I

I

I —

*

—• *

fO *•*

CDGS '»*

fO *

«• o

c> *ro *

«, * •— ,

. *CD

cr *ro *

. *

• «CD

< *fO *

• • « •

CD I

i CD •

CD f O• I

CD I

I

CD I

O » CD• i

» —• —4 —. •-» I —• —

H *

t• *

•

% I

^ *

*<

ro

inro <\j

>o

.CD

oH.CD

Oo

OPfO

inro c\j

cvj

co

oro

coCD

! *—• •—* •—

i

CD » oO CD I CD CD

00

CD I

CD I CD

I

CD I I CDCD O I CD CD

• » -

CD I OI

* * I *

oro

turo

^ i

fv. i

• •

CD I

I

- — | *—* •

CO »O I rH• I

CD |

I

ro i

ro i cd• i

o j i

i

- i *—CD I

CD I CD» * I

CD I

•

- —• I «-* '

»<r i

CD | H

'O I

ri tf N• 8

CD |

1

—< —• 1 *-•

CD |

• CD I CD• i in

CD I

I

' •“» —-• I +-•

ro i

iro i cu

».

r< I

I— — I —

•

CD I

• CD 1 CD

I •

O I

O CIO• I

o I

I

I •-« '

0 t

CD CD I CD

O I

I

I —' c I

CD 1C I O• I

1 o »

I

— — — I —

'

l CD |

CD CD I CD• I

O I

I

I -o »

CD CD I O• I

CD I

I

I *—

•

— I -*CD » •

O I o• •

CD &

I

* * I *

CO I

CD I

—• I

O I

CD I

CDI •-

• •— I

ac

cc

in

o i

h i

O I

• I

CD I

I

> —* I

C> I

O I

o I

O I

i CD I

• I

O l

* CD I

O I

• I

»

I

l_> I

CD 1

• I

O I

I

I —• •

ICD I

O I

I • t

CD I

I

• — I

CD* •

CD I

• I

O •

•

4* *

CO I

lO I

I

• I

•

QUASI

-EXPERIMENTAL

17

x

17

POSTTEST

MATRIX

(continued)

149H

CD ft

CD ft

— ft —

•

ft

< *CD ft

• **-• ft —

ft

ft roft

> **

-• ft —«

** CDft

co -ft

ft

CD

ft

*-•*-*.ft

o• ft

>o *ft

—• ft —« •

* ft

CMm * c\j

in * V<1

ft 'T< ft

IA *ft

ft •

ft

*

• K

ro

roro

ccir»

ii «ro * c

*• *— ft —

ft CDft O CD

fT 4*1ro ft cd

%• •— ft

o +ro *

*• ft *—

. ** t-4

or *ro *

4' —' ft •—

-ft

* CD

, ft *—ft

ft

» —• ft .

ft

ft ft

CD > CD

CD

O CD

CDI

A

ft ft ft

•f^

vOO vOvC*-4 ro

ccH O

VO

I CDCD CD

CD CJ

CD

ft ft ft

CC

ft ft ft

t »»I

i r*

—•—• i —

«

cd » rvo n> O

I r-|

l Î t4

I HI

I

I

I -

— • I • •—

I CD I

CD O 3 -J• I O

CD I TTI— —• I —

o r

rvi h i in• » vO

CD G IN• t

CD I

—• I —

•

fO

I O I CD• I v

I CD I

I

-— I *—

•

1 CD »

CD l r-f

- I T'.

C. I

I

-— I *-

CD I

CD • lO• i r\j

. i —

.

o r l

ft ft i ft ft

QCCD

TTTALS*

o.00I

0.09

12.30I

5.341

3’?

J1°

•

I0-25l

3-671*

3.55

!5.35

138.-91

0.«6l

0.081-6.7,1^.601

CONTROL

GROUP

17

x

17

PRETEST

MATRIX

1504 —

.

I

* O4 —• —« _* o< 4

CD 4• *

44 CD4

CK 44

4 CD4

<© 44

•— 4 —4 CD

. 44

0 1 CD I 0• 9— ^

o » coQ 1 CD I CM r-i* 1 *1° CD I CD

* I— — * — — — I •—* «—

•

4 CD

O I

I

• —• •

• cz t

CD I

• I

'0 4 oi CD 9I 1— 4 ~ ~ — ~ I <

I —

4 CD13 4in 4

4•— 4 —

.

44 CD

< 4in 4

1 —CD 9 CDCD I CD CD• t

CD 9 CD

— 4 -« —. I • *—• «

4 :cd*9

• CD I CD

I

I

9 —

.

9

I

9 —. •

I

I CD

d

r

O 9

CD I CD• I

CD 9

4 —

.

44 CD

• 9.

CD 9

I

•— I —•*O I

(\i i n <

• •

CD 9

I- 9 —• — -

O I

O I o

en90 4

O I

I— » — — •

CD I

CD I CD

O 4 .190 4 IQ I 1 CD

4 |

4 Ocr 490 4

4 CD<X 490 4

<M 44

•— 4 t

«4>

4 O4

t-I 44

4 4 4 4• 44

9

I

9

9

9

1C «

CD I

• • 9

CD •

•— 9

CD I 9

CD 9

• 9

CD 9

9

4 I

9

9

9

9

I 90I

I

I

9 —9

I CO9

I

I

I —

-

I

9 CD•

I

I

CD 9

I— I •—CD I

r*v i m• 9 (VCD I

9

—• I —

«

CD 9

CD I CM• I

i » —«I CD 9

CD I CD

• I

O 9

4 4 4 9 4 4 4I

• CO90 » K>

I

* 9

I

aooo

NOCM

CD I

CD 9 O• I

CD 9

I— 9

O I

CD I

- 9 CMCD I

9

CD I

CD I CD• I

O 9

I

—* I —

.

CD I

cd i rv• I T-.

ftDi 9

ic i , c:CD CD I CD CD

• I •

CD I CDI

ic i mo O I (M CD• • H *O I vH

I— I

CD I CDCD CD I CD CD

• I •

CD 1 OI

I

CMin

oCD

ro-

I cCD |

—• I

I C

oIs* ^r

in

CM

• — i

IO 9

4 4 4

O

CD. » CD »

0 9 0 C

4 4 4 14 4 4

r=3

90UJ90

cr <in

CONTROL

GROUP

1,7

x

17

PRETEST

MATRIX

(continued)

151+* CD

CD ¥CD ¥

¥

•— 9

O ! Co i o o

¥¥ O< *o *

• *—• 43 —

•

¥¥ C\J

¥O

¥¥ CM

<0 ¥• •*

¥¥ CD

• *r- *

¥ H» *

O **— * —

* ¥¥ CM

CD * COin * ro

0 9 CDN I O O- c

CD I CDa

—• •— i

r-l I CD

H I CD

I •—I

I —

«

I

a h

*— —< • *—• *-» •

• Ml oin C rH CD

ro » cd* ro i _H

< *in ¥

¥

* x-l

on

CD I

t

• — I

o »

CD I

* I.

¥ CD •

* I

* -• *-*^ I

CO vr I CD CD<r ¥ cm *|M- * CM i a

i

> ~ * — — —c 3

CD I CDCD CD I CD C

III * • I •

ro ¥ cd i oi

> *— — — — i —i

CD I

CDOro *

*

•*

C 3 *ro

*— ¥ —•

* OCI>

ro ** i

CD I

I —« — —CD I I CDCD • CD CD• I

CD § CD

¥¥¥¥U9¥¥¥CDin

• —« ¥o

I

i in

CD I -r-i

CD CD I sO• I

CD I CDI

I —• »-• —

•

CD I >0CD CD I vQ CD

• » CVO I H tH

• HI

COy-1

CD I CD I CD

CD I OCD CD I tH O

9 • » I *- •

CD • CDI

I —< —• —

•

t C Il C

C f CD I nO M• I H •

' CD I HI

— — I — —« —< cd i in

C O I CV o• I «H

CD CD I

• •

a •

i

i

¥

r>*

* *

if

o

* ¥

O

o

noto

roCM

CDCD

inro

i —

•

i

tH o I CD

¥ ¥

CD

i

1

TOTALS*

0.00I

0.531

i.67I

4.391

5.

7.1

0T^3I

O.OCI

9.Q4I

D•35I1

.93I37t53l

O.^Rl

0.

00Ij6.

Sj.

19

.

0I

2*391

0.

O9I

CONTROL

GROUP

17

x

17

POSTTEST

MATRIX

152

*cd

ra . *o «

* cdfti

CD•

• i

CD*o **

*CD

•ft

CO ft

ft

ft —

«

ft

ft CD• ft

. *CD

C I

CD I CD

•—— r —o i

co i o

o i

CD | CD

|

in i

- i

CD | CD I

• I

CD • »

I

I

CM

oCM

vOcm i

• I

CD I

I

• —• I —* —

•

I

T-l t oI - •

iXD I

o I tH

I

I *-•

H |

in i ro• i

«D i*

I

oCM

• I

O I

CD I

t • I

CD •

CD I CDCD •

I •—I

• •-« I

CD I

O I

• —• » —

•

I C I

CD ft CD

l I <

I

I — • —• —

—

I CD I

CD |

CD I

ft CDCDin *

*

*CD

<in ft

*

*CD

<CM tH t

cd ri

i

CD I

CD I CD• I

CD I

O I

CD »

• ft

—* —• J —

•

CD ft

I CZ

CD I CM

CDCD

CD I CD I <

• I— »- — — I — — — I — — •

—

CD I CD I <

CD • CD I CD I ' CD »

—• I

I CCD I

*CM

M- I

ftO I

CDI CD

ft C

CD C

ft

M- ft <

ft

C

ft o <

in «ro ft i

M*

K>

OCD

¥ ••

tHCD • *K) «

o>CD I

CD ft

I

—* I —

•

CD »

CD I CD• •

O I

I

CD I

CZ I CD• I

O I

I

I

O I

*-• I

i

H ft

•— I

CD I

O »

NO

CM

*-• >

CD I

CD I

O I

O ft

ro *

. * i

ft occ ft

ro. ft

I CDCD CD

. ft • *

CM ft CDft

o in

CD I

I

•— »“• I

'r- |

i

I CMI CD I

I

I —co i

o I CMN I

H I

I

1 O I

CD CIO

I —' • I

H» •

1ft

* *-<

<fO

ro i

i

o i

CD ft CD• I

CD I

I— —• •

O ft

CD I CD( • ft

CD I

I

•— —< I —o <

»

CD ft O» ft

CD I

ft

ft ft I ft

ft

CD I

ro •

i

• i

I

cz i CD I c:

• ft

•— — i —* — i — *

i — —• —

•

• IO1 CD CD

Ol ft

• ft

O I

ft

• —. ft

» CD ft

CD I

l • ft

O ft

I

• •-« ft

O* 1

CD ft

• ft

IO ft

I

+ * * i ft ft

CONTROL

GROUP

17

x

17

POSTTEST

MATRIX

(continued)

co

cdCO ¥CD +

*

*CM

CD *»

*¥

•> *

*¥ CD

tH•CO +

¥

¥¥ CD

» ¥fx *

*^ * *-* .

. *tH

» ¥'O *

% *

in33 * CDin * ro

¥¥ *~i

•< *in

• ¥

** -<

cn**

«* rv

-*¥•*-*

• •— ¥•—•——.¥ CD

CD CDC I •

ro * cd¥

'OOJ

t :

i

to . CD

• * < CDCD CD

03 ¥ •

ro ¥ o

1^CM *-4

<X ¥ m

to ¥ CD

CM •

•— *

CDin

¥

153

I

I >0• CM

-I CM

• Cv

• COI o Î 'OI H M"• HI Qn

• CD I CD» I

» CCD CD

CD CD I

I C I *'O I CD CO

CD t CDCD I O CD

cd cd i ro

cd i o i r'-v

CD CD I CD O I CM tH4*11 > • 4 | • • 1

CD | CD I CDI I

| , I • *—

•

o »

o

I oI •-*

I

i

i roI CM CDI H> -HI

I —

• I

rvro

c i

oNO

I —

•

I M-i ro• CMI

I —

t

I

I O

ro

co

inCD ,

CM |

» —» I

I CDI

• I— —— I *—• • I •

CD I

I

O' •

cd l ro- i incd i ro

i— i — — »

ro i cd i

O I CD- I HO I

I

*-• I f-*

CT »

cd i ro• i.

CD |

CD |

• • I

CD |

I

—• I

in i

CD |

• i

<cNO• I

CDro i

o i

go

>cCM- I

ro i cd in

in

i —

•

i

I I o:g l

O' •

CD I CD• I

CD |

i ro» vO

M- I CD I •-*

m- ro i cd cd » vr o• * • i roa i cd l CM

CD l >0

• I

CD |

I

EXPERIMENTAL

GROUP

17

x

17

DIFFERENCE

MATRIX

154

CDO oCD *CD * r->

** O

< *CD

• •*

*+ CD

o **

CD•*

CD **

** CD

I •—I

• O

CD |

• *“• I •

CD |

CD I

CAI

r • ra 1

1

roin

C\J

ro

rorv

i

i

i

i roi t

inro

CDro

C\J l

• iO I

coXT

C\M

N *

* +* CD

< *vO *

*

CDQG *in *

* CD<< #in *

• *

•*

4 CD

*

**

r c~

CD • HI

• Cl ccO n y-l CD

•— — I —. —. V—CD I vOO I tH CD

• CDl.

CM1 I

•— I

• in »

o i ^r

CD I

I— —• I *—• •

CM I

CD |

I

I

I C_ I

» CM t>

• r

CD I

I

CD |

CD CD |

• I

CD •

' *— I

>o I

• 'CD I

acO

l

I CM

CD | oI

•—• I *— —• —•tH | ^CM I CD o• I •

0-4 CDI

I •

IT*

in

•— i —CM I

'O l tH

C IO I

^ •

CM |

CM ,-t I

* • I

CD |

I^ I

0 I

r> rH I

• • •

CC3 |

I— I

CD IO o I

1 • I

CD |

O •

• I

CD »

I

* —« —• I

1C I

I tH I

* I

CD |

I

• I

o IN N |

CM . i

rH I

I

I

CD I

CDi CD I

* l.

