CLASSROOM INTERACTION ANALYSIS ON TEACHER-STUDENTS

MATHEMATICAL ATTITUDE AND ACHIEVEMENT

Submitted to:

DR. AMELIA BIGLETE

College of Education

EDRE 201, Saturday class

11:00am to 2:00pm

Submitted by:

LOVELYN B. LASAC

Master in Arts of Mathematics

College of Science

February 13, 2010

CHAPTER I

Background of the Study

Traditionally, Mathematics teachers have employed paper-and-pencil quizzes

and tests, completed by an individual student without discussion and without other tools

within a fixed time period. These tests were the sole measure of the mastery of the

mathematics objectives.

Mathematics has changed. One of the real challenges of teaching this subject is

to find a proper balance between conceptual understanding and procedural skills.

Without a sound understanding of concepts, skills may be used mechanically and easily

forgotten. For this mere reason, actual classroom interactions should be given such

significant emphasis because these are a large and vital component of the extremely

complex teaching-learning process.

According to Miller (1997), interaction in the classroom is not a new idea. What is

new, however, is our understanding, interpretations and meanings that we assign to

learner interaction. First, a person who remains passive is not a learner. Learning im-

plies activity and hence interactivity. Next, the student who is learning at a distance in-

teracts just as surely as does the student who sits in the classroom with four walls. In

fact sometimes the distance student is far more interactive than the traditional one.

Interactions are indeed the heartbeat of the mathematics classroom.

Mathematics is learned best when students are actively participating in that learning,

and one method of active participation is to interact with the teacher and peers about

mathematics.

In the paper by Clarke, Breed and Fraser in this issue of The Mathematics

Educator, the results of an investigation into the outcomes of the Interactive

Mathematics Program (IMP) undertaken back in the early 1990s are reported. Why is

this important? Because the focus of the analysis was the expanded conception of the

outcomes of classroom practice that included both the cognitive and the affective

consequences of introducing a problem-based mathematics program. The findings

demonstrate that the consequences of a particular curriculum and its associated

classroom practices cannot be adequately characterized solely by the mathematical

performance of the students. Most importantly, the IMP classrooms studied were most

clearly distinguished from conventional classrooms by affective rather cognitive

outcomes. At the time, this was an attempt to embrace a broader vision of valued

classroom practice and significant learning outcomes than could be documented in the

achievement test.

It is in the classroom that patterns of thinking should be set, attitudes should be

shaped and participation can influence the growth of independence and self-direction.

Teaching behavior is the most potent, single, controllable factor that can alter learning

opportunities in the classroom.

Ober (1967) mentioned that all things being equal, teachers who are able to

relate more positively to students and who are aware of and are able to implement a

variety of appropriate instructional behavior will be able facilitate more effective learning.

Banogon (1976) stated that it is necessary then to determine the nature of the

teaching performance of the teachers in the classroom, specifically, their verbal

interaction with the students, and also the way students assess the teachers' behavior

in relation to the total educative process.

It is necessary then to determine the nature of the teaching performance of the

teachers in the classroom, specifically, their verbal interaction with the students, and

also the way students assess the teachers’ behavior in relation to the total teaching-

learning process.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has presented the mathematics

education community with the challenging documents in the Curriculum and Evaluation

Standards and the Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics. To implement

these standards fully will take much in the way of resources and coordinated effort.

However, besides changes in texts or equipment, classroom interactions will also need

to change in both subtle and major ways. After all, it is what goes in each individual

class that really makes differences in students' lives.

Statement of the Problem

The purpose of the study is to determine the impact of actual classroom

interaction analysis on mathematical attitude and performance of both the teachers and

the students occurring in high school Geometry classes using the Flanders Interaction

Analysis System and the constructed questionnaire of the researcher.

Specifically, it seeks to answer the following questions:

1. Is there a significant difference in the interaction among the different phases of a

lecture session?

1.1 introductory phase

1.2 development phase

1.3 culmination phase

1.4 whole lecture session

2. What is the extent of pupil initiation during

2.1 introductory phase

2.2 development phase

2.3 culmination phase

2.4 whole lecture session

3. What is the rate on the emphasis on meaning and understanding of the teacher

during the lecture session to the students?

4. What is the rate of the teachers’ encouragement to students’ autonomy and

persistence?

