Presentational Behaviors and Student Achievement in Mathematics

Author(s): Lyle R. Smith

Source: The Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 78, No. 5 (May - Jun., 1985), pp. 292-298
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27540139
Accessed: 17-07-2016 11:17 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal
of Educational Research

This content downloaded from 131.91.169.193 on Sun, 17 Jul 2016 11:17:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Presentational Behaviors and Student
Achievement in Mathematics
LYLE R. SMITH
Augusta College
ABSTRACT High school students (n = 337) in
algebra classes were presented lessons on direct variation.
After the lessons, each class was tested on comprehension of
the material. The lessons were tape-recorded and analyzed ac
cording to low-inference teacher behaviors. Lesson structure
and categories of teacher vagueness were related significantly
to student achievement. These findings are discussed in rela
tion to previous research on low-inference teacher behaviors.
A growing body of
behaviors andresearch has on
their effect focused onlearning.
student teacher
Rosenshine (1971) noted that much of this research has
studied high-inference behaviors (which are open to
subjectivity). Recent research (e.g., Murray, 1983;
Smith & Land, 1981; Smith & Sanders, 1981) has
studied low-inference behaviors (which can be observed
and objectively quantified). One such low-inference
behavior this study investigated is referred to as teacher
use of vagueness terms.
Vagueness terms. In correlational research by Hiller,
Fisher, and Kaess (1969), Smith (1977), Dunkin (1978),
and Dunkin and Doenau (1980), significant negative
correlations between teacher use of vagueness terms and
student achievement were reported. Hiller et al. defined
vagueness terms according to the following nine cate
gories of imprecision (examples are included in paren
theses): (1) ambiguous designation (somehow, some
where, other), (2) approximation (somewhat, sort of,
mostly, almost, about), (3) "bluffing" and recovery
(actually, anyway, and so on, as you know, frankly, in a
nutshell, in essence, in fact, in other words, obviously,
of course, so to speak, to make a long story short, you
know), (4) error admission (excuse me, I guess, I'm
sorry), (5) indeterminate quantification (a bunch, a cou
ple, a few, several, various), (6) multiplicity (sorts [of],
kinds [of], aspects), (7) negated intensifiers (not all, not
many, not very), (8) possibility (chances are, maybe,
might, perhaps), and (9) probability (ordinarily, fre
quently, in general, sometimes, usually).
292
This content downloaded from 131.91.169.193 on Sun, 17 Jul 2016 11:17:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Smith and Land (1981) reviewed 10 experimental
studies that reported a causal relationship between
vagueness terms and achievement. In all 10 studies,
teacher use of vagueness terms negatively affected stu
dent learning. However, in all such studies of teacher
vagueness, frequencies of vagueness terms were reported
as totals across all nine categories of terms, rather than as
subtotals to indicate occurrencies in each of the nine
distinct groups. For example, Hiller et al. (1969) reported
that the large number of vagueness terms identified in
their study (more than 230 distinct terms occurring a total
of more than 1,500 times) precluded testing individual
vagueness categories for significance.
In an initial attempt to identify vagueness categories
that have the greatest effect on achievement, Smith (in
press) investigated the bluffing and recovery category as a
distinct variable separate from the remaining categories
of vagueness terms. Two reasons are cited for analyzing
bluffing and recovery phrases separate from the remain
ing vagueness terms. First, bluffing and recovery phrases
are more representative of superfluous or "filler"
phrases (e.g., in essence, you know, and so on), as
phrases of "dismissal of detail" (e.g., so to speak,
anyway, to make a long story short), and as phrases of
opinion (e.g., clearly, obviously). The remaining eight
categories of vagueness terms are more representative of
teacher uncertainty, or a lack of command of the subject
matter. The second reason is that bluffing and recovery
phrases represent a large percentage (20% or more) of the
total number of vagueness terms used in communication.
Smith (in press) reported that bluffing and recovery
phrases produced no significant effect on student learning,
whereas vagueness terms from the remainder of the cate
gories caused a significant negative effect on achievement.
Two cautions should be borne in mind when interpreting
the results of the 1984 study. First, the study was con
ducted over a brief period of time and is an experimental
or laboratory study such as the "Dr. Fox studies" (cf.
Ware & Williams, 1975) involving tape-recorded lessons,
rather than a field study in which the teacher interacts with
Address correspondence to Lyle R. Smith, School of Educa
tion, Augusta College, Augusta, G A 30910.
May/June 1985 [Vol. 78(No. 5)] 293
students. Second, the previous research focused on high
school social studies students and does not necessarily
generalize to the secondary school mathematics classroom.
Therefore, one purpose of this study was to examine in a
field setting the effect of bluffing and recovery phrases, as
well as the effect of other vagueness phrases, on student
achievement in high school mathematics.
Mazes. Hunt (1965, 1968) referred to mazes as units
of discourse that do not make semantic sense. Smith
