IV1£3I_J RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to usaAmgs remove this checkout from “ your record. FINES Win be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. ~~ w * m 1 5 1995 JM' 0 4 “903% * 3 lb 5- ' i ‘99 o .., 121033? THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN STUDENT'S APPRRENT ATTENTION DURING ENGLISH‘AS A.SECUND LANGUAGE CIASS .AND'EHE.AMDUNT’OF'KNUWLEDGEIACQUIRED Susan Arafat .A DISSERTATION Submitted.to Michigan State University inpartialfulfillmentof' therequiremerrtsforthedegreeof Doctorofmilosoptw Department of Teacher Edmmtion 1988 ‘ 4 O 4 ‘4‘ ,a- r—~. .J ./ i. 5" u MALT mmmmm'smmmmmm ASMDWCLASSANDMWOFWW By Susan Arafat 'Ihepurposeofthestudywasto investigatetherelationshipbetween the subjects' backgramd experience and the apparent attention. Also the study attempted to investigate the relationship between subject's age, sex, and motivation and apparent attention. The study was designed to answer the following questions: 1. Do quick non-intensive self-reports provide valid data on global attention that correlates with: -observer judgement -teadler J'tflgemant -interview results -questiormaire results 2. Underwhat oonditionsdostulerrtsattendmost intheTESLclasses? 3. Arethegradesstudentsreoeiveintl'xeoanserelatedtothelevel of attention they reportedly paid during the class? ‘mesanpleforthissuxiyomsistedofsuflentsermlledinthe Method of Teaching English as a Second language class, "407", at Michigan State University during Fall term, 1987. A total of fifty-six students wereintheclass. The (10) smderrtswererardanlyselected fromthe classtobeobsezvedextensivelyaniintetviavedbythemsearduer. Methodologies exployed, were questionnaire, thought sanpling questionnaires, observations by the researcher and interviews. 'mefindingsrevealedtherateandinportanoeofthetypeof activities and length of the activities on the student ' s attention level . Timing of the activities appears to have a slight influence on the student's attention level. The results also indicated that there were significant differences in the level of attention to various classroom activities based on age. Gender was not related to level of attention to various classroau activities except for attention to lecture versus individual activities in which married students showed higher levels of attention than single students. Acadenic classification was not significantly related to level of attention in all classroan activities . Teamirgexperiernearrireasmfortakingthecwrseweremtmlatedto the level of attention. Finally, the study revealed that the level of attention had a significant role in the student's lowledge gain (final grade). Dedication 'misworkisdedicatedtomybelovedmsbard,nani8arakat, forhis supportanimistentmaezstarajmthmmmygmnteswias. I vmldliketodedicatethisworkalsotomybeautifuldaughterfloda Barakat. Aspecialdedicatimtomyparentswhonademethepersonthat Iamandfortheirconsistentbeliefinne. iv Adcmledgnents Upon the catpletion of this project, I wish to acknowledge the peoplewhohavebothdirectlyand indirectlyhelpednealongmypath- Dr. James Snoddy, dissertation director: for the incredible help that ymhavehadandcontirmetooffernethmghoutmypmgramardyour guidance, and continuous feedback in the writing process; Dr. Paul Munsell, cannittee nether: for your guidance, consistency, feedback during the research process, and for you friendly advice: Dr. Ben Bohnhorst, caumittee member: for your clarity of thought, constructive feedback and support throughout my program; Dr. Eldon Nolmamaker, cannittee member: for your support and insightful contributions. Iamalsoirflebtedtothesubjectsofmystuiywhocandidlyshared their tine with me, as well as their valuable suggestions. Listoftables... ....... .............. Aclmowledgments .......................... Abstract........ ..... .............. ChapterI-Introduction....... ............... PurposeOf'IheStudy ..................... .fl 0 O O I O O O ...... DefinitionOfTerus . . ..... . .............. Asampti DelimitationOfStniy . . . . .............. Limitation Of 'Ibe Study . ...... OrganizatimOfTbeStudy...... ............. Chapter II - Review Of Related Literature Attention In Cognitive Psychology . . 'IheoriesOfAttentim. . . . . . . . MethodsOfMeaszringAttentim . . . AttentionintheClassroan ........... . Selectivity............. InternalInfluencesOnSelectivity . Monitoring And Fostering Attention In The Classroan ..... Introspective Studies 'Ihrcugh Sanpling ClassroanManagementAnd'IeadxersEffectivenessInSecond VarietyInIearningActivity onrttmityForsmdentParticipatim (hapterIII-Iesearrhuethodology. . . . Introductim.......... .............. DesignOf'IheStuiy...” ............. . Hypothesis Sanple Instnnnentatim. mtaAnalysis.. QaapterIV-PresentatimAndmtaAmlysis 18 'e e e e e e e e e e e e e Hypothes DataAnalysis............ vi Page 61 61 61 62 Table of Contarts (cont'd) . Page Chapter IV (cont'd) PartI-A.Questiomairelbsponses: AnalysisofVariameAnd'memansOfLeveIOf AttentimAccording'Ib: Age, Sex, Marital Status, AcadenicClassificatim,‘IeachingExperience, ReasonForTaJdng'meCmrse ......... 62 'mebbansoflevelofAttentimardAnovaAnalysis According'm'meTimmgOf'meActivitim . . . . . . . 74 ‘IhebhamOervelOfAttentimAndArulysisOf VariarceAccordjng'Ib'meIalgthOf'meactivities . 75 ‘BelhansOervelAndAnalysisOfVariameAccording 'Ib‘Ihe'IypeOf'meActivities 78 .‘BuelblationshipBetwemFinalCmraeGradeAru 'Ieacl'erRatingOfStudents'IaIelofAttentim.. 81 'fimeR-zlatimshipBeWemFinalCmrseGradeAm “meStudents'IevelOfAttmtimAccording'lb 'meQuestiormairemsponses 83 Part2- "‘nnightSanplingmsptmes" Oxi-Square'lestAnalysisAccording'Ib‘meIaxgthOf Activities .................. ..85 Cid-Square'lestAnalysisAccording'lb‘meTimingOf 'IheActivities... ..... .......87 Gui-Square'lestmulyaisAccording'Ib'hie'IypeOf 'meActivityw ..... .....88 PartB-(laeervationalAmlysis ............. .91 Part4-Interviaas'lbspmses...............103 axillary.......... ............... .113 ChapterV—Smmary,ConclusionsAndlbcamflations......ll4 SunnaryOfFindingslM Qaestimmairemmlts.. ....... ..........114 'nmghtSarpljngW ........ .117 (beervationallbmlts ................. ..119 Interviewlhsults. ................... .119 Oonclusion............ ........ .....120 menswear-«mm. .......... ..121 ° ........ . .............. ..122 (beervationSheetW ......... . ..123 'BnaghtSmplingQastiamjre .............. .124 ‘BnaghtSaxplingQueatjmnireW ....... ....gg Internevaaestims ....... . .......... ..130 wmsmdartparticipation.............131 ParticipatimOalsartE'omH... ......... ...132 . ..133 vii List of Tables Table 10. 11. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 'meueansOf‘melevelOfAttentionArriANOVARssultsAccordirg TheMearsOf'meIevelOfAttentimAndANOVARssultsAccording ToTheSex ..... ThemansOf'melevelOfAttentimAndANOVARssultsAccordim TheMeansOf‘melevelOfAttentimArrlANOVAResultsAccording TbAcadenicClassification................. TheMearsOfThelevelOfAttentionAniANOVAmantsAccordjng 'meMearsOfThelevelOfAttentionAndAmResultsAccording TheMearsOflevelOfAttentionAndAmVAReailtsmringEarly Versus late Timing Of The Activities ........ . . . . TheMeansOervelOfAttentionArrlANOVAResultsmringEarly Versus late Timing Of The Individual Activities . . . . . . TheMeansOflevelOfAttentionArflAmVARemltsmrirgEarly VeralslateTimingOf'meGroupActivities......... 'meMearsOf'meIevelOfAttentimArdANOVAResultsAccording ToThelengthOfTheActivities TheMeansOfThelevelOfAttentimAndANOVAResultsAccording To The lexgth Of The Activities wring Individual Work . . . TheMeansOf'melevelOfAttentionAniANOVAResultsAccording Tb'melenngf'meActivitesmringGreupWork...... 'meMeasureOfThelevelOfAttentionArxiArnvaRemlts According To The Type of The Activities ....... ‘meMearsOf‘melevelOfAttentimArxiAmrAReantsAccording To ‘Ihe length Of Tine wring Various Classroan Activities . ‘meMeansOfTheIevelOfAttentimAniAmVAResiltsAcoordirg Tb'meTimingOfVarimsClassroanActivities . . .. . . . MRelatiorshipBetweenFinalOomseGradeArdTbaderslhtim ofStudents'levelOfAttention 'meRelatimshipBetweenFimlcunseGradeArdthesuadents' level of Attention AccordingTbTheQJestiotmaire Rssqaonses. Frequercies, PeIcentages Of Attention And Chi-square Ibsults AccordingTb'melengthOfTheActivities Frequencies, PercentagesOfAttentimArdaii-square Results AccordingTbTheTimingOf‘meActivities . . . .. . . .. Frecpercies, PercartagesOfAttentimArdmi-square Results AccordingTbTheTypeOfTheActivities Frequencies, PercentagesOfAttentimArflmi-square Results AcoordingTb‘meTypeOf'meActivities(Gru1pVem1s Frequencies, Pet'cmtagesOfAttentimArrimi-square Results Accordingb'meTypeOf'meActivitiesaectmeVersus viii Page 63 65 67 69 70 72 73 74 74 75 76 77 78 79 79 81 83 85 87 88 89 9O Chapter I Introduction Second language acquisition research is wrrently preoccupied with the role of cmprehended language, either in informal exposure to language or the development of language proficiency. The research so far has looked at various factors including the kind of language that snidentshearorreadardtheorderinvmidrmrphetesareacquired. However, anajorareathathasnotbeenadequately investigatedis the ammt of attention that students pay in instructional settings. Unfortunately, the study of attention has not provided either the conceptual frameworkorthe irstnnnentstortallyadequate formeasuring attentiveness. missufiyattetptstoaddressdirectlythequestimofwhat attertimisardalsotodetermiretlerelatimshipbehveenflmeapparent attartimshflentsarepayirgardthemmrtoflcnwledgemeyacquire. Recently, researchers have moved away fran a primary concern with teacher behavior to other instructional variables. Under student variables, attentim has been thought to be inportant. Carroll (1963) and Bloan (1976) alphasized this variable because they felt that student engagement with the material (or attention) is clearly necessary for learning. Harper (1976) believed that "attention" should be involved in all fonnal and informal education. Mittough and Traxter (undated) believed that attention is a prerequisite to learning. . Themstinportantqtestiminthisstudyconcerrsthevariables related to instructional attentiveness. These include types of activity, length of activity and timing of the activity durirg a particular class . Theirstnwtiaelattirgselectedisan'figlishasaSecadlarguage" 2 teacher training course at Michigan State University. Because precise theoriesarrlnetrndstoneasureawidespectnmofattentivemsshavemt been developed, the study will also attempt to refine a particular method that has recently cane under serious investigation. Global attention willbeneasuredthralghaprocedureternedmgm. These concepts will be discussed in Chapter II "Review of Literature." In addition, attention will be studied through direct observation, interviews, arrl a questionnaire. W 'mepnposeofthisstuiyistoinvestigatetherelationship between the subjects' background experience and apparent attention. The study also attempts to investigate the relationship between subject's age, sex, and motivation, and apparent attention. The study will not answer questions related to aspects such as focal attention, vigilance arri arousal level. Since there is little documented information about the relationship behaeenflreapparentattentimashflentispayingardtheammtof knowledge acquired, it was necessary to investigate factors that could solve sale of the problem related to teacher effectiveness and desirable suldentartcanes. 'meresmtsofthissmdywuildgiveideasfor concerned teachers to identify the variables that affect learning. The shadynayhelpstudentslearnhmtorespomtoirstnictim, anditmay aid teachers by providing information about the arrangement of the classroan environment and the type of activities that can attract and maintain students' attention. The investigation is designed to answer the following questions: ' 3 1) Do quick rum-intensive self-reports provide valid data on global attention that correlates with - observer judgements - teacher judgements - interview results -- questionnaire results. 2) maderwhatconditiorsdostudentsattelflmst intheTESL Classes? ' 3) Aretlxegradessbflentsreceiveinthecarrserelatedtothe level of attention they reportedly paid during the class? T'osunrmrize, thewrposeofthestmdyistodeterminethereported level of attentiveness and the coalitions underlying that level of attentiveness during (TESL) class activities and the relatiolship of the attentiveness to the final course grades students receive. m 1 . There is a positive correlation between global level of attention and the following variables: -- Sex - Age - Marital status - Academic classification — Teaching experience - Reason for taking the course 2. 'Ihere is a positive correlation between global attention and the following variables: --Interactionintheclassroan - length of activities - Timing of activities 3. There is a positive correlation between students' apparent attention and course grade (lawledge acquisition) . Definition of m Meldnan (1970) sunmarized the following definitions: Mon is a preparatory stage in percepticm or exploration (Woodworth, 1950). The term "attention" describes a stage of heightened or increased awareness of particular sensatiors (Reinholds, 1955) . Attention involves the selective awareness of a certain sersory message with sinultaneous suppression of others (Hernandez et al., 1956b) . Attention is a selective function which enhames awareness of sanething in particular (Oswald, 1958). Attention may be regarded as serving a "hirer" function for perception (Santos et al., 1959a). Attention refers to a selectivity of responses (Hebb) . Fortrepurposeofthissufiyattentimisdefinedas'bodily position appropriate to and directed toward the designeated stimuli: appropriate silence: apprcpriate response to the teacher's instructions: no display of disruptive bdnvior, fully seated in an upright position within three feet of the parimeter of the group" (Hawn, 1973 p.1) . W: The act of directing the attention at particular objects, while excluding the rest of the field. Such behavior speaks "a relatively autonanous capacity for object interest" (Meldman, 1970, p.6) , ardthisinterestispirwedattimeswhenmajorreedsareinabeyance. High need pressure is the my of exploratory play and is a condition 5 m'derwhichapersonisunabletoadiieveanobjectivegraspofthe exwironment. Imneedpresaireisarequisitecfapersontoperceive objectsastheyareintheirconstantdnaracter,apartfranhcpesarfi fearsheorshemayatothertinesattadItothan. Theautornncus capacitytobeinterestedintheenviromnentisofgreatvalueforthe survival of the species (Schachted, 1954) . Wbaprocessinwhidathereisanuninpededthrustinto thefowsofcorsciwsressduetouaeintnisimintotheerwirumentof stinuli which have certain specific parameters. Wisderived attention, builtuponthebasis of the historyoftheorganism. Thisisalearnedresponsebaseduponthe previmsexperienceanitrainimoftheorganism. Itisatypeof conditioned response to a conditioned signal (Grastyan, 1959). W: Itisthedevicetopirsuetheexternalandinternal processes,todirectthepathofthesensesa1fittxmght. Wig}: Itisanovingprocessthatisassociatedwith fluctuationsintherateofawaremssaswellasflucmatimsinthe focus. Itreferstothemmberofquantalfrirgeperlmitoftine (ammmtoftimeinwhichapersmisinvolvedwithatask). Itmaybe, in itself, a spmtanecus biological rhythm or it may be contmlled by a central pacemaker. The level of attention is one manifestation of tenperanent, an inherited characteristic of the organism. WEMmmrkismsized. Everyonefeels thatsheorheisapartofthegrcup. Theyallworktogetheroina friendlyatnnsphere. Wmmrstosmdentsmfidngalaerafierflenwitha grouporateam. 'mepersmistreatedasonepersmratherthanasa mariner of a group. We: 'mesuxiyassmnesfliaZtthereispositivecorrelatimbetweencmrse grade and actual knowledge students gain. MW Theparticipantsanpleisstudentswhoareenrolledinanethodof Teaching English as a Second language class at Michigan State University during Fall Term, 1987. This population may be non-representative of all studentsbecausetheyaremoreawareof classrocmvariablesthananother population might be. Thestanywillmtbeabletoanswerquestionsrelatedtofocal attention, arousal level , or vigilance. (1) 'mevalidityofthesurlywillbeaffectedbythehonestyarri accuracy with which the participants respond. (2) The firriings of the study will be correlational, not causal. The dissertation will be organized as follows: Chapterlcartairstheintroductimtotheproblem, statenentofthe problm, purpose of the study, significance of the study, hypotheses, assunptims, definition of terms, delimitation of the study and limitation of the study. Chapter II contains a review of the prior researdi and related literature pertinent to the problen under consideration. anterIIIpresentsthedesignofthesuady, adescriptimofthe populaticn and sanple, the irstnmentation, and the procedures used for collecting the data. - 7 ChapterIVcaatainsthedataanalysisardfindirgsofthestuiy. mapter V contains a review of the dissertation as a whole, its major findings, conclusions, and recaunendations for future research. diAPI‘ER II Review of the Related Literature 'mreegeneralareasofreseardnaredescribedinthissection. The firstareacoverstwopoints:researd1incognitivepsydvlogy inwhich attention is defined either physically or in terms of focal attention, andattentionintlvclassroon. 'nnesecorlareaexaminesexternal measurenent daservational studies of attention in which the researchers lookatsundentsarrijudgewlvthertheyarepayirgattertimanialso reports "the introspectivesanpling" approach. Thethirdareainthis section deals with classroon managenent/teadrer effectiveness in a second language classroon. EI! !' .: '!'ve£ I] Titchener (1908) believed that attention was very inportant and called it the nerve of the lee psyd‘vlogical systen. A few years later theGestaltardBehavioristnvveIentsbeganarrltlvytriedtokeepaway . frcm the convept of attention. These sdvols believed that operations thatrelateresponsetoastimluscmformtoasinplesetofrulessudn asisonorfinismorconditioning. Thefurvtio‘nalistsmtheottvrhand were unvarying in describing behavior rather than in developing theories abort it. (Although they had cavern with specific elenents of attention for exannple, preparatory set ard span of apprehension.) The term "attention" was not used in the vocabulary of scientific psydvlogy. Osgood (1953) covered the entire field of experimental psychology and mentioned the term "attention" only ave: in the disonssion of a partionlar theory of discrimination learning. Bytheendof19505, thesituatimchanged, andthecolveptof attentionbecameaveryinportantissue. Thefurvtionoftheterm 8 9 "attention" in post-behavioristic psyclvlogy is to provide a label for soneoftheinterralmednanisnrsthatdetermiretlvinportanveofthe stimuli. Oosequently it is now believed that it is inpossible to predict behavior fron only stimulus considerations. The stimlus is a significant eletnent of attention. Usually the organismappearstocontrolthedviceofstimnlithatwillbeallowedso as to control behavior. The organienn selectively attends to sonne stinnflus, or aspect of stimnlation, in preferenve to anvther. There are many variants of selective attention. Treisnnen (1969) suggests that attention tasks be classified according to what they requirethesubjecttoselect: stinnulifronnapartionlarsource, targets of a particular type, a particular attribute of an object, or resposes in the partionlar category. Gibson and Radan (1979) believe that attention refers to perceiving in relation to the task or goal, internally annd externally nvtivated. It relatesperoeptiontoactionanritoaperson'suvtivesanrineeds. Gibson and Radan (1979) discussed three types of attention: (a) captured or involuntary attention, (b) self-directed attention, and (c) attention directed by other persons. Captured attention is the attention of the infant which foonses on salient aspects of the environnnent that denanni attentionsuoh as: flashing, moving, or brightly colored objects. These objects also attract adult attention. The second type is self-directed attention becauseanadultusuallydecidestonmattaskheorshewill attend. Self-directedattentionisusuallyrelatedtoanego. Thethirdtypeof attentionisusedinclassroons, finenestudentsareaskedtoattefltoa taskthattheteadnerbelievesisinportant. Haleandleviswrotethat 10 atte'dirgtotresdvoltaskmaybetteresult of intrinsic interest, invludirgaconbinationoftheegoandthetask. Hale and lewis also believe that attention is a search for infornnation that is necessary for performanve and referred to attention as a "poet," "capacity" and "state." The variables of attention discussed in Gibson and Radan's (1979) study are (a) the degree of matdn between information taken fron ogoirg events and its utility for the task of the peroeiver; (b) the nature and specificity of goals, task set, and expectation of the peroeiver performer; (c) the alternative neanns that are available to the strategic quality of choosing an alternative: (d) the extent to which the taskoftheperceiverisintunewithhis/Ierreeds; and (e) theextent to whidn information, alternative nodes of action, and the task can be organized as a single structure. Piontkowisk and Caffee (1979) indicated that, due to the fact that attention is a rental state of mind, attention should be essential for learning. nominees and Pribram (1975) reviewed the psydncphysiological data on attention. He indicated that aronsal, activation, and effort are threedistinct, interactingsystensthatoperateascontrolnnechanisms: Arousal was defined as "reaction, a basic physiological response to changes in intensity, timing, or figure-ground relationship of the sensory inpnt. Activation is a "reaction, a tonic physiological readiness to respond by an activation of the 'go' nechanism" (nominees, 19n5) . Effort is: "The neasure of attention 'paid' to stimli; the coordinating activity of aronsal and activation that produces a change in 11 a person's information-processing capacity" (1113111155, 1975). Posner and Boies (1971) reviewed the psychological research on attention and cane up with the following categories of mental activity. Alertness: The development and nnnaintenanve of qntimal sensitivity to the environment. Selectivity: The act of seaming the environment in order to select ttenvstsalientdinensionsandtofoonsonthese featureswhile eocltding others. "Central processing": The focal point of thinking during which the selected elenents are brolght together for idenntification, conparison, recording, interpretation, or the like. Insumary, thissectiondisonssedthehistoryofthetem "attention" in cognitive psychology. It disonssed several elenents of attention such as stimlus and selectivity. Also, three types of attention were disonssed: a) captured or involuntary attention, b) self directedattention, andc) attentiondirectedbyotherpersons. The psychological conponents of attention were identified by Posner and Boies (1971) as: alertness, selectivity, and central processing capacity. Psychological conponents were identified by Pribran and nominees (1975) as: aronsal, activation and effort. Pillsbury (1973) snmnnarized varions theories. The first and sinplest is James Mill's theory. The intensity of the stinulus for the sensation and the stregth of the association for the ideaaretheonlycoditions forsonethingtoconetocoecionsnessand forclearnesswhenitbeconesconscions. Ifanideaisintenseor 12 interestingitwillsucceedingettingintothemind. InMill's formulation, attending to the idea and having it are identical. Pillsbury (1973) indicated thatRibot isthennnost important representative of the view that attention is fundannentally a motor phemmenm. Heemmeratedthelistofnvvenentsandthednangesin movenent which accorpany every act of attention and finally concluded fronthefrequevyoftheappearanvethatnvvenentistteultimatecause of attention. He divided movenents into three classes: effects upon the vasonotor systen, respiratory effects, andtheohanges inthevoluntary mscles. Attention consists very largely in the acolrate adaptation of thesenseorgans, inadeckingofbreathingandofallothernvvenents thatcaninanywayinterferewiththeperfectionofattentionand finnally, changes in the blood supply which will send a greater amount of bloodtothosepartsofthebrainwhichareinastateofactivity. Ribbot believed that attention in many cases was an inhibition of movenentratherthancerebral states. AccordingtoPillsbury (1973) athirdtheory of attentionisthat attentionis coditio'edby feelings: thepleasantness orunpleasantness ofthestimlnrsdecidesmetteritistobeattendedtoordenied admission to coeciolsness. Typical representatives of this theory are Bainintland,I-Iomiczand$tmnptin6emanyandRibotinFranve. A folrth grolp of writers believed that attention is controlled by t1ewill,meaningthatitisactivityinsoneformorother. Itis undonbtedly inplied in the theory that there is an effective foroe in conscionsnesswhidnisabovetleseeationsandwhidnactstocontrolthe conseofideas:sonethingthatisnorepositivethananyshadoving conscions feeling. 