--\'I
u .

k" "t: ‘ 2-10!”

‘ ’s“

“I
K

‘* 4. r

 

 

ABSTRACT
DEVELOPMENT OF A CLASSIFICATION SCHEME OF PUPIL
QUESTIONS ASKED BY NURSING STUDENTS WITHIN

A SELF-INSTRUCTIONAL LEARNING
ENVIRONMENT

BY

Kathleen Joyce Mikan

Many institutions of higher education are
incorporating the use of structured, multi-media, self-
instructional learning systems into their curriculums as
one means of providing more individualized instruction.
Monitors have been assigned to be available when these
systems are in operation to provide whatever assistance is
needed; part of the monitor's responsibility is to handle
students' questions as they occur. The purposes of this
study were: (1) to develop a classification scheme of
questions college pupils asked within the context of a
structured, multi-media, self-instructional learning envi-
ronment as a basis for designing a training program for
monitors and (2) to determine what, if any, effects certain
situational factors have on the number and types of ques-
tions asked.

The study was undertaken in two phases. Phase I

was'the development of a classification scheme of pupil

Kathleen Joyce Mikan

questions and Phase II was an application of the
classification scheme to a data-gathering investigation.

A classification scheme of pupil questions was developed
from a review of the classification schemes proposed in the
literature, from questions collected during a preliminary
investigation, and from the questions asked during the data-
gathering investigation.

During the data-gathering investigation, six
hypotheses were tested. Data were collected during sixteen
30—minute observations of each of three different structured,
multi-media, self-instructional learning units in the content
area of nursing with each unit having different terminal
behaviors. Two monitors with different levels of profes-
sional expertise were observed during selected observation
times; the monitors were asked to circulate or to remain
stationary during randomly determined observation times.
Data were collected by use of a Variable-Interval Sequence-
Action Camera, a continuous two channel audio tape, and
student time cards. The number of questions asked by
college pupils was analyzed by a three-way analysis of
variance. The types of questions were categorized according
to the classification scheme developed in Phase I. Compari-
sons of the frequency counts and proportions of the differ-
ent types of questions asked were made according to the
three different learning units, expertise of the monitor,

and movement of the monitor.

Kathleen Joyce Mikan

A total of 194 questions was collected and
classified by three judges into eight categories. All
three judges agreed 100 percent on the classification of
117 questions for a percentage of agreement of 60 percent;
at least two of the three judges agreed on the classifica-
tion of 183 questions for a percentage of agreement of
94 percent.

Based on the data collected during the data-
gathering investigation and the analysis of those data,
the number and types of questions asked by college pupils
during the "normal" operation of three structured, multi-
media, self-instructional learning units varied according
to differences in the general type of terminal behaviors.
An instructional unit in the content area of nursing
designed to help students develop psychomotor skills
elicited significantly (at the .05 level) more student
questions than instructional units designed primarily to
develop cognitive skills. No differences were observed
in the number and types of questions asked according to
(1) whether the monitor circulated or remained stationary,
or (2) whether the monitor was a registered nurse or a

nursing student.

DEVELOPMENT OF A CLASSIFICATION SCHEME OF PUPIL
QUESTIONS ASKED BY NURSING STUDENTS WITHIN
A SELF-INSTRUCTIONAL LEARNING

ENVIRONMENT

BY

Kathleen Joyce Mikan

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

College of Education

1972

© Copyright by
KATHLEEN JOYCE MIKAN

1972

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Grateful appreciation is extended to the large
number of persons who assisted in the design, development,
implementation, and evaluation of this study.

Special appreciation goes to Dr. Elwood Miller for
his encouragement and assistance as chairman of the guidance
committee and to the other committee members: Dr. Dale Alam,
Dr. Norman Bell, Dr. Isabelle Payne, and Dr. Paul Witt who
helped sharpen the ideas and techniques of the study.

The author is deeply indebted to the School of
Nursing, to the nursing students, and especially to the two
monitors whose cooperation was invaluable. Without their
cooperation and assistance, the study could not have been
successfully conducted.

Special appreciation goes to the Instructional
Media Center staff at Michigan State University and to
Ken Kumasawa for providing technical assistance as needed.
Gratitude is also expressed to Dr. Ted Ward, Learning
Systems Institute, Michigan State University, for develOping
the VINSAC unit which contributed greatly to the collection
of data.

Finally, the personal appreciation of the author
is extended to her husband, Kurt, for his encouragement
and understanding during the completion of the study.
The author is also grateful to her husband and two year
old son, Eric, for allowing her to neglect many of her
responsibilities as a wife and mother during the course
of the study.

*****

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
LIST OF TABLES

Chapter

TABLE OF CONTENTS

8 O O O O O O O O O O O O O

I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . . . . .

Back
The

ground of Problem . . . . . .
Problem . . . . . . . . . . .

Importance of Pupil Questions . .
Situational Factors . . . . . . .

Purp
Hypo

oses O O O O O O O O O O O O
thetical Base for the Study .

Importance of the Study . . . . .
Plan of Study . . . . . . . . . .

Basi
Limi
Defi

c Assumptions . . . . . . . .
tations . . . . . . . . . . .
nitions I O O O O O O 0

Organization of the Study . . . .

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . .

Prevalence of Pupil Questions . .
Classification of Teacher Questions
Classification of Pupil Questions .
Summary of Related Literature . . .

III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES . . . . . .

Phas

Phas

e I: Development of a Classification
S Cheme I O O O I I O O O I O 0

Basic Classification Criteria
Initial Classification . . .
Final Classification . . . .
e II: The Data-Gathering

Investigation . . . . . . . . .

Statistical Hypotheses . . .
Procedures . . . . . . . . .
Conditions . . . . . . . . .

iv

Page
iii

vi

H

21

21
31
37
46

49

50
50
51
52

S4
54
57
66

Chapter

IV.

V.

Instrumentation . . . .
Collection of Data . .
Transformation of Data

Adjustments and Tabulation of
Reliability of Classification

Ana1YSiS O O O O O O O O 0
Summary . . . . . . . . . .

ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . .

Observation Times . . . . .
Number of Pupil Questions .
Types of Pupil Questions .
Discussion of Findings . .
Summary of Findings . . . .
Additional Observations . .

Page

. . . . . . 74
. . . . . . 77
Data . . . 79
Scheme . . 82

. . . . . . 88
. . . . . . 96
. . . . . . 103
. . . . . . 106
. . . . . . 109

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . .

Summary . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusions . . . . . . . .
Implications . . . . . . .
Recommendations . . . . . .

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . 113
. . . . . . 113
. . . . . . 117
. . . . . . 118
O O O O O O 121

O O O O O O 124

. . . . . 133

O O O O O O 138

O O O O O O 142

APPENDICES
A. BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS OF LEARNING UNITS
B. OVERVIEW OF MULTIMEDIA PROJECT . .
C. INFORMATION CONCERNING MULTIMEDIA LAB . . . . . 141
D. SCHEDULE FOR MULTIMEDIA LAB . . . .
E. PUPIL QUESTIONS . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . 144

4.3.

4.5.

4.6.

4.7.

4.8.

LIST OF TABLES

Page
Investigations of Teacher Questions which
Included a Classification Scheme . . . . . . . 33
Number and Type of Observation Times . . . . . 87
Number of Pupil Questions Asked and
Student Sets Present During Observation
Times of Learning Unit I . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Number of Pupil Questions Asked and
Student Sets Present During Observation
Times of Learning Unit II . . . . . . . . . . 91
Number of Pupil Questions Asked and
Student Sets Present During Observation
Times of Learning Unit III . . . . . . . . . . 92
Summary of Pupil Questions Asked and
Student Sets Present According to
Learning Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Transformed Mean Ratio Scores for Each
Type of Observation Time . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Analysis of Variance on Transformed Mean
Ratio Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of
Types of Pupil Questions Asked . . . . . . . . 98

Distribution of Types of Questions
According to Types of Observation
Times 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O 101

CHAPTER I

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Background of Problem

Individualized instruction has long been a cherished
but often unrealistic goal of college educators. Colleges
have traditionally been plagued with lectures in which
students are presented instructional material in mass and
at mass rates. Now, with the advent of media and self-
instructional programs, achievement of individualized

instruction in higher education appears more realistic.1

 

1There are various types and degrees of individual-
ized instruction depending on the extent to which decisions
about objectives and means or media to attain them are based
on the characteristics of individual learners. Individual-
ized instruction is a way of managing the learning environ-
ment; not a method of instruction. According to Mager:

Individualized instruction is not the same thing as
"teaching students individually." An instructional
system is individualized when the characteristics of
each student play a major part in the selection of
objectives, materials, procedures, and time. It is
individualized when decisions about objectives and
how to achieve them are based on the individual stu-
dent. One does not simply say that a system is or
is not individualized, however, for it is not a
black or white matter. Rather, one tries to identify
the nature and degree of individualization.

R. F. Mager, Forward in Working with Individualized
Instruction, The Duluth Experience, by Thorwald
Esbensen (Belmont, Ca1if.: Fearon Publishers,
1968), p. vii.

One way institutions of higher education are trying
to provide more individualized instruction is through the
use of multi-media,2 self-instructional learning systems.
Several universities and colleges have such learning systems

in operation.3 Although the programs in these various

 

2The concept multi-media as used in this study is
that defined by John Haney and Eldon Ullmer:

The term, multimedia, means a combination of various
types of media arranged so as to provide appropriate
presentational capability to realize the objectives
and content of a lesson through eliciting desired
pupil responses. The key factor in a properly
designed multimedia arrangement is not simply the
use of more than one kind of audiovisual device.

It is the interrelationship of the media used in
order to capitalize on the distinctive charac-
teristics and capabilities of each, making them
mutually supportive in the creation of a new
learning environment.

John Haney and Eldon Ullmer, Educational Media and
The Teacher (Dubuque, Iowa: W. C. Brown Co., 1970),
p. 100.

 

 

3Information pertaining to some of the specific
universities and colleges utilizing multi—media learning
systems can be found in the following references: S. N.
Postlethwait, J. Novak, and H. T. Murray, Jr., The Audio-
Tutorial Approach Eg_Learning, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis, Minn.:
Burgess Publishing Company, 1969); Benjamin F. Richason, Jr.,
"Teaching Geography by the Audiovisual Tutorial Method,"
Audiovisual Instruction, XV (February, 1970), 41-44; Lucius
Butler, "Self—Instruction Lab Reaches Communication Skills,"
Audiovisual Instruction, XV (February, 1970), 55-60; James
Brown and James Thornton, New Media in Higher Education
(Washington, D.C.: Association for Higher Education and
Division of Audiovisual Instructional Service, 1963),
pp. 119-168; James Cabeceiras, "Systematizing a Nursing
Degree Program = 'ILL'," Audigyisual Instruction, XVI
(October, 1971), 12-15; Carol Peterson, "Multi-Sensory
Tutorial Instruction in Associate Degree Nursing Education,"
Audiovisual Instruction, XVI (October, 1971), 16-18; Sarah
Short, "Innovations in Nutrition Education," Audiovisual-
Instruction, XVI (October, 1971), 19-21; and Ronald Sparks,
1rMEdical Media—-Validating for Accuracy," Audiovisual
Instruction, XVI (October, 1971), 22-26.

 

 

 

 

institutions differ in nature, sophistication, and
effectiveness, they do have some commonalities. In gen-
eral, each of these programs is developed on the basis of
identified objectives, is structured to ensure that the
objectives are met, employs a variety of types of media,
and is designed for independent, self-paced learning.
Beyond merely providing the individual student the Oppor-
tunity to progress at his own rate of learning, these
programs are limited without the aid of a computer in the
degree to which they can adapt to each individual's learning
needs. The diversity of college students' backgrounds
necessitates that some component be available that takes
into account individual differences in learning. In some
institutions, peOple, referred to by such titles as "moni-
tors," "laboratory assistants," "graduate students," or
"teaching assistants," have been assigned to monitor these
types of learning systems to provide whatever assistance is

needed.

The Problem

 

It is likely that when structured, multi-media,
self-instructional programs, which have been designed for

and validated” with college students, are used by a large

 

1’The term, validated, as used in this study refers
to the fact that the instructional programs have been pre-
viously tested with a small group of students to verify that
the students are able to demonstrate the terminal behaviors
as a result of completing the instructional program.

group of students, there will be occasions when gaps in
understanding will occur for individual students. These
gaps in understanding occur because the student

. . . wants to relate what he sees and what he

observes to what he knows. When his perceptions

of the world do not match his conceptualization,

he is conscious of a gap. This gap is essen-

tially an awareness of lack of sufficient

meaning.
These gaps in understanding may occur in relation to basic
or to subsidiary concepts or skills being learned, but they
may not necessarily prevent the learner from demonstrating
the learning objectives of the instructional program. How-
ever, these gaps should be filled immediately to prevent
further misunderstanding, misinterpretations, or conflicts.
One way a monitor can help adapt structured, multi-media,
self-instructional learning programs to individual students
is by handling the student's gaps in understanding as they
occur.

It is impossible to determine from merely looking

at a person whether or not he understands something. If a
student makes the monitor aware of his lack of understanding,
it would probably be in the form of a question. Because
each person questions from his own point of View, questions

asked the monitor are cues that the instructional program

needs to be adapted to the individual learner.

 

5J. R. Suchman, "In Pursuit of Meaning," The
Instructor, LXXV (September, 1965), 32.

 

uh.

unfit

Hit

As the monitor interacts with those students who
ask questions, the monitor needs to make decisions as to
how to respond to the pupils' questions. The monitor must
decide which questions to answer for the student, which ones
to let the pupil solve on his own, which ones to reflect
back to him, and which ones to refer to someone else. If
certain questions are asked frequently, it might indicate
that the program needs to be revised.

If one of the purposes of having a monitor in the
structured, multi-media, self-instructional learning envi-
ronment is to handle the students' questions, then the
monitor needs to be prepared. Before such a training
program for monitors can be established, there must first
be a description of the types of questions that are likely
to occur during the "normal" operation of such a learning
program. Thus, given a multi-media, self—instructional
learning situation, there is a need to identify the types
of questions asked by pupils as a basis for designing a

training program for monitors.
Importance of Pupil Questions

The question is probably the most frequent tool of
communication in the teaching-learning process. Whether the
communication is teacher to pupil, pupil to teacher, or
pupil to pupil, the question--usua11y oral, sometimes writ-

ten--is central to the process of obtaining knowledge.

The staggering total of human knowledge has
accumulated because someone--somewhere--asked

a question and someone else--somewhere else--
asked another question, and through the ages

many questions were asked and some were answered.
The quest for knowledge has resulted in enriching
and strengthening our civilization. The dynamic
nature of present day society demands that the
intellectual search be continued.6

Numerous articles and books have been written on the topic
of classroom questions. These have primarily stressed the
qualities of "good" questions and the importance of teacher
questions, their roles, and functions.7

Traditionally, the asking of questions has been
viewed as going from the teacher to the learner. This

traditional role, according to Bellack and others, is

 

6Ruth P. K1ebaner,"Questions That Teach," Grade
Teacher, LXXXI (March, 1964), 77.

7These aspects of teacher questions have been dis-
cussed by various authors. The following references serve
as examples: Philip Grossier, How to Use the Fine Art of
Questioning (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Teachers Practical
Press, 1964); Ernest Horn, Methods of Instruction in the
Social Studies (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1937);
Norris Sanders, Classroom uestions: What‘Kinds? (New York:
Harper & Row PubliShers, 66); Wilbert McKeachie, Teaching
Tips, A Guidebook fq£_the Beginning_gollege Teacher, 6th ed.
(Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath and Company, 1969); Stanley
Payne, The Art gprski g Questions (Princeton, N.J.: Prince-
ton University Press, 19517; Jack Fraenkel, "Ask The Right
Questions!" The Clearing House, XLI (March, 1966), 199-202;
Richard Carner, "LeveIs of Questioning," Education, LXXXIII
(May, 1963), 546-550; M. J. Aschner, "Asking Questions to
Trigger Thinking," NEA Journal, L (September, 1961), 44-46;
Howard T. Batchelder, Maurice McGlasson, and Raleigh
Schloring, Student Teaching in Segondary Schools (New York:
McGraw-Hill BooE Company, 1964); K1ebaner, op. cit., p. 10;
and Hilda Taba, Teachers' Handbook for Elementar Social
Studies (Palo Alto, California: Addison-Wesley PEBIishing
Company, 1967): pp. 119-126.

 

 

 

Ifi‘

,-

r-

y»

‘0

‘I

 

v'.

 

H.

 

 

J
’I
)

perpetuated by the ground rules that guide the actions and
moves made by the teacher and pupils in the classrooms.
Bellack conducted a study which was based on the idea that
teaching and learning are governed by certain rules that
guide actions and moves made by the participants in the
classroom. According to the rules of classroom gaming, it
is the teacher who questions and the pupil who answers--not
vice versa.8 Perhaps it is because of these tradition-bound
role expectations that the literature and research studies
on the pupil as a source of questions are so scarce.9
Research findings on the questioning activities
within the classroom "consistently show that students have
only a very limited opportunity to raise questions."10 This
finding is understandable when one examines the extent to
which teachers control classrooms through their verbal dis—
course.11 When the teacher begins to talk, the focus for
the students' attention is set; and the students' opportu-

nities to ask questions are limited. Although these limited

 

eArno Bellack et al., The Language of the Classroom
(New York: Teachers College, 19661, p. 53.

 

9Chapter II of this study presents the various
research studies that have been conducted on pupil questions.

. loMeredith D. Gall, "The Use of Questions in Teach-
ing," Review of Educational Research, XL (December, 1970),
715.

11In Chapter II of this study, research evidence that
teachers' verbal discourse dominates the classroom is
presented.

opportunities may outwardly seem undesirable, Austin implies
that it is necessary if any learning is to take place within
the traditional classroom.

Much as the teacher might like to encourage

questions the size of classes in most schools

makes her problem a very difficult one. How-

ever much she may wish to give children a chance

to pursue their own curiosities she must discour-

age questions which do not fit in with her

schemes. If she does not, either chaos is
produced or little is learnt.12

It is generally accepted that the traditional class-
room is under the control of the teacher, but structured,
multi-media, self-instructional learning programs are pri-
marily under student control. Because the student can
adjust the rate of presentation of information, the oppor-
tunities for pupils to ask questions in this type of learn-
ing environment are unbridled. How free the students feel
in asking questions in this type of learning environment,
which is removed from the traditionally teacher-dominated
classroom, is not known. The identification of the number
and types of questions asked by college pupils during the
Operation of structured, multi-media, self-instructional

learning units is the focus of this study.

 

lzFrances Austin, The Art of Questioningin the
Classroom (London: University of London Press, Ltd.,
1561), p. 34.

Situational Factors

It is possible that certain situational factors may
influence the number and types of questions that occur
during the operation of a structured, multi-media, self-
instructional learning program. Three situational factors
that may influence the occurrence of questions are: (l) the
nature of the learning units being studied by the students,
(2) the content expertise of the monitor, and (3) the acces-
sibility of the monitor to respond to questions.

Studies on the types of questions asked by pupils
in classrooms reveal that different subject-matter content
yields different numbers and types of pupil questions.13
Whether differences in the number and types of questions
asked in a structured, multi-media, self-instructional
learning environment can be attributed to differences in
types of learning programs is investigated in this study.

Also, it is conceivable that differences in types
of monitors with different levels of expertise will elicit
different numbers and types of questions. Students might
be more willing to express a lack of understanding to
another student rather than to a faculty member. Conse-
quently, the effects that two monitors with different levels
of professional expertise have on the number and types of

questions asked by pupils is investigated in this study.

 

13These studies are included in the "Review of Related
Literature" in Chapter II.

10

One of Postlethwait's expectations of the
instructors in his audio-tutorial learning center is "to
circulate within the learning center constantly giving help
when needed."1“ What effects the movement of the monitor
has on the number and types of questions asked by pupils
during the operation of structured, multi-media, self-
instructional learning programs is one of the situational

factors investigated in this study.

Purposes

The two purposes of this study are: (l) to develop
a classification scheme of college pupil questions asked
within the context of structured, multi-media, self-
instructional learning situations and (2) to determine
what, if any, effect certain situational factors have on
the number and types of questions asked during the operation
of this type of learning situation.

A classification scheme will be developed from and
applied to the questions college pupils ask of two monitors
during the operation of three multi-media, self-instructional
learning units in one content specialty area. A data-gather-
ing investigation will be conducted to determine what, if
any, effects certain situational factors have on the number
and types of questions asked. Thus, it is hoped that the

classification scheme developed and that the findings of the

 

1|’Postlethwait, Novak and Murray, op. cit., p. 80.

11

investigation will have general applications to other

similar kinds of self-instructional learning situations.

Hypothetical Base for the Study

 

This study was designed to develop a classification
scheme of pupil questions asked by college students during
the operation of structured, multi-media, self-instructional
learning situations and to conduct a data-gathering investi-
gation to test the following related hypotheses.

The number and types of questions asked by students
during the Operation of three structured, multi-media, self-
instructional learning units in one content specialty area
vary significantly according to:

1. Differences in the three learning units' terminal
behaviors;

2. Whether the monitor circulates or remains stationary
during the time she is the monitor;

3. Whether a faculty member or undergraduate student is

the monitor.15

Importance of the Study

Historically, the emphasis on questioning activities
in the classroom has been on the teacher's use of questions
as an instructional tool; and relatively little attention

has been given to the role of pupil questions in the

 

15These hypotheses are stated in testable form in
Chapter III.

12

instructional process. Today, with the advent of
multi-media, self-instructional learning systems and with
increased emphasis on learning rather than on the mechanics
of teaching, pupil questions assume increased importance.
The emerging increase in the systematic development and
utilization of more individualized instructional programs

in institutions of higher education demands that the overall
effectiveness and efficiency of these learning systems be
evaluated.

Although the effectiveness of multi-media, self-
instructional programs is determined by what the student
learns, ways that the learning environment can be made more
effective and efficient for the individual learner need to
be identified. One way of identifying the effectiveness
and efficiency of a self-instructional learning environment
is to examine the interaction between the monitor and the
individual learner under "normal" operating conditions.
Because pupil questions serve as a source of information
regarding the learning system's effectiveness and efficiency,
the number and types of questions asked are indices of ways
the system may need to become more effective and efficient
for the individual learner.

Thus, the goal of this study is to develop a clas-
sification scheme of questions asked by college pupils
during the operation of structured, multi-media, self-

instructional learning situations. Such a classification

13

scheme would identify similarities and differences in types
of pupil questions and could be used to prepare monitors for
the types of questions that they are likely to encounter in
such learning situations. Once the types of questions are
identified, guidelines could be developed on how to handle
each type of question so that the monitors could make the
instructional materials more meaningful for individual stu-
dents. Although it is unlikely that the handling of college
pupils' questions can be reduced to an easy formula, the
fact that this study focuses on the role of pupil questions
in the instructional process seems appropriate and worth—
while.

