INFORMATION TO USERS

The most advanced technology has been used to photo­ graph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm master. UMI films the original text directly from the copy submitted. Thus, some dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from a computer printer.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyrighted material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re­ produced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each oversize page is available as one exposure on a standard 35 mm slide or as a 17" x 23" black and white photographic print for an additional charge.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. 35 mm slides or 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

■■UMIAccessing the World's Information since 1938 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA

Order Number 8812308

A qualitative study of lecture strategies in a high school chemistry class

Vandermeer, Sarah Satorius, Ph.D.

The Ohio State University, 1988

Copyright ©1988 by Vandermeer, Sarah Satorius. All rights reserved.

UMI 300 N. ZeebRd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106

PLEASE NOTE:

in all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V .

1. Glossy photographs or p ag es ______

2. Colored illustrations, paper or print ______

3. Photographs with dark background _____

4. Illustrations are poor copy ______

5. Pages with black marks, not original copy______

6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page ______

7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages

8. Print exceeds margin requirements ______

9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine ______

10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print ______

11. Page(s) ______lacking when material received, and not available from school or author.

12. Page(s) seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.

13. Two pages num bered . Text follows.

14. Curling and wrinkled pages ^

15. Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed a s received

16. Other

A Qualitative Study of Lecture Strategies

in a High School Chemistry Class

Dissertation

Presented in partial fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of Doctor

of Philosophy in the Graduate School

of The Ohio State University

by

Sarah Satorius Vandermeer, B.S., M.S.

The Ohio State University

1988

Dissertation Committee Approved by

John B. Hough

Judith Green

Barbara Thomson Advisor

College of Education Copyright by Sarah Satorius Vandermeer 1988 Dedication

To Mom and Dad for their love and support Acknowledgments

I am sincerely grateful to Dr. John Hough for his

patient guidance through this research endeavor. He was

more than an educational theorist and faculty advisor. He

also gave of himself, providing wisdom, advice, sympathy,

immense encouragement and even a bit of humor to this whole

thing.

Appreciation is also extended to Dr. Barbara Thomson

for her continued ecouragement and enthusiasm for this

project. Her input, and most of all her example as an

excellent teacher provided invaluable insights into some of

the finer points of instruction.

Dr. Judith Green opened doors into aspects of teaching

and communication not even imagined before. Her perspectives added immeasurable depth to this project, and my understanding of the teaching process as well as communication skills in general. I am grateful for her guidance and especially her patience with me.

I am especially grateful to Jon Stonebraker for his willingness to cooperate so fully and openly in this study.

Without his patience and willingness to have his teaching dissected, this project would not have materialized. His example of excellence in teaching has truly been an

inspiration to me.

There were a great many people whose influence was indirect but no less instrumental for the completion of this dissertation. Professors William Riley of Physics, Archie

Addison from Mathematics, Barbara Thomson from Science

Education, friend Sonnie and the entire Central Ohio Emmaus

Community saw me through the roughest waters. They gave me confidence. My friends, Nancy and Molly became my extended family in child care and mothering, while little Chris sat through long late classes and was patient with an often tired Mommy. They gave me joy and made my life real. My best friend and my husband, Paul, was my primary debriefer, my sometimes wailing wall, and a constant source of strength and encouragement. He gave me perspective and I am grateful to him as well.

It is with deepest gratitude that I dedicate this work to my father and mother, Woodrow and Frances Satorius.

Their unfaltering moral and spiritual help was a never ending source of strength and hope. They taught me critical thinking, but most of all, never to give up.

Finally, I thank my God and my Savior, Jesus Christ,

Who has so lovingly guided my entire educational career with a distinct sense of humor. To Him be all Glory, Honor and

Praise. Vita

December 9, 1949 Born, Woodstock, Illinois

1972 B.S. University of New Mexico

1972 - 1973 High School Science Teacher Norwood Public Schools Norwood, Colorado

1973 - 1974 Quality Control Chemist Morton Chemical Co. Ringwood, Illinois

1974 - 1976 Graduate Teaching Assistant Department of Microbiology Northern Illinois University

1975 M.S. Microbiology Northern Illinois University

1976 - 1979 Research Assistant Duke University Medical Center Department of Microbiology Durham, North Carolina

1978 - 1981 Science & Math Instructor Durham Technical Institute Durham, North Carolina

v 1982 - 1984 Science & Math Instructor Urbana University Urbana, Ohio

1983 - 1985 Graduate Teaching Associate Educational Theory & Practice The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio

1984 - present Chemistry & Biology Instructor Columbus State Community College Columbus, Ohio

Fields of Study Major Field: Curriculum and Instructional Design Table of Contents

Page

Acknowledgments ...... iii

V i t a ...... v

List of T a b l e s ...... x

List of F i g u r e s ...... xii

Chapter

I Background of the Problem ...... 1

Overview ...... 1

Statement of Problem ...... 9

Purposes of the I n v e s t i g a t i o n ...... 13

Research Setting ...... 13

Assumptions, Limitations, & Delimitations . . 17

II Related Literature ...... 20

Research on Instruction in Science ...... 2 0

Instructional Strategies in Secondary Science 22

Summary of Research on Instructional ...... 45 Strategies in Secondary Science

Research on The Expository Strategy ...... 49

Summary of Research on Expository Strategy . .80

Research on Expository Strategies in ...... 83 Secondary Science Classrooms

vii Chapter Page

Summary of Research on Expository Strategies . 87 in Secondary Science Classrooms

Research on Intentional Teaching ...... 89

Summary of Research on Intentional Teaching 109

III Research Methods and Procedures ...... 112

Naturalistic Inquiry ...... 113

Subject Identification ...... 12 0

P r o c e d u r e ...... 122

Gaining Entry ...... 124

Development of Strategies ...... 129

Data C o l l e c t i o n ...... 132

Analysis of D a t a ...... 143

IV. Results ...... 166

Definition of Lecture ...... 167

Validity and Reliability of D a t a ...... 167

Findings on the Structure of Lecture . . 173

Findings on Planning of Lecture .... 223

Findings on the Delivery of Lecture . . 227

Findings on Student Participation in . . 257 Lecture

Findings on the Match Between Teacher . 265 Intentions, Lecture Delivery and Student Perception of Teacher Intentions

viii Chapter Page

V. Discussion ...... 277

Summary and Implications of the Structure 299 of Lecture

Summary and Implications of Planning . . 316 of Lecture

Summary and Implications of the Delivery 321 of Lecture

Summary and Implications of Student . . 330 Participation in Lecture

Summary and Implications of the Match 334 Between Teacher Intentions, Lecture Delivery and Student Perception of Teacher Intentions

Implications for Further Research ...... 338

Appendix A Examples of Data Collection Forms for 345 OSIA and SAIC Data Analysis

Appendix B Letters of Approval for Research .... 351

Appendix C Research Questionnaires and Quizzes . . 360

Literature Cited ...... 368 List of Tables

Table Page

1 Reliability Calculation of OSIA 171 Subfunction Data

2 Reliability of OSIA Subscript Data 172

3 Summary of Time Spent in 3 Phases of Lecture 174

4 Summary of Consistencies Among Lectures in 181 OSIA Data

5 Summary of Qualitative Differences Among 187 Lectures According to Purpose

6 Summary of Quantitative Differecnes Among 189 Lectures According to Purpose

7 Summary of Differences According to Time of Year 2 02

8 Summary of General Content of Subfunction Data 2 07 According to Function of Lecture and Heuristic 2 08

9 Summary of General Content of Expanded X, Y 2 09 Subfunction Data According to Function of 210 Lecture and Heuristic

10 Summary of Subscripted Behaviors According to 211 Function of Lecture and Heuristic 212

11 Summary of Rules for Student Participation 222 in Class

12 Summary of Differences Among Verbal Cues 231

13 Summary of Nonverbal Cues to Enhance Student 238 Learning

14 Summary of Engagement Consequences and Student 259 Goals for Attending to Lecture

x List of Tables

Table Page

15 Summary of Task Attraction Data 262

16 Summary of Quantitative Match Between Teacher 266 Intentions and Actual Lecture Delivery, Content and Student Achievement

17 Summary of Student Perception of Teacher 271 Intentions Concerning Teacher/Student Interaction

18 Summary of Student Perceptions Concerning 272 Content Material and Degree of Enthusiasm

19 Summary of Match Between Teacher Intentions and 273 Student Achievement

20 Cooperative Nature of Research Tools for the 290 Study of Lecture

xi List of Figures

Figure Page

1 Communication in Lecture (Kourilsky) 68

2 Communication During Lecture (Heslett) 7 0

3 Time Line Analysis of Research Activity 12 3

4 Development of Research Stratiegies, Schedule 131 and Instrumentation

5 Structure of Lecture 13 3

6 Planning of Lecture 134

7 Delivery of Lecture 135

8 Student Paricipation During Lecture 13 6

9 Match Between Teacher Intentions, Lecture 137 Delivery, and Student Perception of that Delivery

10 Relationship Between 5 Aspects of Lecture 168 Studied

11 Layout of Classroom and Map of "Circuit" Walks 178/242

12 Cycles of Teacher/Student Interaction During 179/250 Lecture

13 Conversational Analysis of Cycles A and B 251

14 Conversational Analysis of Cycles A, B, and C 254

15 Conversational Analysis of Cycle D 255

16 Structure of Lecture 281

17 Planning of Lecture 282

xii List of Figures

Figure Page

18 Delivery of Lecture 283

19 Student Paricipation During Lecture 284

20 Match Between Teacher Intentions, Lecture 285 Delivery, and Student Perception of that Delivery

xiii Chapter I

Background of Problem

Over the 15 year period between 1969 and 1984 the study of instructional strategies employed in secondary schools was dominated by a theory-based experimental/control, pretest/post-test paradigm. In this paradigm, a teaching strategy such as lecture, laboratory, discovery, or small group discussion, or teacher behavior such as clarity, directness or indirectness, is identified or created. The students are then exposed to a condition or treatment, and achievement is measured. Typically, student learning process variables are either assumed without measurement, or are ignored altogether (Weinstein,

1983). The result had been measurement of treatment and outcome (achievement on post-test usually) complete with statistical analysis, but no description of the actual event or explanation as to what happened, how it happened, or why it happened. What has been lacking is the in-depth study of the quality of the actual processes. Also lacking

1 2 has been any theoretical explanation or systematic analysis as to how or why the events occurred as they did, or what meaning these events may have had for the participants involved.

Research on expository teaching in general had been dominated by what seems to be an ongoing debate over whether or not lecture had any redeeming value and, if so, to what degree. The few research studies that exist are again from the scientific paradigm; that is, employing an experimental/control group strategy with lecture as compared to some other instructional strategy. Studies on lecture strategy per se or the various aspects of lecture include such topics as use of humor and student retention

(Kaplan & Pascoe, 1977); lecturer pace and classroom noise level (Grobe, et al, 1973), and kinetic structure of lecture and student achievement (Lamb, et al, 1979).

The vast majority of literature on expository teaching exists in textbooks in those sections dealing with public speaking, and the many discussions, defenses, and "lecture revisited" articles in various educational publications.

All seem to take a different approach in the continuing argument as to the success or failure of the lecture strategy, but few offer any empirical evidence to back 3 their views. A review of these articles indicates that the source of the argument may not be the relative value of lecture, but rather each author's definition of lecture in each discussion. What is lacking is an overall understanding of not only what lecture entails, but also what it looks like. Most obvious is the lack of any agreement as to what qualities or criteria are necessary to define lecture, or differentiate expository teaching from other strategies.

Studies concerning expository strategies as related to the teaching of science were also dominated by the experimental/control, pretest/post-test (but usually post­ test only) research paradigm. The great majority of these studies were concerned with a comparison of classroom lecture or demonstration with either laboratory, discovery or hands-on experience in biology, chemistry or physics classrooms. Based largely on Piaget's Theories of concrete-then abstract learning models, these studies by and large put forth the theoretical advantage of concrete learning-by-doing rather than the teaching of abstract concepts via expository techniques (Haber-Schiam, 1983).

Research on the lecture format itself was again dominated by the experimental/control model or scientific 4 paradigm. In this area, three major aspects of lecture strategies were identified, each comparing a particular lecture format or design to either a "standard" (in each case loosely defined) or to some other different lecture design. These involved inductive versus deductive linear learning and student achievement (Herdmann and Hincksman,

1978) ; initial, terminal or distributed integrative structure of new information in lectures (Lu, 1978) and student achievement; and commonality in lectures among teachers with comparative student achievement (Lamb, et al,

1979).

According to Mayer and Lewis (1979), rationalistic studies such as those that have dominated the field impose constraints seldom satisfied in a school setting.

Randomized samples of sizes large enough to satisfy analysis techniques are difficult of obtain without adding a large number of variables. These designs provide data from only one or two points over a period of time. Also, they assume student and teacher variables to be highly stable or at least exhibit stable change patterns (Mayer,

Lewis, 1979). General observation of human nature will argue effectively against the relative stability, or even stability of change in the average 14 to 18 year old student, let alone an entire class. 5

In none of the rationalist, experimental/control design comparison studies was lecture considered anything but just plain lecture. Even studies of lecture format or design completely ignored personality type, nonverbal or coverbal cues, showmanship, time of day, purpose or type of lecture as opposed to function and the like. Conflicting results and continuing arguments can only be expected in strategy comparison studies, as long as an understanding of terms and processes remains unclear, or defined only in the mind of the researcher.

McKeachie, writing in a chapter in The Handbook of

Research on Teaching. (Gage, Ed., 1963) identified six pitfalls regarding experimental control group empirical research. They are as follows (pp. 1123-1124):

1. "Taking a course taught by a new method may

generate excitement or hostility. The

Hawthorne effect influences teachers as well

as students. The treatment rarely lasts for

more than one semester. What happens after

the excitement fades? 6

2. There is a problem of establishing a suitable

control group. Can one individual really

teach using two different methods and not

have some aspect of one method influence the

other? Is it possible to get another

individual to participate as a teacher and

use the method the study imposes?

3. Conditions involved in the treatment may interfere

with normal results.

4. Biased sampling may occur in that people who sign

up for the treatment are likely to be dif­

ferent from those who elect the traditional

course.

5. Researchers need to consider the statistical

methods used to analyze the results. One

should be careful to avoid concluding that

one method is more effective than the other

when in reality, these methods do not differ

significantly. There is also the problem of

the choice of methods of analysis: 'weak

statistics.1 7

6. There is also the problem of dealing with

interactions among teaching methods, student

characteristics, teacher characteristics, or

other variables."

While knowledge concerning instruction has surely been gained from these rationalistic studies, the information is conflicting and lacks meaning in any practical sense. A naturalistic study using an analysis of process rather than product, may help to provide meaning to their studies.

Further, by understanding the processes involved, and seeing what factors may determine these, we may begin a process of linking what seems to be conflicting evidence into one whole picture. By peeling back the layers of what is called lecture by one teacher within the context of first year chemistry, it may become apparent not only why the quantitative results conflict, but also how these can be related to provide meaning to the results and direction toward improving science teaching.

Some researchers, though still representing a small drop in the flask of positivist research methods, are beginning to sense the value in and call for more qualitative studies in science education (Yager, 1982;

Smith, 1982; Roberts, 1982). In his article on qualitative 8 synthesis, Yager describes the nature of qualitative synthesis and reports these as a new focus for research in science education.

Smith (1982) argues that qualitative-ethnographic research is appropriate for science education. She suggests field methods such as interviewing and observation be used. Classrooms, after all, are complete, constantly evolving social settings involving large numbers of individuals interacting not only with one another, but with one another in different contexts, on different levels and in relation to different situations that change almost from moment to moment. Problems with traditional research are ample justification for using inductive models based on multiple methods, perspectives and operation (Smith, 1982;

Roberts, 1982). It is time to turn from surface inspection of several classrooms using positivist data, to more in- depth studies of one classroom using systematic, qualitative analysis methods. 9

Statement of Problem

This study did not propose to discover any specific empirical evidence to start secondary schools on their way toward improving science education. It did intend to do something the others have not, however, and that is to take a process-centered systematic observational approach, looking at the lecture process in one science classroom.

Instead of manipulating variables that may or may not improve achievement in any one case, the intent of this study was to look closely at what is already being done that seems at least for the present, to be working.

The investigation proposed here was an in-depth study and analysis of differing lecture strategies in operation in one chemistry class. The study was naturalistic, in that natural settings were used, and idiographic in that the descriptions were made in light of the questions raised. It is a qualitative report in that the qualities of the lecture teaching situation were described and analyzed rather than quantified with respect to any chosen variable. 10

Definition of Lecture

For the purpose of conducting this study, lecture was defined as any prepared, intentional, teacher-dominated discourse or discussion before and/or with an audience on a specific subject for the purpose of instruction.

Situations where students were working individually, in small groups, or free to initiate and run the discussion such as in small group tutoring sessions were not considered to be lecture, nor were movie or slide presentations. Lecture included presentations completely dominated by teacher-talk as well as problem-solving sessions, teacher-led discussions including the entire class, and lecture-related demonstrations of chemical reactions. Teacher demonstrations of chemical dynamics, or sensitive instruments were included in lecture as examples to illustrate concrete or obstract principles in chemistry.

Questions for Study

The general question under investigation was, "What does one high school chemistry teacher's lecture look like?" More specifically, this study asked, "How is the expository strategy (lecture) used in the classroom of a chemistry teacher from a suburban secondary school that has 11

a substantively sound science program?1’ Each of the

following questions have been chosen on the basis of

practicality, applicability, and the degree to which they

shed light on the general, or statement of problem

question.

I. Structure of Lecture

A. What is the overall structure of lecture?

B. What are the similarities and differences in lectures within and across time?

C. What verbal and nonverbal cues signal beginning and end of lecture?

D. What are the rules for student participation in lecture?

II. Planning of Lecture

A. What is the nature of the planning process in lecture?

B. What teacher intentions guide preparation?

C. What reading and reflection precede preparation?

D. What criteria determine lecture content?

III. Lecture Delivery

A. What strategies such as pacing, verbal and nonverbal cues, use of material resources, use of temporal resources and management behaviors are used to enhance student learning during lecture? 12

B. What factors influence how time is spent during lecture in relation to such things as substantive behaviors, management behaviors, and content presented?

C. What is the nature of student/teacher interaction within and across instances of lecture?

IV. Student Participation in Lecture

A. What roles do students assume during lecture?

B. What are the characteristics of attending of students to the lecture as it occurs?

C. How do engagement consequences or non-engagement consequences affect student attending to lecture?

D. How do task attraction and student goals affect student attending to lecture?

V. Match between teacher intentions, lecture delivery, and student perception of delivery.

A. To what degree is the class lecture as intended, an appropriate instructional procedure to use to facilitate student achievement of particular curricular intentions?

B. What are the instructor's specific instructional intentions during any one particular lecture?

C. To what degree are the teacher's intentions manifest in the lecture as it is given?

D. To what degree are the students aware of the teacher's intentions for the lecture?

E. To what degree do the students accept the intentions of the teacher as being desireable?

F. What is the degree of student satisfaction with the lecture(s) as it (they) occur(s)? 13

Purposes of the Investigation

There were four major purposes to this investigation.

The first was to provide a thick description of the design, use and effects of the expository strategy in secondary school science teaching in the context of a particular theoretical perspective. The second was to develop sensitizing concepts for use in other investigations in future studies of the expository strategy. Thirdly, it was the purpose of this investigation to develop instrumentation as well as procedures for collecting data of the type reflected in this study. Finally, this study purposed to develop data analysis procedures for use in studies with data similar to those collected in this study.

Research Setting

The research setting in this study was a chemistry class in a midsized midwestern suburban high school of approximately 1600 students in grades 9-12. A range of socioeconomic backgrounds are represented in this school, but the large majority are caucasion, middle-class white collar workers. Many of the parents are college educated and most are quite supportive of the school. 14

The school was chosen for several reasons. According to the criteria outlined by Texley (1983), criteria for excellence in a science department include: high enrollments, state science fair winners, outside awards for excellence in teaching, and students who go on to careers in science. The chemistry department, and science department in general at this school, met these criteria on at least the first three points.

Out of approximately 1600 students (total enrollment in grades 9-12) approximately 230 take chemistry. On that basis alone, enrollments in chemistry are at 14% of the student population. While all students are allowed to take chemistry (students are allowed within limitations imposed by minimal graduation requirements to create their own schedules) most wait until their junior year to complete an adequate math background for problem-solving in chemistry.

Taking that into consideration boosts the actual chemistry enrollment percentage up to 60% to 80% of students eligible.

In 1984, the science department at this school as a whole won more superior awards at the Central District

Science Fair than any of the other schools in the district.

Several of the students then went on to win superior 15 ratings at the state level, and one went on to compete at the International Science Fair given each year. Two of the students rating superior at both district and state science fairs came from the classroom to be studied.

Other recent general awards from outside sources include the Kettering Award given in 1982 for Excellence in

Science Education from the Battelle Institute, the 1983

Krecker Award from the Ohio Academy of Science for

Outstanding Science Department, and the 1984 Acker Award was given the department for having the Outstanding Teacher of the Year (in physics). For two years running, 1983 and

1984, the teacher being studied was asked by the Center of

Science and Industry (COSI) in Columbus, Ohio to run week- long workshops on chemistry aimed at first through fifth grade students. In addition to all this, the teacher is enjoyable to watch in action, willing to be taped, interviewed and followed around a few weeks out of the school year, and is a really nice person with whom to work.

The students seem to like him very much (from my own observations so far), and from 7:30 a.m. until 3:30 p.m., without missing a beat, he loves to teach chemistry - and shows it. 16

There are three full-time chemistry teachers in this high school. A team approach is taken in planning the individual units to outline objectives and determine resources. Beyond these discussions, however, actual implementation of the program (that is, teaching strategies and day-to-day lesson planning) is left up to the individual teacher. One of the three was new to teaching chemistry, although she had taught general science before at this same school. The other two had been teaching 5 and

10 years respectively. Both are excellent teachers by the criteria outlined previously, each pointing to the other as

"better" in some aspects. The one asked to participate in this study was recommended by a professor of Science

Education at the Ohio State University and frequently acts as a cooperating teacher to student teachers from the university. He also was enthusiastic about participation in the study. For these reasons, this classroom was chosen for study as an example of one that is effective. 17

Assumptions. Limitations and Delimitations

A study of this magnitude cannot be attempted

realistically, without some previous assumptions,

limitations and delimitations set forth. Those which set boundaries on this study are as follows:

Assumptions For the reasons mentioned under research setting, as well as three more in particular, it was assumed that the lecture studied was an example of good lecturing. The teacher, as well as the science department, had recently won academic awards for excellence. The researcher, though somewhat biased toward chemistry content, found the instructor's lectures to be interesting, factual and dynamic. The students as well, on observation during supervisory duties, seemed quite attentive to his lectures and responsive to the instructor. It was also assumed that the second period chemistry class to be taped was not significantly different from any of this instructor's other classes, and that the subject, under the given conditions, was considered to be a good chemistry teacher. Further, it was assumed this teacher, being only human, has unique idiosyncrasies of both presence and lecture technique which were both detected and labelled as such. 18

Limitations The data collected were limited by the

various complexities of data collection, including time,

technology, availability of the instructor for interviews

and lecture schedules. The primary source for data

collection was the video camera. Events that occured beyond the scope or angle of the lens, unless caught and recorded by audiotape or field notes, were not represented

in the final analysis. Field note and personal diary data were limited to the on-line observational skills of the researcher, as well as sensory awareness (sounds, smells, colors, and the like) and sensitivity to undercurrents and unusual mood or activity during any observational period.

Delimitations This study was delimited by naturalistic observation and analysis of the expository teaching strategy and its various selected aspects of one teacher in one particular 2nd period chemistry class. Any conclusions drawn from the data therefore, are, by necessity, limited to the instructor under study, in the context of teaching chemistry between 8:30 and 9:30 in the morning. It is expected, therefore, that many conclusions drawn may not be generalizable beyond this particular situation. At the same time, however, because of the conceptual stability of the content covered, and the 19

universal nature of lecture in science classrooms (Hill,

1975; bowman, 1979; Lamb et al., 1979; Newton, 1971), many

aspects of lecturing as studied will be applicable not only

to a very large number of chemistry classes, but also

physics, biology, general science, and earth science and

other science classes as well.

Further, due to the scope attemped in this study on

lecture as an instructional strategy, some aspects of

lecture will undoubtedly be overlooked, or by necessity, not included. One such aspect noted, but not included in the data collection or analysis, was content development and flow within and across lectures. It was considered that this particular aspect of lecture could easily constitute a dissertation in itself. While it would certainly have added yet another layer to the depth of understanding of the nature of lecture, it may also have made the project as presented, far too cumbersome to manage. CHAPTER II

RELATED LITERATURE

Research on Instruction in Science

For all the volumes of research published in science education over the last fifteen years, less than half has been done in the area of secondary science education.

There are even fewer studies in secondary science education as related to instructional strategies. The large majority of all science education research has been quantitative, dealing with a number of variables and their effects on student achievement. Those variables, investigated in relation to instructional strategies include diagnostic measures, the use of laboratory as opposed to lecture or demonstrations, use of models, presentation of behavioral objectives, class groups, student ability, teacher characteristics, management behavior, and the like. It has been only recently, since 1978, that any qualitative research has been done at all, and those reports are few and far between.

20 21

In spite of the efforts of researchers and practitioners alike to improve science education through these studies, there have yet to be any generalizations drawn or changes made in the teaching of science as a whole in the schools (Harms, Yager, 1981). Instead, we have published A Nation At Risk in which the deficiencies of

American Science Education specifically and the educational system in general are spelled out all too clearly. The implication is that what has been done is not enough. It is expedient that educators and researchers alike continue their investigations until improvements are made.

The purpose of this section is to provide a review of literature pertaining to instructional strategies in secondary science education, research on the expository strategy in general, and research on the use of expository strategy in science education. Selected representative studies and summaries of the field will be presented in each area, followed by a summarization of what meaning the research cited has to secondary science instruction, and expository strategy in secondary science education. 22

Instructional Strategies in Secondary Science

Research on instructional strategies has explored the relationship between instructional strategies and achievement. The first grouping of studies includes the effects of diagnosis, remediation, diagnostic and prescriptive testing on student achievement. The second set includes extensive debate over the various benefits concerning the use of laboratory, as opposed to lecture and demonstration, as well as benefits of using 3-dimensional models to explain abstract concepts. A third grouping of studies focused on student ability in relation to student achievement including lesson structure, ability groupings and student commitment. Fourthly were a group of studies concerning teacher behaviors, including beliefs and classroom management. Finally, a section on student/teacher interaction instructional strategies is presented including studies on teacher directness/indirectness, inquiry techniques, teacher vagueness and instructional accommodation. 23

Diagnosis and Remediation. The first set of studies

focused on the effects of ongoing diagnosis and remediation

in secondary science classes. Brown and Butts (1979) set

up an experiment involving two groups of high school

students, wherein the treatment group was given diagnostic

tests and instructions for using test results to help their

learning. Deboer (1980) did a similar study to see if

optional testing of 11 en route" course objectives would

improve achievement on the end-of-course exam. In each case, experimental groups were compared to controls which received "standard instruction" (term not defined in either study). Both studies concluded there was no evidence to support diagnostic or en-route testing to boost achievement. There was also no change in either study for either treatment in student attitude or aptitude.

Two somewhat related investigations were conducted 3 years apart by Long, et. al. (1978, 1981) which found evidence favoring diagnostic testing. The added variable in this case, however, was remediation, either student or teacher directed, to the diagnostic tests. The 1978 study concluded achievement was positively influenced by diagnostic-remediation instruction if the teacher directed the remediation. However, the success of the diagnostic- remediation technique was not consistently effective across 24

all science units. The 1981 study showed similar results,

only this time the control group showed modest gains as

well. The incongruence of these studies seems to suggest

the existence of as-of-yet unidentified factors which

obviously influence achievement in relation to diagnosis

and remediation. Long et. al. (1981) suggested further

investigation of time on task. An in-depth look at the

process or quality of these events may also prove

beneficial.

Laboratory and Hands-On Experience. The second area

of research has been that involving laboratory and hands-on

experience as compared to lecture in secondary science

teaching. The general theoretical concensus appears to be

that the laboratory is essential to understanding science

concepts. Haber-Schaim (1983) outlined the theoretical basis for laboratory teaching in no uncertain terms.

Drawing on the work of Piaget, he pointed out that the handling of concrete situations must always precede the abstract by saying:

"If abstractions come first, or are the sole content,

then most students cannot comprehend the material.

They just memorize the words until quiz time."

(Haber-Schaim, 1983, pp. 367) 25

The research, however, indicates a rather large gap between theory and practice on this issue. At best, the collective results vary widely and are conflicting. At worst, it may appear that the laboratory is the best technique in theory only. Purser and Renner (1983) used the pre-test/post-test/control group design to determine the relationship between concrete instruction (or hands-on laboratory experience) and formal instruction (lectures).

They found that most students had difficulty grasping most abstract concepts, regardless of the teaching method, but that, for the group as a whole, concrete instruction had some positive influences on achievement. Raghubir's study

(1979) included pre- and post-laboratory preparatory and review discussions and found that the experimental group tested significantly higher on all counts. This study sheds significant light on the results of a much earlier report by Bibikian (1971). Research was conducted to compare the effectiveness of discovery (a very loose laboratory set up with few directions and little guiding theory), laboratory and expository teaching methods. In all areas, expository (lecture) and laboratory methods were superior to the then highly recommended discovery approach. 26

Blosser and Helgeson were very surprised to find not

only conflicting evidence concerning laboratory use, but

significant negative results regarding its advantage. Some

studies did show superior achievement with laboratory method over lecture, but the great majority did not. The one advantage laboratory sessions did have was on manipulative skills. However, they concluded that the use of laboratory in teaching science produced no significant difference in student interest in science, ability to work

independently, dogmatism, concept retention, achievement, ability to reason or think critically or student understanding of scientific enterprise. Part of the problem in conflicting results could be the number of variable handled in each study. "When investigators had several treatments to handle in the same study, more findings of "no significant difference" seemed to appear."

(Blosser, Helgeson, 1981, p. 67) 27

While generalizations were difficult, one obvious one was that vicarious experiences (demonstration laboratory exercises either by a teacher or a visual medium such as a movie or filmstrip) can promote achievement involving laboratory skills more than the laboratory can (Townes,

1976, Smith, 1972, and Andriette, 1968). Thus, the authors were forced to conclude:

"... few of the studies in which achievement was a

dependent variable contained results of significance

in favor of the use of the science laboratory."

(Blosser, Helgeson, 1981, p. 64)

3-Dimensional Models. Studies were also done to investigate the use of 3-dimensional models to teach abstract molecular theory to concrete operational students.

It was hoped that by using Piaget's theory on the development of logical thinking as a base, presenting abstract concepts using hands-on models would increase the understanding of these by both formal and nonformal operational students (Howe and Durr, 1982). Again, the results were conflicting. Two investigations used a post­ test only approach to study the difference between two pairs of Chemistry classes. Instruction in both control and experimental groups was of the lecture-response mode, 28 followed by laboratory and drill. In addition, the experimental groups were given models of atoms, ions and molecules to use wherever possible. The Goodstein, Howe study (1978) did not lend any support to the view that a

"hands-on" method will help any subject, according to the authors. They concluded that while the experimental procedure may have enhanced learning in the advanced formal operational students, they understood the material anyway.

The concrete operational students did not profit. A study by Howe and Durr (1982) shows the opposite, perhaps because of the addition of peer interaction. This time the use of manipulative models combined with "structured peer interaction" (term not defined) was found to enhance learning of at least two chemical concepts for both formal and nonformal operational students.

Student Ability and Achievement.

The third major grouping of investigations focused on instructional strategies in secondary science education as related to student ability. There were three general approaches found in this section. First, lesson structure and its effect relating to student ability was explored.

The second included the several aspects of student ability 29 groupings and direction; whether it be self-, group-, or teacher-directed study time. Finally, a study on student commitment to and learning of science was included.

Lesson Structure. Lesson structure and the effect of individualized assignments was the focus in a report by

Philip Kremler (1983). A pre-test, post-test "randomized" study using two groups of high school college preparatory students was used to determine the effects of detailed, as opposed to non-detailed assignments on student achievement.

The students were divided into high, middle and lower ability groups as determined by a D.I.Q. (deviation intelligence quotient) and grade point average. The high capability students were found to have benefitted from things such as flow and block diagrams, inductions, field independence and high structure. Curiously, the author found that the very things that enhanced achievement in the higher ability students actually hindered the lower ability students. (Kremler, 1983).

Ability Grouping. The effects of grouping on verbal interaction during science inquiry were studied in an investigation by Abraham (1976). One hundred six high school chemistry students in two large urban schools were divided into homogeneous or heterogeneous discussion groups 30 according to divergent thinking ability which had been pre­ tested. They were then asked to generate hypotheses to

explain phenomena and design an experiment to test their hypothesis. Specifically, the research found that there is an interaction between groupings and divergent thinking

students in the heterogeneous groups. Generally, the author concluded that the homogeneous grouping seems to be an effective way to encourage greater amounts of valuable verbal interaction, in spite of the evidence favoring heterogeneous groups.

Burkman, et. al., (1982) attempted a study on the simultaneous effects of allowed time, teaching method, ability and student assessment of treatment on achievement in a high school biology class. The students were divided into self-directed, group-directed or teacher-directed study times. Other variables included allowed time for study, student ability and treatment implementation. The results were very confusing and the description of effects were further complicated by reactions between variables.

On the effects of study time, for example, the author states "...it may...be concluded that as time allowed for study decreased, students who perceived the treatment as

(good) tended to have higher achievement." (Burkman, et. al., 1982). Student perception and affect on achievement 31 had not even been considered as a variable, and yet here it was making a very significant difference in expected results. The author's final conclusion was that the main affect on student achievement appeared to be student ability, regardless of any variable examined (Burkman, et. al., 1982)

Student Commitment. Finally, included in this student ability section was a study by Simpson and Troost (1982) on the influences of commitment on the learning of science among junior high and high school students. Twelve questionnaires were developed and administered to four junior high and four high schools including some 3,000 students in the 6th-10th grades. Along with the questionnaires were included three criteria referenced science tests. The variables identified as affecting commitment and learning were: science (although not defined, this is assumed to mean the subject matter itself), family, self and school. The results, not surprisingly, pointed to the home and family as having the strongest positive affect on commitment to and learning of science. 32

Teacher Behaviors

Research on teaching behavior seemed generally to come from four different perspectives. Studies on teacher beliefs and attitudes included general characteristics of teachers, teaching skills, decision making and classroom behavior. The second group of studies focused on classroom management behaviors. Studied were encoded behaviors, effects of inquiry on student behavior and effects of classroom management on student achievement. Teacher- student interactions were investigated also and included such aspects as teacher direction and study time, teacher directness/indirectness and student achievement, and the affects of teacher vagueness. Finally, studies on instructional accommodation by teachers included teacher manipulation, interactive behavior and student aptitude.

Beliefs and Attitudes. Frances Lawrenz (1975) studied the relationship between science teacher characteristics and student achievement in an investigation involving questionnaires completed by 236 secondary science teachers.

The participants in the study also took the National

Teacher's Exam in Science, the Science Process Inventory and the Science Attitude Inventory. Each teacher selected one of her/his own classes on which to complete each of the 33 latter two tests as well as the Learning Environment

Inventory test and the Test on Achievement in Science.

Those teacher characteristics ranked highest were as follows: formality, self-improvement, knowledge of science processes (as opposed to knowledge of subject matter) and goal direction. Surprisingly, there was a somewhat negative relationship between increasing teacher subject matter knowledge and student achievement (Lawrenz, 1975).

However, results of a study by Beam and Horvat (1975) conducted at about the same time as Lawrenz indicated that teachers are unable to perceive their own behaviors accurately and completely. They found that teachers apparently focus on one aspect of classroom behavior (such as motivation and control) while being unaware of the techniques they use for development of content. In this investigation, both teacher and student assessment of teacher classroom behavior were used and compared with the researcher's assessment based on the Flanders I-A scale with Hough and Baker modifications (Beam, Horvat, 1975).

They concluded that in order to access, change or even report to others their classroom behaviors, they must first perceive it on the whole (Beam, Horvat, 1975). 34

An earlier study by Lawrenz (1974) focused on science

teacher perceptions of their teaching skills (as opposed to behaviors) and school conditions. A sampling of 108 junior high and 236 senior high school science teachers from 12 states responded to a questionnaire and attitude measure.

The questionnaire dealt with a teacher's opinion of her/his own skills and the working conditions of the school.

Criteria for skills included: (a) use and variety of teaching techniques, (b) subject area expertise, (c) ability to organize and change curriculum, and (d) effectiveness of evaluation. Criteria for school conditions included: (a) course constraints such as equipment,facilities, quality and quantity of apparatus and available materials, (b) time constraints such as length of class period, (c) space constraints, and (d) personnel constraints, such as available secretaries, assistants and consultants.

The results indicated generally high self-ratings on teacher ability. All teachers had positive attitudes toward science, with 92% choosing to be identified with their field. Most admitted to a lack of experience in new teaching techniques. The high school teachers were generally much happier with their teaching load and student behavior than the junior high school teachers. All 35 teachers wanted more administrative help such as aides, secretaries and consultants (Lawrenz, 1975). These statistics are all very useful; but in light of the work of

Beam and Horvat (1975) and the admission of the teachers to a lack of experience in new teaching techniques, one may wonder how reliable the numbers on self-rated abilities and actual skills may be.

A qualitative report by Aikenhead (1984) investigated the decisions science teachers make when planning for instruction. The case study analyzed five high school science teachers from one school, probing into the personal beliefs, reasons and dilemmas underlying their decisions.

The teachers appeared to make their decisions within a framework of integrated science content and practical classroom knowledge. The author concluded that by understanding how and why teachers tend to make their decisions, one may gain practical insight into the act of teaching science.

Finally, a study by Horvak and Lunette (1979) investigated teacher beliefs about the importance of certain teaching behaviors in general. It differed from the Lawrenz (1974, 1975) and the Beam and Horvat (1975) studies in that teachers were not asked to evaluate in any 36 way their own behaviors. An 80-item science classroom behavior Q-sort was used to measure teacher beliefs from 67 teachers about desirable teacher classroom behavior. The results identified three distinct categories or teacher groups described as follows:

Group I - 52% of the teachers tended to stress the importance of indirectness. They saw a need for student centered curricula and individualized activities.

Group II 30% of the teachers ranked order and discipline to be of primary importance in teacher classroom behavior.

Group III- 18% of the teachers considered flexibility to be the most important teacher behavior. They also held a high concern for group structure of the field of science.

Classroom Management. The second group of studies under teacher behaviors focused on classroom management.

Evans and Balzar (1970) developed the Biology Teacher

Behavior Inventory and a method of encoding teacher behaviors from video tape recordings of eleven biology teachers during regular classroom and laboratory presentations. Thirteen video tapes of each teacher during one class period each time were recorded over a two-month time period and analyzed. They found that 94% of all 37 behaviors pertained to management or content development.

More importantly, they found that non-verbal expression was involved in and influencing the teacher/learner situation in 65% of all encoded behaviors. They concluded that a more detailed analysis of nonverbal behaviors needed to be done.

Another group of studies under classroom management focused on the affects of classroom management on student achievement. One by Santiesteban (1976) investigated attitudes of high school students toward science instructional procedures. The results were so widely distributed the author was forced to conclude "It is difficult and a bit treacherous to delineate implications from this study to science instruction." Nonetheless, it was found that structured laboratories and classroom procedures were indicated to produce greater learning and, according to the author, were greatly desired by the student. Both small group work and projects were generally enjoyed by the students in this study.

Finally, an investigation by McGarity and Butts (1984) focused on the relationship among teacher classroom management behavior, student engagement and student achievement in both middle and high school science 38 classrooms. In this study, two week-long units were taught by 30 experienced teachers. The Georgia Teachers

Performance Assessment Indicator (TPAI) was used to measure teacher classroom management behaviors which were then related to student engagement and achievement. Those management behaviors which correlated positively to achievement and engagement were:

(a) maintains and helps students who do not

understand directions,

(b) maintains learner involvement in lessons,

(c) reinforces and encourages student efforts to

remain on task,

(d) manages disruptive behavior, provides feedback on

behavior,

(e) attends to routine tasks and manages

instructional time efficiently.

Student/Teacher Interaction. A third group of investigations concerning teacher behavior concentrated on student/teacher interaction in relation to teacher direction and study time, changes in student achievement, teacher directness/indirectness and effect on student achievement, and teacher vagueness. 39

Teacher Direction and Study Time. Burkman, Tate,

Snyder and Beditz (1982) studied the effects of academic ability, study time allowed and teacher directness on achievement in three life-science instructional modules covering three months. The authors found a disordinal interaction between instructional method and allowed time so that statements concerning the relative superiority of student-directed and teacher-directed approaches were qualified by amount of allowed time. The estimated differences were modest. It was concluded that the allowed time effect suggested the possibility of decreased achievement under some cases of increased allowed time due to students "goofing off" and associated disruptions

(Burkman, et. al., 1982)

Changes in Student Achievement. In an investigation by Power and Tisher (1976) an attempt was made to describe the nature of teacher-pupil-materials interaction and the relationship between these interaction patterns, and changes in students' achievement and attitudes toward science in classes taught by teachers whose educational values, experience and training differed. The study found a greater variability in achievement among students in classes where there was frequent teacher-student interaction. Also, a greater variability in achievement 40 was found where students as individuals, as opposed to small groups, were the target of interaction. There was a strong negative correlation between increased teacher- materials interaction and student achievement. The authors concluded that in individualized science programs teachers have to devote more time to stimulating interest, initiating and managing individual and group activities, guiding, directing and providing feedback. This cuts down on time for teacher-class interaction and promotes student disorganization and being unprepared for the task at hand.

They suggested a need for more inservice training; especially for those teachers who are opposed to individualized science programs (Power and Tisher, 1976).

According to findings from Case Studies in Education.

Vol. II (1978), however, teachers are not interested in learning major overhauls of their conceptualization of teaching. They are more interested in talking with other teachers to collect ideas that work. Teachers interviewed seemed to agree that the simple demands of classroom teaching inhibit change. Concerning individualized science programs, one principle is quoted again in Chapter 16; 41

"You could find...thirty individual programmes (sic)

for thirty individual children... but it's a...lot of

work. When education is really well done, the degree

of structure is very much higher..." (pp.16;6).

Teacher Directness and Student Achievement. Using

Flanders System of Interactional Analysis, 9 classes of slow learners in high school biology were divided into 3 groups of 3 classes each in a study by Citron and Barnes

(1970). Their purpose was to seek a definite relationship between interaction patterns in the classroom and the acquisition of science knowledge by slow learners. Their results were as follows: (a) a high indirect/direct ratio early in the course followed by a lower indirect/direct ratio later increased achievement in problem solving and total performance providing problem-solving was a large part of the total performance, (b) a constant intermediate indirect/direct ratio throughout the course leads to higher achievement in concept formulation than does a change in indirect/direct ratio in either direction (Citron and

Barnes, 1970).

A second study concerning teacher direct/indirectness very similar to Citron and Barnes was done by Wolfson

(1972) on normal ability students in high school chemistry 42 and 9th grade general science classes. He found that for both chemistry and general science classes, the higher indirect/direct ratios tended toward higher mean achievement and retention in students.

Teacher Vagueness. Finally, a study by Smith and

Bramblett (1981) investigated the effect of teacher vagueness on student performance in a high school biology class. The researchers randomly assigned 48 high school biology students to one of 4 groups defined by possible combinations of teacher vagueness conditions (high vs. low vagueness) and post-test conditions (test preceding lesson evaluation vs. lesson evaluation preceding the test). The authors found not at all surprisingly that teacher vagueness of terms significantly affected student achievement and perception of lesson effectiveness (Smith, Bramblett, 1981).

Instructional Accommodation. A final group of investigations concerning teacher behaviors focused on instructional accommodation to the students by the teacher.

The studies dealt with teacher manipulation of student behavior, teacher accommodation of interaction to class ability level and instructional accommodation to low aptitude students within a class. 43

Warren Beasley (1983) conducted a naturalistic study which focused on teacher management behaviors and pupil task involvement during small group laboratory activities.

He found the classroom to be a manipulable behavioral system. He concluded that behaviors of teacher and student were an integral part of the setting; and that they in turn determine the behaviors (or coerce them) from the participants. Behaviors and subsettings are seen as more important determiners of social behavior than the personality of individual teachers or students (Beasley,

1983) .