13 Renresentatives of thistteoryare Lime andSully (Pillsbury, 1973). 'nnefifthtteoryofattentionisrepresentedbyKolm. Itstresses that attention and coecionsness are identical . Attention is innvolved in allconscionsness,andthedegreeofconscionsness,ardthedegreeof attention arette sane (Pillsbury, 1973). As a reonlt of this brief overview of varions theories of attention, pillsnmy (1973) convluded that'each ofthetheorieshasnnerit, buteach isinvonplete. Attentionisnotanyoneofthesethingsaloe,butitis allofthentakentogetherandmore. Attentionisastateofclearness ofsoneoeideawith its resultinganalysis orsynthesis. Attentionas acauseisanecpressionofeverythingthatapersonhaslcvwnand ecperieved. Inaddition,_acconpanyingandcoloringttewtvle arethe feelinmofinterestandeffort,acconpaniedbythemovenentprocesses thatmakeknvwntoothersthedegreeofattention. Itisnvtaconrateto regard any feeling or sensation of the reverent as an explanation of even tlesinplestattentionprocess. Pillsbury (1973) roghly divided the codition of attention into two greatclasses—thesubjectiveardtheobjective. Heindicated that, ina generalwaytleobjectivecoditionmaybedefiredastlvseonalities whidnbelogtotheentrysensationaloe,regardedinisolationfronthe environentinwhidnitwasreceived,orintherogh,ttvse dnaracteristiesmidndepedupontlenaulreoftreectenelworldatthe tine. Ttvsecoditionswhidndepeduponinpressions receivedthrogh thesenses,retainedinsonewaytobeagainactiveatalatertine. Thenvst inportant of the objective coditions is prdnablythe intensity ofthesensation. Alondnoise,orabrilliantligtntwillforoeitsway into conscionsness in spite of all the subjective forces which may 14 atterpttocpposeit. Anvtherfactorofinnportanceistherateofchange intheinteeity:asnddendnangeisnvreeffectivethanagradualoe. Tteectensityforsightandtondnisalsoveryinportant. Alargeobject isnnvreliJcelytoattractattentionthanasmalloe,allthingsbeing equal. Changeisasinportantinattractingattentionasintensity. A study of the subjective condition offers more difficulties because it is nvteasytointerprettheresult. Itisnvtpossibletoindicateatonce what conditions arepresentthatnnnakeagiven object attract attention. Thenastudyoftheprevionsciromstanvesinthelifehistoryofthe individual which bringsabolttheresult maybeuseful. Thesubjective coditionsaretobefolndintheideasinthemindatthetime,oe's moodoftremonent, one's education, previons social enviro'ment,andthe heredityoftheindividual. Pillsbury (1973) indicated that there are two additional conditions ofattentionusuallyregardedasequallyinportant. Interestisoneof then. In its sinplest form, people attend to an object became it is interestingtothenn. sudentsareofteninterestedinanythingthatis nevtothen,but,attl'esanetine,issocloselyrelatedtothingswith whidntheyarefamiliarthattleyhavenvdiffiolltyincouectingit with soneprevions bit louvledge. Theolosertheconnection, the strongertheinterest. I-bwever,Pillsonrybelievedthatmatis interestingisidenticaltothingswhidnnmstbeattededtofor subjectivereasons. Theyarethethingsthatdenandattentionbecause theyarerelatedtoprevions experieve, thesocial enviromnent conpels it,orbecauseofl'ereditaryinflueves. Interest,then,isdepedent mtmlyupmtheohject,mtalsoupmunenamreofthepexsmtom theobjectispresented. Interestgrowswithlovwledge. Itisnotfixed 15 oveandforall, eveninthesameindividual. Interestisalsothe objective way of looking at the condition of attention. It is nerely ascribingtothednjectprocessesandqnalitiesthathavetheirreal origin in the person's self. In covlusion, interest is an iuportant elennentthat influenves attentionbtrt it isnotannust, pecplecanpay attentiontocertainobjectseveniftteyarenvtinterestedinit. For emple, load nvise, brightly colored objects, etc. , attract peoples attention. Pillsbury (1973) also stated that attention is the result of subjective activity, and that attention is effective when the self acts toproduceachangeinthemental field—intheclearnessorintensityof the ideas. Mental activity is really bodily activity, a mass of sensations thatcones fronthecontractions resulting fronmotor interventions which acconpanny attention. We have attenpted to smmarize the psychological theories of attention. oegeeralcharacteristicof alltlvsementioedisthe raisingcfsonepartofattentionprocesstotrerankofageeral coditionorcause. Attentionhasbeensaidtobeanintennsesensation thatistheresultofinterest, isduetofeeling, iscausedbynncvenents ofVarioekinds, andisprodrvedbydirectactionofthewill. mldnan (1970) stated that attentioncanbeneasuredbythreetypes oftests. oetypeoftestwonldmeasuretheadequacyofattention directlyinternsoftlehigtestpossible level ofattention. _Asecond: typemalessonesecodarydnargesintle'conrseoftleqerationstandas ameasureofattention. 'nnethirdgeeralgroupwonldnneasuretre breakingstrain,ortreamonntofstinulusthatisnecessarytodistract 16 attention. Meldman (1970) believed that nv oe of the nethods is altogether satisfactory, and rv two neasures have the sane capacity. By takingthenntogether, theycanaidingivingaknvwlecgeofthecapacity of an individual. Al! !° . !l ;; Silberman (1970) believed that the typical classroon environment is judgedtoberepetitionsanddull, andthisboringatmospherecauses students to becone bored or turn away their attention. Therefore, teachers need to adopt a certain level of activity and vitality that can maintain the students' level of alertness. Keele (1973) suggested that moderatelevelsofnnsicorotlvrkindsofbackgrondrvisetelpstndents maintain their alertness especially if they are sleepy. Berlyne (1960) believedthatteacinerandstudentscanstayalertintheclassroonn situation. He believed that variety is an inportant elennent in the classroon. Also, novelty—totally new elenents or familiar events in mnexpectedcontext—wonldhaveastrogaffectonaronsallevel. Iowans (1960) suggested that creative teaching invludes "hnmnan interest", and statedtteteadnershonldapproadntlvlecunrewithasenseofmmvr, posirgtheprcbleninanenway, confrontingstudentswithunexpected elections, changingtheworkonthewall, andintroducingavarietyinto the schedule. Bropiny and Good (1974) suggested that gronp activity is inportanttomaintainalertness. Teachersshonldarrangeseat assignmentstohelpstudentswlvhavetronble stayingalertbyplacing then in the action zone. Piontowski and Calfee (undated) believed that disonssionisaveryinportantelenentinaronsinginterestinatcpic and keeping students alert. 17 Pimtkowski am Calfee (undated) believed that selective attertion in learning includes three elene'rts: (a) "Picking out a designated object or event fran a large set," (b) "Paying special notice to certain features of this stimlus" and (c) "Disregardug' ' other features of the same stimlus." 'Ihey also believed that selective attention is influencedbyextemalandlntemal' sourcesof information. They believedthattmsmroesofectenlal influeneonselectivityneedtobe controlled. The first one is the specific elenelts of the stinuli relevanttotheleamirg' task,theseoaflisthegeneralactivitylevel in the learning' situation. 'Ihis can be done umlgh: (a) euphasizing critical feature of stinulus, (b) eliminating irrelevant feature, and (c) puttlng' anoldstinulusintoanewoontext. I ! l I Q 5 J ! . '! Selective atte’rtion requires a decision about midi information in thestimlustotakeandwhidltoignore. Whatthepersmthinksabart whenoalfrmtedwithnewinfornatimdepedsmthesimatimardhis/her badcgmd. Aninnediatemryseardltellshowthestimlus resenbles stored knowledge, arrl determines what is meaninful in the situation. Broadbent (1971) described tm internal cognitive processes in selective atte'rtim. 'Jhe first is filtering and the seoord is pigem-holing. Aooordingtoaroadbert, filterirgistheselectionofthestimlus feature on the basis of possible interpretation, while pigeonholding is thembsequeltprooessthatmatdlesthe filteredinprtwith information stored in the "pigeonholes" of the long term menory. Picntkowsld ard Calfee (undated) believed that teadlers need to stay sensitive to the aspect of the situation that the stlflelts omsider 18 personally relevant. They believed that the ability to select relevant features dwells cm a person's information-processing capacity. In the caseofpresertimanewarflccnplexsituatimtothestuderts, the teacher can pinpoint the significant features that influence the studerts' mental set. Piertkcwski and Calfee believed that attention is very inportant to learning. If a studert is not paying attertion to instructions, he or shewillnotprofit franthen. 'Ilodleckifastudentispaying atterticn, theymggestedtwosinplemethods: observewherethe stude'tt'seyesaredirected, andaskthestudeltinmediatelyafterthe eveltwhatisonhisorhermind. 'meybelievedthataccnbinationof these two methods provides the teacher with specific information about the precise difficulties a student has in performing a task. Oobband hops (1975) indicated that if the student is not doing the following: attending to the teacher, following teacher instructions, and volmlteeringtoansweracadenicqestions, thestude'rtisapoor learner. ‘Ihey suggest "behavior modification" in which the teacher asks himorherselfseveralquestions: (a) Envwmldymlikeyoursmdeltsto behave?, (b) that behavior would you like to stop?, (c) mat reinforcemareavailabletoym? Inothermrds, whatcanymofferthe shflertasarewardh and (d) Howanymrearrangecorflitionsthat reinforce desired behaviors rather than umanted ones? Pimtkowski and Calfee (undated) believed that behavior modification succeeded quickly whe: the classroan regime is nanifestly disrupted. 'Ihefollowingreportedstudiesarearevievofpastreseardl cafluctedmfilerelatimshipbeueelattertimtothetaskaniadlieve- 19 nent. Huigins (1967) studied the characteristics of pupil atte'rtion and howit relatedtoanymeaningfuldimelsions ofclassroanthinking. In thesmdyI-ludgins reportedpastresearchonprocedures formeasurenentof atteltim. Morrison (1926) developed a straightforward technique for atteltim measurenent. 'Ihe tedmique was sinple arri involved counting themnmerofsunentsjuigedtobepayingattertimeadlmimteofthe class period, and express these judgenents as an iniex of'the level of control exercisedbytheteadlerduringtheclass. Inthisstudy, Dbrrismfanflartthatteadlershadca‘ltrolcverstlflentsmwere payingatteztimbutdidnothavecmtroloverstuieltswtnweremt paying attertion. Morrison perceived the header control to be indicative of students' readiness to learn. Another study conducted by Shannon (undated) examined the reliability (1936) and validity (1942) of attertion data. 'Ihese studies indicate that inter-observer reliability for scores using attelticn neasureswerehigherttnnthreetypesdfmeaamesusedtoimestigateme efficielcy of the classroom. Bloan (1953, 1954) developed the method of "stimlated recall" for the collection of data about students' thinking prowesesintheclassroan. Ataperecorderwasusedtorecordtheclass ardintervievsuflertsabmtflleirflnlghtsatselecteitinesdurirgflle class. Bloansuggestedthathisirrletofrelevantthinkimms correlated with cmprehe'sive grade averages. Huigins' (1967) etamined junior high Sd'lOOl English classes located in a single school, which was part of a large suburban school district. 'menineclassesweredistributedintothreegradelevels (7,8,9) and three acadenic ad'lievelent levels (1,2,3,), where high achievers were 20 ermolledinlevellClasses. Asinple observation techniquewasused. 'meobserverhadthenamesofallplpilsinagivelclasslisted acoordingtoseatingarrangeneltintheclassroan,andtheobserver located himself in a positionwhere he could watch students without being observedhimself. ‘mestudeltswereobservedinturnardtheobserver judged their attertive or inatteltive behavior and recorded it opposite thestude'rt'sname. Eadltinetheobsewerreoordedallthestudelts' atteltive or inattertive behavior, he recorded the time elapsed, the daninantactivity oftheteacher, the instructional material inuse, and theorganizationofthegroup. 'I'ocollectdataabouttheconteltsof pipiltholghtdurirqtheclass,asheetofpaperwascodedtoallow investigators to ide'rtify the responses of stude'rts without writing their namesdown. Aftertenminutesofthelesson,thesuxiertswererequested torespadtotheqmstim,Whatwereymtlfirfldngduringthefevmimtes justbeforethelessonstopped? ‘IWomirmteswereallowedforresponses tobecatpleted. Atthesanetinethatthesttflertswerewritingdown theirthoughts,theteadlerwaselgagedindoingtworatingsma five-point selecticn scale: puttingdownhis jlrigenent of thegroup levelofattertimforthetinebetweenstcpsarfiforapproximatelym mirutesjustbeforethestop. Attheeldoftheweek(thetimeperiod forthestudy),theteacherwasgiventwocopiesoftheclasslistand wasaskedtoratetheattertialofeadlpupilmafive-pointscalefran lowtohigh. Onetinefortheweekoftheobservatimalsmdyarda seccndtineforthewholesenester. . The findings of the stlxly indicated a significant correlation for each class between the systenatic observation of studert attertion and theteadler's judgement of it fortheweekurflerinvestigation. Also, 21 theshldysuggestedthegeneral inabilityofcbserversorteachersto predict the relevance of pupil thinkitg fran observational characteristics of attention. The observers' scores for attention relate more closely to negative involvement than they do to subject matter relevance. 'Ihe relationships for five classes were significant. Social involvenent and teacher ratings of attention m significantly related forthesamethreeclasses inwhich subjectmatterrelevancewas significantly related to attention. In six of the nine classes, a significant relationship occurred between social involvement and attertionaijxlgedbyobserversorbytheteadners. Iahaderne (1968) investigated the relationship between students' attertivenessintheclassandtheirattitudetowardsdnool, aswellas theirabilityardachievenent. Fmrsixthgradeclassroarswereobserved for over a three-month period. Questicmnaires assessirg student attitude were administered to the students. Intelligence glotient and achievement testscoreswereobtairedardobservatimswerenadetorecordthestate of students' attention. 'nneinstnrnentatianlahederneusedmstheJadcsanmldgins' Observation Schedule (1965) . A student opinion "Poll II Qiestionnaire" wasusedtomeasurestudents' attitnldetowardsdlool. ‘Ihisoontained forty-seven nultiple choice itels, and the questions focused on four areas of school life: the curriculum, the teacher, the peers and the school. ‘Ihe Michigan Student Qiestiamaire (Flanders, 1965) was used to measure students' attitudes toward their present teacher and schoolwork. It included thirty-seven descriptive statenents, each followed by four replies: stregly disagree, disagree, agree, and strongly agree. 22 'Ihe findings of the study indicated an overall lack of relation between student attitudes and level of attention. War attention was founnd to be positively associated with achievement and higher IQ scores. A curvilinear relation was found between level of instruction and attention (as the level of instruction increased, attention also might increasetoanoptimalpointanithendecreasebeyordthatpoint). So inattentive behavior was associated with instructional variables and nnot with stnxients' ability toward school. Hawn (1973) examined the effects of active and quiet activities upon subsequentatte'dirgofpresdnooldnildren. Attendinginthegroup subsequenttoactiveplaywascarparedtoattedinggmnpsubsequentto quiet activities. Hawn enrphasized the inportance of qniet activities before another quiet activity, if the teacher wants to increase stmdents' attending probability. In this study, the active play period was outside wherednildrenhadtheopportnmitytouseavarietyofplaygronnfl equipnent. 'Ihe quiet activity was held inside and this irncluded performing conceptual tasks, looking at books, or playing a game at the table. 'I‘hembjectsofthestudyrangedinagefrunthreetofalr years. Hawnn defined attending as: "bodily positim amropriate to annd directed toward the designated stimli; appropriate silence; appropriate response to the teacher's instructions; no display of distruptive behavior; fully seated in an upright position within three feet of the perimeter of the group" (p. 1). Inthisstudy, Hawnindicatedthatmanyreeeardnerssuflied techniques for renediating undesirable classroan behavior, but very féw attenpted to study the effects of activities on children's behavior. 23 mtawastakenduringthebegimingofastory-readingsession. The datawasreoordedbyscamingthefaxrsubjectseveryfifteensecorris, startingwiththefiretoneseatedtotherightoftheteadnerwhowas readingthestory. 'Iheotherthreesubjectswereca'nseantivelyobserved according to their position in the semi-circle. ‘Ihe independent variables were teacher attention, which took the form of verbal praise or correction,andgeneralbehavior. 'Ihedependenntvariablewasthe subjects' attending behavior during group activity while a story was beingread. 'Iheresultsinriicatedthatwhentheprecedingactivitymsina Shall group,themeanattending forthegroupwas56%ard38.77%, respectively; whilethemeanof atteriingin'creasedto72%anri74% respectively when the preceding activity was outside time. 'Ihe highest percentageofattendingwaswhensubjectswereactiveoutsidepriorto thelargegroup,e'dwhenthequietsnellgmnpactivityprecededthe largegroup. 'Iheresultalso indicatedteacherattentionwasnot respmsible for effecting dnanges in the attending behavior of the subjectsandthatisduetothefactthatteadnerattentimwascaetant duringeverycandition. mrper (1976) suldiedthe inportanceof atterling behavior in learnningtoread. Heeflnasizedtheinportameofamropriateattending behaviorforthesuccessful attainmentofreadingskills. 'Ihreeslow readers(6yearsold)spenntbetween30%anri40%oftheirtime nm-atteflirg,anxitwoslwreadersspentbetween40ani50percentof Harper (1976), reported that Sanuels and 'rmnnire (Inflated) found. that first grade attention and recognition were positively correlated. 24 Harper indicated a positive relatianship between reading and atteding behaviorafterchildrenspentoneyearatsdnool. Goodreaderswereable toconcentratemostoftheirprooessingcnpacityontheectractianof meaning. Harper (1976) also indicated that little work has been forthcaning in studying sex-related attentional differences in reading situations . Samnels and Turnnure reported girls to be significantly superior to boys in attentiveness to reading task. They believed that for .the majority of children, sinnple reinforcing incentives can increase appropriate atteding significantly. Learning to read was a function of the child's attentianal repertoire. In addition, according to Iahaderne (1968) the nnnost inportant factor in the child's atteding ability is the appro- priate atteding, not attitudinal factors. Attention is more inportant than intelligece. Iahaderne also mentioned that Lahadernne found a positive correlation between intelligence and both attention and reading attainment. Iahadernne'ssudyshowedthatevenaftertheinflueceof intelligence had been taken into consideration, a significant correlation between reading and attention remained. In conclusion, Harper stated that attention is a very inportant, canplex factorinanylearningenvirument. Inthelearningofreading both vianal and auditory atteding are usually very Inch involved. meechine (1977) reviewed various studies done on basic skills instrnctionintheprimarygradesandsudentadnievenentgain, since 1973. 'Ihe foals was on content covered, student attention, direct in'strnctian, andproportionofsmdenttimespentinseatwork (rather than teacher behavior). The variables covered were: teacher centered instruction, student choice of activity, group work, classroan 25 managenent, indepedent study, verbal interaction, and the classrocm environment. Rosenshine (1977) indicated that over the last twenty years, only a small group of investigators have attennpted to modify teadners' behaviors which are related to student achievement. 