CD f

I

'O |H 0 8

CD |

CD C I

cr>

ro

i v»• -i

c >

ro

cCD

I

CD I M-

O f CM tHv • 1:| - • 1

CD I CDI

— * —• I

•— I

CD |

CD I

1 —• I

cr i

' CD |

•— 4 —+• *

CDGT» *ro *

i •—i

I CD

•— I • —» *—CD I >0

C\i

i in

inro

CD I

— * — —in

4

4 4 4 4 4

- I —V * •

iO • CO• I H

CD •

•

I 4•

I

I

I

•

I

1 —• | .

CD I I

O I CD

4 4 14 4 4

in r

CM I CD

I— »—• t •—

f'* I

CD I CD• I

O I

I

* CD I

CD CD |

I • I

CD I

I

CD I I

CD CD I

• I

CD •

rocrro

* 4

oro

* « 4 14 4 4

IXr^

•CD |

CD |

—• — I

O I

CD O I

* §

CD I

I

IN •

tH CD I

I • I

CD I

I

I

CD I

CD O I

• I

4 4 4 1

»

EXPERIMENTAL

GROUP

17

x

17

DIFFERENCE

MATRIX

(continued)

155

CD

* —* *

o• *

• ** —• .

*

*cd *

*—4 * _

** O*

o*

** T-l*

•co +

+* fO**

• —• •

'rH I

• *-• - 1 4-4 *_ ^CD I oO I CD 0• • •O I o

I

—* I —4 —

.

«n »

CD » tH CD

I O

rO 8

COCD

» CDI

I *—4 •—4 —

4

LTV

00CMHI

» ^ —CM » CD• •

CD I

'O

* ;„* to H

• * I

* O** 4-. _co

— * OJta * 4-1

*—

.

* ro**

** —4** *0

&

CO

in

o

I I'O

i t

»-4*-* i —. —

.

H I

OJ | CD• I

CD I

I

—4 I —4 —4

onv *

'T *

III *

ro *

-4 ^ _* CD

CT?o

* 4-4

*CD

* — 4-4.

•

I

I

I

I

•

CD |

CD |

* • ‘*1

CD |

I

cd i m• i

CD I

V— I r-4

cc I

CD I

I

—* » —•

CD I

—• I

CD I

CD e CD• «

CD I

I

CD I

CD .1 CD•• I.

CD •

I

—• I —

i

CD I

CD I CD* I

CD I

I

1 —4 | —4 .

CD I

CD I CD

in

CMI

ro(M

vC

CM» r-

xr cm oro

inCM

V •

H |

in i

• »

<* i

i—» «

M* |H I

• I

V (1

in i

H |

cri

in u* i

CD I

H |

' — •

ro »

o i

• i

h i

. 4-4 |

CO IH I

CMI

CDro

* ~ ^*-4 | ^ —

CDro

* T~i

*— I —O I

CD I CD

• CT I

:C l>rt• I

CD I

I

»— • •—; cd f

CD I r~• I

CD I

o

(\i n*T~i

• CD

vOro

•rn

roc\ CM

r

' o i

T—^ |

• •

4-. _

«4f *ro *

• ** CM

CM *

4— # —. —4

*-4 *

*•

CD | CD• I

CD |

I

"-4 | *-4 4-4

v •

4-1 I CM• I

CD I

•— I - •"«

CD I |

CD I CD• I

CD •

I

f

I

• O

4-4 | 4-4

ro i

H I CD

CDI t |

CD I CD* •

CD • <

I

* • +«

I

• h«

• I

r^ i

• »

CM |

I

•

CM |

H i

• • I

ro

* *

oo

H + •

ro

v » |

m a

• iH I

(

I

QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL

GROUP

17

x

17

DIFFERENCE

MATRIX

156

CD ft

CDin o

*

in

inro

o oo

n*o

ro

ccro

ft i a* o o

<

O I

• l.o •

I

I Hcn i cm

CM

CD i

•— i

c i

* — i

cr i

i o l

(X r I O CDC I

I CCD

CD I CI

O I OO I o o• I •

g • ai

i • *-•

ic I CDCD I v-i CD

O I

I

I —ro I

(V I CM- I

CD I

I

-• — t — — i

CD I

CD I CM• I I

CD |

I

-- I •— — -

CD I

CD | o• I

C I

I

- I *—• I

O I

O I CD» *M *

O I

I

- —: C* I

to I CD

O I

I

- — I - •—'CD |

O I O• I

O I

I

•G I

CD | CD

ft ft

CD

- I

CD* •

CD •

I

* t

oro

• i

o »

•

ft i

i

ft ft

i aK>

i

i _CD • CDO I CD C• I

CD I CI

ft I ft ft ft

I

I <i xr

i

- •

ic i

CD I O1*1 i

CD I

•

o : »

o I o

ic I

o |

•— I

OI I

ft ft

CD

ft l ft ft ft

QUASI

-EXPERIMENTAL

GROUP

17

x

17

DIFFERENCE

MATRIX

157

CD . *CD I CD CD » CD CD

0ft

O « CD • CD

*+ ft —

•

— — | 4-4 —4 | _ T . ,f

in 1 O 1

* CM H | CM CD< + 1 •- | •0 O | CD 1

• ft—• ft »-« —• 1 •-4 _ _ | _ _ ^* CD 8 CO » OO* O CD | H CD 1

* • | 1 • |O * O | CD • CD*

-* * — —• —• r —4 _»_ |

* O 1 O 1 Oft NO v 1 CM CD* 1 • 1 1 1 • 1

<33 ft 0 . j IO 1 .CDft— ft *—• 1 —

•

__ t

co t CD 1 M-* CD | CD CD 1 h0 CM

. f •- b ! • I rrv ft CD 1 O 1 CD

-*

— * —

*

•-*•-• r •-4 »—* | k-4

. •* r~ 11 C 1 1 CD

* in M" 1 O 00 » CD CD' ft » • | IT • 10 * CD ft 1 M* • CD

—• ft —

•

— — | — _ |

• * 1 C 1 i V 1 >Cft co CM 1 ro CM 9 CM

2D * 0 • 1 • m- f r

in * h+

O K CD 1 CD

—• * —

4

_ —« | _ . , . |-« . . , ,

* in 1 CD • CD* CO -0 1 CD CD 1 CD CD< * • • • «. |

ir> * CD I CD 1 CD• ft

•-4 ft—* —• — I —

*

—• •—4 | •-4

ft r* 1 CD 1 CD« CD CD | CD CD 1 CD i CD

CD - * k * 1 •* CD • CD • CD

—• | —

•

•~4 >—• | _4 .

ft 1 CD 1 CDft H CD 1 CD CD » CD CD* l • » • |

M- ft CD | O 1 CDft — —• | —

•

—• —« J •4 44* CD 1 CD 1 CDO CD 1 CD CD 1 C C

III ft • « # | •

K3 * CD 1 O 1 aft

•-* ft —

.

•—» —• | — —. —

1

| B-4 *-4

O 1 CD I O* CD CD 1 CD CD 1 CD O

CT ^ • • • 1 • •l| • • Hro * CD 1 CD I a

*•—« *—

• | — —• . | *—

•

* ' cr 1 • C~ 1 cft o • c » CD : cr 1 O i cO * • 1 • 1 •

ro * CD I 1 CD 9 t CD•*

—« —• | _ —, | •— »-4 •_• « cc 1 CD I .CD* r-i 0 1 CD O 1 CD CD

CD • 1 • | 4

ro ft CD I CD 1 CD. ft

H* « M. —• . | —. *— |•—

•ft cr • CD 1 • CDtH CD 1 CD CD • CD CD

< * • • 1 • I •

to * 0 1 O 1 Oft

—4 ft _ •-« 1 •-4 —• —• | •“4 »4ft 0 1 MD 1 l CD

CM T-« 1 CM •f 1 CD CD• 1 » * | • • 4 | 1 •

cm ft CD 1 CD • CDft

*- —

•

—• —• 1 — — |

. ft O 1 • CD 1 CDJft 0 CD 1 CD CD • CD CDft • I • 1 •

H ft CD 1 CD 1 CDft

ft ft ft ft ft 1 ft ft ft 1 ft ft ft

. ft

ft CD 1

• ft in • 'O • rv

ft

1 ft • 1 • • *

ft

H CD » 4-I CDft CD CD

• 1 1

CD • 0 e CD

— — — • 44 -4CD 1 in 1 o-

CD CD 1 CM tH 1 ro CM 0• » • • 1 mCD 1 0 1 CD

— •—4 •—« |

.

—

< _4 M-4, , ,

inCD 1 H | roM- I O ro 1 to CM CD• 1 tH • 1 1 •

CD 1 tH O • CD

— •—< •—

4

|*~4

| -•-4CD 1 CD | in0 M- 1 CD O f ro CM

ac 1 * 1 1 • |

r>v f ». CD >|

— — 1 —4CD 1 CD

ft CDCD CD 1 CD O f CD CD CD

1 « 1 4- | I

CD I CD I O— •—4 • | • — J 4 —4

cc 1 CC f 1 crCD 1 r-t CD | CD 0 CD

1 • 1 1 • | •

CD 1 CD | CD

— —1 •—4 | 1—4 -4 — » ^4 —4M _ .

• 1 M > • C\N in 1 ro CM f CD CD to» * 1 t * | • I

CD I CD | CD

— •—4 ——• }*—

4

-4 | -4 _ ^4 , ,

00 1 CD | in•H CD 1 CD CD | ro CM CM1 • | •

CD 1 O « CD

^4 —. , •-.^4 , .

CC 1 CD | crCD • CD CD | CD t CD H• ft • l •CD 1 O | CD

—* 1

*_4 •-4

CO 1 M3 | M-tH Cl 1 Cvl H | CO M3 O

• 1 1 • | t •

O • CD | O-4 —4 —

• I ^4 —•144 . ,

CO 1 CO 1 CDT~t O 1 r- CD | C cr1 • 1 1 • | •

C 1 CD | O— ^4 r—« , _

CD 1 O | CDCD CD 1 CD CD | CD O 0

1-91 • • 1

• 1 • • 9

CD 1 O » CD

^4 _4 _4 t •_ —• -4 , .

O | cr i • C>0 '/' 1

1 n c | a • O 0• 1 1 • 1 •

0 • 0 1 ; CD

_ _ 1 *4 _4 , .

r- 1 O 1 ccCM r- 1 CM H | 0 0

• I 1 • | •

CD 1 CD | CD

__ _ , -4 | _V I 1 4—*

J*> • CM H | in 0• 1 • • | •

a 1 O | O_ | ^4 —• ^4 , ,

00 • CO | CC

CD 1 H CD | 4H CD H• 1*11 * 1 1 t • •

CD 1 CD ft CD

_4 _ | 44 •4. • •—4 ^4czx 1 CD 1 | CD •

CD CD 1 CD CD ft CD CD CD• | «

O 1 CD ft CD

ft ft ft 1 ft ft ft I ft ft ft ft

1 <cr - 1

1

1

a

• •

CD

«

LH

o

ooo

o •

ocd

CD

o

CDCD

CD

Cl CD

CD

CD

O

CDOc

onCD

O

CDCD

C\l

Wrl

I

00cc

m-i

o'C

C-CO

cv

m-

in

i

CD

ft

TOTALS*

o•oo1

1:221

1.

00

I

3.491

£.5M

q^qO

1

O'OO

1«*2

61(j*

11I1•231

7*291

5.6^

10

732

1

?.'36i

1C

.59l

0,4

310

.56

CONTROL

GROUP

17x17

DIFFERENCE

MATRIX

158

* ’ CD* CD CD

CD. «o « c• *

* C3* CD CD

< * •° * CD• -ft

* O* O CD+O * CD*

CDCD CD

•<0 ^ CD

*

* CDCD CD

. +N * CD#* —• —. —

•

+ : c* CD CD

. •*

>0 * CD•fc

• + 1C* CD CD

CD *ICV * CD

+

* CD* CD CD< *

lf> CD• *

* CD* O 1 CD

CD ** CD*

CDCD CD

<cd

* CDO CD

Ilf 41

ro * o4r

fO

rs» <ri

vOro

•— *— i —

«

H I <7CD I ro

LA

«

roro

C)ro

crro

—« CD

<rro +

• CD •

I

CD >

• •- I

a> i

.c •

• i

o i

i

O-l CDCD I CD CD

* • I I I- • 1

Of CDI

'•-* I •-* •—I K'

ro i o co• * i

1 CD f ' CDI

o i rcc I A i

o i

HI •

O I

CD I

I *- |

CD I

I

O » I

CD I

• I

CD I

I

• + I

I

3 I

ro i

i

• •

i

1 o • O |1 U o • H CD I

1 • 1> 9 CD 1 CD |

1

• o • fO l1 CD CD • CM

1

• • « *. |» O 1 O |

• |

• CD * N |1 CD CD • CM H|• • 1 • |

• CD 1 CD f

1

• CD 1 >0 |

1 O CD • LA rr I• • >t (•!1 TD ’ 1 CJ> |

l |• 1 _ 1• CD • CD |1 CD CD 1 O CD |

1 1•- 1 *1

1 CD 1 CD |

9 |1

• i c: 1 O |

• CD o 1 rl CD |

• o » o 1

1 _ _ _ 1 11 • fv 1 K" 1

r CM rH D N Of1 • If • |1 CD 1 CD t

» CD > CD |I CD O 1 CD CD 1

• * 1 • 1

1 CD 1 o |

1

1 CD 1 O I

• CD i CD 1 • CD CD |

C • ' • »

