You are on page 1of 20

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 implies activity and hence interactivity. Next, the student who is learning at a distance interacts 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 teachinglearning 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 observers 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 teachers statements, teachers 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 its 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. Masuligan (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 teachers 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 ones 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 teachers 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 teachers 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 students evaluation of teachers in terms of some scale which can be observed by them can be one of the basis for the teachers 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 teachers 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 Friedmans 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 ______________________________________ Subject _______________________ 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 Date _______________ Name of School ________________________________________________________ Teacher ___________________

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 dont 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 Masters 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. Masilugan, 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.