'Ihe studies published between 1973-77 concentrated more on productive strategies. The major changes in thinking according to Rosenshine were as follows: (a) 'Ihere was more focusonsundentvariables likeconntenntcoveredandstudentattentionto relevant acadenic activities, (b) "Direct instruction" was embasized, and (c) Students spent more time in seatwork activities and discussion. 'Ihe role of the teacher was emphasized. Rosechine (1977) believed that researdners had focused intensely on student variables. This enphasis was influenced by Carroll (1963) and 81ch (1976). Benliner et a1. (1976), used the concept 'acadenic egaged tine" which contained stldent attentim and content covered. Carroll (1963): Pidgeon (1970): Husen (1967): Gunter and Reeve (1973): Chang and tenths (1971); Arnento (1977): Rosenshine (1971); Shnntes (1969); Bees (1968); Canten (1969); Brown (1969); Barr (1973); and McDonald (1975), studied content covered ("opportunity to learn") which included: inspectingthecmtentofthetextbooksused, askingteacherstoindicate tlcpercentofsudentswlchadtlcopportnmitytoleameadnitenofthe test, camtingthenmberofpagesoftheccnnmtectbookcoveredduring thesenester, codingthecontent inashortpresentationwhichwas relevanttotheunqnestions, countingthemmberofmrdswhidnthe teacher had attenpted to teach, counting the results of different curriculum progranns in general and on the cnrriculnnn-related post-tests. All of these previous studies (except Brown's) erphasized the significant 26 relationship between content covered and achievenent gain. Concerning student attention or egagenent, Rosenshine (1977) believed that attention was very necessary for student learning. Bloom (1976) reviewed fifteen studies on student attention and concluded that tiere was a signnificannt correlation between student attention and student gain. Rosenshinebelievedthatsudentsmnstattendtowhattteyare taughtinorderforlearningtooccur. Ibsenshine (1977) also disonssed "direct instruction." This term refers to those activities which are directly related to making progress intheskillschosenardreferstoahighlevel ofstudentegagenent within teacher-directed, sequenced, and structured neterial. It focuses onacadenicmatterswheregoalsarecleartosundentsandrefersto variables which prcnnote content covered and acadenic nenaged tire. Rosenshine (1977) sumarized the topics that reflect the organization and management of classroan as tie role of the teacher, seatwork, sundent choice, grouping, nenagenent and atnnosphere. Soar (1970) indicated that successful tenders are usually strong leaders who approadnsubjectnetterinadirectway, organizelearningaround questionns shndents pose. Successful toasters occupied the center of attentian. Ontheotl'erhand, less successful teactersmadestudentsthe centeroftheattentionandorganizedlearningamnndtlestudents' problens. Soar also believed that classroans which were organized in a way that allowed students free choice of activities were usually associated with lesseed achievement gain. Rosenshine (1977) believed that when students have nnany choices of activitiesandtreyarenotingmnpsbeingsupervisedbyateader, they are susceptible to distraction. To support this belief, Doyle (1975) 27 statedthatpreschool dnildrenwerepayingattentimtothetaskswlen ttematerialwasorganizedbeforehardardwtentheyweresittingin treirseat. Butwhensunentshadtoleavetleirseattodntain material, they were highly distracted. To examine the effect of grouping students for learning, Roseshine (1977) indicated that Stallings and Kaskowitz found that working with only one or two students was negatively related to class adnievenent gain whilemrkingwithasmallgroup (threetosevenstudents) orwitha large group was consistently positively related to achievenent gain. Soar (1973) stated that when students work in groups under tre teacher's supervision, the correlation with achievenent was positively significant . W (1977) dismssedthemanagenenntoftteclassroan. He indicatedthatthisissueisvery inportantbecauseclasseswithpoor managenent usually have low academic egaged time. Tikunnoff, Benliner and Rist (1975) studied nnnore effective and less effective classroans in second and fifth grade reading on mathennatics. 'Iney indicated that effective teachers give enough tine to an activity without considering the tine period spent on that activity. Similarly, tine allocated to a subjectwascontinnous. 'nnerewasnnoshiftingfrunninstrnctionto benaviormanagenenttoannmncenenttolargegmnpirstructian. McDowell (1980) focused on tre relationships between teacl'er imnediacy variables, teaching effectiveness, and the attentive variables. Also l'e focnsed on tle relationship between (a) teacher innediacy and interpersonal solidarity variables and (b) teadning effectiveness. In addition, the study investigated the differences betweeneducatimal levelgroupandfinalgradegroupsinratingteadner innuediacy, teaching effectiveness, and student attentiveness variables. 28 The results of the study reveal significant relationships era-g, affect, behavioral, inmediacy, hmnphity and attertiveress variables, and a low correlation betweea these variables ard the cognitive learnirg variables. ‘Ihe study also showed that inmediacy variables and solidarity variables are inportant in developixg students' attitudes toward communication practices and participation in then. It showed that shriertswhoratetheirteadxershighmimediacyvariablesard solidarity are more nonverbally attentive toward the teacher. McDowell (1980) pinpointed that inmediacy variables are related to affect, behavioral , and cognitive learnirg at the junior high level . Inmediacy variables, on the other hand, are related to behavioral omnitment, hanophity, and attentiveness variables at the senior high and oonposile level. In this study, McDowell indicated that Heath and Neilson (1974) coupleted a carpreheasive review of the past research on the relatiomhip between teacher behavior and students' achiereuert. 'Ihe review irrlicated thatprevimsreseardxersveremtabletodevelopaconsiste’rt operational definition of what castitutes good teaching. Also they failed to develop on erpirical basis of the peroeptims of teacher- tr'ainirg objectives. Also, these researchers failed to develop rigorous research design for developirg a clean definition of learnixg outoanes. 'Iherefore, HeathardNeilsmoorcludedthattherehasbeeialackof mlication of previous research studies. Travers et al (1960) egouraged the investigation of the affective, behavioral and cognitive learning dauain as a method of miderstandirg, learning and evaluation. Bloan (1968) defined leamirg as (a) an "affect detain," (b) a "behavioral detain," and (c) a "cognitive danain." Arderson (1979) describedagoodteadierasonewhocanproducepositiveoutcouesin 29 affective behavioral, and cognitive dcmains (all of which are labeled as teachirg effectiveness variables) . Anderson believed that positive studertaffectisverynecessarytoeahancethelearnirgprocess. She also believed that positive affect evolved fran positive interpersonal relationships . She designed a study to discover the relationship between nonverbal , inmediacy variables and their relatieship with interpersonal solidarity measures. Arderson (1981) suggested four categories of students' short-term artcanestobeobservedbyteachersdurirg instruction. 'Ihesecategories are atteition, initiative, success, and understandirg how and why the classroan works. Anderson reviewed the research for each category and foundoutthat itisinportant fortheteachertopayattertionto suidertrespmsestoinstructimardthatcanbedaieflmghfreqxeit contactwiththestudents. 'memethodologyoftheteadierisseeninthe teaching of specific work skills and choosing a suitable classrocm ewironnenttohelpstudertslearnhowtorespouitoirstruction. Arderson (1981) indicated that the past research showed that time-on-task was very inportant and was associated with achievement gains. She indicated that some students show more attertion, involvelent, arr! initiative than others, and also that in different situatimssmestudertswolfldbenoresuccessfulthancthers. Anderson describedsaledifferencesinsmdertresponsestoinstnictim. She indicated that students who exhibited more atteition, irwolvenent and initiativeresmesesweremresucoessfulthanothersinsmelearnirg situations. She believed that learnirg occurs only when a studert has producedsanekirdofactiveresponsetoinstnlctim, surhaspayirg attertim, practicing a skill or usitg new information to solve a 30 prdalen. AccordirgtoAndersm, teadier'scannotd‘largetheirriividual studerts' differems that affect students' responses, but they can influenceinnediatesuflettrespcmsesbylcddrgatthestnieits' rewmsesassignalsthattead‘xerscanusetocextimieinstnnctimor modify it. She believed that when the instructors elicit active participation in the learnitg activity, attention would usually be higher. McKenzie and Henry (1979) found that the rates of attertion durirgagmzplessonwerehigherthantheattertionratesinlarge groups activities. Anderson also believed that teachers ' strategies for selectixg students durirg discussion influeices attentiveness and active participation. She believed that when only volunteers were called upon, ouaersuuertsmightumecxt, butifall students' contributiomwere regularly required, attertiveiess might be greater. "Sigml systen" is alsodiscnssedbyAnderson. Kouninand Doyle (1975): Kounin andGunp (1974); Kamin and Shernen (1975) refer to it as "arrargelents of settirg ortheprocedurewithinthetaskthathavethepowertosustain participation" (p. 9). ‘Ihey found out that stude'rts pay attention more in lesscns which alphasized continuity arrl insulation, ard deetphasized intrusiveiess. All the research reviewed by Anderson (1981) suggested ways that help teachers to attract studerts' attertion, such as Kamin (1970); Elmer (1980); Elmer, EVerson 5. Anderson (1980): Good and Bmphy (1978). Butatthesanetime, all ofthesereseardiersfailedtodenstratethat active learnirg mly takes place when the level of atterticn is high. Petersm, Swirg, Braverman, and Rise (1982) described studelts' cognitive process duritg classroan instruction in nethenatics. 'mey related shrierts' reports of cognitive processes to their adiievenelt. 31 Usixg the stimulated recall technique developed by Bloan (1954), they interviewed fifth-arrisixth-gradestuderts. 'mesuidentswerestmna videotape of a lesson they had just participated in. The studerts' respmsesshowedthatcognitiveprocesseswererelatedtoabilityard achievenent. 'Ihat found that, compared with lower ability studerts, higher ability students reported (a) more attendirg to the lessm, (b) more unierstarriirg of the lesson, (c) egagirg in varieties of cognitive processes more frequently, (d) egagirg in more strategies that involved problen—solvirg steps, and (e) more often usitg the specific strategy of relating cognitive processes of the net information to be learned to prior knowlecge. The findings of the study indicated that cognitive promss is related to ability and studeit adiievetent. Peterson et a1. (1982) indicated that observers' judgenent of students' off task behavior durirg class were not highly related to studert achievenent, while students' reports of atteding were highly related to their achievement. Grade), 'nmnlow'and Ysseldyke (1982) reviewed the research on egagedtineamitsrelationshiptolearnirg. 'Ihefocusoftheirstudy wastofirdcxthowteadiers' peroeptionsandsmderts' characteristics affecttime inclassroans. Alsotheywantedtofixdartwhatcther researdisaidabwttherelationshipoftheconceptoftineand adiievenert. 'Ihey believed that very few stuiies that reviewed shadeit behavior (atteitiontothetask) acrossthegroup, showedcmsisteit findixgs. 'Ihesestudies iniicatedthatinallcaseshigherranked studentswere fonfltostaymtaskagreaterperceitageofthetine. ' Grader, ‘Ihurlow and Ysseldyke (1982) discussed allocation time. It referstoflxe'heaaxreofmrhmitytoshflwitisthattinethatthe 32 studentisecposedtotheacadenic instructionandclassroan activities. " Two kinds of methodologies for assessing allocated time weresuggested. Chemethodisfortheteachertoreporttheammtof time allocated to various classroan instructional areas; the other method is a direct observation of the classroom Studiesonallocatedtinewereconiuctedbytheaegimirg‘leacher EValuation Study (BI‘ES) at Far West laboratories. 'Ihe findirgs indicated that allocated time is positively related to stuient learnixg. ‘Iherefore, the differences in the legth of time has an inportant consequence in student adnievenent. Guthrine, Manluza, and Seifert (1976); Kresling (1977); Jacdoson (1980) reported a significant relatiorship between achievenent and time allocatedtomath instruction. MothersmdiesconductedbySever (1966), and Welch and Bridgham (1968) indicated that there was no relationship between high school teadiers' report of time allocated to theirstmctimandsttflerts' adiieveneatgairsfruntheirstructim. Belliner (1976) , Karweit and Slavin (1981) , and Frederick and Waberge (1980) believed that the strorgest correlation betweei achievement and allocated time resulted fran the use of conteIt-relevant achievenent measures. Good and Beckerman (1978) indicated that high achievixg studerts umallyspeidnoretinemtaskthanlwadiievers. Anothersmdyby Soli and Devire (1976) indicated that low achievixg snidents spend less. timeontaskthanhighachievers. 'Iheybelievedthattheabseiceof inappropriate behavior was the best indication of learning for low achievers, while for high achievers atteding was predictive. Studies usirg direct observation of allocated time indicated 33 different results. Cooley and leinhardt (1980) and leinhardt (1977) suggested that there was a significant correlation between time for class instruction and class achievement. Graden, 'nmrlow and Ysseldyke (1982) disalssed stalent engaged time (attertiontothetask) ardsggestedthatthetimeastlxientactually spent on learnirg might differ fran time available for instruction. Hall et a1. (undated) irdicated that althcngh 75% of class tine was allocated to instruction, only 25% of class time involved student response to acadenic activities. Stuiiesofergagedtimerelymdirectdoservatiminorder todeterminewhetherornotastudelt isresponsive. Hall, Greenwood, et al. (1981); and Benliner et a1. (1979) indicated that students spe’rt most of their time in passive response (listenirg, gettilg materials ready, aniwaitixg for instruction), andonlyasmall portionoftimewasspelt in active acadenic respe'ding. Stallings (1980) indicated that there was a significant correlation between interactive, on-task behavior and learnirg. She reported that interactive, on-task behavior (reading aloud and discussing) correlated positively to achievement, while non-interactive on-task behaviors were negatively correlated to achieveIent. arts studies focused (:1 individual studelts duriJg reading andmath irstructim. 'Iheoverall reelltsofthesestlniesshmeda significant relatie'ship between egaged time and achievenent. Stallirg (1975) indicated that time spent in acadenic activities such as readirg and nethenatics was positively related to student achievement and time gent egaged in activities sud: as art, nusic, physical educatim is negatively correlated to adiievenent in acadenics. Cooley and leirdrt (1980); Frederick, Eastern, umihead, and 34 Vandemioken (1979); and Frederick (1977) indicated that the time qne'nt learning (attendirgtothetask) wasastrongpredictorofachievenent. Andersen (1975); Cabb (1972); cover and Richards (1979); Lajaderne (1968); McKinney, Mason, Peterson, and Clifford (1975); Sanmels and Turnure (1974); and Stallings (1968) suggested that attention to the task was a significant predictor of ad'nievenent. Felesenthal and Kiresch (1978) failed to find a signifimnt relatienshipbetweenegagedtilneardadlievenentvmenpretestscores wereiqudedintheanalyses. Butobservationsofegagedtime corriuctedbythenweremtasdetailedorpreciseasthoseshndiesthat fourrl a significant correlatian. Petersen, Swing, Stark and Wass (1984) addressed the following research q.nestiors: (a) that cognitive processes do students report attending to during a mathenatics class?, (b) that affective thoughts do shflertsclaimtohavedurirgthatclass?, (c) Howarestuients' aptitudes related to their reported cognition and affective thoughts during mathenatics instructim?, an! (d) Do these students reports provide evidence of a correlatim between cognitive process, affective thoughts, and later achievenent and attitudes? 'nnesubjectsdnosenforthesuflyweretwerty-ninewhiteandnire minoritysundertsfrcntwofifth-gradeclassesinanurbanelenentary school. 'Ihe participants canpleted several aptitude tests and qaestionnaires, thematerialwastanghtinnineone—lnlrsessions, and practiceproblensweredeveloped forthestmdentstoworkmdurirg seatworktime. sundertbehaviorwasoodedduringeadnolaeeusingthe observatia'n systen developed by Peterson ard Fanicki (1979). ‘Ihe observerfomsedonstudentbehaviorasameasureofsmdents' overt 35 attentien or lack of attention. Stimlated recall interviews were also cednctedafterthelessanardtheseatnnrk. Anapproximatelyeqial number of students of high, mediumannd low abilitywere interviewed each day. Students'respensestothestinulatedrecall interviewswereaudio tapedanritranscribed. ‘Ihesuxiyinriicatedthatsundertadnievenentardsuxientability were significantly related to students' reports of their thotghts during classrocninstnnctim,irnlulingtheirreportsofattendingtotretask, understanding the task and egagirg in various specific cognitive processes. Aocordingtotheclassroanobservatian,studentegagenentin mathenaticswasnotrelatedtostudentachievenent. ‘Iheresearchers believed that students' reports oftheircognitive processes during classroom instruction might be more reliable and valid indicators of standents'classroanlearnirgthanobservers'judgenentsofstnflent attentien. 'nneinportantmediatingprocessesmight involvemorethan sinnply attendingtothetask, the actual cognitiveprooesses involved in processing the nathematice information presented dnn'ing classroom irstructionmigntbemoreinportantthantheamonmtoftinespent attedingtothetask. 'nnereenltsofthes‘uflyalsoirdicatedtheinportarneofsuflents' reportedaffectiveflnghtsasnediatorsbeuaeensundertadnievenentard instructionalstinmli. Alsothestuients'reportsofthclghtsabout natheneticaloongeptsandoperationsneedtobecansidered for investigating the cognitive processes of the students while learning from classroaniinstruction. . Gettinger (1984) investigatedtheeffect oftimespentinlearning ardtimeneededforlearninganreadirgandspellingadnievenent. 'Ihe . 36 subjects were fourth- and fifth-grade students. For each grade level, two forms for reading and spelling were used as criteria for tests. To measure learning, standardized achievement test performance, teadner-assignedgrades franthenostrecentgradingperiodinspelling ardreading, ardcriteriantestscoveringthematerial ineachofthe experimnntal learningtaskswereused. 'lheprocedureusedwasthesame forbothgradesandalso forreadingandspellingtasks. 'Ihefindings irdicatedthattheeffectoftheammtoftimespent in learning on achievenent was mediated by time needed for learning. The studysuggestedthattherewereindividnnal differenassinhowmndn exposureor instructionwasneeded formastery, thereforetheeffect of additional instructional time may not be the sane. Gettinger (1982) suggested that egaged tinne and allocated time should enable future researchers to clarify when and how additional time spentcouldleadtobetterlearningoutcanes. Hesumarizedtheresults ofpastresearohthatdealtwiththesubject. HefoundthatDynstra (1967) and Gales (1961) reported that in naturalistic classroom settings, readingadnievementofgirls isbetterflnanboys. JeffreyardSamnels (1967) and Petersen (1972) indicated that attentional behavior of the subject was easily controlled, and sex differences in reading- annalogous paired-associate learning were not found. Mail (1964) indicatedthattheperformanceofboys issuperiortothatofgirlsona reading-type task under certain classroan caditions. Baldwin, Johnson, and Wilby (1970) indicated that success in the subject hatter is usnnlly attributed to teacher methodology, while academic failure is explained by several variables, including lack of intelligence, readiness, motivation, and attention. lahaderne (1968) indicated that school achievenent at 37 grade six was related to attention. Cobb (1972) reported the same findings for fourth-grade pupils. Sanuels and Turrure believed that lack ofsucoessnnayleadtoinattentivenessratherthanthereverse. 'Ihey indicatedthatreadingreadinnessscoresforboysarealmostthesamefor girls. However, attention is more significant in favor of girls, and girls have higher recognition scores. 'Ihey also indicated that overt task-relevant orienting behavior is related to scholastic adnievenent. Stallings (1985) sunmarized a number of previous studies that emphasized time students sped on specified tasks and the relationship of that time with achievenent scores. Andersen (1976), Benlinnen (1979), and Brophy (1979) indicated that students who remain on task during innstructionhavehigheradnievenentthanthosevdnoareofftask. Results fran several studies (Lieberman, 1980; Rullenn, et al., 1979; Brophy, 1979; Harslnall, 1981; Peterson, 1979; and Roseshine, 1979) suggested thattherelatieshipisbetweenmamnerinwhidntineinsdnoolisspent andsudertadnietennert. 'nneirfirdings indicatethattheanumtoftinnne went actively egaged in learning is correlated to stndents' achievement; antheotherhard, lowadnievennertwascorrelatedtotime spentofftask. 'lheamonmtoftimetheteadnerqnentoninstruction related interactim is positively correlated with student achievenent. Stallings (1985) definned egaged time as "the amount of time students sped atteding or trying to acoanplish the task" (p.2) . Stallings also sunmarized others investigators' definitions of "on task" as: "On task activities innclude listening when instruction of the ‘ assignment is given, taking part in discussion, respording to teacher, respondingto each otheranddoingthe assignedwork” (p.2). Stallingsreportedthatstudiesthat focnsedonstndentengagedtime 38 had different methodology. Sane used annoedental records, checklists, rating scale, or time samples. Sane studies focused on a randann sample ofchildrenintheclassroan, whilesanerecordedeverychild's behavior. Regardless of what nnethodology was used, all of these studies depededanscneformofdirectobservatimandthefindingsaresimilar. Stallings (1985) indicated that Karwait (1983) , Hunt and Ranhawa (1983) , and Zegar (1983) believed that students' attention rates are nnot thesameinanyoftheinstruztionalsessimsoftheschoolday. 