An additional investigative goal is to assess what,
if any, relationship exists between certain situational
factors and the number and types of questions asked. The
findings from this part of the study might be of interest
to administrators of institutions where structured, multi-
media, self-instructional programs are being used or are
being developed.

Since part of the monitor's role is dependent upon
the students' needs for assistance, an investigation of
student questions will help to acquire a greater understand-
ing of the monitor's role. Frequently with the advent of
new technology, a system is prematurely introduced before
an adequate and reliable evaluation has been done of the

System in operation. New instructional methods are often

14

rejected on false grounds before their potential has been
adequately tested. Such rejections are not necessarily the
fault of the instructional program itself but may be due to
failure to identify and prepare personnel to function prop-
erly within the system. Thus, if higher education is to
make the best possible use of structured, multi-media,
self-instructional learning programs, then the need to
identify the monitor's role in such a learning environment
is important.

Since the self-instructional materials utilized in
this study were developed under federal funds, the funded
agency, as part of the conditions for the project grant, is
obligated to make these instructional materials available to
others. If the types of questions the monitor is likely to
encounter are identified, then other institutions which
purchase these instructional units may benefit from the
information. This information may help administrators in
other institutions make appropriate decisions about staffing
and operating such a learning situation.

Thus, by developing and applying a classification
scheme of pupil questions in one content specialty area, it
is hoped that such a classification scheme and findings will
have general applications to other similar kinds of self-
instructional learning situations. The classification
scheme and findings may also serve as a relevant index for

future research.

15

Plan of Study

 

The study is to be undertaken in two phases.
Phase I will be the development of a classification scheme
of pupil questions while Phase II will be the application
of the classification scheme during a data-gathering
investigation.

The number and types of questions collected in
Phase II will be categorized according to the classification
scheme developed in Phase I. The data will be examined to
determine what, if any, effects certain situational factors
have on the number and types of questions asked by college
pupils during the operation of three structured, multi-media,

self-instructional learning units.
Basic Assumptions

Three basic assumptions underlie the study rationale.
These assumptions are:

1. That college pupils accurately express gaps in
understanding that occur‘during the operation of
structured, multi-media, self-instructional programs
to the monitor in the form of questions;

2. That questions asked during the data-collection
process are a representative sample of all questions

asked of the monitors;

l6

3. That college pupils who were using the structured,
multi-media, self-instructional units during the
data-collection process are a representative sample

of the total pupil population.

Limitations

 

The study is designed and undertaken within the
limitations stated below:

1. The study is limited to the number and types
of oral questions asked by college students during the
"normal" Operation of structured, multi-media, self-
instructional learning programs. NO attempt was made to
control the activities or number of students present during
any of the observation times nor to control the activities
of the monitors beyond requesting them to circulate or to
remain stationary during randomly selected observation times.

2. The study is limited to pupil questions asked of
two different monitors during the operation of three multi-
media, self-instructional units having different terminal
behaviors in one content specialty area.

3. The study is limited to two monitors and to the
amount of time each monitor was available for observation.

4. The study is limited by the accuracy of the

audio and visual recording devices used to collect data.

17

5. The study is limited to the number and types of
questions asked by students enrolled in the beginning
nursing course at Michigan State University in Fall term,
1970 and Winter term, 1971, who were present in the struc-
tured,multi-media, self-instructional learning environment
when the data were collected.

6. The study is limited to the definition of a
pupil question as an utterance by a pupil in which the
pupil's voice is raised or sustained at the end of the
utterance and to which the monitor makes a verbal response.
No attempt was made to collect statements in which questions
were implied or to analyze questions students asked of each
other.

7. The study is limited primarily to the cognitive
aspect of pupil questions with little reference to the
affective domain.

8. The study is neither an evaluation nor an
experimental investigation of monitoring effectiveness;
rather, it is an attempt to develop a classification scheme
Of pupil questions asked within the context of a structured,
multi-media, self-instructional learning environment under
"normal" operating conditions. NO attempt was made to
determine what generated the pupil question, the quality
of the questions asked, or the responses made by the monitor.

9. The study is limited to the degree that the

climate of the structured, multi-media, self-instructional

18

learning environment is conducive to pupils asking questions

without fear of ridicule or embarrassment from peers or

monitors.

10.

The study is limited to the extent that the

monitors' behaviors, verbal and nonverbal, do not adversely

affect the student's willingness to express a question or

to ask additional questions.

Definitions

 

For purposes of clarification, certain terms which

are used in the report of this investigation are defined.

Structured:

Multi-media:

Independent
study:

Independent
study unit
Or learning
unit:

the sequencing of information to assure that
terminal behaviors are achieved.

a combination of various types of media used
together in order to capitalize on the dis-
tinctive characteristics and capabilities of
each toward achievement of objectives and
presentation of content. Student responses
are elicited throughout the program to assure
attainment of the objectives.

a form of self-instruction in which a student
learns on an individual basis using structured
multi-media materials for an appreciable
length of time, without the intervention of a
teacher, toward goals he has in common with
other students in the group. This learning
takes place outside the regularly scheduled
classes but in facilities provided by the
educational institution. Study is independent
in that the student can progress at his own
rate of learning.

a structured multi-media, self-instructional
learning program presented in a study carrel.
The Objectives, content, and sequence of the
program are the same for all students. Stu-
dents are responsible for the information

19

presented in the units. The information is
not covered elsewhere in the course.

Learning an independent study unit designed to teach
Unit I: the identification of communication goals.
Learning an independent study unit designed to teach
Unit II: a criteria for judging successful and

unsucces S flll communi cation .

Learning an independent study unit designed to teach
Unit III: how to measure blood pressure accurately.16

Independent a room in which ten study carrels are
study labora- located for use by students.
tory (ISL)

Study carrel a study space designed to facilitate learning
or carrel: through the use of instructional media. Each
carrel is equipped with an audio tape playback
unit, an 8mm (Super) projector, remote control
cords, headsets, a projection surface, and
instructional materials related to a unit
of study.

Monitor: a person available in the independent study
laboratory to provide whatever assistance
students need. This person has no assigned
tutorial functions to perform while monitoring
the laboratory. She may or may not contact
students as they come and go.

Student or a person enrolled in the beginning nursing
pupil: course at Michigan State University during
' Fall term, 1970, and Winter term, 1971.

Student set: refers to either one or two students working
in a carrel.

Question: an utterance by a pupil in which the pupil's
voice is raised or sustained at the end of the
utterance and to which the monitor makes a
verbal response.

Observation a 30 minute block of time during which data
time: were collected

 

16The specific terminal behaviors for Learning
Units I, II, and III are given in Chapter III.

20

Circulate: planned movement of the monitor to within
three feet of every student working on
Learning Units I, II, or III at least
twice during an observation time.

Stationary: restriction of the monitor's movement to
sitting at the desk unless a student in-
dicates a need for assistance or unless
performing routine monitoring functions,
such as changing audio tapes and slide

drums.
Terminal the observable, measurable actions that
behaviors or each student is expected to be able to
objectives: demonstrate at the completion of each

unit of study.

Organization of the Study

In this chapter the topics of background of the
problem, the problem, importance of pupil questions,
situational factors, purposes, hypothetical base for the
study, importance of the study, plan of study, basic
assumptions, limitations, and definitions were discussed.
Chapter II includes a review of the literature related to
the development of a classification scheme of pupil ques-
tions. Chapter III contains a description of the methods
and procedures used to develop the final classification
scheme and to conduct a data-gathering investigation.
Chapter IV presents the analysis of the data collected;
and Chapter V contains the summary, conclusions, impli-

cations, and recommendations of the study.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The importance of questions in the teaching—learning
process has long been emphasized in the literature. In this
chapter, the literature relating to the development of a
classification scheme of pupil questions is presented. In
reviewing the literature, particular attention is given to
studies which include classification of questions. The
review includes studies of classifications of teacher ques-
tions as well as classifications of pupil questions. Clas-
sification schemes of teachers' questions are reviewed
briefly as a possible source of a classification of pupil
questions. The chapter is organized under the following
headings: Prevalence of Pupil Questions, Classifications of
Teacher Questions, Classifications of Pupil Questions, and

Summary of Related Literature.
Prevalence of Pupilguestions

Statements concerning the need to ask questions as
a means for obtaining knowledge and to continue to ask
questions throughout life have appeared in the literature.

Examples of such statements are:

21

22

There is nothing stronger than the curiosity of

children. They are eager to learn about every-

thing, and they routinely ask the embarrassingly
fundamental questions that adults are never able
to answer, questions such as: What is God like,
how far does space extend, what is time, why am

I here? If metaphysics has any native home, it

is in the questions of children. Their state

of innocence is not after all so innocent. They
do know what questions to ask!1

Children should be aware that the beginning of
insight into many things comes by asking ques-
tions, but that discriminating questions about
a subject result from knowledge of it. Children
need to realize also that it is easy to ask
thoughtless questions, but quite a trick to
frame inquiries which convey precise meaning
and elicit the kind of information desired.

As a corollary to building respect for good
questions, pupil interest and pride in framing
better ones should develop.2

The student's freedom to question perpetuates
and intensifies his desire to go on Zearning.3

Perhaps in this changing world of expanding
knowledge, it is more important to learn how
to formulate significant questions than it is
to memorize all the answers.

Children come to school seeking knowledge.

. . . When children begin to use questioning
as a way of finding out, as a way of embarking
on intellectual voyages of discovery, they

 

1James K. Feibleman, "The Uses of Thinking,"
Saturday Review, XLVI (March 2, 1963), 18.

2Helen M. Carpenter, "Study Skills: Asking Good
Questions," The Instructor, LXXIV (November, 1964), 28.

 

3Norman Hill, "The Key to Effective Teaching,"
The Clearing House, XL (November, 1965), 134.

I'Amelia Melnik, "Questions: An Instructional-
Diagnostic Tool," Journal Of Reading, XI (April, 1968),
581.

23

take an important step in the direction of
becoming self—motivated, self—directed
learners.5

The questioning mind at four should continue
to be one which questions--uninhibited,
unrestricted, and free through the elementary,
junior high and senior high schools. For that
matter, this attitude and quest for knowledge
should be a dominant characteristic of an
individual's thought processes throughout

his life.6

We often crowd the nursery or elementary
program with sessions devoted to rigid, formal
programs whether it be in reading, mathematics
or science. When children have little or no
time to ask those questions of most importance
to them, they may find it difficult to concep-
tualize and to build up generalizations to
carry from one situation to another in more and
more mature patterns of living. In too many
programs being promulgated today, it appears
that we are bent on developing a generation

of children crammed with facts yet devoid of
interest and zest in living and too listless

to ask the right questions. Once we have lost
the facility to ask the right questions we are
well on the way to asking the wrong questions
which cannot help but rather will lead each one
of us toward individual bankruptcy in his daily
living.7

The importance of questions as a basic tool for obtaining
knowledge and the need for schools to nurture the asking of
questions are advocated by many writers. However, direct

observations of the questioning activities in the classroom

 

sK1ebaner, op. cit., p. 76.
6Hill, loc. cit.
7Arthur Hamalainen, "Questions Guide the Elementary

School Principal," Childhood Education, XL (September,
1963), 17.

 

24

by such researchers as Stevens, Yamada, Corey, Fahey, and
Floyd reveal that in reality little Opportunity is provided
for students to ask questions.

The pioneer studies of classroom questioning activ-
ities done by Stevens in 1912 and Yamada in 1913, although
not specifically designed to identify the number or types
of pupil questions, did demonstrate that the rapid rate at
which teachers asked questions in the classroom left little
time for students to ask questions. Stevens estimated that
eight-tenths of the school time was occupied with questions
and answers and that teachers asked questions at the rate
of one question every 30 seconds.8 Her response to this
teacher behavior was:

The large number of questions suggests that

there is little thought given to the needs

of individuals. The teacher sets the pace

in his questioning: the pupils follow as a

body, or drop by the wayside. When pupils

become interested in their work and begin

to think for themselves, it is very natural

for them to ask questions, and they will do

it invariably if allowed to do so.
One year later (1913) Yamada observed a similar type of
questioning behavior on the part of teachers and also

expressed concern over the effect of such rapid questioning

on students' thinking.

 

aRomiett Stevens, "The Question as a Measure of
Efficiency in Instruction" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation,
Teacher's College, Columbia University, 1912), p. 23.

9Ibid., p. 25.

25

But in the schoolroom the number of [teacher]
questions, whether good or bad are apt to be
so large that there is no time left for
complete expression of thought. The pupils
are allowed merely to punctuate the questions
with mono-syllabic answers, or with a few
words.1°

and
Any demand for speedy reactions deprives a
child of time for suspension of judgment and
weighing the evidence pro and con; it prevents
him from appealing to concrete experience
latent in his mind, but encourages him to
accept any suggestion from within as well as
without and to react at random.11

Subsequent to Stevens' and Yamada's expressed
concerns over the effects of the rapid rate at which teach-
ers asked questions in the classroom, other researchers
conducted studies which specifically focused on the number
of questions pupils asked. Some of these investigators
were Corey, Fahey and Floyd.

Corey conducted several studies in the area of pupil
questions. During the academic year 1937-1938 Corey had
verbatim records made of all oral questions asked by teach-
ers and pupils in grades 7 through 12 in a laboratory high
school in the subjects of science, history, and English.

Analysis of the records revealed that of the approximately

39,000 inquiries made by pupils and teachers, fewer than

 

1°Soshichi Yamada, "A Study of Questioning," The
Egdagogical Seminary, XX (June, 1913), p. 173.

”Ibid., p. 177.

26

4,000 were asked by pupils. Corey found that a ratio of
more than eight teacher questions to every pupil question
was fairly constant from class to class.12
In another study, Corey planned to analyze the

number of questions asked by both teachers and pupils during
one week of the 1937-1938 academic year. After examining
the data, he concluded that he could not adequately study
pupil questions because teachers talked two-thirds of the
time. Six teachers asked a total of 1,260 questions while
169 pupils asked 114 questions during 30 hours of class time
over a period of 5 days. The ratio was approximately 11
teacher inquiries to l pupil inquiry. When Corey compared
the number of teacher questions asked to the number of
teacher questions answered by pupils, he found that:

Almost 500—-or, more exactly, 38 percent--of

the teachers' questions were not answered by

the pupils at all. Some of the teachers had

formed the habit of answering their own

questions before the pupils had a chance.13
Corey concluded that:

The frequency with which the teachers asked

questions . . . is probably proof sufficient

that no great number of "thoughtful" answers
are expected.'“

 

12Stephen M. Corey, "Teachers' Questioning Activity,"
Research on the Foundations of American Education (Washing-
ton, D.C.: American Educational Research Association,
1939), p. 44.

13Stephen Corey, "The Teachers Out-Talk the Pupils,"
School Review, XLVIII (December, 1940), 747.

1"Ibid., p. 750.

27

Using the same data that Corey had collected during
the academic year 1937-1938, Fahey found that 169 pupils
averaged only about one question per week, or an average
of 22.12 questions during the entire school year. The
standard deviation for the total group was 31.36.15
One pupil asked as many as 233 questions during
the year, another asked 162, but fifty asked
less than five, approximately one-half of the
group asked less than ten, seven pupils asked
no questions at all.16

Two of Fahey's conclusions were:
1. Pupils ask relatively few questions in high

school classrooms, averaging less than one
per week.

2. Very few pupils ask a relatively large num-

ber of questions as compared with their

classmates and these individuals appear to

deviate little from normal in interests,

intelligence, or measures of thinking.17

Although the studies done by Stevens, Yamada, Corey,
and Fahey were conducted over thirty years ago, more recent
studies by Floyd in 1960 and Bellack in 1964 reveal that

teachers' rapid rates of questioning persist in today's

educational system.

 

15George Fahey, "A Study of the Classroom Questions
of High School Pupils and the Relation Between Questioning
Activity and Various Other Factors of Educational Signif-
icance" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Wisconsin, 1939), p. 144.

16Ibid.

"Ibid., p. 149.

28

In 1960, Floyd studied the questioning activity in
40 classrooms of primary grade teachers identified by their
principals as being among the "best." Floyd visited 30
classrooms and tape recorded each classroom discussion for
one hour. He then visited 10 classrooms and recorded each
of their discussions for one entire day. Floyd found that
during the hour-long visits, 30 teachers asked a total of
6,259 questions while their pupils (N==802) asked a total
of 232 questions during the 30 hours of tape recorded class
time.18 On the average, the teacher asked approximately
27 questions for every question asked by a pupil. (This
ratio of teacher questions to pupil questions is three times
as high as that found by Corey in 1937-1938.) During the 10
all-day visits, 165 questions were asked by 269 pupils in
contrast to 3,481 questions asked by 10 teachers. During
a day, Floyd found that teachers asked an average of 348
questions compared to pupils who averaged 16-1/2 per day.19
Floyd observed that the ratio of 95 teacher questions to 5
pupil questions actually discouraged pupils from asking
questions. Teachers tended to use the question as a tool
for evaluating learning rather than for stimulating think-

ing. Because their questioning skills were not highly

 

18William D. Floyd, "An Analysis of the Oral Ques—
tioning Activity in Selected Colorado Primary Classrooms"
(unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Colorado State College,
1960), p. 72.

19Ibid., p. 76.

29

developed, Floyd observed that teachers misused, overused,
and abused the oral question technique and, in general,
lacked an understanding of the psychology of questioning.20
In 1964, Bellack and others reported a study in
which tape recordings were made of 4 class lessons for each
of 15 different classes on the tOpic of international trade.
The sample included 345 tenth- and twelfth-grade students.
The researchers viewed the verbal discourse of the classroom
as a language game which was governed by certain ground
rules. The classroom discourse was then categorized into
four pedagogical-functions--structuring, soliciting, re-
sponding, and reacting. The category of "soliciting"
included all questions asked in the classroom along with
commands, imperatives and requests. The researchers found
that teachers spoke three times more frequently than stu-
dents and that teachers initiated about 85 percent of all
teaching cycles (i.e., solicitation, response, and react-
ing).21 Pupils infrequently asked questions. The pupils
responded to the teacher's discourse approximately seven
times more frequently than the pupils solicited. It was
evident from the study that according to the rules of
classroom gaming, it is the teacher who questions and

the pupil who answers--not vice versa.22

 

20Ibid., p. 139.
21Bellack et al., Op. cit., p. 207.

albid.’ P. 53.

30

If questioning is to be a characteristic of a
person's thinking throughout his life, then college students
should also be encouraged to use questioning in their pur-
suit of learning. Studies of the questioning practices of
college teachers and students have been totally neglected,
and only a few references have been made in the literature
to the question-asking behaviors of college students.
Thompson has stated that college graduates do not know how
to ask questions.

. . . the bulk of college graduates do little
questioning. Even those who profess unusual
acquaintance with the methods of science—-where
questioning is of the essence—-are often afflicted
with deficits in their ability to ask pertinent
questions. TOO frequently their inquiry is
dulled from having learned the canned questions
posed for them by others or from having become
victims of a system of questions beyond which
they cannot proceed. Indeed, college graduates
generally have not learned how to learn insofar
as questioning is the essence of that process.23

The fact that traditional learning opportunities in
colleges have not been conducive to students asking ques-
tions is implied in a statement by McKeachie.

The lecture section is sometimes not regarded
as the place for questions and discussions from
the floor. Instructors often try to have the
questions handled by an assistant in a quiz or
discussion section. Potentially this solution
is a good one; actually, it Often leaves much
to be desired for two reasons:

 

23Ralph Thompson, "Learning to Question," Journal of
Higher Education, XL (June, 1969), 467.

 

31

a. Handling a discussion section is sometimes
more difficult than giving a lecture. A
more reasonable arrangement than the one
that is commonly used might be to have the
assistant give the lecture and the instruc-
tor handle the quiz section. The difficul-
ties in discussion sections are apt to be
that the assistant is not well enough
acquainted with the materials the lecturer
has covered and that it is difficult to
keep the discussion going. This can be
surmounted if the assistants attend the
lectures and participate in lecture plan-
ning and receive help and supervision in
planning the discussion period.

b. Whatever its potential usefulness, the
discussion section does not provide for
the prompt answering of questions which
arise in connection with specific lecture
materials.2“
Thus, it would appear that the traditional methods of
teaching have denied students the opportunities to ask

questions at all levels of education.

Classification of Teacher Questions

 

Historically, the literature has produced an abun-
dance of theory on the importance of questions in the
teaching-learning process. Classroom questioning has long
been considered a major teaching methodology. Horn stated
in 1937 that

There has probably never been a time during the
last seventy-five years when some form of the

question-and-answer recitation has not been the
most prevalent method of teaching.25

 

2"McKeachie, op. cit., p. 154.

aE‘Horn, op. cit., p. 336.

32

Despite the frequent recognition of the importance of
teacher questions in the teaching-learning process, rela-
tively few studies have focused specifically on the types
of questions teachers ask. These studies are listed
chronologically in Table 2.1.

Although the focus, population, subject matter area,
data gathering procedures, and classification schemes used
by investigators of teacher questioning practices are
diverse, all of the investigators have included categories
in their classification scheme which are based on the type
of thinking the teacher wants the student to use in answer-
ing the question. The two types of thinking that have been
common to all teacher question classification schemes are
factual-recall and thought-provoking.26 However, the task
of deciding from a research standpoint whether a teacher
question is "factual-recall" or "thought-provoking" is
difficult because "what constitutes a thought question for
one pupil may be merely a memory question for another stu-

dent,"27 or even for the same student the next day.

 

‘5In.genera1, factual-recall questions are those
which require the recall of information gained from direct
Observation, listening and reading; while thought-provoking
requires the respondent to do something with the information
recalled.

2'p'Walter Monroe and Ralph Carter, The Use of Differ-
ent T es of Thpught Questions in Secondgry Schools and
Their Relativqufficulty for Students, Bulletin No. 14
(Urbana, 111.: Bureau of Educational Research, University
Of Illinois, 1923), p. 6.