» CD * CD |

| ^ _ 1 —, — —. ,

1 CD » in i

• CD CD 1 CM to 1

* • i ro • i

1 O • I CM 1

| f ,

1 CD 1 CD |

1 o cr 1 O CD |

i • 1 • |

1 CD 1 CD |

| _ | ^ ,

» o * CD 1

1 O CD 1 CD CD |' 1 • « 1 4 • » |

i o * CD »

1 | M «M |

1 c~ 1 cr 1

1 O 'C • CD • CD |

1 • 1 • 1

1 1 CD 1 CD |

| __ _ _ | |M •—1 CD t IC |

1 CD CD 1 o o »

1 • 1 • 1

1 C. * CD |

> |

1 •-«|

1 CD 1 'CD I

» CD CD I O CD 1

1 • • * •

1 O 1 CD I

, _ _ 1 |

• 1 o • • CD |

1 CD CD 1 CD CD I

1 1 • 1 • • |

1 CD I CD |

|

1 CD » CD 1 I

• CD CD » O CD 1

• • • |

1 CD 1 O I

t_)

K)Oro

LUro

i

i •—

CM

I

I

CCAJ w

° O I o

ic i cr

I CD I .CD • C

CD I I

CD I CD• I

O I

»

DD I o•- I

• CDCD

I

CONTROL

GROUP

17

x

17

DIFFERENCE

MATRIX

159

C I

> o I o• IO |

I

' —• —• I —• *

i

ro c\j » cmc i

o i

• i

O I

csi

ccco >o

i •

io

o I O I CM

i oi

CMit

o «

CDin

• •

O I

I

* c * o* i id i i r-s^ ^ * H O I O o | H CDN -It - I •1 rN. | O I CD I CD

I I I

I • I •

I CDI

CD » CD• ft

CD •

i

• —I

I CD

CD I CD I CD I OO C I C CIC C I t- C

CD CD I CDCDro

c D

K>

crro

I CDCl

«

— I

C~ I

C I

• CD o • OI • •

I CD I

• •

• I

C I

•CD •

CD I

CD I

ft I

nCD

I •

CDIT

* •

CD I O CD | O |o CD ft CD CD • CD Cl 1 O CD ft

• • 1 • |

CD 1

1

CD CD | CDft

•O | K> CD | >o ft

in CM | CM 1 CD cd i ro Or |vH • 1 M" • • •H | o CD | in i

>o • CD » Nfto 'T 1 T O 1 O CD | >0 in •

00 • l CM • • 1 CMN | CM CD | H CD ft

1 1 H ft

i—• •—

•

• M —• —• | 1

O i O | *—4 |H CD I O in 1 O CD | O PO 1

• 1 1 • • 1 O * 1C » 1 o CD » ft sO ft

—

i

^ •M Mi 1 ~ MM | ^ MMft

CD I CD CD ft O |

CD CD I CD CD 1 CD CD | CD CD ft

1 • • ; • •> | • |

CD •

1

o CD ft cd a

i d 1 O' ‘ d | ri |

CD O 1 tH CD 1 CD cd i ro •• • i

CD • CD CD ft O ft

_ | M _ M a — MM |

• r-v i rr 1 d i • d 1o « 'o CM • o CD | CD O ft

• • i rv • 1

CD 1

1

CD CD | ft

1

O 1

O 1 re CD ft r^ 1

CD CD 1 H o 1 CD CD | CM CDft

• • 1 H • 1

CD 1

1

CD CD ft f

1

H ft

CD 1 cr C 1 O' 1

CD CD 1 *-> CD 1 CD CD » CD |

• 1. • 1 • 1 1 * I.

CD 1 CD CD ft O 1

m. _• Mt 1 — MM |

CO 1 H CD | N iH CD 1 l/N 1 CD CD ft CO |

• • i ro • 1

CD I O O I ft ro a

m* MM | M m. ft •— MM | M MM |

O 1 CD CD I rv i

r* c » o c: 1 d cr i CM r* |

• • » \ • 1

CD 1

1

o o 1

1

C |

N 1 CD cr i |

CM H 1 CD CD 1 o CD i >c in i

i « ri » • » *n * * r i

CD 1

1

CD CD ft

1

O ft

• C 1 cr c: i ,

T- r- 1 t- CD I d d i ro ft

1 • • 1 CM1 • |

CD 1

1

O CD ft |

1

CM |

V | o O ft ^ |

\r K) 1 y* o 1 o o i ro cr i

• 1 1 • • i ^ • i

O 1 o o | *» i

, . _ _ | — __ __ i — •MM |

O' 1 IO O 1 IO 1

I^s. m • ro CM 1 CD cd i in CM |

• • 1 • 1

O 1 o c a H ft

.. « MM 1 _ M* M 1 — MM |

CO 1 O' *C 1 r- 1

CM H 1 H CD 1 CD CD ft CD CD |

1 1*11 * • l • | • • •

CD ft

1

CD CD |

1

CD ft

CD >1 CD 1 | cd : i O' 1 1

CD CD 1 CD CD 1 CD cd • CM H ft

• • 1

O 1

•

CD CD ft

1

CD ft

ft1 to t

1 < X 1 -J 1

O 1 cr O 1 • «J I

11 1- 1

• ft r* •

1 1 ft- i

160

APPENDIX C

STUDENT EVALUATIONS

Technical Skills of Teaching Descriptions

Sample Student Evaluation Computer Printout

Factor Analysis Matrix of Student Evaluation Items

Pretest and Posttest Comparisons of Student Evaluationsfor Each Sub-group

SOME TEACHING SKILLS AND BEHAVIORS161

SET INDUCTION

Set Induction is establishing in students an affective and

activity?prediGpOSlt:io ‘1 t0 in a given instructional

skilfndU£

ir rCqUlra

fknowlnS «hen and how to exercise theill. It is appropriately exercised at the introduction

a course, class meeting, or new learning unit. Prooerimmg also demands an awareness of the need for reorientationbecause students seem to need their interest and motivationrekindled. Set Induction may be achieved by referring toprevious activities to establish a useful frame of referenceby indicating the process to be used to obtain goals( scussion, lecturing, guided discovery, etc.), by relatingthe significance of particular goals to personal or coursegoals, by defining key terminology, by providing studentswith a course outline or syllabus, etc.

Set Induction is related to Making Expectations Clear in thatthe instructor s expectations for students' work, progress,standards and participation may be one function of SetInduction. However, Set Induction may aluo include teacherbehaviors which arouse interest, motivate action, focusattention, establish relationships, etc.

LOGICAL ORGANIZATION

Logical Organization refers to the sequencing of materialseconding to some internal structure in the subject matter,the principles of effective learning, and student character-istics and nedds.

Effective performance of this skill requires not only thatthe instructor be able to sequence material and activitieseffectively

, but also that students understand the logicof the organization. In some cases, the organizing principlemay be self-evident; in others, the instructor may need tomake those principles explicit. In any case, LogicalOrganization should allow students to distinguish digressionsfrom main points, to take notes and make outlines with

relative ease, to see connections between topics tiered nt-vations times, and to recognize relationships between classcontent and course objectives.class

Logical Organization is distinguished from Set Induction inthat the latter establishes an initial frame of reference

thaie

f

L° 8iCaf

°rânizal:iou refers to the ability to maintainthat frame of reference continuously.

PACING

Pacing is the rate at which new ideas are presented and theamount of instructional time spent on each of these ideas.

Skillful pacing involves an appropriate matching of thedifficulty and significance of the material to the amountof instructional time necessary to ensure student understand-ing and interest in that material. To accomplish this, aninstructor must be able to judge when adequate definitions,explanations, and applications are completed, to avoid spend-ing more time on an idea than its significance and/ordifficulty warrant (s) , and to modify his pace according tosituational demands.

Pacing is related to Level of Challenge in that the difficultyof the material and student: ability to deal with that material

influence the rate at which new ideas are introduced andthe time spent on those ideas.

ELABORATION

Elaboration refers to the development and clarification of anidea, definition, or process.

Effective performance of this skill involves knowing when toelaborate, as well as choosing appropriate ways to elaborate.Elaboration may be necessary when an idea is especiallysignificant, when the material is difficult, or when studentsare particularly interested in a topic. Common Elaboratiticutechniques include the use of greater detail, examples, andanalogies, as well as rephrasing points, pointing out relation-ships, explaining relevance, illustrating applications, etc.

Related skills are Monitoring Student Response (to ascertainthe necessity and effectiveness of Elaboration), Definingand Expanding Relevance (as a technique of Elaboration),Asking Questions (to check comprehension or to encourage

163students to elaborate from their experience), and AnsweringQuestions (which may provide occasion for Elaboration).

CLOSURE

Closure refers, to the instructor's ability to "wrap thingsup at appropriate points in a discussion or instructionalactivity.

Effective Closure depends upon a good sense of timing andthe ability to choose an appropriate technique. Commonly,thxs skill is exercised at the end of an instructionalactivity, class, content unit, or course, but it isappropriate whenever there is a need to re-establish ormaintain a sense of direction and purpose, or when clari-fication and review of preceding instructional activity seemsnecessary. Techniques of Closure include providing a summary,asking students to summarize main points, checking forcomprehension or consensus, noting whether or not the topicwill be pursued later, etc.

Closure is complementary to Set Induction in that good SetInduction makes Closure easier, and good Closure makes thesubsequent Set Induction easier.

EXPRESSION

Expression refers to the techniques of verbal and nonverbalcommunication.

Effective Expression not only allows an instructor to conveyinformation and ideas clearly, but also to communicate feelingsand attitudes about the material. Characteristics of thisskill include variations in body movement, facial gestures,and voice quality, use. of silence and eye contact, selectionof vocabulary appropriate to students' levels of sophistication,and other rhetorical skills.

Expression is related to several ->ther teaching skills and

behaviors in that effective performance in this skill may helppromote effective performance of the other skills (Set Induct-ion, Pacing Elaboration, etc.). Expression may be an especiallyimportant factor in Inspiration, which refers to a more generalstylistic characteristic.

INSPIRATION ANT) CHAR I SMA164

Inspiration and Charisma refers to the instto bring excitement to his teaching and hisand to engage students' interest, trust and

ructor's abilitysubject matter,respect.

Inspiration and Charisma are most often characteristics ofteachers who appear to enjoy teaching, who are enthusiasticabout their chosen subject matter, who are concerned aboutwhat and how their students are learning, who demonstrate aninvolvement in the issues of their discipline or theirprofession, who have at once a commitment to the value of whatthey are doing and yet a readiness to re-examine that commit-ment, who have confidence in themselves and their studentsto engage successfully in a given task and who can exhibit anappropriate sense of humor about themselves, their studentsand the tasks at hand.

If an instructor is successful in inspiring students andcommunicating charisma, he may need to rely less on a varietvof other skills to motivate and engage students in the learn-ing process.

LEVEL OF CHALLENGE

Level of Challenge refers to the instructor’s ability toselect materials and design learning experiences which willchallenge students' interests and abilities without makingunrealistic demands upon their time, abilities, or chancesfor success.

To find the optimum level of challenge, an instructor mustconsider student characteristics (their experiential andinformational readiness, their apparent ability level, theirinterest in the material or course, their time commitments,etc.), as well as characteristics of the subject matter(conceptual difficulty, background knowledge required, etc.).If level of Challenge is set too high, students may feelfrustration and a sense of failure; if Level of Challenge is

set too low, students may become bored and disinterested-.

Level of Challenge is related to Set Induction ( as an

occasion for establishing the initial Level of Challenge),Pacing, (Level of Challenge will influence the rate at whichnew ideas are introduced and time spent on those ideas),

Monitoring Student Response (as a way of checking whether the

material is optimimally challenging), and Making Expectations

CuTl u

VhCn an lnstructor explicitly define Ae5

level atwhich he expects students to deal with the subject matter.).

TREAi.fENT OF DIVERGENT VIEWS

Treatment of Divergent Views refers to the instructor'sability to set his material in an intellectual andattitudinal context which permits and fosters open and honesttreatment of that material by both teacher and students.

Teaching behaviors which may promote honest treatment ofdivergent vievs are acknowledging the existence of a varietyof points of view, presenting facts and ideas in a repre-sentative context of divergent opinions, distinguishing betweenfact and opinion and between raw data and interpretation,making one s own biases explicit, encouraging students toexamine a variety of points of view before making judgmentsor drawing conclusions, etc.

This teaching characteristic is related to Creative Inquiryin that Treatment of Divergent Views may provide studentswith the disposition and tools for independent, criticalinquiry. Moreover. Treatment of Divergent Views may providea context or occasion for Defining and Expanding Relevance,and the examination of divergent views may promote Student-Student and Teacher-Student Interaction.

DEFINING AND EXPANDING RELEVANCE

Defining and Expanding Relevance refers to the instructor'sability to help clarify how a particular idea or topic fitsinto broader personal, social and intellectual contexts.

Effective performance of this skill requires not only that

an instructor be able to define and expand the relevance of

a topic or idea, but also that he encourage students to engage

in a constant search for larger contexts of relevance. Some

techniques for Defining and Expanding Relevance are demonstrat-

ing the application of an idea in a variety of situations,

explaining relationships between a topic and other academic

disciplines, exploring how a topic fits in with student

interests and goals, suggesting implications for various

social issues, etc.

This skill is distinguished from Elaboration in that the

latter involves filling an immediate instructional need, while

166

Defining and Expanding Relevance refers t-n .

extend beyond the course and subject mttcr « falso distinguished from Ethical Context Skills fthJ.s««n

8

:^« d

t,

r,tandi?s and ^ 0 r ve

and ofUth0Ut che partlculir emphasis on consequences forand of one’s personal values and behaviors.

FACILITATING student participation

Ikinfinffirff^PafiClpation refers to «« instructor'sHo in eliciting student participation in the learning

fruitful directions.