'Ihe time of the day, kind of activity, instructional nnethod, classroann climte, mode of instruction, and the characteristics of both teachers and students affects the rate of attention. Piontkowski and Calfee (1979) indicated that teachers can help students to increase their attention and stay involved during classroann instruction. Stallings (1985) studied egaged rate and its developnental attentionspan. 'nnislorgi’adinnalsundyccnparedtheengagedrateof dnildreninpresdnoolthrcnghfourth-gradeandmadeassessnentsof attentien span and how it relates to the child's rate of achievenent. 'nneyecaminnedsudnbehaviorasdnatting, disrupting, persmalmodes, wailing, sleeping, and being uninvolved. To relate students' egaged rateandstudents' achievenennt forthesamechildren, overtheseveral years of the project, the guidelines established by the National Institute of Education were followed. Annalysis of subsanples of dnildren'segagedratesandadnierenentscoreswerealsorequired. A specificsystenwas formdtorecordeadndnild'segagedrateandenter it intothedatabasewiththechild identificationmmberinorderto conduct the following level of analyses: limited English speaking, high adnieversandlowadnievers. 'nneobserverscannedtherocneveryfive 39 minutesduring fifty-mimntereadingandnathclassesandrecordedthe tasksofthednildonthednecklistofthechildres' names. ‘Ihe observer also recorded a code for each activity used. The absence of entry of off-task behaviors means the dnild was egaged in appropriate behavior. AdnievenenttestswergiventostudentsbyeachteacherinMay of each year. Percentile scores were recorded for each student frcm the firsttofourthgrades. Peoentilescoresweretrarsformedtoanornnel curve for use in analysis. 'Itneresultscfttnesudyindicatedthatintlssegradesshxientscan atted to acadenic tasks at specific rates. Students egaged rate scored highonthereadingadnievenenttestandthisinncreasedfranfirstto fourth grades. Stallings (1985) believed that when students are off task, they might selectively pay attention. Therefore, attertim should be considered in planning lessons and activities at any level. 'Ihe stldy also indicated that if preschool children are likely to stay involved in a large group activity for eight to ten minutes, thenn the teacher should nnot plan a large group activity to be longer. 'Iosnnmarizetheliteramresnnvedthatteadnersnneedtoadopta certain level of activity and vitality that can maintain the students' level of classroann. Variety of activity, humn interest, and sense of humor were snggested as different variables that influence students attentian in the classroan. 'Ihesecondcategoryoftheliterature reviewdiscdssestheexternal neasurennent observational studies of attention and the introspective, ~ Wt sanplim approadn- Winnie. Krupski (1985) conducted a study to examine behaviors reflecting 40 attentimannglearninghardicarpedandnormalyungsterswhilethey workedcrntasksthathadvariedoognitivedenand. Childrenwereobserved whiletheyworkedonnthreekindsofclassroantasks. 'Ihesecategoriesof task type were established "a priori" through extensive observation of theclassroans that ultimtelyservedasstndysites. 'meobserversatintheclassroanandrecordedwhetheranindividual drildwasan-taskoroff-taskanalternatesevensecedinntervalsfora 4.9minnteperiod (twenty-one 7-secondintervalsof observation alternated with twenty-one 7-second intervals during which observations nadeinthepreoeding7-secondintervalwererecorded). On-task behavior was recorded if the child exhibited physical orientationtowardthetask,eyeconntactwiththetask,ormeaningful nanipulation of task materials. Off-task behavior was recorded if the dnildlookedawayfranthetask,talkedtootherpersonsabantnatters clearlyunnrelatedtothetaskathand,orwasoutofhisseat. Datawas collectedoveraZ-monthperiod. Learninghardicamedyomgstersvariedintheiron—taskbehavioras afmnctienoftaskdenand:theyspenttheleasttineon-taskwhen cognitivedenandsweregreatestandnosttinem—taskwhenfevcognitive denanrsweremade. AnnotherstudybySanmels andMiller (1985) examinedattention in subjectsinttslaboratoryandthesanesubjectsinaclassman,acrossa varietyoftasksandcentects. 'nneaimwastofindoutiftherewere differences in level of attention between learning disabled and nnornnal dnildreninclassroanandlaboratorytasks. Classroom data-collection involved a 10-second recording procedure. Onednildatatimewasobservedforfiveseoonrbandtheobserved 41 behaviorwasrecordedduringthenextfive seconds. Cassettetapeloops were prerecorded with the message "observe" and "record" alternating at 5-seoond intervals. The behavior categories whidn were coded were: atteding task (-) or waiting (W), non-atteding finne motor (PM), grossmotor (GM), daydreaming (D), orienting to others (0) andverbal nnoise (V). Findings indicated nno difference between learning disabled students andnormal studentsonthetasks. Differences intaskbehaviorbetween thegroupswerenotfonn‘deither foracadeniconarttopics or for ability to sustain attention. A significant difference was found in favor of special over regular classes, snall over large group, and teacher-directed over independent activities. Forness and Kavale (1985) conducted a study an the effect of class size on the attention, communication, and disruption of mildly menntally retarded children. Behavior was recorded on each child in specific categories of classroom funnctioning using an observation systenn described in detail in Forness (1983) . Behavior was recorded in four predetennu‘nned categories: (a) communication-task oriented verbal or gestural response (pnpil asks oranswersquestions): (b) atted: eyecontactwithteadner, task Haterial, orpeerwho isreciting; (c) notalerteyecontactnotdirected to teacher, task materials, or pupil who is reciting: and (d) disruptive behavior incanpatible with task activities (e.g. , talks to another pupil when nnot so permitted, etc.) . Atimesanplingtedmiquewasusedtoreoordthebenaviorofall dnildreninneadnclassroan. 'Iheprocedureinvolvedobservingand recordirgthebehaviorofeadndnildinmrnduringsix-seoond 42 intervals. 'lhiswasdoneinrunndnnntilaminimmoftenintervalsof each child's behavior had been recorded at six-second intervals. An observerconrtinnnedreoordinginanassigedclassroanmntildatainthat particnlar classrocnn had been collected for a minimm of four days. ‘Ihe study indicated that atteding behavior may be sanewhat lower in nedium—sized classrocns than in smaller classroans or in larger classroans as well. Sane variationn may be expected in atteding behavior, depeding on the situation. But overall, large classroans tend tobeassociatedwithhighertaskattention. Sircethesesamelarge classroans do nct ted to be associated with similarly high levels of positive verbalization or gestures, one might speculate that there is less opportunity in large classroans for interactive cannunication and sauewhat ncre emphasis on activities such as passive listening, individual seatwork, or sane other form of instruction considered ncre typical of regular classroans (Goodlad, 1983) . Anctherstndyusinganalternativeapproadnforinprovingclassrocm attentiveness has been described by Keogh and throlis (1976). ‘nney suggest that poor performance in a dull, repetitive vigilance task (or classrocnn assignment) may reflect an willingness rather than an innability to sustain attention. Anderson et al. (1977) developed a technique based on data indicating that feedback regarding false alarms inproved vigilance performece in hyperactive children. Ozolins (1975) and Mack (1976) tried to teach hyperactive dnildren to pay attention by providing them with a feedback infornnnation regarding non-attending bdnavior during daily, 30-minutesessions. 'Iheexperimenterflashedalightinabox mounted an the child's desk whenever the following behavior occurred: 43 ncving ant‘of chairs, talking aloud, taking eyes off work, or doodling on theworks‘neetorthedesk. airingtheB-weektrainingperiod, the hyperactive child's non-atteding time decreased significantly with no substantial loss in acclracy. Classrocmobservationisatednniquewhidnisbecaningingvery popularinreseardnsundiesandineducation. Severalresearchstudies that used classrocm observation to record students' behavior were snnnnnarized. For the nest part, the observation procedure involved a sequenceinwhichtheresearcherlookedatastudent, observedhis/her behavior for a brief glance, placed a tally mark on the dnservationn sheet besidethatchild'snanne, locatedthenextdnildonthesheetand repeatedthesegnence. Asecondon-the—spotneflnodfordeterminingthanghtcontentis thanght sanrpling inwhichtheexperinnennterstopspeople inthemiddle of whatever they happen to be doing and requests narrative descriptions of whathasbeengoingonintheirconscicisness justbefore innterruption. 'Ihought sanpling has the additienal virtue of being a highly flexible procedure and relatively uncbtrusive. It is actually a specialized applicatian of a time-sampling procedure which was described inindustrialsettingstostndypatternsofworkasearlyas1935 (Tippell, 1935) . Asevinsky and Kleitman (1953) initiated an semis outpouring of research using BEE—contingent, ncn-randcnn, dream-sanpling. lorents (1971) used thought sanpling to stndy the working patterns of university business sd'col faculty. (sikszentmihalyi, larsan 8: Prescott ' (1977) used thought sanpling to study "ecological" patterns of activity and mood in ncrmal everyday life. 44 Cohen (1983) corductedastudyinaseccnilanguageclassroanin whicheach sessionwas intermptedforoneortwonnmentstoallow shndenntstoinspecttheirnentalstatesaniflnenwritedamwhatflley found. lIbis self-observaticmal introspectim was intended to reflect innerprocesses. ‘Ihebasicassnmptimofthisamroadlisthat learners can verbalize the learning process. The self-d:servational thought of learners may be beneficial introspectively or retrospectively. The results of Cohen's study indicated that only fifty percent of thesuflentswereattendingtoflnecantentofthelessanattlemnnt theolasswasstopped. ‘Iheresultsalsoinriicatedthatvhenstnients wereattending, theymighthavebeenmakingaqeneralobservatim, assessingtheirgeneralgraspofwhatwasbeingsaid, orgrapplingwitha specific problem. When students were timing out, they might have been evaluating teachers, evaluating another shndenrt, or thinking about other academic issues or social issues. Klinger (1987) described methods of investigation including thanght sanpling, tlfinfldngaloud, andquestiormirenethods. 'Ihepaperdiscussed thequestion, 'Wlatdopeoplethinflcabantaniwhentheydothinkabant it?" ‘Ihis question was answered fran three perspectives. 'lhe different form of thought, the relation of thought content to situations and notivational states, and specific categories of content. 'me most cannon forms of thought are focused on the inmediate situation, are accanpanied by interior monologs of at least a fa: words, are predauinanntly visnal, andaredirected, butuptoathirdoftlnghtsanplesproveemeptions .to~eadlgeneralizatimandabantaquarterconntainat least traces of dream-like mentation. ’Ihought content (along with attention, recall, and dreamccntent) reflectthethinker'sonrrentcmcerns, definedasunnet 45 goals. 'Ihtxghtsaretriggeredbywesassociatedwithcurrentcagerrs. ‘Ihe effect of concern-related cues to cognitive activity is probably mediated by the ales' emotional arousal value and, at early processing levels, is probably autcnnatic. Over a quarter of thought sanpling focused on other people, but explicitly sexual and violent content in eadnaccmntedforabantonepercentofthetotal. Pope and Singer (1978) Slmmarized special requirements for methods currently in use that observe inner experience, the five dimensions in the flow of thought, sane characteristics of every day naninal thinking, and the canbination of motivational , and stinulus factors that govern dnangesintheocntentoftrnnghtfranonemnenttothenext. Formost of these issues, they provided infornnation fran ttnght-sanpling investigations of manent-to—nment inner experience. They also considered evidence on relationships among the various attributes of thought and the individual differences in thought qualities andcancluiedtratpeqnlevhoreportedtheirimagerytobenoredetailed alsoreportedittobenorevisual. 'nnerewereinterestingrelationships among the nodalities of the participant's imagery, the modality of stimlation, and the number of things that the participant reported going oninhisorherheadatatime. ‘Iheyalsoccncludedthatpeoplewho mitdntheirattentimnore frundnanmeltodlannelofthetaperecording feel less able to control their thoughts. In addition, they found that there was a clear individual difference in estimated duration of ttnght W- Severalshfliesmthettnghtsanplingprocedmeweresmmarized. Inall ofthesestuiies, theprocedureinvolvedstoppingcertain individualsperformingataskandrequestingthantodescribewhat 46 flngtntsweregoingfluugnnrttlsirmindsjsutbeforeflsinterruption. Inrecentyearsattentionhasbeengiventonavmethodologiesand curriculum naterials for teaching a second language. More recently, enflnasishasbeenplacedonalternative classroan structure. Whatever fliereseardlenfissizes,themstinportantelanantinleamingasecond languageistheteadler,becausetheteadnerisflneasvdlocannakethe difference. Goodteadlersseantomhmtommfientslike leanlingaforeignlanguageandmnttocontinuesundyingit. Altlnghteadnereffectivenessismtthenainconcemofthis study, itisinportanttofindoutwhatitisthatmkes"gocd"teadlers "good"soasto\mderstarrithe1earningprocessinlearningasecari language. Bailey and Oelce-Murioa (1979) reviewed various research on how to beeffectiveESLteadsrsandsnggestedthatFBLteadlersshmldbeaware of four significant areas of classroan interactions. These areas incluiedthesocialclimate, thevariety of learning activities, the opporumityforsmdmtparticipatim,arduaereedforfeedbackand correction. W- Sdnmam (1975); Stevick (1976); Moslcowitz (1979); Moskowitz, BeneventoanxiFrust (1973);anrilbslwitzandflayman (1976) indicated thatthesocialenvironmentinwhidnapersonlearnsalanguageisan inportantstepinttslanguageleamingexperienne,becatseagoodsocial climate creates cammicatim. 'locreateagoodsocial climate, Bailey‘s. Celce-nnricasugestedthatteadlerssnmldlomthenannsofflneir 47 stuients, hmsane infornnationabalttheirbackgranri, interests, and reasonsfortakingtheccurse, andtheirareaoforigin. This information can help to break the ice socially and provides meaningful contexts formanylessons. Also, theysuggestedthatteadners playanactiveroleinhelpingstuientstogetaqninted. 'miscanbe donethrcxghintroductoryactivityduringtheclassmeetirg. Thephysical environmentisaninportantelanenttoo. Baileyand Oelce-Mmica suggested that classroans should be canfortable and clean; roars with finned desks or laboratory partitions on the tables have an isolating effect on students. Whatever the physical setup of the class, teadlerscsnmanagegrwpingorarranganentsofdesksthathelpto involve students in their nae communicative situation and inprove the social climate. Bailey and Oelce-lmrica suggested that in teaching language skills, the teacher's lesson plans shmld include various approaches that muld nakethelessonmoreinterestingandstimlating. Thesequenceofthe activity is a significant elanent in ensuing that the basic presentation is logical and coherent, e.g., easy to diffianlt, manipulative to camunicative. They also suggested various kinds of learning activities that adied variety to EL classrocns such as: audio-visual equipment, pictures, realia, cmmmication games, sum-generated material, flexible reading and writing assignments, cultural journals, and anthologies of students' work. They also suggested that teachers should utilize the activities and equipnent available in order to help the students learn the material. Finally, they indicated that teachers should research the available professional journals and make trips to 48 educatia'lalresonroecentersinordertodlsccver' usefulideasforadding variety and interest' to the lesson. !.! E i!i!£!"!°- Bailey and Oelce-ulrica indicated that classroms that allowed a great deal of student interacticn are effective and insure learning. They suggested several strategies to insure student participation, such asutilizingclassroanmanagementdlores, namecardsandchaindrills, turning students' questions back to the class, ”play teacher," pair work, small group work, and team cmpetition. All the above activities should aimatminimizingtnsammtoftineteadnersspenfltalkingandincrease the opportunity for students to utilize their English by sinply providing opportlmitytoactivelyusethelanguage. Grunpworkisoneofthebest type of activities that minimize teacher talk and increase student involvanent. long and Porter (1985) indicated that five pedagogical argmnentsfortheuseofgranpworkinsecondlanguageleaming. They believed that group work increased language practice opportunities, iuproved the quality of student talk, helped to individualize instruction, pruncted a positive affective climate, and mtivated learners. We) Baileyanflcelce-Mnricabelievedthatacorrectresponseina language lesson sl'nould be positively reinforced. In error correction, they believed that students should be led to self-correct and ultinately monitor their own language production. Also peer correction is helpful either‘in'a svallgrouporwiththeentireclass. - meeardlmteadlereffectivenessandclassroanmnaganenthas investigated the personality and behavior of the teacher in addition to 49 personal characteristics, instructional procedures, styles of interaction, self-perception, and perception of others. Classroan behaviors fall into three basic areas: maintenance of the learning enwiroment, use of student tine, and finally nethod of instruction. Salganik (1980) believed that teaching behaviors are responsible for the difference bemoan effective and ineffective instruction: (a) There is no specific way that always works to run a classroan, and (b) There is no use in having a fifty-minute class period ifthetineontaskisonlythirtyminutes. To conclude this overview, it is clear that a sinnple process-product approach could slightly denge tie learning environment. In this amroach, teader behaviors are very inportant for student achievement. T'eaders influenceachievenentonly iftleyhaveaninfluenceon stndents' active involvanent with the materials to be covered. So teachers determine the activity for learning and student involvement in these activities determines tne learning outcane. Nerenz and Knop (1982) believed that tlere is a relatia'ship betteencontenttobecoveredandadlievanentgains. Theyindicatedthat recentreseardnaggestedtnetcmtentccveredandengagedtinewerevery inportant elements for achievement. Nerenz and Rhop (1982) believed that in a second language classroan, tleeffectiveteaderistleaedcprovidastudentswithgoodopporul- nitiestolearnttereqnisitecantentanrlwlcuseinstnnctiminmidn studentscanbeinvolved. Alsogoodteadersconsideredtlelinkbetween .sundentopportlmitytolearn, shflentengaganent, ardleamingcitcdnes. Allocated tinne as well as engaged tine are emphasized. Nerenz and 101:3:(1982) indicated that tl'e research on 50 classrocmnnanagenenthasncved frantheanalysis of teachertraitsto sttdiesthat foansontlelearnerintleclassroanenvironnnent. Roseshine and Fnlst (1971) indicated that effective and ineffective teaderscouldbedistinguistedontlebasisofseveralvariablessmh as clarity of tle teacher, variety of classroom activities, task oriented behaviors, content covered, student participation, and use of different types of questions. Moskovdtz (1976) stated that classroan behaviors and practices that are very inportant for a successful learning environment usually emphasize student inwolvenent. In these classrooms the target languageistledaninantlanguageofclassroaninteractim: teadners allowstnldentstotalkandaskquestions: teachersnncvearoundtte classroan: they mile, praise and joke: they try to personalize tre content more: and trey attract students' attention by giving then enough space to use different kinds of activities. To provide teachers with ideas for putting tl‘e available theories intousefulpractice, thissectionsmunarizedttealrrentreseardnmthe field of classroan skills for English As a Second language teachers. This research suggests four significant areas of classroom interaction of whichteachers shouldbeaware inplanningalanguage lessonandanalyzi- ng their own teadning: social climate, tie variety in learning activitie- s, the orportunity for student participation, and the need for feedback and correction. m “ 'Ihisstidyisanattenpttoaddressdirectlytlequestimofwhat‘ attention is and the relationship between student's attentional behavior and tie ancunt of knowledge they acquire. Inthischapter, ahistorical revienoftl'eca‘ceptofattentimwas 51 presented. 