REPORT RESUMES

24 AA 000 256
ED 013 988
CLASSROOM INTERACTION -- REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.
BY- GARRARD, JUDY
TEXAS UNIV., AUSTIN, RES. AND DEV. CTR. FOR ED.
PUB DATE 18 JUL 66
REPORT NUMBER BR...5...0249...27
CONTRACT OEC -6 -10 -108
EDRS PRICE MF40.25 HC...$0.80 18P.

DESCRIPTORS... *STUDENT TEACHER RELATIONSHIP, *INTERACTION

PROCESS ANALYSIS, *LITERATURE REVIEWS, TEACHER EDUCATION,
SOCIAL STATUS, *STUDENT TEACHERS, *MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES,
VERBAL COMMUNICATION

THIS PAPER REVIEWS RECENT MAJOR STUDIES CONCERNED WITH

CLASSROOM INTERACTION WHICH ENCOMPASSES BOTH THE VERBAL AND
NONVERBAL BEHAVIOR OF A TEACHER AND THE PUPILS IN ELEMENTARY
WHICH
AND SECONDARY CLASSROOMS. REVIEW OF THE THEORIES UPON
THESE STUDIES WERE BASED WAS NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THIS
STUDY. PART 1 BRIEFLY DISCUSSES TWO APPROACHES TO THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ITEMS FOR AN OBSERVATIONAL SCHEDULE, THE SIGN
SYSTEM AND THE CATEGORY SYSTEM, AND REVIEWS FOUR INSTRUMENTS
INSTRUMENTS ARE
OF THE OBJECTIVE CATEGORIZATION TYPE. THESE
THOSE BY BALES, WITHALL, MEDLEY AND MITZEL, AND FLANDERS.PART
REPRESENTATIVE STUDIES
2 DISCUSSES THE FINDINGS REPORTED FROM
OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION CONCERNED WITH THREE MAIN
AREAS -- ELEMENTARY - SECONDARY, INTRAELEMENTARY1
AND
TEACHER...PUPIL. PART 3 DISCUSSES THE HISTORY OF THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THREE-ELEMENTS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
THE
RESEARCH -- MEASUREMENT, CRITERIA, AND DATA COLLECTION.
FIRST OF TWO APPENDIXES PRESENTS TWO PREVIOUSLY UNPUBLISHED
RESEARCH PAPERS. ONE PAPER DEALS WITH "VERBAL BEHAVIOR AND
SOCIAL STATUS," AND THE OTHER DEALS WITH "STUDENT TEACHERS
PRESENTS THE
AND INTERACTION ANALYSES." THE SECOND APPENDIX
"FAIR" CATEGORIES WHICH ARE ADAPTED FROM THE FLANDERS
INTERACTION SCALE. (AL)
 eis c--25-(7-
19A

July 18, 1966

Counseling and Assessment Division

Research and Development Center in Teacher Education
College of Education
The University of Texas

U. S. Office of Education

Review of the Literature: Classroom Interaction*

Judy Garrard

* The present study was undertaken in connection with this project

which is sponsored by USOE grant (DE-6-10-108). The data used
was gathered under the auspices of the Personality, Teacher
Education and Teacher Behavior Research Project conducted under
USOE grant 0E-3-10-032.
 Introduction

Purpose. The purpose of this paper is to review the recent,

major studies concerned with classroom interaction. The term, classroom

interaction, encompasses both the verbal and nonverbal behavior that

takes place between a teacher and her pupils in elementary and secondary

classrooms.

Scope and Limitations. The scope.of this paper is both narrow and

broad--narrow in terms of not being an extensive and exhaustive summary

of all of the studies in which interaction was the research subject; broad

in that several different kinds of studies using various observation

instruments will be reviewed.

General Sources. The reader is referred to several excellent reviews

of the literature on this subject. These include: Gage (1963), Amidon

and Simon (1965), i4orsh and 14ilder (1954), and Tiedeman (1942). A recent

and on-going reference source is the Classroom Interaction Newsletter

edited by Simon. The first issue was published in December, 1965.

