DOCUMENT RESUME ED 092 367 AUTHOR Wright, Delivee L. A … · 2014-01-14 · DOCUMENT RESUME ED 092...
Transcript of DOCUMENT RESUME ED 092 367 AUTHOR Wright, Delivee L. A … · 2014-01-14 · DOCUMENT RESUME ED 092...
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 092 367 SE 017 734
AUTHOR Wright, Delivee L.TITLE A Study of Student Verbal Behaviors in Inquiry and
Noninquiry Settings in Biology.PUB DATE Apr 74NOTE 11p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
National Association for Research in Science Teaching(47th, Chicago, Illinois, April 1974)
EDRS PRICE MP-$0.75 HC-$1.50 PLUS POSTAGEDESCRIPTORS *Biology; Educational Research; *Inquiry Training;
Science Education; *Secondary School Science;*Student Behavior; *Verbal Ability
IDENTIPIERS Research Reports
ABSTRACTReported is a study of the verbal behaviors used, by
biology students in inquiry and noninquiry settings. The populationfor this study included 10 BSCS teachers who had enrolled for twosemesters in an instructional program designed to make teachers awareof alternative skills and strategies of inquiry; to recognize thoseused in their own classrooms; to select, practice, and implementselected strategies; and to plan instructional activities to developinquiry behaviors in students. This Instructional Staff Developiont(ISD) Program was designed for experienced teachers interested inimproving inquiry learning in their classrooms, Each participatingteacher was videotaped in one randomly selected class before andafter instruction in the XSD program. Verbalized behaviors were codedusing the Revised Inquiry Analysis Instruitent..The Self4paring ofobservations technique was used with measurement of the sameindividuals-before and after treatment. Results shoved the perCentageof total teacher talk was significantly lover in the inquiry Settingand student talk higher. Variety of verbal influence behaviors usedby students was greater. The percentage of time spent verbalizing"data analysis and interpretation" and "procedures" was significantlygreater in the inquiry setting. (Author/EB)
OS,
A STUDY OF STUDENT VERBAL BEHAVIORSIN INQUIRY AND NONINWIRY WITINGS IN BIOLOGY
U S OEPASITMENT OF HIEALtItEQUCATiONY WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
EDUCATIONTHis DOCUMENT HAS gEEN REPROOUCE0 EXACTLY AS RECEivE0 FROMtHE PERSON UN ORGANtlatiON °WANAtiNC, 11 PO:NTSOI VIEW OR OPINIONSSTAIED 00 NOT
NECESSARILY RE PREs£N101F1CiAL NATIONAL INS/rTuTEOFLOUCAtfoN POSITION ON POLICY
by
Delivee L. WrightUniversity of Nebraska
Lincoln, Nebraska
Presented at the
Forty-Seventh Annual Meetingof the
NATIMAL ASSOCIATION FOR EMEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING
Chicago, IllinoisApril 150.80 1974
A STUDY OF STUDY. B2UtVIOSIN INQUIRY A!) NONI=Ti bSTTINGS XN BXOTAOY
Pzoblem
It is the purpose of this paper to objectively identify verbal behaviors
observed in inquiry settings and to compare these with the verbal-behaviors
observed in noninqpiry settings. For purposes of this paper, inquiry has been
defined as "a set of activities directed tovards solving an open number of
related problems in which the student has as his principal focus a productive
enterprise leading to increased understanding and applics.tion."1
Population_ and Procedures
The University of Nebraska - Lincoln Teachers College in cooperation with
the Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory, Inc., Kansas City, has
conceptualized, developed and tested a staff development program designed for
experienced teachers who are interested in imploving inquiry learning in their
claesrooms. The program is designed to make teachers aware of alternative
skills end strategies of inquiry; to recognize those used in their own class-
rooms; to select, practice, and implement selected strategies; and to plan
instructional activities to develop inquiry behaviors in students.
The population for this study included ten BSCS teachers who had enrolled
for two semesters in this Instructional Staff Development (MD) Program in
Inquiry for university credit. These biology teachers taught in the Omaha
1
InquimAjectives in the Toecbi.n of Biolea, Richard M. Dingman,Editor, Muse; City: Mid-continent Regional Educational Labsrutory,September, 190, p. 1. ,
2
and litacoln, Nebraska, area schools. Two trainer° who were also classroom bioleei
teeehers conducted the program after ywcipatine in a workshop designed to
prepare trainers.