'nerelevantresearderswerereviewedandtlefindingsvere presented. It was noted that far investigations have been connected Whid'l dealt with attention in varions classroon activities. Most of the investigations conducted focused on sdcol-age children in reading and math colrses. The researd‘ers fonnd ont that attention is positively related to kncwledge gain. In conclusion, it is clear that attentiveness is a significant elenent in successful classroon learning. Effective instructional certentdependsontreattentional focusofboththesudenntandthe teader. Tlerefore, trennaingoal ofthischapterwastolinkthe findings oftleexperinnentalreseardntotnevarions activities inthe classroon. cnapter III Research Methodology W Up to this point, theoretical and empirical studies related to the present investigation have been examined. By examining sole of the different variables utilized in previols studies and by generating a set ofhypotheses, thisreseardnisdesignedtoextendtnefindingsof previons studies in teaching English as a second language. Anderson (1981) believed that for a long tine educators had been cocerned abont the taster-effectiveness question "How do teaders bring abort desirable sundent ontm?" She believed that meardl on teaching approached this question throngh naturalistic studies of the classroon, in which teacher-bdnaviors were related to student achievenent. Oneofthemostinrportant findingsofthelastdecadeof research on teadner-effectiveness has been that "time on task" (attention tothetask) isassociatedwith achievenentgains. Tbhel'ptheteacner decidehowto increasestudenttime—on-taskbehavior, thisstudywas inplenented to innvestigate tie variables related to instructional attentiveness . These variables incltded type of activity, legth of activity, and timing of the activity. These ideas were tested with English as a secod language teader-training conses at Michigan State University. W Tresudywasdesignedtodeterminetlelevel ofstudent attentiveness, tl'e conditions relating to level of attentiveness, and the relationship of attentiveness to tie grades students received. The study also investigated the relationship between the subject's backgronnd 52 53 experiece and tneir level of attention, and it investigated tte relatioships between age, sex, and activation and level of attention. Thesurveydesign enployed inthisstudywascross-sectional, which provided a description of tie population at a particular poinnt of tine, specifically tie Fall term of 1987. M 1. There is a correlation between global level of attention and the following variables: - Sex "' Age -- Marital status - Academic classification ~— Teaching experience - Reason for taking the course 2. Tnere is a positive correlation between global attention and tie following variables: ~— Interaction in the classroon -— legth of activities - Timing of activities 3. There is a positive correlation between students' apparent attention and conrse grade (lowledge acquisition). we Thesanple fortinisshdyco'sistedofstudentsenrolledintle Method of Teaching English as a Secod language class, "407," at Michigan State University: during fall term, 1987. A total of fifty-six students were intleclass. Ten (10) studentwererandonly selectedfrontle classtobeobservedextesivelyandinterviewedbytleresearcher. Qlfi The class usedtonneet every Tuesday for fourhonrs (4-6 p.m.). Three-10mim1tebreaksweregiventosttdentsaftereadnm. Tne subjectnatterincludednethodsofteadningasecondlanguage. W 'nneinstructoroftleconrsewasanassociateprofessorintne EnglishlanguageOenter. Heisteachinglinglishasasecondlanguageas wellasnnethodsofteadningasecondlanguageclass. I-leusedalotof variety of classroon activities. We Thestudyusedaconbinationoffonrinstrmentsandtednniquesto testthehypotheses: Mien 'nedoservationinclndedarecordingofwhatoconrredintlenethods ofTeadninnglishasaSecodLanguageclassroon. Tenstudents attedingtneclasswererandonlyselectedardobserved. Theobservationprocedmeinvolvedasequeceinwhidntte researderlookedatasttdent,cbservedhisorrerbehaviorforabrief glance,andplacedamarkontleobservationsteetbesidethat student's nane. Then,tleresearderlocatedthenextstndentandrepeatedthe seqnece. Eadnseoenceforeadnstudenttooklessthansix(6) seconds. 'neresearderhadaclipboardandstopwatdnwhidnwasuarked withredtapeatsix-secodintervals. 'nereseardermvedhereyes arondtleclassroonobservingeachsequecenmtileadnstudenthadbeen observedtentimesinanhour. ' i Dnringobservation,tledserverlookedforandrecordedtte several behavior categories that Forness (1983) snggested: 55 V (Verbal Positive) Students made a task-oriented response and gesture (e.g. recited, asked or answered questions). AT (Attend) Students looked at the teacher or material, waited quietly for the lesson to begin, or looked at classmates who were reciting. NT (Not atted) Students did not look at tie lesson or teacher (i.e., looked around, stared innto space). D (Disrupt) Students egaged in behavior which mtermted’ task-oriented activities (e.g., talked to classmate, threw an object, etc.). (see Appedix' Aforacopyoftleobservationrecordingsteet) I! !° I I . Anintrospectivetednniqnnewasusedwhidn involvedstorpingtle class for a few minutes several times during tie class period. A 'mngtntSanpling'QLestiomairedevisedbytleresearderwas distribnntedineveryclasssession. Thereseardnergaveasignaltothe class (by tnnrning off tte lights) during certain activities. At the signal, tleteaderedsddentsstomedwhatevertheyteredoingand filled ont the "thoght sanpling" questionnaire. In this instrument studentswereaskedtointrospect: toreflectontheirexperiecesby respodingtoeigtntgnestions. Treassunnptionunderliningtle introspective technique, as suggestedbyCohen (1983), is that learners I canver'balizeabontlearningprocesses. Tnequestiosaskedinthis tednniquewereclearandconcise,andtteyrequlred‘ shortresponses (e.g. put an "x" next to the nest suitable answer). 56 Klinger (1978) indicated that tre "thought sanpling" technique allodstlesubjecttotrytorecostructwhateverwasgoingonbefore intermption,tmneverconplextnecognitive process. Inanycase, subjectsnustrelyontleirnencryfortleirreportmandbecauseitis smetineshardtorecapolretleorderinwhidnthoghtsoconrred,soneof tiesegnentialprocessesmaybelost. Fortlepurposeoftnepresent stndy,aseriesofquestioswerenadeupthatrequirestcrtresponses. Thesequestionswereusedseveraltimesduringthefirstclass (see AppendixB). Afewdnangesweremadeupontherequestofsonestudents for the pin-pose of clarification (see Amendix C). i !' . Fortnepnrpcseofthisstudy,tleresearderdevelopedasetof questionsinordertoinvestigatetlelevelofattentiontovarions activitiesinasecondlanguage class. Thequastionnalre' ccveredthe following variables: (a) tie timing of activities, (b) the length of activities, and (c) tre type of activities. 'nefirstsetofquestionsaskedpersonalinfornationoldnassec, age, experieceinteadung‘ asecodlanguage,andmotivationtoteadna secondlanguage (English). 'Itesecondpartofthequestionnalre' inclndedquestiosabontone's level of attentiveness in general and in varions classroon activities. Itinclndedquestiosthatinguiredabonttypeofactivitywnnnas innteractive gronp activities, lecture, and individual activities), length of activity (short or log), and timing of activity (early, middle, or late). Aninitialdraftoftlequestionnairewasrevieedbytleinstructor oftneconrse"407"andbyotnerdoctoralcounitteemenbers. 'Iteir 57 suggestions for clarification and information were used to revise tle questionnaire. The questionnaire, including a letter of transnittal, was giventothestndentsduringtlefinalclassperiod. Stndenntsrespoded toitandreturneditthesameday. (seeAppedixD) IotsnLLew Thesanetenstudentswhowererandonlyselectedforwservation werealso interviewed. Aseries ofquestionswasdesignedpriortotlesondy. Tie interviewwasaudio recorded whiletheinterviewertooknotesoncontent, inflection, gestures, and facial expressions, as well as the responses to ttequestiosoftl‘einterview. 'nnisprovidedapernnanentrecordmnidn couldbereferredtowtenanalyzingtledata. At tie beginnning of tie interview, a friendly climate was establisted by casual conversation. Giving and receiving geeral infornnation l'elped to gaintheconfidence oftreparticipantandestablisharelaxed atmosphere. Following this, the interviewertooktine (a) to explaintothe participanttlepnrposeofttesudy, (b) toexplaintotheparticipant tleinportanceoftreaconracyandqualityoftreanswersgiven, (c) to explain to tie participant the format of tie interview, and (d) to reassure tie participant of pronised confidentiality. Twointerviavingtednnigneswereusedduringtleinterviev. After statements were nade by the participant tie interviewer deliberately pausedtoallovtheparticipanttoaddnnoreinformationifheorsle wishedtodoso. 'neintervieweralsorednrasedtleparticipant's answerstoprovidea deckontheinterviener'sunderstandingofan answer. This added to tie reliability of the reporting. 58 'neoestioscoveredintleinterviewwereopen-eded inquiring abont thevalidity and reliability ofthe study, tnnights inmindduring tteclass, recallingthethonghts, inages, andge'erallevel of attentiveness to variols activities . Finally, a snnnmarywas used at tte end of tie interview offering the participantadancetoconfirm, revise, oraddtothe information gathered. (seeAppedixE) W Part1: TheQuestionnaire A. Analysisofvariance(ANOVA)wasusedtotestiftterewereany significannt differeces in the gronp means of attention according to the denographiccnaracteristicsoftterespo'dents. Themeansforeadngrolp wasconpnntedasfollows:nnean=&1'wrere x istlescoreforthe subjectintregronpandnisthesanplesizefortl‘epartiollargronp. MenevertlemmberofgronpswasnoretlantwoandtteomihnsAMNA resultsweresignificant,aTukey's post-hoctestwasusedtofind pair-wise significant differences between the gronp neans. Students' resposesontreselectedquestiosontl'eqmstionnairewerecowerted intoanmerical scaleasfollovs: l. Ebccellent, 2. Good, 3. Uncertain, 4. Poor, 5. Terrible. Tteneansoftleentireclasswerederivedfron these numerical values. This type of quantification of responses results in a codition in which lower nean scores indicate higher levels of attention. 'nneeemeansappearin'rablelandthusapplytoalltablesin part1. . a. A‘regression coefficientwas usedto test the relatioshipbetween finalconrsegrade (locwledge gained) andattention level. 59 Part 2: Thoglnt Sannpling Add-square statisticwasusedtotest iftterewasarelatioship between the categorical variables of classroon activities and student behaviors. sundenntresponsesonselectedquestioswerealsoconverted intoanmerical scaleas: 1. Yes, 2. Nofortl'efirstquestion (were yon paying attention)? Also 1. Short, 2. long (preference legth of activities), 1. lecture, 2. Gronp, 3. Indiviolal (preference for type of activities), and 1. Early, 2. late for (preferece for timing). The neansoftreentireclasswerederived fronthesevaluesandarpearin Table léandthusapplytoallrenainingtablesinpartz. nhe significant level for each test was°C= .05 level. Fordataanalysispurposes, theneanresponsesweregronpedinto three categories using the sane legth of interval (i.e. 4+3 = 1.33 for each category. tie categories are as follows: 1 = very higln, 2 = high, 3=moderate, 4=lov, and5=verylor. Ttenneanresposesweregronped innto three categories using the sane legth of interval (i.e. 443 = 1.33) for eadn category. Tie categories are as follows: mg; 1.00 - 2.33 m 2.34 - 3.66 La 3.67 - 5.00 Part 3: (Inservation Tie observatios for each subject were classified according to tie following variables: timing of tie activities (early vs. late), legth of activities (short vs. log), and type of activities (gronp vs. individual, group vs. lecbire, and individual vs. lecture). Tie mean for severalobservatiosoftresamevariableswascopntedbyaddingtne freqnenoies of paying attention (for tie same variable) and dividing tie 60 sum by dc number of observations of tie variable. Part 4: Interview Students' responses for the interview questions were reviewed. A roughconparisonofall4techniquesweremadeardfinal conclusionswere made. Mr! Inthisdapter, theresearondesignandnnethodology forthis explanatorystudywasprresented. Ttepnrposeofthestudywasdiscussed, and tie sanple was described. Fonrtypesofinstrnmentsusedforthesondyweredescribed, nannely: observation, introspective technique, questionnaire, and interview. The data collection procedure and the data analysis methodology were sunnnarized. GIAPI’ERIV Presentation and mta Analysis This study is primarily an examination of the variables related to instructioal attentiveess. 'nese include the type, legth, and tine of the activity of stndents during a particular class: an English as a Secod language teader-training conrse at Michigan State University. 'Ihemajorreseardnquestios forthisstudyare: 1. Can quick, non-intesive self-renorts provide valid data on oe's level of attention that correlates with observer judgenents, teacher jndgenennts, innterview results, and questionnaire results. 2. Urderwtatcoditiosdostudentsattendncst inT'ESLclasses? 3. Arethegradesstudentsreceiveintl'econrserelatedtotle level of attention they paid during the classes? W l. Thereisacorrelationbetweenglobal level ofattentionand the following categorical variables: —Sex “Age -Marital status -Acadenic classification -Teadning experiece —Reason for taking tne class 2. There is a positive correlation between level of attention and the following variables: —Amount of classroon innteraction (interactive, individual, and lecture) 61 62 —I.egth of activities (log or short) . -—Ti.ming of activities (early or late in the class) . 3. Tnere is a positive correlation between level of attention and conrse grade (knowledge acquisition). The first instrunnent (tne questionnaire) cosisted of six backgronnd questiosandtwentyquestiosthatweredesignedtodiscussthe relationship between level of attention and varions classroon activities. The second instrument (the "tlnxfint-sanpling'" questionnaire) cosisted of eight questios tlat were designed to innvestigate tle relationships between level of attention and varions classroon activities . This instnment was used several times during every class period. Tie third instrunennt cosisted of observation. Tie researcl'er recorded the tine,‘length, and type of activity and recorded the frequency of tte students' positive and negative behavior during tie varions activities. Tie last instrument (tte interview) cosisted of eightopen-ededquestios inwhidnthestudentsexpressedtleir feelings abort tie different kinds of activities and rated tneir level of attention. W m: Analysisofvariancewasusedtotestamnberof independent variables derived fronn tle questionnaire. The results ofthe tests follows. 63 Geeral Short Grolp lecture (Varions Activities Activities (conpared to Classroom (conpared (conpared Individual Age N Activities) to log) to lecture) Activities) Under 22 17 2.235 2.471 2.235 2.353 22 & over 29 1.724 2.069 1.552 2.000 FValues . 0141 . 119 . 006 . 109 (7=.05) Standentresposesonselectedquestiosontteqnestionnairewere convertedtoannmericalscale. l=Ebccellent,2=Good,3=Uncertain, 4=Poor,5=T'errible. ShdentsoverZZwereconbinedwithstadents over33 forpurposeof analysis. Meansfortheentireclasswerederived fronthesemmericalvalues. Tieloerttemean,thehigleristlelevel ofattention. 'nesemeansamearintlecellsintablel,andtlmsarply toalltablesinpartl. The results in Table 1 showed a significant difference in the level ofgeeralattentiveessbeoeensudentsmderZZyearsandstndentszz- yearsandoverattlne.05 significance level (P=.0141: all ofthe following statistics were analyzed at tte . 05 level of significance). 'nescoresofsodentswhowereZZyearsandoverrepresentedahiger 64 level of attentiveess. Tie grogs' neanns were 2.235 (under 22) and 1.724 (over 22) . However both grogs were classified as high in attentiveess. Tie results indicated that attentiveness is related to age. Tie results also showed a non-significant difference in tie level of attentiveessbetweenstudentsmderZZyears‘andshdentsZZyearsand over in short activities when conpared to attentiveess to log activities (P = .119). Tie grog of students over 22 years of age was rannked as high in attentiveess to short activities while the grog of stdentsmderZZwasrankedasaverageinattentiveess. Theoverall results indicated that attentiveess to short activities is not related to age. Regarding attentiveness in grog activities as conpared to lecture, the results indicated a significant differece (P = .006) . Tie grog 22 years and over showed a higer level of attention to grog activities (grognnean=l.552). ThegrogoderZZyearsofageshowedaloer level of attentiveness to grog activities (grog mean = 2.235) . Both grogs were classified as high in attentiveness. The results indicated thatoldersubjectsrankedtheirattention level duringgrogworktobe onahigterlevelthantl'eyongersubjectsrankedtheirlevelof attention. 'Inerefore, tie results indicated that the level of attentiveess in grog activity, as cogared to lecture, was related to tie age of tie subject. The results also showed a non-significant difference (P = 1.09) in the level of attentiveess to lecture cogared to individual activities, ofstndenntsZZyearsandoverandstudentsunderzz years. Bothgrogs wereclassifiedashighinattentivenesstoalectureconparedto 65 individual work. Tterefore, tne results indicated that the level of attentivenesstottelecmrewasrctrelatedtoage. The overall results of this enamination indicated that level of attentiveess was significantly related to tte age of tie subject. Analysisofvariancewasusedtotestsexasanirdependentvariable and tie results were as follows: 0 0 O in .e. s 9 so; 0 - :1 on! 3 031.19.- ten 00 tall es 1:11 MeanAttentiveess in Short General Activities Grog lecture (varions (corpared Activities (conpared to classroon to log) (corpsred Individual Sex N activities) to lecture) Activities) Male 8 2.125 2.250 1.750 2.250 Fenale 38 1.868 2.210 1.815 2.105 P-Values . 347 . 905 . 260 . 026 Table 2 showed a non-significant difference (P= .347) beoeen nale ‘ and female students on attentiveess. Both grogs were highly attentive to various classroon behaviors. nhus, the results indicated that level of attention during varions classroon activities was not significantly . 66 relatedtottesexoftlesubject. The results also showed non-significant differeces (P = .905) between the level of attentiveness for short versus log activities, of malesandfenales. Bothgrogswerecosideredtobehighin attentiveess. Regarding attentiveess in grog activities corpared to lecture, the results indicated a non-significant difference (P = .260) between males andfenales. Boththemaleandfenalegrogswerecosideredtobe highly attentive in grog activities conpared to lecture. Finally, the results shoed a significant differece (P --= .026) betweennalesand fenales intnelevel ofattentiveesstolecture conpared to individual activities. The data indicated that sex was relatedtotlelevel ofattentivesstoalectureconparedtoindividual activities. The nean for male and female grogs was 2.250 and 2.105, respectively. This indicated that fenales demonstrated a higher level of attentiveesstolecturethandidthemalegrog. Bothgrogswere cosideredtohaveahighlevelofattentiveesstolectnlrewtencmpared to individual activities. Tie overall results indicated that level of attentiveness to varions classroon activities was not significantly related to tie sec of tie subject, except when lecture is conpared with individual activities. 67 Geeral Short Group lecture (Various Activities Activities (ompared to Marital Classroan (ompared (sugared Irdividual Shams N Activities) to long) to Lecture) Activities) Married 8 1.500 1.750 1.500 1.625 Single 38 2.000 2.315 1.864 2.236 P-Values . 063 . 083 . 260 . 028 Table 3 showed that the difference between married and single studelts for level of attentiveness to various classroon activities was not significant (P = .063). Both groups (married ard single) showed a high level of attertiveiess. 'meresultsalsoirdicatedthatthedifferenebeWeeanerrieded single studerts ' level of attentiveess for short activities oarpared to long activities was not significant (P = .0836). Both groups showed a high level of attertiveaess. Regarding atte'ttive'ess to group activities expand to lecture, the results showed that the differece between the level of attertiveiess for married and single students when oarparing group activities and lecture was not significant (P = .260) . The data indicated that the level of attertivelesstogrupactivitiesomparedtolecmrewasmt significantly related to nerital state. However, both groups were § 68 oensidered to be high in attentiveness. Finally, the results shunted a significant difference (P = .028) in the level of attentiveness between married and single students when oarparing lecture and irdividual activities. This indicated that marital status was significantly related to level of attentiveness to lecture oanpared to ixdividual activities. The nerried group mean was 1.625 and the single group mean was 2.236. These figures indicated that married students showed a higher level of attentiveness to lecture oaupared to irdividual activities . However, both groups scored high on level ofattentiontothelectureoanparedtothelevel ofattentionto individual activities. The overall results of the effect of marital status indicated that nerital status was not significantly related to level of attentiveness to various classroan activities, except when attention during lecture was contrasted to attention during individual activities. 69 Table 4 Theneensoflevelofattentionin: short tol activities activities to lecture lecture to classification. manAttentiveessin General Short Group Iecmre (Various Activities Activities (Camared to Acadanic Classroan (Cmpared (Cmpared Individual Classif. N Activities) tolang) tolecture) Activities Graduate 23 1.826 2.130 1.652 2.1 Graham 21 2.047 2.381 2.047 2.142 P-Values . 296 . 328 . 117 . 887 '1heresultsinT'able4showedthatthedifferenebetweenthe levelofattentivenessforgraduateardnndergramatesumntswas notsignificarnt(P=.296). 'nmsthedatairdicatedthatacachnic classification was not significantly related to level of attentiveness tovariousclassroanactivities. m,bothgmupswerehighly attentivetoclassroanactivities. 'anresultsalsostavedarun-significentdifferencebehaeenthe levelofattentivenessofmmrgradnateardmtesudentgrunps whenoalparing slnrt and long activities (P = .328). lbgardingattentivemssingroupactivitiesocnparedtolecume, theresults ixdicatedanm-sigdficant difference (P=.ll7)bsmeen .graduateardmdergraduatesumnts. Thedatasugmstedthat i acadenicclassificatimmsmtrelatedtothelevelofattentiveness togroupactivitiesoanparedtolecture. Membothgraduatesard 70 undergraduates showed a high level of attentiveness. Finally, the results indicated that there was no significant difference (P = .887) between graduate and undergraduate level of attentiveness to lecture versus individual activities. Therefore, acadenic classification was not found to be related to level of attentiveness. ‘nneresultsalsoindicatedthatbothgmupshadahigh level of attentiveness to lecture oanpared to individual activities. Theoverall resultssnnggestedthatthelevel ofattentivenesswas not significantly related to academic classification. General Short Group lecture . (Various Activities Activities (ompared to Teaching Classroan (ompared (ompared Individual Ebcper. No. Activ1t1es) to long) to lecture) Activities) NOne (1) 24 1.958 1.667 1.666 2.166 <5yrs (2) 16 1.813 1.625 1.625 2.041 >5yrs (3) 6 2.000 1.958 1.959 2.167 P‘Values .774 .388 .671 .431 71 The results in Table 5 indicated a non-significant relationship (P = .774) between level of attentiveness and teaching experience. Thus, the resnfltssnggestedthatteadningenperiencewasmtrelatedtolevel of attentiveness. The three groups showed a high level of attentiveness to various classroon activities. The results also indicated a non-significant difference (P = .368) in the level of attentiveness for groups with varying amounts of teadning experience when canparing short activities to lag. Teaching experience was nnot related to level of attentiveness in short activities canpared to long. However, theresultsshcwedthatthethreegrcupshadahighlevel of attentiveness to short rather than long activities . Regarding attentiveness to group activities cmpared to lecture, the reenlts indicated a non-significant difference (P = .671) between levels of teaching experience. Teadning experience is not significanntly related to the level of attentiveness to group activities canpared to lecture. Finnally, the results showed a non-significant difference (P = .431) for level of attentiveness depedent upon teaching experience. Years of teadningengerienoewasnctrelatedtothelevel ofattentivenessto lecture canpared to individual activities. Thecverall results indicatedthatteadningeqneriencewasnot significantly related to the level of attention. 