THE EFFECT OF TRAINING IN INTERACTION ANALYSIS ON THE VERBAL TEACHING BEHAVIORS AND ATTITUDES OF PROSPECTIVE SCHOOL INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC EDUCATION STUDENTS STUDYING CONDUCTING Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY CHARLES EUGENE HICKS 1976 This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE EFFECT OF TRAINING IN INTERACTION ANALYSIS ON THE VERBAL TEACHING BEHAVIORS AND ATTITUDES 0F PROSPECTIVE SCHOOL INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC EDUCATION STUDENTS STUDYING CONDUCTING presented by Charles Eugene Hicks has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Music szgflv Major professor August 13, 1976 Date 5‘ LIE-EAR y ’ :3 . . _ i‘thbzgm Stab . {fig-LIBRARY ‘ 23g ' ; P’Mmhgan Sta {3 ‘ University JAN 1 6 I999 ABSTRACT THE EFFECT OF TRAINING IN INTERACTION ANALYSIS ON THE VERBAL TEACHING BEHAVIORS AND ATTITUDES 0F PROSPECTIVE SCHOOL INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC EDUCATION STUDENTS STUDYING CONDUCTING By Charles Eugene Hicks Purpose The purpose of this study was to collect and analyze information regarding the effects of instruction in the techniques of interaction analysis upon the verbal teaching behaviors and atti- tudes of university conducting students. Interaction analysis training was instituted as part of a training program for prospec- tive school instrumental music teachers using the Rehearsal Inter- action Observation System (RIOS). Procedure The sample consisted of fifty-two music education students enrolled in a beginning conducting curriculum during the fall of the 1975-76 academic year. The subjects were randomly assigned to one of two sections of the course with the experimental group being taught by the researcher and the control group taught by a faculty member in the music education department. Each section met five periods a week during a ten week term. Section A, consisting of twenty-seven students, was designated the control group. This Charles Eugene Hicks section utilized the standard texts and the conventional teaching techniques of conducting. Each student's conducting of a labora- tory band or orchestra consisting of his classmates was videotaped weekly and critiqued by the instructor. An additional ten periods of conducting experiences were added to the course requirements. Section B, the experimental group of twenty-five students, also used the standard texts, teaching methods, course content and videotape procedures of section A. Instead of the additional conducting experiences, ten periods of study were devoted to the theory and techniques of interaction analysis, using the RIOS system developed in l972 by Robert L. Erbes. A pre- and posttest attitude scale measurement was given to the total sample at the beginning and the end of the experimental period. These scales were designed to mea- sure the subject's amount of dogmatism and attitude toward tradi- tional and progressive educational methods. Results A comparison of the pretest scores on the attitude variables indicated that the total sample was similar in both Dogmatism (belief-disbelef system) and Education (attitude toward traditional and progressive educational methods). There was no significant dif- ference between the two groups on cumulative grade point average and the amount of previous conducting experience. To obtain an estimate of observer agreement among the twenty-five subjects in the experi- mental group, data from a thirty—five minute videotape session of a school rehearsal was coded by the subjects. This information was Charles Eugene Hicks analyzed using a Hoyt Analysis of Variance, which produced a coef- ficient of r = .94 (between observer), and r = .99 (for the group average). The data for testing the sixteen hypotheses were sub- jected to multivariate analysis techniques. Findings from the study indicated that prospective teachers receiving training in interaction analysis were less dogmatic in their thinking, used more indirect verbal behaviors, were generally more aware of a greater variety of verbal behaviors and used more of this variety in their teaching than did their counterparts. THE EFFECT OF TRAINING IN INTERACTION ANALYSIS ON THE VERBAL TEACHING BEHAVIORS AND ATTITUDES 0F PROSPECTIVE SCHOOL INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC EDUCATION STUDENTS STUDYING CONDUCTING By Charles Eugene Hicks A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements . for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Music 1976 T0 BARBARA AND CHRIS i'i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his gratitude to the members of his guidance committee: Professor Richard Klausli, Dr. Robert Harris, Dr. Robert Sidnell and Dr. Robert L. Erbes. Special thanks to my committee chairman, Dr. Robert L. Erbes, whose research pro- vided the germ for this project. Appreciation is expressed to the music education faculty and students for their help and participation in this research study. I wish to thank the Southern Fellowship Fund of Atlanta, Georgia, for providing the grant that supported this study. A special mention and thanks to the writer's mother Mary, father Eugene, and his entire family and friends whose words of encouragement served as inspiration for this research period. The author is deeply indebted to his wife Barbara and son Chris whose sacrifices, patience and understanding helped make this dissertation a reality. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction . l The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Need for the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Statement of Purpose . . . . . . . . . . 8 Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . 9 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Group of Equivalency . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Organization of the Paper . . . . . . . . . 15 II. SURVEY OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . l6 Introduction . . . . . . 16 Research in Interaction Analysis Background and Theory. . . . . . 16 Development and Application of Observation Instruments . . . . . . . . 19 Teacher Education and Training. . . . . . . . 25 Studies Related to Music Education . . . . . . 33 The Pilot Study. . . . . . . . . . 54 Procedure for the Pilot Study . . . . . . . . 55 Findings and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . 56 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 iv Chapter IV. BIBLIOGR APPENDIC Chapter . Page Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Pretest Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Postest Data on Conducting Behavior . . . . . . 78 Observer Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BO Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . 92 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Recommendations for Further Research . . . . . . 104 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Table 2.1 ' 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 A 4.1 4.2 4.3 LIST OF TABLES Flanders' Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC) Observational System for Instructional Analysis (1970) Description of Categories for the Classroom Music Analysis System . . . . . . . . . Description of Categories for the Modified System of Interaction Analysis for Music Classes (Snapp) Modified OSIA The Rehearsal Interaction Observation System . Coefficient of Student Agreement by Groups and Training Periods . Comparison of Individual Student Codings on Final Agreement Check fbr the Pilot Study . . Composition of Sample Group by Curriculum . Three Major Divisions of the Rehearsal Interaction Observation System . . . . . . . . Sample Matrix Plot Cumulative RIOS Matrix Analysis Showing Some General Aspects of Classroom Interaction Pretest Means and Standard Deviations for the Total Sample On the Two Attitude Scales . . . . . A Comparison of the RIOS and NON- RIOS Group fbr Equivalency . . . POsttest Means and Standard Deviations fbr the Experimental and Control Groups on the Two Attitude Scales . . . . . . . vi Page 22 26 38 42 47 52 56 58 61 62 64 65 77 77 79 Table Page 4.4 Frequency and Percent of Use of Each Category of 11- -Category System with Calculated I/D and S/T Ratios . . . . . . . . 79 4.5 An ANOVA Reliability Estimate for the RIOS Conduc- tors on a 35 Minute Video Tape Test of Observer Agreement (N=25) . . . . . . . . . 82 4.6 A Comparison of NON-RIOS Trained Conducting Students and RIOS Trained Conducting Students on the Fre- quency of Three Selected Divisions of Verbal Behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 4.7 Statistical Design . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 4.8 ANOVA of Verbal Behavior by Categories, Groups and Attitude Variables . . . . . . 86 4.9 Multivariate ANOVA of Verbal Behavior by Categories, Groups and Attitude Variables . . . . 88 4.10 Correlation of Variables . . . . . . . . . . 91 5.1 Summary of Null Hypotheses Findings . . . . . . . 95 vii LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. CDWNUOCD The Rehearsal Interaction Dogmatism Scale Form E The Education Scale RIOS Sequence Chart Revised RIOS Sequence Chart Sample Rehearsal Matrix . RIOS Curriculum Outline . viii Page 116 129 132 135 137 139 141 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM Introduction Personnel in teacher training programs who work with uni- versity students have become increasingly aware of the need for techniques to improve teaching effectiveness. Amidon and Hough have cited three important factors in helping young teachers bridge the gap between theory and practice. They include: (1) the prospective teacher should want to improve, (2) the prospective teacher should have a mode1.of the kind of teaching behavior that he wants to develop and (3) the prospective teacher should receive feedback regarding his progress toward the development of those teaching behaviors that he has conceptualized as his goal.1 Interaction analysis is one technique used in teacher education to improve instructional effectiveness. It is an obser- vational and coding procedure for recording the verbal interchange between a teacher and his students. Gorman has stated that "inter- action is a process of communication between two or more people where both the linguistic meaning and the emotional responses are 1Edmund Amidon and John B. Hough, eds., Interaction Analysis: Iheory, Research and Application (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1967), p. 252. "2 Gorman mutually clarified whenever clarification seems necessary. has further stated that "true interaction produces a cohesive class- room where teacher and students share responsibility for the defining, "3 Research carrying out, and evaluating the learning experiences. in teacher training has indicated that Amidon and Hough's second and third factors necessary for change in teaching behavior can be achieved through the technique of interaction analysis. It has become evident that the various college and university teacher education programs have experienced difficulties in helping their students to translate theory into practice. Flanders states, "the point is that much of what is learned in education courses is neither conceptualized, quantified nor taught in a fashion that "4 To be understood, builds a bridge between theory and practice. concepts in education must be verified by personal field experiences; in turn, field experiences must be efficiently conceptualized to gain insight into the teaching-learning process. One of the per- plexities of teaching is the inability of the instructor in describing teaching as a series of acts through time and to provide models of teaching behaviors which are appropriate to different kinds of teaching situations. 2Alfred H. Gorman, Teachers and Leaders: The Interaction Process of Education (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1974), p. 25. 31bid.. pp. 33-34. 4Ned A. Flanders, "Intent, Action and Feedback: A Prepa- ration for Teaching," Interaction Analysis: Theory,,Research and Application, ed. by Edmund Amidon and John Hough (Reading, Mass.: . Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1968), p. 283. Steel and Stone have derived a set of principles under five major teaching skill clusters. They describe these as (l) Situational skills, (2) Readiness skills, (3) Ideational skills, (4) Task- 5 Through analysis of directing skills, and (5) Feedback skills. studies and writings about the learning process, unique and critical skill areas in teaching and learning can be identified. Burke and Stone state that the model establishes teaching skills derived from psychological principles as the base . . . and recognizes teacher qualities . . . and knowledge in subject-fields in equal but distinct roles.6 Flanders has further suggested that in order for a teacher to improve his teaching he must: (1) learn how to define his con- cepts as part of a theory and (2) develop procedures for quantifying the qualitative aspects of teaching.7 These authorities support the need for a theoretical foundation that will guide teachers in the practical aspects of the teaching-learning process. Flander's suggest that "we will be closer to a scientific understanding of teaching than ever before, and indeed, a theory of teaching."8 I The technique of Interaction Analysis was first developed as a research tool. Many researchers believe it can be effectively applied to teacher education in a fashion that is consistent with a 5Cassel D. Burke, and David R. Stone, "A Research-based Learning Process: Model for Developing and Evaluating Teacher Edu- cation Curricula,“ Journal of Teacher Education, XXVI, No. 3 (Fall, 1975). p. 235. 6Ibid., p. 238. 7Flanders, 92, £1; , p. 284. 81bid., pp. 285-294. philosophy of personal inquiry. This inquiry involves finding ways of translating understanding into positive action as part of the teaching process and experimenting with one's own behavior. It further evaluates this information in terms of the teacher's role in gaining self-insight while applying the theory and practice in the act of teaching. Teacher educators state that field experi- ences are imperative to acquaint prospective teachers with manipu- lation of theoretical components of education. Many instructors believe that the experience should be strictly cognitive in nature. Appleton has summarized this subject with the following conclusion: Teacher educators generally agree that the more closely the theoretical construct is related in time and space to actual application, the more effective the application will be. Thus, it is strongly recommended that field experiences be included whenever possible. Because the goal of foundations of education is to develop teachers' ability to analyze real situations and apply the appropriate theoretical concepts, prospective teachers must have experience in recognizing rele- vant factors and calling forth the appropriate behavior in actual situations. The Problem The traditional means of teaching conducting in college music education curricula have relied on methods and texts that stress the authoritarian role of the conductor. Recent statements by many prominent music educators indicate that this authoritarian role is a transference of attitudes and procedures from professional per- forming organizations, and perhaps not always conducive to the best 9Nicholas Appleton, "A Modular Approach to Foundations of Education," Journal of Teacher Education, XXVI, No. 3 (Fall, 1975), p. 253. educational interest of the students in musical organizations.10 Many educators believe that the conductor of school music groups can encourage students to become more involved in the rehearsal by creating a climate for teacher-student interaction.n Extensive research by Flanders in classroom instruction indicated that higher student achievement and independence resulted from less teacher- centered or indirect teaching methods. These methods tended to stimulate verbal participation by students and increased their responsibility for diagnosing their own difficulties and developing plans for action. The specific problem undertaken in this study was whether the effects of instruction in the techniques of interaction analysis would make a significant difference in the verbal teaching behaviors and attitudes of prospective school instrumental music education students studying conducting. The answer to this question will be sought by comparing the conventional methods of teaching conducting to college music education students trained not only by conventional methods, but also in the techniques of interaction analysis. 