- ‘v—v-vamm

3'

AN ANALYSIS OF TEACHER-INK RN

BAL

AL AND NONVER
CLASSROOM BEHAVIORS

VERB

LYNN THOMAS KEITH
19 72

-

Thesis for the Degree of M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

.... .............o

 

   

 

—. .....scnco..o. . .. . ......‘olo. O o...

.... ... ...... o 5’75:

  

 

 

 

   

. . A . ...,.o....
. _ .. .
... ... .- I..
.... ._ ......
. _. ... ....
— . c ....o
. .. .... ..p_-
.. . ....
. .. ...
... .“ .v
.... .. 4. ..
.. .. .....J.
. ., .., ..
. ... - ....
,. ... . .a .
.. ... ..... ..
.... ._ ......
.c . ..
...- n . ‘.-0¢
. .. .,.o . ..
... . . .0
.. .p. a... n.—-.
o.a.. ..f-l.
_ o.- o
I ....... ..
.. ...., . I...
... .. .
. . .ca.
.1...- ...
_. .0. .
.. ..
. . . ,... ,..
.... .I.
. . ...o. ..
.. . s .. o
. .. ..... ..
... ..o..
. .... ca ..o
A... ...;.
' ... ..
v . A... ..1;
_ . .r
. .. . . ...;
.. ... ....
.. ._ n .
_ n —. .
. .0 . a. ..
A ..-
v .0500. v
_. . .v I..¢o4
o. ..
. S 9 o. ..
A ._ .
c . . ...
. ..
. .. u .
.. . . ... I.D.I-J..a..-.d.
. .. .....W.;.....a....n.ao.,..vt Ltpcm....-......_
. ... . at. :2‘1. .007.
. . ..
I c
. . .. .
...-.
o . ’
‘ a. -
4 . .
._ .nv .
. ..
... ..
. ...
I .5 _
. ... a
. ..
. .
a
. ..
. .‘
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_r
.
.
o . a
v
. .
I .
a ‘ o . .
O < .D a
o
. .. .a _
. OJ. 0..
o .o
_ u an.
. a
a n
a .
a I
o v. o. .
,. o v o nvl.a A v
o . . I
10.:
. 0‘
I.
no . .fo...lo..t.‘41‘~".. -£\In . I
It; 3
. <
.:v...
oL‘Wv
.
...”...h...\_......pf
‘

I III II IIII

3 12 293 01101 3558

IIII

IIIIIIIIII II IIII III ILIII

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

 

ABSTRACT

AN ANALYSIS OF TEACHER-INTERNS' VERBAL AND
NONVERBAL CLASSROOM BEHAVIORS
BY
Lynn Thomas Keith

The objectives of this research were threefold:
(l) to construct an operationally explicit and replicable
instrument to measure multiple categories of verbal and non-
verbal teacher-learner classroom behaviors; (2) to experi-
mentally assess the effects of variable and fixed interval
schedules of videotaped classroom observations on categorized
verbal and nonverbal teacher-intern behaviors; (3) to deter-
mine the extent of statistical interrelationships among the
multiple categories of verbal and nonverbal teacher-intern
and learner behaviors. Emphasis was accorded to examining
responses by teacher-interns as they spontaneously manifested
themselves within the context of interactional exchanges with
learners.

The foci of this research emanated from the finding
that effects of scheduled classroom observations on verbal
and nonverbal behaviors have received little or no experimen-

tal attention, despite implications for influencing behavioral

Lynn Thomas Keith

productions by those observed in the natural environment. In
addition, it was found that many of the measurement schemes
used in educational research to categorize teacher-learner
behaviors are operationally ambiguous and unreplicable.
Finally, it was noted that consideration of spontaneously
occurring interactional behaviors by teachers and learners,
with particular emphasis on nonverbal responses, has been
accorded little attention.

A series of videotaped observations of Teacher Corps
teacher-interns were conducted in the classrooms of six public
elementary schools, grades K-6. A five minute segment of
videotaped observations were analyzed by four trained judges
who used 3 Behavior Rating Schedule deve10ped for this study,
to categorize verbal and nonverbal behaviors. These ratings
yielded the data for analyses.

The results indicated that the Behavior Rating Sched-
ule was Operationally workable. With respect to the experi-
mental component of the study, in which observations were
conducted on variable and fixed interval schedules, it was
found that no statistically significant treatment effects
were manifested in the behaviors of teacher-interns. Sched-
uled observations were not differentially related to cate-
gorized verbal and nonverbal responses. Data from the
descriptive component of the study indicated that teacher-
interns' approval tends to be passively, nonverbally expressed

whereas disapproval tends to be explicitly, verbally

Lynn Thomas Keith

communicated. Smiling, verbally probing teacher-interns are
associated with thoughtful and responsive pupils over a
variety of verbal performance measures. In addition, task-
relevant pupil performance tends to be highly interrelated
and unidimensional. It is concluded that nonverbal behaviors,
especially in form of approving facial expressiveness, may

be important in defining a supportively task-oriented, posi-
tive social-emotional climate. Nonverbal responses by
teacher-interns may be more notable correlates of learner
performances than are many verbal behaviors, and appear to

have important implications for classroom management.