Twenty high school science classes were audio taped and rated in James Campbell's 1977 study on teacher flexibility and interactive behavior. The mean I.Q. level of each class was determined and then each was categorized as to low, middle and high intelligence groups to see if any of the 10 teachers in the study would change their behaviors accordingly. Teacher behaviors were rated using the Campbell-Rose Interaction System which was developed within the framework of the 10 category Flanders

Interactional Analysis Category System (FIAC) (Campbell,

1977). The results indicated that science teachers do adjust their interactive behavior to the ability level of the class, and, further, that the group itself seemed to be 44 responsible for the differences in teacher behavior. Also, it was found that the lower ability students seem to need a good deal more structuring and teacher controlling behavior than the higher ability students (Campbell, 1977).

Finally, William Holliday (1979) reviewed the results of research in both elementary and secondary science instruction in his report on student aptitudes and science instruction. He focused on instructional accommodations made to low aptitude students in science classrooms and concluded that no one instructional strategy is likely to be optimum for everyone. 45

Summary of Research

On Instructional Strategies in Secondary Science

Research on specific instructional strategies in secondary science classes covers a very broad spectrum of various strategies or techniques. Studies presented were divided into five major groupings as follows:

1.) Effects of teacher-directed diagnosis,

remediation and prescriptive testing on student

achievement.

2.) On-going controversy over benefits of the use

of laboratory, hands-on experience and 3-

dimensional models to explain abstract concepts.

3.) Student ability in relation to student

achievement including lesson structure, ability

groupings and student commitment.

4.) Teacher behavior including research on teacher

beliefs and classroom management. 46

5.) Student/teacher interaction including research on

teacher directness/indirectness, inquiry

techniques, teacher vagueness and instructional

accommodation.

A quantitative synthesis of quality and quantity of studies from 1963-1978 by David Boulanger (1981) grouped 52 studies into 6 clusters which revealed significant positive cognitive outcomes due to the use of (a) preinstructional strategies, (b) training in scientific thinking, (c) increased structure in verbal content, and (d) increased realism in adjunct materials. The research presented in this review supported positive outcomes with increased structure in general (Santiesteban, 1976; Power and Tisher,

1976; McGarity and Butts, 1984), but neither supported nor refuted concepts (a), (b), or (d) in Boulanger's list of useful strategies.

The "most used" experimental designs employed to study the nature of science teaching so far have been those which compare experimental and control groups with pre- and post­ testing; or randomized assignments with post-testing only.

According to Mayer and Lewis (1979), such designs impose constraints seldom satisfied in a school setting.

Randomized samples of sizes large enough to satisfy 47 analysis techniques are difficult to obtain without adding a large number of variables, and those designs provide data from only 1 or 2 points over a period of time. Also, they assume student and teacher variables to be highly stable or at least exhibit stable change patterns.

For nearly every study on instructional strategies, there seemed to be either a conflicting report for every other conclusion drawn, or not enough evidence from any one report to make any sweeping generalizations. What we do know from these studies is that in some cases, some strategies are effective and in other cases the same strategy may not work as well or even at all.

What was not included in any of the studies was any description or explanation of what exactly any particular strategy entailed. What does it look like? What goes on?

What, for instance, does the process of "laboratory" involve? Why is it invaluable in theory (Haber-Schaim,

1983) and yet less effective than lecture or demonstration in practice? Before comparisons in achievement can be made regarding any teaching strategy, specific definitions, descriptions and clear examples need to be outlined and explained. Without these, too many vital issues such as the following, go untouched. What does lecture look like? 48

In what ways does it differ from laboratory? What aspects of lecture constitute the difference in achievement? Can these be applied to laboratory? Questions like these, as well as a host of others, need to be clearly answered before meaning can be given to further rationalist studies concerning instructional strategies of any kind and student achievement. 49

Research on the Expository Strategy

There has been very little research into expository teaching, per se, and what has been done has been largely with post-secondary students in many content areas. In the

field of science, in particular, there seems to be a "great debate" running among scholars over the relative value and

effectiveness of lecture in teaching science concepts to

students. So great is the controversy that most of the

literature on expository teaching consists of neither rationalistic nor naturalistic studies regarding the class lecture. Most of the literature published regarding expository teaching exists in speech textbooks in the chapter on public speaking, or in the form of models, discussions, commentaries, or theoretical analysis by scholars in the various content areas taught primarily through lecturing.

For this reason, this report on expository strategies has been divided into two main sections. The first includes scientific research studies, primarily 50

rationalistic, in expository teaching. The second section presents the various theory-based arguments, models, discussions and commentaries concerning the expository teaching.

Investigations in Expository Teaching - Scientific research in expository teaching generally fell into two areas. The first is represented by investigations into the effect of various aspects of lecture such as pace, organization, humor and expressiveness on student behavior, such as attentiveness during lecture or achievement. The second area of research focuses on comparison studies involving different types of lecture. Included here is a report on lecture versus no lecture, lecture versus discussion as related to student personality factors, and use of feedback lecture to increase student involvement.

Effects of Various Aspects of Lecture - The relationship between instructional pace and student­ generated classroom noise level was examined by Grobe et al. (1973) among psychology students. Students attended slow, normal or fast instructional paces with noise generation being measured by an electronic processor that separated student noise from teacher-talk. The results indicated a significant instruction pace main effect 51 favoring moderate pace with the least student generated noise. The authors inferred that a slow pace may have bored the students to the point of generating their own communication, while the faster pace left them behind.

These students then generated noise due to non-attention

(Grobe et al., 1975, p. 75). It was concluded that classroom noise may be a useful measure of collective student attentiveness, and that a moderate lecture pace maximized student attention, therefore minimizing student­ generated classroom noise.

As a part of her dissertation, Fields (1981) studied the effect of organization of lecture content on student comprehension of material. Inductive organization, or that which presents discourse in order of increasing generality, versus deductive organization which arranges discourse in order of increasing specificity were compared. Classes of approximately equal numbers were assigned the inductive versus deductive presentation of the same lecture content and then quizzed for comprehension of material. No significant differences in comprehension were found between inductively or deductively organized lecture material. 52

A third study investigated the effect of humor and humorous examples on comprehension of university students in a first-year psychology class. Kaplan and Pascoe (1977) used an experimental/control group design with two post­ tests to analyze immediate and long-term retention. Large

(N = 508) intact classes viewed either a serious lecture or one of three versions of a humorous lecture concept, non­ concept and mixed humor. Results indicated that immediate retention was not facilitated by the use of humorous examples. Long-term retention, however, was enhanced by the use of concept-related humor in lectures.

Finally, experiments in "educational seduction"

(Condeluci, 1984, p. 1) or speaker dynamism designed to explore differences in student ratings and comprehension between lectures presented expressively (with little enthusiasm or expressiveness) or directly (with comparatively little enthusiasm or expressiveness) gave conflicting results. Speakers presented prepared lectures of identical content in either the expressive or direct style to two similar audiences in separate studies by

Condeluci (1984) and Coats and Smidchens (1966). Condeluci found no significant difference between expressive and direct styles in student comprehension. The Coats and

Smidchens study however found both a significant and strong 53 contrast between speaker dynamism and immediate recall.

Studies by Musella and Reisch (1968), Harvey and Barker

(1970) and Gadzella (1977) concluded as well, that enthusiasm and teacher expressiveness were considered very important by students in their perception of learning.

Effects of Different Lecture Types - Using an experimental/control group, post-test only strategy, Rovin et. al. (1972) investigated the effects of lecture versus no lecture (that is, just text book reading) on achievement among 92 dentistry students during their Oral Pathology block. Assuming students would retain more information during laboratory classes or private textbook reading, the author was surprised to find a significant difference in achievement in favor of lecture presentations. It was concluded that while no new information was gained during lecture over laboratory sessions and private reading, the lecture provided direction for study and reinforcement to laboratory exercise.

Dean Osterman (1982) presented what he called a

Feedback Lecture style as an alternative to "conventional one-way communication" (p. 22) in lectures in order to incorporate more student participation during lecture sessions. In this style, students are guided in lecture by 54 a set of notes in outline form for about the 1st half

(about 20 minutes) of a 50-60 minute lecture period. The students are then given approximately 10 minutes to discuss given questions in groups of two, and hand in a response sheet. At this time, they are given appropriate answers to discussion questions, along with a second outline for the second half of the lecture.

The author concluded that increased student involvement using the Feedback Lecture format demonstrates that lectures can be more active and assignments tailor- made to student needs and interests.

Studies somewhat similar to Osterman's were done on the effects of using a spaced lecture, (with predetermined and deliberate pauses for the specific purpose of facilitating note-taking and questioning by students) versus a traditional lecture (with non deliberate pauses) as a part of dissertations by both Bentley (1979) and

Fields (1981). Experimental groups of approximately equal numbers of students were subjected to traditional and spaced lecture formats in both studies. They were subsequently quizzed over the lecture material. In 55 contrast to Osterman's conclusions, no significant differences were found for either immediate or delayed retention in either study.

Canter and Gallatin (1974) studied student preferences for lecture or discussions as related to personality style.

The researchers used an experimental/control design with subjects pre-scanned by a Benefits of Learning scale and for certain personality characteristics such as degree of authoritarianism or degree of dogmatism. Students were then required to either hear a lecture on Sleep and Dreams, or participate in a guided discussion. They were then asked to fill out a lesson-preference rating scale concerning the lesson immediately following.

The study provided no support to the idea that

Authoritarian or Dogmatic personalities would prefer either lecture or discussion over the other. Neither was it found that discussion methods were preferred to lecture methods.

The authors concluded that "... if one looks beyond the slogan quality of these terms...discussion groups can be very authoritarian and aggressive, dominated by the discussions leader's hidden agenda or by one or two 56 determined group members..." (p. 112). Also, that variance of subjects was less determined by personality type than by the situation encountered.

Arguments. Models and Discussions on Expository Teaching.

Arguments, models and discussions of Expository

Teaching seemed to focus on five major aspects of lecturing. These were: the purpose of lecture, organization, preparation, process and presentation of lecture, including clarity and intent.

Purpose of Lecture. John Woods (1983) outlined three general purposes for lecture in the classroom. A search of the literature produced a general agreement with these three purposes among authors both for and against the use of lecture as a teaching strategy. The three general purposes defined were to transmit information, to create interest and to promote understanding.

To educate (Macchiarola, 1971) or to transmit information in general was agreed to be the most common or in some cases primary purpose of lecture (Bowman, 1979;

Brasted, 1973; McMann, 1979; Thompson, 1974; Rowell, 1968;

Whooley, 1974; and Woods, 1983). With few exceptions 57

(Osterman, 1982; Macchiarola, 1971), both sides of the

"great debate" (for or against lecture) seem to agree that

lecture is certainly the most efficient method for transmitting information to large numbers of students especially.

Not everyone, however, agreed that the lecture was the most effective means to achieve this purpose (Macchiarola,

1971; Osterman, 1982; Robin et al., 1972; Heslett, 1974).

Thompson (1974) maintained informational knowledge was much more efficiently available through books, other printed materials or audio or audio-visual devices and constituted

"insufficient warrant for the continuation of lecture as the primary means..." (p. 163) of instruction.

The kind of information to be transmitted was also discussed. Thompson (1974) and McMann (1979) saw the synthesis of information from many sources as the purpose of lecture, as well as to enrich or supplement current material. Another purpose was to provide a "distillation of the truth" or a framework for study (Kyle, 1972; Bowman,

1979) from which the student can survey the field, or determine what information is most important. Mellon

(1973) agreed, adding that students should be pre-screened 58 via completion of self-paced learning modules before lecture to ensure readiness to hear and learn the lecture material.

A second purpose for lecturing was seen to explain or extrapolate concepts with which students have difficulty understanding (McMann, 1979), or to clarify ideas or concepts (Thompson, 1974). (Bowman, 1979) stressed the importance of the organization of concepts for students to help them determine priorities in learning. Kovacic and

Jones (1982) stressed the importance of lecture to help students learn the fundamental principles of any particular science and to learn the fundamentals of problem solving.

They suggested a problem-solving approach that would force students to apply knowledge to new situations, to correlate, evaluate, rationalize and understand. Lecture was also seen to provide the means to demonstrate a variety of models which clarify concepts (Thompson, 1974). Rovin et al. (1972) added that lectures should provide direction in learning and guidance for further study.

The creation of interest was seen as the third purpose for lecture. Bowman (1979) claimed that lecture was most effective for inspiration, clarification and motivation, but least often used for these purposes. Ramette (1980), 59 writing on chemistry lectures stressed the importance of demonstrations during lecture ..."to liberate as much charm as possible from the chemical changes our students see in the lab and through classroom demonstrations" (p. 69). It is one primary purpose of lecture, he said, to help form proper attitudes toward science and to show students how much fun chemistry can be. According to Bowman (1979),

"The legitimate function of a live performance...is to provide students with an opportunity to observe how an experienced investigator engages in analytical reasoning, synthesizes information and makes value judgments" (p. 25).

Kyle (1972) agreed stating that one purpose of lecture was not only to reach large numbers of students, but to also do it in an exciting way. According to Thompson (1974), only a "live performance" serves in "...launching a class on new adventures in learning, moving students off dead center when they appear to be reaching learning plateaus" (p.

163) .

Organization of Lecture. There were only a few articles concerning lectures in general that dealt with specific organization. Ford (1973), McMann (1979) and

Bowman (1979) all stressed the importance of an organized lecture and the ineffectiveness of a redundant, meandering unorganized lecture. None, however, mentioned any specific 60 organizational models. They simply agreed that a properly constructed and implemented lecture could be interesting and challenging, as well as an effective teaching strategy.

Lamb et al. (1979b) in their rationalistic study of

Anderson's Kinetic Structure in lecture, found that learning from a verbal message is enhanced when consecutive ideas contain identical substantive terms. Acquisition of one concept or idea will enhance acquisition of the other; and will also be enhanced if substantive terms are used throughout the message. They concluded that lecturers should be careful to relate substantive terms to one another and to repeat them several times in context.

According to Woods (1983) however, "...often the most diligent effort of preparation, despite the great deal of work involved, sometimes turns out to be a well-organized bore where students count the number of "and-uh's' or become fascinated with the instructor's idiosyncracies" (p.

63) .

Woods (1983) expanded on the notion of there being three different purposes for lecture, saying there was also a relationship between the purposes and the organizational model chosen for lecture, such that purpose and 61 organization should be considered together as a unit and not separately. On pages 61 and 62 he states:

11 It is important to remember that emphasizing

one particular purpose is likely to result in

quite different learning outcomes than had

either of the alternatives been stressed.

Thus in a lecture in which the emphasis is on

transmission of information it may not also be

possible for a great deal of understanding to

take place... Alternatively, a lecture

designed to create interest in a topic may not

provide a wealth of detailed, specific

information. Rather the lecturer may

concentrate on incidental, amusing or even

obscure aspects... Finally, a lecture in which

the intent is to promote understanding may

focus upon only a small portion of the overall

topic.11

Bligh (1972 identified and classified three basic models from which most lectures can be derived. Woods

(1983), for simplification referred to these as the

Classical model, the sequential model, and the Problem- centered model (p. 62). According to Woods, it is the 62 failure to recognize the relationships between purpose and organizational model, which causes many lectures to be less effective than intended. At worst, when purpose and organization are mismatched, the lecture can be seen as "an anachronism serving basically the need of the lecturer who enjoys the sound of his own voice" (Macchiarola et. al.

1971, p. 224), or a technique some have claimed to be "dead as a dodo" (Mellon, 1972, p. 530).

According to Woods (1983) the classical model is essentially a "classification hierarchy" (p. 62) of grouped or synthesized information with a unifying feature as a heading. Because of its inherent content organization, this was seen as the model best suited for efficient transmission of information. The sequential model, containing a series of linked statements leading toward a conclusion was seen to lend itself best toward promotion of understanding.

The Problem-Centered approach was seen by Woods to be the most compatible with creation of interest. In this organizational model, a particular problem or aspect of substantive information is set as the focus of the presentation. Information is either provided in relation to the center of focus, or by it. 63

In their arguments concerning creating interest and the importance of opening lecture in chemistry, Battino

(1980) and Kovacic and Jones (1982) stressed not only one representative focus to create interest, but also a representative focus purposely geared to enhance excitement or even awe as well. From this point, however, they differed.

Kovacic and Jones suggested the opening lecture do more than create interest with inspiring demonstrations, a degree of showmanship an the use of jokes or anecdotes to heighten attention. They stressed the importance of discussion of the instructor's role in the class, philosophy of education, expectations of students by the instructor, historical aspects of science and the impact of science on society as well. Battino argued that opening lecture be confined to a "magic show" approach with no

"parent" messages (p. 67) in order to establish that chemistry and fun are compatible terms. Expectations, goals, philosophy and student/teacher roles should be presented in subsequent lectures.

Preparation of Lecture. McMann (1979), Bowman (1979), and Ford (1973) stressed the importance of organizing lecture material beforehand, with Bowman claiming that 64 organized material is better retained than unorganized. Of the three however, only McMann went into detail concerning actual preparation for lecture. According to McMann, the lecture could be not only be an effective teaching strategy, but also one the students find interesting and challenging if it were properly constructed and implemented. McMann's definition of a properly implemented lecture, included extensive planning and preparation included:

1. Development of rationales and criteria for

lecture use.

2. Identification of behavioral objectives and of

sophisticated taxonomy levels to be assimilated

into the lecture.

3. Development of guidelines for the implementation

of the lecture, (p. 270)

In his article, McMann suggested a clearly defined, systematic procedure is required to properly prepare and organize an effective lecture. The four procedural steps mentioned were to: 65

1. Identify and write behavioral objectives.

2. State the lecture topic or issue in question form

so as to direct both instructor and students

toward a singular idea.

3. Identify sources relevant to the lecture topic

and gather related information from different

perspectives in order to present the most

comprehensive view possible. Stress

interpretations, points of view, and conclusions

which present controversy and stimulate

debate between and among teacher and students.

4. Get to know the students and the factors which

influence their receptivity to lectures. These

factors may include such things as academic

abilities, physical handicaps, learning

disabilities, academic interests

and background in the content area.

Process of Lecture. While there were quite a few authors willing to analyze, criticize, or in some cases recommend the lecture as an effective or ineffective teaching strategy, very few bothered to describe or even define the actual process of lecture. With the exception of just a few, most authors seemed to assume that the term or process of lecture had the same meaning to all readers, 66 and could therefore be discussed without benefit of any definitional perimeter. According to McMann (1979), "The criticisms of the lecture approach are not so much that the lecture method is inherently deficient, but that the method has been badly abused and narrowly defined" (p. 271).

Lamb et al. (1979b) called lecture simply "a most persistent teaching method...consisting of...a verbal message" (p. 223). Rovin et al. (1972) called it "...a monolog, a one way discourse which either does not allow, or minimizes student participation..." (p. 326). Thompson

(1974) was not so complimentary, defining lecture as "...a droning endlessly to a captive audience about informational knowledge which they already have or which is more easily and effectively obtained otherwise..." (p. 164). Newton

(1971) went one step further calling the typical or most common class lecture "... an outward manifestation of the teacher's single-minded effort to get through a definite, specific, predetermined and probably unalterable lesson plan" (p. 436). McMann (1979) added that lecture is, while perhaps not as grim as Thompson or Newton's description,

"...by virtue of its expository nature, burdened with factual content..." (p. 270). He did not find it incompatible, however, with inquiry or any other innovative teaching strategy. 67

Models of Lecture - Three models of lecture were described in the literature. The first by Marilyn

Kourilsky was simply a communication model designed to describe her definition of the lecture aspect of teaching.

In her model, lecture was seen to consist of three aspects: the sender, or lecturer, the message, or information sent by the lecturer, and the receiver, or audience. The message was considered to consist of verbal as well as nonverbal communication. The model was represented by a diagram as shown in Fig 1, pg. 68 (Kourilsky, 1971 p. 21). Information * ------Person Message Cognition Emotion

Source of Receiver Stimuli

(Teacher) (Student)

Feedback n^.. -

Figure 1

Communication in Lecture (Kouriisky, 1971)

o^ 00 69

In this model, the information given was seen to be possibly affected by the message, or delivery by the instructor, and the cognition of that message surrounding the information by the students based on their emotions.

The message then, could be impeded by the delivery of the speaker, its own ambiguity, level of abstraction or rate of transmission (too fast or too slow).

The listener could be affected by such things as diversion of attention (usually by some physical object in the environment), concentration, fatigue, spontaneous thought linkage to some other aspect of her/his daily activities or perception, either physically or psychologically, of the surrounding environment. The speaker, finally, may or may not be affected by verbal or nonverbal feedback either during or after the lecture.

A second, very similar model of communication during lecture was presented by Frederick Heslett (1974). In his article, lecture was depicted as a three-dimensional construct consisting of the process of expression used by the lecturer, the interactional patterns of the communication, and reception alternatives of those receiving the message. A representation of Heslett's model is shown in Fig. 2 pg. 70. Message ■ >

EXPRESSION

Digital

Analogic

INTERACTION RECEPTION PROCESS Symmetrical Disqualification Complementary Rejection

Acceptance

Figure 2

Communication During Lecture (Heslett, 1974) o 71

The process of expression was seen to consist of two types: digital and analogic. Digital communication consists of verbal communication including syntax, symbolism and language structure. Analogic communication includes such nonverbal cues as body movements, gestures, and facial expressions, as well as voice inflection, word sequence, cadence and rhythm. Perceived sincerity or insincerity was seen to be within the analogic process of expression.

Interactional patterns were described as one of two types; Symmetrical or Complementary interaction.

Symmetrical communication interaction occurs when the communicants mirror one another's behavior, such as in adult-adult interaction. Complementary interaction occurs when communicants differ, such as the relationship between teacher and student. Complementary interaction was seen as the type most common to lectures.

Three reaction alternatives were presented for message receivers. These were disqualification of information, where the listener perceived inconsistencies leading to speaker alienation, rejection of content or acceptance of the information. 72

The third lecture model described a new technique developed by David Osterman (1982). In his "Feedback

Lecture," Osterman suggested a process by which the lecture presentation was divided in order to gain immediate and direct student feedback. The first approximately one-third of the class lecture time consisted of lecture (undefined) for which the students had been given a study outline.

During the second third of the class time the students were divided into discussion groups while the instructor circulated among them. In these small groups of usually two students, specific questions were discussed and a response sheet returned to the instructor. The lecture with new student study outlines, resumed during the last third of the class time. In this half of lecture, appropriate responses to discussion questions were given and new questions raised. The article did not mention whether the second lecture portion included responses to student questions or feedback during discussion time. The author did conclude that the feedback lecture provided

"... innovative instructional techniques in a lecture format in a manner that meets the needs of today's students"

(Osterman, 1982, p. 23). 73

Presentation of Lecture. While only a few critics of the lecture method offered any definition of the process of lecture, nearly all seemed to have much to say concerning the presentation. Comments fell generally into three categories. These were the clarity or the intent of the instructor, as compared to student perception of the message; content of the message presented, that is what types of information should be included; and actual delivery of the message by the instructor including personality, enthusiasm, delivery, and what it takes to be a "good" lecturer.

Kourilsky (1971) noted that sometimes concurrent verbal and nonverbal messages can be incompatible. In these cases, the students become confused between the message they hear, and the one they see. The intent of the instructor may have been to communicate one specific thought or idea, while the coverbal (pitch, stress and intonation) and/or nonverbal message (gestures, facial expressions) accompanying the verbal, may have communicated something entirely different. Battino (1980) agreed, and emphasized the importance of clarity of intent especially on the first day of lecture. He claimed the tone, style, direction and atmosphere of the class set the first day, generally carries through the entire course. Often, the 74

teacher's intended message the first day (for example, that

chemistry can be fun and exciting) can get lost in the

seemingly endless lists of rules, procedures, course

outlines and possible sanctions.

Another problem with message clarity concerned

incompatibility of the teacher's level of communication

with that of the student. There are times, in other words,

when lecturers present messages incoherent to the students.

According to Whooley (1974) this is often due to the

lecturer using a vocabulary which is inappropriate to the developmental stages of the learners.

The content of the message was seen to be another

important factor in lecture presentation. This was discussed in some detail earlier (pages 60 to 63) in respect to Woods' (1983) organizational models for lecture.

Kovacic and Jones (1982) added the importance of injecting history in subjects such as chemistry, in order to make them "more human" (p. 366). Subject matter, they said, must be linked to modern problems and concerns.

Chemistry in particular must be presented in relation to its impact on such modern day problems as pollution, overpopulation, food production, pesticides, drugs, energy 75 and nuclear weapons. Knowledge and application of the matter, however, must be supplemented with a concern for the student (Bowman, 1979).

Ramette (1980) emphasized the importance of demonstrations as a part of lecture to help teach concepts or principles, and to help build up experimental knowledge in such a way as to make the abstract more concrete. In his article he stated: "We teachers must realize that chemistry is relatively boring to read and work problems about, unless students have some vivid mental images of the experimental side of science" (Ramette, 1980 p. 69). Good demonstrations he claimed, spice up class sessions while teaching fundamental principles of chemistry.

Clarity and content are certainly essential elements in any lecture, but most authors agreed there was a "silent language" (Kyle, 1972, p. 325) in lectures that adds to the message. This silent language, or the instructor's presentation of the message, including enthusiasm, delivery, pace and "personhood" of the lecturer, was the subject of most comments regarding lecture as a teaching strategy from either side of the "Great Debate." 76

Nearly all agreed (Bowman, 1979; McMann, 1979;

Thompson, 1974; Heslett, 1974; Mellon, 1973; Kyle, 1972;

Battino, 1980; Ramette, 1980) that one important element a

good lecture had, and that poor lectures lacked, was

enthusiasm. There obviously are some whose style and

personality, combined with a heightened grasp of the

material, permit them to lecture in a way that equals

excellence in teaching, however, "...this kind of teaching

is rare" (Bowman, 1979, p. 26). Teachers, in other words,

must exhibit an enthusiastic attitude toward not only the

content and skills demanded but the lecture method as well.

If the teacher does not enjoy the subject, then neither

will the students (Battino, 1980). According to Mellon

(1973), Battino (1980), and Ramette (1980) in particular,

and others in general, the enthusiasm of the lecturer can

drive students to a willingness or even eagerness to learn,

and to develop a mature understanding of the subject that

goes beyond the classroom, and that lasts long after the

course has ended.

The delivery and pace of the lecture was also seen to be an important element - especially to those writing

against lecture as an effective technique. Ramette (1980) especially, and also Battino (1980) and Kovacic and Jones

(1982) emphasized the importance of a certain amount of 77 showmanship during lecture, as well as the use of anecdotes and jokes. Kourilsky (1971), Bowman (1979), Thompson

(1974) and Whooley (1974) were more concerned with the pace or timing of the lecture, with Whooley asking "How many students are lulled into a deep sleep by the lecturer's drone or are distracted...by the teacher's personal idiosyncracies?" (p. 185) According to Thompson (1974) however, properly timed lectures can actually stimulate questioning by students.

The verbal and nonverbal methods of delivery, along with the pace, were also seen to be crucial elements by

Bowman (1979) and Kourilsky (1971). Both agreed that simple material may be lost if presented too slowly, and complex material not understood if the speaker talks too quickly. Robert Grove (1973) in his rationalistic study of lecturer pace and noise level in the classroom inferred from his experimental results that a slow pace may bore students to a level of distraction while going too fast may lose them entirely. Another factor mentioned in delivery was possible reinforcement (Bowman, 1979) or confusion

(Kourilsky, 1971) of messages with nonverbal communication such as facial expression, gestures and body movements, or coverbal communication such as slurring of words, speaking in a monotone, or appearing unaware of the audience. 78

The humanness of the lecturer was another factor seen to be important in the presentation of lecture material.

Thompson (1974) noted that an effective lecturer is not afraid to "break a few eggs to make an omelet - that is, to become impassioned and considerably less objective in the treatment of his field" (p. 163). Heslett (1974) said the lecturer must project personality during the lecture.

"...he must think aloud; and the audience must hear and feel his deep enthusiasm regarding the subject" (p. 190).

Kyle (1972) added that some of his "strongest memories come from men who have put their heart and souls into their lectures." Some messages, according to Kyle, need emotion in the voice and "tears in [the lecturer's] eyes..." to impress the students. Conversely according to Kourilsky

(1971) a negative image projection either before or during lecture will cause students to tune the lecturer out completely.

Based on the literature, proper timing, research, organization and practice were seen to be key factors in making a "good" lecture. Bowman (1979) claimed that effective use of class time uses a minimum of imagination, but a maximum of personal effort. McMann (1979) called lecturing both a skill and an art which teachers must learn over time with practice, analysis and periodic evaluation 79 of their technique. Mellon (1973) agreed, adding that success or failure of a lecture depends largely on the skill and dedication of the instructional staff. Rovin et al. (1972) however, said the benefit of a well-prepared lecture isn't worth the time and effort put into it.

Without citing any empirical evidence to back his claim, he maintained none the less that students would learn and retain more from seminars, laboratory work or independent study. Evidence from rationalistic studies comparing lecture to labs and seminars (small group study) discussed earlier (pp 24 to 26; and 53 to 55) however, lend more support to those in support of lecture as an effective strategy. According to Kyle (1972) and others, an instructor who spends hours in research, organization and practice can electrify an audience and leave students with an enthusiasm for learning. 80

Summary of Research on Expository Strategy

Most research on expository teaching per se has been done largely with post secondary students in many content areas. In the field of science in particular however, there seems to be a division among authors, concerning the relative value, worth or effectiveness of lecture as a teaching method. As a result, the large majority of the literature represented various theory-based arguments, models, discussions and commentaries concerning such elements of the lecture as purpose, organization, preparation, process, presentation of, and delivery during lecture classes.

Rationalistic studies focused mainly on two areas.

The first included the affects of various aspects of lecture, such as pace, organization, humor and expressiveness or dynamism lecture had on student attentiveness during class or student achievement. The second set consisted of comparison studies involving different types of lecture. Included in this section were reports on comparisons of lecture versus no lecture, as related to student personality factors, and use of a 81

feedback lecture to increase student involvement. Studies

began on the premise that either some other strategy was better than lecture for one reason or another, or that

lecture method was beneficial only to dogmatic or

authoritarian personalities. All three concluded not only

that their null hypothesis was supported, but also that in

spite of theoretical arguments against lecture as an

effective strategy, it was a superior method for student

achievement and also preferred by most students.

Probably the key reason to the lack of agreement between theory and experimental results in the rationalist

studies, and various authors of commentaries concerning

lecture, is the lack of any clear definition of the term or the process of lecture. According to Mellon (1973) critics of the lecture system generally compare the best of other strategies with the worst that lecture has to offer. A more accurate statement may be that neither can be compared until it is known definitively what exactly, is being compared. For example, Lamb et. al. (1979b) studied commonality of lecturer among teachers, comparing a new technique with "...what we know as ordinary classroom teaching" (p. 224) without in any way defining either lecture or ordinary classroom teaching. Osterman (1982) defined the value of lecture as the transmission of 82 information. He then went on to claim that the process was inefficient, again without defining or in any way describing what he meant by either lecture or the process of lecture.

Also lacking, was any consideration of lecturer personality, or student motivation to learn or interest in the subject matter itself. Conflicting results among studies comparing expressive and direct lecture styles may have been due to measurement of student opinion or perception of learning in 3 studies (Harvey and Barker,

1970; Gadzella, 1977; and Musella and Reisch 1968), as opposed to actual measurement of achievement. Or perhaps the basic personality of one lecturer would preclude effective delivery of one type of lecture over another.

The complexity of individual speaking, listening and learning styles, combined with varying content areas, time of day, motivation and the like make variables nearly impossible to control and meaningful quantitative studies difficult to do at all. 83

Research on Expository Strategies in

Secondary Science Classrooms

There have been relatively few studies on instructional strategies in secondary science. There are even fewer studies concerning lecture in particular. The large majority of these involve quantitative comparison studies concerning lecture method versus either discovery/inquiry teaching or laboratory classes. These were discussed at length earlier (see pp. 24-26). There were three studies concerning lecture format per se, in secondary science classes. These were identified in the literature as representing two general areas of research on lecture format or organization in secondary science classrooms. The first area represented by one study, focused on deductive, as compared to inductive, linear learning and student retention of information. The second area, represented by two different research approaches, focused on communication during lecture based on Anderson's theory of kinetic structure analysis. 84

Deductive versus Inductive Learning. Herdmann and

Hincksman (1978) investigated the advantages of a deductive as opposed to an inductive linear learning program. In this model, rules regarding a concept were presented first during lecture, followed by several examples. In the inductive method, examples only were presented, during lecture, from which a general rule was to be induced.

Post-tests were given to evaluate the results of this study, one immediately following the lesson and another two weeks later. The deductive learning model groups performed significantly better on immediate retention, but declined sharply so that no significant difference was found between deductive and inductive linear learning programs. Also, neither method held any advantage for high or low test anxiety students.

Two other studies on lecture were conducted regarding modes of communication during lecture based on Anderson1s theory of kinetic structure analysis (Lu, 1978; Lamb, et. al., 1979). Each investigation represented a different approach.

Lu's study (1978) divided high school astronomy classes into three groups to be presented with one of three modes of communication. They were as follows; a) initial 85 integrative structure, where an overview is given at the outset and then each idea was developed in detail thereafter; b) terminal integrative structure where specific ideas are discussed initially, followed by an overview presented in summary; c) distributed integrative structure where each idea is developed in succession and integrated into the next idea as it is discussed. He found the distributed integrative structure (or antecedent ideas blended into subsequent ideas) to be more effective than the other two, which showed no significant differences between them (Lu, 1978).

A similar study in 1978 by Lamb et. al. used a pre­ test lecture, post-test format with five different teachers trained in Anderson's theory teaching the same lesson.

Fifteen minute "samples" from each teacher's lecture were taken to determine commonality. One overwhelming drawback in this study, however, was that while the same lesson was taught, five different teachers were involved with five different classes, each with as many as thirty different students. With that many variables multiplied by the human variances involved, the results of the study were considered by the author to be weak at best. One clear finding in the study was the great positive support for commonality in lecture content among the five teachers. 86

Despite admitted weakness in the study, the authors found some support for Anderson's Theory (Lamb, et. al., 1979). 87

Summary of Research on Expository Teaching

Strategies in Secondary Science

There are very, very few studies on expository teaching strategies in secondary science classrooms. Two areas were identified, represented by three studies. The first area concerned deductive as opposed to inductive linear learning models. The second, represented by two investigations, focused on communication during lecture, based on Anderson's theory of kinetic structure and analysis.

The general conclusion that may be drawn from this research is that while lecture format may in some cases be a key factor or even a negotiable variable in teaching secondary science, it does not in and of itself constitute a difference in student achievement. In light of research on expository strategy per se, the critical element may just be the delivery of the lecture, or the process of

"lecture" as an event. The process of lecture would include not only the teacher and her/his abilities, but also the students, and their abilities as well. The 88

activity of "lecture" as given by any one individual however, cannot be measured in quantitative terms.

While training teachers to put Anderson's theory into practice may boose achievement initially, will it last?

According to McKeachie (Gage, Ed., 1963),

"Taking a course taught by a new method may generate

excitement or hostility. The Hawthorne effect

influences teachers as well as students. The

treatment rarely lasts for more than one semester.

What happens after the excitement fades?" (p. 1123).

Until the practice of a strategy is clearly defined and described qualitatively in relation to the individual teacher and her/his personality, one cannot be sure what, if any, single variable has the effect of achievement. 89

Research on Intentional Teaching

Very little research was found specifically addressing teacher intentions, or match between teacher intent and actual classroom occurrences. A search of the literature on teacher planning, spontaneity, thinking and methods however, when gleaned for information on teacher intentions was helpful. Along with a definition of intentional teaching, this review also found information on teacher intentions as related specifically to instruction, goal clarification, and planning.

Definition

An obvious definition of teacher intentions from Hunt

(1976) defined the active form of teacher intention simply as what a teacher is trying to do. Further review of the literature however, provided a far more involved definition with as many variations on the definition of intent or intentions as there were investigators writing on the subject. 90

Hunt (1976) defined teacher intention in terms of adaptability in relation to what a teacher is trying to do.

Bradley (1975) however, defined teacher intent according to the teacher's underlying motivation. Intent, in his terms, had to do not only with what the teacher plans to do, but also how teachers use their skills. Ivey (1974) called this underlying motivation the second dimension of intentionality; the first being that which is the dominant thread running through the great majority of the literature. Teacher intention was seen in most studies, from a different perspective, creating a new, or perhaps long ignored construct. Instead of defining "teacher intention" as such, these studies focused on what was called, the "Intentional Teacher."

The Intentional Teacher: Flexibility.

The intentional teacher was seen logically, to act with intent. But beyond this, was the concept of flexibility or adaptability to carry out this intent.

Chadbourne et. al. (1981) called the intentional teacher the flexible teacher who has a wide range of alternative behaviors and is able to select knowledgeably from these to carry out her/his intent. Ivey (1969) presented the intentional teacher as the operational definition of the effective or actualized person. The intentional teacher, 91 he said, is one who can "...generate alternative behaviors in a given situation and can 'come at1 a problem from different vantage points or theoretical views..." (Ivey,

1969, p. 57).

Ivey and Rollin (1974) found that the intentional teacher has many behavioral options open, can decide which is appropriate for any given situation and can interact with environmental feedback to change the direction of her/his actions. They said (s)he is a person who can understand and react in a multitude of contexts and situations. In other words, intentional teachers were found to be aware of their goals; have distinct ideas on how they may be met and are able as well as willing to draw on whatever resources are available to get there. They are able to adapt themselves to the situation at hand in order to carry out their intent; they are flexible and in tune with events as they unfold. The researchers summed this up in their following statement; "We believe the intentional teacher is an individual who can be in tune with himself at a particular moment, listen carefully to a child, help a small group resolve a problem, institute an organizational change, or, perhaps even decide not to act at all. All 92 behavioral options are open to the intentional teacher...

[including] the opportunity to fail and be truly human..."

(p. 29).

The Intentional Teacher; Spontaneity

Another aspect of the intentional teacher was seen to be the ability to act "to the moment" (Chadbourne, 1981 p.

100) or spontaneously, as the situation deems necessary.

Ivey and Rollin (1974) agreed, saying they are sensitive to environmental change, and are able to freely interact according to immediate environmental feedback; to change the direction of their actions. Hunt (1976) referred to this ability to adapt to student behavior as the heart of the teaching-learning process. He defined that further as

"...the moment to moment shifts in teacher behavior in response to an individual student, a group of students, or an entire class, as well as shifts over a longer period of time" (Hunt, 1976, p. 269). Intentional teachers then were seen to be not only adaptable to the moment, but also willing to change long term plans in order to achieve their goal; or carry out their intentions. 93

Instruction. Very little research was found to exist on what Hunt (1976) called the "ubiquitous phenomenon" (p.

268) of spontaneous adaptation or, in this definition, intentional teaching per se. In his article on Matching

Models, Hunt (1971) stated, "Flexibility in teaching is, in many ways, like creativity in the learner: both are value­ laden, generally desirable states which are poorly specified and given inadequate operational definitions" (p.

77). In his Teachers' Adaptation article, (1976) five general areas of treatment of this phenomenon were outlined. The inadequacy of these may explain why such a poor understanding of this phenomenon exists. Teacher adaptation was, according to him:

a) not acknowledged

b) grudgingly admitted with a narrative example (e.g., "the teacher rewards this student, stops to consider another,")

c) described as a complex "clinical" skill beyond the ken of most classroom teachers;

d) regarded as a mysterious, unanalyzable feature idiosyncratic to every teacher and every classroom;

e) buried in elaborate discussions on "individualized instruction." (Hunt, 1976 p. 268).

Nevertheless, specific skills for intentional teaching have been identified by Hunt as well as other investigators in the field. 94

According to Chadbourne (1981), there is no one teacher mode which will facilitate all or even most human development. He said every teaching method has some

inherent worth; and that the successful teacher is the one who is able to select the appropriate method considering all aspects of the given moment. The successful teacher according to Flanders (1970) is the one who uses a broad variety of teaching methods and behavior. Specific skills for the intentional teacher include:

1) (From Amidon and Flanders, 1963)

the ability to use social skills of accepting, clarifying, using ideas of students in planning work and diagnosing difficulties.

- knowledge of those acts of influence that restrict student reactions and those that expand student reactions.

Understanding a theory of instruction that can be used to control teachers1 behavior and guide classroom communication.

2) The ability to experiment with one's own behavior, obtaining objective information about that behavior, evaluating this information in terms of the teacher's role;... attaining self­ insight while acting like a teacher (Flanders, 1963) .

3) The ability to describe behavior, then choose the most appropriate one for the situation (Chadbourne, 1981).

4) The ability to engage in environmental interactions with a maximum of alternatives (Ivey, 1969). 95

5) The ability to "read" the listener's misunderstanding and "flex" or adjust the communication in accordance with what was read (or taught) (Hunt, 1976).

6) The capacity to be sensitive to the student, and modulate the approach in relation to the student's requirements (Hunt, 1976).

In each of these, the general theme of adaptability or flexibility was carried through. Richard Turner (1979) found in his studies that the most successful teachers of disadvantaged students expect to vary instructional styles and strategies. One characteristic of a successful teacher, according to him, is their "set" or willingness to vary in style and/or strategy to get the point across

(Turner, 1979). Joyce and Hodges (1966) agreed in their statement: "...a teacher who can purposefully exhibit a wide variety of teaching styles is potentially able to accomplish more than a teacher whose repertoire is relatively limited.

Turner's research however, focused on the presence for most teachers, of an overall dominant style in teaching.

This in turn, may present the possibility of matching general teaching styles with different student learning styles, but only to a limited extent. In Turner's opinion, the strength and durability of school organization is partially a factor of the lack of effort to control 96 variability of teaching and learning styles. While schools rarely attempt to match styles of teachers and students, over a long period of time, students are exposed to many styles; some to which they are able to adapt, and some with which they will struggle. He concluded that it is important for teachers to be skilled, but also to be able to vary in style. There are many effective teaching styles, he said, and every teacher should be skilled in at least one, preferably two (Turner, 1979).

According to Ivey and Rollin (1974), the effective teacher was one who acts with intentionality, constantly mixing thinking and feeling approaches with children in new and unusual ways to maintain her/his and the children’s interest and involvement. They, in agreement with Joyce and Hodges (1966), found that bringing new approaches to the teaching situation, however, depends on having an adequate behavioral repertoire from which to draw (Ivey and

Rollin, 1974).

One study by Mitzel and Rabinowitz (1953) was conducted where teachers were observed for 20 minute periods, on the average, to test for variability of integrative-dominative balance among visits for the same teachers. They found statistically significant wide 97 variability suggesting that the teachers studied were able to adapt strategies to fit the immediate situation (Mitzel and Rabinowitz, 1953). Amidon and Flanders (1963) found in their studies, that a variability in teacher influence, or flexibility was associated with teachers whose students learned the most. Further, they found that '’better" teachers do show a variety of patterns of behavior. They called this "creative teaching," saying it was "...a unique expression of a particular teacher's personality using her range of ability and skill in working with a particular group of students in a particular subject matter field" (p. 60) .

Hunt (1976) found that grouping students by reading ability better enabled teachers to adapt to students both between and within classes. Flanders (1970) found in his studies, that the ability of a teacher to adapt behavior to the moment - or lack of that ability - was more useful in predicting teaching success than the adoption of any one particular style or method of teaching. Ivey and Rollin

(1974) presented a comparison of two teachers, one of which was representative of the intentional, or adaptable teacher, and the other of one who initially failed to adapt to an unanticipated problem. 98

"Susie had a beautiful lesson in human relations. She wanted to share with her fifth grade students some of her ideas about listening to others. She sat on the floor and asked the children to play gossip...to pass a message around the circle by whispering.

"After the circle had gone around a few times, Susie asked the children to discuss what had happened. The children engaged in an excellent discussion of how one learns from listening to others. The children continued the discussion on their own and Susie became a participant with them as they explored the topic. As the children became more involved, Susie dropped out of the discussion and became an interested listener. She was particularly pleased when Craig, usually a negative discipline problem, pointed out that 'listening is not necessarily hearing'" (p. 22).

The authors then pointed out the several characteristics of intentional teaching this teacher had, such as: ..

a) She was physically relaxed.

b) She was able to demonstrate the concepts of attending behavior,

c) She was able to switch roles, from teacher to co-participant.

d) She was prepared to offer students new suggestions for learning if it seemed appropriate to do so at the moment. 99

An example of a teacher who failed to act with intentionality was also presented.

"Jane, too, had a good lesson plan in which she hoped to teach her sixth graders decision making skills. She presented the children with a situation in which they were to imagine that someone bigger than they wanted to take their bike away from them. She wanted her students to generate as many alternative courses of action as possible in a brain-storming session.