^

levels’ leading it in

An instructor may wish students to participate in the learningprocess in various ways, ranging from asking and answeringquestions to sharing responsibility for class activities ordiscussions. The instructor needs to communicate when and howmuc stu cnt participation is appropriate, to encourage them togive such input, and to allow enough time for them to partic-ipate m the ways desired. Sustaining student participationinvolves maintaining a non-threatening environment and respond-ing to student, contributions in a reinforcing manner. Effect-ive direction of student participation requires that theinstructor know when and how to intervene productively (byasking questions, providing focus, tying student comments to-gether, etc.).

Facilitating Student-Student Interaction is a related skillin that interaction among and between students is one, butnot the only way, in which students may participate in theinstructional process. Asking Questions is also a relatedskill when questions are used to invite student participation.

FACILITATING STUDENT-STUDENT INTERACTION

Facilitating Student-Student Interaction refers to theinstructor's ability to promote discussion among students inthe class.

Effective performance of this skill requires that an instructorestablish a physical and attitudinai climate in which studentsmay interact with one another. This nay require anythingfrom dividing the class into small groups or arranging chairsin a circle to providing a structure in which students areassigned specific discussion roles. To maintain student-

167

mai

•»«and respond to one another *

an°ther> Pr°d then t0 e*™‘ne

:rin::r“ :r;r^:rdiscussion ^rtici^l'^St:^*^*^ ^

,#CtlV“

thate

someone's ^S"J±SSti^s

d

i^“

Faenâ

t

tlngesUfnt'»tUdi!nt I"teractl°" is °ne means of

foûM8J dent Participatlon - However, here we arefocusing on those teaching behaviors which encourage studentsto interact with one another and to work as a group

ASKING QUESTIONS

ms skill refers to the instructor’s ability to use a rangeof questioning techniques for a variety of instructionalpurposes.

Effective performance of this skill requires that the instructorunderstand and be able to use several types of questions,ranging from simple questions requesting factual informationto higher order questions calling for integration and applicat-ion of ideas. An instructor needs to know when to ask and howto construct questions to suit his purposes (to monitor student-progress, to engage students in critical thought, to sustainstudent attention, etc.). Once he has formulated the question,he must be able to state it clearly and in a non-threateningmanner and to direct it appropriately (to a whole class, orto an individual). An instructor may facilitate students'answering of questions by allowing enough time, by not interrupt—in£> hy rephrasing questions if necessary, by not being tooinsistent, etc.

Asking Questions focuses upon the specific techniques of effect-ive questioning but is related to several other skills (Closure,Creative Inquiry, Facilitating Student Participation, MonitoringStudent Response, Evaluation) in that an instructor may usequestions in his performance of those skills.

ANSWERING QUESTIONS

This skill refers to the instructor’s ability to listen to

168

students' questionsjudge when and howconstruct effective

for a variety of cues and meanings,questions should be answered, and toanswers.

to

Students may ask questions because they are confusedeager to contribute an idea indirectlv ûrious

’

needs to be Tlr-rt- t-oRLc

‘ * anc* t ^le instructorneeds to be alert to the reasons behind their questions Hethen needs to decide whether a question is best postponed,

-elfôrt0 a

T!!er

ftudent: 0r to Lhe inquiring student him-oeU, or answered by the instructor. If the instructor choosesto answer the question, he may help the entire class benefitby rephrasing or elaborating on the question and then phrasingnis answer in clear, concise, and generally understandable terms.

CHOOSING APPROPRIATE MODES AND MATERIAL

S

Ihis skill involves the instructor's ability to maximizelearning by integrating his objectives and personal resourcesstudent characteristics and goals, situational limitations,and the availability of instructional materials.

Effective selection of modes and materials requires that aninstructor be clear about his own objectives (to give informat-ion, to encourage discovery learning, to develop criticalthinking skills, etc.) and select inodes which will be mosteffective in reaching those objectives (discussion, lecture,reading, etc.). He needs to take into account student goals(do they want a quick introduction to the field or are theywilling to engage in thorough exploration of it, etc.) andstudent characteristics (apparent ability, background know-ledge, previous experiences, etc.). He must consider thesituational limitations (class size, meeting time and place,etc.) and deal creatively with those limitations (break theclass up into smaller groups, adjust meeting times or attend-ance rules, etc.). He must know his own strengths and weak-nesses (good lecturer, but can't get discussions going; hatesreading exams, but loves reading papers, etc.). And he mustbe aware of the availability of materials and resources (rulesfor books on reserve, supply shortages in book store, etc.).Once the instructor is clear about all of these factors, hecan better design the course modes (lectured, discussions,panels, etc.) and select the course materials (reading lists,textbooks, paper assignments, etc.).

INSTRUCTIONAL FLEXIBILITY AND INDIVIDUALIZATION

Instructional Flexibility and Individualization refers to the

ns true tor s ability to assess individualtics to design and, adapt course objectiveswith students' personal objectives, and toways for students to achieve course and/or

students' characteris-which arc consistentprovide alternativepersonal objectives.

i/ UCt° oay becone aware of Individual student talentsintet ests and needs in a variety of ways—by devisim:questionnaires to elicit such information, by inviting students™ him individually, by providing tine and coûnS -

their ide!"tl,at StUdentS feel £r« to approach him with

info-noM r c0nc,;

rns > etc " 0n« an instructor has such

for ûd ^ may SiSn C°UrSe '•hich allow room° ‘ de’ C* 5° pursue tbelr Interests and develop their

ness willbd ‘’w

0137 cn!;

OUnter situations in which his effective-

or to andeITd

UP°n 1S WilUnSness t0 chanSt those objectivesor to allow students to substitute their own objectives. Annstructor may provide alternative ways for students to meetobjectives by suggesting several options, referring studentso other resources when his own are inadequate, asking studentsto devise their own strategies, etc.. In general, effective

performance of this skill requires an awareness of studentsas individuals, a willingness to be flexible in determiningobjectives and methods, and creativity in providing alternativecourses of action.

Flexibility and Individualization is related to most of theother teaching skills in that effective performance of thoseskills often involves the behaviors and attitudes suggestedhere.

FACILITATING INDEPENDENT/CREATIVE INQUIRY

Facilitating Independent/Creative Inquiry refers to theinstructor’s ability to demonstrate, encourage and guideindependent, original, and creative inquiry.

Facilitating Inclependent/Creative Inquiry implies not only thatthe instructor demonstrate creative treatment of the material,but also that he encourage students to approach the subjectmatter in imaginative and creative ways. An instructor mightfacilitate creative inquiry by suggesting and providing resourcesand materials for students to explore independently, by makingexplicit the processes he uses for considering ideas, designingstrategies, and making decisions, by helping students to developand utilize the scholarly tools and skills required for in-dependent research, by making himself available for individualguidance and feedback sessions, etc..

170

*ro»

students, while here we stress shying studenL“how ^'‘V6tln8they are motivated, may pursue Individual, creative work!

MONITORING student response

Monitoring student Response refers to the Instructor's skillsin noticing nonverbal indicators of student response, ininviting and encouraging verbal feedback from students on allaspects of instruction, and in responding to such feedback inconstructive ways.

Monitoring Student Response may provide an instructor withuseful information with which he may make judgments anddecisions about student progress, his own performance, classactivities and assignments, and course design, An instructormay monitor student response by being alert to nonverbalindications of confusion, curiosity, frustration, etc., duringlectures, discussion or other class activities. He may getmore complete information about student reactions by invitingand encouraging students to ask questions, express theirconcerns, make suggestions, etc., about specific instructionalactivities or about the course as a whole. In order to maintainsuch a system of student feedback, the instructor also needs toattend to the ways in which he responds to student questionsand suggestions. If he reacts defensively or simply ignorestheir suggestions, students will stop giving them. However, ifhe responds in nonthreatening ways and experiments withalternative methods and activities on the basis of their suggest-ions, student feedback may provide continuous data for designinginstructional activities to meet student needs.

This skill is important in the effective performance of mostother skills because continuous awareness of student responsesto teacher behaviors may inform an instructor when he makesdecisions about how and when to exercise other skills.

MAKING EXPECTATIONS CLEAR

This skill involves the effective and timely communicationof what the instructor expects students to do, to learn, toknow, and to contribute as members of his class. The skillalso includes the instructor's communication of his criteriafor evaluating student performance.

171

Effective performance of this skill allows students to know

Partial-,atio“' StT r^yin

,i"" ° f

arl fot1 Students should know what their responsibilitiesleadings, papers, etc.; their range of options In fnrmstcontent, and treatment of assignments; work deadlines; and,

* *

^sequences for unsatisfactory or late work. They shouldalsoknow when and how they will be expected to participate in class

pff°n3

’ ectures’ etc,

» ancl what preparation they need foreffective participation. Finally, they should be awaL of theinstructor s methods of evaluation (quizzes, tests, papers,observation of class participation, etc.), the nature of evaluat-ion instruments (multiple choice quizzes, essay exams, etc.)and the criteria for evaluation (the skills, knowledge, con-’ceptual sophistication they will be asked to demonstrate)

.

This skill is complementary to Evaluation in that MakingExpectations Clear refers to the communication of what isexpected from students, while Evaluation deals with the assess-ment of how well students have fulfilled those expectations.It is also related to Set Induction, which may be an appropriatetime for an instructor to make his expectations clear.

EVALUATION

This skill involves the instructor’s ability to provide feed-back to himself and to students about progress toward statedobjectives.

Effective evaluation of student progress requires that aninstructor inform students about evaluation procedures, thathe select appiopriate evaluation techniques, and that he keepstudents posted about their progress. Students should knowwhen evaluation of their work may occur (surprise quiz anytime,mid-term exam, class observation anytime, etc.), what kindsof evaluation procedures may be used (muJtiple choice quiz,essay exams, oral questioning, self-evaluations, etc.), andwhat obj ect i ves will be evaluated (knowledge of facts, perform-ance of skills, application of principles, etc.).

Secondly, effective evaluation of student work involves theinstructor's ability to select or construct evaluation procedureswhich are appropriate for assessing desired performance andwhich are consistent with stated objectives. Lastly, aninstructor needs to know when and how to give useful feedbackto students about their progress, so that they know where theystand, what areas they need to work on, and how they may goabout improving.

Evaluation also refers to the instructor 1 ^ .

w«ays of assessing his own performance and the ef fect ivenc!ôf u, course. He may get such information by looking' u“student achievement, and by asking students for feedback on

directiTLS (

?PPrP1

' lat0n "S8 ’ lnterest levo1* clarity of-lections, etc.), on specific class activities (were theyinteresting, did students feel they learned anything, etc!)on teaching performance (does the instructor lecture too muchis he an effective leader in discussions, etc.)!

’

Ideally, evaluation provides useful information for theinstructor and for students which makes further progress andgrowth possible. s anQ

This skill is complementary to making Expectations Clear ( r> eediscussion of Making Expectations Clear) and related to Monitor-ing Student Response ( as a way of evaluating teachingperformance and course effectiveness.).

DEFINING AND EXPANDING ET1TT CAT. CONTEXT

Defining and Expanding Ethical Context involves both anawareness of and explicit communication of the fact that theteaching and learning of a particular subject matter takesplace in a particular social context.

The context in which a particular learning activity goes on(and of which it is a part) implies a host of values, problemsobligations, challenges, etc., and the actions or non-actionsof teachers and students have meanings and consequences withinthat context. An instructor who exercises this skill is awareof this fact, attempts to make students aware of it, andengages in an exploration of those meanings and consequenceswith students. The stucients themselves are, or course, a partof that social context and, therefore, the instructor's conductof a course implies responsibility beyond the immediate course.

The instructor is the agent, by which the value context of agiven subject area is interpreted for the students. Thestudents are conditioned by that interpretation, and by theirown perception of the course goals, to make judgements concern-ing the relevance of the subject matter. Thus the relationshipof the discipline to the instructor, and the instructor'sinterpretation of the course goals to the students, should befully explored in the teaching process.

SAMPLE

STUDENT

EVALUATION

COMPUTER

PRINTOUT

173CC I

•c,

CO

2

3CD

C/i

to

oor.

o

tuto2OatoCLcr

c2

OZDor

luIXi

«o iotoI m

Sojo

COCO

o•XoUJ

Ui

ICIO

<>— I

X I

ao*cc

> i

1 « O o XX

•-1

1

r^. 2 oo 2

!

^ 2i t-»

13 — O1 ^ X • UJ2 CO CDO

3 UJ O»- X Xu x ro ro CD ^3 o HX o • b- 21— o H rv Xto < CM in o2 o u.o IU 2

*»- fr-3 coIU to UI a2 UJ X 2‘X UJ <x.X o

1o xCO X?

U> j*-•— ro to

oCO *-

2 X UI •IUo VJL

oO co X >- H 2CO v. in - CMCO UJ CO JC *~UJ X *- > UJ CO3 IU 2 •«*- C5 b- u< c

a

7»CO X > -<c > cCO j£. 3 2 o3 o UJ b-3 X •X 2 COo < (\J o 3 •— ro fO UJ x in

oolr

rvin

i

u • cv^ -J

oo2 CO— UJ2 *2 «<

X15111 >-CD 3

-J

UJ 3X toX 3

c/ 22 a

-t

cr ujo -J-o acr -<*

b-co 2*

2 Oco t

LU IOX UJk- CO

COUi3o

I

Cm

2O

COUJ3a

a ua x-a —

*

o UJ*- 2O•2 I •

cr uj•

CO —

•

2UJ 1

UJ oX*- a

I

inro

oUJIsi

C5Xc

UjX

O I

CL '

I

ICIO 11

caUJ—

I

o

X

*x

X

Icier

CV oCM

UJCOUjCr.