10Charles Leonard and Robert House, Foundations and Princi- ples of Music Education, 2nd ed. (new York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959), p. 230.‘ 11Ned A. Flanders and Edmund Amidon, The Role of the Teacher in the Classroom (Minneapolis: Association for Productive Teaching, Inc., 1967), pp. 72-85. Need for the Study According to many studies in the field of interaction analysis, "teachers have never had an empirically verified instruc- tional theory to serve as a basis for their classroom behavior."12 Perceptive teachers have sensed that the quality and quantity of teacher-pupil interaction is a critical dimension of effective classroom teaching. Without a theory, teachers on many occasions have been unable to generalize principles of instruction for specific classroom situations. Without;objective means of focusing on classroom interaction, teachers had no method of capturing the phenomenon of the instructional processes, the climate that is created in their classrooms, and the possible effects of this climate on the attitudes and achievements of their pupils. With the restrictive employment, many teacher training institutions are implementing competency based and screening pro- cedures to select individuals for teacher education curricula. It must be recognized that neither of these processes will insure effective teachers. Cangelosi contends that effective teaching is a complex function of teacher personality, pupil needs, environment, "13 and teacher capability. Martin Haberman, Professor of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, stated: 12Edmund Amidon and John Hough, eds., Interaction Analysis: Theory, Research and Application (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1967), p. 2. 13James S. Canagelosi, "Competency Based Teacher Education: A Cautionary Note," Contemporary_Education, XLVI, No. 2 (Winter, 1974), p. 126. "students do begin with the right to become teachers . . j the professional has the responsibility of justifying the admission of each candidate."14 He further commented that "neither student demand nor the employment market are suitable determinants of the number of students that should be admitted."15 These students should be allowed to enter the music education curriculum because of the following reasons: (1) academically qualified, (2) emotionally and physically stable, and (3) aware and sensitive to the problems students face in and out of the classroom. Many supervisors of student teachers are in agreement with the college and university curriculum specialist. Some seem to put the blame for student teacher's failure directly on those responsible for teacher-training at the colleges and universities. One such supervisor of student teachers stated: "colleges of education will have to do a better job of screening out poor risks among potential 16 Because of these problems, there must be a more compre- teachers." hensive program of teacher training and more involvement on the part of the prospective teacher in the actual training process. Prior to the research reported in this study, a brief pilot project was conducted to determine the usability of interaction 14Martin Haberman, "The admission to Professional Education is a Professional Decision, not a Student Right," Journal of Teacher Education, XXV, No. 3 (Summer, 1974), p. 234. 15111111., p. 235. 16Grace Muente, "Let's be More Selective with Student Teachers," Journal of Teacher Education, XXV, No. 3 (Summer, 1974), p. 236. analysis in the present study. Twelve instrumental music education majors were randomly selected to participate in the experimental investigation. The purpose of the study was: (1) to determine the amount of training necessary to arrive at an acceptable level of observer agreement of students using an interaction analysis technique and (2) to assess the usability of the technique in teacher training as it related to coding problems and training procedures. Statement of Purpose The purpose of this investigation was to collect and analyze information regarding the effects of instruction and use of the techniques of interaction analysis upon the verbal behaviors and attitudes of university conducting students. Even though some research has been done in the area of teaching-training using inter- action analysis techniques, it is hoped that this study will present further evidence that the interaction analysis technique is a viable instrument in the training of prospective teachers. Unfortunately, the vast majority of young teachers tend to teach the way they were taught. Campbell has stated that Vmany student teachers construe teaching as--teacher talk.“ He further stated, "If one views the learner as passive, he treats him in that manner, and what emerges is a teacher dominated classroom in which the teacher spends more of his time talking. But if the student is perceived as active he is treated in a manner that allows him to become actively in- VOlved in self-appropriating kinds of activities."17 Definition of Terms For the purpose of this study, the following terms are defined. 1. Category.¢-A category is a subdivision of a larger class of verbal or non-verbal behavior. 2. Interaction Analysis Systems.--Interaction analysis systems refer to the means for recording and analyzing the verbal and non-verbal communication between teachers and students within the confines of the classroom. 3. Rehearsal Interaction Observation System (RIOS).--RIOS is an observational system for categorizing, analyzing, and reporting the verbal and non-verbal interaction between conductors and students during the rehearsal of large musical organizations.18 4. Rehearsal.--A rehearsal is the process by which a group of musicians are trained or instructed. 5. Verbal Behavior.--Verbal behavior is the form of talk by either teachers or students that occurs within the rehearsal or classroom. 17Lloyd P. Campbell, "Teaching Is Not Talking," Journal of Contemporary Education, XLV, No. 2 (Winter, 1974), pp. 106-107. 18Robert L. Erbes, "The Development of an Observational System for the Analysis of Interaction in the Rehearsal of Musical Organizations" (Ed. D. dissertation, University of Illinois, 1972). pp. 101-102. 10 6. Attitude.--Refers to a general tendency of an indi- vidual to act in a certain way under certain conditions. It is based on what someone says or what he does. It is based on visible behavior.19 7. Non-verbal Behavior.--Non-verbal behavior is the form of communication by either teachers or students other than talk that occurs within the rehearsal or classroom. 8. Prpgpective Teachers.--Prospective Teachers are those students who have not completed their formal student teaching assignments. 9. Cumulative Grade Point Average (GPA).--The Cumulative G.P.A. is the grade point average of all courses taken at the university to date. Hypotheses The study is designed to test the following null hypotheses: There is a difference between the percentages of direct teacher talk of conducting students trained in interaction analysis and the direct teacher talk of conducting stu- dents not trained in interaction analysis. There is a difference between the percentages of indirect teacher talk of conducting students trained in interaction analysis and the indirect talk of conducting students not trained in interaction analysis. There is a difference in the percentages of student talk in rehearsals led by conducting students who have been trained in interaction analysis and the student talk in rehearsals taught by conducting students not trained in interaction analysis. 19Robert F. Mager, Developing an Attitude Toward Learning (Palo Alto: Fearon Publishers, 1968), p. 14. 11 There is a difference in the indirect/direct ratio of con- ducting students trained in interaction analysis and those not trained in interaction analysis. There is a difference in the pre- and post-attitude scores between conducting students trained in interaction analy- sis and those students not trained in interaction analysis. There is a difference between conducting students who have 'open' belief-disbelief system trained in interaction analysis and those not trained in interaction analysis (the person's belief-disbelief system will be measured with form E of the Dogmatism scale). There is a difference between conducting students who have 'closed' belief-disbelief system trained in interaction analysis and those not trained in interaction analysis. Limitations This study included only undergraduate university students majoring in instrumental music education at Michigan State University. The treatment was limited to a ten week session, one hour per week. 7 There were no attempts made to measure the effectiveness of the university's teacher education program. attempt made to discover the effect of treatment upon the prospec- tive student's teaching success Assumptions The following assumptions were made: 1. The instrument used in this study, the Rehearsal Interaction Observation System, is valid, reliable and suitable to the purpose of the study. 12 2. The RIOS technique can measure the verbal interaction of teachers and students in the rehearsals of large musical organizations. Procedures The subjects for this study were fifty-one music education students enrolled in basic conducting during the fall term of 1975- 76 school year. The subjects were randomly assigned to one of two sections of the course with the experimental group being taught by the researcher and the control group taught by a professor in music education. Each section met five periods a week during the term. Section A, consisting of twenty-seven students was designated the control group. This section utilized the standard texts and teaching techniques of conducting. Emphasis was on the technical and physical aspects of conducting. Each student conducted a laboratory band or orchestra consisting of his classmates thatwas videotaped weekly and critiqued by the instructor. An additional ten periods pf conducting experiences were added to the course requirements. Section B, the experimental group of twenty-five students, also used the standard texts, teaching methods, course content and videotapping procedures of section A. Instead of the additional conducting experiences, ten periods of study were devoted to the theory and techniques of interaction analysis. The technique 13 employed was the Rehearsal Interaction Observation System (RIOS), a system designed by Erbes (1972) for reporting, tabulating and ana- lyzing the verbal interaction in large musical rehearsal situ- 20 The minimum proficiency required of the experimental ations. group was: 1. The ability to tabulate a ten-minute videotaped classroom rehearsal at a minimum reliability of 0.85 or higher. Some secondary aspects of the training program included: 1. Experience in plotting a matrix; 2. Experience in computing and interpreting the. - meaning of direct-indirect ratio and student- teacher ratio; 3. Experience in reading and interpreting the mean- ing of heavy cell loadings in major areas of I the matrix. The instructor and students in section 8 (experimental) regularly recorded and analyzed their peer's use of verbal interaction through the use of the RIOS technique. This procedure served as a basis for feedback during the weekly critique sessions of the student's videotaped conducting perfbrmances. 20Robert L. Erbes, The Rehearsal Interaction Observation System TrainingManual, Michigan State University, 1972, p. l. 14 Both sections were informed that the term's work represented a normal part of the curriculum in conducting. The ten hours of additional rehearsal techniques or interaction analysis training and videotaping procedures were used for the first time in the conducting class. Group of Equivalency Because of the small number of subjects utilized in the study, some means of determining group equivalency had to be established. Two means widely used in research in interaction analysis were employed. The Dogmatism Scale developed by Rokeach and the Edu- cation Scale both test dimensions of attitudes toward educational practices. The Form E of the Dogmatism Scale describes the relative openness and closednessm—q N dnmchzi-a 5. _ MUSICAL ACTIVITIES: playing an instrument, clapping, singing, tapping of foot, or any other form of physical movement which demonstrate elements pertinent to the music process. LECTURES: giving facts or opinions about content or procedure: expressing his own ideas; asking rhetorical questions. GIVES DIRECTIONS: directions, commands, or orders with which students are expected to comply. 8. CRITICIZES 0R JUSTIFIES AUTHORITY: statements intended to change student behavior from a nonacceptable to an acceptable pattern; "bawling out" someone: stating why the teacher is doing what he is doing so as to achieve or maintain control; rejecting or criticizing a student's thought or deed. , :UOH<>IMW HOMJUHU 43 TABLE 2.4.--Continued. Category Numbe r Description of Behavior fiZMUC—‘IU‘I JUOHZ<>Imw 9. T A 10. L K STUDENT TALK-RESPONSE: talk by students, in response to teacher. Teacher initiates the contact or solicits student's statement. STUDENT TALK-INITIATION: talk by students, which they initiate. If “Ealling on" student is only to indicate who may talk next, observer must decide whether student wanted to talk. If he did, use this category. 11a. 11b. 12a. 12b.* r>nHmc3 INDIVIDUAL MUSICAL ACTIVITIES: those activities under- taken by one student which involve some form of physical movement and are pertinent to the process of making music, such as playing an instrument, clapping, singing, tapping of foot, etc. INDIVIDUAL MUSICAL ACTIVITIES-CONDUCTED: the same student activities as category 11a except that they are performed while the teacher is conducting. GROUP MUSICAL ACTIVITIES: the same musical activities as category 11a except that a group of students is involved. GROUP MUSICAL ACTIVITIES-CONDUCTED: the same musical activities as category lla except that a group of students performs while the teacher is conducting. 