The instructional treatment inclIuded six components or 4.mits of study in
fifteen instructional sessions and five microteaching sesoions. Each perticipaUve
teacher was videotaped in one randomly selected clan before and after instruction
in the ISD prceram. Verbalized behaviors were coded from the videotaped observe.
ations using the fever It_latam Analysis Instrument. Coders were consistent in
the identification of categories of behavior at the 90 percent level.
Research Dints
The "Self-pairing" of observations technique vas used with measurement of
the same individuals before and after treatment. This technique reduces
extraneous influences on the variable being meaeured. That is, pairing reduces
the effect of subjeet-to.subject
To compute t for paired samples, the paired difference variable
D = Xi - X2 is formed. D is normally Mr tributed with man (. Toe
sample mean and variance a' and ad2are computed, then:
t=
X31 x2fe the ecomriance between X and X2
n - 1
df = n 1 where n is the number of pairs, end
812 281 + s22 Xi X2 ) /
1Statiotical cka e for the Social Seiencee: date Manual,Norman 11.1r57-era17
Pa;
41 faa-trp niOrgraliErtater$ Witai giv ofChicago, Reltisod April 1972.
N!!ertotton of the Inntrumont
The Revised Insolu System1is an observational instrument designed
to simultaneously record three kinds or vozhal behavior iu three respective
columns' (See Figure 1.)
(a) Column One: Categories one through ten identify the verbal influencebehaviors as defined by the ton categories of FlandersInteraction Analysis.
Categories one throng): sevenlidOtify the verbalinfluence behaviors used by students and definedas being analogous to the seven categories ofteather behavior as defined by Flanders Inter-action Analysis.-
) Column Three: Categoriee one through nine ielentify verbalized imnirYand noninquiry behaviors.
When this instrument vas applied, a three-digit code was recorded every
three seconds or with every behavior change, whichever occurred first. When the
tencher was talking, the appropriate code was recorded in Column One, zero in
Column Two (unless it was a decision), and the appropriate inquiry or neninquiry
code in Column Three. For example, a teacher's factual question would be coded
401. If a student was speaking, an "6" or "9" vas coled for ColuTn'One, the
appropriate categ.A7 vas recorded fo../.. Columns Two and Three. For example, a
student initiating a question about procedures would be recorded as 946.
Silence or confusion 'was ruled as 100.
11.17,1.100117M.,=1.111
anis inatrument vas designed with input from the following: "TheInquiry Analysis System," Corr ovnt III: Inquitl Behaviors, John E. LUX)et. al., July 1972, Copyright 1972 by Mid-continent Regional Efteational tabor4tor;Inc. '0. H318-1 to 11308-4; "Cognitive Operations Monitored in the Classroom,"11,91,ordirtTaleher aid Pupil verbal Inouir Behaviors is thy qUes.room, a technicalmtuii for "observers, Jelin n.-Aadegil and-Matto M. Bing 60 Octobor 1969,Copyright 1969 by Matt; and Inqg Ob et a in thp litaeblog of bioloax,Bteberd M. tingmen, Editor, Copyrf t,19 9 by Me and_the Rologial sdienoesCurrioulum Study.
REVISED MQUIR! =MISSYSTE14 EISUKBENT
-----Cola= One
(Interaction,Anelysis)
(Student Talk & Decisions)
1Tchr. A.-cepts Fee
s
2Tchr.,Reinf _a-emei:a/Humor
3,Tch:r.:uses etudezrt ideas
4 T
chr.
(itienrs
5 -
. Gives Information
Column Three
(Inquiry Behaviors)
6 -Tchr- Gives ,DiieetiOnS
-..T
ustr
sice
aoti:
or Authority,
Crttictimi; by Tchr.
8 -
Stv
ici=
t,'Itesporses
9-'Student Initiated Talk
10 -,,Si lenCe,',CtmetuAna
I - Student Accepts/StatesFeeIincs
2 - Student ReitforcecAucor
- Phetual Analysis
- Analysis, Interpretation,
IdentifyingEtlationShips
Hypotheses, Plans to Foil=
- Process (Inquiry intoIngairy)
5 - Peelings,
Attitudes, Values
6 - Ptocedures
- Sensory Oboervations
3 - Student Uses Ideas
of Others
4 - StudentQueetions
5 - Student Gives Information
6 - StudentGives Directions
7 - Student JustifiesAuthority,
Criticizes
8 - Decisionbased on Stated
Alternatives
0 - Elan k (TeacherTalk)
Identification &/or Goal
or Problem Foraulation
- Assessment of Content/Pocess
ItImotheees
It was hypothesized that after instruction in the ISD program:
1. Teachers would use more indindot (Column I, Categories 1 through 4) than
direct (Column I, Categoriee 5 through 7) verbal influence behaviors.