"Bill came out with a statement stealing Jane's thunder by listing six alternatives in his first statement. Jane grimaced as Bill had a way of answering questions so completely that he tended to shut others out. The other children sat during the brief hiatus. Jane said, somewhat weakly, 'That's fine, now what other ideas can you think of?' No one else thought of any other ideas. Jane started talking and showing the children some alternatives...they weren't listening. The lesson ended when Jane had to reprimand Tom for hitting Bill" (Ivey and Rollin, 1974, p. 23).

In this situation, the teacher was unable to create alternative behaviors to keep the lesson going. Some alternatives were offered however, such as having the children role play Bill's suggestions, or evaluate any alternatives to his suggestions. The authors went on to suggest that one of the highest forms of intentional teaching would have been to move out of a difficult situation altogether and start on a new topic rather than trying to stick to the old against the odds (Ivey and

Rollin, 1974). 100

Goal Clarification. According to Hough (1985), clarity of intentions may be considered from four different perspectives:

1) The teacher's awareness and understanding of her/his intentions in combination with clarity of expression of those intentions to the students.

2) The student's understanding of the teacher's intentions.

3) The degree of congruence (mutual understanding) between the teacher's intentions and the student's understanding of the teacher's intentions.

4) In the absence of a teacher, the "learner's" awareness and understanding of her/his own intentions, (p. 34).

Further complicating the process, it was found by

Cohen (1980) that students have their own goals and intentions, apart from those of the teacher. The learner therefore, must be able to internalize information to determine for himself what, if any, gratification there may be in the task. When this happens, according to Bradley

(1975), the learner holds the position to experience success or failure not as a reward or punishment, but as learned information. But for any reactive satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) to occur, it seems reasonable to propose that there must be a minimal degree of mutual understanding of the teacher's instructional intentions (Hough, 1985). 101

That clear goals, both short term and long term, are an essential to intentional teaching was fairly well established (Flanders, 1963; Amidon and Flanders, 1963;

Zahorik, 1970; Hunt, 1971; McDonald et. al., 1973; Cohen,

1980; Shavelson and Stern, 1981). Specific research on the subject, scanty at best, dwelt mostly on characteristics of instruction when goals are clear or unclear (Amidon and

Flanders, 1963; Flanders, 1963), or the consequences of unclear goals (Amidon and Flanders, 1963).

Flanders (1963) studied three situations with operational differences, concerning goal clarity. These were situations where;

a) The students were completely unaware of the teacher's goal,

b) The students understood the goal, knew the necessary steps to reach that goal, and were interested or satisfied to work toward that goal,

c) The students understood the goal, knew the necessary steps to reach that goal, but were not interested in working toward that goal (p. 45).

He hypothesized that reactions of the student to the teacher when goals were clear, that is when the student knew what (s)he was doing, would be different from those when (s)he was not sure what the goal was. 102

Amidon and Flanders (1963) found these hypotheses to hold true in their studies. They recommended immediate action be taken in any situation where learning goals were not understood by the students. Logically, students who do not know what to do are unable to continue work, and so they waste time. They found further, that high achievement and independence were found more often when a teacher responds to ambiguity and clears up any misunderstanding with an indirect rather than a direct approach.

In his chapter on Teacher Influence in the Classroom, however, Flanders (1963) seemed to almost dismiss the need to be overly concerned with clarity of goals. "The incidence of unclear goal perceptions among pupils may be far more frequent at the beginning of a school year when pupils, teacher, subject and methods are less understood.

In general, unclear goals become clear with the passage of time, either suddenly or gradually, if efforts to reach the goal are maintained. Since perceptions of the goal are subject to individual differences and some goals are more difficult to understand than others, a teacher must assume that there is a range of goal perceptions in a class at any given moment" (p. 48). 103

Curriculum: Teacher Planning. According to Shavelson and Stern (1981), it is essential to know not only specific goals of teachers, but also the nature of the task environment confronting them, their information-processing capabilities, and the relationship between these elements in order to understand teacher behavior. Jackson (1968) considered differences as well as relationships between what he called preactive teaching, or those plans made before class begins and interactive teaching where the teacher must respond to the immediate demands of the moment. There is a crucial difference, he said,

"...between what the teacher does alone at the desk, and what is done when the room is filled with students"

(Jackson, 1968), p. 151).

Unfortunately, while researchers such as Jackson pointed to the importance of looking at preactive teaching, relatively few studies ventured into this area (Clark and

Yinger, 1977). A model for curriculum planning first introduced by Tyler (1950) and later elaborated on by Taba

(1962) and Popham (1970) outlined four steps teachers should follow when planning their lessons. These are: 104

a) specify objectives

b) select learning activities

c) organize learning activities

d) specify evaluation procedures (Clark and Yinger, 1977)

But one of the major findings of research on teacher planning was that teachers don't follow the traditional methods of lesson planning. Zahorik, (1975) and Shavelson and Stern (1981) both found that they focus instead on content and material with which the students are involved - with maintaining activity flow as their primary concern.

John Zahorik (1970) conducted an investigation to see if thorough lesson planning really did make the teaching- learning process more productive. Using a "plan of choice"

(p. 144) similar to Taba's curriculum planning model (Clark and Yinger, 1977), he divided twelve fourth grade teachers into two groups. The experimental group was given a lesson plan two weeks prior to the lesson day, and sworn to secrecy. Each teacher in the control group was instructed to teach a specific lesson for 30 minutes, and to "begin now." The primary differences between the two groups were in teacher reactions to student responses. Those that planned lessons tended not to ask for clarification of student ideas or further student input, trying instead to 105 shape student thinking and discussion to the teacher's plan. The non-planning teachers did ask for clarifications and seemed to welcome student input (Zahorik, 1970).

Research concerning congruence between preactive teaching plans, and actual interaction seemed to concur with Jackson's findings on preactive and interactive teaching. Hunt (1976) found in his work, that teachers vary considerably in terms of their initial intentions and

"...their organization of goal sequences, e.g., cognative vs. affective emphasis; contemporaneous vs. developmental emphasis: (p. 273) . During preactive teaching, that is planning, preparing instructional materials, or correcting student papers, the teachers carefully consider all available information to select whichever teaching strategy is most likely to result in attainment of instructional goals (Shavelson and Borko, 1979). Shavelson and Stern

(1981) found that much of the teachers' preactive planning focused on creating tasks, while the interactive behavior focused on smooth implementation of that task. 106

According to Flanders (1970), in actuality, teachers can commit themselves to teaching only at the present moment. "In order to match purposes with strategies, a teacher senses and reacts to the present; reflects on the past, and plans for the future" (p. 2) . What Jackson

(1968) found in his studies, is that teachers' classroom behavior is often based more on impulse, or "what feels right" (p. 145) than on reflection and thought. For the successful teacher, these impulses and intuitive hunches have been in most cases, tempered by years of teaching experience.

Ivey and Rollin (1974) discussed this same phenomenon in relation to their examples of intentional teachers.

Susie, the "successful" intentional teacher, (see pages 97-

99) had planned only some of her specific behaviors. By noticing feedback from the children, she was able to do

"what felt right" to her (Ivey, 1969, pg. 56) at the moment. That included spontaneous as well as planned activities. Jane, on the other hand, (see page 99) lacked alternatives, or the ability to shift her lesson to a new framework, and so when things did not go as planned, she lost control of the class (Ivey and Rollin, 1974).

Shavelson and Stern (1981) found that the task planned guided teacher behavior only until something went wrong. 107

Ivey (1969) and Ivey and Rollin (1974) saw the ability to adjust lesson strategies to the moment as intentional teaching. Research by Shavelson and Stern (1981) seemed to cast a bit of a shadow on these earlier conclusions. They found that teachers who considered alternative teaching strategies or changed strategies during teaching were associated with students lower in achievement and attitude.

In contrast, teachers who reported that their teaching went as planned were associated with high student achievement.

Those routines which maintained the flow of activity then, were associated with higher student achievement (Shavelson and Stern, 1981)

The difference between the criteria for "successful11 teachers in the three studies (Ivey, 1969; Ivey and Rollin,

1974; Shavelson and Stern, 1981) was that those teachers in the Shavelson and Stern investigation who used alternative strategies and who changed strategies during interactive teaching were those who were also experiencing problems with their normal teaching routine and so had to consider alternatives. Both teachers in the Ivey and Rollin (1974) study were considered to have acted with intentionality in the long run. (Jane, by changing her lesson focus altogether after her initial "failure"). Also, Susie had It) 8 planned some of her specific behaviors, and much of her unplanned activities were learned behavior, well ingrained into her repertoire of teaching strategies (Ivey and

Rollin, 1974). 109

Summary of Research

on Intentional Teaching

Very little research was found to exist on intentional teaching or teacher intentions. Much of what was found was gleaned instead from articles on teacher planning, spontaneity, thinking and methods. Along with a definition of intentional teaching, information on teacher intentions as they related specifically to instruction, goal clarification and planning was presented.

From the research, it was apparent that prior planning, or preactive teaching is as important to the teaching-learning process as the ability to adapt during interaction and successfully implement intended outcomes.

Intentionality, flexibility or adaptability however, did not necessarily imply lack of planning. In fact, according to Zahorik (1970), no idea in education is more widely accepted than that specific thorough planning for a lesson makes the teaching-learning encounter valuable and productive. The key to the success of the intentional teacher, was that (s)he is able to adapt general teaching 110

skills and/or behaviors to the immediate situation in order to stick to the original intent regardless of what specific activities were planned.

Few people would disagree that the ultimate, optimum environment for learning would consist of a synthesis of appropriate content material presented in the most appropriate form. The disagreement exists on how to fuse the mode of presentation with content (Hunt, 1971). But the disagreement will always exist as long as teachers and students continue to be individuals, classrooms continue to evolve their own "personalities" and teachers continue to mold and develop their own teaching styles. Within the variability of humans, human behavior and group dynamics, the intentional teacher is able to effectively balance day to day or even minute to minute changes in personality or mood of students as well as her/himself. (S)he is able to communicate effectively to the students the job to be done, drawing on whatever technique is necessary and proper to meet the original intent as planned.

The need on the part of the research community now, then, is to investigate the frequency of "match" or congruence between teacher intent and actual interaction.

It seems logical that there would be a close relationship Ill between how clearly students understand the teacher's intentions (both short and long term goals and plans for their implementation) and task engagement in general; or if that, then achievement. But there exists little empirical data to either confirm or disconfirm that hypothesis.

How often, from a quantitative point of view for instance, do teachers' intended outcomes match what actually happened? What appear to be some of the more common "glitches" to planned activities, goals, strategies etc.? Is there any correlation between frequencies of congruence and "successful" or "unsuccessful" teachers?

(This of course necessitates the definition and criteria for the "successful" teacher). And along with data to answer these questions, stands the need for more qualitative studies of teachers deemed "successful", including analysis of intended vs. actual interactive behaviors. Chapter III

Research Methods and Procedures

The questions posed in this study call for answers not

available through traditional research. Questions calling

for "how" and "why” are not generally quantifiable. All

research has limitations inherent in and dependent upon the

questions asked and the techniques employed. Traditional

rationalistic or positivistic research effectively answers

questions such as how many, which variable, or what happens

if? It is process-product oriented and quantitative in

nature. Findings from positivist research in secondary

science instruction have generated valuable information,

but conflicting results. More importantly, however, in

relation to improvement of science education, and from the perspective of critical science, nothing has been

accomplished. In spite of the efforts of researchers and practitioners alike to improve science education through

empirical studies, there have yet to be any generalizations drawn or changes made in the teaching of science in the

schools (Harms, Yager, 1981).

112 113

Naturalistic Inquiry

While the great majority of scientific inquiry has been within the rationalistic paradigm throughout the history of educational research, in recent years, more attention has been given research from the naturalistic paradigm. Naturalistic research remains in developmental stages, yet the information coming from these studies has provided a wealth of much-needed information that probes beyond experimental controls and dependent variables. Gage

(1978) has stated that there is a great need for more research from the naturalistic paradigm in order to identify generic principles of teaching which may then lend themselves to experimental methods, or be continued to reveal similarities or across-the-board generalizations.

Naturalistic research is an inquiry technique aimed at studying inductively, any phenomenon in its natural state, unaffected by researcher manipulation. According to Wolf and Tymitz (1977) naturalistic inquiry is aimed at understanding "...actualities...that exist untainted by the obtrusiveness of formal measurement or preconceived questions..." (p. 6). Researchers in education and sociology typically narrow the definition of naturalistic research to the study of people, social relationships, 114 interactions, thoughts, beliefs and the like. In actuality, naturalistic research can be seen to occupy one end of the continuum that represents most research paradigms with rationalistic or positivist research using deductive techniques at the other end. Thie would suggest, rightfully, that "...all forms of inquiry can be understood within a single conceptual structure..." and that "pure forms of inquiry, that is, entirely [rationalistic] or entirely naturalistic, are rare..." (Guba, 1983, p. 81).

According to Guba (1983) "Ideal" or naturalistic inquiry will represent a low degree of impositions of constraints on the research situation, and a low degree of impositions of constraints on the data collected. It represents, in other words, a hands-off observational research approach to investigation of a particular phenomenon.

Naturalistic inquiry is typically done to study interrelated systems or processes working within the research situation, from multiple perspectives. The essential element in naturalistic studies, is to observe phenomena as they occur in the natural setting uncontaminated by experimental intervention. 115

The primary advantage of naturalistic research, is that data is gathered wholistically, that is, inclusive of all variables as they are perceived, and as they interact with one another as well as within the research setting.

Within the several perspectives taken, all data as well as interrelationships existing within the data, are collected and evaluated inductively for possible patterns, rules, systems, meanings, generic principles, generalizations and the like. The possibility of losing significant data because of lack of researcher foresight, inability of one variable to interact with a covariable, or misinterpretation of results due to the lack of complete data are greatly reduced.

A second advantage of naturalistic research, is the possibility of observing one particular phenomenon in depth, rather than a few generalized variables as they exist among several "average" situations across samples.

Rationalistic studies require sampling of subjects or situations in such a way that allows maximum generalizability across the widest possible populations.

Naturalistic studies, with their qualitative, descriptive aspects, allows researchers to sample and describe the best of all possible situations - the "exciting fringe" (Yager,

1982, p. 338). Instead of sampling the average then, 116 naturalistic studies allow a detailed look at the way things might be, rather than what they already are (Yager,

1983).

A third advantage of naturalistic research, is that it relies on the field study as a fundamental technique.

According to Guba (1983) "Sufficient immersion in and experience with a phenomenological field yields inevitable conclusions about what is important, dynamic and pervasive in the field" (p. 55). Field study suggests the importance in viewing the total learning environment, unencumbered by research-imposed restraints or manipulation. Using field techniques presents a view of truth as inevitable, that is ultimately unescapable (Guba, 1983) when all the evidence can be observed in context, undisturbed by outside intervention.

Finally, according to Guba, naturalistic inquiry is clearly the method of choice when dealing with human behaviors. One criticism of naturalistic inquiry is that it is context-bound and difficult to generalize across situations. Yet "it is virtually impossible to imagine any human behavior that is not heavily mediated by the context in which it occurs" (Guba, 1983, p. 62). To link any human behavior to one specific variable without regard to the 117 person(s) involved and the situation setting is likely to yield conflicting results at best; inaccurate results at worst.

Naturalistic research in the past has been done primarily by Sociologists, Anthropologists and Biologists in the field of Natural Science. More recently, that is, since the early to mid-1970's, it has been done among researchers in education to study such things as

Instructional Conversations (Green, 1983), Task management

(Green & Weade, 1984), communication of teacher expectations (Marshall, in press), the history of a "good" school (Sanders and Schwab, 1981), similar patterns of instruction among professors judged as being effective

(Ebro, 1977), teacher decision-making (Aikenhead, 1984), and consequences of instructional organization (Bossert,

1979) to name just a few.

Closer to the realm of Science Education in particular, a project by the National Science Foundation produced a two volume collection of naturalistic studies

(Case Studies. 1978) which described programs in science, math and social science in specific high schools and feeder junior high schools in ten school districts located in various places around the United States. The issues 118 studied included the affect of accountability on curriculum, affect of back-to-basics-movement on support of science education, affect of curriculum reform on classroom organization and procedures and level of preparation of students in reading, writing and mathematics for science courses.

While certainly pointing out the need for and validity of naturalistic research in science education, a study of such great scope none the less was burdened simply by its great size. Smith (1982), Yager (1982) and others (Stake and Easley, 1977) have outlined reasons for naturalistic studies in science education. It is time now to take the first step towards an in-depth naturalistic study of at least one aspect of science teaching.

One of the problems with inductively derived data in naturalistic research, is designing a framework for organization or categorization of data in order to create some meaning to it all, without placing limits on the information gathered. To this end, a fine balance must be maintained between construction of predetermined categories into which one fits the data, and the use of a predetermined framework category system into which the data may- due to the general nature of the system - quite 119

naturally fall. The General Task Engagement Theory (Hough,

1985) is one such heuristic designed for two primary

purposes. One purpose is to serve as a means for

increasing understanding of factors and conditions of

instruction in general. Because the theory attempts to account for different phenomena typical to present-day educational practice in a very general or broad-based manner, it also has the potential for guiding inquiry into instruction as it is practiced. To this end in this study, the four general assumptions on which the General Task

Engagement Theory is based, as well as the different factors and their subfactors were used to develop concepts and to guide description of this teacher in such a way that a rich, thick description could be created. It also served as a heuristic to organize what may have become without such a tool, an almost unmanageable collection of data.

Overview:

There were four purposes to this investigation. These were:

1. To provide a thick description of the design, use and effects of the expository strategy in secondary school science teaching in the context of a particular theoretical perspective.

2. To develop sensitizing concepts for use in other investigations in future studies of expository strategies. 120

3. To develop instrumentation as well as procedures for collecting data of the type reflected in this study.

4. To develop data analysis procedures for use in studying data similar to those collected in this study.

Subject Identification

The subject chosen for this study is a young, white male chemistry teacher in a midsized suburban high school.

The students in his classes represented a range of socioeconomic backgrounds, but the large majority were from white middle class homes. Most of the parents were college educated and most of the students were taking chemistry as part of the college preparatory curriculum.

Chemistry lecture in particular was chosen for analysis for three reasons. First, an earlier pilot study had been done on a chemistry teacher by assignment.

Secondly, the focus of this research was to be on science teaching strategies and thirdly, the researcher has extensive experience in both teaching and applied chemistry.

The teacher was one of three chemistry teachers in the department and had 5 years total teaching experience, all at the same school. He was chosen by recommendation for 121 his enthusiasm, willingness to cooperate in the study,

openness to investigation of his every move for short periods of time and his apparent ability to both generate

and hold the interest of his students during chemistry

lecture.

Entry was gained to the research setting through a student teacher/cooperating teacher arrangement with the

University. Having worked with this teacher as well as others in the science department as a supervisor of student teachers under their tutelage, and having built a rapport with them all, it was a relatively simple task to determine a focus for study and then negotiate the details. 122

Procedure

The approach used in this study was from the perspective of a former microbiologist and a sometimes naturalist. A healthy mix of qualitative or descriptive research and quantitative analysis of inductively derived data was used to discern and include as many of the data as collection procedures would allow. The questions posed required research methods and data collection capable of reporting not only what was happening in the classroom, but also how it happened and what meanings the events had in the mind of the actor involved.

The major activities of this study occurred in three phases. They were: Phase I - Planning and development,

Phase II - Initial investigation and final definition of the research problem and Phase III - the final study. A detailed diagrammatic time-line is shown in figure 3, pg.

123. I

Figi

Time Line Analysis

M arch ISMS Majur Entry PoiuU Chemistry Tcac>»cr Science Dept. Ctiair Sellout Principal

C U u f O o m OUcrvilioftii • * No Videotape • • • * Vit)c«l*(x

Furmal A Informal Teacher btlnvicut A Questionnaire* Teaching style, * F orm a] format, philosophy * Inform al

Structured Student Questionnaires

Major Fcetfcack P o in ts Teacher Interview Draft 1 Mtg. Dr. Hough Pilot Study R e s e a rc h Committee Mlg. D ra ft 11 Ite a e a rc P ro p o sal in Cheiniiiry informal proposal A c c e p ta n c e Major Anaiyau • • P erio d s « Preliminary Lit. l.it. Review Pilot Ccncral, Review TechiKj. Intentional T c c Iu hj. Study informal Slrktryies in tap. rUurin. ' 2nd Science Ed. Slrat. m oU>crvln. C h em .

Figure 3 nalysis of Research Activity

y iaas June urns .A Srot. 1»»S Pel, I9<& Hov. IMS l)cc. IMS Jan. |»tt Feb. 1916 March tttttt _____ A ^ i l 19»6______May !»»<

Skituicc Dept. Sc IkkiI C h air

l‘ri:|Mr«liuii, or£nnixati(m qunliunnitire CwiscqucnCM ul atlciHltik^ quuliumuiirc U cI m c style questionnaire

Dec lure style quetliumtaitc, Teacher intentions questionnaire Cwocqucnca of attciHliiqg quciliowveirr, Q uit ilcactier intention information)

D r .( I U G en eral Mlg. Dr. Ilot^h Mtg. hr. Hough Committee Mlg. Mlg. Dr. Hough OS1A initial Data Mlg. Dr. Hou^i llcMircIi frtqiOMil E aains formal |wo(MK&al analysis reliability Passed accc|)laii(e results results

R ev iew o f l.it. Jtevicw l.it. Ncview thf’in trmiisctiOtitg t.'wlc DiilA (,'um^kle OHM data Chart Complete Synthesis Viikut«|N: Data Expository ti|x«itu(y Strat. I.eCture l«|H3 X Comp. OSlA Keliabilily aiul Nat'l " w fa r" S tr a te g y in ikieitce Ed. ■n«l s l a t . A al. A n a ly se d ea c ai*l of quest. data OSIA 3A1C

124

Phase I - Planning and Development.

Phase I involved actual research activity occurring over the 4 months beginning in December 1984 and ending as a blend into Phase II in April, 1985. This period was spent solidifying entry to the research site, getting to know the subject better, planning research questions, doing a pilot study on a different but similar subject, and obtaining approval from the teacher, department head, school principal, human subjects committee and dissertation committee to do the study. The 8 months previous to actual research activity was spent in intensive study of educational research procedures, methods and naturalistic inquiry. Included in this preliminary study was introduction to and study of the Observational System of

Instructional Analysis (Hough, 1980), the Systematic

Analysis of Instructional Conversation (Green, 1983, 1985) and studies of naturalistic inquiry and ethnographic research.

Gaining Entry

Development of a rationale for teacher selection and research focus was the first step to gaining entry to the research situation. Professional acquaintance with the 125 entire science department staff had already been established through the researcher's supervisory duties at the University. It became apparent from the beginning that each of the teachers in the science department excelled in their subject knowledge, as well as their ability to transfer that knowledge along with a certain enthusiasm to their students. The need for an in-depth study of at least one aspect of successful science instruction as it was occurring there at Community High became obvious, along with the excitement of the researcher at the prospect of doing such a study.

The decision over which subject, and which teacher to study was slightly more complex. Conflict over selection criteria concerning subject matter was resolved however, when one graduate committee member assigned a class project involving instructional analysis of a videotaped chemistry lecture, which provided an opportunity to try a pilot study before the dissertation, and a rational for the researcher to study instruction in an area of her own experience.

Selection of which chemistry teacher to study was by recommendation of a second committee member who, when presented with the dilemma, suggested Mr. Brown. He had been previously observed on several occasions in his 126

regular classroom, as well as once conducting a chemistry workshop for elementary students. His genuine, unbridled

enthusiasm and love for chemistry was an especially appealing attribute for study, and recent awards to his science fair students served to underscore his credibility as an effective teacher.

The second step in gaining entry involved soliciting the teacher's cooperation in the research effort.

Approximately four months before data collection began, an appointment was made to both explain the planned research design and conduct a formal interview to consider input he might have to the project itself. Mr. Brown expressed an interest in the project as well as a willingness to participate, in his usual exhuberant manner. This interview was considered the first step in the actual research project (fig. 3 pg. 123).

The third step was to obtain formal approval for the study from the science department head at Community High, and the school principal. The science department head was consulted briefly at the time of the first interview. At this time he gave verbal consent relative to any concerns

Mr. Brown might have then or encounter later. The school principal was consulted by appointment and on the 127

recommendation of both Mr. Brown and the science department

head, also gave verbal approval. Formal letters of

permission were then written and signed

(Appendix B).

The final step in gaining entry involved obtaining

formal approval from both the dissertation committee and

the human subjects committee at the University. For the

former, a detailed research proposal was written, rewritten

and submitted three times over a 12 month span before it

was finally officially approved in writing. For the

latter, the final copy of the research proposal was

submitted along with forms outlining details concerning

specific involvement of any and all subjects included in

data collection. The proper forms were completed and

submitted along with appropriate signatures and assurances

of confidentiality for final approval. These appear in

Appendix B.

Phase II - Initial investigation and final definition of

the Research Problem.

Phase II involved research activity occurring over the

4 months beginning with the first collection of videotaped data in April, 1985 and ending with the final definition of 128 the study and schedule of data collection in August, 1985.

Data collected at the end of the school year were studied in light of literature surveys on secondary science strategies. The research focus was then narrowed to the study of lecture strategy, and then reevaluated in light of another literature review on expository strategies in science education. 129

Development of Strategies. Schedule and Instrumentation

It was decided that data representative of one school year, yet spanning two would have advantages over data representative of just one school year, or a portion of that year. Some of these advantages were that similarities and differences in lecture style could be noted:

1) As the school year progressed

2) among a variety of types of lectures

3) Among the different subject units of chemistry

4) between two similar student populations

5) between 1st day of school, middle of the year,

and last week of school situations

6) as they occurred in proximity to holidays,

special days, quizzes and laboratory situations

Collection in this manner also provided a quite natural gap in possible data during which that data collected could be reviewed for unanticipated phenomena which might very well alter research strategy as the study progressed on into the fall.

The following research strategies were planned. Data would be collected in the late spring of 1985 and studied concurrent to a literature review on the the use of lecture 130

in science education. Strategies, research questions and

instrumentation would be refined over the summer in time

for data collection in the fall and winter of the new

school year.

It was determined upon completion of the pilot study

in March, that an even richer description and more complete analysis of this teacher's technique might be done using more than one analysis perspective. It also became clear that the use of heuristic to guide research questions and perspective might also add yet another dimension to the final analysis. In light of another literature review done on intentional teaching, a further study of the match between teacher intentions during lecture, the actual lecture delivery and student perception of the lecture was also scheduled. Figure 4, pg. 131 represents the cycle of development of research strategies during phase I and the results of those decisions in phases II and III. I’llllSC I 13 Investigation of Possibilities

Tentative Research Questions Spring 1 985

Redefine research focus and questions Observe, record, Collect data

Phase 11 Decide on scope of study Research Proposal Define specific questions } Fall/Winter 1985-86 r Readjust scope, Design observational Redefine questions P rocedures Determine data AnalysisI procedures Observe, record

Collect data

P hase 111

Spring 1 986 Sort Questions -discuss now f need further research Data Analysis Submit to Committee

W rite PhD. Dissertation

Figure 4

Development of Research Strategies, Schedule and Instrumentation 132

Phase III - The Study

Data Collection

The approach used in this study was one designed to investigate qualities of lecture in one case study of chemistry teaching considered effective. The questions posed required research methods and data collection capable or reporting not only what was happening in this classroom, but also how it happened,and what meanings these events had in the mind of the actor involved. Data Collection procedures in light of specific research questions, data analysis, supporting literature and theoretical or conceptual framework are presented in figures 5 through 9 as follows. 133

QUESTIONS DATA COLLECTION

How Much Data W hy

W hit is the overall Videotaped chemiitry lectures over At least one 10-16 minute segment 10-15 minute samples from representa- structure of lecture? time and under different conditions. representative of each different tive lectures throughout a school type of lecture, and each different year should provide sufficient data W hat are the similarities circumstance. to identify forms, patterns, rules and difference* in lec­ interaction styles, and the like. tures within and across tim e?

W hat verbal and nonverbal 1 lecture for in-depth analysis, To determine rules fcr participation cues signal beginning and under different circumstances. end of lecture? 5-10 lectures for analysis of simi­ larities between lectures. To describe the generic rules for par­ W hat are the rules for ticipation, and unique rules in this student participation class. in lecture? Student questionnaires At least 20 student questionnaires.

THEORETICAL OR DATA ANALYSIS LITERATURE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

OSIA: Basic matrix, time line Battino (1980), Bligh, (1972), General observations of different analysis, strategy pattern Bowman, (1979), Brown, (1978), classes. analysis, subfunction analysis, Heslet, (1974), Koviac et. al., (1982), subscript analysis, context, Lamb et. al., (1979b), McMann, (1979), Past experience teaching differ­ analysis, chain and pool data, Newton, (1971), Osterman, (19B2), ent concepts in both science standard variable analysis. Woods, (1983). and mathematics.

SAIC conversational map Speech texts teach generally 3 types of speeches for 3 Naturalistic description. different purposes; to inform, to explain, to persuade.

"A classroom is a social setting where the teacher is the only native.* J. Green.

FIGURE 5

Structure of Lecture 134

QUESTIONS DATA COLLECTION

What Data How Much Data Why

W hat is the nature of the Teacher interview Sufficient discussion between This data involves personal planning process in lecture? researcher and teacher to answer these thoughts, opinions and style, questions as well as any others that These are not collectable directly What teacher intentions may anse during the interview, or by any other means, guide preparation? late r on.

W hat reading and reflection Anticipated 1 or 2 one hour formal precede preparation? interviews.

W hat criteria determine lecture content?

THEORETICAL OR DATA ANALYSIS LITERATURE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Naturalistic description of teacher Aikenhead, (2684), Battino, (1980), Lecture preparation will in all answers and researcher reactions, or Beasley, (1983), Bowman, (1979), probability be guided by teacher comparison with the literature on Brown, (1978), Campbell, (1977), intentions for content to be lecture organisation and preparation. Ford, (1973), Holliday, (1979), covered, lecture flow, student/ Horack & Lunette, (1979), Lu, (1978) teacher interaction and the like. McMann, (1979), Russel, ( ), Woods, (1983). Task Engagement factor B;

. . all other things being equal, instructional learning is a par* tial function of clarity of instructional intentions.

FIGURE 6

Planning of Lecture 135

QUESTIONS DATA COLLECTION

What Data How Much Data W hy

What strategies, such as Videotapes representative lectures. 5-10 lectures over time to ensure To identify as many strategies as • pacing variety of circumstance. possible, and to find patterns, -verba) and nonverbal cues Videotapes of aeveral lectures to similarities, generic principles -use of materia) resources identify generic principles among strategies. -management behaviors Videotape of one lecture using To identify specific verbal cues are used to enhance stu material resources for in-depth and variations/interaction vari­ dent learning during lecture? analysis. ables to the cues. To identify management and sub­ stantive behaviors, and distin­ guish between them To identify the sequence or flow of diflcrent behaviors in lecture. To collect representative samples of material resources (demonstra­ tion table, chalk boards, sinks, various demonstration or labora­ tory appratus) being used during lectures. W hat is the nature of Videotapes of representative At least one videotape of each type To determine student/teacher inter­ lectu res. of lecture. 5-10 tapes of about 40 •types of interaction, action within and across minutes duration. -generic principles of lecture, instances of lecture? • interaction specific to lecture type, unique interaction sequences

THEORETICAL OR d a t a a n a l y s i s LITERATURE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

OS1A: Basic matrix, time line Andriette, (1968), Battino, (1980), Experience has shown that for analysis, strategy pattern Bibikian, (1971), Blosser & Helgeson, different concepts, lecture pace analysis, subfunction analysis, (1961), Boulanger, (1981), Bowman, must also differ. subscript analysis, context (1978), Brown, (1978), Goodstein, (1978) analysis, chain and pool data, Grobe, (1978), Gaber-Sehaim (1983), Howe Conversation is dynamic, emergent, and standard variable analysis. it Durr, ( ), Kaplan, (1977), Kourilsky, dependent on verbal and nonverbal sig­ (1971), Kovacic, (19B2), Kyle, (1972), nals given by each participant. SAIC conversational map Lamb et. al., (1979b), Lu, (1978), McMann, (1979), Mellon, (1973), Newton, *If abstractions...are the sole Naturalistic description (1971), Osterman, (1982), Power i t T ish er content, most students cannot (1976), Purser A: Renner, (1983), Ramette, comprehend the material.* (Haber- Percent comparisons (I960), Raghuber (1979), Rovin, (1972), Schaim, p. 367). Smith, (1972), Thompson, (1974), Direct time comparisons of lecture Townes, (1972), Whooley, (1974), Woods, Lecture time is naturally constrained ty p e. (1983), Wolfson, (1973), by time limits for each class. Standard deviations of leeture Case Studies Vol. II, Citron it B a rn e s, “...There art some quite clear len g th . (1970), Evans i t Balear, (1970), Hough, links...that particular styles of (1980), M cGarity it Butts (1984), organisation may be more closely Santiesteban, (1976). linked with specific outcomes [of lecture].* (Woods p 62). Experience has shown the need for occasional management behaviors throughout class time, especially in a high school setting. OS1A: Basic matrix, Time line Burkman et. al. ( ), Citron it B a m e s, Teaching is an interactive analysis, strategy pattern (1970), Osterman, (1962), Power it T ish er process during which messates are analysis, subfunction analysis (1976), Wolfson, (1973). sent, received, translated and subscript analysis, context returned in one form or another analysis, chain and pool data, to the sender. standard variable analysis.

SAIC conversational map Naturalistic description.

FIGURE 7 Delivery of Lecture 136

QUESTIONS DATA COLLECTION

W h at D ata How Much Data W hy

W hat are the characteristics Videotapes lectures Videotape of one representative To determine attending behaviors. of attending of students to lecture. the lecture as it occurs? Student questionnaires To determine the relationship between student attention, student goals, and How do engagement consequen­ Questionnaires from at least the teacher's lecture style. ces or non-engagement 20 students. consequences affect student attending to lecture?

How do task attraction and student goals affect student attending to lectures?

THEORETICAL OR DATA ANALYSIS LITERATURE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

OSIA: Subfunction analysis, It seems plausible that students subscript analysis, context may usum e various roles during analysis, chain k pool lecture from time to time aj data. receiver, initiator, instructor, or something else. SAIC conversational map Naturalistic description Percent distribution comparisons Battino, (1980), Citron & Barnes, Task Engagement Factor B: on questionnaires. (1970), Evans At B alt.r, (1970), subfactors 2, 3, and 4. Grobe et. al. (1973), Kaplan At Pascoe, Standard deviation (perhaps) (1977), Kourilsky, (1971), Kovacic k There are consequences associated with Jones, (1982), Kyle, (1972), Macchiarola, task engagement or non-engagement. Researcher observation. (1971), McGarity A t Butts, (1984), McMann, (1979), Osterman, (1982), Ramette, (1980), Student goats are also a contributing Santicsteban, (1976), Simpson & Troost, factor in task engagement or non­ (1982), Wolfson, (1973), Woods, (1983). engagement.

Engagement consequence! are seen as immediate, goals are a future conse­ quence of task engagement or non­ engagement.

FIGURE 8

Student Participation 137

QUESTIONS DATA COLLECTION

What Data How Much Why

To what degree is the class Videotape of one specific lecture. One entire lecture. To provide a match between teacher lecture as intended, an intentions and actual lecture appropriate instructional Outline from teacher of specific One teacher questionnaire procedure to use to faci­ curricular intentions. outline. To provide a match between teacher litate etudeni achieve­ perceptions of student understand­ ment of particular curri­ Questionnaire from students on At least 20 student questionnaires. ing and student understanding. cular intentions? perceived instructor intentions and student understanding of At least 20 student quisacs. To provide a match between content What are the Instructor's content presented. presented by the teacher, and actual specific instructional student retention of information intentions during any one Student questionnaires Questionnaires from at least as measured on a short quit particular lecture and 20 students. covering just that lecture To what degree are the To determine student awareness of students aware of the Student questionnaires Questionnaires from at least teacher intentions teacher's intentions for 20 students. the lecture?

To determine student satisfaction What is the degree of Student questionnaires Questionnaires from at least with lectures from student student satisfaction 20 students. perspective. with lectures as they occur?

THEORETICAL o r DATA ANALYSIS LITERATURE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

OSIA: Time line Battino, (2980), Beasley, (2983), Task Engagement Factor B: analysis, subfunction Bligh, (1972), Bowman, (1979), analysis. aubacript ana* Brown, (1978), Campbell, (1977), •...all other thinp being equal, lyaia, strategy pattern Case studies Vol. II, ( ), Cooper, instructional learning is a partial anaiyais (2974), Holliday, (1979), Kaplan, (1977), function of clarity of instructional K ovactc it Jones, (1982), Kyle, (1972), intentions.” (Hough, p 35). Percent comparisons w Lamb et. al. (1979a, 2979b), Lu, (1978), Macchiarola, (1971), McMann, (1979), Standard deviation of atudent Newton, (1971), Oaterman, (1962), Rovin, questionnaires and quitees (if (1972), Smith, (1962), Whooley, (1974), p o ssib le). Woods, (1983). Percent compariaons of queation­ Kourilsky, (1971), Santieateban, (1976) Task Engagement Factor B. nairea. •...all other thinp being eoual, Naturalistic description instructional learning is a partial function of clanty of instructional Standard deviation (perhaps) intentions * (Hough, p. 35) Percent comparisons C a n te r it Gallatin, (1974), Task Engagement Factor F: Naturalistic description Kourilsky, (1971), Santieateban, (1976) "Instructional learning is a partial function of student reactive satis­ faction with elements of the instruc­ tional situation.* (Hough, p 51)

FIGURE 9

Match Between Teacher Intention, Lecture Delivery, Student Perception 138

Because of the depth of information needed, four data collection techniques were used to compile an exhaustive record that would permit reliable analysis of what actually occurred. These were: videotapes, audiotapes, fieldnotes and interviews. Other data collected and used in analysis included official documents, lesson plans, textbooks, exams and various homework assignments.

Videotapes. Preservation of the actual sequence and duration of events is an absolute essential in any record to be used as a primary data source (Erickson, 1982). An audiovisual record enables the researcher to vicariously revisit the classroom repeatedly to pick up the hidden details of classroom events. Repeated analysis and coding of the exact event as seen through the camera, also increases the possibility of intra- and/or inter­ coder/observer reliability ratings (Ibid.).

The basic advantage then of videotaped data is that it provides the viewer with a minimally distorted record of the reality or events observed. There are, however, inherent limitations to the use of videocameras in this particular study. These were seen to be: 139

a) Sensory. The tape can only record sight and sound. Olefactory and kinesthetic experiences are not recorded, yet there may be instances, especially in a chemistry classroom, when they may be significant.

b) Technical. The camera lens limits the range of view. There is an inherent tradeoff between the amount of spatial area included, and the angle of view, clarity and focus (Erikson, 1982).

c) Financial. The dilemma presented above can often be minimized by using multiple stationery cameras carried by hand (Erikson, 1982). But these necessitate the use not only of more than one camera, but also more than one technician. This study was in preparation for a doctoral dissertation; so funding was extremely limited. The use of just one camera from time to time was fortunate, let alone more than one, or the use of additional personnel.

Decisions as to what was to be taped was determined by the questions asked. Since the focus of this study rested primarily on the teacher, every attempt was made to follow him at the expense of taping student behaviors. Included in the recordings were not only the lecture itself, but also events preceding and following.

Audiotapes. Except for the absence of a visual record, audiotapes hold the same advantages as videotapes, including preservation of the actual sequence and duration of events. A tape recorder may also offer a source of back-up in the event the videocamera fails to function properly. In this case, videotape and fieldnotes functioned to back up the failing audiotape recorder. 140

There are usually, however, advantages to the use of a tape recorder to capture events as they occur. First, tape recorders are quite small and unobtrusive. The one used in this study was a Panasonic minicassette recorder, no larger than a small paperback novel. It can be set on a windowsill, a small desk, on top of a pile of books or even carried around with little or no notice. Secondly, tape recorders are less threatening to the subjects studied.

According to Erickson (1982) one way to reduce nervousness in observed subjects is to use equipment people are accustomed to seeing. Thirdly, tape recorders are more convenient to use in recording interviews. For the most part, interviews do not involve actions or behaviors that need to be visually recorded. A tape recorder can pick up not only the words spoken, but also the pitch, stress and intonation as well. Finally, the tape recorder is small, much less bulky than the video equipment, and the expense is minimal. The equipment and tapes are relatively inexpensive, and there is little or no need for technical personnel to operate the machine(s).

The video tape recorder and fieldnotes (following) were the primary tools used in this study. The audiotape recorder was used to tape formal interviews, and attempts were made to use it concurrently with videotaping as well. 141

However, the videotape recorder and field notes captured as much, and in most cases more data than the audiotape recorder. It proved the only data source for the first

formal interview. Thereafter, the other sources were more complete.

Fieldnotes. Fieldnotes are a written account of what a researcher hears, sees, feels experiences or thinks in the course of collecting and reflecting on data in qualitative research (Bogdan and Biklen, 1982). They are essential to participant observation both in themselves and as a supplement to other data collecting methods such as video or audiotapes. Such automated recording devices are incapable of picking up smells, textures, impression or comments spoken after recording equipment is turned off.

Fieldnotes also act as a personal diary of sorts to the researcher to help keep track of the development and progress of the project (Bogdan and Biklen, 1982).

This study included two types of fieldnotes; descriptive and personal. Descriptive fieldnotes consist primarily of a running descriptive account of what is happening during the observation time. Of special concern were actions, reactions and events occurring outside the 142 camera range or beyond what the tape recorder could collect. Personal fieldnotes included personal thoughts and impressions about the events and the individual participants. Also included in personal fieldnotes were reminders, schedules and "items of inspiration" that came to mind from time to time.

Interviews. Finally, but certainly not least in importance, formal and informal interviews were used to complete the information collected by videotapes, tape recorder and fieldnotes. An interview is a purposeful

.. conversation, usually between two people, one of whom seeks to gain information from the other. It is primarily for the purpose of gathering data in the subject's own words so as to provide insight into the project for the researcher

(Bogdan and Biklen, 1982). Two formal conversational interviews were conducted with Mr. Brown to gain insight into his teaching style and philosophy. Also, three written questionnaires designed to gain insight into specific teaching intentions, task engagement consequences and lecture dynamics were completed by him and included in fieldnotes. There were in addition to these, many informal interviews, those conducted spontaneously before or after 143 videotaping sessions, or over the telephone which were included in the descriptive fieldnotes. Most often, however, these were written later from memory and included in personal fieldnotes.

Analysis of Data

The study as proposed called for an in-depth description not only of particular lecture styles including verbal and nonverbal communication, but also of the use and perception of human, material and temporal resources in lecture events by the actor involved. Ideally then, the events described and conclusions drawn needed to come from both an etic and emic perspective. For these reasons, three methods of data analysis were used. In some cases they will be discussed separately, but where warranted, they will be combined to explain or clarify the event(s) described.

The Observational System of Instructional Analysis

(O.S.I.A.)

The Observational System of Instructional Analysis

(Hough, 1980) is a description system designed to: 144

a) study patterns of classroom interaction - whether

conversational or not,

b) gather data concerning, and describe classroom

variables such as classroom climate, response

patterns, teacher directness/indirectness,

interaction variables and other general classroom

variables.

c) create time-line analysis or displays of student-

teacher, student-student interaction or just

classroom events as exhibited by

student/teacher/other behaviors. d) study the classroom from either a naturalistic or

rationalistic paradigm, e) provide insight for researchers and/or practioners

into the relationship between teacher intention

and actual events (congruence between teacher

intention and the reality or realities - depending

on the research paradigm). f) provide matrix analysis of events as they unfold. g) provide a tool or mechanism for analysis of

classroom events for the purpose of evaluation of

student teachers, beginning teachers and ongoing

analysis of supervisors. 145

The O.S.I.A. involves the use of generic categories and context-of-instructional events modified by user-defined subsystems to fit the researcher's perspective.

The O.S.I.A. is comprised of 13 predetermined categories of classroom events. These are:

1 - thinking 9 - personal positive

2 - sensing judgement of

3 - manipulating objects correctness

4 - initiating information 10 - acknowledging

5 - responding 11 - judgment of

6 - clarifying incorrectness

7 - soliciting 12 - personal negative

8 - judgment of judgment of

correctness incorrectness

13 - instructionally non-functional events

These can come from any one of three sources: T = teacher, S = student, Q = other. Beyond that, the categories are determined as either substantive (T5 = teacher response to a student concerning a substantive question or remark) or managerial, indicated in shorthand with an "0” before the category number (T05 = teacher 146 managerial response to someone's remark. Ex: T. "Yes, you may sharpen your pencil").