 

 

33

:mcowummso mo mmmhb ou Hoocom mo mama

.Ammaa .maochaaH mo suumuw>hca
O>Humamm means can mHoonom Numpcoomm CH

.mmsnmvs .am ..uao .mo .loeaac sauce

6

.Ammma .muwnomme now womaaoo acoomwa mmuomw .coHucuuomch .o.cm cmcuwansmcsv
can .mocwwummxm mownomme .OocomwuamusH umcomws mo newumamx one. .mw:>m= uuonuomo

.noucmmmm Macawuwocww mo smousm

n.HHH .mcmauav we

 

.oz cwuwaasm .mucmcsuw uOu avasowmuflo

chHummso unmsoze mo mmmwa ucwumumwo mo on: one .umuumo smumm can mouse: umuamzn
.uwo .mo .m:o>muwm

.oouuoamu uoc co>ummoo mumsummu no umnEsz

 

 

 

 

 

+
cmuwmucsao> newume
cmfiamcm mumnomwu unemcw psu.cmumzm:m
uonm mpuoomu wuoumflm monum nuaauh .pwxmm unawumwsw
unmsons Ofinmmumoswum moccaom w.uz mo aucwavmum ovma c>muou
acouusu
magnum; mcoflumosv No max»
mumsumuad mumsommu ou Hoozom yo mama
Dawsona mcuooou Ocaum cum .mocmwummxm mcwnomms
uowm Ownmmuoocwum muoumw: omnuz .Oocomwaamucw Honomma mmaa Ommcamm
mmmsmcmq cmfiwuom
moauwemnumz
wusuasoflumd
muomnnsm Hmfioumeaoo
wocofium
moauommumo usmsonu ma muoumwm muonomwu
mmauommuwo Hamomu m unamumowo mcmum canals mooHummsv
"mmauommumo om wuwmccowumoso nmwamcm moanuz unmsonu mo mmmxe mwma noousoz
mmmmmqu cumpoz
mocmwom
sauna cofiuosuumcw
>uoem: mcuoowu :mwamcm mumnommu mo SOGOAOHNMO
cowuquOmm< Oscmmuoocwum mowumemnumz mocha nuwalh mo ousmmme mo
newuuwaumu Opuasaflum :Owum>ummno wuoumwm +~nuz macaummsu uO yonasz ~Hmfl nmcm>oum
«Emnom coHunOHMHmmMao mwuspoooum nouns: uomflndm Goduaasmom msuom mama uoummaum0>sn
Honoooe Acmwucwum

 

 

mzmmom 20H840HMHmm<AU 4 QNQDQUZH mUHmz mZOHBmmDO mmauame m0 mZOHadeBmm>ZH

H.N Manda

134

m0 >uflmum>acs .coflumuummmflc .o.nm cmcmflansmcsv

zwocwwom mo mcficcmumumcca .mHHmsm 0cm .mu0w>mcwm umnomma can Hausa .mCOAumwso .mumnomoa woowflom Hmuwcmo: .GOEGHme m>cmHu

.Ahoma .M3OH
:

:mwfiosum Hoaoom ca mosgwcnuoa mcaxm<lcoHumwso .mumnommss .uwoflmucom coon

.Ammma .wuwmum>aca OHDEOHOU .GOAOOOHOmmwc .Q.cm pmnmwandmcsv
:mHoonom humuGMEmHm pmuowawm a“ mommwooum Hm:0wuusuumcH onu cw mcHGOwumODo mo apsum muoumuonxm cc: .umaoz :c0bm

.Avoma .oacwmufi> wo auflmum>wca .coflumuummmflc .n.cm cmcmaandmcsv

u

.Avwma .xuamum>acs wumum maelmummusm .COAOOuHOmmHO .o.pm cmzmwansmcsv
stwmmsomwa EOOHmwMHO GA mumnomoa we cmxm< mcowummso mo mam>HOG< mnu uOm condo: n no unoEOoHO>mo one: .mEmcc mmfionam

 

COHumEu0mca c0wumsam>m
chACMOO msflumasEuom

 

 

 

 

m:0quOOH mcfixmmm mumnomou :Oaummsw m.umnummu
cofiunsu0wca coaumHaEwmm< mmCMOHoowu momma sum O>ouQEw ou mcwcfimue
coHuMSHOHCA Hmsuomm meme mchsum Hmaoom «Hunz .mcoflummsu mo momma mama cumoamuum
pmwmammmaocs
cons
gown:
mums:
on: . meoHumOOU
3O: m3mfi>uwucH muwnommu wo seeumnaaau: can
>23 mccflpuoomu mucwwom aumucmEmHm .cofluocsu .musuosuum
uozs mama wocmaom Nanuz Amway» cofiumwso moma muomo:
mwsHm>
mcflxcaca Hmoguuuo
O>HumHOOmm< oucmflom Mo was
mewxwwumflu mumnommu Icsmumumcc: m.ucmozum
awsuomm mocmaom Hmuocwo can .muOs>mnmn
Hmosuoumsm oufim::0«ummso mpoum sum can 5 Hanna can uOBOOOB
anuusmz cofium>uwmoo mocwwom mmnuz .mcowumwsv mo mmame coma unmasfiwax
Hmofluoumnm
Hmuusmz
masswauoflo
o>wumHOOmm¢ mumnomwu uozomou mo HO>OH
O>wumcfiooflumm :o«um>u0moo mmwcsum HoaOOm ma auflaeow can .Hoocom
w>Humch>m mmcflcuoomu mmficsum Hafioom nmwamcm ha .Oomum .mmum uswusoo
whose: mama smwamcm NMnuz ou mcowummsw mo mwm>9 «wad omEmc<
oaonom coauooauammmHU mOHSOOOOum uouumz uommnsm coaumHsmom msoom mama Houomfluum>cu
umcomoa Hmoaocwum

 

 

omscwucoolla.~ Manda

35

In addition to the classification schemes of teacher
questions that have been developed as part of research
investigations, other types of teacher question classifi-
cation schemes have been reported in the literature. Five
such classification schemes are those proposed by Pate and
Bremer, Aschner, Carner, Fraenkel, and Sanders.

Pate and Bremer developed a classification system
of teacher questions consisting of nine categories.28 Their
question classification scheme was based on a continuum from
convergent to divergent questions in which convergent ques-
tions had only one possible answer while divergent questions
had more than one possible answer. Aschner identified four
basic types of questions: remembering, reasoning, evaluat-

9 and Carner identi-

ing or judging, and creative thinking;2
fied three levels of questions: concrete, abstract, and
creative.30 Fraenkel developed a taxonomy of teacher ques—
tions which was based on the teacher's purpose in asking

the question.31 The four teacher purposes were: knowledge

acquisition, knowledge synthesis, knowledge analysis, and

 

28Robert Pate and Neville Bremer, "Guiding Learning
Through Skillful Questioning," Elementary School Journal,
LXVIII (May, 1967), 417-422.

”Aschner, op. cit., p. 44.

3°Carner, op. cit., pp. 548-550.

”Fraenkel, op. cit., p. 200.

36

creative thought, and the types of questions teachers asked
were, respectively: factual, descriptive, explanatory and
heuristic.

Sanders used Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational

 

Opjectives to develop a taxonomy of classroom questions.32

 

Sanders' taxonomy Consisted of seven sequential categories,‘
each requiring the student to engage in a specific kind of
thinking. Briefly, his categories were:

1. Memory: The student recalls or recognizes
information.

2. Translation: The student changes informa-
tion into a different symbolic form or
language.

3. Interpretation: The student discovers
relationships among facts, generalizations,
definitions, values, and skills.

4. Application: The student solves a lifelike
problem that requires the identification of
the issue and the selection and use of
appropriate generalizations and skills.

5. Analysis: The student solves a problem in
the light of conscious knowledge of the
parts and forms of thinking.

6. Synthesis: The student solves a problem
that requires original, creative thinking.

7. Evaluation: The student makes a judgment
of good or bad, right or wrong, according
to standards he designates.33

Sanders' question classification scheme varies slightly from

Bloom's taxonomy in that Sanders uses the word "memory" in

 

32Sanders, o . cit., p. 2; and Benjamin S. Bloom, ed.,
Taxono Of Educational Ob'ectives Handbook 1: Cognitive
Domain (New York: Dav1d McKay Company, Inc., 1956)}

33Sanders, op. cit., p. 3.

 

 

37

place of Bloom's category "knowledge,' and Sanders describes
separately the category for "translation" and "interpreta-
tion" rather than leaving them combined with "extrapolation"
under Bloom's heading of "comprehension."

Recently, other researchers such as Davis and
Tinsley,and Hunkins have used Bloom's taxonomy as a basis
for studying and improving the questioning activities of

teachers in the classroom.y' However, a complete review of

these studies is beyond the purpose of this study.
Classification of Pupil Questions

Historically, the questioning activities of pupils
in the classroom have received less attention than those of
the teacher. One of the first studies done on the types of
questions pupils ask in the classroom was conducted by
Finley in 1920. Finley attempted to discover children's
interests in plants, animals, and physical phenomena by
bringing into the classroom of elementary school children
some unfamiliar Object such as a salamander and then asking
the children to write as many questions as they could about

what they had seen. Using this technique, Finley collected

 

3"O. L. Davis, Jr., and Drew Tinsley, "Cognitive
Objectives Revealed by Classroom Questions Asked by Social
Studies Student Teachers," Peabody Journal of Education, XLV
(July, 1967), 22; and Frances Hunkins,“The Influence of
Analysis and Evaluation Questions on Achievement in Sixth
Grade Social Studies," Educational Leadership Research
Supplement, XXV (January, 1968), 327.

 

38

8,299 questions from 1,716 pupils in grades one through
eight.35 The questions were classified into 19 different
categories according to the interest implied in the pupil's
questions relative to specific characteristics of the object
such as name, movements, habits, function of parts, and
evolution. The request for the name of the object was the
question most frequently asked.36

The first classification of children's questions
which utilized categories that were non-subject matter
oriented was one published by Piaget in 1926. Piaget
studied the language of two six-year-old boys during school
activities over a period of one month and developed a clas-
sification scheme based on observations of their questions.
Piaget found that questions comprised 13 to 17 percent of
the language of each of these two boys.37 He collected
397 questions and classified them into the following six
categories: (1) Questions of Causality, (2) Questions of
Reality, (3) Questions of Human Actions and Intentions,
(4) Questions of Rules, (5) Questions of Classification,

and (6) Questions of Calculations or Numbers.38 The

 

asCharles Finley, "Some Studies of Children's Inter-
ests in Science Materials," School Science and Mathematics,
XXI (January, 1921), 7.

35Ibid., p. 8.

37Jean Piaget, The Language and Thought of the Child
(New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company, 1926), p. 30.

38Ibid., p. 33.

39

majority of the questions (219 out of 397) were questions

of human actions and intentions. The importance of Piaget's
study was not the number of different types of questions
observed or the observation technique employed to collect
the data, but rather the fact that his classification of
questions was functional and was reported in such detail
that it was usable by other investigators such as Davis

and Fahey.

In 1932, Davis used Piaget's system of classifica-
tion to discriminate question types among boys, girls, and
adults. Davis collected 3,650 spontaneous questions asked
consecutively by 73 children ranging in age from 3 to 12
years old as recorded by their mothers.39 The sample of
adult questions was taken from written fictional characters
and legal testimony. When tabulating the data, Davis
excluded single-word questions because their obscurity in
meaning would make classification impossible. She added the
categories of social relation and theoretical questions to
Piaget's classification scheme because of the diversity and
complexity of the locations, sources, and situations (home,
school, play, books, newspapers) under which the questions
were collected. An_analysis was made of the different types
of questions asked by boys, girls, and adults; but no

combined distribution of questions according to Piaget's

 

39Edith Davis, "The Form and Function of Children's
Questions," Child Development, III (March, 1932), 60.

40

classification system was published. Although the validity
and reliability of Davis's data collection procedures
(i.e., mothers recording fifty consecutive inquiries for
each child) are questionable, Davis did determine that
Piaget's classification scheme produced a coefficiency of
reliability of .88.“°

Fahey also used Piaget's classification system to
analyze 2,047 questions asked by 160 pupils in 6 high
schools during one academic year and found that different
types of questions were asked in classes of different con-
tent. For example, in English classes there were many
questions about rules; in history classes there were many
questions about human actions and intentions while these
same types of questions were rare in science classes."1

McWilliams used a two category classification scheme
to analyze the pupil questions asked in her own eighth-grade
mathematics classes over a four-week period of time. The
classification system consisted of "simple" and "thought"
questions. "Simple" questions were defined as questions
calling for a "yes" or "no" answer or an elaboration of an
explanation already given while "thought" questions were
those questions which revealed the pupil was doing some

thinking on his own in terms of seeking more information

 

IoIbid.’ P. 65.

“Fahey (1939), op. cit., p. 147.

41

or raising an unexplored problem. A total of 189 simple
and 153 thought questions was collected."2

Lou Thompson in 1924 compiled 1,355 questions asked
by children in the classroom, on the playground, and in the
home as reported by teachers and parents. He categorized
these questions into subject-matter categories such as
geography, music, and vocation. The number of different
types of questions ranged from 242 in geography to 7 in
music."3

Dale collected over 2,700 questions asked by stu-
dents in 16 different high schools relating to health. The
questions were used as one source of curriculum material for
developing a course on health. Dale pointed out that
although pupil questions provide functional curriculum
material, the completeness of student interest as reflected
in the types of questions asked is difficult to determine
since students cannot ask questions (except of a vague sort)
in areas where they have had no experience.““

In 1929, Gatto collected 4,190 questions asked by

pupils of the third, fourth, and sixth grades in history,

 

l'2Lulu E. McWilliams, "A Study of Pupil Reactions,"
Mathematics Teacher, XXII (May, 1929), 285.

l“Lou H. Thompson, "Children's Questions," Educa-
tional Research Bulletin, III (November, 1924), 351.

 

“Edgar Dale, "Children's Questions as a Source of
Curriculum Material," Educational Research Bulletin, XVI
(March 17, 1937), 66.

42

geography, arithmetic, nature study, and literature (prose)
by using three data collecting methods: (1) Question lists
furnished by teachers collected during a total of 100
lessons in the various subject areas; (2) Questions obtained
through direct observation by author in 40 lessons; and (3)
Questions obtained from 20 pupils for each of five grades
after reading selected case studies. The number of ques-
tions collected by each of these three methods was, respec-
tively: 2,198, 767, and 1,225. Gatto classified these
questions into 22 categories and found that 87 percent of
all questions fell into the first five categories of the
classification system which were all memorization in nature."5
Snyder, in 1966, studied the relationships of
teachers' and students' questioning behaviors to identify
similarities and differences and to see if these behaviors
were subjected to change. He studied five classes of gifted
junior high school students and their teachers over one and
a half semesters and attempted to control the subject matter
content by having the five teachers use the same curriculum
materials. Data were collected during the teaching of three
specific content units at different times during the semes-
ters. The types of data collected were written questions by

students and tape recordings of classroom verbal discourse.

 

I“Frank Gatto, "Pupils' Questions: Their Nature and
Their Relationship to the Study Process" (unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1929), p. 54.

43

Snyder eliminated questions of procedural nature and
rhetorical questions from his data and classified questions
according to a three-dimensional classification scheme. The
dimensions of the scheme were content, product, and Opera-
tion; and each of these dimensions had related subcategories
for a total of twenty-four categories. He found that the
question-asking behavior of both students and teachers
changed from content unit to unitfisand that similarities
existed between question asking behaviors of students and
question asking behaviors of their teachers."7

In 1966, Shaffer analyzed types of verbal inter-
actions in seventy-eight different class sessions in the
subject areas of science, social studies, English, and
biology. She classified the questions asked by intellec—
tually gifted students of Junior and Senior high levels into
"non-content" related categories of Rhetorical and Routine
and into "content" related categories of Clarification,
Added Specifics, Extension, Explanation, Evaluation, and
Prediction. She found differences in students' questioning
behavior among and between classes of students relative to

the distribution of content and non-content related

 

I"William Snyder, "The Question-Asking Behavior of
Gifted Junior High School Science Students and Their
Teachers" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Illinois, 1966), p. 93.

”Ibid., p. 129.

44

questions and differences between classes of students and
the same teacher.“°

Dodl, in 1965, developed an instrument for assessing
the classroom context in which pupil questions occur and the
teacher's role as it effects pupil-questioning behavior.
Observation data were collected by trained observers from
a limited sample of elementary social studies classrooms,
and hypotheses were generated. Dodl attempted to identify
what the teaching behaviors were prior to a pupil's question
and immediately after the question. He identified five pre-
question behaviors and seven post-questioning behaviors of
teachers"9 and classified pupil questions into the following
types: Information Seeking, Clarification, Routine, Hypo-
thetical, and Role Reversal. The majority of the students'
questions were Information-Seeking and Clarification. Stu-
dents most frequently asked questions during content type
discussions rather than during procedural or evaluative type
discussions. The most typical post-questioning behavior
pattern Of teachers was responding to pupil questions with
some type of information. Rarely were pupils' questions

reinforced by the teacher, redirected back to students, or

 

“Virginia Shaffer, "The Categorization of Student
Inquiries and The Responses Made Within the Context of
Classroom Interaction" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation,
University of Illinois, 1966), p. 82.

l”Norman Dodl, "Pupil Questioning Behavior in Context
Of Classroom Interaction" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation,
Stanford University, 1965), p. 25.

45

used as a springboard for class discussions. Dodl
recommended that teachers' attitudes and insecurities
about pupil questions needed to be explored.50

In 1968, Scovel developed an instructional program
to improve the student's ability to ask questions. Using
a pre- and post-test, control, and experimental research
paradigm, he asked students to write questions based on
selected items of historical information. He collected
44,512 pupil questions in the pre- and post-test situations
and had judges classify them according to a classification
scheme based on Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives

Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain.51 The specific categoriza-

 

tions used were Memory, Translation, Comprehension, Appli-
cation, and Evaluation. In comparing the types of questions
students asked before the instructional program to those
questions asked after the instructional program, Scovel
Observed that although the majority of the questions con-
tinued to be the memory type, there was a change in the
proportion of memory questions. The experimental group

had proportionally fewer memory type questions on the post-
test than they had on the pre-test while there was no change
in the proportion of types of questions asked by the control

group. Scovel concluded that it is possible to change

 

soIbid., p. 110.

51Bloom et al., op. cit.

46

student questioning behavior through use of an instructional

program. 52
Summary of Related Literature

Historically, investigations in the use of questions
in the classroom have focused primarily on teacher questions
rather than on pupil questions. Early studies in the area
of teacher questions revealed that the rapid rate at which
teachers asked questions precluded much opportunity for
students to ask questions. More recent studies indicate,
unfortunately, that teacher talk continues to dominate
today's classrooms.

Although teacher-questioning behavior is frequently
included in studies of classroom teaching, relatively few
studies have focused specifically on the types of questions
teachers ask. The classification schemes of teacher ques—
tions proposed in the literature and research studies have
been diverse and have primarily emphasized the types of
thinking the teacher expects the learner to use to answer
the question. The major difficulty in classifying teachers'
questions has been in determining the type of thinking a

teacher's question actually stimulates in a student. A

 

s“Donald Scovel, "A Study Analyzing High School
Student Questioning Behavior in American History Classes"
(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Iowa, 1968),
p. 114.

47

thought-provoking question for one pupil may be a memory
question for another pupil.

The importance of pupil questions has been recog-
nized since the first study of classroom questioning activ-
ities conducted by Stevens in 1912. Despite the early
recognition of the importance of pupil questions in the
teaching learning process, research in the area Of pupil
questioning has been relatively neglected.

Most studies of pupil questioning activities have
included a classification scheme. These pupil classifica-
tion systems vary in number and types of categories that
are included and range from a simple 2-category system to
a complex 24-category system. Despite variation in number
of question categories, most pupil classification systems
included a category of information seeking and clarification.
A few systems included a category for procedural questions.
The majority of the type of questions pupils ask are infor-
mation seeking; questions Of a procedural nature are rare.

Although several pupil classification systems have
been develOped, they are limited in application to the
purposes of this study. All of the studies of pupil-
questioning activity previously conducted have been done
in elementary and secondary education classrooms; none have
been done at the college level. Also, most of the existing

pupil classification schemes, while adequate for the

48

research purposes for which they were designed, include
only a few of the types of questions that are likely to be
asked in a learning environment where machines are pro-
grammed to carry the major share of the teaching load. A
new classification scheme of pupil questions is needed that
takes into account the complexity and diversity of college
student activities in a structured, multi-media, self-

instructional learning environment.

CHAPTER III

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the
methods and procedures used to develop a classification
scheme of pupil questions and to conduct a data-gathering
investigation. The chapter presents the two major phases
in which the study was undertaken--Phase I: Development
of a Classification Scheme of Pupil Questions, and Phase II:
The Data-Gathering Investigation.

This chapter is organized under three sections--
Phase I: Development of Classification Scheme of Pupil
Questions; Phase II: The Data-Gathering Investigation; and
Analysis. The section on Phase I is presented under three
topics of Basic Classification Criteria, Initial Classifi-
cation, and Final Classification. Phase II is presented
under the topics of Statistical Hypotheses, Procedures,
Conditions, Instrumentation, Collection of Data, Transfor-
mation of Data, and Adjustment and Tabulation of Data. The
section on Analysis describes the methods used to evaluate
the classification scheme developed in Phase I and the data
gathered in Phase II. The chapter is concluded with a sum-
mary of the chapter and a statement about the organization

of Chapters IV and V.

49

50

Phase I:
Development of a Classification Scheme
Given a set of pupil questions, a variety of

question classification schemes is possible depending upon
the purpose the scheme is designed to serve. Inasmuch as
the ultimate purpose of developing a classification of pupil
questions in this study was to identify the types of ques-
tions a monitor needs to be prepared to handle during the
operation of structured, multi-media, self-instructional
learning programs, a classification scheme which had this
as its focus was developed. Classifying information accord-
ing to some identified purpose complies with Wallen and
Travers'statement that:

Classification systems survive or are abandoned

according to their usefulness. A classification

is retained if it shows promise of having util-

ity. It is discarded if it lacks that promise.1
Basic Classification Criteria

Before a classification scheme of pupil questions

was developed, criteria were established by which the final
classification scheme would be evaluated. These criteria
were:

1. The categories should include all possible events.

2. A single event must be recorded in one and only
one category.

 

1Norman E. Wallen and Robert Travers, "Analysis and
Investigation of Teaching Methods," Handbook of Research on
Teaching,_ed. by N. L. Gage (Chicago: Rand McNally and
Company, 1963), p. 448.

51

3. The categories should be objectively defined
and free from bias.

4. The categories should be sufficient in number to
discriminate between categories but simple enough
to provide statistically reliable data.

These criteria served as the basis for evaluation of the

classification schemes cited in the literature and for the

design of the classification scheme used in this study.

Initial Classification

In order to determine if any classification scheme
discussed in the literature could be applied to the types
of pupil questions asked within the context of a structured,
multi-media, self-instructional learning environment, it was
necessary to collect some questions asked by pupils in this
type of learning environment and to compare these questions
to the classification schemes cited in the literature. A
preliminary investigation was conducted in which all ques-
tions asked by pupils were collected and classified accord-
ing to the general type of information being solicited.2
Comparisons were then made between the types of questions
asked by pupils during the preliminary investigation and
the types of questions included in various classification
schemes proposed in the literature. The results of the
comparison revealed that all of the proposed classification

schemes, while adequate for the research purposes for which

 

2The details of the preliminary investigation are
presented later in this chapter.