2. Students would use a greater variety ofverbal behaviors (Column II,
CategoTies 8 and 9 compared to Categories 1 through 7).
3. atidents would use a greater variety Of verbal behaviors (Oluma rt,
Categories 1 through 7).
The mean percentage of time used for verbalizing decisions would ins me
(Column II, Category 8).
5. Students would increase their use of indirect venal influence behaviors
( Column II, Categories 1 through 4).
6. The total percentage of time verhalizing inquiry behaviors (excluding the
category of "factual data") would increase (Column III, Categories 2 through 9).
ResultsOMM.100.
Results in terms of the mean percentages of time speot'in the verbal
behaviors identified in Columns I, II and XIX of the Revieed InglitzAnalnie
System are reported in this cectton.
Table I repovto the rean poreentegee of time spent in behavior° identified
by Column I categories. Data indicate tiwt the teacher talk categories of
"reinforcement /humor" (2), "uoe of student ideas" (3), "questions" (4), and
"information-giving" (5) decreased at the .001 level of significance.
Category 7, "criticizes/justifies authority" also decreased at the .05
level of significance. The mean percentages of teacher categories of
"accepting feelings" (1) and "direction.giving" (6) did not change Significantly.
Tab
le I
CO
MPA
RIS
ON
OFM
EA
UPE
EC
EN
TA
GE
S O
F C
OL
UM
N T
CA
TE
GO
RIE
S O
FVEAL BEHAVIOR, PREAND POST OB01EEVATIONS
':Ca:
pego
ry'D
esm
-ipt
ions
1,W
POST
S.D
.X
S.D
.t
Val
veSi
gnif
ican
ce.
leve
l1.
Tea
cher
.Acc
epts
Fee
lings
11.58.
13.9
517
.41
4.43
1.24
N.S
.2.
Tesa:bar]ieirforces,
Hum
or3.
671.
89.1
0.2
66.
11.0
013.
Tea
l6m
!trs
eerS
tidei
tId
eas
5.38
3.08
.27
5.16
.001
4.
Tea
cher
Oue
stIo
ns13
.E4
6.68
.64
6.46
.001
-T
each
er G
ives
Inf
'orm
atio
n42
.07,
21.5
12.
614.
175.
22.0
016.
Tvi
Che
r, G
iven
Dir
ecU
ons
3.72
2.77
2.60
2.97
.59
N.S
.7.
TeatChee'Critietzes/
.64
.82
.01
.03
2.27
.05
Juiti
ffes
Aut
hori
ty8.
,Stt4
entR
espo
nse
14.111
8.35
.17
-31
5.01
.001
9.St
uden
t' In
itiat
edT
aIk
4.4.96
75.87
9.83
19.1
8.0
01
ti
Category 8, "student response", decreased significantly at the .001 level
while category 9, "student initiated tank ", increased from a mean of 18.70 percent
to a mean of 76.04 percent.
The mean percentage of indirect teacher behaviere was 34.47 percent before
instruction and 18.29 tercent after instruction. Direct teacher behaviors
decreased from 46.43 percent to 5.42 percent.
Table II reports means, standard deviation's and significance levels of
changer, for the categories of student verbal behaviors and of student and teacher
decisions. All categories of student verbal behaviors increased after instruction.
Category 2, "Student reirfc....cement/humor"; category 4, "student questions"; and
category 5, "student gives information increased at the .001 level of sivificance
Category 6, "student gives directions" increaced at the .01 level while category
7, "student criticizes/justifies authority" increased at the .05 level. Category
1, "student accepts/expresses feelings" and category "student uses ideas of
others" also increased from no occurrence before instruction to means of 4.89
percent and 2.00 percent respectively.
The mean percentage of student indirect verbal behaviors was 1.73 percent
before instruction and 27.78 percent after instruction. Direct student behaviors
decreased from 16.99 percent to 11.29 percent.