(1977) defined mazes to be false starts or halts in speech,
redundantly spoken words, and tangles of words. Fagan
(1982) investigated relationships between the occurrence
of mazes, sentence complexity, and the use of connec
tives in sentences. Fagan reported a positive relationship
between the frequency of mazes a person utters and the
complexity of sentences the person attempts to commu
nicate. Fagan suggested that mazes may be a product of
language planning during discourse.
Smith and Land (1981) reviewed six studies that
reported a negative relationship between frequency of
teacher mazes and student achievement. In four of the six
studies the relationships were significant beyond the .05
level. One purpose of this study was to determine the rela
tionship between mazes and other low-inference
behaviors, and to determine the combined effects of these
behaviors on student learning in high school mathematics.
A review of literature indicates that no previous research
has examined the joint effects on achievement of
vagueness terms, mazes, and lesson structure.
Lesson structure. The structure of teacher communi
cation has been addressed by several educational research
ers. Bruner (1962, 1964) referred to structure in terms of
meaningful relationships among concepts. Gagn? (1970)
studied structure as it relates to hierarchical organizations
of knowledge. Ausubel (1960, 1963) related structure to
the use of advance organizers that introduce subsuming
concepts involving the content to be learned. Bellack,
Kliebard, Hyman, and Smith (1966) examined structure as
a series of pedagogical moves that affect subsequent
teacher-student interactions. More recently, Anderson
(1967, 1969, 1970, 1974), Anderson and Lee (1975),
Browne and Anderson (1974), Mathis and Shrum (1977),
and Trindade (1972) defined another method to determine
a low-inference measure of the degree of structure in class
room communication. These researchers indicated that the
degree of structure had a direct effect on student achieve
ment in science. Butterworth (1974) found that structure
also affected attitudes and perceptions of science students.
Simmons (1977) concluded that structure influenced suc
cess in mastering psychomotor skills (such as using a com
pound microscope) of science students. Ferraro, Lee, and
Anderson (1977) found that structure affects the learning
of science students of various mental abilities.
The research of Anderson and his colleagues focused on
the teaching and learning of science concepts. To determine
if lesson structure is a global variable that affects learning in
This content downloaded from 131.91.169.193 on Sun, 17 Jul 2016 11:17:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
a variety of content areas, Smith and Sanders (1981) con
ducted research involving fifth-grade social studies students.
The degree of lesson structure significantly affected the
achievement of these students. Smith and Hodgin (1982)
reported that high school mathematics students com
prehended written material better when the material had a
high degree of structure. Therefore, lesson structure appears
to be a variable that affects student learning, regardless of
the grade level or the subject matter area.
Anderson (1969) studied lesson structure in terms of
the way in which new concepts are introduced and in
terms of the frequency with which concepts are repeated
from one sentence of communication to the next.
Anderson proposed the following equation to define ?,
the degree of structure:
Alo ? 2rti
where ?i equals the number of concepts repeated in a
pair of consecutive sentences and n\ equals the number
of concepts in one or the other of a contiguous pair of
sentences that are not repeated from one to the other.
Examples of the use of this formula are given in the
discussion concerning Table 1.
Anderson (1969) defined total lesson structure to be
the mean of all values of By in a lesson. Anderson (1970)
suggested that a mean above .50 represents a lesson of
high structure, whereas a mean below .30 represents a
lesson of low structure.
Table 1 shows an excerpt of a lesson on direct varia
tion, a topic appropriate for beginning high school
algebra. Key concepts and processes are numbered to
facilitate computation of structure. As in the study by
Smith and Sanders (1981), a concept was defined to be a
word or phrase that refers to a group of one or more
things possessing common characteristics. Smith and
Sanders pointed out that such a definition includes
phrases such as "function" and "slope" as concepts, but
that this definition also includes such phrases as "value"
and "multiplication" as concepts. Therefore, as sug
gested by Anderson (1969), only key concepts (concepts
that represent ideas directly related to one or more of the
lesson objectives) were used in the computation of each
value of ?. In this study, function and slope were
classified as key concepts, but value and multiplication
were not classified as key concepts. Vagueness terms and
mazes are shown in italics in the excerpt.
Referring to Table 1, the procedure for computing B,
from one segment of communication to the next is
shown. Segment 1 concerns two key concepts (direct
variation and function), which are concepts 1 and 3.
Segment 2 concerns four key concepts (direct variation,
slope, function, and constant of variation), concepts 1,
4, 3, and 5. Therefore segments 1 and 2 have two key
concepts in common (concepts 1 and 3) and two key
concepts that appear in one segment but not the other
 294 Journal of Educational Research