52

they were designed, were inadequate for the purposes of
this study in that they did not meet the Basic Classifi-
cation Criteria presented earlier in this chapter. For
example, some of the pupil question classification schemes
proposed in the literature were so limited that they did
not include all of the types of questions pupils had asked
during the preliminary investigation. Other systems con-
tained so many categories that they were unwieldy. All

of the teacher classification schemes were disqualified
because the definitions of their categories tended to
emphasize levels of thinking the responder was to use to
answer the question rather than emphasizing the gaps in
understanding that were in the mind of the person asking
the question. Because of the inadequacies of existing
classification schemes, an initial classification scheme
was developed on the basis of concepts obtained from the
classification schemes proposed in the literature and from
pupil questions obtained during the preliminary investiga-
tion. This initial classification scheme was later refined
after the data gathering investigation to form the final

classification scheme.

Final Classification
The final classification scheme developed and used

in this study was:

Factual Questions:

Validation Questions:

Relevancy Questions:

Operational Procedure
Questions:

Equipment Operation
Questions:

Requests for
Assistance:

Personal Questions:

53

Questions asking for new or
additional facts or information
relative to the information
presented in the instructional
unit itself or to achievement
of the terminal behaviors.

Questions which elicit judgments
and opinions from authority
figures relative to verification
of correctness of a concept,
decision, observation, or skill.
This type includes questions of
clarification, reinforcement, and
confirmation.

Questions asking for identifica-
tion of relationship between
concepts, attitudes, and skills
being learned in the ISL to the
real world; implicitly these
questions ask: Why is this
important? Why am I doing this?
Is the real world like this?

Questions relating to the logis—
tics, environment, and function-
ing of the ISL. This type
includes questions about what the
learner is expected to do before,
during, or after each learning
unit; questions about what the
monitor is expected to do; ques-
tions about location of things;
questions about completing the
learning unit, tests of unit's
effectiveness, and time cards.

Questions relating to proper
functioning and utilization of
all non-nursing equipment in the
ISL.

Simple requests for general
assistance.

Questions about own social,
mental, and physical well-being
or professional goals and
achievements.

54

8. Social Questions: Questions about another person's
social, mental, and physical
well-being or professional goals
and achievements.

Phase II:
The Data-GatHEEifig—Investigation

A data-gathering investigation was conducted to
assess what, if any, effects certain situational factors
had on the number and types of questions asked by college
students during the operation of three structured, multi-
media, self-instructional learning programs having different
terminal behaviors. Three situational factors were investi—
gated. They were: (1) differences in the general type of
terminal behaviors for each of three learning units, (2)
whether the monitor circulated or remained stationary during
the time she was the monitor, and (3) whether the monitor
was a registered nurse or a nursing student. To determine
what, if any, effects each of these situational factors had
on either the number or the types of pupil questions asked,

six statistical hypotheses were generated and tested.

Statistical Hypotheses

The hypothetical bases for the data-gathering
investigation phase of this study were broadly stated in
Chapter I. A more specific formulation of these hypotheses
as they relate to the design of the investigation are re—

stated here in testable forms:

55

Null Hypothesis]
There will be no difference in the number of
questions asked by college pupils during the
operation of three structured, multi-media,
self-instructional learning units in the content
area of nursing attributable to the differences
in the general type of terminal behaviors
identified for each of the three learning units.

Alternate Hypothesis]
There will be a difference in the number of
questions asked by college pupils during the
operation of three structured, multi-media,
self-instructional learning units in the content
area of nursing attributable to the differences
in the general types of terminal behaviors
identified for each of the three learning units.

Null Hypothesisz
There will be no difference in the number of
questions asked by college pupils during the
operation of three structured, multi-media,
self-instructional learning units in the content
area of nursing attributable to whether the
monitor circulates or remains stationary during
the time she is a monitor.

Alternate Hypothesi32
There will be a difference in the number of
questions asked by college pupils during the
operation of three structured, multi-media,
self-instructional learning units in the content
area of nursing attributable to whether the
monitor circulates or remains stationary during
the time she is a monitor.

Null Hypothesiss
There will be no difference in the number of
questions asked by college pupils during the
operation of three structured, multi-media,
self-instructional learning units in the content
area of nursing attributable to whether the
monitor is a registered nurse or a nursing
student.

56

Alternate Hypothesis3
There will be a difference in the number of
questions asked by college pupils during the
operation of three structured, multi-media,
self-instructional learning units in the content
area of nursing attributable to whether the
monitor is a registered nurse or a nursing
student.

Null Hypothesis4
There will be no difference in the types of
questions asked by college pupils during the
operation of three structured, multi-media,
self-instructional learning units in the content
area of nursing attributable to the differences
in the general types of terminal behaviors
identified for each of the three learning units.

Alternate Hypothesis4
There will be a difference in the types of
questions asked by college pupils during the
operation of three structured, multi-media,
self-instructional learning units in the content
area of nursing attributable to the differences
in the general types of terminal behaviors
identified for each of the three learning units.

Null Hypothesiss
There will be no difference in the types of
questions asked by college pupils during the
operation of three structured, multi-media,
self-instructional learning units in the content
area of nursing attributable to whether the
monitor circulates or remains stationary during
the time she is a monitor.

Alternate Hypothesiss
There will be a difference in the types of
questions asked by college pupils during the
operation of three structured, multi-media,
self-instructional learning units in the content
area of nursing attributable to whether the
monitor circulates or remains stationary during
the time she is a monitor.

Null Hypothesis

57

6

There will be no difference in the types of
questions asked by college pupils during the
operation of three structured, multi-media,
self-instructional learning units in the content
area of nursing attributable to whether the
monitor is a registered nurse or a nursing
student.

Alternate Hypothesis6

There will be a difference in the types of
questions asked by college pupils during the
operation of three structured, multi-media,
self-instructional learning units in the content
area of nursing attributable to whether the
monitor is a registered nurse or a nursing
student.

Procedures

 

The following data-gathering procedures were tested

during a preliminary investigation and utilized during the

data-gathering investigation.

Selection of self-instructional units. The specific

instructional units included in this study were selected on

the basis of the following criteria:

1.

Units had to be in a content area in which the
investigator was qualified to classify pupil
questions.

Units had to be designed specifically for use in
a structured, multi-media, self-instructional
learning environment.

Units had to be developed on the basis of pre-
determined terminal behaviors (objectives) that
were measurable.

The Objectives of the units had to represent
different types Of behaviors which the learner
was expected to demonstrate at the completion
of the unit of study.

58

5. Units had to utilize a variety of media.
6. Units had to be specifically designed and
developed for a specific level of college
student.
7. Units had to have been tested previously with
a limited number of students, revised on the
basis of the feedback received from the students,
and had to be ready for large-scale use with
students.
Based on these criteria, the decision was made
to collect data during the operation of only three self-
instructional units in the School of Nursing at Michigan
State University. It was assumed that three different
instructional units would provide an adequate range of
different types of pupil questions. Of all the self-
instructional units available for possible inclusion in
the study, the following three units with their respective
terminal behaviors appeared to best meet the selection
criteria:
Learning Unit I: Communication--goals
Given a paper-pencil test, the student can describe
four nurse-patient situations in which the nurse's
desire for information and/or observations of the
patient lead her to formulate different general
communication goals.
Given an audio situation, the student can identify
those parts of the patient's conversation that might

direct the nurse's attention to the probable
communication goa1(s).

59

Learning Unit II: Communication--successful and
unsuccessful

Given the audio portions of two nurse-patient
interactions, the student can identify successful
and unsuccessful communication and can explain
answers in terms of the general and specific
criteria for successful communication.

Learning Unit III: Blood Pressure--measurement

 

Given a paper and pencil test, the student can
explain why no sounds are heard above the systolic
pressure nor below the diastolic pressure.
Given a paper and pencil test, the student can
state the normal ranges for systolic and diastolic
blood pressure.
Given two slides of nurses taking blood pressure
incorrectly, the student can identify four out of
five errors in measuring blood pressure demonstrated
in the two slides.
On a real person, the student can take and record
accurately and safely the person's blood pressure
according to the method presented in the unit.
Although it is not possible to isolate one type of
cognitive thinking from other types of cognitive thinking
or to isolate cognitive thinking from psychomotor skills,
it was felt that these three units did in general represent
different types of expected learner behaviors. Basically
Learning Unit I was designed to develop the skill of recog-
nition; Learning Unit II, the skill of evaluation; and
Learning Unit III, a psychomotor skill. A brief description
of these Learning Units can be found in Appendix A. An

overview of the multi-media project including a schematic

Of the methodology followed in designing, producing, and

60

testing these Learning Units prior to utilization in this
study can be found in Appendix B.

Selection of monitors. To determine if any dif—

 

ferences exist in the types and number of questions asked
of monitors with different levels of expertise in the
content area, two different monitors were selected for the
study. One monitor was a faculty member who was a regis-
tered nurse (RN) while the other was a student nurse (SN).3

The RN monitor was a part-time faculty member whose
primary responsibility was monitoring the Independent Study
Laboratory (ISL). She had no other teaching responsibil-
ities and, therefore, had no other contact with the students
enrolled in the beginning nursing sequence. The RN monitor
familiarized herself with the units used in this study prior
to their use by students.

The SN monitor held the status of a Junior within
the University and was a second year nursing student.“ She
volunteered to participate as a monitor in this study, and
she was financially compensated for her participation. She
was familiar with the units as a result of having completed

the units the previous year as a beginning nursing student.

 

3The School of Nursing at Michigan State University
does not have a graduate program in nursing. Consequently,
it was decided to select an undergraduate student as a
monitor.

l'A Junior level nursing student was selected because
the class commitments at the Senior level prevented any
senior nursing students from being available to monitor the
ISL during both terms in which the data were to be collected.

61

Pupil population. The pupils in this study were

 

students enrolled in the beginning sequence of nursing
courses at Michigan State University during the academic
year 1970-1971. The beginning nursing sequence at Michigan
State University consists of three separate consecutive
courses which are offered only once a year. Each course'in
the sequence is a prerequisite for all subsequent courses,
and the entire beginning nursing sequence is a prerequisite
for all upper division nursing courses. Students are only
admitted to the beginning sequence in nursing during the
Fall term of an academic year. Thus, the student population
during the third academic term (Spring) was the same as that
of the first academic term (Fall), except for attrition
losses. The number of students enrolled in the sequence
Fall and Spring terms was 87 and 78, respectively.

Because students were allowed to come to the Inde-
pendent Study Laboratory at their convenience, the students
included were those who happened to be in the ISL when data
were collected. They were all verbally informed by the
course coordinator during the first class hour of the course,
Fall term, 1970, about the availability of the ISL for learn-
ing experiences, and were given written information about
the nature of the ISL (Appendix C) and the various units
available for student use (Appendix D). The students were
also verbally informed by the course coordinator that a
graduate student would be collecting research data during

selected instructional units.

62

Selection of observation times. This study was

 

designed to collect data relative to the number and types of
questions asked by pupils during the operation of three dif-
ferent types of multi-media, self-instructional units with
each unit having different types of terminal behaviors.
Consequently, the selection of observation times was depen-
dent upon when the specific learning units selected for
inclusion in the study were scheduled for actual use within
beginning nursing courses.5 Learning Units I and II were
optional learning units and were available for student use
one week each during Fall term, 1970; while Unit III was a
required learning unit and was available for two weeks dur-
ing Spring term, 1971. Even though the data were collected
over a time lapse of five months, the student population,
except for attrition losses, was the i222 throughout the
data collection period due to the nature of the nursing
curriculum. The pgpg monitors were used both terms.

The observation times were thirty minutes in dura-
tion. The specific observation times in which data were
collected were based on: (1) the hours the ISL was Open
for students to complete the three self-instructional units
being investigated and (2) the times the two monitors

selected for this study were available to monitor the

 

5The complete schedule of learning units for the
beginning nursing courses (NE 205, NE 206,and NE 207) can
be found in Appendix D.

63

laboratory. It was assumed that there would be an even
distribution of numbers of students working on each learning
unit during the hours that the laboratory was available.

During Fall term, the ISL was scheduled to be open
for 27-1/2 hours a week; while during Spring term, it was
open approximately 18 hours a week.6 Although the specific
hours the ISL was Opened for student use varied slightly
between the Fall and Spring terms, it was basically open
from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. five days a week, less the times
when the majority of the students enrolled in the beginning
nursing course had other class commitments.7

Because of class commitments, the amount of time
the SN monitor was available to be a monitor was limited.
Thus, it was decided to observe her during all the time she
was in the ISL, but to randomly select observation times
when the RN monitor was assigned to cover the ISL. The
random selection of the RN monitor's time was done by

listing in 30-minute time blocks all of the time the RN

 

6The exact hours per week varied slightly during
Spring term due to closing of the laboratory the Friday
afternoon before Easter.

7The nursing curriculum is so designed that the
majority of the students who are enrolled in the beginning
nursing course are concurrently enrolled in the same non-
nursing courses Offered by other departments in the Uni-
versity such as Anatomy, Physiology, Microbiology, and
Nutrition. Thus, the ISL was not scheduled to be open
during any of the class hours when the majority of the
nursing students were scheduled to attend either nursing
or non-nursing courses. '

64

monitor was assigned to be the monitor. These 30-minute

time blocks were numbered consecutively. Using a random

table of numbers, ten Observation times of the RN monitor
were selected for each learning unit (N==10). All of the
SN monitor's time in the ISL was recorded for a total of

six observations per learning unit (N==6).

The monitors were asked to "circulate" about the
room or to remain "stationary" at the monitor's desk during
each of the observation times. The times in which the
monitors were to circulate or to remain stationary were
randomly assigned according to the following procedure:

1. All observation times for each monitor were listed
chronologically.

2. Using a random table of numbers, the even-numbered
observation times were assigned to be "stationary"
observation times while the odd-numbered times were
"circulating" observation times.

3. This procedure was continued until half of the
sample hours of each monitor was assigned as
either stationary or circulating.

4. Then the remaining time blocks were assigned the
other half so that equal Observation times of
stationary and circulating resulted for each
monitor.

Prior training of monitors. Both monitors had been

 

given verbal orientation to their responsibilities by the
full-time faculty member who was the ISL coordinator. In
general, this verbal orientation included the administrative,
security, and operational aspects of the monitor's job; but

it did not include any training on how to handle pupil

65

questions. Written operational procedures were available
to the monitors for each unit. These written materials
identified the specific types of audiovisual equipment and
materials that were needed for the unit and identified any
special instructions the monitor might need for the partic-
ular unit. For example, the operational procedures for the
Learning Unit III (blood pressure) included the fact that a
stethoscope with two sets of ear pieces was needed for the
monitor to simultaneously check the accuracy of the pupil's
blood pressures.

The only instructions given the monitors by the
investigator were explanations as to what the monitor was
to do when she circulated around the room or remained
stationary. During the observation times that were desig-

" the monitors were asked to remain at the

nated "stationary,
monitor's desk unless performing routine monitoring func-
tions such as changing tapes and slide drums, or unless a
student asked for assistance. During the observation times
designated "circulating," the monitor was asked to purpose-
fully walk within three feet of every student working on
Learning Units I, II, and III at least twice during an
observation period. Each monitor was informed by the
investigator at the beginning of each Observation time

whether she was to circulate or remain stationary during

that particular observation time.

66

Conditions

Physical learning environment. The self-
instructional units in the School of Nursing were located
in a room called the Independent Study Laboratory (ISL).
This windowless room was approximately 26 feet long by
16 feet wide. Ten study carrels, five feet by three feet,
were located around the perimeter of the room and numbered
consecutively as indicated in Figure 1. Each carrel had a
rear projection surface and was designed to facilitate the
use of a slide projector, super 8mm silent movie projector,
a tape playback unit, and headsets. Each carrel was
electronically wired to accommodate two students listening
simultaneously to the same audio tape. In the center of
the room.was a master or center table containing equipment
and instructional materials to be used by all students at
intervals throughout the units of study. This table con-
tained such things as reference books, sound movie projec-
tors, projection screens, displays, and demonstration models.
Headsets were available for students to wear when listening
to the sound film located on the master table so as not to
disturb other students in the room.

The overhead lights had dimming capabilities.
Because the bright overhead lights caused a glare on the
rear projection surface in each of the carrels, the overhead
lights were dimmed when the ISL was being utilized by stu-

dents. The room was air conditioned, and the thermostat was

67

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VINSAC ,
"— 4' —fi-
1‘ a."
Door
;, .________
4E Monitor's Ciafifl
Desk
1 150
Caiiel Carrel
#9
Time
Clock
Carrel
'37 - #2 Carrel
N «2;? #8
N
Central
1 Table
Carrel
#3 ‘n Carrel
l #7
13...;
I Carrel Carrel Carrel
#4 #5 #6
JLJL_.
14 l I A]
r‘ 16'; 'I
Figure 1. Floor plan of Independent Study Laboratory

equipment (1/4 scale).

showing relative location of furniture and

68

set at 65 degrees to help compensate for the heat being
dissipated from the various projectors operating over a
long period of time.

A desk was provided for the monitor. It was located
at one end of the room near the entrance to the room. A
time clock and time cards which had been prepunched with
student name, identification number and instructional unit
number were located on a file cabinet near the entrance
into the room.

Operational conditions. To accurately evaluate the
number and types of questions pupils asked when the three
different learning units were in operation, the study was
conducted under as realistic conditions as possible. No
attempt was made to control either the pupils' or monitors'
activities during the ISL except that the monitors were
requested to remain stationary or to circulate at randomly
selected times. To prevent contamination of the data,
students and monitors were not informed of the actual focus
of the study but were told that the investigator was inter-
ested in recording the activities in the laboratory.

Whenever the ISL was Open for the beginning nursing
students to complete Learning Units I, II, or III, other
nursing students could also use the ISL. Students could
come to the ISL at their convenience and stay as long as
they wanted until it closed. Students were permitted to

work in pairs if they so desired during Learning Units I

69

and II and were requested to come to the ISL with a partner
when doing Learning Unit III (measurement of blood pressure)
so that they could practice taking blood pressures on each
other.

Upon entering and leaving the ISL, the students
punched in and out on a time card which had been prepunched
with each student's name, student number, and instructional
unit number. Students were requested to write on the time
card the date and number of the carrel in which they were
working. The students had been informed previously that the
purpose of the time card was not to evaluate how quickly
they completed the unit but rather was to aid the program
developers in evaluating the utilization of the ISL.

When the students entered the ISL, they were each
given a response booklet. The response booklet contained
the terminal behaviors of the unit, places for students to
periodically make responses, and a self—evaluation test.

At the completion of each instructional unit, each student
was asked to demonstrate his/her ability to do the terminal
behaviorsknrtaking the test. The students had been informed
that the test was not designed to be used for grading pur-
poses but rather was a means of evaluating the effectiveness
of the instructional unit. A test answer key was available
on the monitor's desk if the student wanted to check the

answers. Students were asked to turn in their response

7O

booklets and test answer sheets before leaving the ISL to
help the monitor evaluate the effectiveness of the
instructional units.

Separate name cards containing the monitor's proper
name and title, i.e., Registered Nurse or Student Nurse,
were printed and displayed on the monitor's desk so that
the pupils using the laboratory were knowledgeable about
the level of expertise of the monitor.

The investigator was in the laboratory periodically
to check the functioning of the recording equipment and to
wind the camera between observation times. By visiting the
laboratory periodically, the investigator had an Opportunity
to observe the activities, and these casual observations
proved to be of great value during subsequent transcriptions

of the audio tapes.

Instrumentation

 

Three different types of data collection instruments
were used in this study. They were: a Variable—Internal
Sequenced-Action Camera (VINSAC), a two channel audio tape
recorder, and time cards.

VINSAC. A Variable-Internal Sequenced-Action Camera8

was used in this study because it provided photographic

 

8Ted Ward, "Variable-Internal Sequenced-Action
Camera (VINSAC)" (East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State
University, Learning Systems Institute, College of Education,
Papers of the Institute #40, November, 1966), p. l.
(Mimeographed.)

71

recordings of the activities in the ISL and because it could
be left unattended for periods in excess of one hour. This
visual recording device assisted in the collection and
differentiation of the following types of data:

1. Identified, according to the carrel in which they
were working, which students asked which questions
so that questions asked by students working on
learning units other than Learning Units I, II,
or III could be eliminated.

2. Identified the location of the monitor and pupil
in the room when a question was asked.

3. Checked the reliability of the monitor's movement
relative to remaining stationary or circulating
during randomly determined observation times.

4. Differentiated questions asked by pupils and
questions asked by faculty members who periodically
came to the ISL to talk to the monitor.

5. Identified the item to which students were referring
in questions containing pronouns such as "it" or

one."

The VINSAC was a 16mm camera which had the capacity
to photograph in single-frame mode. The shutter was con-
trolled by a solenoid which in turn was controlled by a
variable frequency electronic timer. The timer could be

externally set to trigger the shutter at intervals as short

72

as 0.5 seconds or as long as 20 seconds. The same timing
device that controlled the solenoid also produced a signal
which, when recorded on the continuous two channel audio
tape, became the synchronization cue. A "through-the-door"
Observer-scope was attached to the front of the camera lens
to produce a fish-eye effect and to record a 150° observa-
tion as indicated in Figure l.9

The camera had to be hand wound. To facilitate
periodic winding and to obtain the best possible viewing
angle, the VINSAC unit was located on a shelf of a coat rack
at one end of the room behind the monitor's desk. From this
camera position and with the observer—scope attachment, it
was possible to actually photograph on film the activities
in all ten carrels in the ISL as well as the area around
the time clock.

The activities in the independent study room were
recorded under available light on high speed, double per-
forated, black and white film (4X Reversal ASA 400). This
specific film was selected because of its capacity to
photograph under low light intensities. Double perforated
film was used in order to be compatible with the single-
frame mechanism within the camera.

The VINSAC produced a series of still photographs

Spaced at the pre-selected time intervals. The still

 

9The normal wide angle lens did not provide adequate
Observation of all the carrels in the room, especially those
closest to the camera.

73

photographs resulting from the use of the Observer—scope
in front of the lens were circular in nature and had the
appearance of having been taken through a fish-eye lens.
Two channel audio tape. To objectively record
the verbal interactions between monitors and pupils, a
continuous audio tape was used. A two channel audio tape
was used so that the conversations between the pupils and
the monitor could be recorded on one channel, and the syn-
chronizing signal from the VINSAC unit could be recorded
simultaneously on the other channel. The tape recorder was
located on a stand underneath the shelf of the coat rack
containing the VINSAC unit. A wireless microphone was worn
by the monitor to provide freedom of movement and to pick
up all verbal conversations between pupils and monitors
regardless of their location in the room. A receiver was
also available in the room to pick up the audio signal from
the microphone and to relay it to the tape recorder. The
monitor's conversations were recorded continuously on one-
quarter inch, magnetic, reel-to-reel audio tape at a speed
of 1-7/8 IPS.

Time cards. The students' time cards were used to

 

determine which students were working on which instructional
unit in which carrels during each Observation time. Because
different students were working simultaneously on different

instructional units, this information was necessary so that

74

questions asked by students who were not working on

Learning Units I, II, or III could be eliminated.

Collection of Data

The data-gathering procedures were tested during
a preliminary study and utilized during the data-gathering
investigation.