72 Mean Attentiveness in Reason General Short Group lecture For (Varies Activities Activities (cmpared to Taking Classroan (convened (canpared Individual Course N Activities) to long) to lecture) Activities) Required fi/Degree 13 1.923 2.230 1.714 2.000 Enjoyment 7 2.000 2.285 1.750 2.142 Tb Teach Seoand 24 1.916 2.208 1.795 2.208 language Ehvalues .962 .977 .805 .721 The reanlts in Table 6 indicated nno significant difference (P = .962) in level of attentiveness for the groups which gave various reasonsfortakingthecourse. 'nnisshcwedthatndtivationtolearnn (reasanfortakingthecourse) wasnnotrelatedtothelevelof attentiveness. All three groups indicated a high level of attentiveness. The results also indicated nno significant difference (P = .977) related to mtivational factors when canparing attentiveness to short versus lag activities. All three groups were considered to have a high level of attention on short activities when camared to long activities. Regarding attentiveness to group activities canpared to lecture, the 73 results indicated nno significant (P = .805) difference between motivatienal factors in the level of attentiveness. The reason for takingthecoursewasnctrelatedtothelevel ofattentiveness forgroup activities canpared to lecture. All three groups showed a high level of attentiveness in group activities. Finnally the data indicated nno significant (P = .721) differences applicable to motivational factors when canparing the level of attentiveness to lecture versus individual activities. The data snggestedthatthereasonfortakingacoursewasnctrelatedto level of attentiveness in lecture as canpared to individual activities. Thethreegrcupsshcwedahighlevel ofattentiveness. Thecverall results indicatedthatthereasonfortaldngaccurse was nnct significantly related to level of attentiveness in various classroon activities. Table 7 5.9: 11.7111“: 0 ..al; f meld-11911101 . 9 ‘ ‘11; 1231 211.1: :1 _ 1!!" EH act‘il'es man Timing N Attentiveness Early 28 1.895 late 8 2 . 000 Total / P—Value 46 .701 The results in Table 7 indicated nno significannt differences based on thetine of the activity (P= .701). Thus the results eggestedthat 74 timing was not significantly related to the level of attentiveness during lectnme. Both grulps stxnwed a high level of attention. Table 8 Time of the Individual N Attentiveness Activity Early 42 1.905 Late 4 2.000 Total / P-Value 46 .7963 The results in Table 8 indicated nno significannt (P = .796) differencesregardinglevelofattentivenessandthetimeofthe individual activities. Therefore, the time of individual activities was not related to the level of attentiveness. Early (l) 14 1.844 late (2) ’ 32 1.800 Total / P-Value 46 . 6765 75 The results in Table 9 indicated nno significant relationship between attention level and the tine of gron activities (P = .676) . Apparently, timing is nnot related to the level of attentiveness during Table 10 19.: 1151'15 o the - ; 00:11.16 a - .1, 4.2 111011;. w __ts a... .' . Mean length of Work N Attentiveness 5 - 10 minutes 8 1.875 10 - 15 minutes 10 1.500 Over 15 minutes 28 2.075 'Ibtal / P-Values 46 .0782 The results in Table 10 showed nno significannt (P = .078) differences which indicated that length of time was not likely related to the level of attention during the lecture. All indicated a high level of attention. 76 5 - 10 minutes 10 1.7000 10 - 15 minutes 27' 1.8148 Over 15 minutes 9 2.444 Total / P-Value 46 .031 The results in Table 11 indicated significant differences (P = .031) regarding legth of the activity and attentiveness during individual work. This suggests that legth of time was related to the level of attentiveness during individual work. The data indicated that long activities during individual work produced lower levels of attentiveess. Their mans were 1.700 (5 - 10 1111111123), 1.814 (10 - 15 minutes), and 2.444 (over 15 minutes). Nevertheless, all gr'onps' indicated high levels of attentiveness. 77 Table 12 E1: lo '3 O 1: evel O_ 031' (E _ a. a ‘ “1-01! 11; 19!; 1.». __ a... o ' 0 WW Mean Legth of Time N Attentiveness 5 - 10 minutes 14 2.159 10 - 15 minutes 22 1.818 Over 15 minnutes 5 1,400 Total / P-Value 46 .0602 The results in Table 12 indicated nno significant differences regarding legth of time and level of attentiveness during interactive activity (P = .060), which suggested that legth of time was nnot related to the level of attention during group work. All were classified as high in level of attention. 78 Type of Activity N Attentninalneness Lecture 21 2.000 Grog 22 1.590 Individual 3 2.238 Total / P-Value 46 .0065 The data in Table 13 indicated a significant relationship between level of attentiveness and the type of activity (P = .006) . This suggestedthatthetypeofactivityisrelatedtothelevel of attentiveness. The three grog means were 2.000 (lecture), 1.590 (grog), and 2.238 (individual); which indicated that students were more attentive during grog work, followed by lecture, and were least attentivewhenworkingalone. However, thethreegroupsall demonstrated a high level of attentiveness. 79 Table 14 The c of ion ts acco of ' ' a 'v' 'es Mean length of Time N Attentiveness Short 34 _ 1.7941 Long 12 2.2500 Total / P-Value 46 .0491 The results in Table 14 showed a significant difference in the level of attentiveness depeding on the legth of time of various classroon activities (P = .049) . This indicated that the legth of time of the activities is related to the level of attention. Students appeared to have a higher level of attention during short activities than during long activities. The grog means were 1.794 (short) and 2.2250 (log). However, both grogs still denonstrated a high level of attentiveness. Table 15 Mean Timing of the Activity N Attentiveness Early 26 l. 702 late 20 1.823 Tbtal / P—Value 46 . 0757 80 The data in Table 15 indicated there were nno significant differences inthelevel ofattention, inreferencetothetimingofvarions classroon activities (P = .075) . This showed that the timing of the activities was nnot related to the level of attention. Again, both grogs showed a high level of attentiveness. mgression coefficient was used to indicate if there is positive relationshipbetweenfinelgradeandtheteadner'sjndgenentofsodents level of attention, also regression coefficient was need to indicate if there is positive relationship between students' final grade and their level of attention according to the questionnaire responses. Thestudents' finnalcolrseg-adeswerereportedinannmerical system which coeists of the following scale: 4.0 - 3.5 - 3.0 - 2.5 - 2.0 - 1.5 - 1.0 - 0.0. The teacher's judgenent of the level of attention were reported as follows: 3 = excellent, 2.5 = good, 2 = moderate, 1.5 = bad, andl=terrible. Thestndentslevelofattentionaccordingtothe questionnaire responses were reported as follows: 5 = excellent, 4 = good, 3=mncertain, 2=bad, andl=terrible 81 Table 16 1112 Of (3 :.dner's . .9111»- e! ..o,‘ .1 o ‘1 - .- “L 0 one - 1 ' , -1-‘ FinalGrade Teachers Jndgenent of Students ' level of attention NO. X 00500005500505005555055055505555055505500 33233332233232332222222222212222322232222 0000000000000000.5555555555555555555555550 444.444.444.444.4.4.4.43333333333333333333333333 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 82 Table 16 (continued) No. Final Grade Teachers Jldgenent of Students' level of attention Y X 42 3.0 2.0 43 3.0 1.5 44 3.0 2.0 45 3.0 2.5 46 2.5 1.5 Total 165.5 115.0 The following fornnula was used to determine the relationship between XandY, whereY (coursegrade) isthedepedentvariableandx (level of attention) is the indepedent variable: Y = a + bx 'BnecogutedavaluewasZJOandthecogutedbvaluewas .555, whidn indicated that if X (level of attention) increased by one unnit, Y (course grade) will inncrease by .555, which indiactes positive relationships between X and Y. Thus, the results indicated that students' finnal grade has a positive relationship with the teacher's jndgenent of s’andents' level of attention. 83 Table 17 level of attention according to the questionnaire X FinnalGrade 175 555544545555444444454455444444444444144441111 0000000000000000555555555555555555555555500005 4444444444444444323333333333333333333333333334 162 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 'Ibtal 84 The follwing fornmla was used to determine the relationships between X and Y. Y = a + EX whereYisthedwedentvariable (coursegrade), Xistheindepedent variable (level of attention according to the questionnaire) . Theconpntedavaluewas=-3.l73 ardtheconpntedbvaluewaslfl6, which indicated that if X (level of attention according to questionnaire) increasedbyoneunit, X (coursegradewill inncreasebyl.76). Which indicated a positive relationship between X and Y. Thus, the results indicated that students' finnal grade was positively related to the level of attention according to the questionnaire responses. m: dniSquareTestswereusedtotestthevariablescoveredinthe "thonght sanplirg" questionnaire which required "yes" or "no" responses (didnotonms variables). The results were as follows. aasuf- 85 ‘1 12‘ 1!; :13. 01L- 1011;1- 4:511, 1 ....13‘4‘. 1.- 1: :0 o 'vi ° Short log Chi-Square f % f % (P-Values) yes 49 (96%) 41 (80%) 4.627 Paying Attention No 2 ( 4%) 10 (20%) .0315 Preference Yes 34 (61%) 32 (62%) .0429 for Early Timing No 17 (39%) 19 (38%) (.835) Preference Yes 30 (59%) 26 (51%) .356 for Grog Work No 21 (41%) 25 (49%) (.550) Total 51 (100%) 51 (100%) The cognted chi-square for level of attention in short/log activities was 4.627 which was significant (P = .0315) at .05 level (the following significance tests were performed at the .05 level). Thus it wasconclndedthatthelevelofattentionwasrelatedtothelegthof theactivity. 'nneresultsshowedthatninety-sixpercentofthestudents indicated that they were paying attention during short activities, and. onlyeightypercentofthestudents indicatedthattheywerepaying attention during log activities. The conpnted dni-square regarding preference for early activities was .0429, whidn was nnot significant (P = .835). The results indicated 86 thatthereisnosignificantdifferegeinthemmberofsodentswmo showed a preference for early activities when choosing between short and long activities. Table IBMtInatGlpercentofthestlflentsshoedtheir preference for early activities during short activities and sixty-two percent of the students showed their preference for late activities during log activities. The cognnted chi-square for preference for grog work during short/log activities was .356 which was nnot significant (P = .5505) . Thus, the results indicated there was nno significannt difference inthemmberofstldentswhoshoedpreference forgrogactivities during short versus log activities. Fifty-nine percent of the students showed their preference for grog work during short activities and fifty-one percent showed the same preference during long activities. 87 Table 19 'es 0 : a ion ferred of v 21.1‘f‘ 2.- A" Of a 'v'ties . 0 .91"°L1:111‘ (1511.1 acco ° 0 0 -1: Early late Chi-Square f % f % (P-Values) Yes 26 (87%) 21 (70%) 1.571 Paying Attention No 4 (13%) 9 (30%) (.210) Short 14 (47%) 17 (57%) .267 Length of Activity Log 16 (53%) 13 (43%) (.605) lecture 12 (40%) 12 (40%) .000 Type of Activity Grog 18 (68%) 18 (68%) (1.000) Individual 0 0 Total 30 30 The conputed chi-square for attention level was 1.571 which was nnot significant (p = .210). Thus it was concluded that the level of attention was nnot related to the timing of the activities. The results indicated that time of activity is nnot a significant elenent in determining level of attention. Table 19 showed that eighty-seven percent of the students paid attention during early activities and seventy percent of the students paid attention during late activities. ‘nneconpnteddni-sgnareregardingthepreferedlegthofactivities 88 was .267 whidn was nnot significant (P = .605). The results showed that fiftybthree percent of the students preferred Short activities during the early time period and fiftybsevennpercent of the students indicated the same preference during the late time period. The chi-square regarding the prefered.type of activity was .000, which was nnot significant (p = 1.000). Forty percent of the students indicated.a preference for lecture.at the early time period, and the same number of students indicated a preference for lecture in the early and late timing; Sixty percent of the students indicated a preference for group‘work:ering'ear y and Short activities. The results indicated.no difference at all for preference of group or lecture activities between the early and late'timejperiods. Table 20 §mw1klhnzn1ana~ 0 411-111" 011‘ 211:... 1131-9 0 4°11 ' 'es and 01111 'L;‘ 12511 '0001411: 0 1: 401‘ 0 ~‘ 011.31. ' 111-11 01-41 W Individual Lecture Chi-Square f % f % (P‘Values) yes 12 (60%) 14 (70%) .0315 PayinghAttention No 8 (40%) 6 (30%) (.0429) Short 17 (85%) 17 (85%) 0.000 Iemgth.of.Activity log 3 (15%) 3 (15%) (1.000) Total 20 20 Tfilacxzqanaai5 *4 H r-i Q) U G- > :3 H U H 00 :3 ‘H H <0 <0 0 C: O 'U U m n—l J: O H c: Q) U) n—1 U H n—I TheresultsoftheobservationshowedthatstudentNo. lhadnno differece in the level of attention between the early and late time periods of the activity. There were differeces in the level of activi- tiesbasedonttnelegthoftheactivity. Thestudentshowedhigher levels of attention during short activities. Regarding the type of activity, the student stnoned a higtner level of attention during grog workconparedwith individualwork. Also, theresultsshowedthatthe student denanstrated a higher level of attention during lecmre periods cogared with during individual activities. However, the results indicated that there were no differeces in the level of attention betweengrogandlecture. 93 than level of Attention / H OHNUukUlQOtoo . < fl 1- TYPE 01? Activity 4’ 1D 1. oh 1» Early Late Short Long Group Individual Lecture Cbservations indicated that Student No. 2 showed a variation in the level of attention based on timing of the activities. The student's attention level was higher dm'ing early activities. Also, in reference to the legth of the activities, the stndennt showed higher levels of attention during short activities. The data also showed that there was a differece in the level of attention based on the type of activity. 'nne studentshovedthehighestlevel ofattentiondurirggrogwerkandthe lowest airing individual work. 94 than level of Attention / / < ..n on—nwue-tnanqooco TYPE of Activity db qt 4 on on .L P Early Late Short Long Group Individual Lecture Forthissttdenttheresultsofthedaservationshowedadifference inttnelevel ofattentionaccordingtottnetiming: thestudentshoneda higtner level of attention during the early time period. Also, the results indicatedthestudentshowedahigherlevel ofattentionduring short activities conpared with log activities. The results also indicated that attention was related to the type of activity. The student's highest level of attention was during grog work and the lowest was during individual activities. 95 than level of Attention 10 9 \ 8 M 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 o as Al arl'LIIYmOf 1' V' I 00 '3 Act1v1ty 3.. >~ u my; r-IGJ woo 3:144.) :5: .88 828 no.1 03...} can-4.4 The observation results showed that there were no differences between the level of attention according to the timing of the activ- ities. The student demonstrated ttne same level of attention during early and stnort activities. There was a significant differece in the level of attention with regard to the legth of the activities. The student shoned a higtner level of attention during short activities. Also the results indicated differeces in the level of attention were related ,to the type of activities. The stndent's highest level of attention was during lecture and the lowest was during individual work. 96 than level of Attention K H OHMUhU‘O‘QmWO . Type Of T Activity er up 1b dn- h Individual‘. Early Late Short Long Group Lecture The observation indicated that student No. 5 stnowed differeces on attention level with regard to the timing period. The student's level of attention was higtner during early activities. Also, the student showed a higher level of attention during short activities cogared with log activities . The results indicated differences in the level of attention according to the type of activity. The student's higtnest level of attentionwasduringgrogworkanditwasthesameduring lectureand individual work. 97 MM than level of Attention 10 9 \ 8 we 6 5 v" 4 3 2 1 o A A a A a A m Of V ‘ j j I i P | ovity Early Short Individual or Long Late Lecture Group The observation results of student No. 6 indicated nno differenceinthelevel ofattentionwithregardtothetimingof activities. The student's level of attention was the sane in early and late activities. The results indicated that ttnere were differences in the level of attention according to the legth of the activities. The student showed a higher level of attention during stcrt activities . Finally, there were also differeces in the level of attention with regard to the type of activities. The student's highest level of attentionwasduringgrogworkandthelowestoccurredduring individual activities. 98 W1 than level of Attention 10 9 ~__.. 0...: r". 8 / 7 e 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 a A A L A A A W Of ‘ t f V I I r 0 o Act1v1ty H m :3 'U 4) H H >~ u o. > :3 H 0) H 00 :1 'H u H u 0 G O 'U U (U to .C‘. O H I: at m n—l an n—l‘ CD H n—l TheobservationresultsofstudentNo. 7didnotstcwanydifferece in the level of attention according to the timing of the activities or ttnelegth. Itshowedthatwithregardtotypeofactivitythesodent's lowest level ofattentionwasduringgrogwork, and itwasthesame during lecture and individual activities. 99 W thanlevelofAttention 10 9 8 W 7 so” \ I 5 J 5 4 3 2 1 0 . . . . . . . TYPeOf 1 v 1 I T f v ACtiVitY 8' § 3 2: . t ... 9 .5: a t; t; .2 s a '2 a: m '4 an A U H ...] The observation results of student No. 8 indicated that the studennt showed nno difference in the level of attention according to the timing of the activities. Regarding the legth of the activities, the reollts indicated nno differece in the level of attention. tbwever, the student's level of attention varied according to the type of activity. The student's highest level of attention was in grog activities and lectures, and the lowest was during individual activities . 100 mm than level of Attention 10 ...-‘ I’ ‘\‘~‘“”;- owwubmmqmm Type Of Activity 4’ D 1- D o 0 J- Early Late Short Long Group Individual Lecture The observation's results of student No. 9 indicated no difference in the level of attention according to the timing of the activities. Also, the results stunned that, with regard to legth of the activities, the student showed a higher level of attention during log activities. ‘Iherewerealsodifferenoes inthelevel ofattentionwithregardtotype of activity. The highest level was during group activities and the lowest level of attention was during individual activities . 101 mannLevelofAttention 10\ \ 9 \ \ 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 05‘ es tee WEE '3 Act1v1ty E3 .33 a... 9:3 mm 25 8'2: “'1": "Jr-1 Gin-4...] (Inservations of Student #10 indicated that the student's level of attention was higher during the earlier period of activities ocupared with the later. Also, there were differenms in the level of attention aocordingtothelengthoftheactivities: thesundentshovedahigher level of attention during short activities. mgarding the type of activities, the sudent's highest level of attention was during group work and the lowest was during individual activities. 102 W MeanIevelofAttention 10 844 9 7.9 . 7.9..” ‘7. 7 7.5 ' \/7.5 6 6.5 5 4 3 2 1 o ‘ 5 ‘ g g l 5 TYWOf fl Activity H <0 :1 "U Q) 3; m t: 00 o. ”5' g :3 a: 2 a 3 3 ‘5 LL} n—l U) n—l 5 i5 :1, The data indicated that the timing of the activities was not related to attention levels. The differennce between level of attention during the early time period (mean = 7.9) and the late period (mean = 7.5) was .4. However, the data indicated that there were larger differences in the level of attention between short and long activities. ‘Ihe mean for short activities was 8.4, and the mean for the long activities was 7.6; naking a difference of .8, which seems relatively large. Regarding the type of activities, the data showed that there were differences between gronp work and individuals, but there were slight differences between lectanreandgronp. 'Ihemeanforthegronpworkwas7.9, thennneanfor individual 6.5, and the nnean for lecture was 7.4. 'Iherefore, the difference between group and individual activities was 1.4, whidn was relatively large. The difference between lecture and individual activities was .9, which was also large. I-Iowever, the difference between group and lecturewas .4, whidnwas considered snnell. 103 'nmsthedatasuggestedthatthetimeperiodoftheactivitywasnot relatedtothe level of attention. I-bwever, length of tinewas related tothelevelofattention. 'lhetypeofactivitywasalsorelatedtothe level of attentionwhenconparinggroup and individual, or lecture and individual;butitwasnotrelatedtothelevel ofattentionwhenthe conparisonwasbetweengronpmrkandlecture. MA: Snmueries of the Interview Protocols we StnxlentNo.lisa25yearsoldmalewhoisagraduateassistantin theEkglishLanguagecenterath. Mr.