13. SILENCE OR CONFUSION: pauses, short periods of silence, and periods of confusion in which communication cannot be understood by the observer. 44 2. The findings concerning the TEACHER ACTIVITIES indicated the teachers activities were direct nearly twice as often as they were indirect. 3. The findings concerning DIRECTION GIVING indicated that teacher lecturing, direction giving was the highest single form of teacher behavior. 4. The findings concerning TEACHER CRITICISM indicated that only five per cent of the interaction involved criticism. 5. The findings concerning the STUDENT VERBAL RESPONSES indicated that student verbal responses wgre generally restricted and controlled by the teacher. 4 This study clearly described the direct teaching style prevalent in instrumental class instruction. The behavior of the teacher made up approximately 58 per cent of the tallies, and student behavior accounted for approximately 40 per cent.55 In a somewhat different approach, Daellenbach (1968) used video-tape recordings of music teachers to identify music teaching behaviors at several instructional levels, several levels of teaching experience and in various music teaching environments ranging from studio to large group instruction.56 The groups included string, wind, vocal, and percussion teaching. A similar study using video-tape recordings to study music student behaviors was conducted in 1970. Seventeen students were videotaped at two different lessons, and a ten-minute segment from 541bid.. p. 92. 55Ibid., p. 93. 56C. Charles Daellenbach, "An Investigation of the use of Videotape Recorder Technique in the Identification of Behavioral Characteristics of Music Teachers" (unpublished Masters Thesis, Eastman School of Music, The University of Rochester, 1968), p. 6. 45 each tape was selected at random to form a master tape that was 340 minutes in length. A wide range of ages were represented in the study (pre-school to college), performance medium (string, wind, voice, and percussion), and performance environment (private instruction to group instruction). Seven viewings of each ten-minute segment on the master tape were required to code the behaviors. This process led to the formulation of the Observable Performance Learning Behavior Classification Index.57 The index was structured to yield four main categories of behavior: Type I Behaviors: Verbal (Elicited and Emitted) Type IIA Behaviors: Motor (Performance and Nonperformance RETEted) Type 118 Behaviors: Mpppp (Performance Related only) Type III Behaviors: Attending (Nonverbal) Dallenbach's System was not intended to be used as an inter- action analysis system, but did provide a dimension in the music classroom that is badly needed--"objective feedback." Through the use of videotapes, the teacher will have an exact duplication of what takes place in the classroom during the entire instructional prOcess and is thereby better able to make decisions relative to the needs of students as well as the methods being used by the teacher. A most recent study using the interaction analysis tech- nique in small performance class situations was done by 57c. Charles Daellenbach, "Identification and Classification . of Music Learning Behaviors Utilizing Videotape Recording Techniques" (unpublished Ph.DL dissertation, Eastman School of Music, The Uni- versity of Rochester, 1970), pp. 54-55. 46 Reynolds (1974).58 The author developed a modified version of the Observational System for Instructional Analysis (Hough and Duncan, 1970).59 The (OSIA) developed by Hough and Duncan consists of eleven basic categories, in which five are approasal categories. The eleven basic categories are: Soliciting Clarification Responding Initiating Soliciting Judging Incorrectness Judging Correctness Acknowledging Personal Positive Judging Personal Negative Judging Reflecting--Manipulating Instructionally Nonfunctional To the appraisal categories of judging correct and incorrect, acknowledging, and personal and positive and negative judgments, Reynolds added behavior categories common to instrumental music instruction and performance. Categories for musical direction and a method for coding teacher error were also included. Table 2.5 presents the complete modified (OSIA). Reynolds chose the OSIA because it was not linked primarily to the one-value approach of the system begun by Flanders and 58Kay Reynolds, "Modification of the Observational System for Instructional Analysis Focusing on Appraisal Behaviors of Music Teachers in Small Performance Classes" (unpublished Ph. D. disser- tation, The Ohio State University, 1974). 5though and Duncan,o pp,‘pip,, p. 130. 47 TABLE 2.5.--Modified OSIA. Categpries. Soliciting Clarification Responding Initiating Soliciting Judging Incorrect Judging Correct Acknowledging Personal Positive Judging Personal Negative Judging Musical Direction Instructionally Nonfunctional Silent Reflection _.1 OXODmNOM-th-J Interaction Separation Designation Y Interaction Separation Designation Prefixes ' Used in Conjunction with Catggpries: T Teacher 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 S Student 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Subscripts Used in Conjunction with Categories: M Musical 2, 3, 4 P Physical 2. 3, 4 R Gave a Reason 5, 6, 8, 9 H Hyperbole 5, 6, 8, 9 I Irony 5, 6, 8, 9 N Sarcasm 5, 6, 8, 9 Teacher Error Designation Used in Conjunction with Categories: Teacher Errora ., 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 aCoding is circle around appropriate number. 48 Whithall. Her primary concerns were the concepts of indirect-direct or teacher-centered versus learner-centered classrooms. From this research, Reynolds concluded that: (l) the modified OSIA was useful in measuring the full range of teacher and student behaviors common to small instrumental music performance classes, (2) the modified OSIA was a valid measure of the teacher-student behaviors in small instrumental music performance classes because it exhibited content validity, and (3) the modified OSIA was easily learned and used by those involved in instrumental music teacher education.60 It was also recommended by the author that the modified OSIA might be useful in gathering information about the teaching- learning processes in instrumental music classes, music teacher education classes, the supervision of student teachers and in- service teacher education. The final body of research directly related to the present study are studies by Verrastro (1970)“ and Erbes (1972)62 in which the technique of interaction is used as supervisory technique and is directed specifically toward the area of teacher education. 60 Ibid., p. 128. 6] Ralph E. Verrastro, "An Experimental Investigation of Verbal Behavior Analysis as a Supervisory Technique with Student Teachers of Music" (un ublished Ed.D. dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, 1970), in Dissertation Abstracts, XXXI (6), p. 2781-A. 62 Robert L. Erbes, "The Development of an Observational System for the Analysis of Interaction in The Rehearsal of Musical Organizations" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, 1972), pp. 82-129. 49 The Social-Emotional Climate Index of Withall has been used as a basis for many studies. The Climate Index consists of seven categories of teacher verbal behavior. The complete Climate Index is shown on pp. 4-5. Verrastro (1970) used the Climate Index of Whithall to study thirty-nine music student teachers in different kinds of classes. These classes included vocal, instrumental, and general music at various levels (elementary through high school). Verrastro reported that: The verbal patterns of student teachers in music appear to be rather stable and not observably influenced by the grade level of 63a learners or the nature of the instruction being provided. Verrastro made no attempt to study student behaviors, nor did he study any musical behaviors of teachers. He was mostly concerned with the verbal behaviors of the student teachers as they related to the concept of Social-Emotional Classroom Climate. The purpose of the procedures were to familiarize the students with the Climate Index, and to help the students analyze and understand their verbal actions in regards to lesson development and learning outcomes. Relevant findings and conclusions included the following: 1. Verbal behavior analysis has significant potential as a technique of supervision with student teachers of music. The Climate Index is simple to understand and utilize. It provides an effective focus for the supervisor-student teacher conference interaction, and can be employed in a process of nondirective supervision. 2. Student teachers of music appear not to be predisposed to the employment of indirect instructional behaviors 63 Verrestro, pp, p13,, pp. 98-99. 50 as determined by the verbal behavior sampling procedure utilized in the study. 3. Student teachers of music can be sensitized to the employment of both learner-centered and teacher-centered verbal patterns in accordance with the purpose and nature of the instruction being provided. 4. Verbal behavior analysis supervision with student teachers of music tends to encourage objective self-assessment and seems to provide a functional and commonly defined basis for the systematic improvement of teaching performance. 5. Though the evidence supplied by the study is inconclusive, verbal behavior analysis supervision may hold important implications in cases where extremely custodial teacher- role ideology percepts are held by student6£eacher and some modification is desired or necessary.- A recent research article by Verrestro (1975) reported astudy in which thirty-nine student teachers of music were studied over a twelve week period, using interaction analysis methods as asupervisory technique. The purpose of the study was to determine the differ- ential influence of a supervisory process based on constructs derived from the Social-Emotional Climate Index on verbal behavior patterns exhibited by student teachers of music, their ability to engage in objective self-assessment and the effect of such activity 65 on the student's percepts of teacher-role ideology. The supervision of the student teachers was the joint responsibility of the college supervisors as assigned by the dean of the music school, and the supervising teachers who were professionally employed by the 64Ibid., Dissertation Abstracts, XXXI (5), p. 2781-A. 65Ralph E. Verrastro, "Verbal Behavior Analysis as a Supervisory Technique with Student Teachers of Music," Journal of Research in Music Education, XXIII (Fall, 1975), pp. 171-185. 51 cooperating school districts.66 The findings from this study also disclosed that student teachers in the experimental group tended to rate themselves below that of their supervising teachers, while the opposite was true of those student teachers on the control group. While there were no definite conclusions drawn from this study, the author suggested in his summary the following: The investigation seemed to demonstrate the efficacy of approaching the supervision of student teachers in music with an orderly plan for systematic classroom observation including a behavioral focus for employment in the follow- up conference . . . the supervisory process, not unlike a number of related educational endeavours, seem to be more effective where conceived on the basis of a clear and unambiguous purpose igentified by commonly defined behavioral standards. The interaction analysis technique has been used widely to study the behaviors of teachers and students, the kinds of classroom climate teachers create in their teaching, and the affect of superior teachers as opposed to ineffective teachers. Little research using interaction analysis techniques in music education has been reported to this date. In a 1972 study, Erbes developed a system for categorizing, analyzing, and reporting the verbal interaction of students and teachers during the rehearsal of large musical organizations. This system is known as The Rehearsal Interaction Observation System (RIOS). Table 6.2 presents the complete RIOS system. Erbes based his system upon the following assumptions: 66Ibid., p. 174. 671pm, p. 184. 52 TABLE 2.6.--The Rehearsal Interaction Observation System. Category Category Number Description 1. Uses: Conductor uses, clarifies, or reprets ideas, performance, behavior, or feelings suggested by the students. 2. Encourages: Conductor encourages, praises, or ac- cepts student ideas, performance, or behavior. 3. Questions: Conductor questions with the intent that the student respond. Questions may also occur in other teacher categories. Supportive 4. Informs: Conductor gives information, lectures, or states opinions based on his own ideas or those other than the students. Short responses to student questions and rhetorical questions are included in #4. *Demonstrates: A conductor demonstrates the manner in which an act is or should be performed or accomplished. (Generally non-verbal in nature.) Directs: Conductor directs or commands student with intent that he comply. 7. ' Criticizes: Conductor criticizes, rejects, or challenges student ideas, performance, behavior, or feelings. 8. Corrects: Conductor checks or corrects student ideas, performance or behavior in an obvious manner. 01 Conductor Behavior Non-Supportive 01 9. Responds: Student responds or questions in a manner structured by the conductor. 10. Initiates: Student initiates communication or questions in a manner unstructured by the conductor. Student Behavior 11. Silence or Confusion: Periods in which verbal com- munication cannot be understood. Constructive periods should be indicated by 11+ and nonconstructive periods by 11-. *A Nonverbal Demonstration (x) - When demonstration by the conductor or student is nonverbal in nature, an "x" code should be added to Category #5. Demonstration of this type is an extension of verbal categories and would include singing, whistling or other oral sounds, clapping, tapping, or playing an instrument to illustrate an idea or opinion. . 53 The verbal interaction between teachers and students during the rehearsal of large musical organizations is dominated by the teacher. A teacher's verbal behavior in a rehearsal situation can be considered consistent with his total pattern of teaching behavior. The verbal behavior's of a teacher are observable and can be distiflguished and classified qualitatively and quantita- tively. From this study the following conclusions were reported: 1. a basis The conductor-student interaction in large group rehearsals is unique compared to academic classroom subjects. In a study of twelve rehearsals from the research for this dissertation, informing, demonstrating, direction giving, criticizing, and correcting constituted 89 percent of the conductor verbal behaviors. Encouragement of student behavior and performance constituted 7 percent of the conductor verbal behaviors. Student verbal behavior con- sisted primarily of responses to conductor questions. An interaction analysis system can indicate the socio- emotional climate of large-group rehearsal situations. An acceptable proficiency of coding rehearsal interaction can be obtained with approximately fifteen hours of self instruction, discussion, and practice in the technique. A minimum proficiency level of coding rehearsal interaction can be obtained with approximately four hours of self- instruction and practice in the technique. The independent nature of the RIOS categories did not cause serious problems in objectively categorizing rehearsal interaction by the investigator and other research personnel. Some confusion occasionally existed in discriminating between categories of Informing and Directing. It was often difficult to discriminate between rapgp shifts in Criticizing, Correcting, and Informing. The Rehearsal Interaction Observation System was chosen as for this study because it is the only system designed 68Erbes, pp, p13,, pp. 6-7. 