(concepts 4 and 5). As shown in Table 1, the value of B^ Procedure

for segments 1 and 2 is
2(*i) = 2(2) =
/lo + 2(n,) 2 + 2(2)
Similarly, in computing ? for segments 2 and 3, Table 1
shows that the key concept "constant of variation" is
common to both segments and that there are five key
concepts that appear in one segment but not the other
(concepts 1,3, and 4 appear in segment 2, and concepts
2 and 6 in segment 3). Therefore, the # value for
segments 2 and 3 equals 2(l)/[5 + 2(1)], or .29. Readers
who are unfamiliar with the commonality variable are
advised to verify the computations for the remaining BA
values shown in Table 1.
Method
Subjects. Subjects were 337 high school students who
were enrolled in 19 beginning algebra classes in the
Austin (Texas) Independent School District. The classes
were selected by virtue of the 19 teachers' willingness to
teach a 15- to 30-minute lesson on the topic of direct
variation to one of their regularly scheduled classes. The
students had not been previously taught this topic in
class. All 19 teachers used textbooks that included direct
variation and corresponding examples and applications.
Over 95% of the students were of Caucasian descent,
and all 337 students had previously taken the California
Achievement Test (CAT) in mathematics. Since it was
not feasible to randomly assign students to teachers, the
CAT scores were used as a covariate in an attempt to
equalize the 19 classes in terms of ability.
The 19 lessons analyzed in this study were tape
recorded, transcribed, and analyzed as reported by Smith
(1977). Twenty lessons were included in the 1977 analysis,
but the recording of one lesson was of poor quality, and
it was rendered unusable in this study. In the earlier
research, structure for each lesson was not determined,
and vagueness terms were analyzed as totals across all
nine categories of terms. Mazes were quantified in the
1977 study, but coders failed to reach 80% agreement on
identification and location of mazes. Therefore, this
study is an extension of the earlier study.
The 19 teachers were given lesson objectives involving
the topic of direct variation. The objectives involved
defining the general form of equation for direct varia
tion, writing equations involving direct variation, solv
ing for the constant of variation when sufficient infor
mation was given, and solving for the value of one
variable when the corresponding value of the second
variable was given. After each teacher presented his or
her lesson, a 14-item test that focused on the lesson ob
jectives was administered. The teachers were not shown
the test before they presented their lessons.
To conduct the analyses for this study, the transcripts
from the tape-recorded lessons were read as the lessons
were played aloud to ensure fidelity between the recordings
and the transcripts. Minor changes were made in the
transcripts to account for teacher or student remarks that
were not intelligible in the recordings. No attempts were
made to infer what was said in such cases. Instead, a note
was made at appropriate places on the transcripts indi
cating that utterances were not understandable.
After the transcripts were deemed to be as accurate as
possible, three coders were trained to identify and quantify