There is also a system of arbitrarily assigned symbols

for the purpose of computer programming, the meaning of which must be specifically defined by the user in each study. These include subscripts (A, U, M, V, or any combination of the four, 16 in all) which may or may not be

followed by subscripts (0-9 and all 26 letters of the alphabet). Combinations and sequences of the 13 categories, possible sources, managerial behaviors, substantive behaviors, subscripts, subfunctions and the transitional x, y and z elements make possible coding of over a million classroom events (Hough, 1985b). Codes can be in combination with source, category, subscript and subfunctions. Subscripts and subfunctions can only be used one each per event. One may not have two subscripts or subfunctions in sequence without a source and event in between.

As the name implies, the O.S.I.A. is systematic and, within the limitations of the recording instrument (the researcher), somewhat objective. Data analyzed in this manner can be described from several perspectives including ratio analysis of climate variables, interaction variables, 147

appraisal variables and the like. It lends itself to the

charting of instructional strategies and therefore lecture

strategies along a time line as well as on matrix data

allowing numerical, concrete discussion of results. It

also enables the researcher to identify teacher

directness/indirectness and patterns in instructional

strategies, as well as changes in those patterns.

The O.S.I.A. was used to analyze data in answer to

such questions as: What form does lecture take? Are there

different types of lectures? What does lecture look like?

What verbal and nonverbal cues signal beginning and end of

lecture? What types of student and teacher behaviors are

manifested during lecture? What form does student/teacher

interaction take? Are there different types of interaction

or patterns of interaction manifest in different types of

lecture? Is there a general pattern within lectures in this class? In what ways are patterns similar, and how do they differ? What classroom management behaviors are manifest during lecture? In what ways do they differ from

substantive behaviors? What devices are used to enhance

student learning? What instructional roles do students

assume, and how are they manifest? Also, questions about how much? how many? and how often? were answered

including comparisons, ratios and percentage values. 148

The Systematic Analysis of Instructional Conversation

(S.A.I.e.)

A second type of systematic analysis was used to

investigate the lecture flow from a linguistic perspective.

The Systematic Analysis of Instructional Conversation

(Green and Wallat, 1983) is also a descriptive system designed to:

a) Identify minimum message units that make up classroom conversations,

b) peel back the layers of classroom conversation to provide understanding of relationships between message units, ties, levels of meaning, functions, and potentially divergent conversation,

c) provide an understanding of the ways in which these units, their sequence and subsequent affects on further messages fit (or do not fit) to provide a flow to the conversational events,

d) to provide conversational "maps" of unfolding events. These are concrete, diagrammatical representations of the events as they occurred, both linearly and as they relate to, among and between participants. 149

In this system, the researcher takes all of a "slice" of the classroom conversation to analyze. The event is transcribed verbatim and then minimum message units are identified. No predetermined categories are used; only those determined form the data as it emerges. From the transcript, videotape or whatever device is used to record the conversation, categories are determined, placed on a chart and numbered to facilitate shorthand recording of data later on. Categories may include;

»* a) Source of the message unit (teacher, student,

parent, visitor, administrator),

b) level of massage (interpretive, factual),

c) function of the message - such as questioning,

controlling, soliciting, acknowledging, etc.,

d) tie - that is, thematic ties between messages

e) themes, or substance of messages 150

Next, conversational "maps" are determined to follow the flow of the conversation. An example follows:

Potentially Thematic Source Minimum Message Unit Divergent Flow of Remark Conversation

T. "Aumm, in a soda pop bottle, does gas disolve better, ah how does Pepsi keep their umm,

S. "coke"

T. (shrugs) Pepsi, Coke, Coke Pepsi, 7-Up, whatever, How do they ship that stuff? Do they ship it under low pressure or high pressure?

S. High pressure

Symbols may be used to indicate whether or not the events are thematically tied (in this case, sguares) or completely off the subject (circles) or even incomplete

(triangles) as in when a source is interrupted or the message incomplete.

Numbers around the source symbols may also be used to refer to other categories determined from the data previous to the map construction. The source is represented by a capital letter in the source column; the individual is also sometimes identified by name next to the message and/or initial in the map symbol. Message function such as 151 question (Q), response (R), etc. is indicated also in the map as illustrated.

Mapping conversational flow within differing lecture styles was used to answer such questions as: What verbal and nonverbal cues signal beginning and end of lecture?

What are the rules for student participation in lecture?

What form does student/teacher interaction take? Are there different patterns of interaction manifest in different types of lecture? Is there a general pattern to lectures:

In what ways do these patterns differ, and in what ways are they similar? What learning or motivational devices are used during lecture to enhance student participation? In what ways are classroom management activities integrated into the lecture flow?

Microethnoqraphv. Finally, an ethnographic perspective was used in analysis of this class. While many of the questions posed in this study lent themselves to analysis using OSIA and SAIC, some were best answered through interviews and microethnology. This type of research analysis was used primarily to interpret data from questions that OSIA and SAIC cannot address. These question include such things as: How are different lecture styles perceived by the students? What criteria determine 152

course content, and resources? Are there different

purposes to lecture? Are there types and purposes which

are incompatible? What are the instructor's specific

instructional intentions during any particular lecture?

How closely do these intentions actually match the events

as they were recorded in class, perceived by the students

or perceived by the instructor? How are lectures prepared?

What kinds of notes are used? What reading and reflection go into preparation of lectures? What provisions are made for motivating students? Are student questions and/or difficulties anticipated, or accommodated? What devices are used during lecture to enhance student learning? 153

Data Analysis

Because of the thickness of the description of chemistry lecture being attempted for this dissertation, data were collected from five sources, and analyzed using at least three general procedures. The sources for collection of data were videotapes, audiotapes, field notes, interviews, and mini questionnaires and rating scale items. The three analysis procedures used included the analysis of the OSIA, mapping and charting analysis of SAIC and ethnographic analysis from researcher observation.

Data Collection. The primary data source was the videotape. Audiotape data and fieldnotes were used to fill in information gaps left by the limitations of the videocamera. Audiotapes were used as back up to the videocamera and as the primary recording device during formal interviews. Field notes and personal notes were used to record general researcher observations not recorded on audio or videotape. Representative transcripts were made of lecture events and the one interview recorded on audiotape. Transcripts from these sources were used as raw data to code for OSIA and SAIC analysis. 154

Interviews, mini-questionnaires and mini-rating scale items were used as the major source of information to answer subject specific questions involving intent, perception, "feelings" and opinions. Field notes were used again to fill in any gaps left by the interviews, questionnaires and ratings scales. Also, to the extent that observed behavior conflicted with student or teacher perception or opinion, videotapes were used to supplement this data as well.

Data was organized in representative categories or samples for analysis. Since this research project was largely inductive in nature, many of these categories emerged from the data itself either during or after collection. Because of the researcher's familiarity with chemistry classrooms, however, some few categories were previously anticipated. These included teacher management behaviors during lecture, student interactional and reaction behaviors during lecture, teacher delivery of substantive information using concrete examples, abstract examples, use of models, actual and representative demonstrations, humor, teacher enthusiasm and the like. 155

Data Analysis; O.S.I.A.

The Observational System of Instructional Analysis has a formal, written computer program designed to provide information concerning many aspects of instructional behavior. The following analysis options were used for some of the data analysis in this dissertation:

A) Basic Marix is designed to provide a graphic

representation of patterns in instructional

strategies as well as student/teacher interaction.

It is ordered so as to provide quantitative

information regarding patterns both of events and

behaviors.

B) Time Line displays also provide graphic

information regarding patterns of instructional

and interactional behaviors. It also preserves

the chronological sequence of events, and graphs

them as a function of time. Visually and

numerically determined patterns from the graph,

can then be compared with teacher intentions, and

more fully described using chain data analysis. 1 5 6

C) Strategy Pattern Analysis displays the amount of

time spent in direct (expository) instruction,

interactional and other instructional strategies.

It also displays the amount of time as each

strategy is used sequentially. The main focus in

this study was on patterns of direct and

interactional behaviors during lecture.

D) Subfunction Analysis provides a summary of the use

of user-defined subfunctions by behavior category.

It provides the summary of subfunctions both by

percents and actual frequency, as well as an

overall description of how behaviors and

subfunctions are combined and distributed across

and with behavior categories. Inductively derived

subfunctions were used to describe general lecture

content. These included:

Subfunction Content

A Background material, including

-daily agenda -reasons for content covered -references to previous discussions

U Naming objects, ideas, theories

M Defining objects, ideas, theories

UM Digression 157

AV Underscoring the importance of present content

MV Miscellaneous

The x and y options on the OSIA computer program were used to expand subfunction capabilities to identify and differentiate between various types of examples and analogies used during lecture.

Combinations of x preceding any subfunction code indicated examples while combinations of y preceding any subfunction code indicated analogies. Examples and analogies were further . coded as to whether they were abstract

(combination of x or y with any single-letter subfunction; A, U, M, V) concrete (combinations of x or y with any double-letter subfunction; AV, AM,

UV, UM), personal, impersonal, positive or negative, Expanded x and y subfunction codes were:

Examole Analocry Content

xA yA abstract, personal positive

XU yU abstract, personal negative

xM yM abstract, impersonal positive

XV yv abstract, impersonal negative XAV yAV concrete personal positive 158

XAM yAM concrete personal negative

XUV yUV concrete impersonal positive

XUM yUM concrete impersonal negative

Examples were defined as substantive elements designed to illustrate parts of a whole, or the character of a thing or concept. Examples coded as such included:

Example Code Line # Quote

xA 2608 "If I give you a lab...you 2611 don't have it ready...I'm going to dock 10% " (explaining his method of determining grades)

xM 1584 "At that point we are dissolving. More of the crystals are going into solution than we have solution ions going back into crystal."

XV 4169 "...The 4 is not uncertain"

XAV 2574 "...8 years ago, I was in lab at..."

XUV 1758 "A supersaturated solution is like this one right here folks (gets a flask and holds it up)

xUM 3405 "It's not a helium balloon!" 159

There were no abstract, personal negative examples (xU) or concrete personal negative examples (xAM) found among the transcript data.

Analogies were defined as elements showing similarities to parts of a whole, or similarities to the character of a thing or concept. Analogies always involved either an implicit or an explicit comparison of things or ideas, one to another.

Analogies coded as such included:

Analogy Code Line # Quote

yM 2229 "Potassium nitrate, its solubility curve...(mimes what the solubility curve would look like with his hands)"

yUV 4995 "It's kind of like trying to get through a crowded gymnasium..."

yUM 6173 "It's not a thing you can reach out and touch" (speaking of chemical bonds)

There were no abstract personal positive (yA), abstract personal negative (yU), abstract impersonal negative (yU), concrete personal positive (yAV) or concrete personal negative (yAM) analogies found among the data. 160

E) Subscript Analysis provides a summary of the use

of user defined subscripts by behavior category.

It provides the summary of use of subscripts both

by percents and actual frequencies as well as an

overall description of how behaviors and

subscripts are combined and distributed across and

within behavior categories.

Inductively derived subscripts were used to

describe various teacher behaviors during lecture.

Subscripts used were:

Subscript Meaning

$A Arranging props such as demonstration equipment, visual aids or lecture notes.

$C Calling student's name

$D Demonstrating

$E Enthusiastic behavior/comment

$H Humor

$M Miming behavior; arm and hand motions to indicate an object, reaction, concept, etc.

$0 Verbal or nonverbal "Okay"

$P Pause to think, move, write, wait or for the purose of soliciting questions.

$R Repeat idea, question, answer, concept 161

$V Reference to a visual aid such as diagram, chart, drawing, etc.

$W Writing on overhead or chalkboard

$Y Disciplinary comment/action

F) Context Analysis provides data on the proportional

use of instruction within contexts. The two

contexts used in this study were the setting by

actor region to describe how events are

distributed among students, teacher and others,

and the setting by function region to describe how

lecture is distributed across substantive,

managerial, appraisal and non-functional

behaviors.

G) Standard Variable Analysis provides information

regarding student/teacher behaviors and

interactions for several variable combinations.

These are climate variables, which indicate

classroom climate or "mood", interactional

variables indicating degree to which various types

of student/teacher interaction occur, appraisal

variables which indicate the overall positive or

negative appraisal atmosphere, and other general

variables. 162

OSIA data were first coded longhand in the margins of

the typed manuscript of transcribed lectures. Codes and

the researcher-determined coding system were then checked

for statistical validity and reliability, using Light's

Coefficient for Percentage Agreement on nominal data

(Tables 1 and 2, pgs. 171 and 172) test. These were then keypunched on computer cards and processed by a computer program specifically designed for analysis of OSIA data.

SAIC. The Systematic Analysis of Instructional

Conversation (Green, 1985) was used primarily to provide supplemental information to answer those research questions analyzed using the O.S.I.A. Because of the conversational

"maps", (pg. 150) and the ability to represent classroom conversation, either one-way or interactional, from a different perspective; a different dimension so-to-speak, it was expected that the SAIC would provide information that would both enrich the analysis provided by the OSIA and fill in gaps left by the limitations of a specific computer program. While OSIA provides analysis of conversational or interactional flow as a function of time, the SAIC provides analysis as conversation progresses as a function of many time-independent variables including such things as thematic ties, speakers, subject matter, potentially divergent remarks and the like. Both OSIA and 163

SAIC carry the potential to identify patterns in instructional conversation. The inherent differences in the analysis procedures, however, allow for identification of different types of patterns. These different types of instructional patterns at times both overlapped each other, providing mutual credibility, and complemented one another, providing greater depth to the description than either could give alone.

All lectures were transcribed verbatum on word processor and computer searched by a custom-designed program for frequency and context of various words or phrases inductively derived from the data. Lecture transcripts were then searched methodically in conjunction with videotapes, for patterns in context flow, teacher/student interaction, accompanying nonverbal behaviors, cycles of lecture and interactional strategies and the like.

Ethnographic Analysis. Questions concerning student or teacher perspective, intent, thought processes such as what intentions guide teacher preparation of lecture? What reading and reflection goes into preparation of lecture?

To what degree are the students aware of the teacher's intentions during lecture? To what degree do students 164 accept these intentions as desirable? What is the degree of student satisfaction with lectures given by this teacher? cannot be answered using observational analysis systems. These can only be assessed through the subjects themselves as they answer personal interview questions, complete questionnaires or fill out rating scales.

Questions concerning teacher intent, lecture preparation, self-analysis and the like were answered through personal interviews and recorded on audiotape.

While specific questions were anticipated and outlined, others came up during the course of both researcher/teacher discussions and researcher personal observation, literature review and data analysis. These were included as they related to and/or added depth to the description being attempted in this dissertation.

Questions concerning student perception of this teacher's instructional behaviors and intentions were answered using mini-questionnaires, rating scales and informal interviews with students who at all times remained anonymous. Mini-questionnaires, containing just two or three open-ended questions were used to obtain data both to answer the questions asked, and to tease out possible information not anticipated by the researcher. The number 1 6 5 of questions was limited in order to disrupt as little class time as possible, to encourage students to take enough time to answer the questions completely, and to provide time for them to make any additional comments or provide additional information.

Rating scales were used to answer questions regarding the degree to which students perceive different teacher behaviors both as outlined beforehand as well as those that emerged from the data as it was collected. Informal interviews with students were conducted briefly as the opportunity arose before and after lecture. These were not audio or videotaped to protect the students' identities.

Instead they were recorded retrospectively in researcher field-notes to be used as data supplementary to questionnaires, rating scales and researcher observation.

These informal interviews were infrequent, but provided additional perspective on observed data, and added depth to the final analysis.

Questionnaires, quiz sheets, rating scales and interview notes were compiled for simple percent comparison, average scores or narrative discription of different events. CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

The major research question guiding this investigation was, "how is the expository strategy (lecture) used in the classroom of a chemistry teacher from a suburban secondary school that has a substantively sound science program?"

Twenty-one subquestions were divided among five aspects of the lecture strategy in order to organize a manageable, meaningful response to the research question.

(Figures 5-9, pages 133-137).

The result, as presented in this chapter, is an in- depth description of the expository strategy used in one chemistry class, including the student perspectives on the consequences of that strategy.

For the purpose of providing organization, meaning, and continuity, the findings are presented by subquestion under each of the five aspects of lecture studied. (See figures 5-9, pages 133-137). These five aspects were, structure of lecture, planning, delivery, student

1 6 6 167

participation in lecture, and match between teacher

intention, lecture delivery and student perception of the

lecture. One way in which these five aspects were seen to

interrelate is illustrated in figure 10, page 168.

Definition of Lecture:

For the purpose of conducting this study, lecture was

considered to be any prepared, intentional teacher-

dominated discourse or discussion before or with an

audience for the purpose of instruction. During lectures,

the entire class was expected to listen or participate in

some way determined by the teacher. Lecture included

presentations completely dominated by teacher-talk, as well

as problem-solving sessions, teacher-led discussions that

included the whole class, and teacher demonstrations.

Class activities not considered lecture and therefore not

analyzed in this study, were laboratory periods, classes

dominated by individual or small group work, class time

given over to study hall, movie or videotape recorded

presentations, quizzes, examinations or the like.

Validity and Reliability of the Data

Validity and reliability of OSIA data was computed using Light's Coefficient for Percentage Agreement on 168

*Among Lecture Typei ■•Teacher/Student Interaction

•Within Lecture* • C o n te x t Flow w Exam ples/A n alogii

••Time Allotment*

Structure of L ecture ^Teacher/Student Interaction Patterns Flow •Context Theme Progression

C la rity

Degree of Student Comprehension •of Message Given

'Organisation of M aterial Substantive Elements'

.C ontent Demonstrations

C o n crete

Match Between Teacher •Intentions, Delivery, Student Participation

S tru c tu re

.T e ac h e r — Student Interaction •Intentions

D elivery

Context Flow

L ectu re . D elivery

P ace F low

Context Them Progression

Student/Teacher _ Interaction Pattem F

Attending Consequences1 Student Attending S tu d e n t to Lecture as a . Student Goals#...... —- Participation Function of... Task Attraction „ ------'Begin Note-taking, or Listening

Teaeher Initiate Rules for Student Participation Student Initiate

Verbal/Nonverbal Cues

Figure 10

Relationships Between Five Aspects of Lecture Studied 169 nominal data (Frick et. al., 1978), in which coding of specific events is compared on an event-by-event basis between rators trained in the OSIA. Inductively derived subscripts were totaled over all lecture samples, and percent frequency of each was computed. The same was done for all subfunctions. Based on the percent frequency of each subscript or subfunction, corresponding numbers of representative event samples were taken randomly across lectures. These specific events were then coded by both the researcher and a trained volunteer, and then compared for reliability. The results are presented in Tables 1 and

2, pages 171 and 172.

The focus of this study was on lecture, and the great majority of teacher behaviors coded with subfunctions and subscripts were teacher initiation of information (T4).

With just 5 exceptions among subscripts only, sampled subscripts and subfunctions were all associated with substantive (T4) teacher initiatory behavior. Subscripts associated primarily with specific predetermined behavioral categories other than teacher initiation of information were considered separately. 170

For Light's Coefficient, interrator agreement of the data above 75% is considered to be reliable. Results above

90% are considered to be very reliable. (Hough, 1985b) 171

Tabic 1

Reliability Calculations of OSIA Subfunction Data

Subfunction Analysis: Lecture Content

T4A T4U T4M T4V T4UM T4AV T4MV Total

Standard F 12 12 . 15 19 3 2 1 64

Other F 12 10. 15 20 4 2 1 64

Agreement F 12 10 15 19 3 2 1 52

Light’s Coefficient P0 = _1 (12 + jo + 15 + 19 + 3 + 2 + 1) 64

P0 = 81%

T4XYA T4XYU T4XYM T4XYV T4XYUV T4XYUM T4XYAV Total

Standard F 1 0 11 1 13 2 1 29

Other F 1 0 11 1 14 1 1 29

Agreement F 1 0 11 1 13 1 1 28

Light’s Coefficient PQ = -1 (1 + 0 + 11 + I + 13 + 1 + 1} 29

P0 = 97% Table 2

Reliability of OSIA Subscript Data

T4$A T4$C T4$D T4$E T4$H T4$P T4$R T4$Y T1$P T2$P T3$P T7$P T8$R Total

Standard F 39 1 2 1 1 8 3 3 4 1 1 4 11 79

Other F 39 1 2 1 1 8 3 3 4 1 2 3 11 79

Agreement DF 39 1 2 1 1 8 3 3 4 1 1 3 11 78

Light's Coefficient P0=_l (39+1+2+1+1+8+3+3+4+1+1+3+11) 79

PD = 99% 172 Findings on the Structure of Lecture

Subquestion #1: What is the overall structure of lecture?

Systematic, naturalistic observation of 18 lectures over the last 3 months of one school year and the first 5 months of the following revealed a basic 3 part structure to all lectures regardless of content. These three parts included an introduction of varying length and detail, the

"body" or main topic(s) discussed, and a very brief closing, if any, usually in the form of dismissal.

The introductory phase of each lecture, depending on the type of lecture, usually served to briefly review where the class had left off the day before, to outline the day's agenda, and to cue the students to prepare to take notes.

This portion of time varied in length and detail according to each day's differing schedules. In the 17 lectures studied, however, introductory comments never took up more than 6 minutes of the period, and usually lasted only 1-3 minutes. The body of the lecture, or main topic(s) discussed also varied in length and detail according to lecture type (Table 5, pg. 187) and purpose. Concluding

173 174 Table 3

Summary of Time Spent in 3 Phases of Lecture

Date Introduction* Bodv** Conclusion* Apr. 23 2 minutes 35 minutes none May 6 1 minute 30 minutes 1 sentence May^ 7 1 minute 40 minutes 2 sentences May 8 1 minute 20 minutes 2 words May 9 1 minutes 10 minutes 1 sentence Aug. 28 2 minutes 30 minutes 3 sentences Aug. 29 6 minutes 40 minutes 2 sentences Sept. 3 2 minutes 40 minutes none Sept. 4 3 minutes 30 minutes 4 sentences Sept. 5 3 minutes 40 minutes — Oct. 25 4 minutes 40 minutes none Oct. 26 3 minutes 40 minutes 1 sentence Oct. 30 1 minute 40 minutes 1 minute Oct. 31 1 minute 1 minute 2 sentences Dec. 17 3 minutes 5 minutes 1 sentence Jan. 22 1 minute 15 minutes 3 sentences Jan. 23 4 minutes 35 minutes 3 sentences

* Time for introductory comments was rounded to the nearest minute.

** Time for the body of the lecture was rounded to the nearest 5 minutes. For the purpose of summarizing, demonstrations were included in the body.

*** Time for conclusion was rounded to the nearest minute, or if less than 30 seconds, stated in terms of numbers of words or sentences. 175 remarks were never in any of the lectures longer than two or three sentences, and in three cases, (April 23, Oct. 25 and Oct. 31) consisted only of a nonverbal acquiescence by the teacher to the ending bell (Table 3, pg. 174).

Subquestion #2: What are the similarities and differences

in lectures within and across time?

Similarities: Qualitative Observations

Naturalistic examination of the data showed quite a few similarities among lectures. All were initiated and controlled by the teacher, and were accompanied by note- taking and other attending behaviors by students.

Attending behaviors included such things as asking relevant questions, watching the teacher and responding to questions or directives from the teacher. When it was available and functioning, the teacher always preferred to use an overhead projector rather than writing on a chalk board during lecture. For those lectures where the overhead projector was used, one of the primary cues to the beginning of lecture was the preparation of the projector and screen for use. Accordingly, the major signal for "end of lecture" was when the overhead was switched off, and the screen raised in its holder. 176

Other similarities existed in teacher behaviors during lecture. Mr. Brown is an extremely animated person both in and out of the classroom. His booming, friendly voice and animated expressions accompanied all types of lectures, including simple directions before exams or labs. Mr.

Brown was always clearly in control during each of the lectures, yet he managed a one-to-one style of conversational lecture as though he were speaking to each student individually rather than an entire class.

In all lectures, Mr. Brown maintained frequent, and sometimes constant contact with his students. Physical proximity was maintained through his choice to lecture from in front of the demonstration table rather than behind, as he spoke. His desk placement was literally in the middle of the students (see figure 11, pgs 178 and 242) rather than off in a corner, to the back or behind a partition.

Except to see what he was writing, doing or to what he may be pointing, Mr. Brown always kept direct eye-contact with his students. This included individual eye-contact as well as frequent, slow visual "sweeps" around the room.

Eye-contact with any one student during lecture was usually brief, and eye contact was made with all students. 177

Physical movements included leaning toward students while speaking, frequent half or whole circuits (Fig. 11 pgs. 178 and 242; discussion pgs. 239 - 241) around the room, and slow sweeping motions with his hand outstretched to accompany eye contact. Miming behaviors to indicate various objects, reactions, physical or chemical properties, relative sizes and even name placement on paper were also frequent among lectures.

Even the most direct lectures included varying amounts of teacher/student interaction. While the type, amount, length and style often varied among lecture types, a basic overall pattern emerged (fig. 12, pgs. 179 and 250). In all cases, teacher/student interaction, whether teacher dominated, student dominated (fig. 12) verbal or nonverbal, was teacher-controlled.

Similarities: Quantitative Observations.

Strategy Context Analysis. The OSIA data revealed statistical similarities as seen in Table 4, pg. 181.

Strategy Context Analysis confirmed that the primary source of interaction and information was the teacher. Further, with just two exceptions (August 28, the first day of chemistry class and May 9, giving directions before lab) magnetic rr*r;V»t Hp.ht dlfrractlnn »«ol . wntlnn l!rl*nmy*r torc«_wurwl mirM mirwl _ emral f l a tk wun l U .S .ria r, Half Circuits Circuits Half hl Circuits Whole Starting Point © Point Starting olr viji u» f t c hr Aoi Orias iral m rbitals O Atomic Chart ic d rto fo *v«i«jTi »ur»l lar •o aot f lsro ad a o Crut Walks Circuit of Map and Classroom of Layout ------nsr or oKJaaain araa WorK/Jraparation r to c stru In at at > * > > iCmnX i is i t n a o u t htK er F chftlK beard t l b v o H g n i t • • • iue 11 Figure ZZD ok r * »r« work ^ to oui«r oui«r to t *.. r* » rtp p run T e • «e v v k c. u C c > c b. u r k C u t r c

folding dividing wall b*twn*?n chamlatrj elasfirnoms 178 Phase I

/Teacher Initiates. lnforrnaiion(T'l)

Teacher Appraise/ — Acknowledge (T8-11)

Phase !I

Clearance Teacher Cues ( i 7) Student Response

Phase III

Student Cues Studeot Cues Student F.eponsc Teac.nc: Reepor.se (S7)

.Student Initiate information (S-<)

Cycle

Cycle Phase 3 » Teacher Dominate

Cycle Phase II - Teacher/Student Interaction

Cycle Phase III - Student Dominate

Figure 12

Cycles of Tcachcr/Studcnt Interaction During Lecture 180 class time functioned overwhelmingly with substantive as opposed to managerial or appraisal behaviors. Appraisal and managerial behaviors were universally low, each below

20% in all but the 2 cases mentioned. Table A

Summary of Consistencies Among Lectures in OS1A Data

4/23 9/6 5/7 5/8 5/o 8/26 8/29 9/3 9 ft 9/5 10/2b 1U/26 10/30 10/31 12/17 1/7? 1/23 itr$tegy Context Analysis: a) Source; Teacher/Student 831 77X 84X 75X eix 95X 84X 82X 851 861 93t 921 E2X 881 951 861 661

b) Function: Substantive B4X B9X 84X B3X 41X BBX 831 77% 84X 76% 85% 901 79% 55X 54 % 84X 84:

Utrix Summary a) X T7 behavior 171 19X 16X 211 17X 19X 171 18X 20X 22% m 81 17% 19X 121 20X 151

b) X 55 behavior 101 19X 121 71 151 21 m J2X 9X nx 51 61 9X 91 31 9X b: lime Line Suwaary a) X tine substantive T4 921 961 87X 92X 201 5X 831 601 851 59X 811 91X 791 81 421 921 891

b) X tine substantive S5 100X 99X 100X 80X 100X 100X 1001 1001 100X 100X 1001 10CX 100X 100X loot 97X loo:

c) X tine substantive S7 soi 9DX 1001 BOX 1001 100X 100X 1001 1001 1001 loot 7BX 801 - SOI 731 701

Standard Ratio Analysts* a) Climate Variables -direct/indirect behaviors 581 «3I 551 46X 72X 72X 53X 571 56X 451 47* BBX 611 83X 67X 61X 63:

-mod. Ind./Direct In react. S. 971 93X 9«X 961 571 1001 99X 981 87X 1001 911 BIX 91X - loot 971 9Bt

b) Interaction Variables -Sol.. Clar/in Response to S. 961 981 961 941 941 901 get 98X 99X I00X 1001 961 991 1001 iooi 97X 911

-Sol.. Clar/Initlation 311 46X 371 441 741 25X 36X 391 381 481 191 18% 32X 321 221 321 271

-lnit./Response 98X 981 971 98X 98X 991 991 98: 991 100X 1001 100X 1001 - 100X 981 961

-Appr. Resp./Clar. Resp. 93X 91X 81X 100X 100X 100X 86X 85X 831 851 831 781 731 - 1001 931 941

-Reso.-* Appr./Resp.-* Sol 1c. 92X B6X 87X 81X 10DX 100X 891 86X 791 87X 921 781 89X - 100X 961 B5I

-Appraisal/Response 9BX 95X BBX 95X 86X 86X 98X 97X 961 100X 1001 BBX 971 loot 100X loot 871

c)Appraisal Variables 96: 97X -favorable/unfavorable 971 921 8BX 931 SOI 100X 97X 961 84X 96X 711 71 % 83X - 1001

-objective/judgemental 9SX 86S 791 85X JODI loot 90X 69X 901 751 loot 96X 931 - 100X 821 1001

-lnit..Interact/Judgemental 781 83X 91X B4X 921 96X 85X 88X 901 87X 951 9 4 X 91X 100X 941 911 911

d) General Variables -Functional/nonfunctional 1001 93X 991 100X 98X 100X 1001 loo: 100X 100X 100X 100X 100X 1001 91X 991 100X

* Ratios are presented as percent of numerator to total number

of frequencies (numerator + denominator) for clarity 181 182

Matrix Summary. According to the matrix summary, time spent by the teacher initiating various types of information (T4) varied from lecture to lecture. But time spent soliciting questions or other student responses (T2) with one exception, remained consistently 8% - 22% of class time. Percent of time in student responses (S5), as would be expected, closely paralleled that of teacher solicitations.

Time Line Summary. With just four exceptions (May 9,

Aug. 28, Oct. 31, and Dec. 17) the time line summary showed teacher-initiated information (T4) to be substantive rather than managerial over half of the time, and most often, at least 80% of the time. Student responses and questions were also substantive 80% - 100% of the time.

Standard Ratio Analysis

Climate variables. The Standard Ratio Analysis showed similarities in teacher indirectness, teacher/student interactional behavior, and teacher appraisals among lectures. Mr. Brown used direct behaviors such as teacher initiation of information (T4) and judgments of incorrectness (Til, T12) 43% - 78% of the time. With very few of these being judgments of incorrectness (only 54 over 183 a totals of 8796 recorded behaviors in all 17 lectures) the conclusion may be drawn that at least one half of class time, and in most cases more, is spent in teacher- initiated, teacher-dominated (T4) behavior. All lectures except one (May 9) were 80% or above in the percentage of time spent clarifying, acknowledging, or judging correctness (T6, T8, T9, T10) as a consequence of any student behavior as opposed to time spent judging incorrectness (Til, T12) as a consequence of any student behavior.

Interaction Variables. Interaction variables, with just a few exceptions, also remained fairly stable among lectures. They too, confirmed naturalistic observations of teacher-dominated, teacher-controlled lectures.

Solicitation (T7) and clarification (T6) behaviors by the teacher as compared to responding behaviors (T5) by the teacher ran well over 75% in all cases, and over 90% in most. Teacher solicitation and clarification (T7, T6) as compared to teacher initiation of information (T4) behaviors ran well below 50%, also confirming findings in strategy context analysis and the ratio of indirect to direct behaviors in the Standard Ratio Analysis Climate

Variables. 184

The percentage of teacher initiation (T4) to teacher responses (T5) was very high, 96% - 100% in all cases, as was the percentage of teacher appraisals (T8-12) following student behavior, to teacher response (T5) to student behaviors. The percentage of teacher appraisal (T8-12) to teacher clarification (T6) in reaction to student response

(S5) and teacher appraisal to teacher solicitation (T7) in reaction to student response (S5) were both high. In all cases, these percentages ran above 66%, and in most cases, above 80%.

Appraisal Variables. Appraisal variables confirmed the qualitative observation that Mr. Brown approaches teaching in a very positive and encouraging manner. The percentage of favorable judgments, or judgments of correctness (T8, T9) to unfavorable judgments or judgments of incorrectness (Til, T 12) was in all but one case very high, 71%-100%. In most instances, this percentage was above 80%. The ratio of objective judgments, whether favorable or unfavorable (T8 or Til) to personal positive or negative judgments (T9 or T12) was also very high among lectures; 75%-100% in all cases. This particular percentage more closely reflected the comparison of objective judgments of correctness or incorrectness to personal positive judgments of correctness. There were no 185 instances in all 17 lectures of a personal, negative judgment (T12) of any student by the teacher.

Confirming earlier qualitative and quantitative observations of the teacher in lecture style, the percentage of teacher initiatory or interactive behaviors

(T4-T7) to any teacher judgmental behavior (T8, T9, Til,

T12) was very high. This percentage ran 80% or above for teacher initiatory or interactive behavior across all lectures.

General Variables. The percentage of teacher functional behavior (T1-T12) to teacher nonfunctional behavior (T13) remained very high across all lectures.

This percentage was in all cases above 90%.

Differences Among Lectures

Differences among lectures varied with each perspective taken. Four different perspectives emerged inductively through naturalistic observation and evaluation of quantitative data. The four differences noted, evaluated and discussed in this section are differences according to purpose of lecture, differences according to the relative amount of percent time spent in straight 186 teacher talk, differences according to the time of year, and differences among lectures according to heuristic used.

Differences Among Lectures According to Purpose:

In agreement with the literature (Woods, 1983) , there were immediately evident three different types of lectures according to purpose. These were lectures in inform, or transmit information, lectures to promote understanding, and lectures to create interest. Table 5, pg. 187 summarizes these differences.

Qualitative Observations. Lectures to inform or transmit information consisted primarily of giving directions before a laboratory exercise, quiz or exam, and review of policies and procedures the first day of class.

These generally covered a lot of material in a relatively short amount of time with reduced teacher/student contact.

During these lectures the teacher remained in the front of the class, apart from the students. While the number of teacher solicitations remained stable, eye contact or nonverbal solicitations were greatly reduced. Lectures to inform were generally prefaced by comments referring to rank, order or time, and supplemental examples or analogies were rarely used. Summary of Qualitative Differences Among Lectures According to Purpose

Use of Overhead # Pauses for # # Topics Purpose: ______Opening Statements ______or chalkboard ______Questions Circuits Covered ______Time Lapse

Transmit References to rank, order, time little or none infrequent few-none m any short Information

5/Sb "Okay, Before we go any further..." 0 1 0 4 5 minutes

5/9 "Okay,...a couple things are 0 . 0 0 4 10 minutes really essential today..."

4 S/2S "Okay, aum, first thing today..." 6 4 13 6 30 minutes

10/31 "Okay, folks, it is imperative 0 0 0 4 1 minute that as soon as you get your test..."

12/17 "First order of business, folks" 0 1 0 5 5 minutes

Prom ote References to the need to take notes frequent m an y m any few longer Understai nding

4/23 "O kay, I tell you w h at...W e’re 98 8 28 1 35 minutes gonna plow through a few of these problems and,..."

5/6 "Pull out a brand spanking new sheet 98 3 30 1 30 minutes of paper...we've got some new terminology folks..."

5/7 "Okay, we want to talk about 73 6 29 2 35 minutes concentrations today..."

5/8a "Okay folks, let’s take a look at 71 10 5 1 15 minutes those homeworks please..."

8/29 "Okay, these are notes. You are 86 4 26 2 40 minutes responsible for these on a test..."

9/3 "Okay, let’s get started..." 37 2 14 3 35 minutes (later) "I want you to take this down. You are responsible for this material..."

9/4 "We’re gonna talk about making 103 16 41 1 30 minutes measurements today..."

9/5 "Okay, let’s get started...we need 83 21 29 1 30 minutes everybody to work real hard today..."

10/24 "Pull out a brand spanking new sheet of 146 3 18 1 40 minutes p ap e r. W e’re going to ta k e some Yery important things down..."

10/25 "Okay, lets’ get started...W e’re gonna 146 3 18 1 40 minutes talk about the particles that make up an atom..."

10/30 "Okay folks...if you would please pull 55 3 20 2 40 minutes out your notes from yesterday..."

1/22 "Pull out a brand spanking new sheet 97 4 24 1 15 minutes of paper..."

1/23 "Okay...this is a quick recap on what 140 4 30 1 35 minutes we did yesterday."

C reate References to fun, probable student none infrequent none 1 short Interest enjoyment, definite teacher enthusiasm

4/23 "Let's do chemistry!...It’s gonna burn, 0 0 0 1 5 minutes and burn and...Kabooml...it’s wonderful!'

5/6 "This is a demonstration. It’s called 0 0 0 1 10 minutes the ammonia fountain."

5/7 "...folks, I got a demonstration that’s 0 0 0 1 5 minutes gonna knock your socks off..."

9/4 "...we’d like to get the year started 0 0 0 1 1 minute off w ith a boom..."

* See Summary and Implication pg. 304 188

Lectures to promote understanding were the most

frequent type of lecture. These generally lasted the longest amount of time, and covered a small amount of material in great detail. Other distinguishing characteristics included frequent "circuits" (Table 5, pg.

187 and Fig. 11, pgs. 178 and 242) around the room, a great deal of teacher/student contact (pg. 176) extensive use of the overhead projector, the chalk board, and various charts and models around the room, and a great deal of teacher- enthusiasm for the subject. (Table 6, pg. 189).

Teacher/student interaction was of all types, including direct solicitations by teacher and student, nonverbal solicitations by the teacher, and teacher pauses in mid­ sentence, allowing students to responsively complete the thought. Lectures to promote understanding were generally prefaced by comments referring to the need to take notes or continue taking notes. Supplemental examples and analogies were used frequently (Table 9, pg. 2 09, 210) as were illustrative hand or arm movements (miming).

Lectures to create interest consisted primarily of laboratory demonstrations by the teacher of different theoretical concepts being discussed. In general , Mr.

Brown chose flashy, or dramatic reactions for these demonstrations, and in all cases, the students paid rapt 189 Tabic 6

lummary of Quantitative DifferencesAmong Lectures According to Purpose

Freq TSE, Strategy Pattern % Anslysi it of: Subfunction Teacher Analysis: Chmale Variables: Interactive PufDOM: Oneninc Statements Code • Enthusiasm % Exoositorv Tchnc. Ind/Dir. R mo . Sol /r.f jo .

Transmit References to rank, order, time All T 0 4 A Infrequent High Expository Wide Continently Information Narrow Range Variability High

S/Sb •"Okay, Before we go any further...' T 04A 0 100% 71% 5 4 %

5/9 'Okay,...r> couple things are T 04A 0 71% 5 4 % really essential today...'

8/26 'O kay, aum. first thing today..." TCMA 0 85% 62% 92%

10/21 'O kay, folks, it is imperative TOM 0 10 0% 17% :c o % that as soon as you get your test..."

13/17 'First order of business, folks* T O M 1 89% 03% •00%

Promote References to the need to take notes Mostly Frequent Wide Consistently Conilj'.enl Understanding Managerial Variability High High

4/33 'O kay, I tell you what...We're T O M 3 38% 80% 95% gonna plow inrough a few of these problems and,...*

5/0 'Pull out a brand spanking new sheet T 0 7 5 30% 79% 95% of paper...we've got some new terminology folks...*

5/7 'Okay, we want to talk about T4A C 73% 79% 55*% concentrations today.,.'

S/S. 'O kay folks, let's take t look if TO 7 7 9% 65% 95% those homework.J pleaje...*

8/79 "Okay, these are notes. You are T 0 7 5 •<3% 69% 98% responsible for these on a test...'

9/3 'O kay. Jet’s get started...' TO? 0 *43% 60% 95% (later) "1 want you to take this down. You are responsible for this material.

B/< “W e’re gonna talk about making T

9/5 'O kay, let's get started...we need TO 7 15 2 < % 37% 1 0 0 % everybody to work real hard today...’

10/24 'P ull out a brand spanking new sheet T 0 7 0 £3% 86% 100% of paper. We’re going to take some very important things down...'

10/25 "Okay, lets’ gel started...W e’re gonna T 0 7 1 74% 66% • 55% talk about the particles that make upi an atom..."

10/30 'O k ay folks...if you would please pull T 0 7 1 35% 60% 56% out your notes from yesterday...'

1/22 “Pull out a brand spanking new sheet T 0 7 0 35% 90% 97% of paper...*

1/23 'Okay...this is a quick recap on what TOM 3 55% 73% 91% we did yesterday."

Irefttc References to fun, probable student Variable High Variable Variable Wide nlcresl enjoyment, definite teacher enthusiasm Frequency ’ Varsabilit;

4/23 “Let’s do chemistry!...lt‘s gonna born, T 0 4 5 E 11 10% oe% 46% and burn and...Kaboom!... it's wonderful!'

5/6 'This is a demonstration. lt*s called TO

5/7 “...folks, 1 got a dcmonslralior.^thal’s T45E 7 63% 67% 54% gonna knock your socks off...” 100% 75% 9/4 '...w e’d like to get the year started T-tA 1 14% off with n boom...'

' See OSIA Subfunclion Analysis pgs. 145. H 6 , 150 - 157 190 attention to them. Mr. Brown typically became even more animated and enthusiastic during these demonstrations

(Table 6, pg. 189) , detailing his every move to the students and often cheering the reaction on in the process.

He was heard to say during a demonstration Jan. 23, for instance, "Go!, go!, go!" (to the reaction) and then "Wow!" at the result. Unlike lectures to inform or to promote understanding, lectures to create interest - in this case demonstrations - were generally punctuated with comments such as: (April 23) "Oooh, hooo-hooo!...Let1s see if we can hit the sink again!"; (May 6) "Whoop!...Isn't that marvelous? Look at that!"; (May 7) (Teacher smiling, obviously enjoying himself) "There it is folks! There went your socks!" (See Table 6, pg. 190) and, (Jan 22) (to the reaction) "Go!, go!, go!,...Wow!" Teacher/student interaction remained at a minimum with no teacher circuits or nonverbal solicitations. Overhead projectors, chalk boards, charts and the like were not used during demonstrations. Lectures to create interest were generally prefaced with comments referring to "fun", or student enjoyment of the exercise. 191

Quantitative Observations:

Several differences among lectures according to purpose were also evident among the OSIA data. These differences were seen primarily in the degree to which the different analyses varied among lectures in each category.

They are summed up in Table 6, page 189.

Strategy Pattern Analysis: Lectures to create interest or to promote understanding varied widely.

Lectures to promote understanding varied between 9% and 82% expository, and lectures to create interest varied between

10% and 100% expository. Lectures to transmit information showed a much more consistent trend, varying only between

71% to 100% expository teaching.

Time Line Summary: All lectures to transmit information began with teacher initiation of managerial information covering some sort of background material

(T04A). Lectures to create interest and lectures to promote understanding began variably among teacher initiation of either managerial or substantive information

(T04 or T4) or teacher managerial solicitations (T07). The majority of lectures to promote understanding, however, 9 192 out of 13, or 77% began with teacher managerial solicitation of student response (T07).

Percent Analysis of Climate Variables: Lectures to transmit information and create interest showed little consistency in the ratio of teacher indirect (T6-T10) behavior to direct behavior (T4, Til, T12) in response to any student behavior. Lectures to promote understanding, however, ran consistently high (58%-86%) in this area, and had a much narrower range of variation (Table 6, pg. 189).

Percent Analysis of Interaction Variables: Lectures to promote understanding or to transmit information were consistently very high in the percentage of teacher solicitation or clarification (T7, T6) behaviors to teacher responding (T5) behaviors, and showed very little variation

(94%-100%) among lectures. Lectures to create interest had a wider band of variation (48%-100%). Lectures to promote understanding were also consistently very low in the percentage of teacher response (T5) behavior to teacher initiatory (T4) behavior (0-4%). Lectures to create interest and to transmit information had a much wider variation in this percentage, going as high as 29% and 50% in the ratio of teacher response to teacher initiation

(T5/T4) behaviors, respectively. 193

Percent Analysis of General Variables: The percentage of teacher interactive or initiatory behavior (T4-T12) to student interactive or initiatory behavior (S4-S12) was consistently high (64%-96%) among all lectures. It tended to run higher with less variability among lectures to transmit information than lectures to promote understanding or to create interest.