#lirdicatedthatitwasnoteasyforhimtotellifhewas payingattention,buthealsostatedhewasmtsurewhatwasgoingonin hismindwlnenhewasmtpayingattention. Fatiguedoesnotaffect Mr. #1. I-Ieindicatedflnatwhenhewasnotpayingattention,hewas thinnkingabontpersonalpmblens. Healsoindicatedthathehadoontrol overdirectinghisattention,b.rttoaoertainextenthiscontrol dependedonwhattheteadnersaid. unringtheclasshehadsonethoughts abontotherproblens. m'.#lstatedthatheattededtotheclassroon activity sixty-five percent of the time. Concerning the validity of the stndy,m'.#lbelievedthatthesudywonldprovideagenenalideaofflne relationship. between the level of attention and classroon activities. He also believed that the "thonght sampling" questionnaire was the most effective way tomeasure level of attention. Mr. #1 concluded that he paidattentiontolecturesnorethanthegronpandindividualmrk;he liked short activities; thetinneperiod didnnot affecthis level of attentionverynuch; and he believed that if thematerial was interesting, heoouldpayattentionanytime. Mr. #l's finalgradewas 104 3.0andtheteadnerratedhislevelofattentiononascaleof1-3 (low to high) as 2. In reviewing Student No. 1's interview, it was concluded that he had an average level of attention which correlated with his final grade. level of attentionwasrelatedtohisadnierenennt. Basedonthe student's finnal grade, the student's self-reported level of attention, the teadner's rating of the student's level of attention, the wserver's rating of the student's level of attention, and the interview responses, a rough conparison was made. 'lhe non-intensive self-reports (thought sannplinng) results were consistent with the questionnaire results, the interview responses, the teacher's judgenent, and observational results. Student 19. z ‘Ihisisafenalestudentof26yearsofagewithnoteadning experience, who like: to know other languages. Miss #2 indicatedthat itwasveryeasyforhertotellwhetheror notshewa‘spayinngattention. Itwasalsoeasyforhertotellwhatshe was thinking about. Fatigue did affect her level of attention, especially during long activities. She also had control over directing her attention, especially during lecture (taking notes) . Sane unnrelated pr'oblensenteredinntohermindduringtheclass. Shebelievedthatshe paid attention in class seventy-five percent of the time. She believed _ thatthisstudywasvalidandthatthe "thought sanpling" technniqnewas an effective method (excluding question #5 which she felt was confusing). In general, she liked lecture, short, and early activities. - 105 Herfinnalgradewas3.5andtheteadnerratedherlevel ofattention at 3. Inreviewinnghercase, itwasconclndedthatherfinalgrade correlated with her level of attention. Level of attention was related to her achievement gain. 'Ihe nnon-inntesive self-report results were consistent with the following: the teacher's judgement, and observational results, and non-consistent with the questionnaire results, and the interview responses. MM 'Ihisstudentisa27yearoldfenalewholikestoteadnfinglishasa secondlanguage. Shehashadthreeyearsofteadningexperienceinthe UnitedStates. Miss#3indicatedthatmstofthetineshewasabletotellifshe waspayingattention;ifnotshewasabletotellabontwhatshewas thinking. Fatigueaffectedheralot,butshehadalmstconplete controloverdirectingherattention. Iessthanfifteenpercentofthe timeshehadscnemuelatedthonghtsduringtheclassroonactivities. Shestatedthatninnetypeoentofthetineshewaspayingattention. Miss#3wasnotsnreifthestudymnldbesuocessfulinneasuring herlevelofattention. Shealsowasnnnsureaborttheeffectivenessof the"thought sanpling" technique. Ingeneral,uiss#3 indicated thatshe liJcedtoworkingronpsandpreferredearlyandshortactivitiesas well. StudentNo.3'sfinnalgradewas3.5andtheteadnerratedher attention-+2. Inrevievinngthiscase,itwasconclnriedthatherlevelofattention wasaboreaverageandthatthiscorrelatedwithherfinalgrade. 'Ihe 106 level of attention was related to her achievement gain. Also the results suggested that her non-intensive self-reports (thoght sanpling) results were consistent with the following: The questionnaire results, the interview responses, the teacher's judgenennt, and the observational results. WA 'IhisisafenalestudentonSyearsofage,whchasthreeyearsof teaching experience and likes to work in a foreignn counntries. Sheindicatedthatshewasverysurethatshewaspayingattention arditwaspossibleforhertotellvtnatshewasflninfldngwhenshewas not paying attention. Fatigue affected her a lot, especially during late activities. She reported having control over directing her attention. Onlytenperoentofthetimedidsoneotter,muelatedtlnghtsenterher mind. 'nnesettnghts,ingeneral,werewelldetailed. Miss#4 estinneted thatshewasabletoattedtotheclassactivityninetytoninnety— fivepercentofthetime. Shepreferredtoworkingronps,thetimingof activities was inportant to her, and she preferred the early time period. 'nnelegthcftheactivitieswasnotveryinnportant. Shewas notsureabontthevalidityofthesunyortheeffectivenessofthe questionnaire. Herfinnalgradewas3.5andtheteadnerratedhe'level ofattentionat3. V Inreviewinghercase,itwasconcludedthatshewasahighly attentive person. Her finnal grade correlated positively with her level of attention. Also the results suggested that the non-intensive self- reportwereooeistent withthe following: 'Ihequestionnaire results, theinnteviev responses,theteacher's jtdgennennt,andobservational 107 results. Milan—5 'nnisisamalestudent,26yearsold,withtnoyearsofteadning experience. Heistakirgtheclassbecauseitisrequiredforhis degree. Mr.#Sindicatedthatitwaseasyforhimtotellifhewasreally payingattention,eaceptforafewtinneswhenhehadtoguess. Also, it waseasyforhimtotalkabontwhathewasthinking. Hestatedthat fatigue affected his level of attention and that he had sonne control over directinghisattention. Mostofthetimehewaspayingattentionexceprt forafevtimesvmensonnepersonalprobludistractedhim. He reported that his level of attention was appropriately focused ninetypercentofthetime. Hebelievedthatthesudywasvalidand that the "tnnght sanpling" questionnaire was effective. In general, he preferred slnort, early activities and group work. He was a highly attentiveperson. Hisfinnalgradewas4.0andtheteadnergavehima3 onthelevelofattentiveness. Inreviewingthecase,itwasconclndedthathisfinalgrade correlated with his level of attention. His attentiveness level was relatedtotheadnievementgain. 'nneresultsofthesundysuggestedsone differences between observational results and the interview responses. However, the data showed that non-intensive self-reports (thought sanplinng) results were consistent with the following: The questionnaire results,theinnterview responses,theteacher's jnrgenent,and observationalresults. 108 MIG—oi This isamarried, 36yearoldnele, withsevenyearsofteachinng experiege. Heisinnterestedinteadningasecodlanguage. Mr. #6 indicatedthatheconldtellmetherornothewaspaying attention, but it was difficult for him to tell what he was really thinnking about. Fatigue affected hima greatdeal. He had sonne control over directing his attention, especially in the early activities. Sone pereonalthogtntsenteredhismindduringtheclasshnttheywerenot detailed. Accordingtohim, hislevel ofattentionwas focusedonthe class ninetyperoentofthetime. Mr. #6believedthatthisstndywas valid and that the "thought sanpling" questionnaire reflected what was goingonduringtheclass. Heconcludedthathepreferredtheearlytime period, the lecture and snnall group activities, and short activities. Hisfinnalgradewas 3.5andtheteadnerratedhisattentionlevel +2. Inreviewinghiscase, itwasconcludedthathislevel ofattention was above average. His level of attention correlated with his finnal grade. ‘nnereweresonedifferencesbetweeninterviewresponsesand observational results, and there were also differences between the interview results and the teacher's judgenents. I-bwever, the data showed that non-intensive self-reports (tonight sanpling) results were consistentwiththecpestionnaire results, andthe innterviewresponses, and non-consistent with the teacher's judgments, and the observational results. W ms#7isa32yearoldfenalewithfonryearsofteadning experience. Sheisinnterestedinteadningnglishasasecondlanguage. 109 ms. #7 indicatedthat itwaseasyforhertotellwhetherornot shewaspayingattention, butitwasroteasytotellwhatshewas thinnkinng abort. Fatigue did not always affect her level of attention. Itdepededonthematerial. If itwas innterestinngenongh, shefeltshe probably would pay attention. She had sonne control over her attention mostofthetime. 'Ihethoghtssheusuallyhadduringtheclasswere related to activities and they were very detailed. She stated that she wasabletcattedninnetypercentofthetime. Shebelievedthatthe studywouldbeabletonneasureherattenntion level andthatthe "thought sanpling" questionnaire during specific activities was effective. In general, ms. #7 preferred individual activities and she felt that the tine period was a minnor factor. She preferred long activities because theygaveherenmghtimetoworkandsolvetheproblens. Herfinnal gradewas4.0, andtheteaohergaveheraB forherlevel ofattention. Inreviewingthiscase, itwasconclndedthatshewasahighly attentive person. Her attention level correlated signnificanntly with her finalgradeandsowasrelatedtoheradnievannentgain. ‘Iherewasa littledifferencebetweenherresponsestotheinnterviewandthe observational results. It was also concluded that her non-intensive self-rmts (thought sannpling) results were consistent with the following: The questionnaire results, the innterview responses, the teacher's judgment, and observational results. MM Miss#81sZ4yearsold. Englishishersecondlanguageandshe lilcestoteadnnglishinnherconnntry. Miss#8 indicatedthatitwaseasyforhertotellwhetherormt 110 shewaspayingattention, and itwaseasyforhertctell whatshewas thinking abort if she was nnot paying attention. Fatigue affected her a lot. Shehadagooddealofcontroloverherlevel ofattention. Miss #8 indicated that sonnetinnnes other activities entered into her thonghts, especially dnnring individual work, but these thoghts did nnot oconr very often. She reported that she was able to attend seventy-five percent of thetime. Shebelievedthatthe’sudywasvalidandthatthe "thoght sanplinng" questionnaire was effective. In general, His #8 fonnd that the kind of activity (material) affected her level of attention. She believed that the time period and legth of the activities were minnor factors in affecting her level of attention. Her finnal grade was 3.0, and the teacher's rating of her attention level was +2. Inreviewinghercase, itwasconcludedthathergradewas correlated to attention level, so attention level was related to her achievenent gain. Also the results indicated that non-intensive self-reporting (thought sanpling) reellts were consistent with the following: 'lhe onestionnaire results, the interview resposes, the teadner's jnrigenents, and observational resnlts. W ‘nnisisa27yearold, fennalestndentwithodoyearsofteadning experience. Englishishersecodlanguageandshelikestoteadn uglieninheroomtry. Miss#9 indicatedthatitwaseasyforhertotellwhetherornot shewaspayingattentionanditwaseasyforhertotellwhatshewas thinkingbecauseherthogtntswerenbstlyrelatedtotheclassor personal problem. Miss #9 indicated that fatigue affected her and that 111 waswhyshepreferredshortactivities. Shehadtoconcentratealot becauseEnglishisnnotherfirst language. Shealso indicatedthatshe hadcontroloverdirectingherattentionmflessshewasextrenelytired. Shehadfewextraneonsthoughts: mostofthetimeshewas innvolvedwith the activities. Miss#9believedthatsheattededtotheclass foonsseventy percentofthetime, whichisaboveaverage. Shebelievedthatthestudy was valid and that the "thought sanpling" questionnaire was effective. Herfinalgradewas35ardtheteadner's judgennentofherattention level was +2. InreviewirgMiss #9's case, itwasconcluded thatherlevel of attention was correlated positively to lner finnal grade. ‘Ihere were sonne differences between doservationnal results and innterviev resposes. However, the data slnowed that non-intensive self-reports (thonght sanpling) results were cosistent with questionnaire results, teacher's judgenent, and observational results, and non-consistent with interview responses. W Miss#loisa40yearoldstnrientwithtenyearsofteadning experience. Sheisinterestedinteadningfinglishasasecodlanguage. Hiss#101ndicatedthatitwaseasyforhertotellwhetherornot shewaspayingattentionbecauseshewaspayingattentionnostofthe time. Fatigueaffectedhertoacertainextent. Iftheclass activity was stinnlating, fatigue had little effect. Miss #10 indicated that she hadcontroloverdirectingherlevelofattentivenessardthatshedid not thinnk of unnrelated material , activities, or problens during the 112 class. She felt that her attention was foonsed on the classroon activity ninety-nine percent of the time. Miss #lObelievedthatthestudywonldprovideageneral ideaofher attention level, but the degree of validity would depend on what people considered "paying attention." The "thought sannpling" method was a good method in her opinion. Miss #10 concluded that usually the time of the activity affected herlevelofattention: butthiswasnnotthecaseinthisclass, because she was paying attention nnnost of the tinnne. Slne liked early, gronp, lecture, and short activities. Her final grade was 3.5 and the teacher rated her level of attention +2. In reviewing her case, it was concluded that her level of attention wasanninnor factorinheradnievennentgain. 'Iherewasacorrelation betweenhergradeandlevel of attention. However, therewere differences between her interview responses and the observational results and teacher's judgenent. The data showed that non-intensive self-reports (thoglnt sanpling) resalts were consistent with the questionnaire reenlts, andtheintervievresponses, andnon-consistentwiththe teacher's jnrigennennts, and the observational results. In reviewing the interviev responses, thought sanpling responses, observational results, onestionnaire responses, teachers' judgenennt and student's finnal grade, itwasconcludedthatinmostcasestheresults of thefonrteonniqueswereconsistent. 'Ihedatashowedthatonlyintwo cases the nnon-innteeive self report (thoght sannpling) results were nnot consistent with observational results teachers judgement and interview resqnonses, andonlyinonecase, thennon-intensiveselfreportwasnnot consistent with questionnaire responses. Concerning the relationship 113 betweenattentionlevelandfinalgrade, thedatashovedthatninne students showed a positive relationship between their finnal grades and level of attention. Only one student did nnot show positive relationship between finnal grade and level of attention. m ChapterIVpresentedthedataandinformationconcerningthe findings of this investigation. 'nnednapterrevealedtheroleandinnportanceofthetypeof activities and the legth of the activities on the student ' s attention level. 'Ihe tinnne of the activities appears to have a slight influence on the student's attention level. Also this sundy revealed that, for the nnnostpart, thesubject'sbackgronndamearedtohavelittle innfluenceon hisorherlevel ofattention. 'Iheoneecceptionwasagewhichhada significant influence on the level of attention. , Also, the study revealed that level of attention had a major role in the student's knnowledge gain (finnal grade). Chapter V Sunnnary, Conclusioe and Reconmedatioe 'nnisstudywasdesignedtoinvestigatetherelationshipbetweenthe amarentattentionsmdentsarepayingandtreammtoflouvledgethey acquire during TESL class activities. 'IhreereseardngnestioewerepresentedindnapterI. Questionone specifically dealt with the relationship between the subjects' badgrounnd experience (e.g., age, sex, marital status, experience, and reason for takingthecolrse) anndtheirapparenntattention. Questiontwodealt with the level of attention dnnring various classroon activities. Question three dealt with the relationship between level of attention and finnal grade. 'Ihedata forthestudywasgatheredthroughtheuseof for instruments: questionnaires, "ttnnght sanpling" questionnaires, observations, and interviews. Students of English 407, during Fall, 1987 at Michigan State University costitnnted the sanple for the sandy. Wining: Inthefourthdnapter, datacollectedfrontheresmodentswho participated in the study was analyzed. The following section presents a snmlnnary of the following findings: : !' . E J! W 1o A98 ‘lhe results showed significannt differences in the level of I attentiveness to varions classroon activities in general and to group activities versus lecture in particnlar. 'Ihere were also significant 114 115 differences in the level of attentiveness to varions classroon activities based on age (P = .014) at .05 level (all statistics were analyzed at the .05 level). 2. Sex ‘Ihe results did not show significant differences between the sexes in the level of attentiveness to various classroon activities (P = .347), except for attention to lecture versus individual activities (P = .026) . 3. Marital Stats Overall, there were nno significant differences between married and single students in their level of attention to varions classroon activities (P = .0636). However, the study found a significant difference in the level of attention based on narital status during lecture as conpared to individual activities (P = .028). Married studentsshcwedthehigherlevel ofattentivenessinthatcontext. 4 . Acadenic Classification The results indicatedrno significant differences in the level of attention to various classroon activities based on the subject's acadenic classification (P = .296). 5. Teaching anerience ‘Ihere were also no significant differences in the level of attention to all classroon activities based on the subject's teaching experience (P = .774). 6. Reason for Taking the Course (Motivation) The results indicated there were nno significant differences in the level of attention to all classroon activities based on the subject's motivation to learn (P = .962) . 1. Timing of the Lecture The results indicated that there were no significannt differences inthelevel ofattentionbasedonthetimingofthelecture (teacher talk) (P = .7011) . 2 . Tim of the Individual Activities The results indicated that the differences in the level of attention based on timing of the individual activities were nnot significant (P = .796) . 3. Time of the Gronp Activities The data revealed nno significant relationships between level of attention and the timing of the group activities (P = .6765) . 1. length of the lecture ‘Ihe results showed there were nno significant differences in the level ofattentionduringlecmre (teachertalk) andthelegthoftim of that activity (p = .0782) . 2 . length of Individual Activities. ‘Ihe results indicated that there was a significant differenceinthelevel ofattentionbasedontheannnomtoftime spent on that activity (9 = .031). The subjects indicated a higher level of attention in short activities than during log individual work. 3. length of Group Activities. ‘ line results revealed that there were nno significant difference in thelevel ofattentivenessduringgroupwerkbasedonthelegthofthat activity (P = .0602). 117 W- 'Ihe data indicated there was a significannt difference in the level of attention based on the type of activity (P = .0065) . The data indicated that during gronp activities the attention level was the highest, followed by lecture, with the least attention given during individual work. line results showed a significannt difference in the level of attention to varions classroon activities based on the amount of tim spent on the activities (p = .0491). The data showed that the level of attention was higher during short activities. 0 v' ' o . The data indicated there were nc significant differences in the level of attention to various classroon activities based on the tim of the activities (P = .075). 'lhe data showed a significannt differece in the level of attention basedonthe amnntoftim spentontheactivity (P= .0315). It indicated that a short activity generated a higher level of attention than log activities. The study fonnnd nc significannt differences between short or long activities with regard to a preference for an early period of activities (P = .835) . Cocerning a preferece for group work, the data showed a non-significant difference between short or logactivities (p = .550). 118 TI Ell El'V°!' [E] I!)- 'Ihedatastxmedthattherewerenosignficantdifferencesinthe level of attention based on the timing of the activity (9 = .210). Concerning the preferred legth of the activity, the data indicated that there were nno significant differences in preference for short or log activities based on the timing of the activity (P = .605). line study also found no significant differences for preference of any type of activity based on the timing of that activity. 'Ihe subjects showed a higher level of attention during lecture activities than individual activities (working alone) (P = .0429) . 'Ihe results indicated no there were no significant differenmsinthepreference forshortorlongactivitiesbasedonthe type of activity. 'Ihestlfiyfomdthatthestuientsdamnsuatedahigherlevelof attention during group activities than during individual activities (P = .0158) . Also the data indicated there was a significant difference between individual and group activities in preference for short or long activities (P = .0122). Students indicated that during group activities theyshowedlesspreference forshortactivitiesthantheydidduring individual activities. The results indicated there were no significant differences between lecture and group activities in the level of attentiveness (P = 0.398) . The results also showed nno signnificant difference between lecture 119 and group activities on the subjects' preference for short or long activities (P = .603). W The overall results of the observation for the whole gronp indicated the following: line data revealed that the tinne of the activities was a minor elenent in determining the level of attention. The difference between level of attention regarding early and late timing of the activities was not significant. However the data indicated that there were significant differences in the level of attention based on the legth of the activity. The study fond that during short activities students showed a higher level of attention than they did during long activities. Regardingthetypeoftheactivities, thedatashowedthattherewere significant differenms in the level of attention between gronp and individual activities. Also there were significant differences in the level of attention between lecture and individual activities. However, the study fond nno significannt differences in the level of attention between gronp activities and lecture. W 'Ihe overall interview results indicated the following: Eighty peroentofthetensodentswhoparticipatedintheintervievsbelieved that the study was valid and that the "thonght sanpling" questionnaire was effective. Alnostallthestndents (except forone) hadgradesthatwere consistentwiththeirlevel ofattention. Onnlyoneshowedanon- significant (but positive) correlation with his level of attention. Five of the students indicated their preference for early activities. 