Table 1.?Excerpt from Lesson

Key concepts and processes in excerpt 1. Direct variation (definition)

2. Direct variation (example)
3. Function
4. Slope
5. Constant of variation
6. Writing an equation involving direct variation
7. Solving for one component of ordered pair when corresponding second component is given

Key Concepts B?
1. Direct variation is a little different from idea of linear rela . . . function. 1,3 ?

2. Instead of m for the slope, as in, in, in, . . . function, you know, we will let k be 1,4,3,5 2 + 2(2)= *^7
our constant of variation.

3. Now, on . . ., let's look at this example. It says, "S varies directly as T." Maybe we 2,5,6 5 + 2 = -29
can write an equation involving our constant of variation. Bob? (Student responds, "S
equals KT." Teacher writes equation on board.)
4. The problem says that S equals 4 when T equals 8. Solve for the constant. That's not 2,5 1+2(2)= *^?
very hard to do. (Teacher writes 4 = K?8 on board. Student says, "K equals one half.")
5. OK, now, we need to ... Is everyone with me? We need to find the value of T when S 2,7 2 + 20)= ^
equals . . . when S equals ... 3. So 3 equals one-half T. (Teacher writes 3 = ViT.)
Multiplying both sides by 2 gives T equals 6. OK? (Teacher writes 3x2 = 2 x Vi? = T.)
Note. Vagueness terms and mazes are italicized.

This content downloaded from 131.91.169.193 on Sun, 17 Jul 2016 11:17:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
May/June 1985 [Vol. 78(No. 5)] 295

bluffing and recovery terms, the remaining eight categories
of vagueness terms, teacher mazes, and lesson structure. For
the bluffing and recovery, remaining vagueness, and mazes
variables, coder reliability was checked in two ways. The
percentage of agreement on the total number of identifica
tions made in quantifying a variable was checked by (a) sub
tracting the lowest total of identifications for a particular
lesson from the highest total of identifications for that
lesson, (b) dividing this difference by the highest total of
identifications for the lesson, and (c) subtracting the
resulting quotient from one. Also, for each lesson, the
percentage of agreement on the location of identifications
made in quantifying a variable was checked by dividing the
total number of identifications agreed on by all three coders
by the arithmetic mean of the three totals of identification
made by the coders for that lesson. These reliability coeffi
cients were conducted four times for each of the variables of
bluffing and recovery, remaining vagueness terms, and
mazes. If agreement of at least 80% on both the number of
identifications and the location of identifications was not
met for a reliability check, the coders were given practice
sessions before they continued quantifying the variables.
The lesson structure variable was the most difficult
for coders to analyze. Key concepts and processes were
identified and agreed upon before the analysis was con
ducted. Coders then were trained to identify blocks of
communication based on the objectives for the lesson.
For example, one block of communication consisted of
identifying an equation that described a particular direct
variation. A second block of information involved solv
ing for the constant of variation for a given direct varia
tion. A third block of information involved solving for
the value of one variable when the corresponding value
of a second variable was given. The difficulty arose
because a typical lesson involved the teacher asking
questions related to one of the lesson objectives and
then having to digress because student responses in
dicated a lack of understanding concerning a pre
requisite concept or process. Because the three coders
could not consistently agree on when one block of infor
mation was completed and another was begun, each
lesson was coded for structure by all three coders as a
group. When there were discrepancies in perspectives
concerning coding of the structure variable, a majority
decision was used as the basis for analysis. In 15 of the
19 lessons, there were no such discrepancies in perspec
tive. In three of the lessons, one discrepancy was solved
through the majority decision process. In one lesson,
three discrepancies were solved through this process.
Results
Table 2 shows the mean class posttest scores, adjusted
by using the CAT mathematics scores as a covariate. The
four coded variables, bluffing and recovery terms, remain
ing vagueness terms, mazes, and lesson structure, also are
shown for each of the 19 teachers. The bluffing and
recovery variable, the variable concerning remaining
vagueness terms, and the mazes variable all were analyzed
in terms of their frequencies per minute of teacher talk.
As shown in Table 2, the adjusted posttest mean for
the entire sample was 10.17 out of a possible 14 points.