Subscript and Subfunction data were generally used to confirm naturalistic observations. Lectures to transmit information, and demonstrations of chemical reactions had generally fewer subscripted behaviors and less substantive content to code for subfunctions. Lectures to promote understanding, however, showed significantly higher frequencies of several subscripted behaviors as well as subfunctions (Tables 8, 9 and 10; pgs. 207-212).

Subfunction analysis revealed that with the exception of lectures using a mathematical heuristic, lectures to promote understanding were consistently higher than either lectures to promote interest or lectures to transmit information in several content areas. These included naming of objects or illustrations (T4U), defining of terms

(T4M), amplification of a point or going in to further 194 detail of a concept (T4V), underscoring the importance of a concept (T4AV), and digression from the main topic as an indirect example (T4U). Table 8; pgs. 207 and 208 presents a summary of general content subfunctions according to purpose of lecture.

Subscripted behaviors also confirmed naturalistic observations. With the exception of one lecture to transmit information (8-28, Review of classroom policies and procedures) which for safety reasons necessitated thorough understanding, subscripted behaviors were significantly more frequent among lectures to promote understanding than either to transmit information or to demonstrate chemical reactions. Subscripted behaviors found in greater frequency among lectures to promote understanding were arm and hand notions to illustrate a point, or miming ($M), repetition of a concept or student's correct answer ($R), writing on the overhead projector or a chalk board ($W), or reference to a wall chart, diagram or information written previously on the overhead projector or chalk board ($V). Lectures to promote understanding also had more frequent pauses by the teacher to think for a minute or read something (T1$P, T2$P), or just to let a point sink in (T4$P) than both lectures to create interest 195 and to transmit information. Table 10, pg. 211, 212 presents a summary of subscripted behaviors according to purpose of lecture.

Differences Among Lectures According to relative amount of time in straight teacher-talk: Another perspective on differences between lectures was in the relative amount of time spent by the teacher in dishing out information. Lectures fell neatly into one of three categories: Those lectures in which teaching style was primarily expository (2/3 to all of the time), those in which teaching style was primarily interactive or reciprocal, (2/3 to all of the time) and those lectures in which teaching style varied somewhat equally between expository and reciprocal (1/3 - 2/3 of class time each).

Qualitative Observations:

There were four lectures that were primarily interactive or reciprocal in style. All four of these dealt with general review material, and three involved discussion of homework assigned the day before. Two lectures, 4-23 and 5-6, involved class sessions reviewing the proper way to mathematically predict the needs for and the results of various chemical reactions (stoichiometry). 196

Another, 5-8, dealt with a review of new terms discussed the day before, and the last, 9-5, was a problem­ solving/review session on accuracy, precision and measurement in chemistry.

Typically, there was a lack of any prolonged teacher explanation in these review sessions. Opening remarks included references to assigned homework, material covered the day before (May 6, "...we've got two blasts from the past...") or an impending work session (April 23, May 8,

Sept. 5; see Table 3, pg. 174). In all of these lectures, only one major topic was discussed, and in 3 of them, that topic dealt with the use of mathematics in chemistry.

These lectures also had the highest incidence, 12 in all, of the need for and use of discipline by the teacher.

(Table 7 pg. 202). The teacher never relinquished control of the class, but there were more incidences of non­ solicited, potentially divergent student interruptions.

These required disciplinary action by the teacher, usually in the form of a quiet, polite request for the student to quit.

There were eight lectures that were primarily (2/3 or more of class time) direct or expository. These included all 5 lectures to transmit information (Table 3, pg. 174), 197 three of the lectures to promote understanding (May 7, Oct

24, and Oct 25), and one demonstration (Sept. 4). The number and subject of the topics covered varied among the lectures. This category, however, contained all the lectures that covered 3 or more topics. (Table 5 pg. 187)

Lectures that were direct or expository at least 2/3 or more of the class time were characterized mainly by long periods of continuous teacher-talk. These were punctuated from time to time by teacher-initiated interaction, remaining primarily in Phase I of cycle A (see fig. 12, pgs. 179 and 250). There were slightly fewer incidences of teacher disciplinary action, 9 in all, among these lectures

(Table 7 pg. 202).

There were six lectures (8-29, 9-3, 9-4, 10-30, 1-22 and 1-23) and two demonstrations (5-6 and 5-6) that fell into the category of lectures that varied 1/3 - 2/3 between direct teacher-talk and teacher/student interactive behaviors. These were characterized by brief teacher explanations or initiation of new information sandwiched between question/answer sessions or interactive discussion of the topic. These were limited to the discussion of only

1 or 2 topics and generally lasted the greater part of the class period. In all 6 lectures represented in this 198 category, there was only 1 incidence of disciplinary action by the teacher (Table 7 pg. 202).

Quantitative Observations:

The OSIA strategy pattern analysis provided the inductive divisions among lectures according to time spent in straight teacher-talk. The only consistent differences between these in the OSIA program was seen in the strategy pattern analysis, which computed the percent time in expository versus reciprocal behavior, and the matrix summary. The matrix summary indicated an increasingly higher range of teacher initiation of substantive information as the lectures tended toward a higher percentage of teacher-talk. Lectures that were primarily interactive or reciprocal (2/3 to all of the time) ranged

1-33% of time spent in teacher initiation of information.

Lectures which were primarily expository had a higher range

(43%-61%) of teacher initiatory behavior. Lectures which varied about equally between expository and interactive or reciprocal behavior (1/3 - 2/3 of class time) also had an intermediate range of teacher-initiation. This ran 25%-44% among these lectures. 199

Differences Among Lectures According to Time of Year;

Data also seemed to fall into one of three categories according to the time of year. These included class near the end of the school year, lectures at the beginning of the school year, and lectures falling somewhere after

September and before May. Major differences between lectures according to the time of year dealt with the most frequent type of heuristic used, frequency of demonstrations associated with lectures, frequency of disciplinary action needed or used, and frequency of the teacher calling on individual students for answers as opposed to waiting for volunteers to simply speak up.

These differences are summarized in Table 7 pg. 202.

Qualitative Observations:

Lectures at the beginning of the school year were characterized by a great deal of silence on the part of the students. The teacher had to prompt them for answers more often, frequently calling on individual students for answers. There were no disciplinary actions used during the first 4 days of school, and only 2 on the fifth. These involved asking one group of student to pay attention.

There was only one demonstration associated with lectures 200 during the first 5 days, and the primary heuristic used was that of concrete illustrations to explain concepts of chemistry.

Lecture on the very first day of school differed somewhat from the next 4 days as well as the rest of year in many ways also. This lecture was primarily expository as compared to a more even distribution between expository and interactive behaviors during the next 4 days. The main topic was discussion of the school year, class rules, course philosophy and policy, seating arrangements and the like. The main purpose of this lecture, was classed as one to transmit managerial information. It differed from other transmission of information lectures in the frequency of calling individual students, frequency of arm or hand motions to illustrate a point (miming) and frequency of pauses for various reasons.

Lectures occurring during the middle of the school year were characterized by a more relaxed atmosphere. The teacher seldom called on individual students for answers, relying primarily on volunteers to simply speak up when given the opportunity. Disciplinary action was not often needed, but occurred more frequently than at the beginning of the school year. In each case, students needed only to 201 be asked to pay attention. There was just one demonstration associated with middle of the year lectures

(1-23 as mentioned on pg. 190). The most frequent heuristic used was that of abstract illustrations of concepts being studied.

Lectures at the end of the school year characteristically had the most relaxed atmosphere. The teacher very rarely called on individuals for answers, more often calling on individuals to behave in class. There were quite a few more incidences involving disciplinary action. These involved offenses more disruptive than not paying attention in class, such as loud, unsolicited, potentially divergent remarks from the students, talking among groups of students during lecture, and attempts by students to leave the class before dismissal, but after the bell had rung. The most frequent heuristics used were concrete illustrations and mathematical prediction of chemical reactions.

Quantitative Observations:

There were only two standard analyses that showed consistent differences among lectures according to time of year. These were in the ratio of expository to reciprocal 202

Table 7

Summary of Differences According to Time of Year

# Calls on indivi- # Disciplinary Time of Year dual Students (SCI Behaviors fSY) # Demonstrations Heuristic Used

First Day many few few concrete of School 8-28 8 0 0 none 8-29 18 0 1 concrete 9-3 20 1 0 concrete 9-4 17 0 0 concrete 9-5 12 3 0 concrete

Middle Days fewer few one abstract of School

10-24 5 1 0 abstract 10-25 1 2 0 abstract 10-30 14 1 0 abstract 10-31 0 0 0 none 12-17 2 1 0 none 1-22 8 0 1 abstract 1-23 3 0 0 abstract

Last Days fewest many most often concrete of School

4-23 3 4 1 mathematics 5-6 6 11 1 concrete 5-7 3 7 1 concrete

5-8a 0 5 0 mathematics 5-8b

5-9 0 3 0 none 203

j * behaviors, and the ratio of teacher interaction and initiation (T4-T12) to student interaction and initiation

(S4-12).

With the exception of the very first day of chemistry class, the ratio of expository to reciprocal teaching during the first days of class tended to be low, or 24%-42% expository. The very first day of class had a relatively high percentage of 85%, which lowered suddenly to 43% the next two days, then to 42% and 24% on the fifth day of class. The percentage of teacher initiation of interactive behaviors to student initiation of interactive behaviors was consistently high, ranging 76% to 96%.

The percentage of expository to reciprocal teaching during middle of the year lectures had a tendency toward a greater degree of expository teaching, ranging between 35% to 100% expository teaching. The percentage of teacher initiation and interaction to student initiation and interaction also remained consistently high, ranging 79% to

96%.

Lectures during the last days of school showed a wide variability among ratios of expository to reciprocal teaching. The ratio of teacher initiation and interaction 204 to student initiation and interaction tended to be somewhat lower during the last days than either the first days of class or middle of the year lectures.

Subscript analysis confirmed naturalistic observations on the frequency of disciplinary actions ($Y) and individual calling on specific students for answers ($C) by the teacher. (Table 7, pg. 202) 205

Differences Among Lectures According to Heuristic;

Lectures generally fell into one of 5 categories according to the heuristic used. These were mathematical predictions of chemical reactions (either known or theoretical) use of concrete illustration to explain theories, use of abstract illustrations to explain theories, demonstrations of chemical reactions and simple direct transmissions of information, with no evident, special heuristic.

Differences between lectures to transmit information, and demonstrations of chemical reactions were reported previously (pgs. 186, 188 to 195). Lectures to promote understanding were then divided into one of three types according to heuristic. These were mathematical principles of chemical reactions, use of concrete illustrations and use of abstract illustrations to explain chemical theory.

The mathematical heuristic included mathematical prediction of reaction products, concentrations or products and limiting factors. Concrete illustrations included physical constants such as boiling point, melting point, rate of reactivity, and solubility. Concrete illustrations also included measurements such as volume, length, or 206 distance, and precision versus accuracy of those measurements. Abstract illustration included such things as molecular and atomic models, bonding, subatomic particles, parts of the atom, electron shell arrangement and the like.

Qualitative Observations;

There were 2 lectures employing the mathematical heuristic, 4-2 3 and 5-8a. These were characterized by a great deal of teacher/student interaction occurring in all three phases of domination (Fig. 12 pgs. 179 and 250) while less than 1/3 of the class time was spent in straight teacher-talk. The teacher frequently made use of the chalk board or overhead projector, and often referred to wall charts, diagrams, or what had been written earlier on the chalk board or overhead projector. There were also frequent pauses for various reasons during these lectures.

Examples and analogies were used comparatively infrequently. Those used were always concrete, impersonal and positive (Table 9 pgs. 209 and 210).

There were six lectures (5-5, 5-7, 8-29, 9-3, 9-4 and

9-5) which used concrete illustrations as an heuristic to explain chemical principles. These occurred at the Table 8a

Summary of General Content Subfunction Data According to Function and Heuristic

Background Naming Defining Amplifying Underscore Misc. Digressing F u n c tio n H eu ristic (TQ4A) (T4A) (T4U) (T4M1 (T4V! (T4AV1 (T4MVt (T4UMt

F % F % F % F % F % F% F % F %

Mathematics

4-23 IB 71% 70 29% 0 0% 0 0% 4 2% 10% 10% 3 1%

5-8a 8 89% 45 41% 5 B% 4 4% 3 3% 9 9% 2 2% 6 6%

C o n crete

6-6 6 67% 17 9% 31 16% 32 16% 26 13% 6 3% 0 0% 7 4%

6-7 19 66% 67 30% 10 6% ' 16 8% 22 11% 12 6% 0 0% 3 2%

8 -29 21 67% 23 13% 12 7% 33 18% 29 16% 4 2% 1 1% 3 2%

Lectures to 9 -3 46 92% 3 4% 10 13% 22 29% 26 33% 4 6% 0 0% 1 1%

P ro m o te 9-4 39 87% 27 11% 26 11% 66 21% 64 21% 16 6% 1 0% 14 5%

Understanding 9-6 66 87% 1 1% 17 19% 3 3% 26 29% 9 10% 0 0% 3 3%

A b stra c t

10-24 60 91% 23 8% 36 13% 21 8% 78 28% 7 3% 2 1% 16 5%

10-26 26 96% 36 13% 32 12% 30 11% 83 31% 2 1% 0 0% 22 8%

10-30 38 88% 29 17% 16 9% 16 10% 46 28% 4 2% 1 1% 7 4%

1-22 14 93% 9 6% 6 4% 17 10% 66 39% 6 4% 1 1% 7 4%

1-23 19 73% 13 6% 31 14% 36 16% 30 14% 6 2% 1 0% 8 4% 207 Table 8b

Summary of General Content Subfunction Data According to Function and Heuristic

Background Naming Defining Amplifying Underscore Misc. Digressing Function Heuristic ('T04A') (T4A1

F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F %

Demonstrations o o o o o o O Lectures to 4-23 14 70% 8 57% o 1 7% 1 7% ? s ? 8 o o o o Create 5-6 8 67% 7 50% 2 14% o 2 14% o 0 0% ? 8 o o C4 00 o o o Interest 5-7 3 13% 1 4% 2 8% 1 4% o s i o o o o o o o o 9-4 15 79% 3 16% o % 1 5%

No heuristic

5-8b IS 81% 5 50% o o o o 0 0% 0 0% 1 14% 1 0% o O O o o o o Lectures to 5-9 34 77% 4 36% 3 27% 0 0% o o o Transm it 8-28 126 88% 2 29% 0 0% 0 0% o O 0 0% 3 43% o o o o o o o o Information 10-31 10 83% 0 0% o o o o o 12-17 47 96% 8 23% 7 20% 4 11% 9 26% o 0 0% 4 11% 208 Table 9a

Summary of Expanded X,Y Subfunction Data According to Function and Heuristic

Abstract Concrete Abstract Examples Concrete Examples Analogies Analogies % T o ta l % T o tal Function Heuristic XA XMXV XAV xuv XUM YMYUV YUM Examples A nalogies F %* F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F % Mathematical 4-23 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 4 100% 0 0% 0 0% 20 100% 0 0% 38% : 63%** O o 5-8a 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 8 100% 0 0% 0 0% 3? 0 0% 1% 13% 100% concrete

Concrete Illustrations P ro m o te 5-6 1 1% 29 30% 2 2% 0 0% 66 67% 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% U n d er­ 5-7 0 0% 62 49% I 1% 0 0% 66 60% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 99% : 1%** stan d in g 8-29 2 3% 7 10% 6 9% 24 34% 30 43% 1 1% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 64% concrete 9-3 0 0% 1 2% 0 0% 0 0% 44 98% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 57% 2% 46% abstract 91% of 9-4 2 2% 42 40% 0 0% 22 21% 33 31% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% to ta l 9-5 0 0% 88 79% 7 6% 11 10% 6 6% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% exam ples ' Abstract Illustrations 71% : 29%** 10-24 1 1% 46 94% 1 1% 3 3% 42 45% 0 0% 23 44% 26 60% 3 6% Exam ples - 100% of 10-25 0 0% 39 30% 0 0% 1 1% 90 69% 1 1% 0 0% 4 100% 0 0% 50% concrete to ta l 10-30 0 0% 18 63% 2 6% 0 0% 14 41% 0 0% 2 6% 36 96% 0 0% 33% 84% 50% abstract analogies 1-22 0 0% 1 60% 0 0% 0 0% 1 50% 0 0% 0 0% 13 100% 0 0% Analogies = 1-23 2 4% 60 93% 0 0% 0 0% 2 4% 0 0% 15 60% 4 10% 6 20% 68% concrete 32% abstract

* F = Actual frequency of the event. % = Percentage of each X subfunction out of all X subfunctions (examples) or percentage of each Y subfunction out of all Y subfunctions (analogies). ** Percentage ratios represent % examples to total examples and analogies: % analogies to total examples + analogies. *** XY expanded subfunction data represent all predetermined teacher behavior 209 categories (T1 - T13) Tabic 9b

Summary of Expanded X,Y Subfunction Data According to Function and Heuristic

A b s t r a c t C o n c r e te Abstract Examples Concrete Examples A n a lo g ie s Analogies % Total % Total

1' U III nu n r i e u r i s t i c M V l \ V A . U V A l LUVl I IV1 T L 1 V 1 u e x a m p le s A n a i o t n es F %* F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F % Demonstrations

4-23 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0% 00% 100% : 0%** P r o m o te 5-6 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 % 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3% 0% 64% concrete I n te r e s t 5-7 0 0 % 12 3 6 % 0 0% 0 0% 21 6 4 % 00% 0 0% 00% 00% 36% abstract 9-4 0 0 % 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0%

No Heuristic 5-8 0 0% 5 22% 0 0% 0 0% 18 78% 0 0 % 1 10 0 % 0 0 % 0 0% T r a n s m it 5-9 0 0 % 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 00% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 9 9 % : 1% ** Information 8-28 6 2 7% 0 0 % 0 0% 10 45% 5 23% 1 5% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 6% 0% 67% concrete 10-31 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 % 0 0% 00% 0 0% 00% 0 0% 33% abstract 12-17 0 0% 6 4 6% 2 15% 3 23% 2 15% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

T o ta ls 14 406 21 74 439 43 98 8 100% 100%

* F = Actual frequency of the event. % = Percentage of each X subfunction out of all X subfunctions (examples) or percentage of each Y subfunction out of all Y subfunctions (analogies). ** Percentage ratios represent % examples to total examples and analogies: % analogies to total examples + analogies. *** XY expanded subfunction data represent all predetermined teacher behavior categories (T1 - T13) Table 10a

Summary of Subscripted Behaviors According to Function and Heuristic

Purpose Heuristic SA SC SD SE SH SM SO SP $R SV SW SY *F 56 F % F % F 56 F % F % F % F 56 F 56 F 56 F56 F 56 Mathematical

4-23 31 656 3 156 IB 356 J 056 1 056 9 156 33 <56 36 756 31 656 85 1656 98 1856 0 0 %

5-8a 5 156 0 056 o 056 1 056 3 156 is 356 S 156 11 756 31 1056 38 u 56 6 7 3 0 56 6 1 56

Concrete 5-6 70 1056 6 156 15 656 5 156 7 156 10 156 IS 3% 37 1% 58 8% 31 6% 98 13% 10 1% 5-7 El 8% 5 156 51 9% 6 156 3 056 51 956 31 556 50 856 33 156 S3 556 83 13% 7 1% 8-29 13 356 18 356 1 0% 5 156 1 056 85 1556 18 356 36 6% 15 856 10 356 86 15% 0 0%

P ro m o te 9-3 8 356 30 6% 5 156 0 056 0 056 30 8% 17 556 31 856 10 3% 6 3% 37 11% 1 0%

U n d e r ­ 9-4 33 556 J7 3% 17 3% 8 1% 3 0% 66 9% 19 356 31 1% 16 656 56 856 103 11% 0 0% standing 9-5 11 356 13 358 18 3% 11 356 1 056 16 356 31 156 30 656 39 756 66 13% 85 15% 3 1%

A b s tra c t

10-31 38 5% 5 1% 18 7% 0 0% 1 1% 39 1% 6 1% 11 3% 36 1% 55 8% 116 71% 1 0%

10-35 13 7% 1 0% 60 9% 1 0% 1 0% 39 6% 7 1% 17 3% 33 3% 15 7% 116 3356 3 0%

10-30 16 1% 11 3% 30 7% 1 0% 0 0% I t 10% 17 1% 17 1% 33 5% 39 9% 55 13% 1 0%

1-33 31 8% 8 3% 11 3% 0 0% 3 1% 15 1% 16 1% 50 13% 31 6% 33 6% 97 35% 0 0%

1-33 30 1% 3 1% 7 1% 3 1% 3 1% 19 3% 31 1% 16 8% 36 6% 15 8% 110 25% 0 0%

* Frequency = total subsciptcd behaviors across all 13 categories of predetermined teacher behaviors (Tl - TI3) % = percent ratio of each subscripted behavior to all coded (Tl - TI3) behaviors. Table 10b

Summary of Subscripted Behaviors According to Function and Heuristic

Purpose Heuristic SA SC SD SE SH $M SO SP $R SV SW SY * F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F %

Demonstrations

4-23 39 3 9% 1 1% 16 16% 21 21% 3 3% 3 3% 1 1% 0 0% 22% 55% 0 0% 44%

C re a te 5-6 35 36% 0 0% 34 35% 4 4% 0 0% 6 6% 2 2% 0 0% 7 7% 0 0% 2 2% 1 1%

In te re s t 5-7 3 3% 0 0% 32 30% 2 2% 1 1% 18 17% 4 4% 3 3% 4 4% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

9-4 10 34% 0 0% 1 3% 1 3% 1 3% 1 3% 0 0% 0 0% 1 3% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Transmit (No h e u ris tic )

5-8b 5 6% 0 0% 18 23% 0 0% 0 0% 9 12% 3 4% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

T r a n s m it 5-9 6 6% 0 0% 41 44% 0 0% 0 0% 14 15% 6 6% 0 0% 2 2% 0 0% 0 0% 3 3%

Information 8-28 13 5% 8 3% 30 11% 10% 0 0% 64 24% 25 9% 19 7% 4 2% 2 1% 1 0% 0 0%

10-31 10 33% 0 0% 1 3% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 6 20% 0 0% 1 3%

12-17 16 8% 2 1% 2 1% 1 1% 11 6% 5 3% 4 2% 33 17% 7 4% 0 0% 0 0% 4 2%

* Frequency = total subsciptcd behaviors across all 13 categories of predetermined teacher behaviors (Tl - T13) % = percent ratio of each subscripted behavior to all coded (Tl - T13) behaviors. 213 respective "ends" of the school year; during the 2 days near the end of one school year, and the second through fifth days of the beginning of the next school year. Time spent in expository versus interactive teacher/student behaviors varied among these lectures. The type of interaction, however, remained largely in phases I and II, dominated by cycles A and B (Fig. 12 pgs. 179 and 250).

There were considerably more examples used to illustrate than analogies (Table 9, pgs. 209 and 210) . These examples consisted primarily of objects held by the teacher for the class to see, or drawings to represent objects for the class to see. There were nearly the same number of concrete examples and analogies as abstract. Nearly all examples and analogies were impersonal, and all were positive.

The teacher frequently made use of the overhead projector, though not the chalk board, and often referred to visual aids such as wall charts, diagrams, or what had previously been written on the overhead projector. Most of these lectures carried an "air of enthusiasm" by the teacher, characterized by humorous and/or enthusiastic remarks as well as a lot of hand and arm motions, or what came to be termed as "miming" behavior (Table 10, pg. 211,

212) . 214

There were five lectures (10-24, 10-25, 10-30, 1-22 and 1-23) which used abstract illustrations to explain abstract principles. These occurred during the middle of the school year and were characterized by the use of a great many analogies as well as examples. (Table 9, pgs.

2 09 and 210). There were approximately the same number of concrete examples and analogies as abstract. Most examples and analogies were impersonal and all were positive. Time spent in expository versus interactive teacher/student behaviors varied among these lectures. The type of interaction, however, remained largely in phases I and II, dominated by cycles A and C. (fig. 12 pgs. 179 and 250).

The teacher made frequent use of the overhead projector during these lectures also, and often referred to various visual aids such as wall charts, diagrams or information written earlier on the overhead projector.

These lectures were typically more down-to-business than lectures using the concrete example heuristic. The teacher still used arm and hand motions (miming) to stress his points, but slightly less often than during the concrete heuristic lectures. He paused a lot for various reasons and frequently repeated concepts either during the lecture, or most often, in response to a student's correct answer

(Table 10, pgs. 211 and 212). 215

Quantitative Observations;

There were no common, consistent, significant differences among lectures according to heuristic in the pre-set OSIA computer analyses, other than the differences in range discussed earlier under quantitative differences according to purpose of lecture (pgs. 191-195).

Quantitative differences among lectures according to heuristic were more clearly seen in general lecture content, user-coded as subfunctions, and in inductively derived subscripted behaviors. These are summarized in

Tables 8, 9, and 10, pgs. 207-212. Naturalistic observations were confirmed on all points in this data.

Subfunction Analysis. The mathematical heuristic had characteristically fewer naming (T4U), defining (T4M), amplifying (T4V), underscoring (T4AV) and digressing (T4UM) behaviors than either the concrete or abstract heuristics as seen in Table 8, pg. 207. These latter two typically were much higher in numbers of these behaviors than any of the other types. One third to nearly one half of all initiated information dealt with substantive background material (T4A; Table 8 pgs. 207 and 208). 216

X/ Y expanded subfunction analysis revealed striking differences between lectures according to heuristic. These included differences in the number of examples and/or analogies, the type of examples and/or analogies and the ratio of examples to analogies. Differences among lectures according to heuristic with the X, Y expanded subfunctions are summed in Table 9, pgs. 209 and 210.

Lectures using mathematical principles to explain chemical theory used examples and analogies relatively infrequently. When they were used, however, analogies occurred more often than examples by a ratio of about 3:2.

All examples and analogies, when used, were impersonal and positive. The great majority were also concrete.

Lectures utilizing a more concrete approach to chemical theory had the most frequent use of examples, with far fewer analogies. The great majority were impersonal, positive examples (XA, XM, XAM, XUM), with the frequency of concrete examples (54%) only slightly larger than the frequency of abstract examples (46%).

Lectures using an abstract heuristic had by far the highest frequency of analogies among all the lectures, and used many more analogies than examples. The ratio of 217 analogies to examples was nearly 3:1. Concrete analogies were used more often than abstract analogies, by a ratio slightly more than 2:1. Concrete and abstract examples were used equally.

Demonstrations, and lectures to promote interest both had the lowest frequency of examples used, and only 1 analogy was used among them all. Concrete examples outnumbered abstract examples in both lecture types, by a ratio of about 2:1.

All totaled, the great majority of all examples were impersonal and positive, with just slightly more concrete

(54%) than abstract examples (46%) used. Use of examples outnumbered use of analogies by 87%. Use of concrete analogies outnumbered use of abstract analogies by about

2 :1 .

Subscript Analysis: Lectures to promote understanding using a concrete heuristic, and especially demonstrations of chemical reactions both showed a higher incidence of teacher enthusiasm ($E) than any other type of lecture.

There was generally a higher frequency of miming behaviors

($M) among lectures using the concrete heuristic as well as lectures using the abstract heuristic, and 3 of the 5 218 lectures using no heuristic (to transmit information) than lectures using mathematics, or demonstrations. Lectures using the concrete heuristic had an even higher frequency of miming behaviors than lectures using the abstract. The three lectures using no heuristic which showed high percentages in miming behaviors (5-8, 5-9, and 8-28) dealt with procedural information regarding specific laboratory procedures or classroom safety.

Repeating concepts ($R) either during initiation of information, or as acknowledgement or response to a student answer, and use of visual aids ($V) including the overhead projector, chalk board, wall charts or diagrams were used more frequently during lectures to promote understanding, regardless of heuristic, than either demonstrations or transmission of information with no heuristic. 219

Subquestion #3: What verbal and nonverbal cues signal

beginning and end of lecture?

Verbal Cues: Beginning of lecture was signaled by the teacher saying "Okay..." somewhat louder than any previous voice he may have been using, and was accompanied by eye contact with the entire class in 13 out of the 18 lectures studied, or 72% of the time. The times Mr. Brown did not use "okay..." to signal the beginning of lecture, were characterized by either a direct order referring to the need to take notes ("Pull out a brand-spanking new sheet of paper..." 5-6, 10-24,1-22), or reference to the present day's business (9-4, 12-17). The word "okay" was often followed by reference to the day's agenda (4-2 3, 5-7, 5-8a,

5-9, 8-28) and sometimes by a direct order to "get started"

(9-3, 9-5, 10-25, 10-30). Tables 5 and 6, pages 187 and

189 summarize opening statements to lecture.

Nonverbal Cues: The most obvious nonverbal cue to beginning of lecture was preparation involving the overhead projector or chalk board. When the teacher put the screen down, set the overhead projector up and switched on the light, or started arranging the movable chalk board, lecture was soon to follow. Other concurrent nonverbal cues included eye-contact with the class as a whole rather 220 than individual students or visual aids, or putting papers away and shutting his briefcase while saying "okay" or

"pull out a brand-spanking new sheet of paper..." In all cases, Mr. Brown would either assume, or resume his place at the front, center of the room when lecture was about to begin. End of lecture was signalled most often by a nod from Mr. Brown, acquiescing the sound of the buzzer.

Accompanying activities included turning off the overhead projector, stepping away from the chalk board or generally ending eye contact with the class and putting papers away.

Subouestlon #4: What are the rules for student

participation in lecture?

Data on rules for student participation in lecture were obtained by use of a survey (Appendix C) of two of Mr.

Brown's chemistry classes, as well as Mr. Brown. The results are summarized in Table 11 pg. 222. 221

According to the survey, students were expected, and knew they were expected by the teacher to ask questions or speak up when they did not understand the material, or needed clarification. Students were generally expected to ask permission to interrupt with questions by raising their hand or calling the teacher's name during convenient pauses in lecture. 24% of the students, however, perceived it was acceptable to just speak up, (rudely interrupt, so-to- speak) although one student qualified this by adding, "You can really speak up any time as long as it is helpful in some way to the class". Individual students were always expected to respond to an individually-directed question, but not necessarily to a general, class-directed question, as long as someone else responded. 222

Table 11

Summary of Rules for Student Participation in Class

% Student responses which Teacher Unspoken Rule Agree____ Disagree____ Response

To participate in class, a student must:

a) Raise a hand and wait 79% 21% agree to be called on

b) Call the teacher's name 74% 26% agree to gain his attention, then ask.

c) Wait until the teacher 69% 31% agree stops talking or pauses, then just ask.

d) Wait until the teacher 79% 21% agree stops talking or pauses, then raise a hand.

e) Just speak out without 24% 76% disagree raising a hand or waiting for the teacher to stop talking or pause.

Students are expected to participate when:

a) The teacher asks an 100% 0% agree individual a direct question.

b) The teacher asks the class, 90% 10% agree in general, a question.

c) The teacher asks if anyone 95% 5% agree has any questions.

d) If the student has a 100% 0% agree question, or does not understand the material. 223

Findings on the Planning of Lecture

Subguestion #1: What is the nature of the planning process

in lecture?

Data on the planning process of lecture were by necessity obtained through both formal and informal interviews with Mr. Brown. According to him, the cooperative nature of the science department at Community

High is a primary factor in the planning process.

There are three chemistry teachers divided among one advanced and several introductory level chemistry classes.

Together, these instructors plan the overall course content for the year, and divide the substantive material into separate units for study. They then meet weekly to plan the material to be covered the next week, and to share their experiences, failures and successes the week before.

Day to day implementation of these joint planning sessions are up the individual instructors. 224

Subouestion #2: What teacher intentions guide

preparations?

According to Mr. Brown, it is his intention to promote understanding of each concept to each student, by approaching that concept several times, from several different angles. In his own words, he intends to "have students understand as clearly as possible." In our

November, 1984 interview he said, "I try to 'hit' as many students as I can with as many media as possible." A study on specific intentions for a specific lesson and the perception of these by the students is presented later on pages 267 through 279.

Subcruestion #3: What reading and reflection precede

preparation?

As a consequence of his intentions to present the material using a variety of media, Mr. Brown keeps current with different methods available for teaching Chemistry.

On an overall basis, Mr. Brown attends national seminars and symposia for science and chemistry teachers. He spent six weeks one summer (1986) in training at the Institute of

Chemistry Education in Madison, Wisconsin. During this institute, chemistry teachers from all over the country 225 obtain specific updated information on chemical and atomic theory, as well as teaching methods. They also have numerous opportunities to share ideas and successes with one another. On a local level, he and his colleagues often run area-wide workshops to share experiences and ideas with chemistry teachers from the surrounding communities. These are presented at least twice a year.

Mr. Brown also has a wealth of ideas from previous years' teaching experience, and from his colleagues to make the subject matter not only more interesting, but also more concrete or applicable to students' lives. Attempts are often made to include demonstration material in the lecture as well as visual aids, models and the like. Reflection on each day's lesson continues often early in the morning before he even leaves for school. "Sometimes," he said during an informal interview, "I decide what I'm going to do while I'm eating breakfast." "I usually write my lesson plans a couple days later," he explained, "so I know what worked."

Subcruestion #4: What criteria determine lecture content?

Substantive lecture content is primarily determined by the joint meeting of all chemistry teachers in the 226 department. Individual presentations, examples, analogies and demonstrations are up to each teacher. Mr. Brown usually augments agreed upon content with any demonstration, example, analogy, visual aid or problem­ solving techniques proven effective previously, recommended by respected colleagues, available to him, and/or that fit the topic being studied. 227

Findings on the Delivery of Lecture

Subauestion #1; What strategies such as pacing, verbal and

nonverbal cues, use of material resources

and management behaviors are used to

enhance learning during lecture?

Pacing. Lectures were determined to fall into particular categories according to purpose (transmit information, promote understanding or create interest) and heuristic (mathematical, concrete or abstract). Pacing of lecture was found to differ among the different types of lecture, and was discussed earlier, under differences among lectures according to purpose (pages 186 through 195).

Specific data on numbers of topics covered, and time period for each lecture are found in table 5, page 187.

Generally, lectures to transmit information (no heuristic) were somewhat fast-paced, requiring little or no note taking, covering many topics (4-6) in a relatively short period of time. These consisted of giving directions before a lab exercise, quiz or exam, or discussion of class rules, policy and philosophy the first day of class. With the exception of the first day of class, during which an 228

entire period was devoted to transmission of information, these lectures were short in duration. The longest was 10 minutes (5-9), the shortest, 1 minute (10-31) and the average length, about 5 minutes.

Lectures to promote understanding were slower paced in subject matter, and number of topics, and also lasted longer. There were also frequent pauses for questions, to use the chalk board or overhead, to give students time to write, or to let a point "sink in". (Table 5, pg. 187).

Only one or two topics were covered over an average time span of about 3 0 minutes. These one or two topics were covered in excruciating detail, with frequent clearances

(Cycle C, Fig. 12 pgs. 179 and 250) and circuits (Fig. 11 pgs. 178 and 242) by the teacher.

Lectures to create interest, or demonstrations, were fast paced in their introductions and procedures. Mr.

Brown is very well versed in his demonstrations and generally had them set up and ready to go before they were needed. While sometimes the reaction itself may be slow getting started, the presentation along with the accompanying enthusiasm for what was happening or about to 229 happen quickened the pace considerably. Demonstrations never lasted longer than 10 minutes, and averaged 5 minutes in duration.

Verbal Cues. Mr. Brown used several clear, concise and consistent verbal as well as nonverbal cues which signaled students as to what was expected of them, or what would be happening next. The most consistent and frequently occurring verbal cues inductively derived from the data, were "okay", "folks", and "Questions". Each was specified by voice pitch, volume and intonation as well as eye contact and preceding events. Each also either determined or impacted on events immediately following.

Verbal cues are summarized in Table 12, pg. 231.

The most frequently occurring verbal cue used was the word "okay" or "alright". "Okay", or "alright" had four different associated meanings, specified clearly by accompanying voice pitch, intonation and volume, preceding events and eye contact. In all cases "okay" and "alright" functioned interchangeably, with "okay" occurring 5 times more often than "alright". For this reason, all references to "okay" or "alright" will be abbreviated to "okay". 230

The most frequent use of the word "okay" was to determine levels of student comprehension of the topic under discussion. This "okay" functioned to signal either a question time, or an opportunity for students to ask for clarification of a point. "Okay" usually also served to initiate Cycle C (Fig. 12 pgs. 179 and 250). It was expressed in a slightly higher pitch, with the intonation of a question, ("...okay?"). Also, it was nearly always preceded by a statement concerning substantive information, and in all cases, was followed by a pause. During this pause, Mr. Brown either continued or regained eye-contact with the class, scanning each student in order to perceive individual levels of understanding. Nearly half, or 41% of all instances of "okay" were used to determine student depth of understanding. Table 12

Summary of Differences Among Verbal Cues

Type of Voice Event

Verbal Cue Eve-Contact Implied Meaning to Students Volume Pitch Preceding______Following Frequency

"Okay" scanning "Do you understand?" higher T4 pause 41%

"Okay" whole-class "Listen-up; we'll louder same varying T 4 ; T O 7 21% begin now"

"Okay" individual "I understand/ softer varying S5; S4 T4 ; T7 2 0 % acknowledge you"

"Okay" none "We're finished with that." softer lower Summarization pause 13% (T4)

"Folks" whole class "Listen, this is important." louder higher T07 T4 72%

"Folks" individual(s) "You are disrupting class." slightly higher T07$Y direct eye 11% contact

"Folks" whole class "By the way..." softer lower T4 T4, or end 11% of class

"Folks" scanning "Somebody answer the same higher T7 S5 6% question."

"Questions" scanning "Now is the time to ask..." louder varying T4 S7 or T10 100% 231 232

The second most frequent use of the word "okay"

functioned to indicate the beginning of lecture in general, the beginning of a new topic, or that an important point was being make. In any case, the signal clearly indicated

a need to pay close attention (to "listen up") and perhaps take notes. This type of "okay" was specified by the use

of a louder voice than that immediately preceding, with

intonation of a statement of fact ("...okay.") Eye contact was generally not made with individual students, but rather the whole class. These "okays" were nearly always preceded by the conclusion of an earlier event such as before class chatter, a problem solving or question/answer session, Mr.

Brown looking at papers, a visual aid, some object near at hand, or arranging some sort of apparatus. They were followed by teacher initiation of information, or solicitation of student response, either managerial or substantive. Nearly one-fifth, or 21% of all instances of the verbal "okay" were used to signal the need to "listen- up", take notes, or begin lecture.

The third major use of the word "okay" functioned to acknowledge either student response or student initiation of information. This "okay" was spoken in a softer tone of voice with either a very slightly higher or slightly lower pitch than that used previously. The intonation was that 233 of pause in midsentence (...okay...) with a slight lowering immediately followed by a raise in pitch. Mr. Brown also accompanied this verbal with a nonverbal nodding of his head. This signaled the student that her/his preceding statement or question had been understood and accepted either with a judgment of correctness, or a simple acknowledgement by the teacher. These "okays" were always preceded by a student statement, answer or question, and were followed first by teacher appraisal or acknowledgement

(T8-10) and then by either teacher initiation of information or teacher verbal or nonverbal solicitation of questions. One-fifth, or 20% of all instances of "okay" functioned to acknowledge student questions, responses or initiation of information.

The fourth use of the word "okay" functioned to signal the close of discussion of a topic. It was always preceded by teacher initiation or, most often, summarizing of information, and was followed by teacher initiation of new information, or solicitation of student response. It was at any rate, a clear signal as to the final end of that activity. This "okay" was spoken with usually the same tone as those words preceding, but the pitch lowered slightly at the end, and was spoken in a softer tone. The intonation was also that of a statement, but different from 234 the "okay" to listen up in the varying pitch and lack of eye-contact with students. Any eye contact with students ended when this "okay" was spoken. Instead, Mr. Brown would look at his notes, advance the overhead-projector writing surface, glance at the screen or chalk board, turn off the overhead, erase the chalk board or begin arranging demonstration apparatus. 13% of all instances of "okay" functioned as a closing statement.

Another frequently used verbal cue was the word

"folks". There were four different meanings to the word

"folks", each specified by voice pitch and intonation, eye contact, and preceding events. Usage of the word "folks" also impacted on immediately succeeding events.

The most frequent use of the word "folks" was to stress to students, the importance of what was being said.

It was spoken usually in a louder tone of voice than that preceding, with a slightly higher pitch and the intonation of a statement. Usually the teacher regained or maintained eye contact with the entire class through the succeeding message. This "folks" was usually coded as a teacher initiation of information (T4) or a solicitation of student managerial response (T07) and was always followed by teacher initiation of information (T4). Seventy-two 235 percent of all instances of the word "folks" signaled the need to "listen up" to an important point or cue.

A second meaning to "folks", functioned as a disciplinary tool. It was usually spoken in a very slightly louder pitch, with the intonation of a direct solicitation, or warning. Disciplinary "folks" was accompanied by direct eye-contact with the offending individual(s), and coded as a teacher solicitation of student response with the purpose to discipline (T07$Y).

In all cases, this "folks" was succeeded by the appropriate student responses. Eleven percent of all instances of

"folks" were for the purpose of discipline.

A third meaning to "folks" occurred just as an aside.

It was either nested in the midst of substantive or managerial information given by the teacher (T4 or T04), or tagged on to a closing statement. This "folks" functioned to address the whole class as though it were one individual person being addressed in one-on-one conversation. Voice tone was usually softer than that preceding, with a lower pitch and the intonation of someone mentioning the name of a friend as a pause in midsentence. Eye contact was to the class as a whole. It was usually coded within a teacher initiation of information (T4) and succeeded by either 236

further initiation of information, or the end of class.

11% of all instances of "folks" functioned as an address to

the whole class as though they were one individual in

private conversation.

The fourth meaning to "folks" functioned as a

nonspecific solicitation of student verbal response. This

"folks" was always either preceded by, or integral to a teacher solicitation (T7) of student response, and accompanied by eye contact scanning individuals in the class. Voice tone stayed the same, but the pitch became higher with the intonation of a question. Student verbal response (S5) followed in all cases. Six percent of all instances of "folks" functioned to solicit student response.

Finally, the word "questions", regardless of pitch, intonation or voice volume, functioned to open the floor to students for the purpose of clarification of the information just given. Eye contact was regained or maintained with the entire class, scanning individuals for response. "Questions" was always preceded by teacher initiation of information (T4), coded as a teacher solicitation of student response (T7) and followed by 237 either student question (S7), student response (S5) or teacher acknowledgement of no student response (T10).

Nonverbal cues to enhance student learning included use of material resources (pgs. 244 - 246) preparation of material resources, occasional "circuit walks" (Fig. 11, pgs. 178 and 242) during lecture, eye contact, nodding of the head, pointing a finger at or gesturing toward a student, miming, and most notably, this teacher's own level of enthusiasm for the subject of chemistry. Nonverbal cues are summarized in Table 13 pg. 238.

Nonverbal use of material resources functioned in many ways. Most frequently, Mr. Brown used models, charts, graphs, chemicals and various apparatus to illustrate various concepts. Use of these resources cued students not only to the importance of the discussion, but also that an application to the concrete could be made. When Mr. Brown held up an object, chemical or apparatus, or pointed to a chart, graph or illustration, the meaning was clearly that this object, chemical, apparatus, chart, graph or illustration was to provide a visual guide, or a concrete analogy or example to the abstract concept presented. Table 13

Summary of Nonverbal Cues to Enhance Student Learning

Nonverbal Cue Implied Meaning to Students_____ Event Preceding Event Following

Set-up, clean-up "Get ready for lecture Beginning-of-class bell Verbal cue to "get turn on overhead to begin..." started" proj ector

Set up, rearrange "Get ready for lecture Beginning-of-class bell Verbal cue to "get or erase chalkboard to begin..." started"

Reference to "This illustrates the Teacher solicitation (T7) Teacher initiation (T4) charts,graphs, principle under Teacher initiation (T4) illustrations.Use discussion..." of apparatus, chemicals, objects.

Half circuits * a) Further explanation Teacher initiation (T4) Return to front of room, of topic... Teacher initiation (T4) b) Reference to chart or mural or clearance **

Whole Circuits * a) "Let's see if you're Teacher initiation (T4) Return to front of room, paying’attention!" Teacher initiation (T4) b) "How does this look from or clearance ** back here?" c) Reference to chart or mural

Return to front a) "Time to write more..." Teacher initiation (T4) Teacher initiation (T4) of room b) "Enough of that, new or clearance ** subject..."