Theoretical. The theoretical basis of any empirical study is of

paramount importance. A review of the theories from which the major

studios of classroom interaction have arisen is not within the scope of this

paper. However, The Handbook of Research on Teachinp (Gage, 1963) is an

 -2 -

excellent source. Fith respect to the theoretical aspects of a study in

this field, Soar (1962) notes that "theoretical advantages follow from

conceptualizing the research problem as one with at least three phases:

(1) measurement of teacher characteristics, (2) measurement of classroom

behavior of teacher and pupils, and (3) measurement of pupil change and

growth." (p 2). He states that jumping from one part of the continuum

to another without including the immediate phase will make "...the

interpretation of the findings in terms of existing theory often difficult

if not impossible." (p 3)

Outline. This paper consists of five sections: Part I is a review of

some of the different categorization systems used in various studies.

-Part II is a discussion of the results of some of the studies in the

.\
field of classroom interaction. The development of research in this area

is discussed in Part III. Appendix I is a summary of two unpublished

papers which have a great deal of relevence to the projected research of

the Counseling and Assessment Division. A brief description of the FAIR

categories, an adaption of the Flanders Interaction Scale, is given in

Appendix II.

Part I: Instruments

According to Gage (1963), there are two main approaches to the

construction of items for an observational schedule: the sign system

and the category system.

 -3-

The sign system consist of listing " beforehand a number of

specific acts or incidents of behavior which may or may not occur during

a period of observation. The record will show which of these incidents

occurred during a period of observation, and, in some cases, how frequently

each occurred." (Gage, p 299)

The category system limits " the observation to one segment

or aspect of classroom behavior, determines a convenient unit of behavior,

and constructs a finte set of categories into one and only one of which

every unit observed can be classified." (Gage, p 290 This section on

the major instruments used in studies of classroom interaction generally

falls into the latter category. In other words, the following instruments

are objective categorization systems.

Although there have been many studies using various instruments of

observation, a number of representative studies using four of the major

observation scales will be discussed here. These instruments are those

by Bales, Vithall, Nedley and Nitzel, and Flanders.

Bales. One of the earlier systems of observation to be developed was

the Bales Interaction Process Analysis (Bales, 1950). This system consisted

of twelve categories for describing teacher and pupil behavior and

required that an observer be present in the classroom at the time the

recording was done.

Withall. A refinemcnt of the categories of the Dales Interaction

Process Analysis was made by Athall when he developed the Social-

Emotional Climate Index, made up of seven categories for teacher statements.

 -4-

The author originally intended that this instrument be uaod as a method

for coding typewritten transcripts of classroom interaction. ('ithal1, 1949)

Nitzel and Rabinowitz (1953) demonstrated the reliability and validity

of lathallls instrument in a study in which they first tried to categorize

interaction from sound and stenographic records; this failing, they

took their research and the observation technique into the classroom itself.

Another study (Rabinowitz and Rosenbaum, 1958) was successful in finding

a correlation of pupil-teacher rapport with one portion of the Withall

Index, the Hanifest Teacher Hostility Scale.

LOW and Ditzel. Iley and Nitzel (1955, 1958, 1959) developed

tilt,- Observation Schedule and Record Technique (OScitR) by modifying and

combining the methods used in lathallts Climate Index and in the Classroom

Observation Code Digest by Cornell, et al (1952). Three main dimensions of

the OScAR proved to be of significant use: "The Emotional Climate, having

to do with the relative amount of hostility observed; Verbal Emphasis,

having to do with relative emphasis on verbal and traditional school room

activities; and Social Structure, having to do with the relative degree of

pupil initiated activity." (1958, p 91).

Mitzel and Rabinowitz (1953) used both the OScAR and the Climate

Index in studying the relationships between the two instruments in an

actual classroca situation. Uilk (1956) also used the OSCAR as well as the

Flanders Intoiaction Analysis scale in his study of student teachers

in elementary education. Anbther study in which the OScAR was used was the

one conducted by Bowers and Soar (1962). This study used the three above
 -5-

named factors: Er:otional Climate, Verbal Emphasis, and Social Structure.