5. What is the rate of the direct teaching of higher-order cognitive strategies?

Significance of the Study

Recognizing that teaching exists at the present moment as part of a chain of

events is only a start. The clinical psychologist talks about classroom events quite

differently than a principal, supervisor or pupil. Yet a common purpose, like deciding to

help a particular child make a better classroom adjustment, would at least focus the

observations and comments. The same can be said about classroom interactions.

The study would be very beneficial to supervisors and cooperating teachers of

the pre-service and even the in-service teachers on the evaluation of their teaching

performance which indeed will reflect the achievement of the students. The assessment

of this interaction analysis will figure out the opportunities of the teachers so an

appropriate remediation should be given for efficient and effective teaching-learning

process.

Someday teacher education will focus more sharply on the care and nurture of

teaching behavior. When this happens, systems of interaction analysis could become

the foundation of a program to prepare teachers because this is the ultimate criterion of

success or failure in the classroom performance.

This research will also give policy maker a head start for developing standards

for attaining high quality classroom environment that encompass suitable curriculum

and teaching practices, thereby ensuring student success.

Having a clear understanding of the mathematics interaction analysis on a

routine basis would keep decision makers and the teachers constantly informed of the

success, limitations and needs of the students.

Scope and Delimitations of the Study

The researcher limited the focus of this study on the junior students currently

enrolled in Mina De Oro Catholic High School in Zone 3, Socorro, Oriental Mindoro.

Observations made were focused primarily on the verbal behavior of the teacher and

students during the lecture session.

Observation were limited to one selected unit in Geometry which was identical for

all the classes, each class using the same text but handles by different teachers due to

limited period of time in which the study was conducted, observations were limited to

the day classes only.

Results of the observations are limited to the Flanders Interaction Analysis

System and the constructed questionnaire aligned with this analysis system. The

researcher will not be liable to any changes in data outside the data collection period.

Secondary information or third party sources such as published materials from

magazines, broadsheets, journals and the internet will also be used to support the

research findings to be presented in this study.

CHAPTER II

Review of Related Literature

Interaction analysis is a label that refers to any technique for studying the chain

of classroom events in such a fashion that each event is taken into consideration.

At the International Centre for Classroom Research at the University of

Melbourne, contemporary technology makes it possible to carry out comparative

analyses of an extended database that includes three-camera classroom video records

of lesson sequences, supplemented by post-lesson video stimulated interviews with

students and teachers, scanned samples of written work, and test and questionnaire

data, drawn from mathematics classrooms as geographically distant as Sweden and

Australia and as culturally distant as Germany and China.

Watanabe (2001) quotes White (1987) as writing “we should hold Japan up as a

mirror, not as to blueprint”. This powerful and appealing metaphor can serve as a

characterization of one of the major uses of international comparative studies of

classroom practice. The agency for the interpretation and adaptation of any

documented practice resides with the person looking in the mirror. There is no

invocation of absolute best practice – the judgment is a relativist one, an instructional

activity with a high degree of efficacy in Hong Kong may retain little effectiveness when

employed in a Swedish classroom, where different cultural values inform and frame the

actions of all classroom participants. Most importantly, we are encouraged to study

Japanese (or South African or German) classrooms not solely for purposes of mimicking

their practices but for their capacity to support us in our reflection on our own practice.

The mutuality of the potential benefit provides further motivation for such research.

In 1960, the Flanders Interaction Analysis technique becomes popular. The

system makes use of a ten category scheme which falls under three broad divisions: a.)

teacher talk, b.) student talk, c.) silence or confusion. The teacher talk is further

subdivided into seven categories, four of which indicates indirect influence. The student

talk on the other hand, is subdivided into two categories: the student talk response and

the student talk initiation.

The instrument consists of an observer’s classifying the statements in the

classroom every three seconds and later tabulating the data in special matrices for

analysis. From these special matrices, the teachers can determine general aspects of

classroom interaction like the percentages of teacher talk and pupil talk. Finding out this

pattern of interaction which the teachers have used with the class becomes evident.

By studying further matrices, the teacher can also determine the specific or some

of the specific aspects of classroom interaction like the amount of student rejection of

teacher’s statements, teacher’s response to stimulate student talk and many other

aspects.

The teacher plays a central role in any assessment of classroom behaviors, the

master magician who inspires, guides and rewards the efforts of the students as they

explore the dimensions of mathematical power. The teacher provides the atmosphere

for observing patterns, making connections and enjoying the beauty of mathematics.