Xa2<t

cr>

UJo2a• a

xof"uXI-CO 22 O

X i

UJ COX *«t

N crt C2

o•X •icric

co aO

-* —• uO 0L-C CDSC P=-

O 2»- LU

03 UJ•*- m to toco xrto coox t-l

a —. cmX

> CO-J 2•-J o<3 b-co <3 3

UJto x o »o•— co

UI- x cm*- b~ VCO UJCO UJ<1 CO-Io o-CO

ax 2 in *-«

c < »is

inm o , •

3 -X 2H <CO t—2 C—. Ou

CO 2X*- I- 1

CO2 O*-• X

inro

2O

COUj3O

COu3e

2O

COUj3O

toLU

Xo03

3UJ

uXCOXUJ

EX2

XC

cUj-<Xo ocn i-< IL(C3 J

UJ -(OO UJ

rvin

uj <t

X Uj

CO C3X 2o >o >o2 cr. a:3r 3

CVX >• M-O 03

o >-

tr iut- >CO —

•

2 r-•- o

UJ 3UJ Ll.

X u

2o

3C'

CM X H VCM w4

V NiTi

•

o• 2

UI O* *"• !-

h-*<

CO b-u IC1C •2 IcricX Q Uj o• CO i •

>— u UJ uXUJ Ul*

u. emo oX »-X “ UJO 2X LU *X 2Z CJX CV<> 15 2

CM UJ m• CO NJ“ M- 50

w-t >- a CM2 <

CO *< XUJ X«•- • u •3X o to

•X * I— o >-T. 2 m3 2 LUCO 3 cr X O M3

.c U X CO3 L. X 33 O CD - CMX m - VIU D CO >-•

CO 2 Ui3 JU X cOCJ a

UI Qdl <2UJ o u X« X JC

X> o XO — IOK) o >- K)K>a 1/ V • »-

a v CJ U •

3 >X CO X a CMo — -1- to CO oCJ* CO 2 UJ•I ;«

X

oXUJ'X

CO2o

ttl o U •t-

u o 2 c m»- le-.^r Ll r, r> • *- !C 1Co rl > X CD •» Icic „ « ic ic> l • S3 • » o • • CD w CDr*

13

—

#

X r-«

ew a*-

CD Ui

XCD

G-Da CD

1 • UiUI X a > a

»- UJX a

UJ 2 X. o—I in a>- o a

»- X c*n v fir. < -c

• 2•*4 UJ CD 2 a> cr c cr •< f. o2 • X » •_ 2 c X 04O fv Ui Oi Of G •

*"• - UJ o a* -rt— 2 r* f- G r4-< »— » - , n

1- - t— *- 22 — c 2Hi - 2 2 ato ua *- U LU Ocr uj t- «< y -t-a 2 X a

• K C LL n to _ cc ^ inLL LT ici X Jr C- o- o u CD IO> 1- • Ui • o IL •V »»- lr—•2 CD t— r4 2 rv C a> a AK Ui m. •— CW <A 2 *<r o tCO X o •— o i

—

'• NIL IL X Ui X MU. > UJ > - b a t-L. C •— 2 X cnJi X an — a - a

Ui <* XX ar2 » X UJ c cn a< Q •— X UJ »—O a o cn t- 2m x *\ *-» in Of O CD CD UJ <s •—

»

-< r- 2 €V V C > ^ N CD CDX »- • r. •— IT a C - crm ^ o cr • a 2x c, n X X • . cr < CDO DC o o X 2 Ow XK c »- t- o UJ o «O X u u 9- •— *- V,O r> u 2X a X X - » C*- c »“ t- X a Xcn (/) cn t- c t- »-2 LL 2 2 m cn -<

— u — 2 K 2 c

kr\

cra.

uiX

cr< 13CA *-iW IALL IdleU *— ocu z •<1 JL a

LL C.x ax aQ

UJ3 f. DW C4

3 t <r*OX o

*— 7)2 USsj ac crz- 3L C C *Ja cr1L Loxa

IA <ill *Aex< ULa o

cXo

UiX

LL!

X UJ —X c- a

UL ax a

c Ô c

XO Go —-r l.

x

— UJc —

X i-t- in

muor

LOJ

o

oXcao au

*c erCL

x aui -a

Xx m3 —

in- lin ox —

•—G

-n x-s

X DCo a-o cD 2cr **

i

t-m «*

2 W— XiM

fiC Cl—x a

u. :nc c

cr. llL_? XD—I CO

X cl_ —2 inUr LTO 3C i

LL.- ir

*- o

2o 2

C

3O

inu

inIL3O 3c

cnL.3C 3

O3C

I

33,71

M,57

‘7.34

OUFSTION

j7

T>l£

LFV^l.

OF

0IF|r

ICULTT

AMU

TMp

AMoUNf

f)K

WORK

In

THIS

OCURSfc

,

A«f-

Af»0t)r

WIGHT

r°R

MF?

SAMPLE

STUDENT

EVALUATION

COMPUTER

PRINTOUT

(continued)

175

i

z in

> i

Mtu

I

I

•ci

L> I

I

ii

U.o

Idot/J o>- :

. .

3r to

LU DC> 9~

O^ Qcr otu —

>c >c—i “ or><2

-‘T CM3 rfZDo oX

2* 3oro toI* h-zo tu

*— CL c\ O* 12 CV

to *-k- co ^LU CO<3 CLZD .JK- IUCO

lO C33 2O <t—J H V— cr.

< LL>

or —o &-*- uO UJ-r 13tt CDH otoI? Lii

*-* LOcr h

UJ ZDZL Ch- O! j

I 1

1 to lO'O 132 CD 2» O • *«

CD i

1— 1

.

' 3 '

COx; UL

• |

jO

i cr i 2P-

;

1 UJ' '2

j i-iO 1

I cr°

!

UJ

CO IcioQlX

UJ CD UJCD 1 1 •

CD %or J

I LU—> ! • 1 UO *- CDCJ > «•

ULI2 O 3UJ - X

UJ o2

rr rUJ UJID l- in a< <UJ 2 • UJ3 ^ m XX to *-2 C>

c c LUoz

to 1— <*CO * X3 2 CO<o COCO uj oc> >—

CD C k> ro'j to

LU « • K- •> CD H 2 CO— IU CM UJ LUH CO CD XO -3 •3 —. IU o 1— &

—

u_ o inUk LU uiUJ CO h-

in UJ <2 2 H •—<t CD cro >o > X i

CO 1/ ac 2 Cto • •- a3 CM CL

n: o *0 cr xo to o <>- — K-10 Q O H

• •“ -Q

cr uj rr•- X COCO >

—

CO 22 2 O•— CO •>. •—

«

a 2 -

IU LU UJ ~x u X Xr- jc h- o

Icjo

>c- oCO

f\l

CD

I oI OL I

COLUQZ

CDZ<2UJ

o»-

COI—2UJQ3

rvLTV

roroM-

wCM

m> *occ

cvj

IOIO<=>

•cjoo

I •

COUJCtt

<ccz>oO l

LL

ao cc»~ UJO X-r •

cc o*-CO X2 O

UJ >

atX o

2o

>fr-

h~-2UJ

mro

co o—* ^

—

UJ

;

•»*

CD

I v-» M* **1

»N

CO• nr> UJ

1 CO|

I

2I <<

1

|

-OC I

2o

2*

oCD *-

ICICCD

• •

*I

uClu.

oy~

i

~

QO rlV• l— v~i

UJ CO^ x rvUJ

>- CD2

UJ>—» *-*- 2O UJUJ CDU. ZDU k- 'O >otu tr. cc

co2O o c\j

vr

*- oCO UJm xc3 o(J

oto >~LU <5 Oc/l L • CC12 CO

CMor 2o —

*

- oO CL

CC *-K- 2CO <2 I—— cr

c %-»

uj aX X

CC<x3ocr -c CO (VOu Cl C42

CO 'X ~r2O CO— or•“ UJto DLU 2ID ZDC3

CO* COco -*4 lO. vH

1 *- "— * rs.

2 L>

to touj cr12 30 o1 lOl->2 C/l

UJ —

.

a X'3 s-•»- ICICto u. CD

' ou CDO I-Ik LJ

LU^ cl*- to

3 >-K- 2cr <*

oa cdCL 2C —

•

C

J

a x2 <<t CD

UJf- cr2UJ toX XUJ toCD —<J |(J

cr ~

C\J O'C\J

cd!CJ

LU m 3 J- CDQ uj ro O inZD 3 u ozb- Cl 2 o(O X UJ

X CLoo CO MUJ LU UJ>- X 13 CO< k- >-. i

—

h- 2r/j K N O O ID V NU » C • a X ioa: X a XH CD o coa. in oc O Cdo >- o>- b-o X u CO•X •x 2cr re op~ i-in 2 co 1

—

2 •— 2 toUJ

X cr ir4UJ LU ULI CDX X X ZDb~ H- H CO

ICDLLb~«€

cr»~

coZDcru.

cro

nUJ

• auCD

LUCOZDu2ooUJcr<

2UJc3I-(O

UJXXXo2X

CO>:UJLL

CO

crab~oa:f-co2

U;X

fO

OCM

LT'- t-1

ini^>

co o CD Hrl *•!

.

n,j

CM

ii

i i

^ 1 2o O| o O

!

p~ “ - -co CO to COif LU LL1 Uir> 3 3 | 3CJ o

| o o

CMCM

2O

COu>3o

•oCM

2O

COUj

3O

CM

2O

3C3

inCM

2O

COu3CC

SAMPLE

STUDENT

EVALUATION

COMPUTER

PRINTOUT

(continued)

176

CCLU

to

cocrLUXI

cott.

—Ducat

Q2

COLLI

CD

QC3oOz

cr >-o »—

orin -a ccz — j%-o o

CVJ oOJ

t— o inIO ZLU13c cr

-ato —ir cjLU 2:i -<

(/) Ktf N2

-JD

!«.

to*«c

to*-

I

zicica

I •

0z<t1

a:UJX

fOloo

I

K~ o u o V)to • zz

li.

—

J

t-i

OJLDo

*—• LU I b-r I

X O ot~ 1 ID 1 zCO o CL -<LD t- 1< !

ori

LU ocLU CDK- Zoo if) uj2 o H |—i • • u

_J o t— •UJ < a

i<> ^

ix u •

1

3 K z*— a <

!o •Z i IO *3<t <x t— 3

i XZ <t1Ct - * UJ >Ia

UJ t- O UJ 1 3X z z>N LLhC Oif. J—X -t c\

cl <rtoid *. -*

t- xuan *€*- c:to irz Clo OLx: c co yr

*- id o oto cr t\

o o m-»— - <o

a: u-<t crUJ <5

3«D to

UJCO oLU 2!< <VS

O V* TT

0 lO| ^

1

UJ

• e i •>- to'.5

i

•! »-^ o w

•Z3 -U*- o r-2 orui x a•*- Ic ic <*- >21010w o -I t_l

' - CDi;/ u) oID 03(X rv4

O MoCt IDCL C*

cr LD•— t—UJw O' X — tC K>

OJ Ik- a: *<r

• Cl^ Z O t-f

C tt cwa.o Ol

uj <c•K-

CO 3O 2CL -ej

CO •»

IO K tO Vn z in in- LU O

in 0 2 CDfO z> U» CVJ

*— Xto at

Li.

UJ 2X> C2I- UCO _JCL <

CVJ O'CM

Q3

toOJ

V J

UJ•X

<o:<C

• XCD

O• or

xCD

oz*IL.

OCO2 CMO

I

f~co

SIO

I

I— -3 ft lf\ rJC LL* #1^cr •—

t—‘C

to ^X3 K-« ok— ai

“3

>- GO—I 132 tO

to IO

tnto

toz

t/ in LL r - X IT 1 c U. CJ CCaj• X • Ct IT

C: • c: c X a ID • V CL LL •U OD o to o > CM :l coC3 CM cr in cr U. CM or in or cr. v. cjZ o >- o or o o a o in13 t- to k- LD >- t- 2 -- o <

u.o Q. o o o X

t— cr or or E E * a: o“"• t- C5 t- *— c- CO K t-3 (O Z co LU co to to LOz z X z z •<t z LU* UJ «-• - _l K—X rf cr ^ •H u ^ <1

ID LD LU 3 LU LU IDX X > X O X X z X UJt— t- 03 1 1- X 1— —

•

>- or

!

o CO 1 o o i

riru CM CM CM to to

1

•z Z i i

-*J

i

21

2o o O o O O1- K - K(/) to </> to w toUi LL U. U u. u13 13 r> 13 13 3O O C5 C3 O o

ICS

»cIOIC

'ZD

CD C2

CD2 to

•ft I

toIûj

!

» •—if) uct- LUz LLCC Xu LU3K— *CO - UJ

Q. CDZ 3 oto

*- UJ LUX 3

t- 31_J to o O

uj ti- zerUJ ZD

IT

r- z trz —3 Uj3 X

to IL1

3> Xi

*-* LUt- O cr

: D Z <t-X <L X

tocr* •

CO

UJ LU K- oX z t~

CD \ UJ

1CO —

•

to1

—» tv- K- . «•

X <c z to

1

CL IL. LDCO Cl XLL* . ^ 3 —X K t—

<t o COcr <r IJJ

t— o C/3 t-i U it U i*«J

! 2 Ol K •-o tx — orX 't > CLUJ Z O

' c o — ort“ CL

Q •Cl QO > CJ <I— CO 1-r.3 O 1—

j

3 IU 3 <X

or OCt- cr y~ into z to z2 fc-* 2 C—• UJ •—« *-•

CC zLL u —X > X CLy- cd K- O

OCM CM

177

IQ 10 0 <D Hf c t<L

m• CL a. «. ,r

:»h 1

a 0 CM CM CM ITS into IO O o CO coH H1

| 1

11

I j

T)a> IK

|

1

1

P 0 1

i

P 3 I

•H+J

c

:33u

1

1

ftUi3r

1o COi

.

i COo .Hi

j1

2v_^ ft-

1

! <»*- ) •|H X

<r r* UJ X O10 2 1 »-

or -

'crCO1-*

< 3totH Ui _J ft LL *- LL !