69Ibid.. pp. 136-138. '9 54 specifically for the large group rehearsal class. The result of a short pilot study indicated that the system was easy to learn and could be used as a training tool for prospective public school music teachers. The Pilot Study The purpose of the pilot study was to determine whether students in a university conducting class could use an interaction analysis system for enhancing their understanding of, and sensi- tivity to the verbal interaction between teacher and students in a rehearsal setting. The Rehearsal Interaction Observation System (RIOS) was first developed by Dr. Robert L. Erbes, assistant professor of music at Michigan State University. The RIOS system is similar to Flander's Interaction Analysis System (FICA) and was specifically designed for use in the field of music education and is based on prevalent forms of verbal and nonverbal interaction found in large performance group rehearsals. The system organizes all verbal interaction into various categories: l-USES (student ideas), 2-ENCOURAGES, 3-QUESTIONS, 4-INFORMS, S-DEMONSTRATES, 6-DIRECTS, 7-CRITICIZES, 8-CORRECTS, 9-STUDENT RESPONDS, lO-STUDENT INITIATES and ll-SILENCE OR CONFUSION. RIOS focuses on three aspects of the rehearsal: the director's communication, the director's is further divided into two classes: (1) categories 1, 2, and 3 represent the supportive behaviors and (2) categories 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 represent the nonsupportive behaviors. Categories 9 and 10 55 represent student communication, and category 11 represents silence or confusion.70 The following examples of rehearsal interaction illustrate how verbal behaviors are categorized. Example of conductor's behavior demonstrating category 7--CRITICIZES: Be quiet percussion! Can't you play better in tune brass! Category 2--ENCOURAGES: Oboe, you played that $010 as well as I have ever heard it performed. Results of the pilot study were consistent with other research studies in interaction analysis findings indicated that teacher-student interaction can have a bearing on the attitudes and emotional tone of the classroom teachers who are receptive to, and encourage, student communication. This communication tend to produce more positive student attitudes toward classroom content and the teacher himself.7] Procedure for Pilot Study Subjects for the study consisted of twelve (12) students selected at random from a population of seventy-one (71) enrolled in instrumental conducting, a required course for music education majors. The subjects were trained in classroom observation by studying the RIOS training manual for certain specified periods. The twelve subjects were placed in three groups of four each. 70Robert L. Erbes, The Rehearsal Interaction Observation System Training Manual (Michigan State University, 1972), pp. 1-2. 7lNed A. Flanders, "Some Relationships Among Teacher Influ- ence, Pupil Attitudes and Achievement," Amidon and Hough, pp, pip., pp. 217-242. _.., . -.-u- 56 Group one spent six hours of training using the RIOS technique, groups two and three spent eight and ten hours, respectively. All groups followed the same training procedures as stated in the RIOS training manual. The rehearsal was coded by marking down the number approximately every three seconds that corresponds to the approximate category of verbal statements obtained from the rehearsals of school groups around the State of Michigan. The audio tapes were coded, analyzed and feedback was presented to the subjects Findings and Conclusions Findings indicated that RIOS was found to be an easy, usable system in training students in the techniques if inter- action analysis. A tabulation of the final codings from a thirty- five minute rehearsal tape indicated the coefficient of student agreement with a criterion measure were 0.87, 0.86 and 0.91 for groups one, two and three respectively. Table 2.7 shows the reliability coefficient for the three groups. TABLE 2.7.--Coefficient of Student Agreement by Groups and Training Periods. Number of Mean Total Group Training Hours Agreement Group I 6 .87 Group II 8 .86 Group III 10 .91 57 This study helped the students become more aware and sensi- tive to the total rehearsal climate and provided feedback that allowed each individual to study his/her own style of rehearsal teaching. The students gave their personal reactions to the RIOS technique and their responses were as follows: "The awareness it provides is especially helpful in looking at one's own teaching style," "Makes one conscious of the various behaviors displayed while conducting," You are aware of how every minute of your time is spent in rehearsals," "It provides a profile of the kind of teacher you are in an objective manner" and "It enables an indi- vidual to look at himself and modify his teaching behaviors to be more effective on the podium." Results also indicated the amount of training necessary to learn the RIOS system and use it in a live rehearsal situation takes approximately fifteen to twenty hours of training. Table 2.8 presents a comparison of individual student codings on the final observer agreement check. To determine the extent to which each of the twenty-five subjects agreed with each other, the Hoyt method of estimating reliability was computed. The Hoyt analysis estimateda reliability coefficient of 0.86. Overall, the twelve student taking part in the study as a result of RIOS training showed a greater sensitivity to judicious and efficient rehearsal teaching. Among some conclusions from the study were: 1. The RIOS system was found to be reliable in training student conductors in the techniques of interaction. 58 0.000 0.00, 0.00F 0.00, 0.00_ 0.00. 0.00_ 0.000 0.00. 0.00_ 0.00, 0.00, 000000000 0,.00000030 .0030 00:0 05 20., 0.85 0000.082 :00: 00 00508 0.00030 $03505 e0 000200500100 305 q.._111.7n. jun 59 2. By observing a person's verbal behavior a profile of the individual's teaching style can be studied. 3. Feedback data from interaction analysis to the students resulted in a greater awarenesslzto a larger variety of teaching behaviors and styles. Summar A total of ten studies have been reported that were con- cerned with interaction analysis and the music classroom. Two of these studies were directly related to the present investi- ' gation. Research outside of the field of music education that related to the problems of interaction analysis and teacher training was also reviewed. 72Char1es E. Hicks, "The Usability of the Rehearsal Inter- action Observation System as a Training Instrument in Interaction Analysis for Prospective Instrumental Music Teachers," Michigan . Music Educator'sgournal (December, 1975), p. 25. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Introduction The purpose of this investigation was to gather and analyze data regarding the effects of instruction in the techniques of interaction analysis upon the verbal teaching behaviors of pro- spective public school music teachers studying conducting. The researcher hypothesized that conducting students who are trained in interaction analysis become more indirect in their teaching styles, more flexible in their attitudes toward experimental teaching methods and are consequently better able to use feedback from classroom observations in modifying their own teaching behaviors. Sample The students involved in the study were music education majors enrolled in music 335 (instrumental conducting),a required course for instrumental music educaton and music therapy majors at Michigan State University. Two sections of fifty-two students make up the experimental and control groups. Section A (N=27) was desig- nated the control group and section B (N=25) was designated the experimental group. The total sample population was composed of students from two curricula areas with the department of music education. (Table 3.1 contains a distribution of the entire sample population.) 60 61 TABLE 3.1.--Composition of Sample Group by Curriculum. Section A Section 8 Curriculum (N=27) (N=25) Music Education 18 17 Music Therapy 9 8 TOTAL 27 25 The Data Gathering_lnstrument The means for obtaining the data on the conducting student's verbal behaviors at the conclusion of the experimental period was the Rehearsal Interaction Observation System (RIOS), the same instru- ment used in the training of students in Section B. This eleven category system contains all forms of verbal behaviors present in rehearsal situations. The system is divided into three major divisions entitled the director's communication, student communi- cation and any periods of silence and confusion. The director's communication is further subdivided into categories of supportive and non-supportive types of verbal behaviors. The individual categories within these major divisions were summed to provide three composite scores and student talk. The Rehearsal Interaction Observation System consists of the following categories of verbal behaviors. The three major divisions are shown in Table 3.2. As the conducting students and performance groups in both class sections were observed on videotape, the verbal interaction 62 TABLE 3.2.--Three Major Divisions of the Rehearsal Interaction Observation System. Description of Major Division Category Verbal Behavior 0 . _ Conductor I 1 Uses Supportive R 2 Encourages Behavior E 3 Questions C Teacher T Talk I Conductor g 4 Informs Nonsupportive I 5 Demonstrates Behavior R 6 Directs E 7 Criticizes C 8 Corrects T Student 9 Responds-Student Responds or Talk questions structured by conductor 10 Initiates-student initiates communication unstructured by conductor 11 Silence or confusion-commu- nication not understood (12) Student performing occurring was recorded each three seconds on a form designated as the RIOS sequence chart (see Appendix C). Because of the large amount of data collected and tedious process of tabulating, a revised RIOS sequence chart was constructed that could be scored electronically. This revised sequence chart expedited the process of data collection and provided weekly printouts for immediate feedback to each subject. The revised RIOS Sequence Chart is 63 presented in Appendix E. This information was entered in a matrix for tabulation and statistical treatment. The data was gathered from observations and codings performed by the researcher and an expert in the RIOS Technique. Each student's conducting perform- ance of a junior high school group during the final week of the experimental period was analyzed. Recordipngata in a Matrix This is a method of recording the sequence of events in the classroom in such a way that certain facts become readily apparent. The generalized sequence of the teacher-student inter- action can be examined readily in this matrix. Table 3.3 shows the classification of the following sequence of numbers in a matrix form. A —l —l v AAA“ vvv n—l deIwINIWISDI-hl-‘I-‘IOIVIO‘I0‘ v Tabulations are now made in the matrix to represent the pairs of numbers coded in the sequence chart. The first pair is 11—6; the second pair is 6-6; etc. The particular cell in which tabulation of the pair of numbers is made is determined by using the first number in the pair to indicate the row and the second 64 TABLE 3.3.—-Sample Matrix Plot. Column 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1o 11 Total 1 1 1 2 2 I 1 1 3 1 1 2 R 4 1 1 () 5 o y, 6 1 1 1 3 7 1 1 8 o 9 1 1 2 10 o 11 1 1 Total 2 :1 2 1 o 3 1 o 2 o 1 13 number in the pair for the column. Thus, 11-6 would be shown by a tally in the cell formed by row 11 and column 6. The second pair, 6-6 would be shown in the cell formed by row 6 and column 6. third pair, 6-7, is entered into the cell, row 6 and column 7. Each pair of numbers overlaps with the previous pair, and each The number except the first and the last, is used twice. This method permits the total of each column to equal the total of each cor- responding row. Table 3.4 presents a completed sample RIOS Matrix and the procedure for computing the percentages of tallies in each 65 NNN u FmF 4 mm NN n m t FmF NON u FmF r mFF mm n oFrm mcszrmw m urFF mcsaroo mmF n mrF mcssFou meF acmnaum :oFmswcou Lo mucmFFm meF Locummh o.N o.N o.om m.m m.m m.mm m.m m.mF m.o m.e o.N pcmugma FmF m m on oF m mm m ON oF N m 04FumF:E=u-1.e.m m4mmgmm Foaem> memo.r oemF.1 comm.1 mNocm.- mmmem>< ucFoa mango omFe. momF. womF.1 «Loom coFaousnm pmoa oNoF. FNNo. mgoum :onouaum as; m mNmN. 9.8m 5.050208 amen. 38m 50.52.58 a; 9 d d .d d a a O O 3 O O a J J a. J D. J n. J 0 D. d 3 D. 8 n a 0 a .D 6 0 n 3 5 m a l. 3 D. m D. U n. 1. D. 1. 1 1- lo 1 lo lo 0 to S O U S m U m .3325; we :oFumetouidFé HES. CHAPTER V SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summar This study investigated the effects of interaction analysis training on the verbal teaching behaviors and attitudes of prospec- tive instrumental music teachers. The purpose was to collect and analyze data regarding the use of interaction analysis instruction and its effects upon university conducting students' verbal teaching behaviors and attitudes. A survey of literature related to Interaction Analysis have cited attempts by educators to focus attention upon objective mea- surement of classroom behavior. With the development of Withall's Climate Index, researchers in the field of education found that this instrument was capable of measuring the Social-Emotional Climate of a classroom. Nearly all of theresearch using interaction analysis techniques conclusions were consistent. Most of the studies concern- ing interaction analysis and music education were primarily con- cerned with the technique's effectiveness in providing objective measurements of the teaching-learning process and the application of this information to the training of prospective teachers. From the studies reviewed, the following conclusions seemed to have emerged. They are: 92 pull I'l'll'! 'r 93 1. Teaching behaviors that are democratic, inte- grative, or indirect provide a better classroom atmosphere. 2. The direct or inflexible teacher's classroom is generally characterized by less positive student attitudes. 3. Interaction analysis training tends to produce more positive teacher attitudes. 