Flanders. The ninnesota Interaction Analysis Scale developed by

Flanders consists of seven categories for teacher talk and two for pupil talk

and is " ... the most sophisticated technique for observing climate thus

far, one which is unique in that it perserves a certain amount of informa-

tion regarding the sequence of behavior." (Medley & Nitzel, 1963) The

Flanders scale has been used in numerous studies and those by Wilk and

Edson (1963) and Giammatteo (1963) are representative of the type of

research conducted in the public schools. The Interaction Analysis is

one of the most recent and extensively used techniques, and "much of the

work on teacher-pupil interaction patterns has been by Flanders (1960)

and his associates (Amidon & Flanders, 1963; Flanders and Amidon, 1962)."

(Amidon and Simon, 1963, p 132)

Part II: Results

The findings reported in this section are from representative and,

in most cases, recent studies in the field of classroom interaction.

These results fall into three main areas: elementary-secondary, intra

elementary, and teacher-pupil.

.2-So.__3condEleraentaraxz. Using the Classroom Observation Record of

22 dimensions, Ryans (1961) compared pupil and teacher behavior in elementary

and secondary schools. On the basis of observers assessments, productive

pupil behavior was highly related to the teachers' behavior that was

understanding, friendly, organized businesslike, and stimulating in the

 -6 -

elementary school setting. In the secondary school classes, however,

this relationship was low. Students' productive behavior in the

secondary school setting void more related to teacher behavior that was

stimulating and original.

Intra-Elementary. With the Flanders Interaction Analysis and the

OScAR, Wilk (1964) studied student teachers in an elementary school

setting and how their teaching behavior differed between the lower

grades (1st through 3rd) and the upper grades (4th through 6th). He

found that the student teachers in the upper grades "gave more positive

supportive attention to individual pupils; used a wider variety of

teacher and pupil learning materials; created F., better classroom

climate; gave more emphasis to verbal matelals an (p 378)

The student teachers in the lower grades "gave more opportunities for

pupils to lead the class; talked more, evidenced more verbal behaviors

which restricted pupils' freedom of response." (379)

The experience of one quarter of student teaching resulted in

teaching behavior during the second quarter that included "a wider

variety of activities in directing the class as a group and more

verbal behaviors which increased pupils' freedom of response." (p 379)

In a study of interaction during reading lessons, Giammatteo (1964)

examined the differences among the elementary school grade levels.

Using the Flanders categories, he found that " question and answer type

teaching was used mostly by first and secchd grade teachers and least by

fifth and sixth grade teachers; lecture is used about half of the time a
 -?-

teacher talks in grades 3, 4, 5, and 6, and about one-third of the time

in grades 1 and 2; first and second grade teachers used more commands

than other groups of teachers; one-third of all talk in the fifth

and sixth grades was stimulated by the student." (p 11)

Teacher-Pupil Behavior. An early study conducted by Anderson, et al

(1945) using their own observational system with elementary teachers

found that "teachers who used dominative techniques produced in their

pupils aggressive and antagonistic behaviors which were expressed toward

both their teachers and their peers. On the other hand, teachers who

used socially integrative behaviors appeared to facilitate friendly

cooperative and self-directive behaviors in the children." (Withall & Lewis,

p 693) Dominative behavior included such examples as directing,

critizing, punishing, making gratuitious judgments. Integrative

behavior was questioning, encouraging, accepting ideas, showing feeling.

(Gage, p 692).

In a prediction study, Wilk and Edson (1963) used observers'

assessments of directive or indirective teacher behavior (based on the

Flanders Interaction Analysis system) as the criteria. They found that

direct influence in teaching behavior (lectures) directs, critictoes,

self justifys) during the student teaching semester of the senior

year could not be predicted from school admissions data taken during the

subjects' freshmen year. However, the researchers found they could

predict indirect influence in teaching behavior (feeling, praise, ideas,

questions) from a combination of the Minnesota Teacher Aptitude Inventory

 -8-

and the sophomore cmulative grade point average.