12; 3: UJ UJ 0 CL Z UJl-H 'V, -k. u UJ _I_PS 2L Uj f= > cr I-- fi=

P-i ft- Li. V) t-JX CO ft UJ CL

Ph >*4 Q -* a CO 00 1

w 3: Ui ft 2 ft

H •- 21 a <c 2 0 3ZD UJ > <t 0 UJ

1

1

p

,

f*a ft- X 1

5* 2 CD < H 0AO LU3

<* Uia ft

*< 2 CJ2

CJ a: 0 X 0 20 UJ D ft

g < 0. -L COO co 0 CO CO — UL) LUM r-« •-* 2 <C _J C3Eh P O X CJ <t

< <c h- — ft

JD O <*< C *- 0 |-«C •3»- 2 X UJ •a: X • OrH

<f*

1 0 3 ft- - 2 3 2 O^>1v. 111 -

1

2 *-• O • •-« 2> UJ UJ CO 3 UJ _> UJw ll ft- -J CO Q UI mt«_ -cr 5? ~c LL. 2? Q: ft >~

Eh a • LL > a 1 <t C O c *»-3 0 0 Cl UJ CL O 3 •—

W UJ cn — 3 CO )— « ft

Pi 'LL) < UJ ft- UJ 0 •u — to

ZD U. «• -X l/> 3 UJ •JJ X 2 2 3E-i

CO Ui CD CD <r UJ O CJ

CO to CD c/> O O 21 -• 2f! CJ2 0 UJ 1

—

ft- *-• 3 t— Ow 21 •-» ft— _i X JO r— >~ 7) 22

ID O ft ft U. k u. to CO ft <*-J • C-l <4 2 <1 cr 2 3P-I 3 LU LU < UJ < UJ ft CO O CD

ft- ft DC X _J ft CO LU 2(/) :< IJJ L> CO 0 f- O V- fO *-•

CO U. 11 -2 Cl . <t ft ClO DC CO c iO L. to ft t- ft 2IU ft-

mjt. 3 2 LU C/J 3 <t

0 •— <t I> UJ CL < to >-

«x X 2 fO VL •-« CL UJ > 2 to

X - s: 3 X a CJ a X ft <1 ft

0 • h- LUD ' X •c > ft lx 0 .3 c •— C a r.

O 0 cn O or 0 UJ 0 LL O 0 2ft- ft 1- h- LL 1- <*-*

V*-- 2: f- 1- 3O O 0 >- O * L 0 > 0 O 03 1 3 3 3 3 • 3 3 Xcc . « rr UJ tr or a: O'. UJ ft ft t—j- CO ft- > i~ •— h- O N- • f- h •—

(/; ft- to •— 10 ti- IO CO co to 12

2 2 2 b~ x ll IT. 2 2 2.•-« Li) m-+ 0 - »— •-* »-• *—• •

c: UJ UJ XIL ID UL ii. u. 3 ft •— U- CJ ft ll ft

3 ft- a: 1*. X O IT C X X X XK CO 1— UJ ft- X ft h- ft P- k~ -

<m >o «o ro to o 'O

T* f\) rt CM CJ

PS 1 •H is '•H •1^ ft.* r >r» • r* if^ •V •IT

UD in in in in co COco 0 co

j

eo fts

1 •

j

i

j

1

1

to

;

i

CO2O

1 UjX

ft c. • .<LU 3 f- 33 > M to CO COCO »- —

•

3 X ft- 1>2 O ft^~ *2 zz •2C 3 < 0 O2 0 O O 10 0 3 DC ft- ft»2 »— O O »2 COK » u» *-• JL2 UJ - O X 0 12 LU UJ O 3 3O - to UJ F X -

*"* • CJ (/> Lk. .( tora O

iu

tf • a or 3O CO 0 0 • CC n ft- CJ CJ ft3 b— CD -c ft CJ 2 2 Oft 0 LU co — 3 3 O ^C ft-O »-» LU 3 >- CL ftcc X- •• X W O »- CO to O 2< CD ft- t—. 3 ft- LU13 0 2 U? 2 cr 3CJ t— 2 3 3 >- 3 3

CD >- ft- 2 Cl 3 ft-

ft • 2 ft- or •C 2T X 3C to CJ X. tO 1 0 — cr.

ft CD •- ft— ft 3 a. CD CO2 ft? CO O 2 -« ft 2 2 to CO

to <r ft 3 O 0 3 0 ft2 Uj 1 *-. CL tr ft- a —O CO - a ft ft- 3 0 X rJJ X— ft J 2 O ft- 2 <c >- 00* 1

—

UJ •ju 3 -ft- < < 0 3 3 2CO 0 > 5- 2 2: 3 _i 0LU 2 ft- 2 UJ *• ft- OC O •< —

•

3 3 l- 2 3 to O to 2 ft- 3 ft-

CJ Cl LL C ft »ft- >ft- 3 u~ cr. . *t

CO LU C X rr tu 2 X X (O 3 3* to ft 3 < CL tu ui to ft- 3to <c a- ft— CO CJ — 2 CO ftl— 3 3 CO 3 3 10 •3 < 0 3 •-•

2 O X > ft- CL CL •— CJ 3UJ CO 2 ft- *-* 2 CL 3 ft- 3 ft- XO IU 2 O p- LL’ O »-• ft— — ft-

3 3 O Cl ca X- Cl CJ in U>lr- O ft 2 ft ft* 2 2 0 CO 3CO ft ft— O u. r> < ID LO U) UJ

3 CO LU ft 0 IL 3 << COCO IU i X 1 • UJ 2 CO tO O CD 3UJ JJ 3 O ft- UJ 3 3 <* U O> K X e 2 2 * > C£ CZ U CL •ft-

**s b- C rr <t cr 2 ft- Z) tot— fO ft- CJ ft 0 « > 2 O * 0CO P- UJ O co CD a: O 3 CJ cr 2UJ < (O ft ft < LL X >1 2 0 <1

ft X 3 to ft X <5 CL X 3 ft-

»— ft- •—

#

ft- CO 0 0 -

a a 2 c n G d n O L n 1 • c ft-

CJ >- 0 0 O or CJ CJ 0 OC a: 2h- C L_ ft- c ft- ft- »- ft »- <1

CJ 3 LJ Q. O cr O 3 0 0 JD 0 IL CO ft-

3 3 3 3 :j 2 3 r- 2 cr

CL <4 ft 3 ft- CL L. CL UL a X a — 0- v- 2 LL 33 ft- C 1- * - ft- »- aCO 2 to <t > 0 (O CO 2 to to X to 2

ft- ft rc 2 u 2 O 2 10 2 CJ *— •—

cr 3 <i —

•

0 — *-« 3 — Xr C X CJ LU ft- ft-

u. u. u a LL ll U. 0 ft IO 3 CD 3 cr

X X X X X a X X X < T 3 X O 2 O6- 1- — <. ft- 0 ft- ft ft- tO H- ft- — X

1

•

to cm r- o vt in

CM CM i

{VJ CM

178

90iV

to

-rM

jo*

a-• t\

vro

.•»

>c\O'

' c\o

» t\a»c\

• ct

CM

ft“N,

i

1i

1

1

1

1

j

X>i

!| j

(1) !:

1 • *3 CO a: Q to

c 21

o UJ IL| l

•H• i

O|

|

*-u

i «—»f* CO

DC3 1

1

j4—

'

•*-i

.1

«

}3

1 cr 2 *~1

jc to CO o: •>“ •ft- O CD CO COl

oO

tL* 1 i2O AT ft-

f/>

UJ•X

to3 h-

UJ a3J CO

CO; ixv-/ :c • »*- 2 1

—

cr UJ a 3 cr >C/) ft- • IL >rr JL •X c ICJ . LLH X 1- <1 CD to O X »—

13 CD CO 3 » *. UJ «t cr cr 2 „ «. m t- X xO •3 LL ift- UJ X o »- IU O >- >~ UJ o •< uEh O ft- • •— >*K •2 IU • I *-« *sr ic •X »<t X 1 <1

££cc. CO 13 «* (J <JJ r— a. 3 UJ

M JL U — ** * •• 2 lO O o - CO t- CD - acvi

t— . *» UJ >- L-i LU -L — t/J C/J 2 u. u uM-i f* t/J cu i- cr CT CO u »-* 2 UJ*- o aP4 CO G >- *"• -j

:

U UJ uc UJ i-J JL > t/JCO to -J ••f :> cn CD m a CO UJ 2 CD CD m >-

P4 UJ UJ UJ Sr- Cl 2 o LU 2 Ul <1 2 3 *x r ^w cr r>i *-• S'— 2 *» a ar a CD Ul CO 3 toH CD CM u UJ o <* a 3 • a a 2 2 P- 2ID o — ft- < LU C3 oc a UJ UJ 2 UJ Ul XPL, Ct 3 u. ft H CO rj IU <r a 1 • X a IX X > h*5\' cl o o •—

•

3 • X 3 2 c_> CD o D X UJ UJ ID »—

o cr X tD a LU 1— X to »- C3 X UJ d- oQJ

a: uj UJ £X 2 to 2 UJ •3 LU L ^ 2 "V CD 2 -4: c•-t H o C3 o «*-f cr O 2 2 Q to 2UJ <c X cx •f 3 7L O m •> •w» LU -« 2 UJ tr oX — •* Cl ft— CL UJ UJ CO X CD <C IU X X »— UJ b-o »~ a: X CL u X a IU G - UJ 2 CD 2 3 J- CO •-M • n_ «*: 3 o o cr < •< to o UJ —

•

1

—

CO 2 ! UJ .j »-Eh ^ o UJ CL U « UJ 2 tt to fv; X- 1D_ 1— a •<* 2<J e a: c 9— ft- c_> C/7 -J 3 CD 3 c UJ <t

c>wHWQ£3Hco

wftJ

PL.

iCO

a -4 CO 2 to X o <>- a •

—

a a •ft- ft- 3 '

a 2 O »— 2 o o 2 2 < o > 3 2 3UJ < CO O 2 O Q X X o •-* a O O*- < LU ft— J- a • r—

«

CO X X ft- ft— • »- - »— XCO CD *—

*

i» to o to ft- ft <t a 3 ft CO Q DEC 3to 2 O rr LU to tu 3 to ft a X o to ft- (O 2 a 2 cr

a . <* )K* -«x • 2 UJ 3 ft- 3 2 o a 2 UJ *-« CL c COX* * ft— • a c to i LJ IA ) ft- ,CI> a ItJ CD a 3 • ft-

to co ~"r~ »-• rr o to a o o 2 ra o a: ft ft - 2E— 07 o 3 2 o X 1- • 2 *-» o 3 2 a 2 3 22 2 2 O a’2 UJ •—

•

C-D 3 3 a a Ci Q tr <t 7t ai O a fft- oUJ O a 3 O UJ X »— Li a a to X 3d 2 o L a 2 X Cj h- X a t • to L • X •3 LU a o a « * a w ft-

3 UJ i- 3 o O CO < - >* Q 2 to ft- Q a 2 X >- i— >— co»- 03 Lf J > ^ to \ -t ? a *-* a ft- 2 ft ft- 2CO LU tu lLA £3 CO Ul I7> X. 5 ft- to JL CO •—»' —

•

>* 0> f m as toa X CO 1 C- # 2 U.: X 5C 2 3 CO a a a a ft D> G a

L1J 1- UJ • J LU 3 3 ft— ir. a O <* X in to <t a •—

•

LU 3 3X o ir. l- <t o Liu o X a o a a to •f CD ft- ft- UJ

r- o co LU rjo a • ft- UJ o a a ft- ft <t CD to ft- t_> to lO XIL > y- i* o to x 3 ft- a a a <t a C >- <t a

(/' 3 h- 2 c:: to 3 l>- a (/ a if * a • a a a a if ca •— -4 3 3 cr 2 2 c CD 3 u. a 3 G 3 2Ul 3 3 D> O 3 a 2 to X <* O 2 rr O 2 o ft 2 a O <UJ C-) LU f7 w L3 < IU a —> o > o 3 *-• to 3

a 2 tc to LU a a IU CO to o Q j— 3 2 a to to 2 2 3 (A

> -* IX to < .J o a to •— to »-• <T' o Ui a X •— 3 a -5 a

r: a UJ o X 3 to LU 3 > j- ft :>

o Q o ^ •» tr c/ L!' ct X D Q L u a O «^- a a a a L 0 «*-

t- 2 »- C/'i o 2 to CD to O C to Q ff— ft- c G o G 3 O a ift*

o L) X •*._ CD •>- Uj ft- •—

*

h- • •— • CD o - 2 ft- ft- ft- ft GZD o f3 CO 2 o X o O Q _J to 2 a *-• o o Q o (.7 aa _ « a 3 <1 2 -4 DU 3 3 2 •— a 3 a 3 3 2 — . J j

f- to ft- »- cr 3 *-« a. o a rr a cr. O Li. CC ct: cr -t a rr GO

to to i/) < 2*~ t) CD *- «— ft- t- X a — a a ft- to b~ ft- ft* ft O7 t; LO IU >- to t/) to ft- 2 to X tn ft- cn co 2 CO to

_J a CD -j 2: a 2 2 Uj to ft-* a 2 2 2 7 G 2 LU

•D 3 o —i —

•

ft- co CD 3 X a •-4 CO

UjI 2

il a-x a .

9- <CD

UJ

2 ft

IL 33* to3 3

Li. _J3 UJft- a:

aIL LL

X UJft- *

GU. to

X ^ft- C

i

2 coLL1 V,

X UJX X

cU 3X ft-— to

UJX

IL COx a*- to

aX

UX G»- o

inCM

in-i

SAMPLE

STUDENT

EVALUATION

COMPUTER

PRINTOUT

(continue.d)

179

|

IU

*

I

U3

i

i

i

i

i

!

i

t

i

i

a*»c\

QC-lL

<->

CD1

IDDCD

UIX

aX2

zUJrx

CJXUi

lOIDtt

CLCDz

co*-

o3cc

w2

o O1

•** a. ct ir t r*• • • •

CM CM in inIT\ M M

1

1

PO

i

PO K)

|

1

j

j

o! lO

LLI LL

1- «• cr««C CO

io

cr z y—to o i- o UCO Z • to UJ

» CO 3 fr- 73•I Q X 3IU .X -C IU >tr IU—

*

X or p~ cr £C i

1 o u UJ o b- LU1

l2 IU •UJ % CJ >.< LU

i

; A* o o u o -i u. u 2 U.)