Tables 2.?Posttest Results and Coded Variables

Remaining Mazes
"Bluffing" and vagueness terms per min. Mean
Cov.-adj. recovery per min. per min. teacher teacher lesson
Teacher class means teacher talk talk talk structure

1 9.85 0.55 2.33 0.84 0.49

2 10.04 0.32 1.28 3.92 0.48
3 10.62 0.48 1.71 3.33 0.54
4 10.87 0.44 1.09 1.10 0.68
5 10.59 0.19 0.89 1.49 0.63
6 9.95 0.39 1.92 3.66 0.62
7 12.04 0.23 1.85 0.84 0.82
8 10.76 0.81 2.62 2.32 0.66
9 12.11 1.51 2.42 4.25 0.68
10 11.90 0.38 1.13 0.96 0.66
11 11.53 0.38 0.99 2.24 0.61
12 8.83 0.39 1.44 3.21 0.50
13 7.01 1.21 2.91 2.26 0.51
14 10.90 0.78 0.60 1.86 0.62
15 7.91 0.54 2.47 2.59 0.63
16 11.21 0.81 1.93 1.79 0.55
17 8.17 0.29 2.42 1.48 0.57
18 10.37 0.16 2.19 2.02 0.82
19 8.54 0.50 2.00 6.18 0.55
M 10.17 0.55 1.80 2.44 0.61
SD l Al 0.12 0.66 1.37 0.10

This content downloaded from 131.91.169.193 on Sun, 17 Jul 2016 11:17:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