Bellack, et al (1963) characterized the categorized behavior of

secondary school teacher-pupil interaction as the "classroom game" and

reported that with the social studies teachers they observed " the two

most common patterns of classroom discourse, making up nearly fifty percent

of the interaction, were (a) teacher solicitation-student response, and

(b) teacher solicitation-student response-teacher reaction " (Amidon

and Simon, 1965, p 133)

Giammattec (1963) used the Flanders Interaction Analysis in a

study of elementary school teachers. "He found that teachers accounted

for more than fifty percent of the talk in the classroom and that most

student talk was in response to teachers question." (Amidon & Simon, p 132)

In another study by Amidon and Giammatteo (196';:, the teaching patterns of

superior teachers (as defined by supervisors' ratings) were compared with

those of a control group of teachers. "Using Flanders categories, they

found that superior teachers talked less, accepted more student ideas,

encouraged more pupil initiated participation, and gave fewer directions

than did average teachers." (Amidon & Simon, p 132)

Note reprint in our files of this paper: Amidon, Edmund and Giammatteo,
Michael. The verbal behavior of superior teachers.
 -.9.

Part III: Development of Research

The research of classroom interaction has become, or is in the

process of becoming, more sophisticated in the areas of measurement,

criteria, and data collection.

Measurement. The study of classroom interactions has gone from

global and subjective, verbal descriptions which were used before World

War I to the detailed, objective, and numerical ratings of the present.

While the methcdological refinements to be made in the next ten to

twenty years will probably make our present systems appear obsolete

and clumsy, researchers today can look back and feel reassured that

their techniques are becomming more objective and sophisticated. It is

interesting to examine one of the earliest efforts to replace global

descriptions with objective measures which was by Horn (1914). He

proposed that a set of symbols be used in studying pupil participation in

the classroom. Puckett (1928) elaborated on Horn's technique by developing

a system of circles and squares. Several years later Wrightstone (1935)

differentiated between teachers' and pupils' verbal behavior in his

use of nine different measures.

Criteria. With the advancement in coding and categorizing came the

gradual realization that the teaching-learning process was extremely

complex. A more recent trend has been one away from the single

criterion study of isolated teacher traits or qualities to studies that

have multi-criteria that attempt to define, examine, and analyze the

 -10 -

complex of factors which result in teaching and learning behavior, and in

unique teaching-learning patterns. (Withall & Lewis, 1963) No doubt the

wide availability of electronic computers has aided in this development

of multi-criterion studies.

Data Collectinn. The most recent advancements in the field of

classroLl interaction, however, have been in the area of data collection.

Cogan was not exagerating when he wrote in 1963, " we do not have

adequate data for the analysis of the behavior of the teacher. This

famine of data possessing substance and dimensionality has not been the

result of a lack of plausible theory; it is more probably the cause..(p 242)

In 1953, Ackerman stated that the actual classroom behavior of

teachers and pupils was " the crucial step in the entire process of

research on teaching and teacher education." (p 286) He pointed out

that this data should be objective. Tne years later, Medley (1963)

voiced the same opinion somewhat*,.. more emphatically when he wrote

11
Just about everything we know about teaching and learning in the

classroom is based either on analogous reasoning from research done

outside the classroom or on somebody's opinion about what he saw in the

classroom" (p 273) The need for objective data has been a growing conctern

since before W. W. I, and only recently has modern technology been able

to meet the demands for accurate, objective, efficient, and practical data

gathering equipment. Such equipment as tape recorders, sound cammeras,

and video-tape and cammera recorders are the examples referred to :lore.
 Appendix I: Research Paper'

The purpose of this appendix is to bring two research papers to the

attention of the staff of Counseling and Assessment. Both of these

papers are unpublished ( and according to the respective authors,

both are rough drafts ); copies might be obtained from Shirley Mennaker.

Verbal Behavior and Social Status. Hill and Giammatteo (1965) were

interested in the problem of student teachers' use of different verbal

patterns with elementary school pupils from two extremes of socio-economic

areas. The researchers used the Flanders Interaction Analysis technique

in looking at the different teaching styles. Some of the results of

this study were: "The students were more willing to initiate response

in the high socio-economic areas. The acceptance of student thoughts

were more acceptable to the pre-service teachers when teaching in the

high socio-economic area. More criticism and praise were used in the

high socio-economic area but extended praise was used in almost equal

amounts in both situations. Extended acceptance of student ideas was used

more often in the high socio-economic areas.