This is an awesome responsibility that requires persistence, reflection, creativity and

genuine respect for students and their divergent teaching. An excellent teacher is one

who provides the opportunity for all of his students to make an A, clearly defines

objectives, look beyond isolated concepts, models mathematical questioning and

thinking, makes the central focus in the classroom, and instills confidence. Students

mirror the attitudes and beliefs of teacher.

Bellack (1965) used a totally different conceptual framework to study classroom

language pattern. Utilizing 15 teachers and 345 pupils in the high school, he viewed

classroom discourse as a game played with language. His analysis of classroom

language yielded several valuable insights among which are the following:

1. The teacher is responsible for structuring, soliciting and reacting, while the

students is ordinarily limited to responding. In other words, the teacher dominates the

verbal activities in the classroom.

2. The basic unit of verbal interchange is the soliciting and the responding

pattern. This in Flanders' system is question and answers on the part of the teacher and

the students, respectively.

3. About 50% to 60% of the total discourse in most classrooms were spent in

fact-stating and explaining.

Bellack empirical evidence suggests that the class is teacher dominated, subject

matter centered, and the primary responsibility of the students is to respond to teacher's

soliciting moves.

In 1972, Bellack and his collaborators in their study concentrated on the

language in the classroom and they assumed that it’s primary function was

communication of meaning. In their analysis of interaction, they found it helpful to

identify what a teacher or pupil was doing. Pedagogically, with what he was saying and

what emotional meaning he was conveying in the communication. They identified them

in terms of functions in the classroom and called them moves, namely: structuring

moves, soliciting moves, responding moves and reacting moves.

According to Bowers and Soar (1962), analysis of classroom interaction can best

proceed if attention is directed to the personality characteristics of the teacher and

pupils. When personality data are collected, using an inventory that has some degree of

external validity and these date are related to happenings in the classroom that is, pupil

behavior, the evidence appears to show that personality factors do contribute to a

classroom social interaction.

In the Philippines, a number of studies have been conducted on verbal

interaction between teachers and students. Masuliñgan (1970) found that social studies

classes were student-dominated. This means that students in Social Studies express

themselves more than in their English classes.

Pambid (1971) and Pagunsan (1971) made separate studies in the University

High School on verbal interaction and found similar findings. The former conducted her

study in Mathematics and Social Studies; the latter, in Biology classes. Both found that

the teacher talk dominated student talk; student talk was more responsive that initiatory;

and pattern of verbal interaction between teachers and students was teacher initiated,

to which the students responded.

Japson (1972) had similar findings. Teacher talk dominated student talk,

teachers’ questions were followed by student response, and were followed by teacher’s

acceptance, praise and encouragement. The type of teacher talk that seems to

stimulate student talk is asking questions.

Pedillas (1973) also found that classes were dominated by teachers. Teacher

questions were followed by pupil response, which in turn was followed by acceptance.

Pupil response was followed by teachers questions. Teachers gave extended lectures

unbroken by questions; there was little discussion or questioning by pupils.

Banogon (1976) discovered that one’s own behavior in the classroom, the

teacher can gain insight into his strengths and weaknesses in dealing with his students.

It is a means for self-evaluation which is necessary for improving teaching. Teachers

should take into account the students’ perceptions teaching performance sine the

students are the best judge of a teacher’s behavior in class. Evaluation of the teaching

performance, therefore, should not be the sole responsibility of the supervisors and

principals.

On the study made by Tezon (1977), she found out that teachers are accustomed

to telling of facts and explaining to students leaving no room for development of

students’ skills in critical thinking. Students tend to respond to teacher’s solicitations

rather than they themselves initiating the move or reacting to them. Teacher provides

very little opportunity for the development of the analytical and evaluative processes. All

classes were teacher-dominated. This is probably due to the inherent Filipino nature;

students are not vocal in expressing themselves. Non-verbal behavior was actually

involved in the teaching-learning situation especially in the laboratory class sessions.

Studies on interaction analysis were widely spread in different levels. It seems

that in general, teachers who are identified as indirect in their influence on their student

produce students who have high achievements. Since the students are given freedom

to participate in classroom discussions they have opportunity to think and reason. Also,

on the basis of the researches, it seems fair to talk student’s evaluation of teachers in

terms of some scale which can be observed by them can be one of the basis for the

teacher’s improvement in dealing with his students.