Primary investigation. A preliminary investigation
was conducted during the operation of one learning unit (a
different learning unit than those included in the data-
gathering investigation) one week prior to beginning the
data-gathering investigation. The general purposes of the
preliminary investigation were to:

1. Evaluate the feasibility of collecting data while
the ISL was in operation using the recording
instruments selected;

2. Accustom students and monitors to the recording
instruments;

3. Evaluate the clarity and preciseness of the audio
and visual recordings;

4. Obtain a sample of questions asked by students.

The preliminary investigation demonstrated that it
was possible to record on a continuous audio tape the ques-
tions pupils asked the monitor regardless of where in the
room the monitor-pupil interaction took place. This inves-

tigation also showed that a signal on the audio tape could

75

be used to display the 16mm film in synchronization with
the verbal questions. It was determined that a time
interval of approximately five seconds was adequate for
recording on film the change in movement of monitors and
students within the room. A few technical problems were
encountered during the preliminary investigation but steps
were taken to prevent them from occurring during the final
data-gathering investigation.

The presence of the camera in its disguise-box and
the wireless microphone did not appear to be disturbing to
either the pupils or the monitors. The wireless microphone
allowed the monitors to move freely around the room and gave
the visual impression that it was not connected to a record—
ing device.

Both the VINSAC unit with the observer-scope and the
two channel audio tape provided clear precise data. When
the VINSAC unit was synchronized with the tape, the photo-
graphs of the activities in the room provided adequate
identification of: (l) the location of the students in the
different carrels in the room, (2) the item which students
referred to when using pronouns such as "it," "here," or
"one," and (3) whether a faculty member or student was
talking to the monitor. The synchronization of the film
and audio tape was aided by holding a card, with the time
written on it, in front of the camera lens while simulta-

neously stating the time on the audio tape.

76

Samples of the types of questions asked by students
were collected during the preliminary investigation. No
attempt was made to classify these questions into precise
categories or to determine the final classification scheme
on the basis of these questions only. To have determined
the final classification scheme of pupil questions only on
the basis of the types of questions asked during the pre-
liminary investigation would have assumed that the types of
questions asked during the preliminary investigation were
representative of all possible questions that could occur
during various structured, multi-media, self-instructional
learning units. This assumption would have been in viola-
tion of the hypothesis being tested in this study that the
types of questions asked differ according to different
learning units. Because of the nature of this hypothesis,
it was apparent that the final classification scheme had to
be generated in part from the very questions upon which it
was to be used.

Data—gathering investigation. During the data—
gathering investigation, all questions asked by college
pupils during the operation of three structured, multi-
media, self-instructional learning units having different
terminal behaviors were collected according to the proce-
dures described in this chapter. Before the data could be
analyzed, the data had to be transformed from the tape and

film recorded states.

77

Transformation of Data

Audio data. In order that each question could be

 

interpreted in light of what happened in the ISL that day,
all questions recorded on audio tapes were transcribed by
the investigator the same day that they were recorded.
Contextual cues helped to interpret what the person
referred to when pronouns such as "this," "that," "these,"
"one," or "it" were used.

In transcribing the audio tapes, an utterance was
counted as a question if the voice intonation at the end of
the utterance was raised or sustained and if the monitor
made a verbal response to the utterance. Utterances such
as, "I can't hear," "The tape came off the reel," "I don't
think the slides are in the right place," or "Something's

wrong with the tape,’ which implied a possible question but
which were not expressed with a raised or sustained voice
intonation at the end of the utterance, were not considered
as questions but as statements of factual data.

If a student were asked to repeat a question because
the monitor could not hear it, the question was only counted
once. If a pupil asked a question and immediately thereafter
asked another question which was a rephrasing of the first
question, it was counted as only one question.

Occasionally, utterances were inaudible because of
background noise and/or the fact that the person making the

utterance was too far away from the microphone. When this

78

happened, no attempt was made to guess what was said or
to judge whether or not the utterance was a question.
All audio tapes were listened to at least twice to improve
the accuracy of the transcription of the questions asked.
Visual data. The 16mm pictures produced by the
VINSAC recording unit were displayed by the use of a 16mm
projector which was equipped for single-frame advance.
When the film was displayed in synchronization with the
tape, the following notations were made about the ques-
tioning activities in the ISL:
1. Which students, according to the carrel number in
which they were working, asked which questions.
2. Which questions were asked by faculty members who
had come to the ISL to talk with the monitor.
3. Which questions pupils asked of each other.
4. Where the monitor was when a question was asked.
5. Whether the monitor remained stationary or circu-
lated around the room as requested to do by the
investigator.
6. Which item the student was referring to when
pronouns such as "this," "these," and "it" were

used.

Time card data. The identification of which
students were working in which carrels was determined by

the carrel number each student wrote on her time card.

79

All students working together in the same carrel at the
same time were grouped together and considered as one

student set for purposes of analysis.

Adjustments and Tabulation of Data

 

After the data had been transformed, it was dis-
covered that certain adjustments had to be made to make the
data consistent. When the time card data were examined, it
was discovered that during some observation times there were
no students working on Learning Units I, II, or III. These
observation times were usually those recorded at the end of
a day; and unfortunately, all of these observation times
were those when the SN had been the monitor. Consequently,
several of the observation times of the SN monitor had to
be drOpped from the data.

Based on the observations of the monitor's movement
in the ISL as recorded on film, it was discovered that
although the monitors had been asked either to remain
stationary or to circulate at randomly assigned times,
this type of desired control of monitor's movement was
not always possible. Under the "normal" operation condi-
tions of the ISL, students' requests for assistance pre-
vented the monitors from remaining stationary or circulating
as had been requested by the investigator. This variation
in monitor's movement from that requested by the investi-

gator never occurred during Learning Units I and II, but

80

it did occur during Learning Unit III. The reason it
occurred during Learning Unit III was because the monitor
was almost continually involved in helping students prac-
tice taking a blood pressure or in testing their ability
to actually take a blood pressure on a person. When the
monitor was involved in helping one pair of students with
measurement of blood pressure, she was not free to circulate
around the room; and, thus, this observational period was
classified as being stationary. However, in those cases
where the monitor was assisting the only students in the
laboratory, this observation time was classified as circu-
lating because in essence the monitor was available during
that time to all students working on the blood pressure
unit. Using these additional criteria to determine whether
the monitor circulated or remained stationary during an
observation time, adjustments were made in classifying the
observation times relative to circulating and remaining
stationary. After these adjustments had been made, the
total number of circulating versus stationary times for
Learning Unit III remained the same.

When data from the VINSAC, audio tape, and time
cards were examined in relation to each other, the following
adjustments were made in the transcriptions of the audio

tapes:

81

1. All questions asked by pupils who were not working
on Learning Units I, II, and III were eliminated.

2. All questions asked by faculty members were
eliminated.

3. All questions pupils asked of each other were

eliminated.

Because students were allowed to work in pairs, it
was impossible to distinguish on the basis of voice charac-
teristics alone which of the two students asked a question
or to determine whether the student who asked the question
was asking because she wanted the information or because she
was acting as the Spokesman for both herself and her partner.
Thus, all questions asked by either one or two students
working together in a carrel were counted as having been
asked by one student set.

At the beginning of each observation time, the num-
ber of student sets was counted. If a student set remained
in the ISL throughout more than one consecutive observation
time, the student set was recounted at the beginning of each
observation time. All student sets present during any part
of an observation time were counted as if they had been in

the ISL the entire observation period.

82

Reliability of Classification Scheme

 

All pupil questions collected during the data-
gathering investigation were classified by the investigator
according to the initial classification scheme. The initial
classification scheme had to be expanded and refined to
include all the questions. This revised classification
scheme was submitted, along with the list of the questions,
to another nurse educator who was asked to classify the
questions. All differences in classifying the questions
were discussed, and the categories were further revised and
refined to form the final classification scheme.

To determine the reliability of the classification
scheme, all questions collected (N==l94) were submitted
along with a description of each category to three judges.
All three judges were registered nurses who had had previous
teaching experience and were familiar with a structured,
multi-media, self-instructional learning environment. None
of the judges was employed in the institution where the data
had been collected. Each of the judges independently classi-
fied the questions and then the results were compared.

The reliability estimate was based on the percentage
of agreement among the independent judges. The percentage
of agreement among all three judges was calculated for each
of the 194 questions collected in the investigation. All
three judges agreed on the classification of 117 questions

for a percentage of agreement of 60 percent; at least two of

83

the three judges agreed on the classification of 183 of the
194 questions for a percentage of agreement of 94 percent.
These percentages of agreement give confidence that the
classification scheme provided consistent reliability from

one judge to another.

Analysis

 

To determine what, if any, effects certain situ-
ational factors had on the number and types of questions
asked during the Operation of three structured, multi-media,
self-instructional programs, six hypotheses were generated.
Three of these hypotheses were concerned about the number
of questions asked, and three were concerned about the
types of questions asked. The statistical procedure used
to test the first three hypotheses was a three-way analysis
of variance. This statistical procedure was determined to
be appropriate because of its ability to measure differences
among variables and to attribute the difference to the
source.‘10 A .05 level of confidence was chosen for accepting
or rejecting the null hypotheses.

The classification scheme developed in Phase I of
this study was used to categorize the questions collected

during the data-gathering investigation. The types of

 

10Fred N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral
Research (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.,
1964), p. 187.

 

84

questions were analyzed on the basis of the frequency of
their occurrence and on the proportion of each type of
question to the total number of questions asked during

each type of observation.

Summary

In Chapter III, a description of the methods and
procedures used to develOp a classification scheme of pupil
questions and to conduct a data-gathering investigation was
presented. The classification scheme was developed from a
review of the classification schemes proposed in the liter-
ature, from the types of questions collected during a pre-
liminary investigation, and from the questions asked during
the data-gathering investigation.

During the data-gathering investigation, six hypoth-
eses were tested. Data were collected during sixteen 30-
minute observations of each of three different structured,
multi-media, self-instructional learning units with each
unit having different terminal behaviors. The units were
selected on a basis of a criteria which required, among
other things, that the units had been previously tested with
a small group of students and that revisions had been made
on the basis of the feedback received from these students.

Two different individuals with different levels of
professional expertise were observed monitoring the struc-

tured, multi-media, self-instructional learning units during

85

selected observation times. The monitors were asked to
circulate or to remain stationary during randomly deter-
mined observation times.

Data were collected by use of a Variable-Interval
Sequence-Action Camera, a continuous two channel audio
tape, and student time cards. The data were transformed
from their original forms into a written format, and
adjustments were made in the data to provide consistency.

The number of questions collected.was statistically
analyzed by a three-way analysis of variance, and the dif-
ferences accepted at the .05 level of confidence. The
types of questions were categorized according to the
classification scheme developed in this study and were
analyzed on the basis of the frequency of their occurrence
and on the proportion of each type of question asked during
each type of observation.

In Chapter IV, the results of the data-gathering
investigation will be reported. Chapter V will present
the Summary, Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations

of the study.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF DATA

Chapter IV is a report of the results of the data-
gathering investigation. The questions analyzed in this
chapter are those asked by college students of two monitors
during selected observation times of three structured,
multi-media, self-instructional learning units each having
different terminal behaviors. The results of the data
collected are presented in this chapter in five sections.
The sections are: Observation Times, Number of Pupil Ques-
tions, Types of Pupil Questions, Discussion of Findings,
and Additional Observations. The number and types of ques-
tions are analyzed according to the hypotheses stated in

Chapter III.

Observation Times

 

Forty-eight observation times (thirty minutes each
in duration) were recorded by means of a VINSAC unit and a
two channel audio tape during the normal operation of three
structured, multi-media, self-instructional units. Of the
48 observation times recorded, only 42 produced usable data.
Six observation times had to be eliminated from the analysis

because the data from the students' time cards indicated

86

F4

ll)

'4.

()

f)‘

87

that there were no students working on Learning Units I,
II, cu: III during these times. The distribution of the
six observations that were eliminated were three from
Unit 1, two from Unit II, and one from Unit III.

The elimination of observation times from these
Learning Units resulted in unequal cell sizes as indicated
in Table 4.1. Table 4.1 illustrates the final distribution
of observation times according to Learning Units, expertise
of monitor, and movement of monitor. The number and types
of observation times presented in Table 4.1 served as the

basis for the analysis of data reported in this chapter.

TABLE 4.1

a
NUMBER AND TYPE OF OBSERVATION TIMES

 

 

 

Learning Learning Learning
Monitor Movement Unit I Unit II Unit III Totals
SN Circulate N = 1 N = 2 N = 2 N = 5
Stationary N=l N=3 N=3 N=7
RN Circulate N = 5 N = 5 N = 5 N=15
Stationary N = 5 N = 5 N = 5 N=15
Totals N=12 N=15 N=15 N=42

 

aN = Number of Observation Times; SN = Student Nurse Monitor;
RN = Registered Nurse Monitor.

88

Number of Pupil Questions

 

Each of the first three hypotheses of this

investigation pertained to the number of pupil questions

asked within the context of a structured, multi-media,

self-instructional learning environment.

Hypotheses One, Two, and Three

are:

Hypotheses One, Two and Three stated in null form

There will be no difference in the number of
questions asked by college pupils during the
operation of three structured, multi-media,
self—instructional learning units in the content
area of nursing attributable to the differences
in the general type of terminal behaviors identi-
fied for each of the three learning units.

There will be no difference in the number of
questions asked by college pupils during the
operation of three structured, multi-media,
self-instructional learning units in the content
area of nursing attributable to whether the monitor
circulates or remains stationary during the time
she is a monitor.

There will be no difference in the number of
questions asked by college pupils during the

operation of three structured, multi-media,

89

self-instructional learning units in the content

area of nursing attributable to whether the monitor

is a registered nurse or a nursing student.

The number of questions asked and the number of
student sets present in the ISL during each Observation time
were counted.1 Tables 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 present the number
of questions asked and the number of student sets present
during each of the observation times of Learning Units I,
II, and III. Table 4.5 presents a summary of Tables 4.2,
4.3, and 4.4.

Table 4.5 shows that an average of 4.6 questions
was asked per observation time and that the average number
of student sets working on a Learning Unit during each
observation time was three. (The reader is reminded that
the defintion of a "student set" is either one or two
students working in a carrel.) Based on the totals given
in Table 4.5, the average number of questions asked per
student set per observation time was 1.5.

Because of unequal cell sizes, the number of ques-
tions asked and the number of student sets present during
each observation time were transformed into a ratio score
of number of questions to number of student sets. The
transformed ratio scores were used as the basis for analysis
Of variance. The transformed mean ratio scores for each

type of observation times are given in Table 4.6.

 

1A complete list of all pupil questions collected
can be found in Appendix D.

90

TABLE 4.2

NUMBER OF PUPIL QUESTIONS ASKED AND STUDENT SETS PRESENT
DURING OBSERVATION TIMES OF LEARNING UNIT I

 

 

 

Observation Pupil Student

Times Questions Sets
1 l 5
2 2 5
3 8 2
4 4 7
5 7 6
6 6 3

Learning Unit I

7 1 l
8 1 l
9 4 6
10 4 6
ll 7 4
_1_2 _6 _4
Totals . ‘ N = 12 51 50

 

 

 

 

91

TABLE 4.3

NUMBER OF PUPIL QUESTIONS ASKED AND STUDENT SETS PRESENT
DURING OBSERVATION TIMES OF LEARNING UNIT II

 

 

 

Observation Pupil Student

Times Questions Sets
1 3 5
2 2 5
3 2 3
4 l 2
5 5 3
6 2 2
7 3 5

Learning Unit II

8 2 3
9 l 2
10 1 3
11 4 2
12 2 1
l3 3 l
14 0 l
2 _1 __1_
Totals N s 15 ‘ 32 39

 

 

 

 

92

TABLE 4.4

NUMBER OF PUPIL QUESTIONS ASKED AND STUDENT SETS PRESENT
DURING OBSERVATION TIMES OF LEARNING UNIT III

 

 

 

Observation Pupil Student

Times Questions Sets
1 5 3
2 12 4
3 21 6
4 6 l
5 7 l
6 l7 8
7 ll 3

Learning Unit III

8 ll 2
9 l l
10 8 l
11 3 1
12 1 1
l3 3 1
14 5 4
.12 __0 .2.
Totals N = 15 111 39

 

 

 

 

93

TABLE 4.5

SUMMARY OF PUPIL QUESTIONS ASKED AND STUDENT SETS
PRESENT ACCORDING TO LEARNING UNITS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Observation Pupil Student

Times Questions Sets

Learning Unit I 12 51 50
Learning Unit II 15 32 39
Learning Unit III 15 111 39
Total 42 194 128
Average per observation time 4.6 3

TABLE 4.6

TRANSFORMED MEAN RATIO SCORES FOR EACH
TYPE OF OBSERVATION TIMEa

 

 

 

 

 

 

Learning Learning Learning
Monitor Movement Unit I Unit II Unit III
(N=l) (N=2) (N=2)
Clrculate 1.500 0.80 6.50
SN
(N=D (N=m (N=3
Stat1°nary 1.75 0.80 2.50
(N=S) (N=5) (N=m
CirCUIate 0.78 1.30 2.233
RN
(N=3 (N=9 (N=m
Stat1°nary 1.554 0.8866 3.608

 

 

 

 

 

8‘N = Number of Observation Times; SN = Student Nurse Monitor;
RN = Registered Nurse Monitor.

94

A univariate, three way analysis of variance was
used on the transformed mean ratio scores to determine
the degree of variance in number of questions asked. The
specific analysis of variance procedure used was a Finn

2 The Finn procedure was used because of its

procedure.
ability to do an analysis of variance with unequal cell
sizes and because it permits the data to be re-ordered

to isolate the major sources of variance. Only the major
effects of the three way interaction were tested. The

two way interactions were not tested because subsequent re-
ordering of the data increased the Alpha level. The results
of the Finn analysis of variance after two re-orderings are
given in Table 4.7.

Inspection of Table 4.7 shows, with two degrees of
freedom, the variation between learning units is significant
beyond the .05 level and the probability is less than .0002.
Thus, the null Hypothesis One (that there is no difference
in the number of questions asked by college pupils during
the operation of three structured, multi-media, self-
instructional learning units in the content area of nursing
attributable to the differences in the general type of ter-

minal behaviors identified for each of the three learning

units) is rejected.

 

2Jeremy D. Finn, "Multi-Variance Univariate and
Multivariate Analysis of Variance and Covariance: A
Fortran IV Program" (State University of New York at
Buffalo, April, 1967). (Mimeographed.)

9S

.UGMOHmacmfim no: u mzm

.Ho>oe Hoo. on» ocosoo nomoeuuooem4

 

 

lmzo memo. ooom.m oomv.s N ommo.va coeuomuouoe soeuooune
ooumou ooz H .ueo x zm u zm
"coauomuoucH
ooomou uoz m zm . 2m x one:
”sowuomuwucH
topmop #02 m was: x cowumasoufio
"msowuomumusH
Hes: pooooa mm lmzo meom. sooe.e ooo6.m H come.” momuso coozoom
Hess nooooa mm olmzo omom. Home. oomoo. H oomoo. sumooeuoum
one cofiumasouao smw3uom
Has: oooflom a: .Nooo. moom.me ooov.om m omom.om when: ooozuom
muHsmom pounds cone mmmq m mTHMSOm .m.c mOHMDOm cofiumwum> mo wousom
mommouomwm muwaflnmooum one: «0 Sam

 

 

mmmOUm OHBdm dez OmszhmZQMB ZO mUZ<Hm¢> m0 mHmNA¢z<

h.v mamde

96

Examination of Table 4.7 reveals, with one degree
of freedom, the variation between whether the nurse circu-
lates or remains stationary is non-significant. Thus, the
null Hypothesis Two (that there will be no difference in
the number of questions asked by college pupils during the
operation of three structured, multi-media, self-instructional
learning units in the content area of nursing attributable to
whether the monitor circulates or remains stationary during
the time she is a monitor) could not be rejected.

As can be seen by Table 4.7, with one degree of
freedom, the variation between nurses is non-significant.
Thus, the null Hypothesis Three (that there will be no
difference in the number of questions asked by college
pupils during the operation of three structured, multi-
media, self-instructional learning units in the content
area of nursing attributable to whether the monitor is a

registered nurse or a nursing student)cou1d not be rejected.

Types of Pupil Questions

The remaining three hypotheses of the study were

concerned about the types of questions asked.

Hypotheses Four, Five, and Six
Hypotheses Four, Five, and Six stated in null form

are:

97

4. There will be no difference in the types of
questions asked by college pupils during the
operation of three structured, multi-media, self-
instructional learning units in the content area
of nursing attributable to the differences in the
general types of terminal behaviors identified for
each of the three learning units.

5. There will be no difference in the types of
questions asked by college pupils during the
operation of three structured, multi-media, self-
instructional learning units in the content area
of nursing attributable to whether the monitor
circulates or remains stationary during the time
she is a monitor.

6. There will be no difference in the types of
questions asked by college pupils during the
operation of three structured, multi—media, self-
instructional learning units in the content area
of nursing attributable to whether the monitor is
a registered nurse or a nursing student.

The questions collected during the data-gathering
investigation were classified into eight categories by three
judges as described in Chapter III. After the 194 pupil
questions had been classified, the questions were distrib-
uted according to the observation times in which they were

asked. Table 4.8 shows the frequency distribution of each

98

.muwoasc mo mcaossou mo omsoooo unwouom ooa Hmsom poo mmoo omnucmouom Hmuoa

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q
.meHB GOHum>H0mQO MO HOD—:52 fl 2m
voH HHH mm Hm Hmuoa
H.m o m.H N o o o.m m HoHoom .m
H.~ o o.m v o o o o Hmoomuoo .s
o.m m k.m m H.m H m H monoumHmoa
How mummsoom .o
m.o NH e.m m o.mH m m.eH o :oHumuomo ucoamHsvm .m
H.mm eoH o.om ov me om m.om mo ongoooouo HoooHumuomo .v
o.~ m o.m o H.m H o o socm>oHom .m
m.- ms o.om He H.m H m H ooHuooHHo> .m
m.e 6H o.~H «H o o o o Hosuomm .H
H38. Honssz :2qu 3852 £54.”: “352 55:. 88:52 6636633 83663
ovcooumm nucmoumm nusoouom unwoumm
238.. H u 2 H u 2 NH n z
HHH uHoo HH uHoo H uHoo
amuse: measured

 

 

 

 

QmMm¢ mZOHBmMDO AHmDm m0 mmmwe ho ZOHBDmHMBmHQ mwfifizmummm GZG NUszOmmm-

m.v mqm<8

99

type of question for each learning unit. Percentages for
each category of questions have been included to assist in
interpretation of the relative frequency of each type of
question within and between Learning Units.

Examination of Table 4.8 reveals that the number of
observation times did not yield sufficient number of each
type of question to justify the application of an analysis
of variance. Many cells yield no data, and no inferential
statistical treatment could be applied to the data without
violating numerous assumptions. An attempt was made to
increase the cell counts by collapsing the eight categories
into three, but this too produced many null cells. Thus,
only the frequency and proportion of question types were
compared.