Thirteen percent of the student talk in the low socio-economic

area was student initiated. The pupils in the high socio-economic

areas initiated 23 percent of their talk. Communication, indeed, is

*
Hill, E. H. and Giammatteo, M. C. Social Status Differentiation
in the Verbal Behavior of Sixty Pre-Service Teachers During Language Arts
Lessons.
 -12 -

similar to earlier home life patterns in which the children from the

oow areas are expected not to initiate discussion." (pp 18-19)

Student Teachers and Interaction Analyses. The paper by Simon, et al *

is pertinent to a treatment variable that Counseling and Assessment will

introduce this fall.

Simon, et al trained a group of student teachers to use the Flanders

Interaction Analysis technique before they student taught. A control

group was not given such training but was taught learning theory. Both

groups of subjects were then observed twice a week during thelr student

teaching experience by the researchers. (During these observations, the

Flanders categories were used.)

The results were in the expected direction: Student teachers trained

in the Flanders technique were " more accepting, less critical, and

less directive than student teachers nottrained in Interaction Analysis;

there was also a tendency for student teachers who learn Interaction

Analysis to have more student initiated talk, more extended student

initiated talk and less silence or confusion in their classroom than

student teachers taught learning theory." (p 11)

*
Simons A., Samph, T., Soar, R. S., and Amidons E.
Programing Teacher-Pupil Interaction Patterns. Paper delivered at the
American Educational Research Association, February 1966, Chicago, Ill.
t
 -13-

Appendix II: FAIR Categories

The following definitions are the ones the film judges have been

using in their rating of the PEB, Metz, and Porter films from September,

1965 to July, 1966.

Teacher Categories.

C critizes, justifies own authorlty; hostile, cold, withholding

D directions which student is expected to comply

F accepts feelings/ or recognizes original ideas. Really hears and

understands in a nonthreatening manner

I accepts or uses routine responses (ideas)

L lectures; giving facts or opinions about content or procedure

N encourages or shows warmth by speech, facial expression, or

bodily movement

Q asks questions with the intent that a student answer

Pupil Categories.

E eager; enthusiastic. Student answers waving hand or other signs

of interest.

H attention lapse. Hostile, defiant, cold, bored, or inattentive

pupil behavior

R routine pupil response. Need not be seen on film

Volunteer response. Must be heard; need not be seen.

W group work, even if silent

K chaos; no basis for judgment. No sound or picture.

 List of References

Ackerman, W. I. Teacher competence and pupil change. Harvard

Educational Review, 1953, 23, 273-287.

Amidon, E. J. and Flanders, N. A. The Role of the Teacher in the

Classroom. Minneapolis: Amidon and Associates, 1963.

Amidon, E. J. and Giammatteo, M. The verbal behavior of superior

teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 1965, 611, 283-285.

Amidon, E. J. and Simon, Anita. Teacher-pupil interaction. Review

of Educational Research, 1965, 31, 130-139.

Anderson, H. H. and Brewer, H. M. Studies of teachers' classroom

personalities. I. Dominative and socially integrative
behavior of kindergarten teachers. APO.. Psychol. Monogr.,
1945, 6.

Bales, R. F. Interaction Process Analysis. Cambridge, Mass:

Addison-Wesley, 1950.

Bellock, A. A. and others. The Lame of the Classroom: Meanings

Communicated in High School Teaching. United States
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of
Education, Cooperative Research Project Number 1497.
New York: Institute of Psychological Research, Columbia
University, 1963.

Bowes, N. D. and Soar, R. S. The influence of teacher personality

on classroom interaction. Journal of Exp. Ed., 1962,
30, 309-11.
MOMINNIP

Cogan, M. L. Research on the behavior of teachers: a new phase.

Journal of Teacher Education, 1963, 14, 238-243.

Cornell, F. G., Lindvall, C. M. and Saupe, J. L. An exploratory,

measurement of individualities of schools and classrooms.
Urbana: Bureau of Educational Research, University of
Illinois, 1952.