The proposed study recognizes the demand in addressing mathematical

classroom interaction analysis on teacher-students behavior and performance. One of

the best ways to emphasize the importance of this area is to understand fundamental

concepts and skills and promote positive regard to teacher and students achievement.

Conceptual Framework of the Study

This study utilizes two instruments in analyzing the impact of the classroom

interaction on the teacher-students mathematical attitude and achievement. One

instrument is based on Flanders Interaction Analysis System. This instrument will record

classroom communications.

The second instrument is based on the constructed questionnaire of the

researcher. This instrument will be used to determine the attitude of the teachers and

students towards mathematics. Also, the appropriate teaching approach of the teachers

in accordance to the learning capacities and capabilities of the students is taken into

consideration.

The researcher will provide specific actions corresponding to the actual

classroom interaction.

Hypotheses

The research hypotheses are:

1. There is no significant difference in class interaction among the different

phases of a lecture session.

2. The extent of student initiation does not differ during the phases of a lecture

session.

3. There is almost the same rate on meaning and understanding,

encouragement of students’ autonomy and persistence and direct teaching of

higher-order strategies.

Definition of Terms

Category System

It refers to a set of mutually exclusive categories exhaustive of teachers and students

classroom behavior which are perceived as influencing teaching-learning situation

(Evan and Balzer, 1970)

Classroom Interaction

It refers not to one system, but to many systems for coding spontaneous verbal

communication, arranging the data into a useful display and the analyzing of the results

in order to study patterns of teaching and learning (Flanders, 1970)

Culmination Phase

The summing up of the unit lesson where all the concepts are already clarified

Development Phase

It refers to the on-going advancement of the different principles and concepts

Direct Teacher

A teacher who limits and restricts students’ freedom, always gives commands and

justifies his own self as an authority

Evaluation Phase

It refers to those that grades, praise or blame, commend or criticize something

Flanders System of Interaction

It is an observational tool, consisting of 10 categories for describing the behavior of

teachers and students as they interact

Indirect Teacher

A teacher who encourages students to participate in the classroom discussions. He

accepts students’ feeling, gives praise and accepts and clarifies student ideas

Interaction Analysis

The technique used for the classification of events which need to be observed and

recorded

Introductory Phase

It refers to that part in the class session where the concepts and principles are

introduced

Observational System

It refers to any systematic technique for the purpose of identifying, classifying, and

qualifying specific teaching activities (Ober, 1967)

CHAPTER III

Methodology (Banogon, 1976)

Research Design

The proposed study attempted to described and analyze teacher-student

interaction in the third year high school Geometry classes in Mina De Oro Catholic High

School in Socorro, Oriental Mindoro. The instrument used in interaction analysis is the

Flanders Interaction Analysis System. Using this system of interaction analysis, the

recorded instructional verbal interactions were classified and grouped into categories.

Three teachers and their students were used as the sample. Each class was

observed daily for the duration of one whole unit lesson which was identical for all the

classes. Observations were made for the whole period and accompanied by taping of

the class verbal discourse.

Instrumentation

To described and analyze the interaction between teachers and students,

Flanders interaction Analysis System was used. This system consists of 10 categories,

7 are assigned to teacher talk, 2 to student talk and 1 to short period of silence or

confusion. Statements are classified as either direct or indirect in terms of whether they

tend to restrict or limit student participation and freedom through teachers’ giving of

commands, directions and criticisms; or stimulate students to participate through

teacher’s praise, encouragement and clarification of students ideas. Categories 1- 4

identify the indirect influence; categories 5 – 7 represent direct influence; categories 8

and 9 are for student talk; and the category 10 for silence or confusion. To get a vivid

description of the verbal interaction between the teachers and students, questionnaires

were constructed by the researcher partly based on Flanders Interaction Analysis

System. The questionnaires answered by the students and teachers.

Procedure

Before the researcher was able to use the Flanders System of Interaction

Analysis, she had to memorize the categories with the corresponding number and

coded sample written classroom discourses. For a dry-run, she observed and coded

sample classroom interactions in Mina De Oro Catholic High School Geometry classes.

The questionnaires were pre-tested in the same school after the observations. Both the

teachers and students were requested to answer the questionnaires.

Statistics Used

The mean of the student-given ratings from each class was taken so that there

was only one score for every item.

To determine whether there is a significant relationship between students and

teachers given ratings, Pearson Product – Moment Coefficient of correlation was used.