Head nodding a) "That's correct..." Student response (S5) Verbal judgement (T8-11) b) "I understand you..." or acknowledgement

Finger pointing/ "You may speak now..." Student response (S5) Student response (S5) or question (S6, S7) or initiation (S4)

Miming "This illustrates the Teacher initiation (T4) Teacher initiation (T4) 238 principle under discussion"

Teacher enthusiasm "Chemistry is really fun Varying events, usually Teacher initiation (T4) 239

Preparation of material resources such as the overhead

projector or movable chalk board were probably the foremost

cue to the start of lecture. When the teacher put the

screen down, set the overhead projector up, cleaned off the

writing surface, switched on the light or similarly started

arranging the movable chalk board, lecture was soon to

follow. Students typically responded by ending

conversations, returning to their seats and generally

preparing to take notes. The beginning-of-class-bell

usually preceded preparations of either the overhead

projector or chalk board. Such preparation was always

followed by a verbal cue to "get started" (Table 5 and 6;

pgs. 187, 190, and Table 13 pg. 238) and subsequent teacher

talk.

Other nonverbal enhancements to student learning,

included occasional half or whole "circuits" (Fig. 11 pgs.

178 and 242) around the room during lecture. They occurred most frequently in lectures to promote understanding

(Table 5 pg. 187). Half circuits were nearly always to the

Northeast corner or North side of the room, and seemed to serve primarily to give a break in the note taking. Some of these half circuits may also have been for the purpose of warning potentially distracted or disruptive students

(Table 7, pg. 202). However, the researcher did not detect 240 potentially disruptive or distracted students during 1/2 circuits observed and recorded. During these circuits, Mr.

Brown would usually go into greater detail - expounding on a previously made concept or point. At other times, half­ circuits were for the purpose of pointing to one of the wall murals (pg. 245), the periodic chart of the elements, or just to make room for miming activities (pg. 243).

Whole circuits (Fig. 11, pgs. 178 and 242) functioned differently than half circuits. Whole circuits were defined as those occasions when the teacher walked all the way to the back center of the room, either to the very back, or between the front and back rows of tables, (by the

West wall) before returning to the front of the room.

Whole circuits functioned primarily in one of three ways.

Those most obvious were to give the teacher the student's perspective on what was written on the overhead projector or chalk board at the front of the room. Less frequently, whole circuits were made to access wall murals on the west wall. A more subtle, and doubtless more frequent use of whole circuits, however, was to encourage attending behaviors such as note-taking, listening or references to a textbook illustration being discussed, and to discourage nonattending behaviors. One nonverbal disciplinary action

(consequence to nonattending behaviors, pgs. 2 61-2 64 and 241

Table 14 pg. 259; also Appendix C) was walking toward or moving near disruptive or potentially disruptive students.

A return to the front of the room subsequent to a whole circuit or a half circuit usually had one of two meanings. Either the discussion was ending, or the instructor was preparing to make more notations on the overhead projector or chalk board.

Head nodding and finger-pointing or gesturing toward individual students were both used relatively infrequently.

Nodding functioned to acknowledge a student question or response, or to judge the correctness of that response.

Nodding behaviors were preceded by student questions (S7), or responses (S5) and nearly always were followed by a verbal judgment of correctness (T8 or T9) or acknowledgement (T10). Finger pointing or gesturing functioned to grant permission to speak or to solicit a response from a particular individual student. These were preceded by a student verbal or nonverbal (raising the hand) solicitation (S7) and in all cases followed by a student response (S5). 242 solar syateni mural Periodic Chart Atonic Orbitals mural to outer •c h all « u. student labors w ork a re a i/ i

•t ident seating

jt m m

a

te Di- s tu d e n t

c u i t u d e n t s e a t ! ig folding folding dividing vnll between chemistry classrooms

© u Hoveable chalk board atT iat, ” 11 aupp. storag t desk desk

Instructor Work/Preparation area

Half Circuits —, > ----> ---->

WhoPe Circuits------

Starting Point ©

Figure 11

Layout of Classroom and Map of Circuit Walks 243

Miming behaviors were those by which the teacher would

- by the use of hand and arm motions as well as facial expressions - mime an action or indicate the presence of an object or apparatus not physically at hand. Miming functioned to help illustrate the principle or concept being discussed, or to provide the students with a picture of or concrete example of an abstract idea.

Mr. Brown mimed such things as relative size, area or volume, usage of a slide rule, a hydraulic press, a chemical to clean cement or bricks, and even such concepts as dynamic equilibrium or exothermic reactions. Miming behaviors were nested within, teacher initiation of substantive information. (T4).

Most notable of the nonverbal aids to student understanding, was Mr. Brown's continuing level enthusiasm or fascination with the discipline of chemistry. He spoke in such a way as to convince even an unbeliever that chemistry was a subject not only possible to master, but perhaps even preferable. While at times the level of enthusiasm would vary from subtle to vibrant, the message was always clearly, that chemistry was not only fun and interesting, but also a worthwhile area of study. 244

Material resources were used frequently and concurrent with lectures to promote understanding or to create interest (pgs. 186-195). The most frequent material resource used was the overhead projector. On this, Mr.

Brown wrote an outline of his notes as he lectured, drew diagrams to illustrate concepts, wrote definitions and statements to be included in the student's notes, and added special notations - usually stars and/or arrows - next to those statements and definitions that were of special importance or significance. The second most frequently used material resource was the chalk board. It was used in place of the overhead projector at times, or instead of the overhead projector when a larger writing surface was needed. 245

Other material resources used frequently were the

various charts and illustrations hanging or painted on the

walls of the classroom. The one most often used, was the

Periodic Chart of the Elements hanging on the North wall

(Fig. 11 pgs. 178 and 242). Also available were various

painted diagrams (murals) illustrating different concepts

such as dynamic equilibrium, atomic theory, quantum

mechanics, electron orbitals, electromagnetism,

crystallization, elemental spectrography and the like.

These were often referred to - seemingly spontaneously -

from time to time when applicable to the lecture.

Chemicals, glassware and other apparatus for

experimentation were also used along with necessary safety

equipment to illustrate various chemical reactions, or to

show differences between substances. Mr. Brown would also

include a discussion of the uses of as well as the need for various safety apparatus and procedures. Unreacted samples of elements and compounds being discussed were also used to give students some idea of what these things looked like, or for what purpose they may be used. 246

Unconventional demonstration apparatus were used as

often as the conventional, formal equipment available. Mr.

Brown used a jar of beebees to illustrate the concept of

atoms, molecular weight and moles. He used a plain piece

of paper, torn into smaller and smaller pieces to

illustrate the concepts of atom/molecule, element/compound.

A meter stick and relative distances around the school were

used to illustrate relative metric measures, while bottles

of aqueous mixtures of ordinary corn starch, salt and sugar

illustrated concepts of solutions, suspensions,

supersaturation and dynamic equilibrium. The striking of a

match subsequent to dropping a piece of chalk (accompanied

by several bad puns) were once used spontaneously to

illustrate differences between the disciplines of chemistry

and physics.

Other material resources frequently used, included

diagrams or charts in the students' textbooks, and prepared

diagrams, charts or pictures to be used on the overhead

projector. Supplementary handouts, worksheets and homework

assignments were also used to both enhance student

understanding, and to ascertain their level of understanding of any one concept. 247

Management behaviors were most frequently used to clarify procedure, daily agenda, and teacher expectations.

The majority of lectures (16 out of 18, or 89%) were initiated using some sort of managerial behavior (Table 7, pg. 164). These were in the form of either a managerial solicitations of student response, (T07; "Okay, let's get started..") or managerial initiation of information (T04;

"We're gonna plow through a few of these problems...").

Managerial solicitations of student response or initiation of information by the teacher functioned to enhance student learning primarily by getting students' attention focused on the specific task at hand, and by preparing them to participate appropriately in class.

Managerial behaviors to maintain discipline functioned to enhance student learning by creating an atmosphere in the classroom which was conducive to learning for the greater majority of the students. Disciplinary management behaviors therefore, were far more subtle than those to clarify teacher expectations or class agenda. Overt disciplinary management behaviors were used relatively infrequently (Table 7, pg. 202) and included verbal sanctions only, such as asking students to be quiet and/or to stop making unkind remarks. More subtle management behaviors included walking towards potentially disruptive 248 or distracted student(s), calling on disruptive or distracted student for answers, establishing eye contact with each student at various times during class and constantly monitoring the degree of understanding among students of the material being discussed. 249

Subquestion #2; What is the nature of teacher/student

interaction within and across instances of

lecture?

Analysis of data using a modification of the

Systematic Analysis of Instructional Conversation (pgs. 148

- 151, Chapter 3) revealed four different cycles or types of teacher/student interaction. These intertwined in such a way as to flow easily from one to the next. These cycles are illustrated in Figure 12 pgs. 179 and 250. Different cycles predominated during different types of lecture (see

Differences among lectures according to Heuristic pgs. 2 05

- 218 and Purpose pgs. 186 - 195). They also eased in and out of what came to be termed as "phases of control" in the classroom. Phase I was that in which the teacher had complete control of the class, and was the primary determiner of what would happen next. Phase II represented a transition area dominated by the teacher, but available to the student to take over temporary control (Phase III), depending on the type of student response or relinquish control to the teacher. Phase III represented those times when student response from Phase II functioned to cue another student response, or student initiation of information such that the student(s) were the primary determiner of events which would follow. Phase I

/Teacher Initiates. lnformation(T4)

Teacher Appraise/ — Acknowledge (T8-I1)

Phase II

Clearance Teacher Cues (T7) Student Response

Teacher (T5) Responds (S3) Responds (T6)

Phase III

Student Cues Student Cues Student Rcponse Teacher Response (S7)

Student Initiate — > Information (S4)^

Cycle

Cycle Phase I - Teacher Dominate

Cycle Phase II » Teacher/Student Interaction

Cycle Phase III - Student Dominate

Figure 12

Cycles of Teacher/Student Interaction During Lecture 251 Domination Phases Cyclers') -Line Numbers Conversation J_____ li_____ HI

T392-3397 T. *Some of you know„things aren't T4 always what they secm_*

3397 T. The helium balloonyesterday TT did what?"

3398 S."popped"

3399 T. "Just popped, right..." T8

3400-3408 T. "The helium balloon just didn't do inything...Now this looks like a helium balloon but...let's see T4 here (lights match, lights balloon which explodes in a burst of flame) T. (chuckles) "It’s not a helium balloon!

3423-3426 T. "I’m gonna talk for a few minutes, and then...we’ll see where we are by the end of the period.

3428 T. "Making measurements is easy - right? 1r B 3429 S. "right" j L 3430 T. "No problem"

3430-3437 T. "Just get one of these things and...

- 3439 T. "How else do wc make measurements?"

3440 S. "Barometers?" B 1 3443 T. "Yeah, baro-" L 3443 T. "What’s a barometer measure?" r 1 3444 S. "Pressure?" B 1 3445 T. "Yeah, barometric pressure..." L 3446 T. "What else do you measure?" rI B 3447 S. "Cooking and stuff; cups and quarts.."

_ 3448 T. (nods, smiling) "sure!"

3449-3454 T. "I always like to think of cooking as applied chemistry...Neat stuff. There's a whole science at Ohio State donated to food chemistry..."

F ig u re 13

Conversational Analysis of Cycles A and B 252

Cycle A was the most frequent cycle occurring in lectures. In this cycle, the teacher would spend varying amounts of time initiating information (T4) punctuated from time to time by a solicitation (T7) followed by student response (S5) and then either judgment or acknowledgement of that response (T8 -11), cycle B (usually several in a row) or cycle C, before returning to initiation of information (T4). Cycles B and C were determined to be cycles occurring within the boundaries of Cycle A.

Conversational analysis of Cycle A is illustrated in figure 13 pg. 251, and Figure 12 pgs. 179 and 250.

Cycle B occurred between sessions of teacher talk or initiation of information. It was initiated by a teacher solicitation of specific student response, and ended by teacher resumption of initiation of information. Cycle B differed from cycle A in that the teacher solicitation (T7) followed student response (S5) and then teacher judgment or acknowledgement (T8-11) repeated often several times without a return to teacher initiation of information (T4).

Lectures to promote understanding were dominated by several

Cycle B's within each cycle A (Fig. 12 pgs. 179 and 250).

Student responses were typically individual, specific and 253 contained substantive information. Conversational analysis of Cycle B is illustrated in Figs. 13 and 14, pgs. 251 and

254.

Cycle C represented a clarification behavior by the teacher to ascertain student comprehension of the subject up to that point. It was initiated by teacher solicitation of general student response (T7) usually in the form of

"...okay?", and generally followed by a change in topic or treatment of a topic. Student responses were typically general (the whole class or many individuals responding at once), and largely nonverbal (nodding of heads, absence of raised hands, etc.). Conversational analysis of cycle C as it functioned within cycle A is illustrated in Fig. 14 pg. 254.

Cycle D was usually initiated by a student response taking the form of a question followed by explanation of that question. Another means to initiate Cycle D, was for the student to raise her/his hand or call the teacher's name (S7, student cues teacher response, Fig. 15 pg. 255).

Typically following the subsequent acknowledgement by the teacher of the student's solicitation (T5 and then T7) was either a student response taking the form of a question

(S5), or a student response taking the form of a question 254

Domination Phases Cycled Line Numbers Conversation I______II______in

1349-4353 T. ’...I'm not gonna give you a specific date. Ah, Dcmocratus...was 400 B.C. T 4 and another guy...Lucrctius was 100 B.C. so, you know, it's a range...’

r 4354 T. "Alright?" T7 c L 4354-4356 T. ’Greece. We’re talking togas, ar.d columns, and ah, feeding T4 Christians to the lions, and ah, that time..."

a r 4356 T. "Okay?" T7 c L 4356-4393 T. "They were good times, andthey were bad times...and by golly, they found T4 that an atom is composed of three fundam ental particles..."

4394 T. "...which are what?"

4395 S. "Electrons, protons..."

4396 T. "Alright, electrons, protons..." T8

4397 T. "You’ve all heard about these..." T4

F igure 14

Conversational Analysis of Cycles A, B, and C 255

Dominitior. Thisej Cvclcfcl Line Number; Conversation J______11 111

1291 7. "Okay, Ict'i *o on the new nuTf-*

1293 S. "Mr. Brown?"

129< T. "Yeah." T5

1295 S. (asks question, c ic ’t bear)

1296 T. "What happens if you dilute it?* T6

1297 S. (explains, can't bear) S 7

D I29r T. "Right there?"

129* S. (nods) “ 5.

1299 7. "Did yon get il7"

1300 S. "yes*

1301 T. "Okay*

1302 T. "We want to talk about concentrations todey_*

Figure 15

Conversational Analysis of Cycle D 256 followed by an explanation of that question (S5 - S7).

Cycle D functioned primarily to clarify student understanding of substantive information, or to allow student input of substantive information. It also, however, typified those few times students became verbally disruptive in class which necessitated the use of disciplinary behavior (T07$Y) by the teacher (Table 7 pg.

2 02). Conversational analysis of cycle D is illustrated in

Fig. 15, pg. 255. 257

Findings on Student Participation During Lecture

Subguestion #1: What are the characteristics of attending

of students to the lecture as it occurs?

Characteristics of attending were inductively derived from observation of videotaped lectures. They were determined to be such things as:

a) note taking,

b) watching the teacher,

c) watching the demonstration or visual being

referenced,

d) reading or looking at textbook or hand-out

materials being referenced during lecture,

e) responding to teacher solicitations or

clarifications,

f) responding to jokes or comments by the teacher. 258

Subquestion #2: How do engagement consequences or non­

engagement consequences affect student

attending during lecture?

The effects of engagement and non-engagement consequences during lecture on student attending behaviors were determined by a student questionnaire (Appendix C).

The results, as also presented in Table 14 pg. 259, are as follows.

Ninety-five percent of students serveyed said they usually paid attention during lecture, and 80% perceived inherent rewards for paying attention. Rewards for paying attention during lecture were determined by the students to be getting good grades (16%), understanding the material better (29%), being better prepared for future material or courses (10%), and not falling behind (10%). Ten percent of the students said they paid attention because they considered the lectures interesting, while 10% did not pay attention because they were bored or tired. Mr. Brown considered good grades and his respect to be rewards for paying attention during lectures. Tabic 14 259

Summary of Engagement Consequences and Student Goals for Attending to Lecture

Question Student Response Teacher Remorse

1. Do you usually pay Yes * 98% Yes attention during lectures? No - 5%

2. Are there rewards for paying Yes - 80% Yes attention in class? No - 20%

3. Why do you, or why do you a) To get good Students get not pay attention? grades » 16% good grades

Student Goals b) To better understand « 29%

c) Preparation for future Students get my courses or material « 10% respect

d) To not fall behind * 10%

c) Teacher has good explanations « 10%

f) Lectures are boring « 10%

4. Does your teacher notice Yes - 100% Yes when you do not pay attention during lecture? No « 0%

5. Do you get in trouble for not Yes - 25% Yes, if the student paving attention during lecture? is disruptive No 75%

6. Does your teacher do Yes * 75% Yes anything about not paying attention? No *= 21%

7. What does your teacher do a) He asks a question Walk toward when you don’t pay attention? relevant to lecture ■= 29% the siudent(s)

Indirect Action b) He says the material Look directly at is important or that the student it is not in the textbook ■ 14%

Direct Action c) Gives a verbal Give a verbal reprimand * 52% reprim and

d) Dismisses student(s) Dismiss the student(s) from class - 5% from class 260

All the students surveyed thought Mr. Brown noticed when they were not paying attention during lecture. While

79% noticed specific action taken by the teacher in response to non-attending behaviors, only 25% considered these actions to be "getting in trouble". Indirect action taken by the teacher as perceived by the students included asking a question relevant to lecture, or mentioning that the material is either "important" or not in the textbook.

Indirect actions in response to non-attending behaviors mentioned by the teacher included walking toward non­ attending or disruptive students and/or looking directly at the offending student(s).

Direct actions taken by the teacher as perceived by the students included direct, verbal reprimands to "listen up", or "pay attention". Disruptive students, according to student responses, were dismissed from class. Direct actions in response to non-attending behaviors mentioned by

Mr. Brown inlcuded giving a verbal reprimand, or for disruptive students, dismissal from class. 261

Subquestion #3: How do task attraction and student goals

affect student attending during lecture?

Data on task attraction were obtained through a questionnaire on lecture style (Appendix C). Data on student goals were obtained from the questionnaire on engagement and non-engagement consequences. Results are summarized in Table 15, pg. 262.

Student Goals. When asked why they paid attention during lectures, 29% of all students surveyed, or 34% of those who said they paid attention during lecture, said they attended to lectures in order to gain a better understanding of the material. Sixteen percent of all students surveyed, or 19 % of those who said they paid attention during lectures, said they attended to lectures in order to get good or better grades. Ten percent of all students surveyed, or 12% of those who said they paid attention during lecture, said they attended in order to better prepare themselves for future courses or material to be covered. 262 Table 15

Summary of Task Attraction Data

Question Student Response

Are your teacher’s lectures interesting? Yes = 61%

They’re OK = 30%

No = 9%

Are your teacher’s lectures challenging? Yes = 65%

They’re OK = 17%

No = 17%

Are the lectures understandable? Yes = 74%

They’re OK = 26%

No = 0%

Are the lectures ever beyond Yes = 48% your capability to comprehend? No = 52%

Does your teacher take steps to Yes = 100% help you understand difficult concepts? No = 0%

What steps does he take? a) He explains slowly, thoroughly and repeats explanations. = 40.5%

b) He treats students like individuals and never laughs at a question. He invites questions. = 34%

c) He makes concrete applications. = 25% 263

Task Attraction: Ten percent of all students surveyed, or 12% of those who said they paid attention during lecture, said they attended to lecures because they were interesting, or because Mr. Brown had "good explanations". (Table 15, pg. 262). Ninety-one percent of the students responded positively to Mr. Brown's lectures, with 61% saying they were interesting, and 3 0% responding that "they're OK". Eighty-two percent of the students surveyed considered the lectures to be challenging, with

65% saying "yes" they were challenging, and 17% responding

"they're OK". All students surveyed thought the lectures were understandable, with 74% saying "yes" they were, and

26% saying "they're OK" (Table 15, pg. 262).

While all students surveyed considered lectures to be understandable, 48% responded that sometimes lectures were beyond her or his individual capability to understand.

Fifty-two percent of the students surveyed said lectures were not ever beyond their personal capability to understand.

All students surveyed said they recognized specific steps taken by the teacher to help them understand difficult concepts. Responses fell into one of three general response types. Forty-one percent of the students 264 surveyed said Mr. Brown explained things slowly and thoroughly, and that he often repeated explanations.

Thirty-four percent of the students surveyed said they noticed that Mr. Brown treated students as individuals.

Individual treatment included solicitations of students' questions, teacher enthusiasm, individual attention to individual questions, talking to the class "like we're one person instead of a classroom", and "never [laughing] at a question no matter how seemingly simple or stupid".

Twenty-five percent of students surveyed said Mr. Brown made concrete applications of the material in order for them to understand. 265

Findings on the Match Between Teacher Intentions.

Lecture Delivery and Student Perception of Teacher

Intentions.

Subguestion #1: To what degree is the class lecture as

intended, an appropriate instructional

procedure to use to facilitate student

achievement of particular curricular

intentions?

Degree of appropriateness of the lecture was determined through the use of separate questionnaires for the students and Mr. Brown (Appendix C). A pop quiz was also given the next day to determine student retention of information covered during the lesson under investigation.

Teacher intentions were outlined according to intended structure and delivery of the lecture, specific content and student achievement. These were then compared to answers given on the questionnaires and pop quiz. The results are summarized in Table 16 pg. 266. 266 Table 16

Summary of Quantitative Match Between Teacher Intentions and Actual Lecture Delivery, Content and Student Achievement.

Teacher Intentions Supporting OSIA Pat3 Other Supporting Data

"The lesson was intended to Strategy Context Analysis: 78% of students surveyed perceived be teacher-directed as Teacher as source = 86% the lesson to be largely teacher- opposed to interaction." Substantive function *= 84% dominated and content directed. Time Line Summary: Substantive T4 = 92%

"I attempted to involve Matrix Summary: The instructor was observed by the some students." T7 behavior = 20% researcher to make frequent with S5 behavior = 5% students both verbally, by asking Subscript Analysis: them questions, or nonverbally, Frequency $C = 8 using eye contact and voice Percent SC = 2% inflection.

"I try to give the Time Line Summary: 100% of students surveyed feeling that anyone % Substantive S7 = 73% perceived that questions can ask a question at are welcomed by this teacher. any time."

"The intention was to Subscript Analysis: 61% of the students surveyed be interesting." found this instructor’s lectures interesting in general. $D $H $M $v "I want a level of Freq. 11 2 15 23 95% of students surveyed were excitement. Some things % 3% 1% 4% 6% able to list specific attempts are just so slick. I by the teacher to make this want to bring that out." Subfunction Analysis: particular lecture interesting. Amplifying (T4V); Freq. = 66% The researcher found the lesson % = 39% to be fascinating.

"I want to provide Subfunction Analysis: 93% of students surveyed- were able organization to the many T4U T4M T4A to specifically list at least one terms...to clarify text Freq. 6 17 9 major concept presented. material and to give % 4% 10% 5% students a chance to Researcher observations were that predict and internalize all content intended to be periodic trends." presented was covered thoroughly.

"I think they did OK. No OSIA data available. 65% of students achieved an Most were able to average grade or better on an predict as I looked around unscheduled quiz given the room." the following day.

Students receiving a grade of: A = 5 or 22% B = 4 or 17% C = 6 or 26% D = 3 or 13% F = 4 or 17% 267

Structure and Delivery of Lecture

According to two separate functions on the OSIA program, the lecture was dominated by substantive-content teacher talk, as intended. Under the Strategy Context

Analysis, the teacher was the source of interaction 8 6% of the time, and interaction was substantive in function 84% of the time. According to the Time Line Summary, 92% of all teacher initiation of information (T4) was substantive.

Other supporting data came from a questionnaire in which

78% of the students responding, perceived the lesson to be largely teacher dominated and content directed. (Table 17 pg. 271).

Some involvement of students during the lecture was indicated in two more separate functions of the OSIA program. The Matrix Summary Analysis showed teacher solicitation of information (T7) occurred during 20% of the class time with students responding (S5) during 5% of the class time. Subscript analysis showed 8 different incidences of the teacher calling on specific students

(T7$C) to answer questions. Other supporting data included reasearcher observation of both verbal and nonverbal attempts by the teacher (which were largely successful) to question and involve students in the lecture. Also, 100% 268 of students responding to the questionnaire perceived that questions were welcomed and expected by this teacher.

OSIA data indicated a high percentage of substantive student questions, (% substantive S7 = 73%), and that several different avenues were pursued by the teacher to enhance student interest or excitement. The teacher enhanced explanations of concepts using demonstrations ($D)

11 times, or 3% of class time, used humor ($H) twice, or 1% of the time, and miming activities ($M) 15 times, or 4% of the time. He referred to visual aids such as charts, diagrams or information written on the chalkboard ($V) 2 3 times, or 6% of the time. Teacher initiation of information spent amplifying or further explaining a concept (T4V) consisted of 39% of all teacher initiation behaviors.

Other data supporting success at Mr. Brown's attempts to make the lesson interesting, included qualitative researcher observation and student responses to a questionnaire. 61% of students surveyed found most of this instructor's lectures to be interesting in general. Niney- five percent were able to list specific attempts by the teacher to make the specific lecture under investigation interesting. Their observation, and his intentions showed 2 6 9 direct correlations in all 3 areas mentioned by the instructor (Table 18 pg. 272). Examinations of the questionnaire used (questionnaire # 1, Appendix C) will indicate the students were given no information concerning teacher intentions ahead of time.

Content of Lecture

The intended content of the lecture according to the teacher, included organization of terms (naming and vocabulary) clarification of assigned text material and practice periodic chart trends. OSIA data confirmed these under the Subfunction Analysis. There were 6 incidences of naming of objects, concepts or ideas during teacher initiation of informaiton (T4U) accounting for 4% of all teacher initiative behaviors. There were 9 incidences of coverage of substantive background (in this case, text) material during teacher initiation of information (T4A) accounting for 5% of all teacher initiative. There were 17 incidences of defining of terms, concepts or ideas during teacher initiation of information (T4M) accounting for 10% of all teacher initiative behaviors. 2 7 0

Other supportive data included researcher observation and student responses to questionnaires. Ninety-three percent of students surveyed were able to specifically list at least one major concept as presented. Researcher observations were that all content intended for presentation were covered thoroughly (Table 19, pg. 273).

Student Achievement

Student retention of information presented during the lecture was measured accoridng to achievement on a pop quiz given the following day. Sixty-five percent of the students, or 2/3 of tee class, achieved a grade of average

(C) or better on the quiz. Grade distribution was as follows. There were 5 students or 22% of the class, who missed one or fewer questions, receiving a grade of A.

Four students or 17% of the class, missed 2 questions, receiving a grade of B. Six students, or 26% of the class missed 3 questions receiving a grade of C. Three students or 13% of the class missed 4 questions to receive a grade of D, and 4 students, or 17% of the class, missed 5 or more questions, receiving an F on the quiz (Table 16, pg. 266). 2 7 1

Table 17

Summary of Student Perception of Teacher Intentions Concerning Teacher/Student Interaction

Question: For today’s class, what do you perceive your instructor’s intentions to be concerning Teacher/Student interaction?

Student Reply Teacher Reply

a) Did he want to do Yes = 78% "The lesson was intended most of the talking? No = 22% to be teacher-directed "He had to get the as opposed to interactive." point across." "I attempted to involve some students." b) Did he w ant you to Yes = 100% "I try to give the feeling ask questions when you that anyone can ask a needed to ask them? question at any time." c) Did he want you to Yes = 100% "Sure." add your knowledge or ideas to the information presented? d) Did you have any Yes = 22% knowledge or ideas No = 78% to add? "When he asks questions I sometimes can answer."

"I knew numbers of valence electrons and full energy levels." 272

Table 18

Summary of Student Perception of Teacher Intentions Concerning Content Material and Degree of Enthusiasm

Question: For today’s class, what do you perceive your instructor’s intentions to be concerning student enthusiasm?

a) Do you think you teacher intended any of the topic to be interesting to you?

Student Reply Teacher Reply

Yes = 96% "The intention was to be interesting, but No = 4% I think the outcome was no too good toda\."

b) In what ways do you think he attempted to generate interest in the topic covered?

Student Reply Teacher Reolv

1. Involving students = 25% "I try to have the students understand as clearly as possible." "He wants us to ask questions."

"We made the chart as a group."

2. Relates abstract concepts = 35% "I try to hit as many students as to the concrete or I can with as many media as possible." familiar."

"He makes practical applications."

"He uses models, charts, and diagrams."

3. Engenders a level of fun = 35% "I want a level of excitement. or excitement. Some things are just so slick. I want to bring that out." "He gets excited..."

"He tells jokes.., 2 7 3

Table 19

Summary of the Match Between Teacher Intentions Student Achievement

Question: For today’s class, what do you perceive your instructor’s intentions to be concerning student achievement?

Please list what your teacher wants you to remember from today’s lesson.

Student Reply* Teacher Reply**

- To learn how to predict Student will be able to numbers of valence = 29% internalize and predict electrons. periodic trends.

- To learn what valence To provide organization of and oxidation numbers = 32% terms associated with chemical stand for. bonding.

- To understand pseudonoble gas co n fig u ra tio n . = 15%

- L earn the L ew is D o t = 10% To clarify text material. structure.

- Chemical bonding is an = 7% idea, not a thing.

- To see what the top of the "I think the outcome was not desk looks like with your too good today." eyes closed. (One response out of 41 total responses)

* Student replies were grouped according inductively derived general categories,

** Teacher replies with one exception we paraphrased for brevity. 274

Subquestion #2: What were the instructor's specific

instructional intentions during any one

lecture, and to what degree are the

students aware of the teacher's intentions

for the lecture?

Teacher intentions during the lesson were studied from three perspectives. The first two, degree of teacher/student interaction, and degree of student enthusiasm dealt with classroom atmosphere or mood. The third dealt with specific content and student retention of the material presented.

Specific instructional intentions and student perception of those intentions were determined through separate questionnaires (Appendix C) following the lecture given. A pop quiz was given the next day to determine student retention of the content covered.

Student perception of teacher intentions concerning teacher/student interaction and degree of enthusiasm was almost a perfect match (Tables 17 and 18, pgs. 271 and

272). Seventy-eight percent of the class understood that 2 7 5 the lecture was intended to be teacher directed, and all responded that this instructor intended for them to feel free to ask questions or contribute information as needed.

These results matched the instructor's stated intentions almost to the letter.

Ninety-six percent of the students understood the intention of the lesson to be interesting, with only one replying in the negative, ("I don't know - it wasn't.1').

Forty-one spontaneous responses from students concerning perceived methods to generate interest were inductively grouped into separate categories (Table 17, pg. 271.

Accompanied by representative student responses). Each of these 3 categories matched the teacher's reply as before, nearly perfectly.

All but one student of those surveyed, were able to specifically list at least one major concept they thought

Mr. Brown wanted them to learn during the lesson. These were grouped into general categories (Table 19, pg. 273) and compared with the instructor's comments from his questionnaire. As before, teacher and student replies matched very closely, including an apparent perception by the teacher, that at least one student was lost in the discussion. 276

Subquestion #3: What is the degree of student satisfaction

with the lectures in general, as they

occur”

As summarized in Table 16, pg. 2 66, 61% of the

students surveyed found most of this instructor's lectures

to be interesting in general. Ninety-five percent of the

students surveyed were able to list specific attempts by

the teacher to make the Jan. 22 lecture (the one studied in

depth for analysis) interesting as well (Table 18, pg.

272). An unsolicited comment to the researcher in an unrelated situation from a former student at Community High when asked if she knew Mr. Brown, confirmed his general reputation for being an excellent teacher. "He makes learning chemistry fun,” she said. "Kids can understand it with him.” Chapter V

Discussion

There is no question as to the business of Jon Brown's classroom. Were the brightly colored block letters labelling his classroom not just outside the door, even a naive visitor would know just by entering, that the business of this room, is chemistry. Large murals depicting chemical principles, quantum mechanics, atomic orbitals, magnetic attraction and molecular motion decorate the windowless walls on two sides (Fig. 11 pgs. 178 and

242), with a barricade consisting of glassware cabinets, and a portable chalkboard (usually with various chemical symbols or charts still scrawled on it) comprising the third. A sometimes sinister-looking fume hood can be seen just beyond the barricade, back in the corner, with obviously used or in-use glassware or laboratory apparatus set up and ready.

At the front of the room stands a large, black-topped demonstration table with multiple electrical outlets, a sink, gas and air jets, an array of (again) various

277 278

laboratory apparatus usually "in the ready" or freshly used from the last class period, and a large chemical storage tank strapped to the side. Student seating consists of safety-topped portable laboratory tables arranged in a squared-off semi-circle in two rows facing the front.

Permanent laboratory facilities, complete with sinks, gas and air jets, paper towels, fire extinguishers, triple-beam balances and the like, line the two walls nearest the student tables, just under the painted murals.

Yet amid the get-down-to-business atmosphere of the room, and the sometimes chaotic appearance of things, there is the obvious presence of the element of fun. Hanging from the ceiling is a very small child's 12-inch ruler, with a choo-choo train stencil cut out from the center. On the frame of the projector screen are various bumper stickers making puns on chemistry, and one saying "Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here." But most evident of all, is the booming laughter of Mr. Brown coming from the back of the room or the preparation area just beyond the classroom door. This man likes chemistry, he likes teenagers, and the message is clear: We do chemistry here, and we have a wonderful time in the process. 279

The purpose of this investigation was to do an in- depth study on the nature of lecture as it is played out in the classroom of a successful science department in a large suburban high school. This was done in order to further understand not only the nature of lecture, but also the role of lecture in science classrooms in particular.

Most of the teachers in this department are as excellent and likeable as the subject chosen. But to do all their stories in the detail attempted in this study would have been beyond the ability and scope of just one researcher. Six other classrooms were also frequented before the initiation of this study, with one being the subject for a previous short paper. The subject of chemistry was chosen because of a pilot study done on an available videotaped chemistry lecture supplied by Dr.

Green of The Ohio State University. Jon Brown was chosen by recommendation of Dr. Thomson at Ohio State, because of his demonstrated excellence in teaching and his willingness to be followed around, videotaped, interviewed and generally bothered from time to time for a year or two during data collection and analysis.

The general question under investigation was "What does one high school chemistry teacher's lecture look 2 8 0

like?" More specifically, this study asked, "How is the

expository strategy (lecture) used in the classroom of a

chemistry teacher from a suburban secondary school that has

a substantively sound science program?" Twenty-one

subquestions were divided among five aspects of the lecture

strategy in order to organize a manageable, meaningful response to the research question. These are outlined in

figures 16-20, pages 281 - 285 which follow.

The results were four-fold, and very nearly overwhelming. It was expected that an abundance of data would emerge from the OSIA computer program, and that perhaps some sort of conversational patterns could be discerned from the SAIC data. It was also expected that systematic, naturalistic observations concerning colors, smells, mood, atmosphere and the like would add depth of understanding and perhaps even a source of triangulation with the OSIA and the SAIC data collected. What came as somewhat of a surprise, was the wealth and depth of information from all three of these sources concerning much more than lecture as it appeared in Jon Brown's classroom.

The fourth major result from this investigation was a depth of underdstanding of the nature of lecture, sufficient to explain quite clearly, why 15 years of 281

QUESTIONS DATA COLLECTION

What Data How Much Data Why

W h a t it the overall Videotaped chemistry lectures over At least one 10-15 minute segment 10-15 minute samples from representa- structure of lecture? time and under different conditions. representative of each different tive lectures throughout a school type of lecture, and each different year should provide sufficient data W hat are the similarities circumstance. to identify forms, patterns, rules and differences in lec­ interaction styles, and the like. tures within and across tim e?

W hat verbal and nonverbal 1 lecture for in-depth analysis, To determine rules for participation cues signal beginning and under different circumstances. end of lecture? 5-10 lectures for analysis of simi­ larities between lectures. To describe the generic rules for par­ W hat are the rules for ticipation, and unique rules in this student participation class. in lecture? Student questionnaires At least 20 student questionnaires.

THEORETICAL OR DATA ANALYSIS LITERATURE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

OSIA: Basic matrix, time line Battino (1980), Bligh, (1972), General observations of different analysis, strategy pattern Bowman, (1979), Brown, (1978), classes. analysis, subfunction analysis, Heslet, (1974), Koviac et. al., (1982), subscript analysis, context, Lamb et. al., (1979b), McMann, (1979), Past experience teaching differ­ analysis, chain and pool data, Newton, (1971), Osterman, (1982), ent concepts in both science standard variable analysis. Woods, (1983). and mathematics.

SAIC conversational map Speech texts teach generally 3 types of speeches for 3 Naturalistic description. different purposes; to inform, to explain, to persuade.

"A classroom is a social setting where the teacher is the only native." J. Green.

Figure 16

Structure of Lecture 2 8 2

QUESTION'S DATA COLLECTION

What Data How Much Data Why

W hat is the nature of the Teacher interview Sufficient discussion between This data involves personal planning process in lecture? researcher and teacher to answer these thoughts, opinions and style, questions as well as any others that These are not collectable di:e:::y W hat teacher intention! may arise during the interview, or by any other means, guide preparation? later on.

W hat reading and reflection Anticipated 1 or 7 one hour formal precede preparation? interviews.

W hat criteria determine lecture content?

THEORETICAL OR DATA ANALYSIS LITERATURE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Naturalistic description of teacher Aikenhead, (1984), Battino, (I960), Lecture preparation will in all answers and researcher reactions, or Beasley, (1983), Bowman, (1979), probability be guided by teacher comparison with the literature on Brown, (197B), Campbell, (1977), intentions for content to be lecture organisation and preparation. Ford, (1973), Holliday, (1979), covered, lecture flow, student/ Horack & Lunette, (1979), Lu, (1978) teacher interaction and the like. McMann, (1979), Russel, ( ), Woods, (1983). Task Engagement factor B;

“. . . all other things being equal, instructional learning is a par­ tial function of clarity of instructional intentions.

Figure 17

Planning of Lecture 2 8 3

QUESTIONS DATA COLLECTION

What Data How Much Data W hy

W hat strategies, such as Videotapes representative lectures, S-10 lectures over time to ensure To identify as many strategies as -p ac in g variety of circumstance. possible, and to find patterns, -verba) and nonverbal cues Videotapes of several lectures to similarities, generic principles -use of material resources identify generic principles, among strategies. -management behaviors Videotape of one lecture using To identify specific verbal cues are used to enhance stu material resources for in-depth and variations/interaction vari­ dent learning during lecture? analysis. ables to the cues. To identify management and sub­ stantive behaviors, and distin­ guish between them. To identify the sequence or flow of different behaviors in lecture. To collect representative samples of material resources (dem onstra­ tion table, chalk boards, sinks, various demonstration or labora­ tory appratus) being used during lectures. W hat is the nature of Videotapes of representative At least one videotape of each type To determine student/teacher inter­ lectu res. of lecture. 5-10 tapes of about 40 -types of interaction, action within and across minutes duration. -generic principles of lecture, instances of lecture? -interaction specific to lecture type, unique interaction sequences

THEORETICAL OR DATA ANALYSIS LITERATURE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

OSIA: Basic matrix, time line Andriette, (1968), Battino, (1960), Experience has shown that for analysis, strategy pattern Bibikian, (1971), Blosser & Helgeson, different concepts, lecture pace analysis, subfunction analysis, (1981), Boulanger, (1981), Bowman, must also differ. subscript analysis, context (1978), Brown, (1978), Goodstein, (1978) analysis, chain and pool data, Grobe, (1973), Gaber-Schaim (1983), Howe Conversation is dynamic, emergent, and standard variable analysis. A: Durr, ( ), Kaplan, (1977), Kourilsky, dependent on verbal and nonverbal sig­ (1971), Kovacic, (1982), Kyle, (1972), nals given by each participant. SAIC conversational map Lamb et. al., (1979b), Lu, (1978), McMann, (1979), Mellon, (1973), Newton, "If abstractions...are the sole Naturalistic description (1971), Osterman, (1982), Power i t T ish er content, most students cannot (1976), Purser A: Renner, (1983), Ramette, comprehend the material." (Haber- Percent comparisons (1980), Raghuber (1979), Rovin, (1972), Schaim, p. 367). Smith, (1972), Thompson, (1974), Direct time comparisons of lecture Townes, (1972), Whooley, (1974), Woods, Lecture time is naturally constrained type- (1983), Wolfson, (1973), by time limits for each class. Standard deviations of lecture Case Studies Vol. II, Citron it B a rn e s, "...There are some quite clear len g th . (1970), Evans Ac Baliar, (1970), Hough, links...that particular styles of (1980), McGarity it Butts (1984), organisation may be more closely Santiesteban, (1976). linked with specific outcomes [of lecture]." (Woods p. 62). Experience has shown the need for occasional management behaviors throughout class time, especially in a high school setting. OSIA: Basic matrix, Time line Burkman et. al. ( ), Citron it B a rn e s, Teaching is an interactive analysis, strategy pattern (1970), Osterman, (1982), Power A: Tisher process during which messates are analysis, subfunction analysis (1976), Wolfson, (1973). sent, received, translated and subscript analysis, context returned in one form or another analysis, chain and pool data, to the sender. standard variable analysis.

SAIC conversational map Naturalistic description.

Figure 18

Delivery of Lecture 284

QUESTIONS DATA COLLECTION

W h a t D a ta How Much Data W hy

W hat arc the characteristics Videotapes lectures Videotape of one representative To determine attending behaviors. of attending of students to lecture. the lecture as it occurs? Student questionnaires To determine the relationship between student attention, student goals, and How do engagement consequen­ Questionnaires from at least the teacher's lecture style. ces or non-engagement 20 students. consequences affect student attending to lecture?

How do task attraction and student goals affect student attending to lectures?

THEORETICAL OR DATA ANALYSIS LITERATURE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

OSIA: Subfunction analysis, It seems plausible that students subscript analysis, context may assume various roles during analysis, chain Ac pool lecture from time to time as d a ta . receiver, initiator, instructor, •or something else. SAIC conversational map Naturalistic description Percent distribution comparisons Battino, (1980), Citron A: Barnes, Taalc Engagement Factor B: on questionnaires. (1970), Evans Ac Baltar, (1970), subfactors 2, 3, and <4. Grobe et. al. (1^73), Kaplan It P asco e, Standard deviation (perhaps) (1977), Kourilsky, (1971), Kovacie A: There are consequences associated with Jones, (1982), Kyle, (1972), Macchiarola, task engagement or non-engagement. Researcher observation. (1971), McGarity I t Butts, (1984), McMann, (1979), Osterman, (1982), Ramette, (1980), Student goals arc also a contributing Santiesteban, (1976), Simpson At Troost, factor in task engagement or non­ (1982), Wolfson, (1973), Woods, (1983). engagement.

Engagement consequences are teen u immediate, goals are a future conse­ quence of task engagement or non­ engagement.

I i Figure 19

Student Participation in Lecture 2 8 5

QUESTIONS DATA COLLECTION

W h at D a ta How M uch W hy

To what degree is the class Videotape of one specific lecture. One entire lecture. To provide a match between teacher lecture as intended, an intentions and actual lecture. appropriate instructional Outline from teacher of specific One teacher questionnaire procedure to use to faci­ curricular intentions. o u tlin e. To provide a match between teacher litate student achieve­ perceptions of student understand­ ment of particular curri­ Questionnaire from students on At least 20 student questionnaires. ing and student understanding. cular intentions? perceived instructor intentions and student understanding of At least 20 student quittes. To provide a match between content What are the Instructor's content presented, presented by the teacher, and actual specific instructional student retention of information •ntenliom during any one Student questionnaires Questionnaires from al least as measured on a short quit particular lecture and 20 students. covering just that lecture. To what degree are the To determine student awareness of students aware of the Student questionnaires Questionnaires from at least teacher intentions. teacher's intentions for 20 students. the lecture?

To determine student satisfaction What is the degree of Student questionnaires Questionnaires from at least with lectures from student student satisfaction 20 students. perspective. with lectures as they occur?