Flanders, N. A. Teacher. influence,_Pupil attitudes, and achievement.

Final Report, Project 397 USOE Coop. Res. Project 397,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1965.
References -2-

Flanders, N. A. and Amidon, E. J. Two approaches to the teaching

process. NEA Journal, 1962, 51, 43-45.

Gage, N. L. (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago:

American Education Research Association, 1963.

Grammatteo, M. C. Interaction patterns of elementary teachers

using the Minnesota categories for interaction. From
Amidon, E. and Simon, A. (Eds.) Teacher-Pupil Interactioa.
Review of Educational Research, 1965, 35, 130-139.

Hill, E. H. and Grammatteo, M. C. Social status differentiation in

the verbal behavior of sixty pre-service teachers during
language arts lessons. Unpublished paper, 1965.

Horn, E. Distribution of opportunity for participation among the

various pupils in classroom recitations. Teach. Coll.
Centr. Educ., 1914, No. 67.

Lewis, W. W., Newell, J. M., and Withall, J. An analysis of

classroom patterns of communication. Psychological Reports,
1961, 51, 211-219.

Medley, D. M. Experience with the OSCAR technique. Journal of

Teacher Education, 1963, 11, 267-73.

Medley, D. M. and Mitzel, H. E. Studies of teacher behavior:

Refinement of two techniques for assessing teachers'
classroom behaviors. New York: Board of Higher Education,
City of New York, Division of Teacher Education, 1955,
No. 28.

Medley, D. M. and Mitzel, H. E. A technique for measuring

classroom behavior. Journal of Educational Ps cholo
1958, 49, 86-92.

Medley, D. M. and Mitzel, H. E. Some behavioral correlates of

teacher effectiveness. Journal of Educational Psychology,
1959, 50, 239-246.
References -3-

Medley, D. M. and Mitzel, H. E. Measuring classroom behavior by

systematic observation. Chapter D, (Gage).

Mitzel, H. E. and Rabinowitz, W. Assessing social-emotional climate

in the classroom by Withall's technique. Psychological
Monogram, 1953, 67, No. 18.

Morsh, J. E. and Wilder, E. W. Identifying the effective instructor:

A review of the quantitative studies, 1900-1952. USAF
Pers. Train. Res. Cent. Bull., 1954, No. AFPTRC-TR 54-44.

Puckett, R. C. Making supervision objective. Sch. Rev., 1928,

36, 209-212.

Rabinowitz, W. and Rosenbaum, I. A failure in the prediction of

pupil-teacher rapport. Journal of Educational Psychology,
1958, 49, 93-98.

Ryans, D. G. Some relationships between pupil behavior and certain

teacher characteristics. Journal of Educational Psychology,
1961, 52, 82-90.

Simon, Anita (Ed.) Classroom Interaction Newsletter, Vol. 1,,

No. 1 and 2, December 1965, May 1966, Philadelphia:
Temple University.

Simon, A. and others. Programing ,teacher-pupil interaction

patterns. Unpublished paper. Delivered at the American
Educational Research Association, February, 1966, Chicago.

Soar, R. S. Multiivariat Statistical Procedures in Predicting

Teacher -Pupil Classroom Behavior. Cooperative Research
Project No. 1170. Columbia: University of South Carolina,
1962.

Tiedeman, S. C. A study of pupil-teacher relationships. Journal

of Educational Research, 1942, 35, 657-664.

Wilk, R. E. An experimental study of the effects of classroom

placement variables of student teacher performance.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 1964, 55, 375-380.
References -4-

Wilk, R. E. and Edson, W. H. Prediction and performance: an

experimental study of student teachers. Journal of
Teacher Education, 1963, 14, 308-317.

Withall, J. Development of a technique for the measurement of

socio-emotional climate in classrooms. J. Exp. Educ.,
1949, 17, 347-361.

Withall, J. and Lewis, W. W. Social interaction in the classroom.

Chapter 13,, 683-714, Gage.

Wrightstone, J. W. Measuring teacher conduct of class discussion.

Elementary School Journal, 1934, 34, 454-460.