Mean percentage of time that decision° (Column II, Category 8) were
verbalized, did not change significantly.
Table III reports the mean percentages of time spent in the specific inquiry
behaviors identified in Column III categories. Total time using inquiry behaviors
excluding "factual data" increased from a mean of 20.68 percent to 40.35 percept.
The verbalization of "factual data", category li decreased significantly at the
.05 level from a mean Of 65.00 per4ont tol mean of 3208 percent. SignificAnb
chums occurred in the behaviore of "ans4sio, interpretation, and identifying
relattons4ps", category elat_ths_.10, love]. and in,"proceduree, category :6, pt,
Tab
le I
IC
OM
RIZ
OIV
OF
MO
IM
ICE
NT
AM
SO
F C
OM
O I
I C
AT
EG
OR
IES
OF
=PA
LA
ND
PO
ST 0
EM
- N
AT
ION
S
Cat
egor
y D
eser
ipzi
ons
PRE
POST
S.D
.7
S.D
..V
alue
1.St
azde
at' A
cces
tsft
rore
sses
.00
0
2.St
uder
lt R
eior
ce /H
umor
.07
3.st
uden
t,Uce
i Ide
as o
f O
ther
s.0
04.
"Stu
dezr
6,Q
zes
t o..a
1.66
5.st
ud'a
t..G
ives
laro
zrat
ion
26.9
6'
stri
tt fi
ves
Dir
ectio
ns.0
17.
.28.
Dee
l'Sla
ns-3
7
3.60
8.43
.03
.07
.69
Sign
ific
ance
leve
l4.
89
10.8
3
2.00
10.C
1.3
0
5.64
4....
.-1
.,.....,
5.72
8.15
.001
.001
52.60
7.142
9.27
.001
2.88
:2.
473.
47.0
1
1.17
1.40
2.56
.05
.44
.46
.28
N.S
.
Table 111
CO1r2.ARISON OF i7.".3 PER. CENTAMB OF C.OLUZGI III CAMGCEZIES OF VeMBA.I.=VIM, ME AND POST
OB
SER
VA
TIO
NS
Catego'Descriptions
PRE
S.S.D.
XHOST
S.D.
-
tValue
SiCuificance
level
1.
Fact!lal.Data
65.00
21.02
37.6
619
.89
2.65
.05
2.
Ans.1,:mis, Interpretation,
Ideutifying Melationsbips
8.70
4.99
24.28
5.66
2.02
.10
3-
3.
Hyp
othe
ses,
Pla
ns2.
013.
92.1
7.4
01.
38N
.S.
4.Pr
oces
s at
Inquiry
.61
1.28
.01
.03
1.39
N.S.
5.
Feelings/Attitudes/Values
.22
.63
.12
. 4:4
-^1
.43
Ls.
6.ProeedFes
5.81
4.24
13.18
7.92
2.21
.05
7.
,
Sensory Observations
1.60
2.89
.88
2.24
.54
N.S.
8.Identificationef Goal/
.20
-53
-39
.55
.66
N. S
.Pr
ob1e
z
9.A
sEss
ism
ent
1.53
3-23
1.32
1.75
.17
N.S.
10
the .05 level. While other verbalized inquiry behavior categorieo did rot
change significantly, it should be noted that the proportion of student tslh
significantly increased (ceo Table I) indicating that use of inquiry behaviors
by. students increased while teacher use of the behaviors decreaead.
1. Hypothesis one was accepted with indirect teacher behaviors decreasing
from a mean of 34.47 percent to a mean of 18.29 percent after instruction while
direct teacher behaviors decreased from a mean of 46.43 percent to a neon of
5.42 percent.
2. Hypothesis two was accepted with the total percentage of student talk
inereaeing from a mean of 18.70 percent before instruction to a mean of 76.04
percent after instruction.
3. Hypothesis three was accepted with five student talk categories being
used before instruction and seven student categories being used after instruction.
All categories of student talk increased after instruction.
4. Hypothesis o-four wee rejected clv::e the percentage of time for veelal-
izing deeisions did not change significant)y.
5. Vypahesto five won accepted vith student indirect beJaavtors increasing
from a :teen of 1.73 percent before instruction to a mean of 27.78 percent after
instruction.
6. hypothesis six was accepted with the mean percentage of all inquiry be-
haviors (excluding "factual data" increasing from 20.68 percent before inetiguet-
ion to 40.35 percent after instruction.