Table 4.8 shows that the most frequent type of
question asked for all three Learning Units was the Opera-
tional Procedure question. It was the most frequent type
of question in Learning Units I and II and was surpassed
by Validation questions by a frequency of one in Learning
Unit III. Within Learning Units I, II, and III, the
Operational Procedure type of question was 84, 75, and 36
percent, respectively of all the questions asked. All
Operational Procedure questions combined totaled over
55 percent of the questions asked during all three

instructional units.

100

The next most frequent type of question asked was
the Validation question. Validation questions were approx-
imately 22 percent of the total number of questions asked;
however, 95 percent of all Validation questions were asked
during Learning Unit III. All of the third most frequent
type of question asked, Factual, were asked during Learning
Unit III. Equipment Operation questions occurred in all
three Learning Units and were the fourth most common type
of question asked. The other types of questions (Relevancy,
Requests for Assistance, Personal, and Social) were asked
less frequently and tended to be asked more during Learning
Unit III than during either Learning Unit I or II.

Based on these comparisons of the frequencies and
percentages of the different types of questions, the null
Hypothesis Four (that there is no difference in the number
of questions asked by college pupils during the operation of
three structured, multi-media, self-instructional learning
units in the content area of nursing attributable to the
differences in the general type of terminal behaviors iden-
tified for each of the three learning units) is rejected.

To test Hypothesis Five and Six, comparisons were
made between the number of different types of questions and
the expertise and movement of the monitor. Data comparing
the distribution of types of questions according to types

of Observation times are presented in Table 4.9.

101

.uouHst omusz pwumumflomm u

zm NHouHcoz mmusz ucopsum u 2m “mmaHe cOHum>H0moo mo umofisz n zm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ll"
ill

1|I
'llwl

|ll
I|I|

nouHcOz mo ucusm>oz

 

 

 

va MOH em mH hm Hm em mH em Hmuos
meH he so MH om mo Hv m mH Hobos Adm

m o m N H HMHOOm

m m m o Hmcomuom

m m H H H o mocmumHmmd

m o H m o m H H noosmstm zm
mm mm mH OH oH so om m oH HoooHumuooo

v N H H m m Sosm>mHom

mm om om NH NH GOHHMOHHM>

OH h b m m Hmsuosm
omuz man muz muz muz mHuz muz muz muz

me om MH 0 5 mm mH v o Hmuoe ham

H o H H HMHOOm

m m m o HMGOmuOm

m m m o mucoumHmmc

s N H H N m pooemHoom zm
em «H m m o oH v H m HoooHuouooo

H o H H mosm>mHmm

HH m m H m h H :OHHMOHHO>

v m m H H Hosuomm
«Huz Suz muz muz an muz mnz mnz an
Hobos Houoe HHH uHoo HH uHoo H uHoo Hopes HHH uHoo HH uHco H uHao moHuomoumo HouHcoz

now osHsumoH Adm ochuqu nOHumoso
aumsoHumum THMHSOHHO

 

 

mmmSHB ZOHB¢>mmmmO ho mmmwfi OB UZHQfiOUUfi mZOHBmmDO ho mmmwfi ho ZOHBDmHMBmHQ

m.¢ mflmds

il

102

Because the number of observations per cell was
unequal, direct comparisons of the number and proportions
of the different types of questions were not meaningful.
However, when the comparisons were based on the number of
observation times per cell, the results indicated that
there was no difference in the types of questions asked
that could be attributed to whether the monitor was a
registered nurse or a student nurse. Similar comparisons
also revealed that there was no difference in the types of
questions asked that could be attributed to whether the
monitor circulated or remained stationary during the time
she was the monitor. The number of different types of
questions was proportionately the same per number of obser-
vation times recorded of each monitor. Each type of ques-
tion in the classification scheme was asked of each monitor.
Thus, it would appear from the comparisons of the frequen-
cies and proportions of each type of question according to
the number of observation times that the null Hypotheses
Five (that there will be no difference in the types of ques-
tions asked by college pupils during the operation of three
structured, multi-media, self-instructional learning units
in the content area of nursing attributable to whether the
monitor circulates or remains stationary during the time she
is a monitor) and Six (that there will be no difference in
the types of questions asked by college pupils during the
operation of three structured, multi-media, self—instructional

learning units in the content area of nursing attributable to

103

whether the monitor is a registered nurse or a nursing

student) could not be rejected.

Discussion of Findings

 

During forty-two 30-minute Observation times, 194
questions were asked by 128 student sets present in the
Independent Study Laboratory. Students infrequently asked
questions during the "normal" operation of the three struc-
tured, multi-media, self-instructional learning units. The
number of questions asked varied significantly according to
differences in the general type of terminal behaviors for
each of the Learning Units. Approximately 57 percent of all
questions collected were asked during Learning Unit 111.,
The difference in the number of questions asked is basically
attributed to differences in the general type of terminal
behaviors and the related learning activities. Learning
Units I and II were primarily cognitive in nature while
Learning Unit III was designed to teach a psychomotor skill.
However, other factors such as students' perceptions of the
importance of the information, students' degree Of familiar-
ity with the content, and the scheduling of the Learning
Units within the courses may have influenced the difference
in the number of questions asked.

The movement of the monitor was found to be unrelated
to the number and types of questions asked. The data indi-
cated that once the student began a Learning Unit her/his

attention was focused on the material to be learned, and

104

the student did not interrupt the learning sequence to

ask a question even though a monitor was readily available.
Students tended to ask questions regardless of the proximity
of the monitor.

The number and types of questions pupils asked were
found to be unrelated to the expertise of the monitor.

Based on a ratio of number of questions asked per student
sets present, there was no indication that one monitor
elicited more pupil questions than the other. Each type of
question was asked of each monitor in approximately the same
proportion. Evidently,both monitors were perceived by the
pupils as being qualified to handle their questions.

In comparing the frequency with which different
types of questions occurred, it is interesting to note that
the greatest percentage of questions were Operational Proce-
dure questions even though the students had a learning unit
that oriented them to the general Operation of the ISL prior
to their doing Learning Units I, II, or III. Apparently one
orientation unit cannot cover all of the possible combina-
tions of ISL operations that are encountered by the students
as they progress through the individual study units. The
high frequency of occurrence of Operational Procedure ques-
tions during Learning Units I and II and the decrease in
their occurrence during Learning Unit III could be attribut-
able to differences in when the three units were scheduled

for use within the nursing courses. (Learning Units I and

105

II were scheduled during Fall term and Learning Unit III
during Spring term.)

The fact that there were no Factual questions asked
during Learning Units I and II is noteworthy. Although the
reasons why students did not ask questions were beyond the
scope of this study, it is conceivable that the low occur-
rence of Factual questions could be attributable, in part,
to the characteristics of the learning units themselves.

All of the learning units included in the study had been
previously validated with a small group of students. This
validation process may have helped eliminate the major gaps
in information and thus the need to ask for new or addi-
tional information. Another factor that may have influenced
the low occurrence of Factual questions during Learning Units
I and II could be the nature of the content of these units.
These units were designed to teach the students how to apply
the communication process to purposeful nurse-patient inter-
actions. Apparently the content of these two learning units
was such that the students did not perceive the need to seek
additional information in order to perform the terminal
behaviors (to their satisfaction) as they did in Learning
Unit III. The fact that new and additional information was
sought frequently during Learning Unit III may also reflect
that the unit needs further testing and revision.

The students' need for precise information was
reflected by the frequent occurrence during Learning Unit

III for Validation questions. The nature of the content in

106

Learning Unit III was such that the students expressed

a need for confirmation of the correctness of concepts,
decisions, observations, and skills. Evidently, the ter-
minal behaviors of Learning Units I and II did not require
the same degree of confirmation of correctness as those of
Learning Unit III.

Equipment Operation questions occurred during all
of the Learning Units. Most of these questions were asked
when mechanical problems occurred during the operation of
the audiovisual equipment.

The occurrence of Relevancy, Personal and Social
questions, although rare, was most frequent during Learning
Unit III. The students' perceptions of the direct relevance
of the content of Learning Unit III to their own personal,
physical, and social well-being and their professional goals
may have contributed to the occurrence of these types of
questions more during Learning Unit III than during Learning

Units I or II.

Summary of Findipgs

 

This study investigated six hypotheses, three of
which were tested using an analysis of variance while the
evaluation of the other three hypotheses was limited to
comparisons of frequencies and proportions of the different
types of questions.

Null Hypothesis One was formulated to predict that

there would be no difference in the number of questions

107

asked by college pupils during the operation of three
structured, multi-media, self-instructional learning units
in the content area of nursing attributable to differences
in the general types of terminal behaviors for each of the
three learning units. The null hypothesis was rejected at
the .05 level of confidence.

Null Hypothesis Two was formulated to predict that
there would be no difference in the number of questions
asked by college pupils during the operation of three struc-
tured, multi-media, self-instructional learning units attrib-
utable to whether the monitor circulates or remains station-
ary during the time she is a monitor. The null hypothesis
could not be rejected at the .05 level of confidence.

Null Hypothesis Three was formulated to predict
that there would be no difference in the number of questions
asked by college pupils during the operation of three struc-
tured, multi-media, self-instructional learning units in the
content area of nursing attributable to whether the monitor
is a registered nurse or a nursing student. The null hypoth-
esis could not be rejected at the .05 level of confidence.

Null Hypothesis Four was formulated to predict that
there would be no difference in the types of questions asked
by college pupils during the operation of three structured,
multi-media, self-instructional learning units attributable
to differences in the general types of terminal behaviors
for each of the three learning units. Comparisons of the

frequencies and percentages of the different types of

108

questions indicated that there was a difference in the types
of questions asked between the different Learning Units.
Thus, the null hypothesis was rejected.

Null Hypothesis Five was formulated to predict that
there would be no difference in the types of questions asked
by college pupils during the operation of three structured,
multi-media, self-instructional learning units attributable
to whether the monitor circulates or remains stationary
during the time she is a monitor. Comparisons of the fre-
quencies and proportions of question types indicated that
there was no difference in the types of questions asked
according to the differences in the movement of the monitor.
Thus, the null hypothesis could not be rejected.

Null Hypothesis Six was formulated to predict that
there would be no difference in the types of questions asked
by college pupils during the operation of three structured,
multi-media, self-instructional learning units attributable
to whether the monitor was a registered nurse or a nursing
student. Comparisons of the frequencies and proportions of
the types of questions asked of the two monitors indicated
that there was no difference in the types of questions asked
according to expertise of the monitor. Thus the null

hypothesis could not be rejected.

109

Additional Observations

 

Throughout the collection of the data, additional
observations were made that may have directly influenced
the results of the study. These are discussed here.

It was observed that college students frequently
eXpressed gaps in understanding in the form of statements
rather than questions. Examples of such statements were:

"The tape came off," I can't hear anything," "I'm ready

' and "The tape sounds funny." Implied

for you to help me,‘
in these statements are gaps in understanding; but because
they were not expressed with a raised or sustained tone of
voice, they were not counted as questions. Because college
students did express gaps in understanding in the form of
statements, using the pupil's voice intonation as the basis
of the definition of a college pupil's question did not,

in the opinion of the investigator, accurately reflect the
number of gaps in college students' understanding. Although
the true number of gaps were not accurately measured, the
types of gaps in understanding expressed in statement format
were the same as those expressed in question format and thus
are accurately reflected in the classification scheme.

As the monitors became familiar with the instruc-
tional programs, the monitors tended to anticipate students'
questions and would answer them before the students had a
chance to verbally ask the questions. This may have influ-

enced the number of questions collected.

110

On several occasions during Learning Unit III,
students' regularly scheduled class commitments prevented
the students from staying longer in the ISL. When the
students were spending a lot of time practicing the meas-
urement of blood pressure and if the monitor were aware that
the students had other class commitments, the monitor would
encourage the students to complete the unit and then return
to the ISL at another time to practice taking blood pres-
sures. What effect the monitor's suggestion that the
students go ahead and complete the learning unit had on
the number of questions asked is unknown.

During the collection of data, it was Observed that
students tended to ask the RN monitor certain types of
Operational Procedure questions because the RN monitor was
in the ISL over a long period of time. These questions
involved continuity of learning experiences from one unit
to another or between the ISL and other aspects of the
beginning course in nursing. Students would ask such
questions as: "Do we get these parts [written program]
back?" "Can you do both of them [units] today?" "Will
we get it [response booklet] the next time we come back?"
"DO you have to do Unit I before Unit II?" These questions
were all classified as Operational Procedure type of ques-
tions, but they were specifically related to the continuity
Of learning experiences and the overall operation of the

ISL. These types of questions were usually asked of the RN

111

monitor rather than the SN monitor; and occasionally when
they were asked of the SN monitor, it was apparent that the
SN monitor did not know the answers. This left the student
unsatisfied with the monitor's response. Thus, there
appeared to be some instructional advantage of having the
same monitor available in the ISL over a period of time.
Another instructional advantage of having the same
monitor in the ISL over a period of time was that it pro-
vided the monitor an opportunity to identify patterns of
students' behaviors which might indicate possible learning
problems. For example, the RN monitor in this study
identified that a student's behavior was inappropriate
during several ISL units. When she brought this to the
attention of the course coordinator, the monitor discovered
that this same inappropriate behavior had also been observed
when the student was working with patients in the hospital.
On another occasion, the RN monitor observed that
the pattern Of a student's questioning behavior indicated
that the student had a hearing problem which was preventing
her from accurately measuring a blood pressure. Because
the student was reluctant to acknowledge this handicap, the
monitor brought this to the attention of the student's
clinical instructor so that the student could be given
special attention when assigned to take a person's blood

pressure in the hospital.

112

Although the types of questions collected in this
study did not indicate a frequent occurrence of Personal
questions, the RN monitor revealed to the investigator that
occasionally students would ask questions concerning some
personal problems they had about money, boyfriends, or
medical problems. Also, students would discuss concerns
they had about continuing in the nursing program or about
whether they really wanted to be a nurse. The fact that
few Personal questions were asked during the observation
times of this study may have indicated that students were
reluctant to ask personal questions in the presence of a
microphone. The RN monitor remarked that She had done more
guidance and counseling in the ISL than she had the entire
previous year when guidance and counseling were her job
responsibilities.

Thus, the availability of the same monitor in the
ISL over a period of time and the availability of a monitor
who is prepared to do guidance and counseling appear to have
some instructional advantages in handling students' questions
in a structured, multi-media, self-instructional learning

environment.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summagy

Modern educational philosophy emphasizes the
importance of developing and utilizing instructional pro-
grams that are adapted to the needs of individual pupils.
Many institutions of higher education are incorporating the
use of structured, multi-media, self-instructional learning
systems into their curriculums as one means of providing
more individualized instruction. Basically, these learning
systems provide an opportunity for the student to learn on
an individual basis for an appreciable length of time with—
out the intervention of a teacher toward goals he has in
common with other students in the group. This learning
usually takes place outside the regularly scheduled classes
but in facilities provided by the educational institution.
Beyond merely providing the individual student the Oppor-
tunity to progress at his own rate of learning, these
programs are limited in the degree to which they can adapt

to the learning needs of individual pupils.

113

 

114

In some institutions, monitors have been assigned
to be available in these types of learning environments to
provide whatever assistance is needed. Part of the moni-
tor's responsibility is to handle the students' questions.
Because each pupil questions from his own point of View, a
pupil's questions indicate that the instructional program
needs to be adapted to his level of understanding. If the
monitor is to assist in making structured, multi-media,
self-instructional programs more individualized, then the
monitor needs to be prepared to handle pupil questions as
they occur. Before a training program for monitors can be
established, there must first be a description of the types
of questions that are likely to occur during the "normal"
operation of such learning programs. Thus, given a multi-
media, self-instructional learning situation, there is a
need to identify the types of questions asked by pupils as
a basis for designing a training program for monitors.

The purposes of this study were to develop a
classification scheme of questions pupils asked within the
context of a structured, multi-media, self-instructional
learning environment and to determine what, if any, effects
certain variables had on the number and types of questions
asked. The rationale for developing a classification scheme
was to identify the types of questions monitors need to be

prepared to handle when attempting to adapt structured,

 

115

multi-media, self-instructional programs to individual
students.

A review of the literature revealed that most of
the existing question classification schemes, while adequate
for the research purposes for which they were designed,
included only a few of the types of questions that were
likely to be asked in a multi-media, self-instructional
learning environment where machines are programmed to carry
the major share of the teaching load and where students have
control over the rate of presentation. Extensive research
has been done on the questioning practices of teachers,
while the area of pupil questioning behavior has been rela-
tively neglected. Previous investigations on questioning
activities in the classroom have emphasized the use of
questions as a major part of the teacher's instructional
strategy rather than as a pupil's learning strategy. All of
the studies done on pupil questions have been conducted at
the primary or secondary levels of education; none had been
done at the college level.

This study was undertaken in two phases. Phase I
was the development of a classification scheme Of pupil
questions while Phase II was an application of the clas-
sification scheme to a dataegathering investigation. A
classification scheme of pupil questions was developed from
a review of the classification schemes proposed in the

literature, from questions collected during a preliminary

116

investigation, and in part from the questions asked during
the data-gathering investigation.

During the data-gathering investigation, six
hypotheses were tested. Data were collected during sixteen
30-minute observations of each of three different structured,
multi-media, self-instructional learning units with each
unit having different terminal behaviors. Two different
individuals with different levels of professional expertise
were observed monitoring the structured, multi-media, self-
instructional learning units during selected observation
times. The monitors were asked to circulate or to remain
stationary during randomly determined observation times.
Data were collected by use of a Variable-Interval Sequence-
Action Camera, a continuous two channel audio tape, and
student time cards. The number of questions asked by pupils
was analyzed by a three-way analysis of variance, and the
differences were accepted at the .05 level of confidence.
The types of questions were categorized according to the
classification scheme developed in Phase I. Comparisons
were made of the different types of questions asked accord-
ing to instructional units, expertise of monitor, and move-

ment of monitor.

117

Conclusions

 

A classification scheme of pupil questions asked
within the context of structured, multi-media, self-
instructional learning units was developed and applied to
the data collected during a data-gathering investigation.
The data-gathering investigation was conducted during the
"normal" operation of three structured, multi-media, self-

instructional learning units in the content area of nursing.

 

A total of 194 questions was collected and classified into .
eight categories by three judges. All three judges agreed

100 percent on the classification of 117 questions for a per-

centage of agreement of 60 percent. At least two of the three

judges agreed on the classification of 183 of the 194 ques-

tions for a 94 percentage of agreement. These percentages

of agreement give confidence that the classification scheme

provided consistent reliability from one judge to another.

Based on the data collected during the data-gathering
investigation, the following conclusions were made:

1. Given three structured, multi-media, self-
instructional learning units in the content area of nursing,
the number and types of questions asked by college pupils
varied according to differences in the general type of
terminal behaviors. An instructional unit in the content
area of nursing designed to help students develop psycho-

motor skills elicited significantly (at the .05 level) more

118

student questions than an instructional unit designed
primarily to develop cognitive skills.

2. Given three structured, multi-media, self-
instructional learning units in the content area of nursing,
the number and types of questions asked by college pupils
did not vary according to whether the monitor circulated
or remained stationary during the time she was a monitor.
The students asked questions regardless of the movement of
the monitor within the structured, multi-media, self-
instructional learning environment.

3. Given three structured, multi-media, self-
instructional learning units within the content area of
nursing, the number and types of questions asked by college
pupils did not vary according to whether the monitor was a
registered nurse or a nursing student. Proportionately,
the same number and types of questions were asked of each

type of monitor.

Implications

 

.The main reason for developing a classification
scheme of questions college pupils asked within the context
of a structured, multi-media, self-instructional learning
environment was to identify the types of questions a monitor
should be prepared to handle. Given the types of learning
units described in this study, the major type of question a

monitor should be prepared to handle is an operational

119

procedure question. Although the students had, prior to
this study, a learning unit that was specifically designed
to orient them to the operation of the independent study
laboratory, apparently this one general orientation unit

did not cover all of the possible combinations of Opera-
tional procedures that the students encounter as they
progress through the individual study units. The monitor
needs to be prepared to explain to the students the specific
Operational procedures of each learning unit.

There are indications from the data that the monitor
needs to be prepared to handle pupil questions that seek
confirmation of the correctness of a concept, decision,
observation or skill. The monitor must also be able to
provide, upon occasion, additional or new information about
the content of the units. In order for the monitor to dis-
tinguish between pupil questions asking for confirmation of
information and those asking for new or additional informa-
tion, the monitor must be familiar with the content of the
learning units. If the learning unit teaches psychomotor
skills,the monitor must also be able to do the terminal
behaviors herself. The monitor must be proficient enough
at doing the terminal behaviors so that she can assist
students in doing them and can evaluate the accuracy of

a student's ability to do them.

120

The monitor must be prepared to handle student
questions regarding the operation of audio-visual equipment
especially when mechanical problems occur. On rare occa-
sions the monitor might be asked a personal or social
question. Depending on the extent to which the monitor
is expected to handle this type of question determines the
amount and extent of training the monitor needs in this area.

In light of the data collected in this study and
additional observations made, certain implications seem
appropriate for the effective and efficient utilization of
the ISL in nursing. These implications are:

1. On the basis of the number and types of questions
asked by college pupils during the normal operation of three
structured, multi-media, self-instructional learning pro-
grams, the need for a monitor who is a registered nurse
during all instructional units does not seem warranted.
However, on the basis of other instructional advantages
such as providing continuity of learning experiences,
providing students opportunities for both personal and
professional guidance and consulting, and providing Oppor-
tunities for the monitor to identify possible learning
problems in individual students, the assignment of a
qualified faculty member to monitor the ISL does seem

educationally desirable.

 

121

2. The number of students attending the ISL during
the Observation times indicates that more instructional
units, especially non-psychomotor skills units, could be
simultaneously made available for student use to increase
the efficiency of the learning environment and the utili-
zation of the monitor's talents.

3. If the ISL is to be one aspect of the beginning
course in nursing and if the monitor's observations of the
students' behaviors are deemed to be worthwhile, then ways
need to be established for the monitor to communicate her
Observations to other faculty members so that the students'

learning is enhanced.
Recommendations

Based on the purposes of this study and the data
collected during the "normal" operation of three structured,
multi-media, self-instructional learning units in one
content speciality area, the following recommendations
are made:

1. That the classification scheme developed in this
study be tested in similar types of learning
situations, in different content speciality areas,
and at different levels of education;

2. That the study be repeated using different instruc-

tional units and different monitors;

122

That guidelines on how the monitor should handle
the different types of questions identified in
this study be developed and tested;

That studies be conducted to investigate the
guidance and counseling functions of a monitor

in a structured, multi-media, self-instructional
learning environment;

That studies be conducted to determine how student
questions can be used as a basis for revision of
instructional programs;

That the question-asking behaviors of students

be examined to identify better ways instructional
materials can be designed to take into account
differences in individual learning styles and
abilities.