The split-half reliability of the test was .83 after the
Spearman-Brown correction formula was applied.
A total of 189 bluffing and recovery terms were iden
tified by the coders, and 614 vagueness terms from the
remaining categories of vagueness were identified.
Therefore, bluffing and recovery phrases represented
24% of the total number of vagueness terms identified.
The mean values for lesson structure ranged from .48 to
.82, with a mean of .61.
The coder reliability for quantification of mazes was
higher than reliability reported by Smith (1977). Table 3
reports the mean percentage agreements for the coders.
Lesson structure coder reliability is not reported in Table
3 because of the coding procedures previously discussed.
Table 4 is an intercorrelation matrix showing correlations
among the variables investigated. The positive correlation
between mean lesson structure and mean class achievement
was significant beyond the .05 level, as was the negative cor
relation between mean achievement and the eight categories
of vagueness terms excluding the bluffing and recovery
category. The correlation between bluffing and recovery
terms and mean achievement was insignificant. Mazes were
negatively, but not significantly, correlated with mean
achievement. It should be noted a positive correlation was
found between bluffing and recovery terms and the remain
ing vagueness terms, although the correlation did not quite
reach the .05 significance level.
A multiple regression analysis was performed to deter
mine the proportion of variance in the adjusted mean
posttest scores explained by the vagueness terms, the
Table 3.?Coder Reliability: Mean Percentage Agreement
Total Location of
Variable Identifications Identifications
"Bluffing" and recovery terms 94 89
Remaining vagueness terms 92 90
Mazes 86 84
Table 4.?Intercorrelation Matrix
12 3 4
1. Covariance-adj. 1.00
mean achievement
2. "Bluffing" and -.02 1.00
recovery terms per min.
teacher talk
3. Remaining vagueness -.47 .43 1.00
terms per min. teacher
talk
4. Mazes per min. teacher -.25 .26 .15 1.00
talk
5. Mean lesson structure .51 -.18 -.02 -.31 1.00
Note: Correlations greater than .46 are significant beyond .05 level.
This content downloaded from 131.91.169.193 on Sun, 17 Jul 2016 11:17:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
2% Journal of Educational Research
lesson structure, and the mazes. The bluffing and
recovery variable was excluded from this analysis because
of its small correlation with achievement. Table 5 details
results of the multiple regression analysis. Unstandard
ized regression coefficients, as well as standardized
regression coefficients (beta weights) are shown. The
total variance in posttest scores explained by the three
variables was 47.2% (multiple R = .69) and the overall
value of Fwas significant beyond the .02 level, F(3,15) =
4.47. As shown in Table 5, the multiple regression equa
tion was: Posttest M = 7.58 + 7.34 S - 1.01 V - 0.03
M. Elimination of the mazes variable in the analysis
yielded a multiple R of .69, F(2,16) = 7.14, p < .01, and
equation was: Posttest M = 7.44 + 7.47 S - 1.02 V.
Discussion
This study examined four low-inference teacher
behaviors and their effect on student learning in high
school mathematics. Bluffing and recovery phrases were
not significantly correlated with achievement. Mazes
were negatively correlated with achievement, but the rela
tionship was not significant. The correlation between
achievement and vagueness terms other than bluffing and
recovery terms was significant (r = - Al, p < .05), as
was the correlation between achievement and lesson
structure (r = .51, p < .05). The results concerning
bluffing and recovery phrases support research reported
by Smith (in press) in that there was no significant
relationship between bluffing and recovery terms and
achievement. The previous study by Smith concerned
high school social studies students, so this study involving
secondary mathematics students provides evidence that
these results are generalizable across subject matter areas.
Caution should be exercised in interpreting the results
concerning lesson structure. The following four remarks
concern analysis of the lesson structure variable. First,
subject matter experts should be involved in identifying
the key concepts and processes to be considered in such
an analysis. Selection of the key concepts and processes
should be related closely to objectives outlined for the
lesson. Second, Anderson (1969) developed the theory of
lesson structure based on more fluent presentations,
typically of an informal lecture format. This remark is
5 based on examples Anderson presented and on comments
made in subsequent research reports on structure. This
study analyzed classroom communication that involved
more teacher repetition of definitions, examples, and
procedures to be followed, and a high degree of redun
dance was present in the lessons. For this reason, blocks
of communication were analyzed as units, rather than
single sentences as suggested by Anderson. A typical
block of communication would involve the teacher defin
ing a term, asking a question to see if students
understood the definition, and then responding to stu
dent questions and comments. Such a procedure of
May/June 1985 [Vol. 78(No. 5)1
Table 5.?Results of Multiple Regression Analysis
Unstandardized Standard
Regression Error
Coefficients of Estimate Beta
Variable (b) for b Weights
Lesson 7.34 2.97
structure (S)
Vagueness -1.01 0.42
terms (V)
Mazes (M) -0.03 0.21