120 Six students indicated their preference for small group activities. 'Ihneestndents indicatedtheirpreference forlectureandonlyone stLdent indicated a preference for individual activities. Six students indicated that they wonld like short activities, with only one preferring log activities. We} Results fron several studies (e.g., Stallings, 1985; Libernnan, 1980; Brophy, 1979) suggested that the amonnt of time students spend actively egaged in learning is positively related to student achievement gainns. Also Karwait and Slavin (1981) indicated that past research has doonnentedthatclassroonsdoindeeddifferinhovtineisallocatedand spent and tint these differences are positively, but not consistently, related to achievement. Garden and associates (1982) reported that studies of egaged rate held stroger correlation with achievenent than doothertinevariablessuchaslegthoftinnespentonimtruction. Asaresultoftheseardnnanyothersudies, itlnasbeconeclear thatteadnersinfluemeadnierenentmlyinaemdnastheyhaveaneffect onasondent's active involvenenntwiththemater'ialtobeleanned. Based onthisconclusion, thisstndyaddressedthevariables relatedto instructional attentiveness. 'nnese include type of activity, legth of activity, and timing of the activity during a teacher training conrse at Michigan State University. 'nnedataanalysisindnapterIVrevealedtheroleandinportameof the type of activities and the legth of the activities on the student's attention level. The time of the activities appears to have a slight influence on the shdent's attention level. Also this data revealed that there were significant differences in the level of attentiveness to 121 varions classroon activity based on age. Concerning geder, the data indicated that level of attentiveness to varions classroon activities except for attention to lecture versus individual activities was not relatedtothesexofthesubject. thedatashodedthattherewereno differences between married and single stndents in their level of attention to varions classroon activities, except for lecture as ccnpared to individual activities in which married students stowed higher levels of attention than single students. Academic classification also was not significantly related to level of attention in all classroon activities. Teaching experience was not related to level of attention to varions classroon activities. Reason for taking the conrse was not related to level of attention to varions classroon activities. Also, the study revealed that the level of attention had a significant role in the student's knowledge gain (finnal grade). Based on the findings of this investigation, the following reconnedations were made. It is felt that the folloving recomnendations mfldhelptoinprovetheinwolvenentofsudentswiththeacndenictask: 1. 'Ihis study sholld be replicated in other classroon settings (English language Centers) with a fairly large sanple. 2. 'nnereshonldbeastudytoenploreothervariables relatedto classroon effectiveness sudn as using different kinds of material (acadenic, cross-sectional). 3. 'nnereshouldbeconparativestndiesofnorethanoneclassroonand making use of different teachers. ‘ ' 4. 'nnereshonldbeareplicatedstudythatusesthesamestudentsand follows then throgh nore than one term. APPENDIXES 122 AppedixA Conrse Title: Nameof Instructor Frequeoyof Atteding StndenntName VMMDVMMDVMMDVMMDVMMDVMMDVMMDVMMDVMMDVMMD 1. 2. 3 4. 5. 6. 7 8. 9 10. 123 Please mark (X) beside the nnost appropriate response. AmedixB "nought Sanpling" Questionnaire Were yon paying attention? a. Yes ( ) b. No ( ) Wereyolthinkingaboltotheracadenicclasses? a.Yes () b.No () Wonld yon prefer short activities? a. Yes ( ) b. No ( ) Wonldyonprefertoworkinagronp? a.Yes () b.No () Is now a good timing for individual activities? a. Yes ( ) b. No ( ) If yon have any difficulty paying attention, is it because the activity is: a. Irrelevant b. Very difficult ( c. Very easy ( d. Not interesting ( e. Other ( vvvvv Ifyonwerethinnkingabontwhatwasbeingtanght,wereyon? a. Repeating the material orally to yonrself b. Reneatingthematerial,pnttingitinyonrownwords c. Relatingthisneterialtosoneothermaterial d. labelingthematerialorlooking foranexannple Consent: ( ( ( ( ) ) ) ) 124 Appedix C Time: ”nought Sannpling" Questionnaire Please nerk (X) beside the met appropriate responses. 1. 5. Were yon paying attention? a.Yes () b.No () Wereyolthinkingabontotheracadennicclasses? a.Yes () b.No’ () thatisthelegthofactivityyonareinnow? a.Short () b.1og () Doyolthinnkoneattractsyolrattentionnnorethanthe other? a.Yes () b.No () If YES, whid‘n? Mnattypeofworkareyolinnow? a.I.ecture ()‘ c.Individual () b.3nallgro1p () d.0ther () Doyolthinnkyolwolldpaynnoreattentioninanothertype? a.Yes () b.No () If YES, whid‘n? . If yon have any difficulty paying attention, is it because the a. Irrelevant () d.Notinteresting () b. Very difficult ( ) e. Other ( ) C-Veryeasy () Ifyonverethinnkingabontwhatwasbeingtaught,wereyon? a. Repeatingthenaterial orallytoyonrself ( b. Repeatingthennaterial, puttingitinyonromwords( c.Relatingthismaterialtosoneothernnaterial ( d. Labelingthematerial or looking foranexanple ( terial is: vvvv Cement: 125 Appendix D QJE‘SI'ICNNAIRE 'Ihe following survey is designed to investigate yolr level of attention to varions activities in a secod language class. 'Ihe survey will cover the following variables: 1 . Timing of activities 2 . legth of activities 3 . Type of activities Yonr participation in this survey will help to mnoover factors of great inportanoe in language teadning (i.e., what types of activities generateorleadtothegreatestamonntofattention). Yonrhonest answer will be very nuch appreciated. Please mark (X) beside the nost appropriate response. 1. Age a.Under22 ( ) b.0ver22 ( ) c.0ver33() 2. Se: a. role ( ) b. Fenale ( ) 3. Marital Status a. Married ( ) b. Single ( ) c. Separated/Divorced ( ) 4 . Acadenic Classification a. Graduate ( ) b. Undergraduate ( ) 5. Teaching Experience a. None b. lessthanSyrs c. MorethanSyrs 6. Reasonfortaking"407" a. Degreereqnirenent ( ) b. Ennjoyteadnertraining () 'loteaonseood AAA vvv language ( ) d. Nospecificreason ( ) 7. Mnatisthelegth of activitiesyonprefer? a. Short ( ) b-m ( ) 8. “nattype of activity attractsyonr attention met? a. Lecture ( ) b. Gronp ( ) c. Individual ( ) d. Unoertain ( ) Pagelof4. 126 9. I-iowdoyonrateyonrgeneralattentivenessinthisclass? a. Eboellent ( ) e. Poor ( ) b. Good ( ) f. Terrible ( ) c. Uncertain ( ) 10 . Is there apprtpriate variation in the type of activities? a.Yes () b.No () c.Unnoertain() 11. How do yon rate the teacher's use of different types of activities to add variety to the class? a. Encellent ( ) d. Poor ( ) b. Good ( ) e. Terrible ( ) C. W ( ) 12. Howdoyonfeelabontworkingbyyonrself (individual activities)? a. Excellent ( ) d. Poor ( ) b. Good ( ) e. Terrible ( ) c. Uncertain ( ) 13 . When do yon pay none attention to varions activities? a.Atthebeginningoftheclasshour () b.8ytheedoftheclasshonr () c.Inthenniddleoftheclasshour () d.Always () 14. Oonparing yolrself in snort activities to yonrself in log activities, hov do yon rate yonr level of attention? a. Excellent ( ) d. Poor ( ) b. Good ( ) e. Terrible ( ) c. Unoertain ( ) 15. Conparing yonrself in group activities to yolrself in a lecture, howdoyonrateyonrgeneralattentiveness? a. Excellent ( ) d. Poor ( ) b. Good ( ) e. Terrible ( ) c. Uncertain ( ) 16. Ifyonhavealecture, wonldyoulikethelectalre firstand theactivities secod? a.Yes () b.NO () 17. Ingeneral,howlogdoyonliketoworkbyyonrself? a.Fivetotenminnutes ( b.1enntofifteenminnntes ( c.Fifteentotwentyminutes( d.Overtwentynnninutes ( Page20f4. vvvv 127 18. Ingeneral, howlogdoyoilikegroupactivities to last? a.Fivetotenminutes () b.Tentofifteenminntes () c.Fifteentotwentyminntes () () 19 . When is the best time to practice interactive activities? In the beginnnning of the class hour ( ) In the middle of the class hour ( ) . By the end of the class hour ( ) - Always ( ) 20 . When is the best time for individual activities? a.Earlyintheclass () b.1ateintheclass () any? 21 . How appropriate are the uses of the following activities? i. I-Iavingstudentsreporttotheclass? a. Excellent ( ) d. Poor ( ) b. Good ( ) e. Terrible ( ) c. Uncertain ( ) ii. Havingstudentstalktoeachother? () () () iii. Having students sunnmarize to the class sonnething they lnave read? a. Eboellent ( ) d. Poor ( ) b. Good ( ) e. Terrible ( ) c. Uncertain ( ) iv. Having students 22. Conparingyonrselfinalec'onretoyonrself inindividual activities, how do yon rate yolr general attentiveness? ‘ a. Ewellent ( ) d. Poor ( ) b. Good ( ) e. Terrible ( ) C. Uncertain ( ) 23. Doyonprefertheteadnertotakennore initiative activities? a. Yes ( ) b. No ( ) Page3of4. 128 24. Hovl doyonliketheteadnertolecbnre? 3 a. Fivetotenminnutes () b.Tentofifteenminutes () c.Fifteentotwentyminnntes () d.0vertwentyminnnntes () 25. Do yon like gronp activities? a.Yes () b.No Page4of 4. 129 AmedixE IN'I'ERVIDVGJESI‘ICNS Didyonfinditpossible,whenasked, totell ifyonwere really paying attention, andtotell whatyonhadbeen thinkingabontifyonwerenotpayingattention? To what extent does fatigue affect yonr level of attention? Hownndndoyolhavecontroloverdirectingyonrattention? To what entent, other activities or probl- enter yonr thonghts during the class? Iowwell-detailedwerethings (tinghts, innagesof things, etc.) thatweregoingthroghyonrhead? Howattentivewereyontotheacadeniccontentduringthe lastfewseoodsbeforethetone? Howvaliddoyonthinnkthissudyisinmeasurirgyonr attentionlevel? Do yon think "thoght sannpling" was effective? If not, why? 130 AppendixF Request for Student Participation in a WWW Dearsudent: Yon are enrolled in "English 407" class which is one of a small gronp of teaonertrainingclassesdnosentoparticipateinastndyofstndents' levels of attention in seood language classes. 'nnesudyisapreliminnarysurveythataddressesthecooeptofstndent attention during class and attention level and selected depedent variables including knowledge acquisition. Yonr participationinthestudyisentirely volunntary. Whetherornot yondecidetoparticipateinthesundywillhavenoeffectonyonr evaluationforthecourse. 'nnecolrseinstructorwillnotlmowthenames of, orbeabletootherwiseidentifytheparticipannts. Ifyolshonld decidetoparticipateintheshdy,thenlaterdecidetodiscontinnneyonr participation yon my do so withont recrimination. The study will involve observation of yolr class sessions at selected times, conpletion of very short questionnaires at selected times during theclass inwhich instmctionwillbestogpedandthe inotructorwill leavetheroon, oneinterviewduringtheterm, coductedbythe researcher, andtheconpletionofathreepagequestionnaire. Itisbelievedthattheresultsofthissudywillbeusefulininproving seood language teaching, andyourparticipation will contribute to that effort. Acopyofthefirdingsofthesudywillbemadeavailableto yoluponrequest. Thankyonforyourcooperation. Ifyonhave furtherquestions, please contact me at 355-1122. Sinoerely, SusanArafat Doctoral Student Pagelofz. 131 AppedixG Participant Consent Form Iagreetoparticipateinthestudentlevel ofattentionstudydescribed above, under the coditions described above including the follwing: 1. Myparticipation isvolnnntaryandmyresponseswillbe keptanonymous anonymous. Theconrseinstructorwillhaveno wayoflonowingiflparticipatedinthesundy. 2. Myresponseswillbeusedonlyforresearch purposes, andeillbegivenacopyofthereportofthesudy bytheresearcher. 3. Icandiscontinnneparticipationinthesudyatany time withth recriminnation. Signature [hte Page20f2. 132 Bibliography Abraham, R. G. (1985) Field independence and teadning of granmnar. TESOL W- 2.9 (4): 689401. Allport, Alan and associates (1972) "On the Division of Attention": A disproof of the single channel hypothesis." mm mm 2.4 (2) 225-235. Allwright, D. (1983) Classroon-centered research on language teaching and learnning: a brief historical overview, W, 17(2) , 191-204. Alt-hen. Garry (ed-) (1981) W. Washington. D-C.= men. Anderson, Linda M. (1981). - -‘ . l . paper presented at the National Institute of indication (ED), Washington, D.C. (ERIC Reproduction Service, No. ED212 626). Anderson, L.W. (1976). An enpirical investigation of. individual differenncesintinnetolearn. - _, (2): 226-233. Bailey, K.M. (1983) Ccnpetitiveness and annxiety in adult seood language learning: ookingatandthroghthediarystndies. InN.W.8eliger andM..I-I.Log(eds) n n- ,7 . Mg. Rowley, Mass.: Nedlnury Boise, 39—65. Bailey, K.M. and Celce—Mircia (nndated). Classroonn skills for EL teachers. MariannneCelce-Muria (ed.) Tea_d_n_im EliggsaSeoond W. Rowley, Mass.: Nevmry Honse Rnblishers, 315—331. Bemell. N- (1976)- WWW. Imam: (Pen Books. Bialystok (1979). The role of coscions in seood language proficiency. -. A. - 1,15: 372-344. 31”, 8.8. (1976). YLJUE! .111, '.‘ York:Mc13raw—I-Iill. Bontdner, StephenH., andCrevs, Debra J. (1984). Ward W. Paper presented at the Annnual Convention of the American Alliannoe for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Danoe. ERIC Reproduction Service No. 244 940. Brause, Rita andMayher (1982). Teachers, Students and Classroon organizations. 7 _-n, 16(2): 131-147. 133 Brown, Doglas (1980). '__ ' -- - __-_ L‘ Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Brophy. NE. and Good. T-L- (1974) W W. New York: Holt, Rinnehart & Winston. Bropny, J. P. (1979). Teacher behavior and its effects. W W 11(5): 733-750- Carroll, J.B. (1963). A nodel of school learning. W M, fi(8):723-’733. Carter, R.M. ( 1969) to - dissertation. Indiana University: ,Indianna. Gaston William (1985) WWW Paper presented to the National Resonrces Information, U. S. Department of Education: National Institute of Education. Kansas State Unniversity. Mannhattan: ERIC Reproduction Service, No. 267 721. Cohen, Andrew (1983). "Attention and learning": Introspecting abort second language learning In W 15: 143-146 Cooley, W. and Ieinnhardt, G. (1980). The instructional dimensions Denham, C. and Libermann (1980). W. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education. Dentsch, J. A. and unutsdn, D. (1963). Attention: Sone theoretical considerations. W19 (1) '3'90- Doyle, W. (1979b). Making managerial decisions in classroons. In D. Duke (81. )., .-. slain-rm. w. usuan . (Yearbook of National Society for the study of education, Part II). Chicago: University of Chicago Press Ellis, R. (1986). - ocford University Press. Ellis, Rod (1984). Oxford: Perganon Press. Fisher, C., Filby, N., mrliare, R., Calnen, L., Dishaw, M., Moore, J., andBertiner, D. (mdated). o W (Final report of Phase III-B. Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study.) San Fransisco, California: Far West laboratory for Educational Research and Develqnent. 135 Fcrnness, Steven and Kenneth A. Kan-ale. (1985). Effect of class size on attention, communication and disruption of mildly mentally retarde ‘ 02E 3-2- -- LIL... ' 22(3): 403.412. Frederick, W.C. and Wabberge, H.J. (1980). learning as a fnnnction of time- WW. 22(4):183-194- Gettinger, Maribeth (1984). Achieverent as a fnnnction cf tine spent in learningandtimeneededfcrlearning. W W 21(3) =617-628. Good, T. (1979). Teader effectiveess in elenentary school. Moi W 19(1) =52-64- Good, T. and Beckerman, T'. (1978). Time on Task: A naturalistic study in shim-grade classroom:- W 18(3)=193-201- Good, T. and Brcphy, J.C. (1978). W (2nd ed.) New York: Harper and Row. Minneapolis Institute for Research on learning Disabilities. Minneapolis, m: Minnesota University (ERIC Dooment Reproduction Service, No. ED 214 930). Guthrie, J.T. (1976). .- ., , Delaware: International Reading Association. Harper, C...BJ.(1976) - - o. m. hperpreentedattteAnnualMeetingcftreElenentary Reading Association. (ERIC Dconnent mproduction Service, No. 132 506). How Joyce: amlassociates (1973) Wardens: 1.2‘ -_ w - , Paper presentedattneBicentennialMeetingcftneScciety fcrresearchin Child Develcpent. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED 135 471). Hosenfeld, c (1976). . ' ° M. Foreign language Annnnals 2(2):117-129. Husen, T. (nndated). emissions-2 NedYork: John WileyandSons. Janes, William ( 1985) . I 136 Kamit. N L- (1983) MW Report No 332. Baltinore: Center for Social Organization of Schools, The John Hopkins University. Karwait, W. and Slavin, R. (1981). neasurennent and modeling doices in audios of time and learning WWW 15(2): 157-171. Keele, Steven (1973). n -. Palisades: Goodyear Publishing Conpany. Kellogg, R.T. (1986). Is coscions attention necessary for long term storage? WW: mutton looming and Henry, §(4):379—390. Klingard, E.R. (1980). Conscionsness in contenporary psychology. m; We» 11:1-26- Klinger, Erick. (1984) "A coscionsness—sanpling annalysis of test anxiety and performance " MW W, 51(6): 1376-1390. Klinger, Erick. (1987). "Wtst pewle think abort and wten they thinnk it." - _- _ __ , .. - .New York. York: Holt, Rinehartand Winston » Krupski, A. (1980). Attentionprccesses: Research, theory, and Inplications for special education. In B.K. Keogh (ed.), m W, 1. Greenwich, CI‘.: JAT Press. Krupski, Antoinette (1985). Variatios in attention as a function of classroontaskdenandinlearninghandicappedandCR—mtdned Mapped children W2C): 52-56- lackmann, R., lachnen, J.L., andmtterfield, E.C. (1979). mm Logan, G.D. (1979). Onntheuse of a connrrentmenory lcadtc measure attention and autonatically, M]. of W m3 Humm Peception and Performanoe, 5:189-207. log, MidnaelH. (1976). Groancrkintheteaoningandlearningcf Bglish as a foreign language-problem and potential. HEELS} W: 235-292- 137 Long, Midnael and Porter, Patricia (1985). Group work, Inter-l W talk, and second language acquisition. W gm): 207- 227. McDonngh, S., (1981). Allen and Urnwin. McDowell, Earl E. and associates (1980). W W W Paper presented at the Amnl Meeting of Speech Comuniontion Association (66th, New York, NY) (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED 196 093). Meldnan, Monte Jay (1970). Oxford: PeI'gamon Press. Moray, N. (1959). Attention in dichotic listening: Affectiveness and the influence of Wide W m 11(1): 56-60. Moray, N. (1969). Attention: Selective Processes in Vision and m. Lonrion: Hutdninson. Moskowitz, Gerunds (1976). line classroon interaction of outstanding foreign language tenders In Wm: 135-157- Neisser, V. (1976). mm. San Fransioo: W.H. Freeman and Co. Nerenz, Anne C. and Rhw, Costanoe (1982). "Atime—based approach to the stuiy of teacher effectiveness. W fin) :243-254. Nisser, Mary Jo and Peter anttermen (1980). Attentional Remirenents of Learning: EvidenoefrunPer-formanoeneasm'es. mm Moor. 19:1-32- Peterson, P.L., Swing, S. R., Stank, K.D., andWass, C.A. (1984). "Student cognitions and time on task during mthenatics .. . , - v 21(3): 487-510. Pidgeon, D. A. (1970). _ _ :9 Com-Joe. Slough, England: National Fondation for Eduoational Research in England and Wales. Pills-bay. Walter Bowers (1973). W New York: ARI) Press. 138 Piontkowski, D. and Calfee, R. (1979). Attention in the classroon. In GordonA .HaleandMidnaelIewis(eds.) W W. NevYork: PlenumPress. Pope. Kenneth and Jerme Singer (1978)- W. New York: Plenum Press. Posnner, M.I. and Boies, S. J. (1971). Conponents of attention. WC): 391-408. National Fonndation for Eoncational W. Rosenshine, B. Classroon instruction. In N.L. Gage (ed.), W W. Seventy-five yearbook of National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: (kniversity of Chicago Press. Rosenshine, B.V. (1977). W. Paperpresentedattheamialmeetingof ‘3 American Educational Research Association. New York. Rosenshine, B.V. (1979). Content, time, anddirectinstruction.In P.L.PetersonandHJ.Walberg(eds)m_mm W. Paper presentedfor the National Institute of Ednmtion (ERIC Reproduction Service, No. ED 142 308). Roseshine, B. V., and Berliner, D.C. (1978). Aoademic egaged time. WW 5: 3-16. menock, M. and Brandler, N. (1979). Time off-task: Inplications for learning. PaperpresentedattheanmalmeetingoftheAmerioan Educational Research Association, San Fransisco. Salso, R.L. (1979). W- New York: Harconrt Brace Jovanovidn. Samiels, Jany and Nanncy L. Miller (1985) . Failure to find attention differences between learning disabled and normal children on classroon and laboratory tasks. WM. 51(5) :358-375. Schneider, Walter and Ridnard M. Shiffrin (1977) . "Controlled and Autonatic Htmn Informtion Processing: Detection, Search and Attention. WW. 55(1) - Shannon, J. R. (1942). Meaonres of validity of attention scores. . -_ -_ .“;'_1’.! 15: 623-631. 139 Schumann, J. (1975). Affective factors and the prdnlem of age in second language aoguisitim- W. 26: 135-143- smiles, 11.3. (1969). V110 - -. ' ~ ' - Unwblished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University. Silberman, C.E. (1970). W. New York: Mrdon House. Smith, N. H. (1976). -- 1 .. - ' Baltimore: John F. Kennedy Institute for Habitation, John Hcpkins University. Soar, R.S. (1973). g, -. f - grovth (1970-71): Final Report. Gainesville: College of Education, University of Florida. Cainssville: Institute for Developnnent of Human W, College of nitration, University of Florida. Stallings, Janne and associates (1985). _ ... (o. - W?Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, March (ERIC Doomnent Reproduction Service, No. ED 267 018). Steriok. Earl. (1476). MW- Rwley. rhea: Neubury House. Treisman, A. M. (1969). Strategies and models of selective attention. W 15(3)=282-299- WarnnI-Iolding, Dennis (Ed.) (1984). _ z W. NedYork: JomWileyandSos. Werner, C. Sue and Sinpson, Richard (1974). Attention to task and conpletionofworkasaf‘mnctionoflevel ofadjustnentand edtmtional environment- WW $56-58- Wessells, 11.6. (1982). MW. Canbridge: Harper and Row.