That studies be conducted to determine the monitors'
and pupils' perceptions and attitudes toward a
structured, multi-media, self-instructional learn-
ing environment and the relationship of these
perceptions and attitudes to the number and types
of pupil questions asked.

That after the classification scheme has been
validated with more extensive research, ways in
which the classification scheme could be used as

part of a training program for monitors should be

123

eXplored. The tapes and films used to collect the
research data could be used as teaching aids in

developing such a training program.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Association of Teachers of Social Studies in the City of
New York. Handbook for Social Studies Teaching.
3rd. ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967.

 

Austin, Frances M. The Art of Quegtioningin the Classroom.
London: University of London Press, Ltd., 1961.

Batchelder, Howard T., Maurice McGlasson and Raleigh
Schloring. Student Teaching in Secondary Schools.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1964.

 

Bellack, Arno, ed. Theory and Research in Teaching.
New York: Teachers College Press, 1963.

 

, et al. The Language of the Classroom. New York:
Teachers College Press, 1966.

 

 

Bishop, Lloyd. Individualizing Egucational Systems.
New York: Harper and Row, 1971.

 

Bloom, Benjamin, Thomas Hastings, and George Maddus.
Handbook_on Formative and Summative Evaluation of
Student Learnihg. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
1971.

 

, et a1. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives
Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay
Company, Inc., 1956.

 

 

Bloommers, Paul,and E. F. Lindquist. Elementary Statistical

Methods in Psychology and Education. Boston: Houghton
MiffIin Co., 1960.

 

Brown, James, and James Thornton, Jr. New Media in Higher
Education. Washington, D.C.: Association for Higher
Education and the Divisions of Audiovisual Instructional
Service, 1963.

 

124

125

Edling, Jack V. Individualized Instruction: A Manual
for Administrators. Corvallis, Oregon: Continuing
Education Publications, 1970.

 

Esbensen, Thorwald. Workingywith Individualized Instruction,
The Duluth Experience. Belmont, Calif.: Fearon
PuinShers, 1968.

 

Gage, N. L., ed. Handbook oijesearch on Teaching.
Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1963.

Gagne, Robert M., ed. ngchological Principles in System
Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.,
1962.

 

 

. The Conditions of Learnipg. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965.

 

Gallagher, James. Productive Thinking of Gifted Children.
Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois, Institute for
Research on Exceptional Children (Cooperative Research
Project No. 965), 1965.

 

Groisser, Philip. How to Use the Fine Art of Questioni_g.
Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Teachers Practical Press,
1964.

Haden, Herbert I. Von, and Jean Marie King. Innovations in
Education: Their Pros and Cons. Worthington, Ohio:
Charles A. Jones Publishing Company, 1971.

 

 

Haney, John B., and Eldon Ullmer. Educational Megia and the
Teacher. Dubuque, Iowa: W. C. Brown Co., 1970.

 

Helseth, Inga Olla. Children's Thinkipg. New York:
Teachers College, Columbia University, 1926.

 

Horn, Ernest. Methods of Instruction in the Social Studies.
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1937.

Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behaviora1_Research.
New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1964.

McKeachie, Wilbert J. Teaching Tips, A Guidebook for the
BeginningCollege Teacher. 6th ed. Lexington, Mass.:
D. C. Heath and Company, 1969.

 

Monroe, Walter S.,h and Ralph E. Carter. The Use of Differ-
ent T es ofT uht Questions in Secondary Schools and
Their Relativeh Di fiCulty_ for Students. Bulletin No. 14,
Urbana, 111.: Bureau of Educational Research, University
of Illinois, 1923.

 

 

 

126

Payne, Stanley. The Art of Askipg Questions. Princeton,
N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1951.

 

Piaget, Jean. The Language and Thought of the Child.
Translated by Marjorie Warden. New York: ,Harcourt,
Brace & Co., 1926.

Postlethwait, Sam, J. Novak, and H. T. Murray, Jr. The
Audio-tutorial Approach to Learning. 2nd ed.
Minneapolis, Minn.: Burgess Publishing Co., 1969.

Sanders, Norris M. Classroom Questions: What Kinds?
New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1966.

 

Smith, B. Othanel, and Milton 0. Meux. A Study of the
Logic of Teaching. Urbana, Illinois: University of
IllinOis Press, 1970.

 

 

Taba, Hilda. Teachers' Handbook for Elementary Social
Studies. Palo Alto, Calif.: Addison-Wesley Publishing
Co., 1967.

Tanzman, Jack, and Kenneth Dunn. Using Instructional Media

Effectively. West Nyack, N.Y.: Parker Publishihg
Company, 1971.

 

Thorton, James, and James Brown. New Media and College
Teaching. Washington, D.C.: Natibnal Education
Association, 1968.

 

 

Trow, William Clark. Teacher and Technology. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1963.

 

Washburne, Carleton. Adjusting thegghool to the Child.
Yonkers-on-Hudson, N.Y.: World Book Company, 1932.

, and Sidney P. Marland, Jr. Winnetka, The History
and Si nificance of an Educational Experiment. Engle-
wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-HalI, Inc., 1963.

Weisgerber, Robert A., ed. InstructionalyProcess and Media
Innovation. Chicago: Rand McNally Co., 1968.

 

 

 

 

127

Periodicals

 

Aschner, M. J. McCue. "Asking Questions To Trigger
Thinking." NEA Journal, L (September, 1961), 44-46.

 

Bowers, Norman D. "Psychological Forces Influencing
Curriculum Decisions." Review of Educational Research,
XXXIII (June, 1963), 268-277.

 

Briggs, Leslie. "The Teacher and Programmed Instruction:
Roles and Role Potentials." Audiovisual Instruction,
Ix (May, 1964), 273-276.

 

 

 

Butler, Lucius. "Self-Instruction Lab Reaches Communication
Skills." Audiovisual Instruction, XV (February, 1970)
55-60.

Cabeceiras, James. "Systematizing a Nursing Degree Program==
'ILL'J‘ Audiovisual Instruction, XVI (October, 1971),
12-15.

Carner, Richard. "Levels of Questioning." Education,

 

LXXXIII (May, 1963), 546-550.

Carpenter, Ethelouise, and Marie Manecci. "Children's
Questions--A Springboard." Childhood Education, XL
(September, 1963), 11-15.

 

Carpenter, Helen M. "Study Skills: Asking Good Questions."
The Instructor, LXXIV (November, 1964), 27-28, 96.

Corey, Stephen M. "The Teachers Out-Talk The Pupils."
School Review, XLVIII (December, 1940), 745-752.

 

. "Teachers' Questioning Activity." Research on
the Foundgpions of Amgrican Education. Washington:
American Educational Research AssoCiEtion, 1939,

pp. 43-46.

 

, and George L. Fahey. "Inferring Type of Pupil
Mental Activity from Classroom Questions Asked."
Journal of Educational Psychology, XXXI (February,

 

Cross, Janet, and John Nagle. "Teachers Talk Too Much!"
English Journal, LVIII (December, 1969), 1362-1365.

 

Dale, Edgar. "Children's Questions as a Source of Curric-
ulum Material." Educational Research Bulletin, XVI,

NO. 3 (March 17, 1937), 57-66.

128

 

Davis, Edith A. "The Form and Function of Children's
Questions." Child Development, III (March, 1932),
57-74.

Davis, 0. L., Jr., and Drew Tinsley. "Cognitive Objectives

Revealed by Classroom Questions Asked by Social Studies
Student Teachers." Peabody Journal of Education, XLV
(July, 1967), 21-26.

 

Davis, Robert H. "SLATE Your Students for Structured Self-
Tutoring." College and University Business, XLIV
(April, 1968), 78-83.

Fahey, George L. "The Questioning Activities of Children."
Journal of Genetic Psychology, LX (June, 1942), 337-357.

Feibleman, James K. "The Uses of Thinking." Saturday
Review, XLVI, No. 9 (March 2, 1963), 18-19, 48.

Finley, Charles W. "Some Studies of Children's Interests
in Science Materials." School Science and Mathematics,
XXI (January, 1921), 1-24.

 

Fraenkel, Jack R. "Ask the Right Questions!" The Clearing
House, XLI (March, 1966), 199-202.

 

Gall, Meredith D. "The Use of Questions in Teaching."
Review of Educational Research, XL (December, 1970),
707-721.

 

Gallagher, James J., and Mary J. Aschner. "A Preliminary
Report on Analyses of Classroom Interaction." Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, IX (July, 1963), 183-194.

Gilchrist, Robert S. "The Superintendent's Questions."
Childhood Education, XL (September, 1963), 25-27.

Hamalainen, Arthur E. "Questions Guide the Elementary
School Principal." Childhood Education, XL (September,
1963), 16-20.

Herbert, Phil. ". . . That's the Question." English
Journal, LVI (November, 1967), 1195-1196.

Hill, Norman J. "The Key to Effective Teaching." The
Clearing House, XL (November, 1965), 131-134.

Hunkins, Frances P. "The Influence of Analysis and
Evaluation Questions on Achievement in Sixth Grade
Social Studies." Educational LeadershipuResearch
Supplement, XXV (January, 1968), 326-332.

 

 

129

Kirkton, Carole Masley. "Class Discussion and the Craft of
Questioning." English Journal, LX (March, 1971)
408-413, 421.

 

K1ebaner, Ruth P. "Questions That Teach." Grade Teacher,
LXXXI (March, 1964), 10, 76-77.

 

Ladd, George T., and Hans O. Andersen. "Determining the
Level of Inquiry in Teachers' Questions." Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, VII (1970), 395-400. F

 

 

Manson, Gary, and Ambrose A. Clegg, Jr. "Classroom 1
Questions: Keys to Children's Thinking?" Peabody 9
Journal of Education, XLVII (March, 1970), O - . ‘

 

 

McWilliams, Lulu E. "A Study of Pupil Reactions." i
Mathematics Teacher, XXII (May, 1929), 284-293. E
[r

Melnik, Amelia. "Questions: An Instructional-Diagnostic

Tool." Journal of Reading, XI (April, 1968), 509-581.

 

Miller, George L. "The Teacher and Inquiry." Educational
Leadership, XXIII (April, 1966), 550-555.

 

 

Olmo, Barbara M. "Focus on Questioning." Journal of
Teacher Education, XXI (Winter, 1970), 504-508.

 

 

Pate, Robert, and Neville H. Bremer. "Guiding Learning
Through Skillful Questioning." Elementary School
Journal, LXVII (May, 1967), 417-422.

 

Peterson, Carol. "Multi-Sensory Tutorial Instruction in
Associate Degree Nursing Education." Audiovisual
Instruction, XVI (October, 1971), 16-18.

 

 

Postlethwait, Sam. "Mediated Self Instruction." American
Annals of the Deaf, CXIV (November, 1969), 874-879.

 

Richason, Benjamin F., Jr. "Teaching Geography by the
Audiovisual Tutorial Method." Audiovisual Instruction,
XV (February, 1970), 41-44.

Short, Sarah. "Innovations in Nutrition Education."
Audiovisual Instruction, XVI (October, 1971), 19-21.

 

Shrable, Kenneth, and Douglas Minnis. "Interacting in the
Interrogative." The Journal of Teacher Education, XX
(Summer, 1969), 201-212.

130

Smith, Madorah E. "The Influence of Age, Sex, and Situation
on the Frequency, Form and Function of Questions Asked
by Preschool Children." Child Development, IV
(September, 1933), 201-213.

Snyder, Agnes. "Who? What? When? Where? How? Why?"
Childhood Education, XL (September, 1963), 5-10.

Snyder, Alice D. "Notes on the Talk of a Two-and-A-Half
Year Old Boy." Pedagogical Seminary, XXI (September,
1914), 412-424.

Sparks, Ronald. "Medical Media--Validating for Accuracy."
Audiovisual Instruction, XVI (October, 1971), 22-26.

 

Suchman, J. Richard. "In Pursuit of Meaning." The
Instructor, LXXV (September, 1965), 32, 70.

 

Thompson, Lou H. "Children's Questions." Educational
Research Bulletin, III (November, 1924), 347-352.

 

Thompson, Ralph. "Learning to Question." Journal of Higher
Education, XL (June, 1969), 467-472.

 

Veatch, Jeannette. "Individualizing." The Instructor, LXXV
(September, 1965), 33.

 

Wellington, Jean, and C. Burleigh Wellington. "What Is a
Question?" The Clearinngouse, XXXVI (April, 1962),
471-472.

Wolfson, Martin. "How to Ask Questions in Social Studies."

The Clearing House, XXVIII (February, 1954), 363-364.

Yamada, Soshichi. "A Study of Questioning." The Peda-
gogical Seminary, XX (June, 1913), 129-186.

 

Unpublished Materials

Adams, Thomas Howard. "The Development of a Method for the
Analysis of Questions Asked by Teachers in Classroom
Discussion." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Rutgers-
The State University, 1964.

Dodl, Norman. "Pupil Questioning Behavior in Context of
Classroom Interaction." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation,
Stanford University, 1965.

131

Fahey, George Litchfield. "A Study of the Classroom
Questions of High School Pupils and the Relation
Between Questioning Activity and Various Other
Factors of Educational Significance." Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1939.

Finn, Jeremy. "Multi-Variance Univariate and Multivariate
Analysis of Variance and Covariance: A Fortran IV
Program." State University of New York at Buffalo,

April, 1967. (Mimeographed.)

Floyd, William D. "An Analysis of the Oral Questioning
Activity in Selected Colorado Classrooms." Unpublished
Ed.D. dissertation, Colorado State College, 1960.

Gatto, Frank M. "Pupils' Questions: Their Nature and Their
Relationship to the Study Process." Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1929.

Haynes, Herbert Calvin. "The Relation of Teacher Intelli-
gence, Teaching Experience, and Type of School to Types
of Questions." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, George
Peabody College for Teachers, 1935.

Kleinman, Gladys. "General Science Teachers' Questions,
Pupil and Teacher Behaviors, and Pupils' Understanding
of Science." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University
of Virginia, 1964.

Moyer, John. "An Exploratory Study of Questioning in the
Instructional Processes in Selected Elementary Schools."
Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Columbia University,
1965.

Scovel, Donald Albert. "A Study Analyzing High School
Student Questioning Behavior in American History Classes.‘
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Iowa, 1968.

Screiber, Joan. "Teachers' Question-Asking Techniques in
Social Studies." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Iowa, 1967.

Shaffer, Virginia. "The Categorization of Student Inquiries
and The Responses Made Within the Context of Classroom
Interaction." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Univer-
sity of Illinois, 1966.

Snyder, William. "The Question-Asking Behavior of Gifted
Junior High School Science Students and Their Teachers."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois,
1966.

 

132

Stevens, Romiett. "The Question as a Measure of Efficiency
in Instruction." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation,
Teacher's College, Columbia University, 1912.

Ward, Ted. "Variable-Internal Sequenced-Action Camera
(VINSAC)." Learning Systems Institute, Papers of the
Institute #40. East Lansing, Mich;: Michigan State
University, November, 1966. (Mimeographed.)

Publications of the Government, Learned
Societies and Other Organizations

Banister, Richard. Case Studies in Multi-Media Instruction.
Topical Paper No. 13. Los Angeles: ERIC Clearing House
for Junior Colleges, October, 1970.

Morgan, Jack C., and Joan E. Schreiber. How To Ask Ques-
tions. How To Do It Series--No. 24. Washington, D.C.:
National Council for Social Studies, 1969.

National School Public Relations Association. Technology in

Education. Education U.S.A. Special Report. Washington,

D.C.: National School Public Relations Association,
1967.

5
IE
I
Q
n
H

° W:
I.“ Y,‘ «1,

-. a L- -AI.‘_‘ a.
-.,

 

APPENDIX A

BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS OF LEARNING UNITS

‘J‘wh‘ Vim

APPENDIX A

BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS OF LEARNING UNITS

The following descriptions of the learning units
used in this study were taken from materials produced under 1
Project Grant DIO NU 00232, Division of Nursing, Public E

Health Service, Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

 

LEARNING UNIT I

Communication Part I--Goals

General Purposes:

Prerequisites:

Average Student
Time for
Completion:

Brief Summary
of Content:

Unit 05.1

To help the beginning student build an
understanding of some communication goals
held by nurses in nurse-patient inter-
actions.

To give the student practice in observing
in a simulated situation, behavior that
might indicate a patient's communication
goal.

None

57 minutes

The first communication unit concerns
both the nurse's and patient's goals in
communication.

Though the nurse communicates with others
throughout the nursing process, the
patient is usually the primary source of
information.

133

134

Four common communication goals for the
nurse are discussed in the unit and
further clarified, using taped nurse-
patient interactions. The goals are:

1. To obtain information.

2. To give information

3. To provide an opportunity for release
of tension.

4. To help the patient eXplore his own
problem.

The patient's goals are not so easily
determined. The nurse must closely
observe the patient's behavior to decide
what his goals might be.

 

Students are asked to identify probable
patient goals after listening to taped
nurse-patient interactions. Some of them
could be:

1. Need for more information about his
treatment.

2. Need for reassurance of nurse's
competence.

3. Desire to keep nurse with him a longer
time.

4. Need for someone to talk to and
release tension.

The nurse who plans has some general
purpose in mind for talking with her
patient. However, she may begin with one
purpose and then shift to or add another
communication goal. The nurse should
remember the patient probably has a
purpose in mind also, and she should
continually observe his behavior to
identify its meaning.

Students are given the Option of complet-
ing a written program entitled "Goals" in
the Independent Study Laboratory or tak-
ing it home.

135

LEARNING UNIT II

Communication Part III--Successful-Unsuccessful

General Purpose:

Prerequisites:

Average Student
Time for
Completion:

Brief Summary
of Content:

Unit 05.3

To present to the student a basis for
evaluating communication.

None

60 minutes

This unit is primarily a listening
exercise in which the student is asked
to judge the success of communication
in taped nurse-patient conversations,
using specific and general criteria.

 

For successful communication the specific
criterion is whether or not there are
behavioral chan es which indicate the
communication goaIs have been reached.
Examples are presented and discussed.

 

The general criterion for successful
communication consists of three parts:
feedback, appropriateness, and efficiency.
As each part is presented, it is also
illustrated by short nurse-patient
dialogues. The student is asked to
evaluate them and further clarification
is added.

 

 

136

LEARNING UNIT III
Blood Pressure--Measurement
Unit 04.1

General Purpose:. To learn how to take and record accurately
and safely another person's blood pressure.

Prerequisites: Unit on TPR or other source of knowledge
on TPR [TPR==Temperature, Pulse, Respiration].

Average Student 60 minutes

Time for

Completion:

Brief Summary Through the use of audio tape, slides,
of Content: realia, films and response booklet, the

beginning nursing student learns how to
accurately collect data by use of the
measuring device, blood pressure.

A patient's blood pressure primarily
reflects information about the patient's
physical condition but may also give
information about his emotional state.
To understand the type of information

a blood pressure reveals, concepts are
presented and explained. They are:

1. Brief physiological or circulation
system as it relates to blood pressure.

2. Definition of blood pressure: Measure-
ment of cyclic changes of pressure
exerted by the blood against the wall
of the artery during cardiac contrac-
tion and relaxation.

3. Definitions of systole, diastole,
Korotkoff sounds.

4. Discussion of instruments used to
measure blood pressure: sphygmomano-
meter (aneroid and mercury gauges) and
the stethoscope.

5. The principle of partial blocking of
the flow of blood through the artery
to explain why sounds are heard through
the stethoscope.

Realia is available to each student for
examination and later for actual practice

137

in taking a partner's blood pressure.

A film is presented showing the correct
procedure for taking a patient's blood
pressure, as well as rationale for each
essential step.

Common errors made when taking a blood
pressure are discussed via audio-tape
and slides.

Normal ranges of systolic and diastolic
blood pressure are given for the p0pula-
tion as a whole. The effects of age on
the normal range are briefly discussed.

Following completion of the unit, each
student is tested as she goes through the
steps necessary to safely and accurately
take a blood pressure. A clinical
instructor observes and evaluates the
student's performance.

 

APPENDIX B

OVERVIEW OF MULTIMEDIA PROJECT

School of Nursing
Michigan State University

In 1967, the School of Nursing at Michigan State
University was awarded a grant for the development of multi-
media materials and methods for programmed learning in
nursing. (Project Grant DIO NU 00232, Division of Nursing,
United States Public Health Service, Department of Health,
Education and Welfare.) The purpose of the project was to
provide a new approach to teaching the first sequence of
nursing courses through the integration of course content
with audiovisual technology. The integration process was
concentrated in the systematic planning, develOping and
evaluating of instructional materials for use in an Inde-
pendent Study Laboratory which was designed to be one aspect
of a coordinated lecture-laboratory-clinical experience
method of teaching. The content presented in the Indepen-
dent Study Laboratory was supplemental to the basic course;
the content was not covered elsewhere in the course.

The main purpose of the Independent Study Laboratory
was to provide students opportunities to learn the content
of nursing more efficiently and effectively through the use
of structured, multimedia, self-instructional programs. The
instructional units were developed under the guidance and
consultation of media, learning, content, and evaluation
experts in cooperation with students. (See schematic draw-
ing of Development of Multimedia Materials on next page.)
Each unit was developed on the basis of identified objec-

tives, was structured to ensure that the objectives were met,

employed a variety of types of media, and was designed for
independent self-paced learning. Each unit was designed on
the principles of programmed learning; students were period-
ically asked to make responses to the program by doing such
things as listening to pre-recorded audio tapes, studying
corresponding slides, viewing films, observing items on the
central table, and writing responses in a response booklet.
Active student participation was encouraged in order to
achieve the terminal behaviors.

138

'5... ‘wfl

In ”4.1.-{\- 1

139

Prior to use with a large group of students, the
learning units were tested with a small group of students
to ascertain the students' reactions to the organization,
presentation, content, and clarity of the material. Data
from these testing sessions served as a guide for rewriting
and reorganizing the programmed sequence and content.

The students could come into the Independent Study
Laboratory at their convenience and work until they were
confident that they had achieved the objectives of the
learning units. The study was independent in that the
student learned on an individual basis and progressed at
his own rate of learning. Students were evaluated on what
they learned rather than on how much or how fast they
learned.