The Friedman’s Two-Way Analysis of Variance Way may also be used to find the

significant difference between the ratings given by both the teachers and students.

QUESTIONNAIRE

Please fill the blanks:

Name ______________________________________ Date _______________

Name of School ________________________________________________________

Subject _______________________ Teacher ___________________

Instruction:

Rate each item independently using a five-level, process-based scale that addressed

the items in approximately the following terminology:

1 – Poor

2- Fair

3 – Good

4 – Very Good

5 - Excellent

Emphasis on meaning and understanding Rate

- Communicates that math problems cannot always be solved quickly

- Communicates that some problems have ore than one answer

- Focuses on what students do know rather than what they don’t know

- Uses informal assessment to provide feedback to students

- Emphasizes that math is useful and makes sense

- Provide opportunities to restate and formulate problems

- Provides opportunities to ask questions, consider different possibilities

- Expresses math through pictures, diagrams, graphs, words, symbols

or numerical examples

- Uses variety of mathematical tools, models, manipulative, calculators,

or computer

- Provides opportunities for students to plan, invent, or design

mathematical ideas, projects, activities or products

Encouragement of students’ autonomy and persistence Rate

- Students learn at their own pace

- Students who perform with difficulty are not labeled as failures

- All students are expected to be able to learn mathematics

- Students work on extended assignments or investigations

- Speed is not an important factor in determining students’ achievement

- Students are encouraged to think and be persistent and self-directed

- Students work together to develop mathematical thinking skills

Direct teaching of higher-order strategies Rate

- Teacher helps students to formulate and refine hypothesis

- Opportunities are given for collecting and organizing data

and information

- Teacher helps students to learn and practice a variety of strategies for

doing mathematics

- Teacher encourages students to reflect on their own problem-solving

methods and strategies

- Students are asked to explain concepts orally and in writing

- Opportunities are given to work with open-ended or poorly defined

real-life problems

- Students are provided situations in which they enjoy doing mathematics

Bibliography

Textbooks and Journals

Amidon, Edmund (1967). Interaction Analysis: Theory Research and Application.

Massachusetts. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Barr, George and Rees, Ruth (1984). Diagnosis and Prescription. Some Common Math

Problems. London. Harper and Row Publishers.

Bellack, Arno (1966). The Language of the Classroom. New York: Columbia University,

Teachers College Press.

Flanders, Ned (1970). Analyzing Teacher Behavior. Massachusetts. Addison-Wesley

Publishing Company.

Kulm, Gerald (1994). Mathematics Assessment. What Works in the Classroom. San

Francisco. Jossey – Bass Publishers.

Owens, Douglas (1993). Research Ideas for the Classroom. Middle Grades

Mathematics. New York. Macmillan Publishing Company.

Rosenbloom, D., Torrance, E., Flanders, N. (1966). Characteristics of Mathematics

Teachers that Affect Students Learning. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

Online References

Clarke, David (2004). Teaching Classroom Learning and Learning Classroom Research.

The Mathematics Educator. University of Melbourne – Australia

Ulep, Soledad. Student Learning in Mathematical Interactions. National Institute for

Science and Mathematics Education Development. University of the Philippines –

Quezon City

Unpublished Master’s Thesis

Banogon, Corazon M. (1976). Spoken Classroom Interaction Between Teachers and

Students in Mathematics Classes. Unpublished Seminar Paper, University of the

Philippines.

Japson, Lilia (1972). A Descriptive Analysis of Teacher-Student Interaction in the First

Year Science Classes. Unpublished Seminar Paper, University of the Philippines.

Masiluñgan, Juanita (1970). Descriptive Analysis of the Secondary Teachers’ Classroom

Teaching Techniques. Unpublished Seminar Paper, University of the Philippines.

Pagunsan, Carmen (1971). A Study of Teacher-Student Interaction in High School

Class. Unpublished Seminar Paper, University of the Philippines.

Pambid, Judith (1971). The Performance of Student Under Student Teachers and

Supervising Teachers: A Comparative Study. Unpublished Seminar Paper, University of

the Philippines.

Pedillas, Eden Eva (1973). Pattern of Verbal Interaction in the Classroom of Selected

Elementary School Science Teaching at OAS North Elementary School OAS District.

Unpublished Seminar Paper, University of the Philippines.

Tezon, Corazon (1977). Classroom Interaction in Chemistry Class and Laboratory.

Unpublished Seminar Paper, University of the Philippines.