1 o »-• or CO oto Jt cj UJ tr

CJ >- O CD o c. X1 JV <* « • *4 <t X o

2 CO UJ cr -*c Xp- a 3 X

i^ UJ X UJ O X X> *- cr to CJ • LU <t

! O UJ Z5 2 o CO1 UJ >- o X u_ LU »~ 2_ to1 OD < Cj X. 2 UJj

z to O1

iu Cl o o cr kw

i

* UJ 1

—

X UJ UJ COI— LD 3 >- CL' 2

J_J I— z X <r < CO o

1

»- 1 2 U

J

2 ai

“ < -J — 3 -* h- 3 UJ CO X C <ta 3 > p— 2 o u

UJ o o z O o1

*“ X UJ . to X1 lO M 3 <c CD to »— * <t

UJ r 2T 3 to * X Xcr O CO *— 3 2 o X

iUJ 3 »l- CD CO CJ to 1

! z -ft to UJ tJ CD

i

z D UJ 2 o 3 zf- Q «-« LU Q o X <x3 X 1—

ID • 40 1- CJ 3 Uj 4. •• v> 4 ^51 >- h- CO > 3 2 CO— Z <1 3 IU •-« Xcr> — LU CO a P- CO LUfr- > c: o. UJ z CJ 3 t/; aUi J 3 ;> sc UJ CJe? h- H- UJ •— u o X X

CJ to X p- o u u. ->- <x < p- LU «

1/ C It to u (/

—r u 2 2 cr CD 2 2 c c<x c <t o X <4 o 23 •— 3 UJ *-« 2 —

•

CO z. _J CO CO UJ to CO (D CD3 x < UJ •— CO to —• <t

:> 3 o; UJa LL • Cl •Cl a Q t_ IL ao _J D I- o o o to CJp- »- u *- 1- - •»

cj O O UJ o CJ u o 3 to

i3 2 D -) 3 3 3 < 2o: p- p- — SC o

CM CO H in o >o

i

H CM H ri

fv K> r> PO b'j. If . M i M . 1

• • • maj CO H

tM

|

t\l

i

CM CM CM

1

1

Xi i

I

j o totr-

1 21

-U3 O 1 X

trX >- •f-f- tJJ LOto •i tu CO

1 2 3 •-1

»*- O • rzCO to2 X -Ct X r- oO X CD to X»•— •»- • n 3 LL I

CJ U P- JL•M - ^ z X CJ1

—

>- <-> X »-»

2 r- (T 2 3; .UJ <L U)CO > to CJLU CD to CO _«X t- 2 a: IU Cl o fLX u <t cr r-j 2 2 O

<t CD XI O r V-X • 1— o —

«

Xo o 3 • X cc 3 to o 21^- -ft X o a O LU p- X

r- LL 2 C/D ex UI2 O X a UI X _cX Ti — CD 3 t-21 CJ 1

—

a UJ < 2 :t> XO 2 CJ X fc— -t cc11 3 o o TC toto INI a CJ a. 2 to CO

i— o to 2 o X o X> X to <1 2 O cc *- a< 2 o X UJ X<t X o Q a »-• >- u>X 1- X <c 3 .3 2X 3 3 to f- 3 oo to LU to X CO o O < »-«

2 LL 3 o P- P--

-c >- a G : X : -M CO <t2 CD cr o to n 3UJ o X H « to % p- X

•K 3 cc CO 2 to X3 X •» LU O AJ 2 JLI X «-•

X *3 2 •X X h- X O CD Xh~ O CO <t &

—

LD 3 p~ X1— CO \ <t 3 (JJ P- 1-

UI l* ui aj - m U>X X :r .V UJ IL CO X'X CO 3 3 X in to Xo X - < o X 2 X to<1 -X •» <* t- IU X CJ CJ 3X X to X 3 p- (J <t L> oa 3 cr jt f > a. a : -

-<t 3 zz U' 3 3 COX —

!

rx 2 to X «T O -> CDo >* O <4 UI UJ 3 CJ a 2*— i UJ X X X O 2 o <Co U' <t 3 o X jC — X »-

3 U X o «• a c a -v o r. 1 • 1-

i- I- 2 to o CO c CD Q cr a 2to tJ m~ LL i~ •— »— 2 p- X 5- <2 UJ 2 SC CJ ZL o »-• CJ X to P—X 2 <z 3 3 3 f- 2 CL

X w-« X cr O X . n cr. CJ OX' X cr L- »- I- tr >- XX UJ > to to Uj tn X to 2»- LL cr 3 2 X J <1 z «J •— *—

X 3 •-» —• 3 — X2 UJ 2 •M < CJ X ft- ft-

LL \ U 3 U . 3 X u if

X UJ X CO X X X 2 D c 2 Oli X X 3 cr l- P~ t— * X

CO -« J o rH inro PC CM

SAMPLE

STUDENT

EVALUATION

COMPUTER

PRINTOUT

(continued)

180

O#c\

O* c\

c• IN

2

ZDor.

in2

a• c\

o» CN

oi«N

CO•2<X

COu:111

UJto coUJ cc

o oot-•2 toUJc x—j -f *

V) La.

UJXCO• 2

Q2

I r Ir

rv

lrlOIC

iO• c.

!

VI •1^ ri vi

j

•

i 'tocr •2

i i

UJ O toiX - a o -»

2. CZ r

O

UJ•X

>~ > ZJCC M ,y-** - —^ 11 WC/4 ULD * ^

•<

3o

to.

UJ

<*CDOCo•

a2<

)•-

3c

•Q2>-

CO*<

UJCO

—i

* - o F— — tu z d > tw 3 CL 3CO CO i 02 -d k • 2 u 3 p- CD U 'd P~2 CL O p- O O £

i.U OC o to • •O 3 U. u b~ 2 4t CD LU <t a 2 a.u UJ UJ u_ CJ UJ UJ u w P- UJ UJ to -*r 2 3X >- CL ° X c UJ <1 3 p- *- tuCD P- CO ar u. X u 1 , o o X 1- X2 a

j

< CD L c» CC UJ p- <t p-*< 2 1 2 L3 1 o 2 l « Zl UJ CL CL co o

<rJ3 >- O p- *“• cx 13 3 o X 2 2 UJ -

cr1

P~ -* CD 2 o >- X 21

W >~c O cr<r CO

j

ac <t X • 2 <c u p— CL ».* Ul CDLU UJ

1

o c CO c -«t“

-C IO CL to P- P* 23 CD i CL CD Lv 3 V— p— <0. < 3 X c 2 —O -t • CL 2 2 LL' CO X 0 2 1

^ c X 3cr o CO < X CD 3 3 O P- p- •» cc X 3-3

!CD 2 V- Ui •3 G LD • <c cr -< Cl o UaO Q X o so >- 3 O P- UJ x UU u. II m > JC

2 O 2 < *-• cr 3 2 X C X <£ CO p-1

3 p~ o 2 X *-•-* 2 <t CD 1

— LU Ul 3 • p~ »- P— • UJ <c i < •—

•

o P- CDUJ UJ cn Q D> 2 • X CO 3 r- 3 XD 2

bC • cr LU 2 P- V- V UJ tr p— 3 2 CD LO < <OC Cc > 2 3 3 P~ 2 2 u c. to CD < • in 2 «X 3 2c c * P~ UJ to Cl . CJ LL LL it

. V— U. * P- T. ip- • t- UL' > C C cr . •

X •-* X X CO LU O O a cr LU X •—« 2 Cl UJ X O UJ p-* cr Ul to * Ul U_ 3 2 X LO CL 3 2 UJ !

3 in p- X 2*- CO -< CD CO <t U. P- UU G L-> CO 3 to 1— UJ -t LU2 2 3 <C o — 3 UJ co CL CO 3 LO 3 to CD UJ Ui X CO —*

UJ o U cr 2 CJ* LU u Cl > Jr- 3 U_ CC i X Cl o k—

a •—

*

3 »— UJ (/) 2 CD a o 2 3 o a. o O %- 2 x -j:

3 p- o O »-• c UJ 2 O 2 p- P- LU U. p- P- CLp— u> 21 3 CG 3 3 a X LO t3 23. Ul ca a 1 a x; - COto LU a 2 o ir— O •— iC a u. 1- LU LU to 2 2 CL u. 2 LL LO UJ . -*

3 UJ CO X - u CO -« X LO U. ->• 3 LU «X cr < 2 < P- X.

to C CD Cr X to UJ UJ C' P-- UJ L- O UJ -< U. t.l

UJ 2 to o CO tu X CD V cr UJ X CO OC CO 3 >* » • IO cc»- CO »-• UU UU UJ 3 o <1 u iO» 3 3 O UJ U CO P- UJ »- o P- G.< cc C c to. i K- • X C! • a <

tl - 2 1 > CD c u X 2 c i/ a—

*

Uj 2 *-• p- < - c 3 is >•— 2 <1 CD m— 2 2 to CD 3 U. Cr** 2 CL

X <J > 2 w— CO b- O 2 o > a < UJ 2 O X (O O CL

< CO P- o UJ C/J p- UJ ID •>'

CO a. o —

«

cr V <t •— o UJ Ct X <> 2 CO cr X ui -t to + 2 II CD 3 <t cr to rr < X La. u. OC UJ UJ

UJ <t cr CL X cc X 3 to UJ X 2 X «* CL to •< X cr U CL X (D OLU o p— p- p-

-d CO UJ o *-• r- »“

a o C Q a G 4t c D L' c to ct G tx. r. D Cl Qo o 2 O o >- C •-« o c o _ « C cr a o O cr. CD o HI C >p- p- P~ * p- b- c p“ p— L'' P- o p- to »- P- U.* U- 2 P- to

u L» o to o :t CD CL o o 2 o X o CO o o CL o OC o—

s

u <t1113

rr

to2

21

U LL

X X

3 2o: av- —CO f—2 CO—• UJc

U CDI 3P- CO

3rr <p~

co 22 —

2:

u u.

X I

OC P-b- 2CO <c

2 P-— cro

u aX X

CO

3OC u.6- Oto

3OC

ZDcri—to

—• uc

^ - ILX b- X*- * p~

2_ _ C—. —. o — O — —

LL C LL CDXX X 2P~ O P— UJ

XCO

3rr

to LU2 X

UU XX oP- X

UJ

U'

ucc

to —

•

2

UJU CJX <t

p- a.

crp- cto 2

C '

2

CO.uo2UJ

t *—

XLU

UJCDCDUJ_JXo2X

luXlr-

XCO

soi -

2 COLU LL(X X.

CO P-u <t

k-— crCL

2 O— crCL

c. ao <t

i-

O P-

3 *<

u:p- to

to 2r. c— uj —

LL

X >-

P- COn.o

oCN,

ofVi CNJ

fOc\i

CMCVJ

COCNJ CNJ

SAMPLE

STUDENT

EVALUATION

COMPUTER

PRINTOUT

(continued)

181

iO•c

ID•-t

Cr

>

u.o%

</>

CT

2UJinuftCL

ojjC2aur2UiCLoITU’>cc rc: uj

o >a:- ecr2 cr.

2IL —T C>- a

3O1• —1

'

Uil-

I to•X u.

*-

oeoCD

»ctUI -XX UJVX il•“*

-XX CO

X UJ•— XJL o

2Ul -<IUo: uc< CLC») o-

<*>

2O

UIUJ UJrr -u. •<

rr .

O CJUJ cn r—UJ -«* |ft|

u. - -jCO Ui 1«

in CD inH 2 C Uirf? —i

u. C. CLu 2 LO Ui Ui •<

ft XCO X UJ

uV) X cr crUi >- -* 2yc O —*< X 2 COa y ^c ,rv •iO o x«- aCJ o u >-Iz X _«fc * X UJ1- CO >tr. »* v^ 2 r »

-

*-• Ui — un UiU X l uX *- X u- vO •“ u.

CM O

FACTOR

ANALYSIS

MATRIX

OF

STUDENT

EVALUATION

ITEMS

182

X —

•

<* a31 O2

cro cry- luC ) CT)

< —

•

u. <iC

oUJ x

I- 1oOr 7Q

X •—<t y-

•-•Ka o<r ct:>

criUy~iii

<

cro

o mCO COo roC_>

oir\CVJ COcd roy-i C\i

rHO vOo00 o

CD r«> CD O i

ro r-

r^ ao(M T-

^ y-i

'assess ^ ° ro o

- - -° C C C c ------

C- c c o c C

^ r-i> *T Ttro in•O r\CD CD

crou

• -*x

u.

croo<c

oroOJ

^ lr f"0 IT A. cj IA

» » ^ ^ v- I*;

,°wcio !c ,; ,;;;*l;.-

! iI i

c cc

> ac n>><o tH

OVin om n-«o «o

OQ0'O CO o*-« <> rofo vr o(V (\ H

c c:

I

in coCO 'OfO K>CO CD

lO'Cfc

i

CD CD CIO

o ro tof"- *-<r^HV No cd

cv cv. ofCfOo lO'CD

cs/o. inoo rsj

onj c\j

i

^ o TVv-fCD

CO Or» **»

rv roCD O

OO o oocjcjcdcjcjcjcjJoooo1 '

, I

ia ro cj® CO (M«Nj o cvHO vQIT IM\

1 CD 1 CD | CD

on n> fvlCO CVJ egO O' OOCVJ 7CD CD CD

iao i cd

’OCK£ S £ r ^ ^ lM v «o (\J rv

i

0 CD CD CD CD CD i

N a rHQD Ov rn K)

or co o No vO t~r fo r ^>- ho c\) r\; CDo » • • M< CD CD CD CDu.

j

ro1

y—l in tr> r\CD C\j Cvj

rr *-4 •-J cr> rrs

o CD C\J o CD- H cd n CDO • • • •<c «D CD «D CDLv- 1

0 CD CD CD CD CD

'f-'O'.-l .-fo- ^ MOO O V

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ o 'A -H >A tore

oorij^,'00' '»-rv r~- IAO IIMN

°°tt° rt° Wr,OOK! C_'Oj

oc> <=»oo oo o c* c*

c* c* r*j c*• » • I »

lP^ NNl° ro v> CO to v OV tA

»nro o® ov to to oo. sorvvo0 3 WON 0(0 o CO ,° £cJOcjoo Jo .