140

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.uxztfilmuxsthfwfiwmwmmmli mm: 53.3 mo... 2922.535 "A
mo_>¢mm IF. (m: 0.153....
62.252 .3 zo_m_>_o LILA—
Nmmoo :2 05 Elm; powwow... 1734343.
F §
7.3: a 3552: mes—All
r 33mm
7 Saw: a «1.5552 .8 A
292343 a ozfimm: 45:2. 4}
Sam: 20 w
22. 355 Sam: w 3552: .5825—
\\|| |l|'|||l|”|||l lll||lll|ll
" .Iw 5.QO “Em;
.\ 7.58 E05 mx<zTU .
, .7 7.2350 hzupzoo medium“.
I \
III-v'l'il'lull llllllll Il’||lll|ll|ll"
73.213 >55 .8 zo_»<o..._:zuod
v
mhmfifiw‘mam ,lvrmmzhomsmo aoJuEAllL 9sz25 _
9| «
r 31323282523
_ 1 .._o hzmzaodsuo a 553.2. 4
3245328
I “:25
#2453on E >wmnwnu

 

 

 

 

7:25 526E ”.5sz _

 

m..<_mw._.<s_ Sou—2.53.2 mo ._.zm:2n_o._m>mo
62.9.52 to .6018 Emmmzza 345 23.10.:

APPENDIX C

INFORMATION CONCERNING MULTIMEDIA LAB

‘_‘TW

.—..—_ _.__—.
. .L

‘7

APPENDIX C

INFORMATION CONCERNING MULTIMEDIA LAB

The multimedia lab is located in Baker Hall on the
third floor, Room 321. The lab furnishes students an addi-
tional learning opportunity through the use of audio-visual
equipment, such as slides, tape recordings and short films.

There are 10 carrels available for use on an indi-
vidual basis or, if necessary, two people can work in the
same carrel.

4 . - mas- «thighw‘n‘m
7“. '

~.n_-
I .
i

For each unit the student will be given a response
booklet in the lab. At the end of each unit the student
will take a short test to determine whether or not learning
occurred. The purpose of the test is "feedback" for the
student and is not graded. There is also an evaluation
sheet for each student to fill out. This is for the staff
of the multimedia project, to determine your thoughts and
reactions to the units. No name is necessary on evaluation
sheets. Please feel free to express your opinions. Each
unit has been revised since last year according to comments
made by students. Further revision may still be necessary.

‘

Each time you use the lab to work on an assigned
unit you will be asked to punch a computer card given you by
the lab assistant. The purpose of the card is collection of
information, such as how many students use the lab. This
information is valuable in planning for the efficient use
of the multimedia lab.

The units assigned on the accompanying schedule are
re uired with the exception of the five communication units,
which are optional. However, each student is responsible for
meeting objectives of £22 five communication units even though
they are optional [an attached list of objectives was included
in course orientation materials].

 

There will be an R.N. instructor each day from l-Spnnn
and a student monitor during morning hours in the multimedia
lab to assist you.

Remember, you are responsible for the content of
assigned units. It may serve as the source of examination
questions as well as a prerequisite for future units in
NE 206 and NE 207.

141

APPENDIX D

SCHEDULE FOR MULTIMEDIA LAB

APPENDIX D

SCHEDULE FOR MULTIMEDIA LAB

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
School of Nursing

Learning Unit

 

Orientation to
Multimedia Lab

Overview of Nursing
Process

Comunication I 1
(Goals)

Conmunication I I
(Verbal & Nonverbal)

Communication III2
(Successful &
Unsuccessful)

Communication IV
(Methods to Promote)

Communication V
(Use of Questions)

Assessment

Effects of Illness

 

1Learning Unit I.

2Learning Unit II.

 

Average Time

 

for Completion

 

>

 

NE 205, Fall 1970
Number
00.0 45"
01.0 60"
05.1 60"
05.2 60"
05.3 60"\
05.4 60"
05.5 60")
08.0 .90"
07.1 45"

142

optimal

optimal

Dates Unit

 

Available

Sept. 28-Oct. 2

Oct.

Oct.

Oct.

Oct.

Oct.

Oct.

NOV.

Nov.

lZ-Oct. 16

l9-Oct. 23

19-Oct. 23

2-Nov. 6

9-Nov. l3

143

Average Time

 

 

 

Learning Unit Number for Completion
Effects of Hospitalization 07.2 45"

NE 206, Winter 1971

 

TPR, Part I (Temperature,
Pulse & Respiration) 03.1 90"

TPR, Part II (Temperature,

Pulse & Respiration) 03.2 45"
Assessment

(Simulation) 09.1 90"
Planning 10.0 90"
Planning

(Simulation) 10.1 120"
Effects of Illness 07.1 45"
Effects of Hospitalization 07.2 45"

NE 207, Springgl97l

 

Blood Pressure3 04.1 120"
Implementation 11.1 60"
Implementation

(Simulation) _ 11.2 120"

 

3Learning Unit III.

Dates Unit

 

Available

NOV.

Jan.

Jan.

Feb.

Feb.

Feb.
Mar.

Mar.

Apr.

Apr.

Apr.

l6-Nov. 20

25-Jan. 29

l-Feb. 5

8-Feb a 12

lS-Feb. 19
l-Mar. 5

5-Apr. l6

l9-Apr. 23

26-Apr. 30

*-

V5

the data-gathering investigation was classified into the

following categories:

1.

Each of the 194 pupil questions collected during

Factual
Questions.

Validation
Questions.

Relevancy
Questions.

Operational
Procedure
Questions.

APPENDIX E

PUPIL QUESTIONS

“fl
. ”I. g”

A.“ .olu~»‘k 1’5".

Ora-dz...- -_~

I"

Questions asking for new or additional
facts or information relative to the
information presented in the instruc-
tional unit itself or to achievement
of terminal behaviors.

Questions which elicit judgments and
opinions from authority figures relative
to verification of correctness of a con-
cept, decision, observation or skill.
This type includes questions of clari-
fication,reinforcement,and confirmation.

Questions asking for identification of
relationship between concepts, attitudes,
and skills being learned in the ISL to
the real world; implicitly these ques-
tions ask: Why is this important? Why
am I doing this? Is the real world like
this?

Questions relating to the logistics,
environment, and functioning of the ISL.
This type includes questions about what
the learner is expected to do before,
during or after each learning unit;
questions about what the monitor is
expected to do; questions about location
of things; questions about completing
the learning unit, tests of unit's
effectiveness, and time cards.

144

145

5. Equipment Questions relating to proper functioning
Operation and utilization of all non-nursing
Questions. equipment in the ISL.

6. Requests for Simple requests for general assistance.

Assistance.

7. Personal Questions about own social, mental, and
Questions. physical well-being or professional
goals and achievements. 1 g.
8. Social Questions about another person's social, .
Questions. mental, and physical well-being or ;

professional goals and achievements.

 

Pupilguestions

 

w, 19.- .. '
._r. J

The classification category for each of the 194
pupil questions collected during the data-gathering investi-
gation is indicated here. The questions are listed accord-
ing to the Learning Unit and the number of observation time
within the Learning Unit that the question was asked. All
questions that were asked by one pupil during one contact
with the monitor are bracketed together. The blank line
between questions indicates where the monitor made a response

to the question.

APPENDIX E

PUPIL QUESTIONS

, F10- ail-1g

'\

‘ “V. -Ani

.W‘
h

W.

but)!“

146

Question Categories:

Factual 5. Equipment Operation
Validation 6. Requests for Assistance
Relevancy 7. Personal

Operational Procedure 8. Social

LEARNING UNIT I

Unit

1

Observa-

tion

 

Time

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

222m
Cate ories
Question 1 2 3 4 5 6
Are they [the carrels] set up for
[Unit] one? x
Which part [of the response booklet] do
we hand in? The yellow. . . . x
You want this [response booklet]? x
Just leave this [slide projector] on? x (
(Is there more than one [unit to be done]? x
(
(Both of these [units] have to be done
(this week? x
(
(Does it take an hour to do each one
([unit]? x
(When we use this tape are we using the
(slides right? Like you want us to?
(Because . . . like when they have that
(first beep. . . .? x
(
(So they do. . . . These slides do start
(right at the beginning? x
(Could you help me? x
(
(Am I starting the slides out in the
(right place? x
(You don't do this one [unit] today? x
(
(Oh, can you do both of them today? x
(
(What date is it? x
(
(Do you want us to change the tape? x

 

m. as $15

.‘S

Vfl::"'_"“““

147

Question Categories:

 

l. Factual 5. Equipment Operation
2. Validation 6. Requests for Assistance
3. Relevancy 7. Personal

4. Operational Procedure 8. Social

 

 

Observa- ggestion
tion Cate ories
Unit Time Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
l 5 Where does this [response booklet] go? x
l 5 (Do you want this [test answer sheet
(onlyl? ; x
(

(The whole booklet? x
( ,
(We can keep these [remainder of book-
(let] can't we? x
(

(My thing [test answer sheet] from last
(time isn't here. Where is it? x
( .
(Do we get these parts [written program]

(back? x
1 5 Can we keep the green part [written

program]? x
l 6 Should I hang onto this [response book-

let for next unit] or should I put it
back [while she finished the test of the

previous unit]? x
1 6 What about this green part [written

program]? x
l 6 (When will we get this green part

([written program] back? x

(

(We will get it the next time we come? x
l 6 What's all that [equipment] for? x
l 6 Should I just take the green part

[written program]? x
l 7 Is that [book monitor reading] good?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l 8 This [response booklet] go here? x

 

 

148

Question Categories:

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Factual 5. Equipment Operation
2. Validation 6. Requests for Assistance
3. Relevancy 7. Personal
4. Operational Procedure 8. Social
Observa- Qgestion
tion Cate ories
Unit Time Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
l 9 Do you have to do Unit I before Unit II? x
1 9 How long is it [Unit I]? x
l 9 Did someone forget to rewind it
[the tape]? x
l 9 What about that carrel? x
1 10 (Do we have to go completely through
(these [units] right now? x

(

(Like can we hang on to them [response

(booklets] and come back in? x

(How late are you [the laboratory] open? x

(How long will these [units] last? x
l 11 Is that the unit number on the card? x
1 11 (Write the student number and name

(over here [on the time card]? x

[And not here? x
1 11 (I don't have any [units] done? x

(

(Is this [unit] the one where they
(. . . um . . . hmm . . . nursing
(does blood pressures and patient's
(back aches? x
(
(Does it [the unit] have films? x

1 11 You can get the communications' tape
anytime, can't you? x

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

149

Question Categories:

 

 

 

 

l. Factual 5. Equipment Operation
2. Validation 6. Requests for Assistance
3. Relevancy 7. Personal
4. Operational Procedure 8. Social
Observa- Question
tion Cate ories
Unit Time Question (1 2 314 5 6
l 12 (Do you have the answer sheet [key]? x
(
(Where is the answer sheet? x
l 12 (Do we get our booklets back from the
(previous ones [units]? ’ x
l 12 (How long is the second one--part two? x

(
(How did they [the other students] get
(done so fast? x

(

(Where for the sign out [time cards]? x

LEARNING UNIT II

2 1 (Could you help me with the tape? x
(Do you hear anything? x
(Oh, really? x

2 2 Right here [placement of time card]? x

2 2 What's the date? x

2 3 Are these the test answers? x

2 3 Cause it doesn't have something
punched out on it or something? x

[Reason time card won't trigger
time clock]

2 4 Did you get finished with the book-
lets that we did last week? x
2 5 Is this pile [of response booklets]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

for Communications Three? x

150

Question Categories:

1. Factual 5. Equipment Operation
2. validation 6. Requests for Assistance
3. Relevancy 7. Personal

 

4. Operational Procedure 8. Social

 

 

 

 

 

Observa- Question
tion Cate ories
Unit Time Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8|
2 5 Could you come here for a minute? x
2 5 (Do you have them [response booklets]
(done? x
(
(Is this [the checked response booklet]? x

 

(

(Are any carrels set up for [unit]

 

 

(three? I x
2 6 (Are these parts [of response booklet]

(meaningful [to faculty]? x

(

(Will we get them [response booklets]

(before the mid-term? x

1

2 7 Are all three of them [units] assigned

this week? x

\

2 7 Where should I put it [response booklet]? x
2 7 You want them [response booklets] all

in one pile? m
2 8 (Is conmunication [unit] four longer? an

(

(Is it [that long]? x
2 9 Should I rewind it [the tape]? x
2 10 Should I put the card right here? x
2 11 (They [the tape] said something about

(filling out the [time] card? x

(

(It [time card] is in [the time clock]? x

(

(Does it [the time clock] punch it
([the card] when it [the time clock]
(makes a big klunk? x

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unit
2

2

LEARNING UNIT

3

book)!“

Observa-

tion
Time

 

 

11

12

13

15

1

Factual
. Validation

151.

Question Categories:

Question

Where're the [test] answers?

(Which one [carrel] is [set up for]
(Communications Three?

(
(You have to look at the label on

(the top [of the tape]?

(Is this too long a tape . . . or did
(I wind it [the tape] too far?

(
(This [response booklet] go here?

(
(Where do these [time cards] go?

This box [for time card]?

III

(Any one carrel set up for Blood
(Pressure unit?

(
(Do we need a partner for any other

([units]?

(Is it [slide projector] still smelling?
(

(Where are the three types of [blood
(pressure] cuffs?

Is it [movie projector] threaded right?

Should I hear it [blood pressure
sounds]?

5. Equipment Operation

6. Requests for Assistance
Relevancy 7. Personal
Operational Procedure 8. Social

m

Cate ories

 

2 3 4 5 6 7

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

152

Question Categories:

1. Factual 5. Equipment Operation
2. Validation 6. Requests for Assistance
3. Relevancy 7. Personal

4. Operational Procedure 8. Social

 

 

 

 

 

Observa- Question
tion Cate ories
Unit Time Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
3 2 (Can I [start a unit]? x
(
(How long does that [unit] take? x

(
(WOuld I have time [to complete the
(unit) before you close? x
(

(Why couldn't I ... I ... I ... be
(a partner now and then do that

i

([the first part of the unit] later? x
(

(Oh, next week too? x
(

(There are two parts to this unit? x

3 2 (Could I do the test--the final one

([demonstration of ability to measure

(blood pressure on a person]? x

(
(Is this one [cuff] smaller than the

(other one [cuff]? x
3 2 (Is this the one [correct
(sphygmomanometerl? x

(Does this [cuff on arm] have to be
(snug? x
(

(Do you want to check that [tightness

(of cuff on arm]? x
3 3 (Can we use this one [sphygmomanometer]
(now? x

(
(Can you hear your own [blood pressure]? x
(

(How come you hook the aneroid to
(the cuff? x
(

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

153

Question Categories:

 

 

l. Factual 5. Equipnent Operation
2. Validation 6. Requests for Assistance
3. Relevancy 7. Personal
4. Operational Procedure 8. Social
Observa- Question
tion Cate ories
Unit‘ Time Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

(The aneroid is [easier to read than
(mercury sphygmomanometer]? x
(

(Over sixty, right [was monitor's

(diastolic reading]? x
3 3 Are we suppose to check what we did

[blood pressure measurements] on

each other? x
3 4 (Do you have to check this [blood

(pressure] then? x

(
(So we should go ahead and finish

(the unit? x

(

(What's that [equipment]? x
3 3 (Do you want me to tell you what I'd

(do [when actually taking a blood

(pressure on a patient]? x

(

(Are you a registered nurse?

(

(Do you work in the hospital at all?
(

(When you say . . . that we have to
(take a blood pressure you hold the
(dial, right, or do you put it on the
(cuff? When you take a routine blood
(pressure with this [aneroid gauge],
(do you leave it on the cuff when
(you're taking it? x
(
(Or do you hold onto it [aneroid gauge]? x

(

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

154

Question Categories:

 

1. Factual 5. Equipment Operation

2. Validation 6. Requests for Assistance
3. Relevancy 7. Personal

4. Operational Procedure 8. Social

 

 

Observa- Question
tion Cate ories
Unit Time Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

 

(Do you think that ... hmm ... say a
(nurse is making rounds in the morning
(and she's got to take all the blood
(pressures, should she wash her hands
(before and after every patient? x
(

(Does it make that much difference
([washing hands before and after every
(patient] when you're applying the
(same cuff to different patients? x
(

(I should explain to her [partner who
(represents the patient1what I'm doing? x
(

(Why did they [manufacturers of
(sphygmomanometersl do that [make
(cuffs without arrows to guide place-
(ment of cuff on arm]? x
(

(Is this [position of patient's arm]
(considered heart level? x
(

(But ... uh ... when they use the cuff
(right along side here or at this
(level [is cuff considered at heart
(levell? x
(

(Now, how would it be . . . just like
(that [position of patient's arm]
(would be at heart level? x

3 4 (This one [sphygmomanometer]? x
(
(It doesn't matter which arm you take
(it [blood pressure] on? x
(
(Then what do you do with this [place-
(ment of tubes while taking a blood
(pressure]? x

(

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unit

Question

155

Categories:

 

l. Factual

2 . Validation

3. Relevancy

4. Operational Procedure

Observa-

tion

Time Question

 

(Is this [placement of stethoscope

(bell on antecubital
(hard enough?

(
(Is this the kind .

(call this syphygo...?

(
(They use [this type

(meter] in the hospital?

5 (See what I mean, how it [mercury
(inside column] still jumps?
(It [blood pressure sounds] stopped

(about 70?
(

(If you don't hold it [screw valve

(on bulb] so tight?
(

(Do we use the double thing

([stethoscope]?
(

(Do you want me to give you the

(steps [of the blood

(cedurel like washing your hands?

(
(Should I explain to

(what I'm going to do?

(

(This week and next week [I can come
(back and practice taking blood

(pressures]?

6 (Is it possible to have two different

(blood pressures?
(

(Is that the patient's right arm

([that you routinely
(pressure on]?

5. Equipment Operation

6. Requests for Assistance

7. Personal
8. Social

Question

ories

Cate

 

2

3

4

5

6

7

 

space] like

. what do you

of sphygmomano-

pressure pro-

her [patient]

take his blood

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

““1

Unit

3

1.
2.

4.

Observa-

tion
Time

 

 

6

Factual
Validation
3. Relevancy

156

Question Categories:

 

7. Personal

Operational Procedure 8. Social

Question

(Could we go someplace else because
(I'm really getting a complex that
(I can't hear?

(

(Can we practice taking blood
(pressures?

Anything over . . . that is . . .
like low, do you want to check it
[blood pressure]?

That's normal [to get a different
blood pressure reading in each arm]?

(Mrs. , is there somewhere
(we can get some [more] chairs?

(

(Mrs. , do you have two
(pencils?

(

(This way [to pencil sharpener]?

 

 

(What reading do you take when it
([mercury] bounces up and down?

(

(You mean like ... where it [mercury]
(started [bouncing] the first time
(... or start ... the lowest part of
(it [the bounce]?

( .

(What if you took it [blood pressure]
(twice and got different readings?

( ,_

(How much would you say, like ... say
(there is a difference of ten mili-
(meters that is quite a difference,
(isn't it?

(

5. Equipment Operation
6. Requests for Assistance

 

 

 

 

Question
Cate ories
2 3 4 5 6 7
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

157

Question Categories:

1. Factual 5. Equipment Operation
2. Validation 6. Requests for Assistance
3. Relevancy 7. Personal

4. Operational Procedure 8. Social

 

Observa- Question
tion Cate ories
Unit Time Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

 

 

(By sound changes ... I was kind of
(confused, do they mean intensity
(like the louder . . . it kind of
(builds up to a real loud sound then
(it goes down again . . . and they
(want it from the point that its the
(highest to the . . . until it starts
(going down again? x
(

(Is that type of . . . are these the
(older types [of blood pressure cuffs]? x
(

(WOuld you run into this kind [of cuff]
(more frequently? x

3 6 Is that a mercury one [sphygmomano-
meter]? x

3 7 I want to come back and practice
[taking blood pressures], is that OK? x

3 7 (Do I have to go wash my hands? x
(
(Can I peek [at my own blood pressure]? x
(

(How could it [blood pressure] change
(so quickly? x
(

(Is that OK [to take partner's blood
(pressure on left arm]? x
(

(Am I on the right side [of the arm
(in order to locate brachial pulse]? x
(

(How come it [mercury column] was
(pulsating from above 120 all the way
(down [the column]? x

(

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

__.1l

 

 

Unit

158

Question Categories:

 

l. Factual 5. Equipment Operation
2. Validation 6. Requests for Assistance
3. Relevancy 7. Personal

4. Operational Procedure 8. Social

Observa-

tion
Time

 

 

 

Question
Cate cries
QuestionL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(Because I was letting it [air] out too
(slowly is that part of the problem? x

(.

(In the nurse's notes, do you just
(chart the blood pressure that we took
(... and what it was ... and nothing
(like [the other observations that you
(chart for] the pulse or anything? x

(It [the cuff] can be a little bit ,
(loose, can't it? x
(

(Right here [is the place to locate
(the brachial pulse]? x

(Is it [my blood pressure] low? m
(

(Do I have a low one [blood pressure]
(... a high one? x
(
(Can I be excused now? x
( r
(What do you mean backwards? m
(

(Can I take this [cuff] off [of arm]?
(

(Do you want to clean your's [ear
(pieces of monitor's stethoscope]?

(

(Now what am I suppose to do with
(this hand [while wrapping cuff on
(arml? x
(

(Could you please put this [blood
(pressure equipment] away for me?
(

(Might it [source of difficulty in ‘%

 

 

 

(hearing) be the stethoscope?
(

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unit

159

Question Categories:

 

. Factual

. Validation
. Relevancy 7. Personal
. Operational Procedure 8. Social

bWNH

Observa-
tion

Time Question

 

10

10

10

(How does the shape of the stethoscope
(be completely different?

(

(What did I say I got [for a blood
(pressure reading]?

Should I turn this [projector] off?

(When you're taking a [blood] pres-
(sure and you start to hear the sound
(that's the s...s...s, the one [blood
(pressure reading] that starts with
(an "s"?

(

(Then when you start hearing the
(irregulars is that when you take
(the diastolic [reading]?

(

(We'll get those [response booklets]
(back, won't we?

Mrs. , when the sound first
begins being muffled, are you suppose
to release the pressure?

(Do you want to check mine [blood
(pressura.reading]?

(

(Are we suppose to tell when it [the
(lounge) becomes muffled or not?

( 9
(Both numbers [where sounds become
(muffled and where they disappear
(should be noted]?

(

(When do you let the air out [of the
(cuff]?

5. Equipment Operation
6. Requests for Assistance

Question

Categories

 

2

3

475

6

7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

160

Question Categories:

 

 

1. Factual 5. Equipment Operation
2. Validation 6. Requests for Assistance
3. Relevancy 7. Personal

4. Operational Procedure 8. Social

 

 

 

Observa- Question
tion Cate ories
Unit Time Question 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8
3 11 (Do you have a cotton ball [for
(cleaning stethoscope]? x
(
(Do you have the wrap-around [cuff]? x

(
(The cuff is ready to be inflated,

 

(right? x
3 12 Would you check us? x
3 13 (Do you have to have a partner for

(this one [second unit on Blood

(Pressure]? x

(

(The second one [second unit on

(Blood Pressure]? x
3 13 Is there anything I can do [while

waiting for partner]? . x
3 14 (What [blood pressure] reading did

(you get? x

(

(Where it [blood pressure sounds]
(came on? x
(

(Why would it [blood pressure] tend to
(do that [not produce any sounds]? x
(

(That's [my blood pressure is] a bit
(high, isn't it? x
(

(Could I try it [blood pressure] on
(the other arm? x

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Tillfljlllllllllllr