4. Teachers rated "superior" or “above average" by supervisors or administrators have more flexible and indirect teaching behaviors. The evidence indicates that the indirect style of teaching is the most desirable mode of instruction, but a flexible teaching style of instruction can be just as effective, as determined by the particular classroom situation. Fifty-two instrumental music education majors of Michigan State University were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups. The independent variable was tested using the verbal behavior of the two groups on a ten-minute segment of in-school con- ducting of Junior High and High School groups. The independent variables were tested on both pre- and post-test by (1) Dogmatism Scale, (2) Education Scale, and (3) a test to measure the various sections of the RIOS System. For a minimum of ten weeks, experimental and control groups received instruction in the same conducting experience, concepts and activities at approximately the same time. The presence or absence or interaction analysis was the only difference between the groups. The experimental group used interaction analysis in learning the fundamentals of conducting and rehearsal teaching, while the control 94 group used the traditional materials and methods of teaching con- ducting. The Hoyt Analysis of Variance and Finn Multivariate Analy- sis of Variance were the statistical tests used in testing the hypotheses. Conclusions The conclusions from this study apply only to the sample from‘which the data were collected. The data analysis techniques used in the study tested seventeen hypotheses relating to main effects and interactions among the several dependent and independent variables. A summary of the restuls of hypothesis testing is con- tained in Table 5.1. Based on the results of this study, the following conclusions can be admitted. This presentation will follow the order presented in Table 5.1. Discussion will be limited to those hypotheses that were rejected. (F ratios for all hypotheses are contained in Tables 4.8 and 4.9.) H01: There is no significant difference between conduct- ing students trained in interaction analysis and those not trained in the amount of verbal talk. The first hypothesis was rejected at the .0001 confidence level. This finding indicates that it is in fact true, that train- ing in Verbal Conducting Behaviors by means of the RIOS technique does result in differences beyond the chance level. Therefore, it is possible to teach more appropriate conducting behavior within the regular conducting class. 95 TABLE 5.l.--Summary of Null Hypotheses Findings. Hypothesis Decision H01: No difference between experimental/control Rejected group in the amount of verbal teacher talk. .0001 H02: No difference between the Dogmatism levels of Rejected RIOS and NON-RIOS conductors. .0001 H03: No difference in attitudes of the RIOS, NON-RIOS, Accepted conductors with respect to a preference for pro- gressive or traditional Educational methods. H04: No interaction between the two groups and Dog- Accepted matism. H05: No interaction between RIOS and NON-RIOS con- Accepted ductors and Education. H06: No interaction between Dogmatism and Education Accepted of RIOS and NON-RIOS conductors. H07: No interactidn between the groups, Dogmatism Accepted and Education of RIOS and NON-RIOS conductors. H08: No difference between the direct teacher talk Rejected ' of RIOS and NON-RIOS conductors. .0001 H09: No difference between the indirect teacher talk Rejected of RIOS and NON-RIOS conductors. .0001 H010: No difference between the student talk of RIOS Rejected and NON-RIOS conductors. .0001 H011: No interaction between the three selected Rejected divisions of verbal behavior of R105 and NON- .0001 R105 conductors. H012: No interaction between the three selected Accepted divisions of verbal behavior and Dogmatism of RIOS and NON-RIOS conductors. H013: No interaction between three selected divisions Accepted of verbal behavior and Education of R105 and NON-RIOS conductors. H 14: No interaction between three selected divisions Accepted of verbal behavior and groups by Dogmatism of RIOS and NON-RIOS conductors. 96 TABLE 5.l.--Continued. Hypothesis ' Decision H015: No interaction between three selected divisions Accepted of verbal behavior and groups by Education of RIOS and NON-RIOS conductors. H 16: No interaction between three selected divisions Accepted of verbal behavior by Dogmatism and Education of RIOS and NON-RIOS conductors. H 17: No interaction between three selected divisions Accepted of verbal behavior by categories, groups, Dog- matism and Education of RIOS and NON-RIOS conductors. H02: There is no significant difference between the Dog- matism levels of the RIOS trained and NON-RIOS trained conductors. ‘ The second hypothesis was rejected at the .0001 confidence level. This finding indicates a difference in openmindedness between the RIOS and NON-RIOS conductors. Since no statistical dif- ferences existed at the time of the pretest, it is safe to conclude that these differences are in part due to the RIOS training experi- ence. RIOS training does, in fact, cause the student to be more introspective and sensitive to his effect on other people, there- fore bringing about change in basic beliefs. H03: There is no significant difference in attitudes of the RIOS and NON-RIOS conductors with respect to a preference for progressive or traditional educa- tional methods. The third hypothesis was accepted. 97 H04: There is no significant interaction between the two groups and the Dogmatism level of the RIOS and NON- RIOS conductors. Hypothesis number four was accepted. H05: There is no significant interaction between the RIOS and NON-RIOS conductors and the Education Scale scores. The fifth hypothesis was accepted. H06: There is no significant interaction between the Dogmatism and Education of the RIOS and NON-RIOS conductors. Hypothesis number six was accepted. H07: There is no significant interaction between the groups, Dogmatism and Education of RIOS and NON- RIOS conductors. Hypothesis number seven was accepted. H08: There is no significant difference between the amount of direct verbal teacher talk of the RIOS and NON- RIOS conductors. Hypothesis number eight was rejected at the .0001 confidence level. A multivariate F test was performed on three test variables and the interactions between the variables. These included the con- ductor's supportive behavior, the nonsupportive behavior and the student behavior. Table 4.9 contains the results of the multivariate analysis. Null hypothesis 8 was rejected at the .001 level of sig- nificance indicating that there was a difference in the amount of direct teacher talk of conducting students not trained in this technique. 1 H 9: There is no significant difference between the amount 0 of indirect verbal teacher talk of the RIOS and NON- RIOS conductors. 98 Null hypothesis number 9 was rejected at the .0001 level of significance indicating that there was no difference in the amount of indirect teacher talk of conducting students trained in inter- action analysis and those not receiving the training. H010: There is no significant difference between the stu- dent talk 1n rehearsals led by RIOS and NON-RIOS conductors. Hypothesis number 10 was rejected at the .0001 level of significance indicating that a difference does exist in the amount of student talk in rehearsals led by conducting students trained in the technique of interaction analysis and those conducting students not so trained. H011: Therejs no interaction between the three selected d1v1510ns of verbal behav10r of RIOS and NON-RIOS conductors. The eleventh hypothesis was rejected at the .0001 level of significance. This finding is in keeping with the last three rejections since it represents data that are sunmative from the last three hypotheses. It is clear that the RIOS training experience does significantly affect the verbal conducting/rehearsal behavior of these young conductors. H012: There is no significant interaction between the three selected divisions of verbal behavior and Dogmatism of the RIOS and NON-RIOS conductors. Hypothesis twelve was accepted. H013: There is no significant interaction between the three selected divisions of verbal behavior and Education of the RIOS and NON-RIOS conductors. Hypothesis number thirteen was accepted. 99 H014: There is no significant interaction between the three selected divisions of verbal behavior and groups by Dogmatism of the RIOS and NON-RIOS conductors. Hypothesis fourteen was accepted. H015: There is no significant interaction between the three selected divisions of verbal behavior and groups by Education of the RIOS and NON-RIOS conductors. Hypothesis number fifteen was accepted. H016: There is no significant interaction between the three selected divisions of verbal behavior by groups, Dog- matism and Education of the R105 and NON-RIOS conductors. Hypothesis sixteen was accepted. H017: There is no significant interaction between the three selected divisions of verbal behavior by categories, groups, Dogmatism and Education of the R105 and NON- RIOS conductors. Hypothesis number seventeen was accepted. Discussion Consistent with the results of many studies in fields other than music education, data presented in the findings of this study indicate a clear trend with respect to differences in types of verbal teaching behaviors used by students trained in interaction analysis and those not so trained. With two groups of conducting students reasonably equal in receptiveness and empathic relationships with students, those trained in interaction analysis by the use of the Rehearsal Interaction Observation System used more indirect verbal behaviors and less direct or teacher-centered behaviors in their rehearsals. In addition, there was more student-initiated talk in rehearsals conducted by RIOS-trained conductors. 100 From a statistical point of view this study added to the body of new information in the field of interaction analysis and teacher training. In addition to the statistical results there were many questions raised and answered. Those NON-RIOS conductors spending a higher percentage of rehearsal time in category 11 (silence or confusion) tend to use a very low percentage of time in categories 1, 2 and 3 (conductor's supportive behaviors) and consequently more time in student initiated behaviors. Those conductors not trained by the RIOS technique spending less than 40% of the rehearsal in category 12 (performing) generally spent more than 30 to 40% in categories 4 and 6 combined. These same conductors also spend less than 1% in category 1. The data on both groups revealed that a larger amount of rehearsal time spent in category 11 (silence/confusion) tended to be counter- productive in that it reveals a lack of preparation and organiza- tion on the part of a teacher and raises many questions in the minds of his students about that teacher's ability to perform his/ her responsibility adequately. In examining the cumulative data fromthe RIOS conductors, it was observed that those student con- ductors spending a higher frequency of time in categories 1, 2 and 3 (supportive behaviors) were more aware of the teacher's indirect influence. The RIOS conductors as a whole were more consistent in their behaviors from category to category and displayed a greater balance between indirect and direct verbal statements. This sug- gests that interaction analysis had Caused these conductors to be 101 more aware of the variety of behaviors involved in teaching. These outcomes were consistent with Bondi's findings:l The data involving the two attitude scales and factors con- cerned with dogmatism were not significant statistically, but with multivariate analysis capabilities we are able to gain insight into the complex problems of behavior. In a study by Ager2 in which he attempted to test the validity of the Dogmatism scale, he supported some of the research with the D-Scale reported by Rokeach. These findings were as follows: 1. High dogmatism restricts synthetic thinking more than it restricts analytic thinking. Synthetic thinking is a type of creativity. 2. High dogmatism is related to anxiety. 3. High dogmatic subjects reveal a greater need for closure than low dogmatic subjects. Research using interaction analysis seems to indicate that teachers rated as superior by administrators and teachers whose pupils possess more favorable attitudes toward school and achieve more tend to be more indirect and less direct verbally, have greater 1Joseph C. Bondi, "Feedback from Interaction Analysis: Some Implications for the Improvement of Teaching," Journal of Teacher Education, XXI, No. 2 (Summer 1970), p. 189. 2Merlin Ager, "Dogmatism and the Verbal Behavior of Stu- dent Teachers," Journal of Teacher Education, XXI (Summer 1970), pp. 179-183. 3Milt0n RokeaCh, The Open and Closed Mind: Investigations into the Nature of Belief Systems and Personality Systems (New York: Basic Books, 1960). 102 amounts of pupil participation and are more flexible in their use of verbal behavior.4 From a statistical viewpoint, the only measure of verbal behavior that related to dogmatism was the factors of low dogmatism and a higher percentage of verbal behavior in category 2 (Encour- ages). It could be concluded that there is a positive correlation between open mindedness and the use of indirect behaviors. These findings are also consistent with the findings of Ager's study. He states: If the assumption is safe the superior teachers tend to use indirect verbal behavior more frequently than do inferior teachers, producing more learning, and if the fur- ther assumption is safe that open-minded persons tend to use indirect behaviors more than closed minded, the D-Scale may have at least as much predictive validity as college achievement. At any rate, the results were impressive enough to warrant further study of the Dogmatism Scale as a predictor of teaching behavior. The results might argue for the teaching of open-mindedness in teacher education ‘programs. ' As with any research endeavor, there were problems encoun- tered. A problem existed with the quality of the videotapes. Many of the tapes were recorded with only one micr0phone (conductor's) which made it difficult to hear the students' questions and responses. During the loud passages in the musical performance there was no chance of hearing the conductor's statements during these instances.- 4Edmund Amidon and Michael Giammetteo, "The Verbal Behavior of Superior Teachers," Elementary75chool Journal, LXV (February 1965). PP. 283-285. 5 Merlin Ager, pp, pip,, pp. 182-183. 103 The second problem was that of training procedures. The schedule did allow for review of the prior week's activities but there was not enough time for adequate discussion. There should have been one period set aside specifically for questions and problems. After the multivariate analysis was completed a Pearson Product Correlation was performed to determine the relationship between any of the sixteen variables related to the verbal behavior discussed in the findings. An interesting aspect of the Correla- tional data not shown in Table 4.10 reveals a significant positive correlation between the three selected divisions of verbal behavior listed (conductor's supportive behavior, conductor's non-supportive behavior and student behavior) all maintain a relationship to each other, which supports the notion that a person's verbal behavior is indicative to his total behavior. 0n the basis of this finding a teacher's statements will reflect his/her style of teaching. In reality, teaching becomes a series of events or cycles, each occupying a small segment of time. The event of one moment tends to influence that which follows and, in turn, was influenced by the 'preceding event. These findings are consistent with those reported by Erbes and Hicks in which they found: Many variations among the teachers' use of shifting behav- iors were noted. Two common cycles of verbal behavior were consistent among many of the conductors studied. These cycles followed a directing, informing, performagce mode and a criticizing, correcting, performance cycle. 