’c* JJCJ c*

oCOcr<c

in

or cn in *t <> or in n rs ki vr ki

^ ^ cvjo Kf o K) cocoC(V(\| o 0 vo

°ooco <r>«o«D «5 o o o J ,4

Tt'VfL^> ^ ro to A.m « n m m <1 to-.“ n Wrl OQV Hrt OH

A ^ a ' r^ to on H ook: (\iî n, ^.'J “'I' *-0 LA to O <1 C> C\) ,A IA <r O COfo*. IA CIA -O ^ „ fo ,t riQ(Xic

I

SiSSSKSSSSS^S«ssr^s~-0 --;^ ^ T ° ” *=> ^ cr. ho to

C'coooomojj J^, i .

.*

I

OOOOOCDOOC300 CJOC3 CD O O

I I

roOrOO«»

u

J?TlrJJT r,jr^ c’' '-O' »-,o to m o- o cc

_. J-1 'A O> O' A. H“l [(1 k) H

^ J?' ' rJCt> "ôr-'^'TA.HtA.tr, cv

(2 S ^ r*^ "° ^^ ° -O to to fM AJ O' C\JAJ to f\J H f\J H CN N K) o H O H OH

coc oc ao

^ ,ri tn 0,0 —• .-km a-ît\oNK)oo N HN ro AJ rr

M- o' S O^ »C JS*^ ^ Al'J toM- o. CO O' rv OO Wdoo^NHH or, tMOHMon A1 C3 Hi

OCDCDOOOCDCDOO OO O

I

a.^ ’'2 At ro *h fvi -T (\J f\J iA O O'A! VJ ST 'O rr C\Its tro^' 'tH'O<'-MA A- o <V O' H. cto O'O' -H (O ov MA JMA OJ O' vl f>tr rt C f\) o H to t\l H H OAJAI

C2 CDCOOOOOCD CDOCTOOCtO r o o oo o

yr-l CVJ m XX

ft cr• • -«/

> >

CD CDcr ct

in yf) Na o ccd cd rr

tr a a*JI< '«J < «i

> > > > >

I ! !

COO. C1HMM tt IO -ti t^ o t> O H o. r' tr in V, A (t.<-t--t . I AJ At AJ AJ AJ AJ AJ A. AJo o o o o CJ o o o o CJ CJ o r o o cr c , o o c -aoc cr a a or cr a a cr tr ao o- rr a: 'r cr ct cr cr-a I <1 . -t -4 <, H . .1 , <J -J'-J ,:> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>

I I I •I I I I

f> rlnjroCD CD CDrr ct a«l < <>> >

I

PRETEST

/POSTTEST

COMPARISONS

OF

STUDENT

EVALUATIONS

FOR

EXPERIMENTAL

183

— crCh cr

A Q.

DO04O

- — CD-* Ca: - cr•— • o.

UJoo xCO o

S' UJ UJ< UJ Uj— o: crcr. c: u_

rr n:< or_ a-r a:

uj-in

in tnUJ UJto (/>

oc luuj coCD <

to Xcr uj— 2

14 1* *.# 14 l* l* tft l* It .* U l«-u 14 l* .ft l* 19 14

•> 4*4

14 19 19 14

• 9 * 9

1* 14 «4 14 14 14 14 14 14 «4

* 4 4 4 *

14 t4 14-14 14

PRETEST

/POSTTEST

COMPARISONS

OF

STUDENT

EVALUATIONS

FOR

EXPERIMENTAL

GROUP

(continued)

184

UL ULtr c

X

o u.

a

o £o(/) DUJ UJLU UJcr £To u.

I* It L* t* 1* v* m c* L« t* l* t* a i* t« «. i* l* t* t* ii o J *» m t* t* i* t« n ii î i*

cn-t oI- CE

cr a< op a.

a zcr c<t —

•

to toUJ UJ€/) tO

cr ujUJ l/l

CD *1

185

PRETEST/POSTTEST

COMPARISONS

OF

STUDENT

EVALUATIONS

FOR

EXPERIMENTAL

GROUP

(continued)

186

O Xo

CO o

t* l# <• t*

UJ UJcr oco u

c# L* l* V t* »« C« C«-l* il t» t» L» 1* c* l» «* »• k«

« « • «

*• !• (3 a*

« « • I

cr cc< oC tt

cc

to toUJ Uito VI

V. XCC UJ— if

CL Q.3 .>o o

TOTAL

SCAT

PRETEST

/POSTTEST

COMPARISONS

OF

STUDENT

EVALUATIONS

FOR

EXPERIMENTAL

GROUP

(continued)

187

Ceo

Oi

3Ooo o

3 3r: oA AC O

rLrx

f«tLitv

PRETEST

/POSTTEST

COMPARISONS

OF

STUDENT

EVALUATIONS

FOR

EXPERIMENTAL

GROUP

(continued)

188

o t:

oto oUJ IUU. Ita. <xo u.u.

tft ift

o roto CjUl IULLi IUcc q:o u

to toUJ tuto to-X -t

L U

a a.:j r>o o

! t» Cft L# t*

* ft ft ft

PRETEST

/POSTTEST

COMPARISONS

OF

STUDENT

EVALUATIONS

FOR

QUASI

-EXPERIMENTAL

GROUP

189

COQ

'/P

PRETEST

/POSTTEST

COMPARISONS

OF

STUDENT

EVALUATIONS

FOR

QUASI

-EXPERIMENTAL

GROUP

(continued)

190

UJ _l - I

— u_ uj n

!• 4*i«- rfl l« W* l# 4* 4-* k.« «.» L* V# l» 4* l* l« l« l* l« t« 4» l* 4* *• • 4.* *t U K l* 4i i« t» U r 4* l» i« l* .ft

*- CU<* o« Q.

ct cro

ct or*1 CC

v crut iu\r i/5

< -tL U

I ri r<

Q. OL

CJ O•— I o

VtR01

6

PRETEST/POSTTEST

COMPARISONS

OF

STUDENT

EVALUATIONS

FOR

QUASI

-EXPERIMENTAL

GROUP

(continued)

191

o Xo

tO CiUi OJCL IXOC CL12 u.

L9 %9L9- L9- 19 19 U l* It 1* »t O 19 it 19 it 19 if if !• II if if 19 19 it 19 19 .I 19 4.9 it 19 i« 19 4.9 49 19 19 19 19 19 19 19M

or or< oCi CL^ CL

to COIJLf tUto CO

CL Uiu. toCD -t

to XCL Ui— z

a ar> r>o o

D r\ ri r* A n

PRETEST

/POSTTEST

COMPARISONS

OF

STUDENT

EVALUATIONS

FOR

QUAS

I

-EXPERIMENTAL

GROUP

192

— • CL

i« L* it l<

•— » a

o iotn oUi LULU UJft QCO U.

«* oc. a-rr a;

t/* <rUJ UJto 00

cc ujLU COCD -*

CO >QC UJ— z

• I

H (M

a. a.U 13o oO Qis o

• »• it L« U * U ! i» in * st It i* U • %t ll it 1* * 11 1* 11 it it «t it it

o o o o o o © o o o o o o 0

GROUP

PRETEST/POSTTEST

COMPARISONS

OF

STUDENT

EVALUATIONS

FOR

QUASI

-EXPERIMENTAL

GROUP

(continued)

193

—• • Q- I

O X »O I

CO o I

yju lu i

Uj UJ II

CC VC IO U. I

111

•b

c» l* lb lb 1 lb lb Lb lb Lb

tr oUJ iua- ujcc cco u.LU

c« lb lb lb Lb lb 4b L* 4b lb lb ib 4b ib lb >b 4b lb lb lb tb 4b Ib Lb lb lb lb lb lb ib lb- lb lb lb ib 4

-J • b•— cn v-t o ih ac i

cr. cr< oo a

o ^ t

cr o i

< — io b- i

ir < i— I

b- > I

(ML I

(V

in f/>

LU UJcr. co

UJ I b- o

• UJ• CO• IU

cr i nrcr iu » a.uj co »

cr -t $ ci coi c i / o

CO O f->

u CL CVIt fN CO

^ CM

HCL

_1 riU.cr q.

CPE'IN^SS

fufXISlLlTV

pretest/posttest

comparisons

of

student

evaluations

for

quasi

-experimental

group

(continued)

194

—• 13.

o yo

tO Q111 UJu. lu-ll: nco u.Ui

** v# IH k* k* i«- 4+ i«

u.' :_j • i*“ — CO I 5T.< < C • <r

»- tr• Q- - •

ir oUJ UJU. UJcr cro u.

: — i fx

to crUJ iutr to

i tr. ot Ui

« 13• O• O (U

Z3 _~>

o oft cr

O 13

PRETEST

/POSTTEST

COMPARISONS

OF

STUDENT

EVALUATIONS

195

a,

opso

oPSH£5OOPSoin

U1 J*.CO

It V# Lt-Lt-

LU LJ •" CD-« -«* Cx. r-a

t CL- CM

to aLIJ OJUJ tucr QCo u.LLI

a

cr cr< CJ

Cl^ cr

2 << •—I- ><o in

CO COUJ Ulco cr

it *.* it Lt i* vt a It Lt l ft *.« 1* l* L* it- it it- it it t it It It Lt Lt t It Lt it it Lt it Lt it it it it it it it it

n f~s A ^ ^ £ e

V*R

006

PRETEST

/POSTTEST

COMPARISONS

OF

STUDENT

EVALUATIONS

FOR

CONTROL

GROUP

(continued)

196

uu u.CC (Xo u.

UJ LLl

tlj UJCC CC

tS (.ft i«

• • « *

i* l* l*- C* *.»• I

* * * *

L* l« l« t» I* Ci» I l« l« L« k.* 1* • v,* t# c* • w* l ft

* # # *

* Ifto-lftlft

»«»«•)

Ui UJto to*4 *«

U U

W XCC UJ— z

H CM

a clD 3o oOr Ct

O 13

tr cr< ao ct

a za c< —

•

CC UJUJ toCC -X

-V o

r\

PRETEST/POSTTEST

COMPARISONS

OF

STUDENT

EVALUATIONS

FOR

CONTROL

GROUP

(continued)

197

V V V SJ w u ^ v U u O

co trlu uico co-* •

o o

PRETEST/POSTTEST

COMPARISONS

OF

STUDENT

EVALUATIONS

FOR

CONTROL

GROUP

(continued)

19a

Q 7.a c'< —c -2 <

cr uu

«cv to

to <oLit Ulto (/•

-t XI , • » •

I N w

torr tuUl to02 '<

3 O<3

f* IT«o Or- ir.

*cin<in in

oIT

m

m

>o

cIT«<3

CM

tro po

ooM

Ors.

roo04

/> I

IT. •

h

Or-

<3

li>

oin

V- Xor uj

i i

H CM

cv a^ IDo on o19 O

u

a

a.

caCD

inCMonr•4

>

CM

Ol

onCD

a19oaCD

-OCM(JO'

CM

a

caCD

r*CMC3nr

ono

CM

CL

ao

CM

aooc*

T-»

a.

coCD

CM

aoato

Cl

oroarr•<

>

CM

aanCD

CM

cu?

PRElESi

/POSTTEST

COMPARISONS

OF

STUDENT

EVALUATIONS

FOR

CONTROL

GROUP

(continued)

199

© O O o o

-J •— crl c

IL Li.

oc tro u.

14 14 14 14

o ro

CO oUJ UJUJ u.cr oco u.

I* *.4 14 *.»> 14 il' w4 14-14 *.4 I* 14 14 1.4 14 14 14 L* V4 L4 14 14 14 t» 14 (4 14 14 14 14 i4 14 14 *4 1#

or cr< Oc. a

(X< U-

to

O h-z <c

< •—4- >V. 1C

? K>o *-— rv

el *ruj inu in-c ai

< r-i rvj •( r»

<_> a.

*< H>uj a. c_i a. ul

J l) —

PRETEST

/POSTTEST

COMPARISONS

OF

STUDENT

EVALUATIONS

FOR

CONTROL

GROUP

(continued)

200

« CL

- ft Cl

O T.Oto CLU UJIL ILcc rrC3 u.Uia

o a.tr< U,

«=* —ft- >CO u

CO COUJ UJto lO-t nu

CO XCC UJ— 2

O. UJUJ tocr «#

Ift VJ U Cft l ft

APPENDIX D

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT TESTS

202

SCORES OF THREE raters on STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT TESTS FOR EACH SUB-CROUP

Group~-sl Pretest Scores Test Posttest Scores

Experimental X 81 88 94 - 263 0 78 82 930 78 80 85 - 243 X 79 82 90X 50 69 73 - 192 0 72 85 87X 80 88 88 - 256 0 82 86 900 80 81 84 - 245 X 74 83 86

Control 0 80 93 97 -2 70 X 88 92 96X 71 80 84 - 235 O 63 67 670 79 80 86 - 245 X 58 71 72X 69 84 86 - 239 0 94 95 102

Quasi-Experimental X 72 84 86 - 242 0 76 85 93

0 59 66 81 - 206 X 49 56 640 74 83 83 •- 240 X 78 88 91

59 66 72 197 64 69 70 -

2 76

197

201

291

254

169

257

2030

X

A study of the effects of instructional analysis and ...

Documents