THEORETICAL OR DATA ANALYSIS LITERATURE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

OSIA: Time line Battino, (1980), Beasley, (1983), Task Engagement Factor B: analysis, subfunction Bligh, (1972), Bowman, (1979), analysis. aubacript ana­ Brown, (1978), Campbell, (1977), '...all other things being equal, lysis, strategy pattern Caje studies Vol. II, ( ), Cooper, instructional learning is a partial analyaia (1974), Holliday, (1979), Kaplan, (1977), function of clarity of instructional K ovacic U Jones, (1982), Kyle, (1972), intentions." (Hough, p. 35). Percent comparisons Lamb et. al. (1979a, 1979b), Lu, (1978), Macchiarola, (1971), McMann, (1979), Standard deviation of student Newton, (1971), Osterman, (1982), Rovin, questionnaires and quittes (if (1972), Smith, (1982), Whooley, (1974), possible). Woods, (1983). Percent comparisons of question­ Kourilsky, (1971), Santiesteban, (1976) Task Engagement Factor B: naires. "...all other things being equal, Naturalistic description instructional learning is a partial function of clarity of instructional Standard deviation (perhaps) intentions." (Hough, p. 35) Percent comparisons C a n te r i c Gallatin, (1974), Task Engagement Factor F: Naturalistic description Kourilsky, (1971), Santiesteban, (1976) "Instructional learning is a partial function of student reactive satis­ faction with elements of the instruc­ tional situation." (Hough, p. 51)

F ig u r e 2 0

Match Between Teacher Intention, Lecture Delivery, Student Perception 286 research into science instructional strategies, as well as expository teaching in general, has yielded little but conflicting results (pgs. 20-88).

First to develop was a wealth of information regarding research techniques for studying the process of lecture as well as such aspects as delivery, substantive content, teacher/student interaction, content flow, including introduction, closure and transition, context shifts, degree of enthusiasm, excitement and humor, types, frequencies and effectiveness of examples or analogies, aspects unique to and common among the very different processes involved in different types of lecture, and the match between teacher intentions for lecture, actual delivery of the lecture and student perceptions of teacher intentions.

Secondly, there resulted among the data, very clear evidence that the term "lecture" is in breadth of definition, very similar to the term, for example, "song."

While there are certain characteristics common to teacher- dominated discussion that clearly place it within the broad definition of lecture, like the many types and varieties of songs and vocalists, as well as musical tastes of 287 listeners, these different types of lecture contain their own specific variables, quite different from one another.

Thirdly, there developed from the data, a very rich description of the different types and aspects of lectures so effectively used for different purposes in teaching chemistry. The individual studied supplied this investigation with a very vivid example of how one person can effectively use different variations of an expository strategy to reach into the minds and lives of his students to make his subject seem real and worthwhile.

Finally, there developed from the description of the different types and aspects of lecture, a clearer understanding as to why so many rationalistic studies on science teaching strategies and expository teaching in general could have so many conflicting results.

Rationalistic studies between 1970 and 1985 sought to control variables and analyze dynamic classroom environments in light of just one aspect. Unfortunately, these studies so controlled and decontextualized the many different variables, that the interrelated, interdependent nature of the reality of classroom teaching was lost. 288

In light of information gleaned from this in-depth study on lecture, we can now understand that it is not enough to study "lecture" either alone or in comparison to another strategy, without first defining, describing, categorizing and in many other ways specifying exactly what is meant by the term, and for what purpose it is being used. The same could very well be said about studying any other teaching strategy as well. Until that strategy can be defined, contextualized, described and fully understood, it can hardly be manipulated or compared with another to yield meaningful results, if any at all.

Research Techniques in Studying Lecture

From the beginning, it was decided that lecture would be studied using four different investigative tools. The first included the Observational System for Instructional

Analysis (OSIA), complete with predesigned computer programmed analysis, as well as user-defined subfunctions and subscripts for individual variation (pgs. 144-148).

The second was the Systematic Analysis of Instructional

Conversation (SAIC) designed in part to expose variations in conversational flow or patterns (pgs. 149-153) as well as changes in content, context or instructional theme. The third was a systematic, naturalistic, researcher-subjective 2 8 9 description of different moods, smells, textures, colors, gestures, facial expressions, movements and the like, not captured by either OSIA or SAIC. Finally, questionnaires, a quiz, and several formal and informal interviews were designed to capture the thoughts, opinions, motivations, impressions, perceptions and intentions of the subjects involved. The overlapping complementary nature of these research tools are summarized in Table 20, pg. 290. 290

Table 20

Cooperative Nature of Research Tools for the Study of Lecture

Tool Data Recovered

Quantitative data regarding:

1. teacher/student interaction 2. frequency and type of examples and analogies OSIA------3. frequency of various teacher behaviors such as miming, writing, referencing visual aids, calling students, use of humor, enthusiasm, disciplinary measures, etc.

— 4. type of information being initiated such as: background, naming, defining, augmenting, digressions, etc. Quantitative and qualitative data regarding: 1. conversational patterns 2. phases of control 3. transition among types of teacher/student interaction

SAIC ------4. word cues 5. conversational flow 6. check points or "clearances" before content transition 7. accompanying nonverbal behaviors. Quantitative and qualitative data regarding: 1. verbal and nonverbal cues to type of teacher/student interaction Naturalistic 2. events subsequent to verbal and nonverbal cues Observation 3. teacher intentions within verbal and nonverbal cues

4. teacher gestures, facial expressions, body position, voice volume, pitch and intonation, specific miming behaviors 5. Description of classroom colors, arrangements, moods, smells and atmosphere. Quantitative data regarding teacher and student thoughts, Questionnaires/. opinions, motivations, impressions, perceptions, and Interviews intentions. 2 9 1

The OSIA program was originally used in this study, to

identify and study patterns of teacher/student interactions

during lecture as well as frequency and length of teacher

initiation of both managerial and substantive information.

Also coded, were frequency and duration of types of

information such as background information, naming of objects, defining of terms, amplifying on a subject, digressing off the subject or just plain instructionally nonfunctional or miscellaneous information.

(See pgs. 157 and 158; Chapter 3).

From naturalistic observation of the videotaped data, however, various subtle differences became obvious among the different types and aspects of lectures. Among these were the several different kinds of examples and analogies used by the instructor to help students "see" and understand abstract concepts. X-Y expanded subscript data were then designed from the inductive data, and included in the OSIA program to quantitatively study type, frequency and context of these examples and analogies (pgs. 158-160);

Chapter 3).

Also inductively derived from naturalistic data, were particular quirks, or perhaps strategies common among the lectures recorded. These aspects to lecture were not found 292

in the literature either separately or in context, so subscript data were designed and included in the OSIA program to quantitatively study such things as humor, enthusiasm, repetition, disciplinary measures, frequency of writing on the chalkboards or overhead projector, frequency of referrals to visual aids, frequency of calling on individual students for various reasons and the several types and purposes for pauses in the conversational flow.

(See pgs. 161, 162; Chapter 3).

The SAIC was applied to the typed transcript to uncover subtleties in conversational patterns and flow not detected through OSIA subscript or subfunction analysis.

Each line was analyzed for shifts in content, or context, variations and similarities among words starting any specific shift in source, content or context as well as accompanying nonverbal behaviors (Appendix A ) .

Systematic naturalistic observations, an outgrowth of the researcher's quantitative research background, added a richness and depth to both description and understanding of the various types and aspects of lecture not imagined at the outset of this study. Naturalistic observations revealed tendencies for this instructor to pace systematically, or to walk to specific areas of the room, 2 9 3 and to use certain "cue" words often. The room was therefore mapped (Fig. 11 pgs. 178, 242), and his movements documented and analyzed to discern differences in meaning to his various wanderings. Specific words or phrases observed to be used frequently, and which caused specific responses in the students, were searched by computer from among the word-processor-transcribed lectures. These were found to have specific meanings, greatly dependent on the content, context, instructor's tone of voice, inflection and volume, as well as events preceding and following the word usage (Table 12, pg. 231). Various gestures, miming activities, facial expressions, and body positions of the instructor were also able to be described in context, along with the content of the lectures. Differences among frequency and types of these variables were then noted and analyzed (Tables 12 and 13, pgs. 231 and 251. Discussion pgs. 229-243). Variables such as humor, repetition, writing on chalkboards, referencing visual aids, degrees of enthusiasm and the like were also able to be identified and incorporated into the OSIA program as described previously.

Naturalistic observations served to further confirm and augment insight into the OSIA and SAIC data, which in turn gave quantitative validity to the descriptions made. 294

Questionnaires and interviews provided insight into

the various thoughts, opinions, motivations, impressions,

perceptions and intentions of the individuals involved.

They also provided a concrete means of triangulation or

confirmation of researcher observations, with individual

perceptions of the events recorded. This data provided an

opportunity to match intentions for various aspects of

lecture (such as content, delivery, degree of

teacher/student interaction, student achievement and the

like) with systematic and naturalistic researcher

observations as well as student perception of teacher

intentions.

Expected results included a systematic study of the

flow of teacher initiated information from one subject to

the next as the lecture wore on. What resulted, was an

abundance of data which literally fit itself into obvious

cycles of teacher/student interaction between or among periods of straight teacher-talk (Fig. 12, pgs. 179 and

250). OSIA data separated lectures not only according to

amount of time spent in straight teacher-talk as expected, but also according to purpose and, because of the subscript

and sub-function data, according to heuristic used. The evidence suggested strongly, that this instructor did not just shift from subject to subject as each was exhausted on 295 his outline. Instead, he seemed to carry his students

along with him, continually prodding and analyzing their

reactions or abilities to comprehend the material being presented. This being the observed trend, data on

conversational cycles and phases of control, as well as

data concerning types and quality of teacher-talk, were

compiled on all lectures and compared to reveal differences not only in lecture types, content and depth, but also differences in conversational cycles and phases of control among the lecture types.

The four research tools, intended to supplement one another somewhat, ended up providing insights into the process of lecture as played out in one classroom, not even imagined before the data emerged. Without the naturalistic observations, a myriad of variables including all subscripted data and X-Y expanded subfunctions of the OSIA would have been completely overlooked. Also missed would have been the various word cues, miming activities, facial expressions, body positions, movements and other nonverbal cues quantified and analyzed. Without the OSIA, the differences among lectures according to purpose, time of year, amount of time spent in teacher talk and heuristic may have been missed. Other quantitative data concerning time spent in substantive versus managerial activities, or 296 teacher initiation of information or kinds and quality of

student responses may also have been completely overlooked.

Had the SAIC not been used, shifts in patterns and phases of conversational control, cycles among types of teacher/student interaction, type, quality and even existence of "clearances," which identified closures and transition points among content presented, would have been lost in the shuffle.

Finally, had the data from questionnaires and interviews concerning the match between teacher intentions and student perception of these intentions not been included, perhaps the most significant aspect of this study would have been lost. If teacher intentions (concerning such things as content, student participation, student motivation, achievement and the like) are not communicated effectively to the students, the best of lessons, and the most seemingly dynamic lectures will be lost. Research aside, the students are the audience of primary concern.

It is what they hear, see, feel and understand, that counts. 297

Toward a Better Definition of Lecture.

The original definition of lecture formulated for the purpose of this study, proved to be inadequate to describe or even infer the differences among types and aspects of lecture. If we use "any prepared, intentional, teacher- dominated discourse or discussion before or with an audience for the purpose of instruction" (pg. 10(1), to define and then study lecture, we are being as inadequate as using the definition "systematic use of vocal tones" to describe a song. Just as that definition can never describe the various types, sounds, personalities, moods or emotions involved in singing, or the affect of these on the listener, our simple definition of lecture does not capture the dynamic, complex, variable, even emotional nature of the many different varieties among teacher-dominated discourse (lecture).

"Lecture" might better be described as "a general category which includes many different types and varieties of teacher-dominated discourse before or with an audience

/ for the purpose of instruction." The concept of "lecture" is complex in its nature and application, and differs widely according to purpose, content, classroom atmosphere, available material and temporal resources, attitude, 298

enthusiasm and personality of the lecturer, as well as

responsiveness and abilities of the audience. Like that of public speaking, or even like that of a talented singer, the craft of lecture cannot be learned in single lesson, or even studied from a textbook. It must be observed, practiced, applied and honed, supplemented with a deep and thorough understanding of content involved for flexibility, then given color, texture and life from the very being of the speaker.

Application of Lecture in a Chemistry Classroom

For the purpose of providing organization and meaning to a discussion on the results of a very in-depth study on one individual's lecture style and technique, summaries and implications will be presented by subquestion under each of the five aspects of lecture studied (Figures 16-19 pgs.

281 - 284). 299

Summary and Implications of Findings on The Structure of Lecture.

Subquestion #1; What is the Overall Structure of

Lecture?

Qualitative and quantitative data revealed a predictable three-part structure to all of Mr. Brown's lectures, regardless of content. These three parts

included an introduction of varying lengths and detail, the body or main topic(s) discussed and a very brief closing.

These phases of lecture worked collectively to bring continuity to each day's presentation as well as provide a meaningful flow of information from day to day within and across topics.

The introductory phase of lecture was nearly always very short - rarely lasting longer than three or four minutes. The content of these varied with the type of lesson planned for the day, and were sometimes dependent on the events from the day before. Nearly always, mention was made of the previous day's discussion, serving to provide a 3 0 0

meaningful context to the present lesson planned. A direct relationship would then be drawn from old topic to new topic, and the new agenda outlined.

Introductory comments flowed so smoothly into the main body or discussion portion of the lecture, that it was often difficult for the researcher to specifically define where the one ended and the second began. The main body however, always either presented new information in relation to that learned earlier, or presented the same concept previously discussed, this time in more detail, more depth with more background, in a different context or just one more time for more practice and exposure.

Closing comments most often served to dismiss students from class. These were so brief, they were measured by numbers of sentences (sometimes less than one, or merely a nod) rather than time in minutes. Conclusions or summaries to discussion topics were included with the introductory comments the next day, as well as throughout the main body of the lecture as one topic flowed to the next. 301

Subquestion #2: What are the similarities and

differences in lectures within and

across time?

Similarities Among Lectures

All lectures were initiated and controlled by the

teacher, and in all cases the ratio of functional to non­

functional teacher behavior was very high. Lectures were typically accompanied by student attending behaviors such as note taking, asking relevant questions, watching the teacher or responding positively to questions and directives by the teacher. When it was available and functioning, Mr. Brown always preferred to use an overhead projector rather than writing on a chalkboard during lecture. At any rate, lectures were in all cases supplemented with visuals such as writing on the overhead projector or chalkboard, reference to charts, graphs or murals on the walls, use of demonstration apparatus, concrete examples, analogies and miming behaviors.

The attitude of this teacher remained consistent among lectures as well. Mr. Brown is an extremely animated person both in and out of the classroom. His booming, friendly voice and physical expressions were evident in all 302 types of lectures, including simple directions before exams or labs. In all cases, he managed a one-to-one style of conversational lecture as though he were speaking to each student individually rather than the whole class.

In all lectures, frequent and sometimes constant contact was made with the students. He lectured from in front of the demonstration table rather than behind, and frequently walked out among the students for various purposes as well. Eye-contact was maintained except when writing or referring to visual aids and often he would lean toward, point at or gesture towards individual students or groups of students to emphasize a point, give a directive or acknowledge a response.

Even the most direct lectures included varying amounts of teacher/student interaction. While the type, amount, length and style of the interaction varied among lecture types, in all cases, whether teacher dominated, student dominated, verbal or nonverbal, interaction was teacher controlled.

Teacher initiated information was substantive rather than managerial or appraisal in most cases. Frequency of teacher solicitations were fairly consistent throughout all 303 types of lecture as well. Appraisals of student responses were almost universally positive with those few negative responses (Line #191, Teacher, (low and quiet) "oooohhh, anybody?"; line #392, Teacher, "well, ..." or line #666,

Teacher, "You got the two ideas right, but they're exactly backwards.") taking the form of gentle encouragement rather than a negative, personal put-down.

Differences Among Lectures

Differences among lectures varied with each perspective taken. Four different perspectives were examined as they emerged through analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data. The differences were according to purpose of lecture, according to relative amounts of time spent in teacher-talk, according to time of year and according to heuristic used. These will be discussed separately.

Differences According to Purpose

In support of the literature on lecture (Woods, 1983)

Mr. Brown's lectures clearly differed according to one of three main purposes. These were to transmit information, to promote understanding or to create interest. 304

Lectures to transmit information were appropriately fast paced, in most cases brief, and always to the point.

There was little note-taking by students but always rapt attention as directions were given or policies explained.

Most of the information given was managerial rather than substantive and with the exception of clarifications, there were few teacher/student interactions. All were initiated by reference to rank, order or time. Typically more than one topic would be covered in a short period of time.

Topics also were usually sequential in nature.

One exception among lectures to transmit information was found in the first day of class lecture (8-28), where general classroom policies and procedures were outlined.

While the purpose of the lecture was to transmit general information, it by necessity took the form of a lecture to promote understanding. The hazards of chemistry laboratory must clearly be outlined and understood for safety reasons, especially among beginning students. For this reason, depth and clarity accompanied the general transmission of managerial duties.

Lectures to promote understanding were typified by a slow pace and exacting detail. Very few topics (one or 305 two) would be discussed over a longer period of time, and these were presented at considerable depth. There was a higher degree of teacher/student interaction during these lectures accompanied by frequent pauses for questions, many circuit walks (Fig. 11 pg. 178, 242) and an intermediate amount of teacher expository teaching.

It was during lectures to promote understanding that

Mr. Brown did the "real work" of teaching. These were highly dependent on student response, and largely enhanced with examples, analogies, visual aids, charts, graphs, demonstrations and miming of examples or demonstrations.

The chalkboard and overhead projector were both used frequently, and there was also a higher degree of teacher enthusiasm and animation. Lectures to promote understanding were always initiated with a direct verbal reference by the teacher to the need to take, or continue taking notes.

Lectures to create interest consisted primarily of laboratory demonstrations. These were completely teacher- dominated with little or no verbal teacher/student interaction. Students did not take notes during these lectures, but rather watched with rapt attention and anticipation for the excitement to follow. 306

Degree of teacher enthusiasm was always very high during these demonstrations. In general, flashy or dramatic reactions, like Ramette's "exocharmic reactions"

(Ramette, pg. 69) were used, accompanied by detailed explanations of every procedure throughout the reaction process. Demonstrations were always prefaced by a reference to fun or excitement, and typically followed through on the promise. These on-going procedural explanations were generally punctuated with comments by the teacher such as (April 23), "Oooh, hooo-hooo!...Let1s see if we can hit the sink again!"; (May 6), "Whoop!...Isn't that marvelous? Look at that!"; (May 7), (teacher smiling, obviously enjoying himself) "There it is folks? There went your socks!" (See Table 6 pg. 174), and (Jan. 22) (to the reaction) "Go, go, go...Wow!"

Overhead projectors, chalk boards, charts, graphs and the like were not used during lectures to create interest.

There were no circuit walks, or verbal solicitations, and very little eye contact. 307

Differences Among Lectures According to Relative Amount of

Time in Straight Teacher-Talk

As inductively derived from the OSIA data, lectures fell into one of three categories according to the percentage of time spent in direct teacher talk as opposed to interactive conversation. These included lectures which were primarily expository, lectures which were primarily interactive, and lectures with a fairly even split between expository and interactive behaviors. Degree of substantive information and expository behavior corresponded indirectly with the degree of teacher/student interaction.

Lectures which were primarily expository included all five lectures to transmit information as well as one demonstration and three lectures to promote understanding.

As would be expected, these were characterized by longer periods of teacher talk remaining almost exclusively in

Phase I of classroom control (Fig. 12, pgs. 179, 250).

More topics were able to be presented during these lectures, with typically less depth. 308

Lectures which were primarily interactive included mathematical predictions of chemical reactions

(stoichiometry) and review of vocabulary terms. In these lectures, only one topic was covered, however that one was covered in considerable depth. The purpose of these lectures was to insure student understanding as well as to encourage student input to the problem solving process.

Heavy student interaction did indeed promote these goals, but also enabled unsolicited, potentially divergent remarks from students, necessitating brief disciplinary action by the teacher.

Lectures falling into the intermediary category between dominant expository and dominant teacher/student interaction were characterized by brief teacher explanations sandwiched between interactive discussion of the topic. These lectures served primarily to initiate new information and promote understanding of that information among students. Interestingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, these lectures had the fewest instances of the need for disciplinary action by the teacher. 3 0 9

Differences Among Lectures According to Time of Year.

Distinct differences became apparent among lectures at the beginning, middle and end of the school year. These differences existed both in classroom atmosphere and substantive content.

The classroom atmosphere became increasingly more relaxed as the year progressed. Students became more keenly aware of the teacher's expectations and he became more aware of their abilities. Near the end of the year, however, students may also have discovered his limits, so- to-speak, becoming adept at reaching that limit and causing a slight increase in disciplinary behaviors. Fewer students were called on by name as the year progressed as students became more confident and eager to volunteer answers.

Most interesting however, was the correlation between time of year and heuristic used to present substantive material. At both the beginning and ends of the school year, substantive material was presented using a concrete heuristic. During the middle of the year however, heuristics were as abstract as the subject matter. While the finding was a bit of a surprise, the logic is obvious. 310

In order to learn and understand the abstracts of chemistry, considerable foundation-building in measurement and methods needs to be established. Abstract concepts once learned (during the middle of the year), need then to be applied to practical use such as chemical reactions and also, from the established theory, mathematical predictions

(end of the year).

Differences Among Lectures According to Heuristic

Lectures generally fell into one of five categories according to heuristic used. These were mathematical predictions of chemical reactions (either known or theoretical) use of concrete illustrations to explain theories, use of abstract illustrations to explain theories, demonstrations of chemical reactions and simple, direct transmissions of information with no evident heuristic.

Differences among lectures with no evident heuristic were discussed earlier (pages 186, 191-195 and page 304).

Demonstrations were also discussed under lectures to create interest (pages 188 to 195 and pages 305, 306). Lectures to promote understanding were then divided into one of three categories according to heuristic. These included 311

mathematical principles and predictions of chemical

reactions, use of concrete illustrations and use of

abstract illustrations to explain chemical theory.

Lectures using a mathematical heuristic were

characterized by a great deal of teacher/student

interaction flowing easily among phases of domination of

conversational flow (Fig. 12 pgs. 179, 250). In all cases,

less than one-third of class time was spent in teacher-talk

and there was a high frequency of use of visual aids.

Examples and analogies were used infrequently, but those used were always concrete, impersonal and positive.

Analogies outnumbered examples by a ratio of about 3:2.

Lectures using concrete illustrations to explain

chemical principles occurred at the respective "ends" of the school year. Among the concrete heuristics, examples

occurred more frequently than analogies, and these

consisted largely of objects or drawings held up for the class to see. Concrete examples and analogies occurred as often as abstract. Most were impersonal, and all were positive.

Mr. Brown was typically more animated during lectures using the concrete heuristic, perhaps because of the 312 abundant resources available. He also repeated concepts more often and frequently made use of visual aids, charts, diagrams, objects and the like.

Lectures using abstract illustrations all occurred during the middle of the school year, and were characterized by the use of a great many more analogies than examples. This follows logic, in that concrete examples of abstract principles is a bit of an oxymoron.

These lectures were typically more down-to-business than other lectures, perhaps due to the intensity of the concept, or the difficulty for concrete learners to grasp the abstract. There were also many pauses for questions or reflection, and frequent use of visual aids, charts, diagrams and the like.

Subquestion #3: What verbal and nonverbal cues signal

beginning and end of lecture?

The sounding of the school buzzer to begin class appeared to have little affect on students either at the beginning or end of the class period. Instead, verbal and nonverbal cues given by Mr. Brown, determined the noise, attention and/or activity level of the students. 313

Beginning of lecture was always signaled by an

increase in volume in Mr. Brown's voice, and direct eye-

contact with as many students in the room as possible in

one general visual sweep. Most often he merely said

"Okay..." followed by a directive, a summary or the

arranging of visual apparatus such as the overhead projector or portable chalkboard. In all cases, Mr. Brown

either assumed or resumed his position at the front of the class, and continued speaking and increasing volume as the class very quickly quieted down.

The most striking and significant aspect of Mr.

Brown's beginning and ending cues were their consistency and clarity. When students heard "Okay, folks..." or "Pull out a brand spanking new..." or "Yesterday,...", it was said with such a tone and manner that there was never any question as to the events which were to follow. Often, just turning on the overhead projector brought a temporary hush as students anticipated beginning remarks from the teacher.

Just as the school buzzer to begin class had little affect on the behavior of students in the classroom, the end-of-period buzzer also did not necessarily signal the end of class. Often students would quietly begin to stack 314 books, gather wraps or sort papers as the end of the period approached, but papers were not put away or seats left until students got a verbal "Okay," "That's it," or "Don't forget...", or a nod from Mr. Brown.

Class discussions which ended before the final buzzer were concluded with similar brief verbal cues. In all cases, end of lecture was signaled by a cessation of eye contact and often physical movement by the teacher away from the front of the room.

Subquestion #4: What are the rules for student

participation in lecture?

Rules for student-initiated participation in class closely paralleled those for most meetings in polite society in general. While the teacher certainly dominated discussions and in most instances remained in complete control of the class, student questions and comments were welcomed and in some instances, expected.

It seemed preferable to all involved for the student to raise a hand to gain attention and therefore, the floor.

However, students were also allowed to just speak up if the need arose. There were a few instances where this caused 3 1 5

some disruption (5-6, 5-7, and 5-8; see Table 7 pg. 202)

but the general atmosphere of the classroom encouraged

social decorum and mutual respect.

Rules for teacher-initiated student participation were

equally relaxed. Mr. Brown would cue his expectation for a

student comment or response by asking a direct question,

stopping in mid-sentence, reestablishing eye-contact and

waiting for a student to finish the sentence, or by calling

on a student directly. In all cases, student responses were anticipated, but not required. In instances of no

response to a teacher solicitation, Mr. Brown would simply reword the question, fit it into a different context, or once more review the background in order to put the students back on familiar territory. 316

Summary and Implications of the Findings on

Planning of Lecture

Subquestion #1: What is the nature of the planning

process in lecture?

Planning for lecture was done in several stages and from more than one aspect. Overall planning for general content to be included was accomplished through joint meetings with all members of the chemistry department.

Yearly or bi-yearly meetings are set to structure the general outline of course material to be covered by all chemistry instructors. Weekly meetings monitor comparative classroom progress and serve to add flexibility to the overall yearly or semester planning.

Planning for individual implementation of class activities designed to achieve goals outlined during joint sessions was another matter all together. Mr. Brown's general lecture topic for each day was planned in light of current progress in the unit being covered, specific teacher intentions concerning student achievement or content to be covered, and background reading, reflection 317

and general experience as to what works. The topic, pace and structure of each lecture are subject to change even in the middle of a lecture in response to perceived student understanding (or lack of understanding) of the material.

Mr. Brown is an intentional teacher, conducting the minute- to-minute business of lecture in light of his general, long-term goals rather than losing the lesson for the sake of an activity or lecture outline.

Subquestion #2: What teacher intentions guide

preparation?

The primary, specific intention of this instructor is to promote individual understanding of each concept to each student in the class. He does this by presenting concepts repeatedly from more than one perspective. "I want to have students understand as clearly as possible," he said during a formal interview. "I try to 'hit' as many students as I can with as many media as possible." "I never reached formal operational learning," he said during an informal interview, "and neither have most of these students. I just present the material as I understand it." 318

Subquestion #3: What reading and reflection precede

preparation?

As a consequence of his intentions to present the material using a variety of media, Mr. Brown keeps current with different methods available for teaching chemistry.

On an overall basis, Mr. Brown attends national seminars and symposia for science and chemistry teachers. He spent six weeks one summer (1986) in training at the Institute of

Chemistry Education in Madison, Wisconsin. During this institute, chemistry teachers from all over the country obtain specific updated information on chemical and atomic theory, as well as teaching methods. They also have numerous opportunities to share ideas and successes with one another. On a local level, he and his colleagues often run area-wide workshops to share experiences and ideas with chemistry teachers from the surrounding communities. These are presented at least twice a year.

Mr. Brown also has a wealth of ideas from previous years teaching experience, and from his colleagues to make the subject matter not only more interesting, but also more concrete or applicable to students' lives. Attempts are often made to include demonstration material in the lecture as well as visual aids, models and the like. Reflection on 3 1 9 each day's lesson continues often early in the morning before he even leaves for school. "Sometimes," he said during an informal interview, "I decide what I'm going to do while I'm eating breakfast." "I usually write my lesson plans a couple days later," he explained, "so I know what worked."

Subquestion #4: What criteria determine lecture

content?

Substantive lecture content is primarily determined by the joint meeting of all chemistry teachers in the department. Individual presentations, examples, analogies and demonstrations are up to each teacher. Mr. Brown usually augments agreed upon content with any demonstration, example, analogy, visual aid or problem­ solving techniques proven effective previously, recommended by respected colleagues, available to him, and/or that fit the topic being studied.

His primary criteria for determining lecture content, within the context of long-term substantive goals, are dependent on the students. Their degree of understanding of the general content determine specific examples, analogies and to some extent demonstrations presented. In 320

one instance, Mr. Brown was observed to put aside his

original plans for a class period, in order to go over

stoichiometry and determination of limiting reagents once

again from a completely different perspective, yet in light

of the original, in order to ensure student success.

Perceiving confusion from the day before, he set out to determine a new way to approach the problem. "This procedure is so straight forward," he admitted to the students the next day, "I couldn't believe it!" 321

Summary and Implications of the Findings on

the Delivery of Lecture.

Subquestion #1: What strategies, such as pacing, verbal

and nonverbal cues, use of material

resources and management behaviors are

used to enhance student learning during

lecture?

Student's don't have to do a lot of guessing in Jon

Brown's classroom in order to determine his expectations of them either socially, behaviorally, or academically. As a result, time that could be wasted by students trying to determine what to write down, when to listen, when to speak and whether or not they have time or opportunity to side track themselves or neighboring students, can be concentrated on understanding difficult concepts. He also makes extensive use of examples, analogies, miming behaviors and demonstration or visual aid apparatus to present each concept in as many contexts as concretely as possible. 322

Pace. The pace of the lecture seemed to be dependent upon both the purpose of the lecture (pgs. 186-190), and the instructor's perception of student understanding and acceptance of the topic presented or the directions being given. General managerial information and review of background material was usually paced fairly quickly to maintain student attention. Where greater detail and depth of understanding were required, Mr. Brown not only slowed his pace, but also slipped more often into teacher/student interactional cycles B and C (Fig. 12 pg. 179, 250) in order to monitor student understanding of the concept. He also increased the frequency of circuit walks around the room in order to glance at student notes, or call attention to one of the many visual aids available either hung or painted on the walls.

Verbal cues. Verbal cues to signal expectations or exchanges in agenda or topic were clear, concise and strikingly consistent. The most frequently occurring verbal cues were the words "Okay," "folks," and

"questions." Each was specified by voice pitch, volume and intonation as well as eye contact and preceding event

(Table 12 pg. 231). "Okay." depending on voice pitch, volume and intonation as well as eye contact and preceding event, signaled initiation of new discussion, termination 323

of an old discussion, acknowledgement of a student

solicitation or solicitation of student response by the

teacher to monitor their progress. "Folks" specified in a

similar fashion, also had four different meanings. One

meaning signaled presentation of a key topic or concept

crucial to understanding the discussion. Another meaning

of "folks," was to warn offending students of impending

consequences to their potentially disruptive behavior. A

third meaning of "folks" served to create a pause for

insertion of related information (as in "...by the way,

folks..."), and finally, it served similarly to "okay" and

"questions" to solicit questions or clearance from the

students. "Questions" served to open the floor to students

needing to clarify information or add their own comments.

Nonverbal cues. Nonverbal cues to signal expectations, changes in agenda, use of apparatus, examples, analogies and any number of other silent messages were as clear, concise and consistent as his verbal cues.

Preparation of material resources, such as models, charts, graphs, chemicals and various apparatus functioned not only to enhance student understanding of a concept, but also to point out the importance of what was being said and its relation to previous material. Preparation of material resources such as the overhead projector or movable 324 chalkboard functioned most consistently to signal beginning of lecture. When the teacher put the screen down, set the overhead projector up, cleaned off the writing surface, switched on the light or similarly started arranging the movable chalkboard, lecture was soon to follow.

Movements or "circuit walks" (Fig. 11 pg. 178, 242) around the room functioned to monitor student progress, quiet disruptive or potentially disruptive students, provide an example or analogy for better understanding, expound on a point, give the teacher time to think, or a new perspective, or just to give the students a break in writing notes. Eye contact, facial expression, tone of voice or volume, and length, location and duration of each side trek all served to clearly differentiate the purpose of each.

Nodding, hand gesturing, and finger-pointing behaviors all served to acknowledge or challenge individual groups of students. Miming served the same function as demonstrations and visual aids. If he didn't have an apparatus, picture, chart or example available, Mr. Brown would simply pretend he did. In so doing, he effectively created a picture of the object, activity or idea as a concrete example for the mind's eye of each student. 325

Most notable of the nonverbal aids to student understanding, was Mr. Brown's continuing level of enthusiasm or fascination with the discipline of chemistry.

He spoke in such a way as to convince even an unbeliever that chemistry was a subject not only possible to master, but perhaps even preferable. While at times the level of enthusiasm would vary from subtle to vibrant, the message was always clearly that chemistry was not only fun and interesting, but also a worthwhile area of study.

Material resources included just about anything Mr.

Brown could get his hands on and fit somehow into the lesson. These included charts, graphs, diagrams and murals on the walls or in the student texts, as well as the overhead projector, chalkboards, laboratory apparatus and chemicals for demonstration and experimentation. Safety apparatus were discussed frequently in light of their inherent value as well as specific applications.

Unconventional demonstration apparatus were used as often as the conventional, formal equipment available. Mr.

Brown used a jar of beebees to illustrate the concept of atoms, molecular weight and moles. He used a plain piece of paper, torn into smaller and smaller pieces to 326

illustrate the concepts of atom/molecule, element/compound.

A meter stick and relative distances around the school were

used to illustrate relative metric measure, while bottles

of aqueous mixtures of ordinary corn starch, salt and sugar

illustrated concepts of solutions, suspension,

supersaturation and dynamic equilibrium. The striking of a

match subsequent to dropping a piece of chalk (accompanied

by several bad puns) were once used spontaneously to

illustrate differences between the disciplines of chemistry and physics.

Management behaviors were most frequently used to

clarify procedure, daily agenda and teacher expectations.

Management behaviors to maintain discipline functioned to

enhance student learning by creating an atmosphere in the

classroom which was conducive to learning for the greater majority of the students. Disciplinary management behaviors were therefore, far more subtle than those to

clarify teacher expectations or class agenda. Overt

disciplinary management behaviors were used relatively

infrequently (Table 7, pg. 202) and included verbal

sanctions only, such as asking students to be quiet and/or

stop making unkind remarks. More subtle management behaviors included walking towards potentially disruptive

or distracted student(s), calling on disruptive or 3 2 7 distracted students for answers, establishing eye contact with each student at various times during class and constantly monitoring the degree of understanding among students of the material being discussed. These latter two behaviors were effective as observed by the researcher, but were not identified by students as consequences to their misbehavior. (Table 14 pg. 259).

Subcruestion #2: What is the nature of teacher/student

interaction within and across instances

of lecture?

There were four different cycles or types of teacher/student interaction evident in Mr. Brown's class.

These intertwined in such a way as to flow easily from one cycle to the next. Cycles of interaction also eased in and out of phases of control, including teacher-dominated interaction, a transfer or intermediate phase where neither dominated but either could, and student dominated interaction (Fig. 12 pgs. 179, 250). These cycles served to allow time and opportunity for Mr. Brown to present and discuss new or on-going topics while simultaneously monitoring student understanding, providing opportunities to question and clarify, maintaining classroom discipline and varying the action to hold student attention. 3 2 8

The most frequent and most common pattern during lecture, was cycle A. In this cycle, Mr. Brown would spend varying amounts of time lecturing undisturbed, punctuating the story from time to time (depending on student response and/or the nature of the topic), with a brief question followed by student response or "clearance" (Cycle C). In cycle A, acknowledgement of appraisal of the response was followed by a return to general lecture again. Cycle C functioned within cycle A as a general "clearance" with the students at the end of a topic or discussion.

The primary purpose served by these pauses in Cycle A, or "clearances" of Cycle C, was to monitor student attention to and understanding of the discussion. The real questions being asked during the T7-S5-T(8-10)-T4 Cycle A exchange, were "are you guys following me?" or "does this sound familiar?" The real questions being asked during clearances in Cycle C were "Do you understand now?" or "Are you ready to go on yet?"

A second type of teacher/student interaction was illustrated in Cycle B (Fig. 12 pg. 179, 250). Somewhat the opposite of Cycle A, in Cycle B the T7-S5-T(8-10) series was followed by more T7-S5-T(8-10) rather than a 329

return to teacher initiation of information (T4). In Cycle

B, the series T7-S5-T(8-10)-T7 dominated the conversational

flow, being punctuated from time to time by brief bits of

teacher-initiated information. In the beginning of the

school year Cycle B also helped the teacher gain a better

understanding of the working mechanism of the class as a

whole, as well as of individual students.

Cycles A, B, and C were teacher dominated and

therefore remained largely within Phase I of classroom

control. Cycles B and C made available a transition point

or opportunity for student controlled discourse typified in

Cycle D. While technically Cycle D remained with Phase III

of control, it also had a section which served to offer the

teacher opportunity to regain the floor. With the

exception of temporary uncontrolled lapses into Cycle D

caused by disruptive students (5-6, 5-7 and 5-8a, Table 7

pg. 202; discussion pgs. 255-258) conversational flow

within this cycle was substantive serving to clarify

student understanding or allow time or opportunity for

student explanations. In all cases, including student

disruptions, conversational flow centered around the

teacher and so was easily within his ability to direct the cycle back to Phase I control. 330

Summary and Implications of the Findings on

Student Participation During Lecture.

Subauestion #1; What are the characteristics of

attending of students to the lecture as

it occurs?

Characteristics of attending were inductively derived from observation of videotaped lectures. They were determined to be such things as:

a) note taking,

b) watching the teacher,

c) watching the demonstration or visual being

referenced,

d) reading or looking at textbook or hand-out

materials being referenced during lecture,

e) responding to teacher solicitations or

clarifications,

f) responding to jokes or comments by the teacher. 331

Subquestion #2: How do engagement consequences or non­

engagement consequences affect student

attending during lecture?

According to the results of questionnaires given to both teacher and students, engagement and non-engagement consequences were the primary influence on student attention during lectures. This was supportive to at least one aspect of Hough's Task Engagement Theory (Hough, 1985).

Positive consequences to task engagement (paying attention) included gaining a better understanding of the subject matter, getting good grades on quizzes or exams, gaining the teacher's respect, and quite frankly, being entertained

("His lectures are interesting..."). There were no negative consequences to task engagement found in this classroom.

Conversely, there were also no positive consequences to non-task engagement. Negative consequences for non-task engagement included falling behind in schoolwork and being reprimanded by Mr. Brown. 332

Subquestion #3: How do task attraction and student

goals affect student attending to

lecture?

Again, in support of Hough's Task Engagement Theory

(Hough, 1985) student goals also had a strong impact on students attending during lecture. Students goals supported by attending to lectures were basically the same as positive task engagement consequences. These included gaining better understanding of the material and getting good or better grades. Another student goal supported by attention to lecture not derived from positive consequences to task engagement was to be better prepared for future course material or planned occupations.

Task attraction also had a strong impact on students attending to lecture, once again, in support of Hough's

Task Engagement Theory. Students paid attention primarily for good grades, better understanding and to keep out of trouble. But a very large majority (well over 80%; Table

15 pg. 2 62) also paid attention because Mr. Brown's lectures were interesting and understandable. They found chemistry attractive because this teacher so effectively exhudes his own wonder and excitement with each concept presented. Students in this class found they could not 333 only survive chemistry, but also understand and succeed in it. One key to task attraction is what Cliff Schimmles referred to as "The first human principle a teacher must know: We enjoy doing what we do well. Conversely, we don't enjoy what is hard for us." (Schimmles, 1982, p.

42). Jon Brown knows this well, making the abstract concrete - something the students can see, and so achieve. 334

Summary and Implications of the Match Between

Teacher Intentions, Lecture Delivery and

Student Perception of Teacher Intentions.

Even the most excellent teacher education courses on lesson planning and objective-making will have no effect on students, if they do not understand or cannot perceive what is expected of them. As Ambassador Sarek says in the movie

Star Trek IV (Paramount Pictures, 1986), "It is difficult to answer, when one does not understand the question."

Therefore, an effective teacher must make her/his intentions evident to the students. They will have difficulty sorting out specific substantive material until they are told what it is they are expected to learn. They cannot discover answers until they understand the questions. The purpose of this section of the investigation was to quantify a match between Mr. Brown's intentions for one particular lecture, and his success in implementing and communicating those intentions to the students. 335

Subauestion #1: To what degree is the class lecture as

intended, an appropriate instructional

procedure to use to facilitate student

achievement of particular curricular

intentions?

Most striking among the data in this section of the research was the clarity with which students were able to perceive their role in the lecture, as well as Mr. Brown's intentions of and expectations for them. Researcher observation, was that the lecture as given, was a very effective tool to present intended content material clearly. Tables 16 - 19 pgs. 266, 271-273, summarize the data, showing a nearly one-to-one, item-by-item, match between Mr. Brown's intentions for the lecture concerning teacher/student interaction, degree of enthusiasm and specific content, and the students' perception of these intentions. The primary implication is that Mr. Brown, as an intentional teacher, is able to specifically define and communicate particular interactional as well as content- area instructional goals to his students clearly and effectively. Since there were no data to support this being done through direct communication (as in, "Today you are expected to learn the following concepts and achieve the following goals...") it is evident that this teacher is 336

able to not only communicate his intentions indirectly

(verbally and nonverbally), he also owns the resources to adjust the flow of substantive material to the abilities and capabilities of the students in his class.

Subquestion #2: What were the instructor's specific

instructional intentions during any one

lecture, and to what degree were the

students aware of the teacher's

intentions for the lecture?

Specific teacher intentions were studied from three perspectives. The first two, degree of teacher/student interaction, and degree of student enthusiasm dealt with classroom atmosphere or mood. The third dealt with specific content and student retention of the material presented.

The lecture was intended to be teacher-directed and dominated, but characterized by opportunities for student questions or clarifications. It was also intended to be of interest to the students, as well as challenging enough to not bore them. Intended substantive content included organization of terms, clarification of text material, and practice predicting trends in the periodic chart of the 337 elements. As discussed in the previous section, students were well aware of teacher intentions in all three perspectives, and able to delineate them on an open-ended questionnaire (Tables 17 and 18, pgs. 271 and 272).

Subquestion #3: What is the degree of student

satisfaction with the lectures in

general as they occur?

The overwhelming majority of students (61% over all lectures, and 95% for the one studied) found Mr. Brown's lectures interesting. They seem to be very satisfied with his lecture style, even to the point of building for him a reputation that goes beyond the classroom and the school.

An unsolicited comment to the researcher during a college chemistry course, from a former student at Community High when asked if she knew Mr. Brown, confirmed his reputation for excellence. "He makes learning fun," she said. "Kids can understand him." 3 3 8

Implications for Further Research...

...On the Effectiveness of One Teacher

Given the time, resources and energy, one logical step in this project would be to become acquainted with both past and present students of Mr. Brown's, and to follow them through successive years after completion of his course. It is well and good that his students enjoy his lectures and achieve well on his tests. Evidence also suggests excellence in student achievement at district and state science fair competitions. But what about student success in advanced high school chemistry courses, and on into college chemistry? Do his lecture techniques better enable them to survive later learning experiences, and does he cover content to sufficient depth and with enough breadth to give them a solid foundation in later years?

Does this teacher produce an unusual number of future scientists or chemists in the fields of research, industry and education? If not an unusual number of scientists or chemists, are they of exceptional quality? Do his students who do not go into related fields of chemistry do well in their college chemistry courses? Are non-science-directed 339

as well as non-college bound students from his class able to relate their high school chemistry experience to their

future vocations and avocations in life? Has he been for them, a positive role model?

According to Schimmles (1982), everything a teacher does in the classroom influences the student in some way.

He goes on further to state that "In most cases, the individual teacher is the key to a successful educational experience and to educational progress." (pg. 29). Jon

Brown is consistent without being abrasive, clear in his expectations, goals and assignments and most of all, intentional in his teaching. Whether or not his students are able or even motivated to successfully compete in the field of chemistry, they are given in his class, a glimpse of the abstract, and it becomes real.

...On the Lecture Strategy

Research regarding nature and effectiveness of lecture is at this point, wide open. So far, studies on the effectiveness of lecture have not considered the various types, purposes and aspects of the lecture process.

Instead, different phenomena, all categorized as lecture, have been compared at a surface level, with no 340 consideration for the very significant number of uncontrolled, and in many ways, uncontrollable variables involved. Time of year sampling was seen to be especially critical in this type of research. Lectures vary not only according to content, purpose, heuristic, time of year and the like; they also evolve across time and circumstances, constantly changing and adapting to and with the teacher and students involved.