6Robert L. Erbes and Charles E. Hicks, "The Implementation of the Rehearsal Interaction Observation System in a Training Pro- gram," paper read before the Music Education Research Council, Atlantic City, New Mersey, March 1976. ‘ 104 Both of these cycles reflect primarily non-supportive behavior of the teacher/conductor while many other cycles consist of a combina- tion of both supportive and non-supportive. It is apparent that the conducting students trained in interaction analysis used verbal behaviors that have been found to be associated with higher pupil achievement and more positive atti- tudes toward school. As a result these findings are consistent with the belief that school instrumental music teachers should strive to create a climate for free student-teacher verbal inter- action in the rehearsal setting. To further enhance the training program, there should be some curriculum adjustments made to inelude the teaching of inter- action analysis techniques as part of the regular conducting requirements for all students in conducting. The traditional teacher training process should be altered so that prospective teachers might be placed in contact with students in large group rehearsals before student teaching or during the term in which the methods course requirements are being fulfilled. It is also recommended that the use of videotapes in viewing experienced conductors become a part of the conducting course of study. Students may use these video- tapes to work on special problems or as an aid in observation and coding their peers' rehearsal interaction. Recommendations for Further Research The findings from this study suggest the following recom- mendations: 105 l. A validity study of the Rehearsal Interaction Observa- tion System be conducted by observing numerous experienced conduc- tors (via videotape). 2. Further replication of this research be done both at Michigan State University and other teacher training institutions using the RIOS system and videotapes as a training technique for public school vocal music conductors. 3. (A correlation study should be carried out involving various selected dimensions of verbal behavior, score reading (error detection) and interaction analysis training in order to find the possible relationship between each variable and teacher competency. 4. Student outcomes under conductors with varying inter- action patterns shoUld be studied.. 5. Similar studies should be conducted in other areas of music, such as choral, small ensembles and possibly general music. Finally, the conclusions of this study indicate that the observable aspects of large group music instruction can be altered through training. Therefore, prospective instrumental music teachers who become aware of their verbal teaching behaviors can benefit from Interaction Analysis and thus increase teaching efficiency and, hopefully, student achievement. BIBLIOGRAPHY 106 10. 11. BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Alexander, William M.; Saylor, Galen, J.;and Williams, Emmett, L. The High School: Todpy and Tomorrow. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1971. Amidon, Edmund, and Flanders, Ned A. The Role of the Teacher in the Classroom. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Association for Productive Teaching, Inc., 1963. Amidon, Edmund, and Hough, John B., eds. Interaction Analysis: Theory, Research, and Application. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1967. Campbell, Donald T., and Stanley, Julian C. Experimental and Quasi-Eyperimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963. Cook, Walter W.; Leed, Carroll H.; and Callis, Robert. Minnesota Teacher's Attitude Inventory. New York: The Psycho- logical Composition, 1951. Flanders, Ned A. Analyzing_Teachipg Behavior. Readings, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1970. Gorman, Alfred H. Teachers and Learners: The Interactive Process of Education. Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1974. Hough, John 8., and Duncan, James K. Teaching: Description and Analysis. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1970. Jackson, Robert W. B., and Ferguson, George A. Studies on the Reliabilitypof Tests. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press, 1941. Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964. Leonard, Charles, and House, Robert W. Foundations and Prinoiples of Music Education, 2nd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959. 107 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 108 Mager, Robert F. Developing_an Attitude Toward Learning. Palo Alto, California: Fearon Publishers, 1968. Rokeach, Milton. The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic Books, 1960. Shaw, Marvin E., and Wright Jacks M. Scales for the Measurement of Attitudes. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1967. Simon, Anita, and Boyer, E. Gil, eds. Mirrors for Behavior: An Anthology of Observation Instruments. Fourteen Volumes and Summary. Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools, Inc., 1970. Simon, Anita, and Boyer, E. 011.. Mirrors for Behaviors II: An Anthology of Observation Instruments--Special Edition. Two Volumes. Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools, Inc., 1970. Publications of Government and Other Organizations Amidon, Edmund J., and Powell, Evan. "Interaction Analysis as a Feedback System in Teacher Preparation." Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple University, 1967. Anderson, Harold H., and Brewer, Helen. "Studies of Teachers' Classroom Personalities, 1." Applied Psychology Monographs, N0. 6. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1945. Flanders, Ned A. Helpipg Teachers Chppge Their Behaviors. Title VII Project Numbers 1721012 and 7-32-0560-171.0. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965. Flanders, Ned A. Teacher Influences, Pupil Attitudes, and Achievement. Cooperative Research Monograph No. 12. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965. Flanders, Ned A., and Simon, Anita. Teacher Influences, Pupil Attitudes and Achievement. U.S. Office of Education Cooperative Research Project No. 397. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1960. - Furst, Norma. A paper read at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago: February, 1965. 109 Hough, John B., and Amidon, Edmund J. "Behavioral Change in Pre-Service Teacher Preparation: An Experimental Study," Philadelphia, Penn.: College of Education, Temple University, 1964. Hough, John B., and Ober, Richard. "The Effect of Training in I.A. on the Verbal Behavior of Pre-Service Teachers." A paper read at the American Education Research Asso- ciation, Chicago, February 1966. Schneider, Erwin H., and Cady, Henry L. Evaluation and Synthesis of Research Studies Relating to Music Edu- cation. Co-op. Research Project No. E-016. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1965. Periodicals Ager, Merlin. "Dogmatism and the Verbal Behavior of Student Teachers." Journal of Teacher Education, XXI (Summer, 1970), pp. 197-183. Amidon, Edmund, and Giammetteo, "The Verbal Behaviors of Superior Teachers." ElementarypSchool Journal, LXV (February, 1965), pp. 283-285. Anderson, Harold H. "The Measurement of Domination and 0f Socially Integrative Behavior in Teachers' Contacts with Children." Child Development, X (June, 1939), pp. 73-89. _ Anderson, Harold H. "Domination and Integration in Social Behavior of Young Children in Experimental Play Situ- ation." Genetic Psychologjpal Monpgraphs, XIX (1939a), pp. 341-408. Anderson, Harold H., et a1. "Studies of Teachers' Classroom Personalities." Applied Psychology Monographs, Nos. 6, 8, and 11 (1945-46). Appelton, Nicholas. "A Modular Approach to Foundations of Education." Journal of Teacher Education, XXVI, No. 3 (Fall, 1975). p. 253. Bondi, Joseph C. "Feedback from Interaction Analysis: Some Implications for the Improvement of Teaching." Journal of Teacher Education, XXI, No. 2 (Summer, 1970), p. 189. Burke, Cassel 0., and Stone, David R. "A Research-Based Learning Process Model for Developing and Evaluating Teacher 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.2 16. 17. 18. 19. 110 Education Curricula." Journal of Teacher Education, XXVI, N0. 3 (Fall, 1975), p. 235. Campbell, Lloyd P. “Teaching is not Talking." Journal of Contemporary Education, XLV, N0. 2 (Winter, 1974), pp. 106-107. Canagelosi, James S. "Competency Based Teacher Education: A Cautionary Note." Contemporary Education, XLVI, No. 2 (Winter, 1974), p. 126. Combs, Arthur W. "Seeing is Behaving." Educational Leader- ship, XVI (1958). p. 2126. Gordon, Roderick D. "Doctoral Dissertations in Music and Music Education." Journal of Research in Music Education, Survey of Vols. XII-XIX (1964-197111 Haberman, Martin. "The Admission to Professional Education is a Professional Decision, Not a Student Right." Journal of Teacher Education, XXV, No. 3 (Summer, 1974), p. 234. Hicks, Charles E. "The Usability of the Rehearsal Interaction Observation System as a Training Instrument in Inter- actional Analysis for Prospective Instrumental Music Teachers." Michigan Music Education Journal (December, 1975), p. 25. Lantz, Donald L. "The Relationship of University Supervisors and Supervising Teacher's to Observed Student Teachers' Behavior." American Educational Research Journal, IV (May, 1967), pp. 279-288. Medley, Donald M., and Mitzel, Harold E. "Some Behavioral Correlates of Teaching Effectiveness." Journal of Educational Psychology, L (December, 1959), pp. 239- 246. Muente, Grace. "Let's Be More Selective with Student Teachers." Journal of Teacher Education, XXV, No. 3 (Summer, 1974). p. 236. Verrastro, Ralph E. "Verbal Behavioral Analysis as a Super- vising Technique with Student Teachers of Music." Journal of Research in Music Education, XXIII (Fall, 1975). pp. 171-185. Withall, John. "The Development of a Technique for the Measurement of Social-Emotional Climate in Class- rooms." Journal of Experimental Education, XVII (March, 1949), pp. 347-361. 111 Articles in Collections Anderson, Gary J., and Walberg, Herbert J. "Learning Environ- ments." Evaluatinngducational Performance. Edited by Herbert J. Walberg. Berkely, California: McCutchen Publishing Corporation, 1974. Ebel, Robert. "Estimation of the Reliability of Ratings." Principles of Educational and Psychological Measurement. Edited by Robert Ebel and William A. Mehrehs. Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally Company, 1967, pp. 116-131. Flanders, Ned A. "Intent, Action, and Feedback: A Preparation for Teaching." Interaction Analysis: Theory, Research, and Application.- Edited by Edmund Amidon and John B. Hough. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1968. pp. 283—294. Flanders, Ned A. "The Problems of Observer Training and Reliability." Interaction Analysis: Theory, Research, and Application. Edited by Edmund Amidon and John B. Hough. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1968. pp. 159-166. Furst, Norma, and Amidon, Edmund. "Teacher-Pupil Interaction Patterns in the Elementary School." Interaction Analysis: Theory,pResearch, and Application. Edited by Edmund Amidon and John B. Hough. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1968, pp. 167-175. Furst, Norma. "The Effects of Training in Interaction Analysis on the Behavior of Student Teachers in Secondary Schools." Interaction Analysis: Theory, Research, and Application. Edited by Edmund Amidon and John B. Hough. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1968. Pp. 167-175. Hough, John B., and Amidon, Edmund J. "Behavioral Change in Student Teachers." Interaction Analysis: Theory, Research, and Application. Edited by Edmund Amidon and John B. Hough. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1968, pp. 307-314. Hough, John B., and Amidon, Edmund J. "An Observation System for the Analysis of Classroom Instruction." Interaction Analysis: Theory, Research, and Application. Edited by Edmund Amidon and John G. Hough. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1968, pp. 150-157. Kirk, Jeffery. "Elementary Students Teachers and Interaction Analysis." Interaction Analysis: Theory, Research, 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 112 and Application. Edited by Edmund Amidon and John G. Hough. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1968. PP. 299-306. Lewin, Kurt; Lippitt, Ronald; and White, Ralph K. "Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally Created Social Climates." Interaction Analysis: Theory, Research, and Application.% Edited by Edmund Amidon and John B. Hough. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1968, pp. 24-46. Medley, Donald M., and Mitzel, Harold E. "Measuring Classroom Behavior by Systematic Observation." Handbook of Research in Teaching, Edited by N. L. Gage. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1963. PP. 247-328. Moskowitz, Gertrude. "The Attitudes and Teaching Patterns of Cooperating Teachers Trained in Interaction Analysis." Interaction Analysis: Theory, Research, and Application. Edited by Edmund Amidon and John B. Hough.. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1968, pp. 271-282. Nielson, H. Dean,and Kirk, Diana. "Classroom Climates." Evaluating Educational Performance. Edited by Herbert J. Walberg. Berkely, California: McCutchen Publishing Corporation, 1974. Withall, John "The Development of a Technique for the Measure- ment of Social Emotional Climate in Classrooms." Evaluating Educational Performance. Edited by Herbert J. Walberg. Berkely, California: McCutchen Publishing Corporation, 1974. Unpublished Materials Daellenbach, Charles C. "An Investigation of the Use of Video- tape Recorder Technique in the Identification of Behavioral Characteristics of Music Teachers." Un- published Masters Thesis, Eastman School of Music, The University of Rochester, 1968. pp. 6. Daellenbach, Charles C. "Identification and Classification of Music Learning Behaviors Utilizing Videotape Recording Techniques." Unpublished Ph.D. disserta- tion, Eastman School of Music, The University of Rochester, 1970. PP- 54-55- Edon, Gali. "A Fortran IV to Perform N-Way Analysis of Variance." Occasional Paper 27, Office of Research Consultation, College of Education, Michigan State University, May, 1976. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 113 Erbes, Robert L. "The Development of an Observational System for the Analysis of Interaction in the Rehearsal of Musical Organizations.“ Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, The University of Illin0is, 1972, pp. 82-129. Erbes, Robert L. The Rehearsal Interaction Observation System TrainingpManual. Michigan State University, 1972, pp. 1-2. Erbes, Robert L. and Hicks, Charles E. "The Implementation of g the Rehearsal Interaction Observation System. A paper ' read at the Music Educators Research Council, Atlantic City, March 1976. Finn, Jeremy. "Multivariance," Version 4. Department of Edu- cational Psychology, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1968. Mimeographed. ‘ Kirkwood, Gay. "Teacher Behavior and Pupil Achievement in Selected Elementary Music Classrooms." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas, 1974. Nolin, Wallace H. "Pattern of TeaCher-Student Interaction in Selected Junior High School General Music Classes." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, 1969. Pagano, Alicia L. "A Study of the Classroom-Interaction Patterns of Selected Music Teachers and First-Grade and Sixth- Grade General Music Classes." Unpublished Ed.d. disser- tation, The American University, 1972. Ragosta, Marjorie. "Reliability in Classroom Observation: Observer Effects and Stability of Behavior." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida, 19741 Reynolds, Kay. "Modification of the Observational System for Instructional Analysis Focusing on Appraisal Behaviors of Music Teachers in Small Performance Classes." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, 1974. Snapp. David. "A Study of the Accumulative Musical and Verbal Behaviors of Teachers and Students in Fifth Grade Instrumental Music Classes.“ Unpublished Master's thesis, Ohio State University, 1967. Van Sickle, Howard M. "An Exploratory and Descriptive Study of the Interpersonal Factors and Group Dynamics of Instru- mental Music Groups." Unpublished Master's thesis, Chicago Musical College, Roosevelt University, 1955, p. 3. 114 15. Verrastro, Ralph E. "An Experimental Investigation of Verbal Behavior Analysis as a Supervisory Technique with Student Teachers of Music." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1970. 16. Whitehill, Charles 0. "Evaluation of the Application of Flander's System of Interaction Analysis to General Music Classroom Teaching." Unpublished Ph.D. disserta- tion, West Virginia University, 1970. APPENDICES 115 APPENDIX A THE REHEARSAL INTERACTION 116 THE REHEARSAL INTERACTION OBSERVATION SYSTEM Training Manual Robert Erbes Michigan State University July, 1972 117 118 THE REHEARSAL INTERACTION OBSERVATION SYSTEM TRAINING MANUAL 1. Rehearsal Interaction The communication that exists between the director and students in the rehearsal of large musical organizations can take many forms. This vital aspect of the learning experience can be represented by the director's attempts to invoke a student response or it can be a result of communication received from the student. This communication, often referred to as teacher-student inter- action, can be in the form of both verbal and nonverbal behaviors. Recent developments in educational research have produced a variety of interaction analysis systems for reporting and analyzing this aspect of teaching. The systems generally record the interaction by noting the frequency of the various teacher and student behaviors. The Rehearsal Interaction Observation System represents an instru- ment specifically designed for use in the field of music education. It is based on the prevalent forms of verbal and nonverbal inter- action found in the rehearsals of large musical organizations. Research has indicated that teacher-student interaction can have a bearing on the attitudes and emotional tone of the classroom. Teachers who are receptive to and encourage student communication tend to produce more positive student attitudes toward classroom content and the teacher himself. Assumptions of Classroom Interaction The development of the various interaction analysis systems has been based on the following assumptions: 1. A teacher's behavior can be considered consistent to a certain degree. 2. His verbal behavior is consistent with his total pattern of behavior. 3. The verbal behavior of teachers and student is the most important indicator of the emotional tone of the classroom. 4. The verbal behaviors of a teacher are observable, distinguishable, and classified qualitatively and quantitatively. 119 Objectives of the Manual , The system described in this manual will enable the teacher- training student or experienced teacher to objectively assess his teaching in terms of verbal and certain nonverbal forms of communi- cation. The analysis can be made from audio or video tape recordings or from live rehearsal situations with the aid of a person trained in RIOS. The manual will list and describe the various categories into which all of the prevalent forms of verbal and nonverbal rehearsal communication can be placed. Examples taken from actual rehearsal situations will illus- trate these categories. The basic procedures and rules governing the use of the analysis system will also be explained. The methods f0r display and analysis of the data obtained from rehearsal observations will complete the manual. II. The RIOS Categories RIOS focuses on three aspects of the rehearsal: the director's communication, student communication, and any periods of silence or confusion. The director's communication is further divided into two classes: that which supports or reinforces student ideas, performance, behavior, or feelings, and that which controls or is nonsupportive of these student responses. The complete categories are shown in Table I of this manual. The categories within RIOS are described in the following manner: Conductor Supportive Behavior 1. Uses: The conductor responds to student ideas, perform- ance, behavior, feelings, or emotions by (a) utilizing and/or expanding (b) summarizing (c) clarifying (3) repeating verbatim (e) accepting in a positive or nega- tive nonthreatening manner these forms of student communi- cation. These forms of supportive behavior are often more subtle than Encourages (#2). This behavior will often shift to Informs (#4). 2. Encourages: The conductor responds to student ideas, performance, or behavior by direct encouragement, praise, or acceptance. By this behavior, the conductor indicates to the student that his form of communication is correct and should continue in the same manner. Short one or two word exclamations of encouragement that are a con- sistent part of a conductor's behavior can be coded by 120 The Rehearsal Interaction Observation System Category Category Number Description 1. Uses: Conductor uses, clarifies, or repeats ideas, performance, behavior, or feelings suggested by the students. 2. Encourages: Conductor encourages, praises, or accepts student ideas, performance, or behavior. Supportive 3. Questions: Conductor questions with the intent that the student respond. Questions may also occur in other teacher categories. Informs: Conductor gives information, lectures, or states opinions based on his own ideas or those other than the students. Short responses to student questions and rhetorical questions are included in #4. Conductor Behavior .5 5. Demonstrates: A conductor demonstrates the manner in which an act is or should be performed or ac- complished. (Generally non-verbal in nature). Directs: Conductor directs or commands student with intent that he comply. Non-Supportive OS 7. Criticizes: Conductor criticizes, rejects, or challenges student ideas, performance, behavior, or feelings. 8. Corrects: Conductor checks or corrects student ideas, performance or behavior in an obvious manner. 9. Responds: Student responds or questions in a manner structured by the conductor. 10. Initiates:l Student initiates communication or questions in a manner unstructured by the conductor. Student Behavior 11. Silence or Confusion: Periods in which verbal com- munication cannot be understood. Constructive periods should be indicated by 11+ and nonconstruc- tive periods by ll-. *A Nonverbal Demonstration (x): When demonstration by the conductor or student is nonverbal in nature, an “x" code should be added to Category #5. Demonstration of this type is an extension of verbal categories and would include singing, whistling or other oral sounds, clapping, tapping, or playing an instrument to illustrate an idea or opinion. 121 a single #2 if the recorder can keep pace. If an extremely high amount of this behavior continues, it should not be coded. Questions: The conductor questions or calls on students with the intent that they participate or respond. The nature of the questioning can be extensive or it may consist only of the name of the student he wishes to have respond. Conductor questions may also occur in any of the eight teacher categories. In these situations the question should be recorded in that particular category. Conductor Nonsupportive Behavior Informs: The conductor gives information, lectures, or states opinions based on his ideas or those other than the students. In rehearsal situations, this behavior generally takes the form of lecturing, indicating the manner in which the performance should be accomplished, administrative announcements, or statements of conductor feelings. Short responses, off-hand comments, and rhetorical questions should also be included in this category. Extended use of the other seven conductor categories often shift to this behavior. Demonstrates: The conductor demonstrates the manner in which a performance should be or is accomplished. This demonstration is usually a nonverbal extension of verbal behavior and is done by singing, or other oral sounds, clapping, tapping, or playing an instrument. ‘If the behavior is nonverbal, it should be coded 5x. The coding of this category often involves the shifting from 5x to one of the other seven teacher categories and back to 5x. Directs: The conductor directs or commands the student with the intent that he comply. Directions may often consist of one or two words or verbal counting at the beginning of or during performance. This category is one of the most frequently used conductor behaviors. Criticizes: The conductor criticizes, rejects, or challenges the student ideas, performance, behavior, or feelings. By this behavior, the conductor indicates to the student that this act should not be continued. Corrects: The conductor checks and/or corrects in an extended or obvious manner the student's ideas, perform- ance, or behavior. The conductor describes the incor- rectness in a manner that indicates to the student why 122 it is incorrect and the manner in which it can be cor- rected. Less obvious forms of this behavior may require a shifting from category 8 to other categories of conductor behavior. Student Behavior 9. Responds: The student responds or questions in a manner structured or controlled by the conductor. The response is usually of a predictable nature. 10. Initiates: The student initiates or questions in a manner unstructured by the conductor. The behavior is usually of an unpredictable nature. An interchange of communication between students would be included in this category. Miscellaneous Categories 11. Silence or Confusion: Periods in which the verbal or nonverbal communication cannot be understood are included in this category. If the silence, confusion, or laughter is essential to the outcome or adds to the emotional tone of the rehearsal, it is considered constructive and coded 11+. If the silence, confusion, or laughter is unessential or irrelevant to the rehearsal, it is considered nonconstructive and coded ll-. III. Coding Procedures The analysis of rehearsal interaction from live and audio or video taped recordings can be obtained by studying a few simple codint procedures. The rehearsal is coded by marking down the number approximately every three seconds that corresponds to the appropriate category of behavior described in RIOS. This number can be recorded on either a Sequence Chart or Frequency Chart depending on the extent of the data desired. If a change in behavior should occur during the three second period, the shift in category number should be noted. The coding of a rehearsal should always begin and end with a code of 11+. The following example from the first thirty seconds of a rehearsal describes the method of recording on the two types of charts utilized in RIOS. 123 #3 Conductor: [ 11+J [What key signature is that for the clarinets?] Student: [ E concert. Conductor: That's Shift to #2 b #1 right, Allen.] [Now if that's E concert for the clarinets.] Question within #1 #9 b [What is it for the cornets?) Student: [It will be E #2 ; concert also.] Conductor: [Finel That's right. Let's I Shift to #6 #5x (singing) start at letter E] [and play it . . . . . .] #6 [Ready, play.] [represents each 3 second recording period] Data obtained from the Sequence Chart will produce a variety of information when plotted on a Matrix. The Frequency Chart produces only the percentages of behaviors recorded. Table II represents the example above on both types of charts. Table II Sequence Chart Frequency Chart 11+ 5x Category Frequency, 3 6 1 11 9 2 11 2 3 1 1 4 1 5 (’01 9 6 ll 2 7 6 8 9 11 10 11 1 Li”) I-) 124 Further recommendations for obtaining accurate tabulation of rehearsal interaction include the following: 1. Keep a steady pace that will not vary too widely from the basic three-second recording period. 2. If in doubt about how to code a behavior, place it in a category consistent with the prevailing behavior at that time. 3. Be prepared for subtle shifts from an extended use of 4 one behavior to another behavior. Common shifts of this type are l to 4: 2 to 4; 4 to 6; 7 to 8; and 8 to 4, 5, or 7. 4. If a verbal and nonverbal behavior occur simultaneously, record the verbal category. 5. Conductor indication of tuning and/or matching pitch constitutes directing behavior unless obvious correcting behavior is apparent. 6. Nonverbal behavior should be recorded as 5x. 00 not be overly concerned with miscategorizing the various behaviors that occur in rehearsals--as you become more experienced, certain common patterns will appear frequently. The more difficult and infrequent patterns can be better understood when considering the encoding and analysis process. When coding a rehearsal, a single record of the complete rehearsal can be made on several sequence Charts. Each chart represents approximately thirty minutes of coding time. A separate record can also be made of different aspects within the rehearsal. These aspects, termed episodes, can include warm- up, tuning procedures, sight-reading, administrative procedures, rehearsing, or periods of performance in which little rehearsing is required. The objectives of the coding and analysis procedures would determine which type of record is to be obtained. Sample Behaviors The following examples of rehearsal interaction illustrate the various categories of RIOS. 125 Conductor Behaviors Category 1 - Uses 0: You're right, clarinets, Eb is*the correct key. Now that will put the alto saxophones in B . C That's not quite right, but if you keep trying as hard as you have been, you will eventually get it. C: Eb, OK. (repeats student response) C: Why can't you all act like the percussion section? Categorypz - Encourages C: That's an excellent answer, Allen. C: You played that passage as well as I have ever heard it performed. 0: Now that's what I call a great attitude. Category 3 -,Questions C: Can you tell me what the correct note should be, altos? C: Is it above or below F? Questions may occur in other categories if they are an indi- cation of that behavior. Question number 4 in Category 1 is an example. Category 4 - Informs We will meet here in the band room at 7:00 A.M. Saturday morning to make the trip to contest. Now if the clarinets are playing in the key of F major, the alto saxes and alto clarinet will be in C major. The composer undoubtedly intended that this passage be performed at a much faster tempo. I feel that this passage should be played with a more legato style. : What do you think, should we try that again? (A rhetorical question with no answer intended.) Right. (A short response.) 