Constant 7.58 2.15
analyzing blocks of communication rather than single
sentences as units decreased redundancy in the lesson
structure analysis, but the mean value for lesson structure
still was 0.61, a very high value when compared to results
of research by Anderson and his colleagues. It is ap
parent that lessons comprised of practice or drill work
typically will have high mean values for structures.
A third remark is that Anderson (1969) focused only
on key concepts in analysis of lesson structure, whereas
this study necessarily included key processes because of
the nature of the subject matter and the lesson objec
tives. This may explain the high mean values for lesson
structure because the learning of processes typically re
quires redundance through practice.
The fourth remark is that coders found it difficult to
code the lesson structure variable. Agreement was reached
in certain cases only after the three coders discussed the
analyses as a group. Such difficulty would have been less
evident if the lessons were surveys of concepts involving
less "give and take" between teachers and students.
Given the preceding four remarks, it appears that lesson
structure has the potential to be a powerful indicator of the
degree to which a teacher has organized his or her lesson.
Teacher trainers and evaluators should focus on low
inference behaviors that affect student achievement. Smith
(1982) reported that teachers can be trained to reduce the
frequency of vagueness terms and mazes they use. It
should be noted that vagueness should not be avoided at
the expense of distorting the truth. For example, if a rule
"generally" applies, the teacher should not simply state
the rule, leaving the impression that the rule has no excep
tions. Instead, the teacher could state the rule, give in
stances of the rule, and then state exceptions to the rule.
A final suggestion is that it is unreasonable to expect
teachers to eliminate all vagueness terms and mazes and
to present lessons with mean structure values greater than
0.60. Instead, such low-inference behaviors should be
used to help teachers remain aware of possible inhibitors
of student achievement and to identify teachers who need
to increase or decrease behaviors whose frequencies ap
proach thresholds at which learning is impeded.
This content downloaded from 131.91.169.193 on Sun, 17 Jul 2016 11:17:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
297
Multiple
R Significance
0.49 .51 .26 6.13 .03
-0.46 .69 .47 5.83 .03
-0.03 .69 .47 0.02
REFERENCES
Anderson, O. R. (1967). The effects of varying structure in science
content on the acquisition of science knowledge. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 5, 361-364.
Anderson, O. R. (1969). Structure in teaching: Theory and analysis.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Anderson, O. R. (1970). A comparative analysis of structure in
teacher communicated science content. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 7, 227-244.
Anderson, O. R. (1974). Research on structure in teaching. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 11, 219-230.
Anderson, O. R., & Lee, M. T. (1975). Structure in science
communications and student recall of knowledge. Science Educa
tion, 59, 127-138.
Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning
and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educa
tional Psychology, 51, 267-272.
Ausubel, E. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning.
New York: Grune and Stratton.
Bellack, A. A., Kliebard, H. M., Hyman, R. T., & Smith, F. L., Jr.
(1966). The language of the classroom. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Browne, J., & Anderson, O. R. (1974). Lesson kinetic structure
analysis as related to pupil awareness and achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 66, 864-871.
Bruner, J. S. (1962). The process of education. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1964). The course of cognitive growth. American
Psychologist, 19, 1-15.
Butterworth, T. M. (1974). The effect of lesson verbal structure on
student affective learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
11, 351-360.
Dunkin, M. J. (1978). Student characteristics, classroom processes,
and student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70,
998-1009.
Dunkin, M. J., & Doenau, S. J. (1980). A replication study of unique
and joint contributions to variance in student achievement. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 72, 394-403.
Fagan, W. T. (1982). The relationship of the "maze" to language
planning and production. Research in the Teaching of English, 16, 89-95.
Ferraro, E., Lee, M. T., & Anderson, O. R. (1977). The effects of
structure in science communications on knowledge acquisition and
conceptual organization by students of varying mental maturity.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14, 441-447.
Gagn?, R. M. (1970). The conditions of learning (2nd ed.). New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Hiller, J. H., Fisher, G. A., & Kaess, W. A. (1969). A computer
investigation of verbal characteristics of effective classroom lectur
ing. American Educational Research Journal, 6, 661-675.
Hunt, K. W. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade
levels. Champaign, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.
Hunt, K. W. (1968). An instrument to measure syntactic maturity.
Tallahassee: Florida State University. (ERIC Document Reproduc
tion Service No. ED 182 465).