Different purposes for lecture have been described previously in some of the research (Woods, 1983), and further detailed in this study (pgs. 186-195). But how exactly does each type of lecture function under different circumstances? Why are these different styles effective for the specific purposes? What are appropriate and inappropriate strategies for the different types or purposes of lecture? Are there specific dynamics necessary in lecture, and can they be defined and learned? What do students need to know in order to distinguish between and to participate effectively in each type of lecture? How do students know when to write, when to listen, and what information is most important? Finally, how can instructors most effectively communicate their intentions 341

regarding purpose of lecture, delivery, degree of

interaction, content and student achievement during the

lecture?

Along another line of thought, what types of heuristic

function best among differing types of lecture? Are there

particular strategies, including use of examples and

analogies that prove to be more effective under differing

circumstances and content areas? Are there aspects of some

lectures peculiar to science classrooms, or are there generalizations applicable across disciplines?

...On "Successful11 Lecture Strategies

Another logical step in this research, might be to study other teachers like Mr. Brown to identify and catalog similar aspects to their teaching styles. Are there very many largely different aspects of teaching among

"successful" chemistry teachers? Are there some aspects which remain consistent among "successful" chemistry teachers that are lacking in those who experience less success in teaching? If there are common characteristics among "successful" chemistry teachers, can transferability be further established among successful teachers in other subject areas, or even grade levels? 342

One of many aspects of Jon Brown's lecture strategy

not studied in this investigation, concerns the progression

of ideas within one lecture, to build understanding of a

concept (delimitations pg. 18). Does he begin with the

basic tenets before presenting the theory? Is the theory

instead, given first to establish the "big" picture before

the details are added? Instead of an experimental -

control model to study Anderson's Kinetic Structure in

lecture (Lamb et. al.; 1979b), would it not be more beneficial to observe successful lecturers to see what

structures really work? Or perhaps could we study

successful teachers to see if it is not the structure of the lecture that is the dependent variable, but rather the person behind the structure - and her/his relationship with the audience - that determines the effectiveness of that lecture?

...On Teacher Training Institutions

Further research along these lines may also benefit teacher training institutions by identifying where and how successful teachers learn their techniques. Do they learn them as preservice teachers in methods classes or during student teaching? If they do not, can successful techniques, or aspects common among "successful" teachers 343

be identified and incorporated in to the teacher training

curriculum? Could it be that successful techniques are gleaned during the first years of professional teaching

from veteran teachers willing to help?

Also, along these lines, can successful teaching strategies be learned when only part of a school year is involved in student teaching? How can students gain insight into the dynamic reality of the evolution of the classroom as a social setting over time, when they are there for only a portion of the school year? Would student teachers benefit more from experiencing perhaps part of a school day all year, rather than the whole of a school day for part of the year?

One Last Comment...

Instead of teaching lecture as a generic strategy, or worse yet, a generic strategy to be avoided at all costs, perhaps it would be beneficial to teach effective lecture techniques to be used for different purposes. Lecture may be presented as a situation-specific skill, more effectively taught as a craft to be learned, practiced, and mastered under varying circumstances rather than just one of many teaching strategies available. 344

In light of the criticism presently being leveled at educational institutions and the teaching profession in general, it might be highly beneficial to all concerned to pursue at least some of the questions raised by this study.

The lecture technique has been inadequately defined in the past, inappropriately researched and basically ignored by teacher training institutions. Yet it is widely used, and often the dominant form of instruction in secondary and post-secondary schools. Shall we continue to leave to chance, the development of exciting and dynamic lecturers in our schools? There are far too few Community Highs in this country, and even fewer Jon Browns. If we could find out what makes effective lecturers so effective, as well as where and how they are made, perhaps the gears could begin to turn toward excellence in education at all levels. Appendix A

Examples of Data Collection Forms for OSIA and SAIC Data Analysis

345 Saic Data Code Form

P h a s e of Elements of Nonverbal Context Interaction P h a s e cues Word Starters Line #'s T h eme N o tes 9 9 *7£ Saic Data Code Form

Phase of Elements of Nonverbal Context Interaction Phase cues Word Starters Line i/'s Theme Notes

+ j c

Teacher Appraisal nods "yeah..." 3443 •#-> c Q) E Teacher cue stu- . 0) t- dent response looks toward 3443 3 V) students <0 0) E T3 3 Teacher appraisal nods "Yeah..." 3445 >> oC E Cue student resp. 3446 E oO Student Response 3447

Teacher appraisal nods, smiles "Sure!" 3448 347 Teacher Explain 3449-3454 Saic Data Code Form

Phase of Elements of Nonverbal Context Interaction Phase cues Word Starters Line it's Theme Notes Let's Get S. attention "Urn, the question we 3389 - finish so we r can go o n ...

Focus on balloon looks toward "Do you recognize what 3390-3396 this is balloon this is?... di ffer- ent tten / you think Cue Student res­ ponse Look toward . .just did what?..." 3397 what will ( students happen? Student response "popped" 3398 Teacher appraisal nods "It popped." 3399 v- i Teacher explains "the helium balloon..." 3399-3420 Chemisfcy is fun. Some things may sur­ prise you. pulls down Refocus Lecture projector "Today, we're gonna talk 3421-3426 Today's 8 4 3 topic screen, about..." agenda sets up OH projector, OSIA Data Code Form 349

S u b ­ L i n e # T r a n s c r i p t S y m b o l s c r i p t T i m e OSIA Data Go.de Form

b U D - L i n e ii ^mirn T r a n s c r i p t Svmbol script T i m e

1249 T. Okay, let's get started T07

1250 S. (start to quiet down) T3 UM$A 1

1251 T. Aauumm, (p) Yesterday, I said in the T4 A 1 1252 notes, umm, in relation to rate of 1253 solubility, rate of solution, rather, 1254 under section Rate of Solution (p) T4 A$Wz$P (writes on overhead) Okay? T7 1255 I said, ah, We were talking about T4 A 1 things that affect rate of solution. 1256 And we said that one of the things that affects the rate of solution is T4 A$W 1257 the temperature, (p) (Writes on T4 A$Wz$P 1 overhead). What specifically did we T7 1258 say about that? Fellas? Up here, nowT07 $Y

1259 S. Solubility goes up as temperature S5 goes up.

1260 T. Alright, we said as temperature goes T8 1261 up, (Writes T RS ) Very good. T4 $Rz$W I want to add something to that (p) T9 1262 (checks viewer again) You want to make T04 AV$A this addition in your notes because 1263 it's very important. Aumm, that we T04 AV don't, we don't misunderstand this. 1264 This particularly deals liquid/solid solutions. (Writes on overhead) That's T4 A$W 1 1265 for liquid/solid solutions.. We use T4 A$Wz$P 1 1266 . the liquids say, as the solvent, and T4 A 111 the solid as the solute. That is 1267 (can't hear) true, generally true, not always, But generally, it's true. I 1268 do want to point out though, that for 1269 liquid/gas solutions (writing on over­ T4 A$W 1 head) that, that as temperature goes 1270 up, think about a soda pop bottle T4A xUV 1271 sitting out in the sun. The rate of solution goes, how? T7

1272 S's down S5

1273 T. That's right. And so it's the oppo­ T8 1274 site when we're dealing with liquid/ T4 1 gasseous solutions.

1 Appendix B

Letters of Approval for Research

351 352

a.. .. Ph. D. Superintendent of Schools

Principal CITY 8CHOOL8 Assistant Principal Assistant Principal , Assistant Principal October 12, 1987

Graduate School The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio 4 3210

To The Graduate Committee:

This letter is to approve research activities as proposed by Mrs. Sarah Vandermeer to study chemistry lecture techniques in cooperation with " ., one of our chemistry teachers at ' High School. Subject to his approval, she has my permission to collect videotape data during lectures, laboratory activities, demonstrations and the like, and to distribute questionnaires to the students as n e e d e d .

Sincerely,

_ , Principal

LW/dg 353

HI0i School * A Superintendent of Sdnob "Yincipal CITY SCHOOLS Avlstant Principal M ilitant Principal ", A alitant Principal

Dec. 5, 1985

This letter acknowledges that Sarah Wldell has periodically videotaped ay Introductory chemistry classes at HIgh SchooI.

Throughout this project Sarah has responsibly kept me apprised of significant decisions and events. I feel that these video records are accurate, that they reflect normal behaviors on both the part of the students and myself, end that this project has In no way compromised the education of my students.

I have seen many of the video tapes, end in the course of this project, I have decided to use the video taping method as part of my professional growth.

I would like to thank Sarah, her advisor, and the Ohio State University for the professional way in which the project was conducted.

SIncereIy, 4

Chemistry Teacher BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES 3 5 4 HUMAN SUBJECT REVIEW COMMITTEE X Original Review THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Continuing Review Five-Year Review

Research Involving Human Subjects

ACTION OF THE REVIEW COMMITTEE

With regard to the employment of human subjects in the proposed research protocol:

86BQ002 A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF LECTURE STRATEGIES IN A HIGH SCHOOL CHEMISTRY CLASS, John B. Hough, Sarah Satorius Widell, Educational Policy and Leadership

THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES REVIEW COMMITTEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING ACTION:

APPROVED DISAPPROVED

X APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS* WAIVER OF WRITTEN CONSENT GRANTED

* Conditions stated by the Committee have been met by the Investigator and, therefore, the protocol is APPROVED.

It is the responsibility of the principal investigator to retain a copy of each signed consent form for at least four (4) years beyond the termination of the s u b j e c t ’s participation in the proposed activity. Should the principal investigator leave the University, signed consent forms are to be transferred to the Human Subject Review Committee for the required retention period. This application has been approved for the period of one year. You are reminded that you must promptly report any problems to the Review Committee, and that no procedural changes ' may be made without prior review and approval. You are also reminded that the identity of the research participants must be kept confidential.

Date: January 3, 1986 Signed:

HS-025B (Rev. 3/85) 3 5 5

**plea£e t y p e ** r e v i e w o f r e s e a r c h , development , or RELATED ACTIVITIES INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS PROTOCOL NO..

SUMMARY SHEET (PSE CONTINUATION PAGES AS NECESSARY) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR(S): Dr. John HouRh (If Graduate Student, Typed Name list advisor’s name first) Ms. Sarah Satorius Widell Typed Name Signature

Typed Name Signature

Department & College

(Faculty Member's Csmpua Address and Phone Number) PROTOCOL TITLE (Include proposal title for externally-funded activities If the title is different from the protocol title:______

______A Qualitative Study of Lecture Strategies in a High School Chemistry Class.______

When submitting a proposal to the Behavioral and Social Sciences Human Subject Review Committee, ve would appreciate your supplying the following information in summary form. Having the detailB prior to reading and reviewing the protocol can expedite the process. Please be as specific as possible so that the reader can have a rather complete and accurate Idea of exactly what your subjects will experience when they participate in your research, as well as know the protections that have been Included to safeguard the subject against adverse consequences (e.g., are they free to not participate if they choose, do they or their parents know exactly what theyare getting into before they are committed to participate, will both their participation and any collected data be completely confidential).

1. In a sentence or two, briefly describe why the proposed project is of Interest. The intent of this question is to give the reviewer a brief idea of the background and purpose of the research. Over the past several years, lecture versus laboratory instructional techniques have been the subject of much controversy. This study proposes to do something the others have not - study lecture in detail, qualitatively in order to better define the process for further study and analysis. 2. Briefly describe each of the different conditions or manipulations to be Included within the study. Several classroom lectures will be videotaped over the course of one year, to obtain several samples of one instructor's lecture style for systematic analysis.

3. What is the nature of the measures or observations that will be taken in the study?

Observations will be made qualitatively, and analyzed systematically using the Observational System of Instructional Analysis (Hough), the Systematic Analysis of Instructional Conversation (Green), and descriptive analysis for the final report. *t. If any questionnaires, tests, or other instruments are to be used, please provide a brief description and either include a copy or indicate approximately when a copy will be submitted to the committee for review. See pages 99 and 100, dissertation proposal

HS-008B 356

$. Will the subjects encounter the possibility of either psychological, social, physical or legal risk? Q Tes jjQ Wo If so, please describe.

6. Will any stress be Involved In the study? Qles Q H o If so, please describe.

7. Will the subjects be deceived or aisled In any vay? Q Tes [x] Ho If so, please describe and Include a statement regarding the nature of the debriefing.

8. Will there be any probing for Information which an Individual night consider to be personal or sensitive? {El Ho If eo, please describe.

9. Will the subjects be presented with materials which they might consider to be offensive, threatening or degrading? LJ I®* 0 1,0 If so, please describe.

10. Approximately how much tine will be demanded of each subject? ...... All data collection will take place during the teacher's normal teaching duties. Except for a couple of extra, formal Interviews lasting 30 - 45 minutes each, no extra tine will be demanded of this subject. 11. Who will be the subjects In this study? Bow will the subjects for this study be solicited or contacted? . i chemistry teacher at " „ _ High School will be the subjected for this study. Re has already been contacted through his activities as cooperating teacher for OSU, and previous videotaping for classwork activities.

12. What steps will be taken to insure that the subject's participation Is voluntary? What, If any, Inducements will be offered to the subjects for their participation? . A written letter of consent and approval for this study has bean Included at the end of the proposal submitted, from the teacher, and the principal of the school.

BS-OOSC 357

13. It is important that a subject be informed regarding the general nature of what he will experience when he participates in a study, including particularly a description of anything he might consider to be either unpleasant or a risk. Please provide a statement regarding the nature of the information which will be provided to the subject prior to his volunteering to participate.

A pilot study done on another teacher through a videotape provided during class was provided him to see what the final result would be like.

l*t. What steps have been taken to insure that the subjects give their consent prior to partici­ pating? Will a written consent form be used? □ Yes Q No If so, please include the form and if not, please indicate why not.

I have written permission and approval from both the teacher and the principal at the school. See the last two pages of the dissertation proposal.

15. Will any aspect of the data be made a part of any permanent record that can be identified with the subject? Q Yes |x~) No

16. Will whether or not a subject participated in a specific experiment or study be made a part of any permanent record available to a supervisor, teacher or employer? □ Yes [x] No

17. What steps will be taken to insure the confidentiality of the data?

The subject has been promised that no data of any kind will be seen by anyone other than the researcher and himself, without his prior consent.

18. If there are any risks involved in the study, are there any offsetting benefits that might accrue to either the subject or society?

No risks are involved.

19. Will any data from files or archival data be used? Q Yes |j£] N o

HS-008D (Rev. 1/82) THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Protocol Ho.

CONSENT TO INVESTIGATIONAL. TREATMENT OR PROCEDURE

, hereby authorize or direct fjriMLk *5. (J J 1/ or associates or assistants of his or her choosing, to perform the following treatment or procedure (describe in general terms). ______iKden-fajai /fp+uK, p/iim'ao c/ft <.S -fim . ______('‘NvW.uf.-f fen/wuaE 1/iiR-y-w.v^ n i a pu.-avAavtyx cxa fa. ______T X rvAiu__ p-ovmiVmi >Atf.__ -fe w u ( .Tc*. upon,, u _ ,____

The enpei lnwntal (research) portion of the treatment or procedure.1s: d J Cpi.KnJIiJhILlml nlnS.puwa.itfr-

This Is done as part of an Investigation entitled 4 ffin/di V h u e 5 W m o-f U fifredeao^. vK^ U.'ctK ^cka?

1. Purpose of the procedure or treatment: 17) n MAlfo-1-iutK.f dcsfA^i-a. awJI d;£V£ j L k e .in -o f.v. /x Sur-.ftgc.£.-Cu( (*u^U. ,scJv/

2. Possible appropriate alternative methods of treatment:

3. Discomforts and risks reasonably to be expected:

ZLl.faU-.-T-

Possible benefits for subject-fsodety: I i n ~t •preenS£ assdl iQjL'rtxU-ts o-f r-i/i£Sfc«^rv O-Cp .

Anticipated duration of subject's participation: f ‘Sr.lsoiW' upoa 6

I hereby acknowledge that A o l ^ S o M y x l ^ tl)iM l haa provided Information about the procedure deacrlbed above, about ay rlghte as a subject, and he/she anawered all questions to my satisfaction. I understand that 1 may contact hla/her should I have additional questions. He/She has explained the risks described above and I understand thea; he/she has also offered to explain all possible risks or coapllcatlons.

I understand that, where appropriate, the U.S. Pood and Drug Administration may inspect records pertaining to this study. I understand further that records obtained during ay participation In thla study may be made available to the sponsor of this study and that the records will not contain ay name or other personal identifiers. Beyond this, 1 understand that my participation will reaaln confidential.

I understand that I am free to withdraw ay consent end participation In this project at any time after notifying the project director without prejudicing future care. No guarantee has been given to ae concerning this treatment or procedure.

In the unlikely event of Injury resulting from participation In this study, Z understand chat laawdlate medical treataent la available at University Hospital of The Ohio State University. I also understand that the costs of auch treatment will be at my expense and that financial compensation Is not available. Questions about this should be directed to the Human Subject Review Office at 422-9046.

1 have read and fully understand the consent form. I sign it freely and v^un^arlly. ^/cop^ haa ba^n gl^fn to me.

ixfph\ j-gg-* - - J U - v ' . x , ■— i'-"'------Ultnesa(es) ( 1 " f t o a S - K . (Person Authorised to Consent for Subject - If Required) Required

1 certify that I have personally completed all blanks in this form and explained thea to the subject or his/her representative before requesting the subject or his/her representative to sign it.

Signed d c f c u . U A s ' (Signature of Project Director or his/her AuthoriseAuthorised Representative) 359

THE CHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Protocol No.

CONSENT FOR PARTICIPATION IN

SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH

I consent to participating in (or my child's participation in) research entitled:

A- (VftJ i ~fa4i O-C_ Lett fate m ft------(V/>

or his/her authorized representative has (Principal Investigator) explained the purpose of the study, the procedures to be followed, and the expect­ ed duration of my (my child's) participation. Possible benefits of the study have been described as have alternative procedures, if such procedures are applicable and available.

I acknowledge that I have had the opportunity to obtain additional information regarding the study and that any questions I have raised have been answered to my full satisfaction. Further, I understand that I am (my child is) free to with­ draw consent at any time and to discontinue participation in the study without prejudice to me (my child). The information obtained from me (my child) will remain/>confidentialin^cynfjd unless I specifically agree otherwise by placing my initials here

Finally, I acknowledge that I have read and fully understand the consent form. I sign it freely and voluntarily. A copy has been given to me.

Date: Ajf, l(p „ / W -5______Signed: ^ 1 f/f ‘(Participant)

Signed: '/m a A. j j i Signed/ (Principal Investigator or his/ (Person Authorized to Consent her Authorized Representative) for Participant - If Required) n Witness: / TT

HS-027 (/tetf. l'A-dl)— To be used only in connection with social and behavioral research. Appendix C

Research Questionnaires and Quizzes

360 Teacher Interview 3 6 1

1. What time goes into lecture preparation?

2. What study or resources are used for lecture preparation?

What reading and reflection go into your lectures?

3. How are lectures prepared?

4. What intentions guide your preparation?

5. What criteria determine content selection?

6. Are student questions and difficulties anticipated?

If so, what are they?

7. How is the content organized?

8. Are you aware of any strategies you use to enhance student learning during lecture? What are they? To the Teacher 3 6 2

1. What are your intentions for this lecture?

a) Concerning content covered?

b) Concerning teacher/student interaction?

c) Concerning student achievement?

d) Concerning student enthusiasm or interest in the topic?

2. What questions or student difficulties do you anticipate? Student Form #1 3 6 3

The purpose of this questionnaire is to find out what you think your teacher meant to accomplish today during class. Six of the questions call for simple yes or no answers. Please circle yes or no. Space has beenprovided for any additional comments you may want to add.

The remaining questions ask you to list specific information. You may be as brief or as detailed as you need to be to answer the question.

REMEMBER: There are no right or wrong answers, your responses will be confidential, and your cooperation is very much appreciated.

1. For today's class, what do you perceive your instructor's intentions to be concerning:

a) Teacher/student interaction?

1. Did he want to do most of the talking? YES NO

2. Did he want you to ask questions when YES NO you needed to ask them?

3. Did he want you to add your knowledge or ideas to the information presented? YES NO

4. Did you have any knowledge or ideas to add? YES NO

What? (If you answered yes to #4, please list)

b) Student enthusiasm?

1. Do you think your teacher intended any of YES NO the topic covered to be interesting to you?

2. In what ways do you think he attempted to generate interest in the topic covered? (Please list) c) Student achievement? 3 6 4

Please list what you think your teacher wants you to remember from today's lesson. You may want to use your class notes to answer this. Student Form #2 3 6 5

The purpose of this questionnaire is to determine how you like your teacher's lecture style. I have provided a rating scale from 1 - 5 for your convenience. 1 = "not at all", 2 = "not very", 3 = "they're OK", 4 = "yes", and 5 = "very much so." Space has been provided for any further comments you may like to add.

REMEMBER: There are no right or wrong answers, your responses will be confidential, and your cooperation is very much appreciated.

1. How do you like your teacher's lectures?

a) Are they interesting? 1 2 3 4 5

b) Are they challenging? 1 2 3 4 5

c) Are they understandable? 1 2 3 4 5

2. Are your teacher's lectures ever beyond your ability to comprehend? 1 2 3 4 5

3. Does he take steps during lecture to help you understand difficult concepts? (Please answer yes or no)

If so, what steps does he take? 3 6 6 Student Form #3

The purpose of this questionnaire is to find out what consequences you think you face, either good or bad, as a result of paying attention during your teacher's lectures. Five of the questions call for simple yes or no answers. Please circle yes or no. Space has been provided for any additional comments you may want to add.

The remaining questions ask you to list specific information. You may be as brief or as detailed as you need to be to answer the question.

REMEMBER: There are no right or wrong answers, your responses will be confidential, and your cooperation is very much appreciated.

1. How do engagement or non-engagement consequences affect your attention to any lecture?

a) Do you get in trouble for not paying attention YES NO to lecture?

b) Are there rewards for paying attention? YES NO

c) What are they?

d) Does your teacher in any way notice if you do YES NO not pay attention during lecture?

e) Does he do anything about not paying attention? YES NO f) If you answered yes to (e) previously, list what your teacher does as a consequence for not paying attention

g) Do you usually pay attention during lectures? YES

h) Why, or why not? (Please list your reasons) References Cited

Abraham, Michael R., The Effect of Grouping on Verbal Interaction During Science Inquiries. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 13. #2. pp. 127-135. 1976.

Aikenhead, Glen S., Teacher Decision Making: The Case of Prairie High. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 21. #2. pp. 167-186.

Allison, Robert D., An Investigation Into the Attitudes Toward Science of College Chemistry as a Function of Laboratory Experience. Dissertation Abstracts. Vol. 33:7. Jan. 1973. p. 3422A.

Amidon, Edmund; Flanders, Ned, The Role of the Teacher in the Classroom: A Manual for Understanding and Improving Teachers1 Classroom Behavior. Paul S. Amidon and Associates, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1963.

Andriette, W. R., Differences in Retention Between Populations of Seventh Grade Science Students Taught by Two Methods of Instruction; Small Group lab and Teacher Demonstration. Dissertation Abstracts. Vol. 131:6. p. 2753A. June 1968.

Barr, Rebecca, How Children are Taught to Read: Grouping and Pacing. School Review. 1975. 83. pp. 479.-498

Battino, Rubin, The Importance of Being Impressive: The Opening Lecture. Journal of Chemical Education. Vol 57. #1, Jan. 1980, p. 67.

Beam, Kathryn J.; Horvat, Robert E., Differences Among Teachers' and Students * Perceptions of Science Classroom Behaviors, and actual Classroom Behaviors. Science Education. 59(3). 1975. pp. 333-334.

Beasley, Warren, Teacher Management Behaviors and Pupil Task Involvement During Small Group Laboratory Activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 20. #8. 1983. pp. 713-719.

368 369

Bentley, Donna Anderson, Effects of Spaced Lecture Versus the Traditional Method of Note Taking on Immediate and Delayed memory for College Lecture Material. Ph.D. Dissertation, Georgia State University.

Bibikian, Yeghia, An Empirical Investigation to Determine Relative Effectiveness of Discovery, Laboratory and Expository Methods of Teaching Science Concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 8. #3. 1971. pp. 201-209.

Bligh, Donald. What's the Use of Lectures? Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books, 1972.

Blosser, P.; Helgeson, S., A Critical Review of the Role of the Laboratory in Science Teaching. Science Education Information Report. The Eric Science Math and Environmental Education Clearinghouse. In Cooperation with the Center for Science and Math Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 1981.

Bogdan, Robert; Biklen, Sari Kopp., Qualitative Research for Education An Introduction to Theory and Methods. Allyn and Bacon Inc. Boston, 1982.

Bossert, Steven T., Tasks and Social Relationships in Classrooms. Cambridge University Press, New York, 1979.

Boulanger, David., Instruction and Science Learning; A Quantitative Syntheses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 18. #4. 1981. pp. 311-327.

Bowman, James S., The Lecture-Discussion Format Revisited. Improving College and University Teaching. Vol. 27. #1. Winter 1979. pp. 25-27.

Bradley, Curtis, The Competence Motivation Reconsidered: The Construct of Intentionality. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education. 1975. #12. pp. 66-74.

Brasted, Robert C., Have We Innovated the Chemistry Teacher Out of the Classroom? Journal of Chemical Education. Vol. 50. September 1973. pp. 580-582.

Brown, Faith K.; Butts, David P., A Study of the Use of Diagnostic Testing in Teaching Basic Principles of Human Physiology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 16. 1979. pp. 205-210. 370

Burkman, Ernest; Brezin, Michael; Griffin, Patrick, Simultaneous Effects of allowed time, Teaching Method, Ability and Student Assessment of Treatment on Achievement in a High School Biology Course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 19. #9. 1982. pp. 775-787.

Burkman, E.; Tate, Richard; Snyder, W . ; Beditz, J . , Effects of Academic Ability, Time Allowed for Study, and Teacher Directness on Achievement in a High School Science Course. (ISIS). Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol.

Campbell, James Reed, Science Teacher's Flexibility. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 14. #6. 1977. pp. 525-532.

Cantor, Francis; Gallatin, Judith, Lecture Versus Discussion as Related to Students' Personality Factors. Improving College and University Teaching. Vol. 22. Spring 1974. pp. 111-112.

Case Studies in Science Education Vol. II. Design, Overview and General Findings. Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation and Committee on Culture and Cognition. 270 Educational Building. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. January 1978.

Chadbourne, Joan W . ; Bradley, Curtis H . ; Ivey, Allen E.; Toward Intentional Teaching: A Human Endeavor. The Humanist Educator. March 1981. pp. 98-103.

Citron, Irvin M . ; Barnes, Cyrus W . , The Search for More Effective Methods of Teaching High School Biology to Slow Learners Through Interaction Analysis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 7. #1. 1970. pp. 9-19.

Clark, C.M.; Yinger, R.J., Research on Teacher Thinking. Curriculum Inguiry. 1977. #7. pp. 279-394.

Coats, William D. and Smidchens, Uldis, Audience Recall as a Function of Speaker Dynamism. Journal of Educational Psychology. Vol. 57. #4. 1966. pp. 189-191.

Cohen, M., Policy Implications of an Ecological Theory of Teahcing: Toward and Understanding of Outcomes. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston. April 1980. 371

Condeluci, S. Allen, A Comparison of Lecture Styles and Their Relationship to Student Rated Effectiveness and Quiz Results. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of P ittsburgh, 1984.

Cooper, C.R.; Petrosky, A., High School Students' Perceptions of Science Teachers and Science Classes. Bibl. il The Science Teacher. Vol. 41. February 1974. pp. 22-26.

Coulter, John C., The Effectiveness of Inductive Laboratory, Inductive Demonstration and Deductive Laboratory Instruction in Biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 4. 1966. pp. 185-186.

Deboer, George E., Can Repeated Testing on "en-route" Objectives Improve End-of-Course Achievement in High School Chemistry? Science Education. 64(2) 1980. pp. 141-147.

Dorrance, Robert W., Jr., Cognitive Manipulative Skills as Outcomes of General Biology Laboratory Instruction. Dissertation Abstracts. Vol. 37:1. 1976. pp. 212- 213A.

Ebro, Lea Luisa. Instructional Behavior Patterns of Distinguished University Professors. Ph.D. Dissertation. The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 1977.

Edwards, C.; Surma, Michael, The Relationship Between Type of Teacher Reinforcement and Student Inquiry Behavior in Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 17. #4. 1980. pp. 337-341.

Erickson, Frederick; Wilson, Jan, Sights and Sounds of Life in Schools: Guide to Film and Videotape for Research and Education. A publication for the Institute for Research on Teaching of the College of Education at Michigan State University, 1982. Research Series #125.

Evans, Thomas P.; Balzer, Levon, An Inductive Approach to the Studey of Biology Teacher Behaviors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 7. 1970. pp. 47- 56. 372

Fields, Joanna, Learning by Listening: The Effects of Organization, Pauses and Questions on College Lecture Comprehension. Ph.D. Dissertatin, University of Pittsburgh 1981.

Flanders, Ned, Intent, Action and Feedback: A Preparation for Teaching. The Journal of Teacher Education. Vol. 14. #3. Seeptember 1963.

Flanders, Ned, Teacher Influence in the Classroom. Theory and Research in Teaching. A.A. Bellack (ed.) Bureau of Publications, Teacher's College, Columbia University. New York, 1963. pp. 37-52.

Flanders, Ned, Analyzing Teacher Behavior. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Reading, Massachusetts. 1970.

Ford, Margaret L., Excellence in Teaching: What Does it Really Mean? Improving College and University Teaching. Vol. 31. #3. September 1973. pp. 47-56.

Frick, Ted; Semmel, Melvin I., "Observer Agreement and Reliability of Classroom Observational Measures." Rev, of Ed. Res. Vol. 48, #1. Winter, 1978. pp. 157-184.

Gadzella, B., How Students View Professor's Role. College Student Journal. Vol. 11. 1977. pp. 2-8.

Gage, N. L., (Ed.), Handbook on Research on Teaching; A Project of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago. Rand McNally, 1963.

Gage, N. L., The Scientific Basis of the Art of Teaching. Teachers College Press. Columbia University, New York, 1978.

Goodstein, Madeleine; Howe, Ann C. The Use of Concrete Methods in Secondary Chemistry Instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 15. #5. 1978. pp. 361—366.

Green, Judith. Personal Communication ED-P&L 925B49. November, 1984.

Green, Judith; Wallat, Cynthia (Eds.) Ethnography and Language in Educational Settings. (Vol. V in the Series Advances in Discourse Processes, Roy 0. Freidle, Ed.) Ablex Publishing Corp. Norwood, New Jersey, 1983.) 373

Green, Judith, Lecture Notes and Class Material. E.D. P&L 925.49E The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, Winter Quarter, 1985.

Green, Judith; Weade, Regina, Taking a Closer Look; Qualitative Explorations of Task Management. Paper presented at the Annyual Meeting of the Educational Research Association. New Orleans, April 23-27, 1984.

Grobe, Robert P.; Pettibone, Timothy J . ; Martin, David W . , Effects of Lecturer Pace on Noise Level in a University Classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 67. #2. October 1973. pp. 74-75.

Guba, Egon G.; Lincoln, Yvoneea S., Effective Evaluation. Josey-Bass Publishers. Washington, 1983.

Haber-Schaim, Uri, Are We Teaching Science? The Physics Teacher. Vol. 21. September 1983. p. 364.

Harms, N . ; Yager, R. Eds., What Research Savs to the Teacher. Vol. 3. 1981. National Teachers Association. 1742 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, D.C. 22007.

Harvey, J . ; Barker, D.G., Student Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness. Improving College and University Teaching. Vol. 18. 1970. pp. 275-278.

Herdmann, G. D. and Hincksman, N. G., Inductive Versus Deductive Approaches in Teaching a Lesson in Chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 15. #1. 1978. pp. 37-42.

Heslet, Frederick E., Communication Pragmatics of the Lecture. Improving College and University Teaching. Vol. 22. Summer 1974. pp. 190-193.

Hill, Joseph E. The Educational Sciences. Oakland Community College Press. Bloomfield Hiss, Michigan. 1975.

Holliday, William G., Aptitudes and Science Instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 16. #2. 1979. pp. 167-176. 374

Horak, Willis J . ; Lunette, Vincent N., Science Teacher Types: A Study of Beliefs About the Importance of Specific Teaching Behaviors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 16. #3. 1979. pp. 269-274.

Hough, John B. Ed., Concepts and Categories for the Study of Instruction. The Observational System of Instructional Analysis. Vol. 1, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 1980.

Hough, John B.; Duncan, James K., A General Task Engagment Theory of Instruction. Unpublished Monograph. The Department of Educational Policy and Leadership. The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Winter, 1985a.

Hough, John B., Personal Communication. The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. March, 1985b.

Howe, Anne C.; Durr, Beulah., Using Concrete Materials and Peer Interaction to Enhance Learning in Chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 19. #3. pp. 225-232.

Hunt, David Ed., Matching Models in Education: The Coordination of Teaching Methods with Students Characteristics. Monograph Series #10. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. 1971.

Hunt, David E., Teachers Adaptation: 'Reading' and 'Flexing' to Students. Journal of Teacher Education. Fall 1976. Vol. 27. #3. pp. 268-275.

Ivey, Allen Ed., The Intentional Individual: A Process- OutCome View of Behavioral Psychology. The Counseling Psychologist. 1969. 1. pp. 56-60.

Ivey, Allen E.; Rollin, Steven A., A Behavioral Objectives Curriculum in Human Relations. Journal of Teacher Education. 1972. 23. pp. 161-165.

Ivey, Allen E.; Rollin, Steven A., The Human Relations Performance Curriculum: A Commitment to Intentionality. British Journal of Educational Technology. 1974. 2. pp. 21-19.

Jackson, Philip W., Life in Classrooms. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. New York, 1968.

Joyce, B. R.; Hodges, R. E., Instructional Flexibility Training. Journal of Teacher Education. 1966. Vol. 17. p. 409. 375

Kaplan, Robert M . ; Pascoe, Gregory C., Humorous Lectures and Humorous Examples: Some Effects upon Comprehension and Retention. Journal of Educational Psychology. Vol. 69. #1. 1977. pp. 61-65.

Kourilsky, Marilyn, The Anatomy of a Dead Lecture. The Clearing House. Vol. 46. September 1971. pp. 20-26.

Kovacic, Peter; Jones, Martin, The Opening Chemistry Lecture: Reaching Students Without Demonstrations. Journal of College Science Teaching. Vol. 11: May 1982. pp. 365-366.

Kremler, Philip, Effects of Individualized Assignments on Biology Achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 20. #2. 1983. pp. 105-115.

Kyle, Bruce, In Defense of the Lecture. Improving College and University Teaching. Vol. 20. Aut. 1972. p. 325.

Lamb, William G.; Davis, Patricia C. Can Secondary Science Teachers Learn to Increase the Commonality of Their Lectures? Science Education. Vol. 63. #2. 1979a. pp. 205-210.

Lamb, William G.; Davis, Pat; LeFlore, Robert; Griffin, J.; Holmes, Rudolph, The Effect on STudent Achievement of Increasing Kinetic Structure of Teachers' Lectures. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 16. #3. 1979b. pp. 223-227.

Lawrenz, Frances, Science Teachers' Perceptions of Their Teaching Skills and Their School Conditions. Science Education 58(4) 1974. pp. 489-496.

Lawrenz, Frances, The Relationship Between Science Teacher Characteristics and Student Achievement and Attitude. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 12. #4. 1975. pp. 443-437.

Long, Joe; Okey, James; Yeany, Russell H., The Effects of Diagnosis With Teacher or Student Directed Remediations on Science Achievement and Attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 15. #6. 1978. pp. 105-115. 376

Long, Joe; Okey, James; Yeany, Russell H., The Effects of Diagnostic-Prescriptive Teaching Strategy on Student Achiebement and Attitude in Biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 15. #4. 1978. pp. 515-523.

Lu, Phillip K. Three Integrative Models of Kinetic Structure in Teaching Astronomy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 15, #4. 1978. pp.249-255.

Macchiarola, Frank J . ; Skerrett, Joseph Taylor Jr., The Academic Revolution and the Teaching Function. Improving College and University Teaching. Vol. 19. #3. Summer 1971.

Marshall, Hermine H.; Weinstein, Rhona S. Beyond Quantitative Analysis: Recontextualization of Classroom Factors Contributing to the Communication of Teacher Expectations. To appear in J. Green, J. Manker, and C. Wallat (eds.) Multiple Analysis of Classroom Discourse Processes. Norwood, N.J. Ablex Publishing Corp., in press.

Mayer, Victor J . ; Lewis, David K. An Evaluation of the Use of a Time-Series Single-Subject Design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 16. 1979. pp. 137-144.

McDonald, Frederick J . ; Nalin, Paul M . ; Weinber, Susan F., The Relation of Teachers1 Questions in Microteaching and Minicourses to Student Achievement and Rating of the Teacher. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association. New Orleans, La. February 1973.

McGarity, John.; Butts, David P. The Relationship Among Teacher Classroom Management Behavior, Student Engagement and Student Achievement of Middle and High School Science Students of Varying Aptitude. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 21. #1. 1984. pp. 55-61.

McMann, Francis, Jr. In Defense of Lecture. The Social Studies. Vol. 70. Nov/Dec. 1979. pp. 270-274.

Mellon, Edward K. Lecture Revisited. Journal of Chemical Education. Vol. 50. #8. August, 1973. pp. 530-531. 377

Mitzel, H.E.; Rabinowitz, W., Assessing Social-Emotional Climate in the Classroom by Withall's Technique. Psychological Monographs. 1953. #368.

Musella, D. and Reisch, R., Student Opinion on college Teaching. Improving College and University Teaching. Vol. 16. 1968. pp. 137-140.

A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. A Report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education. United States Department of Education by the National Commission on Excellence in Education. April, 1983.

Newton, David E. The "Unsung" Teaching Technique: The Modified Lecture. The High School Journal. Vol. 54., April 1971. pp. 432-439.

Olsen, Robert Charles. A Comparative Study of the Effect of Behavioral Objectives on Class Performance and Retention in Physical Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 10. #3. pp. 271-277.

Osterman, Dean N. Classroom Lecture Management: Increasing Individual Involvement and Learning in the Lecture Style. Journal of Science Teaching. Vol. 12. Sept./Oct. 1982. pp. 22-23.

Otto, Paul; Schuck, Robert. The Effect of a Teacher Questioning Strategy Training Program on Teaching Behavior, Student Achievement and Retention. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 20. #6. pp. 521-528.

Pella, Milton O.; Sherman, Jack. A Comparison of Two Methods of Utilizing Laboratory Activities in Teaching the Course I.P.S. School Science and Mathematics. 69(4): April 1969. pp. 303-314.

Pophan, W. James; Baker, Eva R., Systematic Instruction. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Prentice Hall, 1970.

Power, Colin. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy-Implications of Science Education Research for Teachers. Science Education 68 (2): 1984. pp. 179-193.

Power, Colin; Tisher, Richard P. Relationships Between Classroom Behavior and Instructional Outcomes in an Individualized Science Program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 13. #6. 1976. pp. 489- 497. 378

Purser, Roger K.; Renner, John W. Results of Two Tenth Grade Biology Teaching Procedures. Science Education. 67(1) 1983. pp. 85-98.

Raghubir, Karran. The Laboratory-Investigative Approach to Science Instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 16. 1979. pp. 13-17.

Ramette, R. W. Exocharmic Reactions. Journal of Chemical Education. Vol. 57. #1. January 1980. pp. 68-69.

Roberts, Douglas A. The Place of Qualitative Research in Science Education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 16. 1979. pp. 13-17.

Rovin, Sheldon; Lalonde, Ernest; Haley, John H. An Assessment of the Lecture. Improving College and University Teaching. Vol. 20. Aug. 1972. pp. 326- 327.

Rowell, J. A.; Simon, J . ; and Wiseman, R. Verbal Reception, Guided Discovery and the Learning of Schemata. British Journal of Educational Psychology. Vol. 39. Part 3. Nov. 1969. pp. 233-244.

Ryan, Doris. Improving Content and Process of Teacher Training and Staff Development. Unpublished Thesis. Required Reading for Ed-P&C 925A49. Judith Green Instructor. Spring Quarter 1985. The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

Sanders, Donald P.; Schwab, Marian. Annehurst: The Natural History of a Good School. Kappa Delta Pi, P.O. Box A, West Lafayette, Indiana 47906. 1981.

Santiesteban, Joseph A. Attitudes of High School Students Toward Science Instructional Procedures. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 13. #2. 1976. pp. 171-175.

Schimmels, Cliff. How to Help Your Child Survive and Thrive in Public School. Fleming A. Revell Co. Old Tappan, New Jersey 1982.

Shavelson, Richard J . ; Borko, Hilda, Research on Teachers' Decisions in Planning Instruction. Educational Horizons. Summer 1979. pp. 183-188. 379

Shavelson, Richard J . ; Stern, Paula, Research on Teachers' Pedagogical Thoughts, Judgements, Decisions and Behavior. Review of Educational Research. Winter 1981. Vol. 51. #4. pp. 455-498.

Simpson, Ronald D.; Troost, Kay Michael. Influences on Commitment to and Learning of Science Among Adolescent Students. Science Education. 66(5). 1982. pp. 763- 781.

Smith, Lyle R . ; Bramblett, Grace H. The Effect of Teacher Vagueness of Terms on Student Performance in High School Biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 19. #8. 1982. pp. 627-638.

Stake, R . ; Easley, J. Final Report Case Studies in Education Vol. II: Design. Overview, and General Findings. Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation and Committee on Culture and Cognition. 270 Educational Building. University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana. January 1978.

Starr, Robert J.; Schuerman, Carolyn D. An Experiment in Small-Group Learning. The American Biology Teacher. Vol. 36. March 1974. pp. 173-175.

Taba, Hilda, Curriculum Development. Theory and Practice. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World. 1962.

Texley, Juliana, What Works - A 1982 Search for Excellence in Education. The Science Teacher. Vol. 50. #4. April 1983.

Thompson, Ralph. Legitimate Lecturing. Improving College and University Teaching. Vol. 22. #3. Summer 1974. pp. 163-164.

Townes, James H. An Experimental Comparison of Two Laboratory Approaches for Teaching General Physical Science at the College Level: Vicarious Laboratory Methods Versus Conventional Laboratory Methods. Dissertation Abstracts. Vol. 36:11. 1976. p. 7176A.

Tyler, Ralph W . , Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1950.

Turner, Richard L., The Value of Variety in Teaching Styles. Educational Leadership. Vol. 36. (4) 1979 pp. 257-258. 380

Verner, Coolie; Dickinson, Gary. The Lecture, An Analysis and Review of Research. Adult Education. Vol. 17. 1967. pp. 85-100.

Weinstein, Rhona S. Student Perceptions of Schooling. The Elementary School Journal. Vol. 83. #4. 1983. p. 287.

Whooley, John. Improving the Lecture. Improving College and University Teaching. Vol. 22. Summer 1974. pp. 183-185.

Wolf, R.L. and Tymitz, B. Ethnography and Reading: Matching Inquiry Mode to Process. Reading Research Quarterly. 1976-1977. Vol. 12. pp. 5-11.

Wolfston, Morton L. A Consideration of Direct and Indirect Teaching Styles With Respect to Achievement and Retention of Learning in Science Classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 10. #4. 1973. pp. 385-390.

Woods, John D. Lecturing: Linking Purpose and Organization. Improving College and University Teaching. Vol. 13. #2. pp. 61-64.

Yager, Robert E.; Engen, Harold B.; Snyder, Bill C. F. Effects of the Laboratory and Demonstration Methods on the Outcomes of Instruction in Secondary Biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 6. 1969. pp. 76-86.

Yager, Robert. Factors Involved With Qualitative Synthesis: A New Focus for Research in Science Education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Vol. 19. #5. 1982. pp. 337-350.

Yager, Robert E., Penick, John, E. What Students Say About Science Teaching and Science Teachers. Science Education. 68 (2) pp. 143-152.

Yager, Robert E; Bonnstetter, Ronald J. Student Perceptions of Science Teachers, Classes and Course Content. School Science and Mathematics. Vol. 84. May-June 1984. pp. 406-414.

Zahorik, John A., The Effects of Planning on Teaching. The Elementary School Journal. 1970. #3. pp. 143- 151. 381

Zahorik, J. A., Teachers Planning Models. Educational Leadership. 1975. 33. #2. pp. 134-137.

Zais, Robert S., Curriculum. Principles and Foundations. Harper and Row Publishers, New York. 1976.