000006 Category 5 - Demonstrates C: That chord should be played with a "pow." "* . . "C" represents conductor verbal commun1cat10n. 126 (Examples of verbal demonstration are quite unusual. Nonverbal examples are more prevalent and should be coded 5x.) Category 6 - Directs C: C: C: Let's start again at letter E. All right: 1, 2, ready, sing. Play the first note softly. Category 7 - Criticizes C: C: C: C That passage is played all wrong, clarinets. Will you be quiet! Can't you play that any better in tune? (A question denoting criticism)r I don't like the way you act, 8111. Category 8 - Corrects C: C: C: That passage is too legato: be sure that you use very crisp staccato. - Don't pinch that note too much, Steve. It has to be a bit flatter in pitch. Let's see if that note is correct. (Less obvious use of correcting will often involve Categories ,4 - Informs, 6 - Directs, and occasionally 7 - Criticizes.) Student Behaviors _Category 9 - Responds C: S: C S What is the key signature for the cornets? We're in 8b concert. That should be legato, flute. Do you want it that smooth or slightly separated? Category 10 - Initiates S: 5: Can we try singing that again? I'd like to suggest that we forget contests and take a trip or tour instead. * Q "5" represents student verbal commun1cat10n. 127 Confusion or Silence Categorypll - Any pause in which there is silence, or confusion. If this results from a conductor question, demonstration, correction, direction, or criticism, the period would be constructive. Irrelevant or misbehaving confusion would be considered nonconstructive. Indication of Performance When groups or individuals are performing, this should be indi- cated by a slash mark (/). Any verbal or nonverbal behaviors occurring during performance are to be marked on the top half of the slash mark by indicating the appropriate category number. The following short example illustrates this code: #6 Not so #6 . loud C: [All right, let's go. 1, 2, ready, play]. [./..] [./..] [ ... ] #2 Fine #2 [./..] [./..] [./..] [...] [./..] [./..] [OK, that wasn't too bad, choir]. (Each [...] represents 3 seconds of performance.) Coded on Sequence Chart: 6 .Z/ / .1 [4’ / 6/ 2 l / 1 The 6/ and 2/ indicate that the conductor exhibited some form of verbal behavior during the time that the group was performing. IV. Practicing with RIOS The sample audio tape included with this manual is from an actual rehearsal situation. The following procedures should be followed to develop your skill in using RIOS to record and analyze rehearsal interaction: 128 l. Memorize the various categories, their descriptions, and code numbers. Test yourself on these before moving to the next step. 2. Listen to the first few minutes of the tape until the break. As you do this, begin to formulate in your mind whether or not the conductor behaviors are supportive or nonsupportive. 3. Follow this initial listening session with successive play- backs of the tape in which you begin to place the conductor communication into the various categories. Attention to the categorizing of nonverbal demonstration and the nature of student communication should be a part of further listening experiences. 4. To develop a feel for the three second coding period, use a watch with a sweep second hand to note the frequency of coding. The phrase, "Mark, two, three," will also illustrate the proper speed. (Remember that more than one coding per three second period may be necessary when the behaviors change rapidly.) 5. Practice coding short thirty second to one minute periods of the sample tape until you are satisfied that a reasonably normal pace can be maintained. Check your codings against a playback of the tape for accuracy. 6. After an extended period of at least a day, code the sample tape. Check this against the codings performed by the author in Appendix II. If the general tendency of your coding compares favorably with the tendencies of the author's record, you are beginning to develop your skills with RIOS. 7. For determining accuracy in using RIOS, observer reliability can be checked by following Flanders' recommendations for computing reliability coefficients. 1Ned A. Flanders, "The Problems of Observer Training and Reliability," Interaction Analysis: Theory, Research, and Appli- cation, ed. by Edmund Amidon and John B. Hough (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1968), pp. 159-166. APPENDIX B DOGMATISM SCALE FORM E 129 DOGMATISM SCALE FORM E Instructions: The following is a study of what the general public thinks and feels about a number of important social and personal questions. The best answer to each statement below is your PERSONAL OPINION. We have tried to cover many different and opposing points of view; you may find yourself, agreeing strongly with some of the statements, disagreeing just as strongly with others, and perhaps uncertain about others, whether you agree or disagree with any statement, you can be sure that many people feel the same as you do. Mark each statement in the left margin according to how much you agree or disagree with it. Please mark every one. Write +1, +2, +3 or -1, -2, -3, depending on how you feel in each case. +1: I Agree A Little -1: I disagree A Little +2: I Agree On The Whole -2: I Disagree On The Whole +3: I Agree Very Much -3: I Disagree Very Much U.S. and Russia have nothing in common. Best government is democracy run by most intelligent. Belief in free speech, but not for all. Better knowledge of beliefs than disbeliefs. Man on his own is helpless and miserable. World we live in a lonesome place. Most people don't give a "damn" for others. I want to find someone to solve my problems. It's natural to fear future. So much to do, so little time to do it in. .____11. Once I get wound up, I can't stop. _____12. I repeat myself to make sure I'm understood. _____13. I don't listen. 14. Better be dead hero than live coward. ____J5. Secret ambition is to become a great man. 16. Main thing in life is to do something important. 17. If given chance I'd benefit world. 18. There are just a handful of great thinkers. O‘DQNO‘m-hwmd 130 __19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 131 I hate some peple because of what they stand for. A man without a cause hasn't lived. Life meaningful when there is devotion to cause. There is only one correct philosophy. Person believing in too many causes is "wishy-washy." To compromise is to betray own side. In religion, we should not compromise. To consider only one's own happiness is selfish. Worse crime is to attack those of similar beliefs. Guard against subversion from within. Groups tolerating diverse opinions can't exist. Two kinds of people: those for, those against truth. My blood boils when others won't admit they're wrong. One who thinks of own happiness beneath contempt. Most printed ideas aren't worth paper printed on. To know what's going on, rely on leaders. Reverse judgement until you hear leaders' opinion. Pick friends who believe as you do. Present unhappy. Future is what counts. To accomplish mission, gamble all or nothing. Most people don't understand what's going on. Most people don't know what's good for them. APPENDIX C THE EDUCATION SCALE 132 THE EDUCATION SCALE RIOS Research Project 1 Instructions: Given below are 20 statements on educational ideas and problems about which we all have beliefs, opinions, and attitudes. We all think differently about such matters, and this scale is an attempt to let you express your beliefs and opinions. Respond to each of the items as follows: Agree Very Strongly: +3 Disagree Very Strongly: -3 Agree Strongly: +2 Disagree Strongly: -2 Agree: +1 Disagree: -1 For example, if you agree very strongly with a statement, you would write +3 on the short line preceding the statement, but if you should happen to disagree with it, you would put -1 in front of it. Respond to each statement as best you can. Go rapidly but ' carefully. Do not spend too much time on any one statement; try to respond and then go on. l. The goals of education should be dictated by children's interests and needs, as well as by the larger demands of society.* 2. No subject is more important than the personalities of the pupils.* 3. Schools of today are neglecting the three R's. The pupil-teacher relationship is the relationship between a child who needs direction, guidance, and control and a teacher who is an expert supplying direction, guidance, and control. 5. Teachers, like university professors, should have academic freedom--freedom to teach what they think is right and best. 6. The backbone of the school curriculum is subject matter; activities are useful mainly to facilitate the learning of subject matter. 7. Teachers should encourage pupils to study and*criticize our own and other economic systems and practices. 8. The traditional moral standards of our children should not just be accepted; they should be examined and tested in solving the present problems of students. 9. Learning is experimental; the child shoulg be taught to test alternative before accepting any of them. 10. The curriculum consists of subject matter to be learned and skills to be acquired. 133 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 134 The true view of education is so arranging learning that the child gradually builds up a store house of knowledge that he can use in the future. One of the big difficulties with modern schools is that discipline is often sacrificed to the interests of children. The curriculum should contain an orderly arrangement of subjects that represent the best of our cultural heritage. Discipline should be governed by long-range interests and well-established standards. Education and educational institutions must be sources of new social ideas; education must be 2 social program undergoing continual reconstruction. Right from the very first grade, teachers must teach the child at His own level and not at the level of the grade he is in. Children should be allowed more freedom than*they usually get in the execution of learning activities. Children need and should have more supervision and dis- cipline than they usually get. Learning is essentially a process of increasing one's store of information about the various fields of knowledge. In a democracy, teachers should help students understand not only the meaning of democracy but also*the meaning of the ideologies of other political systems. autumn—J: APPENDIX 0 R105 SEQUENCE CHART 135 RIOS SEQUENCE CHART Rehearsal Date Conductor Episode Category Description 1 Uses 4 Informs 9 Student Responds 2 Encourages 5 Demonstrates 10 Student Initiates 3 Questions 5x Nonverbal Dem. ll:_Silence-Confusion 6 Directs / Performs 7 Criticizes 8 Corrects 136 APPENDIX E REVISED RIOS SEQUENCE CHART 137 N a 111 E Major ITTS'irtgr‘i'ir“-111 '1. I 1 h) R) F3 .3 " "I“. -) CD 0) '5 ,1 OJ 0.) .3 79 US: Encourages « b \j K.) Quesnons ,0; LT‘ :\ L)- (3‘ .4 I. no ‘0 , 31‘ '1".; ET) .‘ 1:1- I I 31‘, r' K I" 121... ' I II _- a . L. I I h 1 I l ', l 9' 1 4 I | . . . 1 1 . , : i I ‘f 1" } .I'I: _ : * J‘."‘\ Lo) . ..J I h '1 I 1 1 .‘ f " 1. ‘. V- .I 1' 1 ‘ 'L I 11 ‘1' '1 .4 l 1' I 1 ., 1 . ““1 Q , 11 ._ ' r '1‘! ‘ 1 . I I ‘ 1 1L . l- .. I I u:"l " 0 ‘ , _ ‘ L . I 1 ‘ a r ‘ APPENDIX E 1 I 7 LL 1 1 e I . ,3 F r I» 1; , i L 1 I‘. y; 1 1 1 [7. 1 n r. I t '- \I I a ._ 41 1 v L I { '1 . ' a. 4 i r fl ‘ I I . 2 r1 ". a ‘b' I '. k ... o r3 L .. ‘ o‘- .- 3 a J 1: ; .1M \. NJ . LA; LA... 1‘ :1 ‘ lid] ’1 v—\ N 1 f‘ \N 1 I a." -11 S p L_‘ , K) ‘3 X :rdentHespcnds iznientlninates rVIQHTB ‘4 (. “\J I :_ 44-! u x) ‘J 8 -.— “A- ‘v a CI: 1 V L. - Lg); CI \. IQ ~-ncellonfusKN1 110 1'1 r... 11.1 I 1 ' L: .... A 1L? ‘0 H 1011 12 or] '1 z APPENDIX F SAMPLE REHEARSAL MATRIX 139 SAMPLE REHEARSAL MATRIX l 2 3 4 5/5x1 6 7 8 9 'IO l17’n_ Perf. Total 10 1Vllx Sub- Total Total Coding Reh. % _ Total Conductor Student S-C Reh. Time 140 APPENDIX G RIOS CURRICULUM OUTLINE l4l RIOS CURRICULUM OUTLINE Instrumental Conducting Fall Term, 1975 I. Pre-Test (October lst) ‘ a. b. c. Dogmatism scale Teaching Situation Reaction Test Introduction to Interaction Analysis: - Theory and Background - Classroom interaction process Required Readings: lO/lS l. lO/8 2. lO/l 3. l0/8 4. lO/22 5. 10/29 6. ll/S 7. Amidon, E. J., and Ned A. Flanders, The Role of the Teacher in the Classroom (Minneapolis: Amidon and Associates, 196l), pp. l-67. Amidon, E. J., and Ned Flanders, "Interaction Analysis As a Feedback System," Interaction Analysis: Theory, Research and Application (Reading, Mass.: Addison— Nesley Publishing Co., l967), pp. l2l-l40. Withall, John, "The Development of a Technique for the Measurement of Social-Emotional Climate in Classrooms," Interaction Analysis: Theory, Research and Application, pp. 47-64. Flanders, Ned, "Intent, Action, and Feedback: A Prepara- tion for Teaching," Interaction Analysis: Theory, Research and Application, pp. 283-294. Hough, John, and Edmund Amidon, "Behavioral Change in Student Teachers," Interaction Analysis: Theory, Research and Application, pp. 307-3l4. Flanders, Ned, "Interaction Analysis and Inservice Training," Brouchures available in class. Flanders, Ned, "Teacher Behavior and Inservice Programs," Interaction Analysis: Theory, Research and Application, pp. 256-26l. II. RIOS Technique Introduced (October 8th) a. b. c. Training Manuals Distributed Discuss and Learn Categories Practice coding, adhearing to three second time interval. 142 III. IV. VI. VII. VIII. IX. 143 Review Video Tapes (October 15th) T.V. a. 30 Seconds Tapes - Code and Discuss b. Two minute segments - Code and Discuss - Supportive behaviors - Nonsupportive behaviors - Student behaviors c. Code tape of mixed behaviors d. Discussion of Findings Review Materials from Previous Week (October 22nd) Code 30 second segments - discuss Code 2 minute segments - discuss Code 5 minute segments - discuss Construct Matrixs - discuss Repeat the above-check 3 secs. timing. Note: Adhere to 3 second time interval! (DQOU'OJ Review Feedback from 4th Weeks tapes (October 29th) a. Code 2-ten minute segments from conducting class. b. Build Matrixs - discuss c. Practice coding 5 minutes of audio tape - discuss - Repeat (3 Sec. timing) Review Feedback from Previous Week (November 5th) a. Discussion: Compare percentages of interaction of each . student with the 1974 Michigan-Illinois profile study b. Practice coding lO minute audio tape c. Build matrixs and discuss. d. Review (b) above (check 3 Secs. timing) Code Video Tape of a Rehearsal (November 12th) a. Code 20 minute segment Video tape b. Discuss and build Matrixs c. Review (a) above (check 3 Secs. timing) Review Previous Week's Activities (November l9th) T.V. a. Discuss Feedback b. Practice coding 20 minutes Tapes segments c. Discuss - Repeat (b) above (check 3 Secs. timing) Code Live Conducting Session (November 26th) a. Practice coding 3 - students b. Analyze Tape 144 c. Construct Matrix and turn in d. Practice audio tapes - discuss - repeat X. Review 9th Week's Activities (December 3rd) a. Discuss Feedback b. Practice coding 30-minute segments c. Repeat (b) above Final Posttest: Dec. 4th or ? -D-Scale -TSRT Final RIOS Analysis - Monday December 8, 5:45 - 7:45.