Mathis, P. M., & Shrum, J. W. (1977). The effect of kinetic structure
on achievement and total attendance time in audio-tutorial biology.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14, 105-115.
Murray, H. G. (1983). Low-inference classroom teaching behaviors
and student ratings of college teaching effectiveness. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 75, 138-149.
Rosenshine, B. (1971). Teaching behaviours and student achievement.
London: National Foundation for Educational Research in
England and Wales.
Simmons, E. S. (1977). The effects of kinetic structure on knowledge
about and performance of a psychomotor skill: Teaching students
to use the compound microscope. Science Education, 61, 19-28.
Smith, L. R. (1977). Aspects of teacher discourse and student
achievement in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 8, 195-204.
Smith, L. R. (1982, March). Training teachers to teach clearly: Theory
into practice. Paper presented at the meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New York.
Smith, L. R. (in press). Effect of teacher vagueness and use of lecture
notes on student performance. Journal of Educational Research.
Smith, L. R., & Hodgin, B. N. (1982). A low-inference indicator
of lesson structure in mathematics. Augusta, Georgia: Augusta Col
lege. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No ED 207 856)
Smith, L. R., & Land, M. L. (1981). Low-inference verbal behaviors
related to teacher clarity. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 17, 31-42.
Smith, L. R., & Sanders, K. (1981). The effects on student achieve
ment and student perception of varying structure in social studies
content. Journal of Educational Research, 74, 333-336.
Trindade, A. L. (1972). Structures in science teaching and learning
outcomes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 9, 65-74.
Ware, J. E., & Williams, R. G. (1975). The Dr. Fox effect: A study
of lecture effectiveness and ratings of instruction. Journal of
Medical Education, 50, 149-156.
Harold Yukeris Provost
of Hofstra University.
He has cerebral palsy.
President's Committee on
Employment of the Handicapped
Washington, D.C. 20210
Produced by The School of Visual Arts Public Advertising System
This content downloaded from 131.91.169.193 on Sun, 17 Jul 2016 11:17:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
298 Journal of Educational Research
Directions for
JER Contributors
The Journal of Educational Research publishes
manuscripts that describe or synthesize research of
direct relevance to educational practice in elementary
and secondary schools. Special consideration is given to
articles that focus on variables that can be manipulated
in educational settings. All varieties of research are con
sidered?experiments, evaluations, ethnography,
replications, etc. Rigorous assessments of the validities
of claims for products, testing materials, and educa
tional practices are of particular interest. The editors
invite essays dealing with issues that have been raised in
the JER.
1. Contributors should submit two copies of each
manuscript to be considered for publication. In addi
tion, the author should keep an exact copy so the editors
can refer to specific pages and lines if a question arises.
The manuscript should be double-spaced with wide
margins.
2. Each manuscript must be accompanied by an
abstract of about 100 words. It should precede the text
and include brief statements of the problem, the
method, the data, and conclusions. In the case of a
manuscript commenting on an article previously
published in the JER, the abstract should state the
topics covered and central thesis.
3. The Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association, 3rd ed., the American
Psychological Association, 1983, should be used as a
style reference in preparation of manuscripts.
4. Reproductions of figures (graphs and charts) may be
submitted for review purposes, but the originals must be
supplied if the manuscript is accepted for publication.
Tables should be prepared and captioned exactly as they
are to appear in the journal.
5. Avoid explanatory notes whenever possible by incor
porating their content in the text. For essential notes,
identify them with consecutive superscripts and list them
in a section entitled Notes at the end of the text.
6. Accepted manuscripts are normally published within
six months of acceptance. Each author receives two
complimentary copies of the issue in which his or her
article appears and permission to reproduce additional
copies of that article. Reprints are also available through
the JER.
7. Address all submissions to the editor, Journal of
Educational Research, Heldref Publications, 4000
Albemarle Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20016.