Thesis Chairman

Date:

 

%w9wg7—r /&j /97Z_

AN ANALYSIS OF TEACHER-INTERNS' VERBAL AND
NONVERBAL CLASSROOM BEHAVIORS

By

Lynn Thomas Keith

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1972

To

Lemoyne and Yvonne Tonnesen

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to express his sincere apprecia-
tion to: Dr. Louis G. Tornatzky, Chairman of the Thesis
Committee, for his most generous contributions in form of
constructive criticism, suggestions, substantive ideas,
time, and unflaging supportive guidance throughout all
facets of the preparation of this thesis; Dr. George W.
Fairweather for his unfailing support and assistance;

Dr. L. Eudora Pettigrew, without whom this research could
not have been initially undertaken.

The author wishes to expecially thank Dr. Louis G.
Tornatzky, whose astute guidance, steadfast encouragement,
and enduring friendship have been of immeasurable import-
ance, representing the outstanding events of the author's
career at Michigan State University.

An additional word of appreciation is due to
John Lounsbury for dispelling some of the early mysteries
of the Computer Center and cluster analysis. Very Special,

personal appreciation is extended to the late Dr. Richard E.

Timmer, of Los Angeles, California.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . .

CHAPTER
I.

II.

INTRODUCTION .

Review of the Literature .

Interpersonal Communication . . . .

Nonverbal Behavior in Social Interaction .

Verbal Behavior in Social Interaction

Schedules of Observation . .
Behavioral Analysis in the Field Setting.

The Use of Videotape . . . . . .

Statement of the Problem .
Statement of Hypotheses

METHODS . . . . . .

Design and Components of the Study .
Experimental Component . . . .
Descriptive Component . . . . .

Subjects . . . . . . . .

Selection of the Sample . . .
Research Setting .
Subjects for Experimental Component
Subjects for Descriptive Component
Teacher Objects: Pupil . . .

Instrumentation and Procedures .

Equipment and General Procedures

Behavior Rating Schedule

Introduction . . . .
Deve10pment of the Behavior Rating
Schedule . . . . . .

Behavior Categories and Definitions

Data Collection Procedures .

Analysis of Videotape
Training of Raters .
Estimation of Reliability

Data Analysis Procedures

iv

Page

vi

CHAPTER Page

III. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Experimental Component . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Descriptive Component . . . . . . . . . 65

Preview of the Cluster Analyses . . . . 6S
Cluster Analysis of Behavioral and Demo-

graphic Variables . . . . . . . 70
Overview of Empirical V- Analysis of

Behavioral and Demographic Variables . . . 86
Cluster Analysis of Behavioral Variables . . 87

Overview of Empirical V-Analysis of
Behavioral Variables: Guidelines for

the Preset Analysis . . . . . 103
Preset Key- Cluster Analysis of Behavioral

Variables . . . . . . . . 107
Overview of the Preset Key- Cluster ”

Analysis. Dimensions for 0- -Analysis . . . 114
O- -Ana1ysis . . . . . . . . . . 115
Hypothesis- Testing Variables . . . . . . . . 118

IV. DISCUSSION

Schedules of Observation . . . . . 119
Utility of the Behavior Rating Schedule . . . 121
Consideration of the Generic Hypothesis . . . 123
Other Related Results . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Limitations of the Research . . . . . . . . . 129
Conclusions and Future Research . . . . . . . 131
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

APPENDIX

A. CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR RATING SCHEDULE: TEACHER
AND TEACHER OBJECTS (PUPILS) . . . . . . . . . 142

B. FORMULA FOR COMPUTATION OF INTRACLASS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT BY ANOVA . . . . . . . 162

Table

11.

12.

LIST OF TABLES
Page

Comparison by percent of response on demographic
characteristics of the Teacher Corps sample . . 36

Comparison of range and mean response on
demographic characteristics of the Teacher
Corps sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Classroom behavior rating ‘
schedule . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . 46

Intraclass correlation coefficients of average
ratings by four judges for the 57 items in the
behavior rating schedule . . . . . . . . . . . 56

t-ratio for behavioral response categories by

_ schedule of observation for Group 1 (Variable

Interval schedule) and Group 2 (Fixed Interval
schedule) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Group means and standard deviations for cate-
gories of observed classroom behaviors by

teacher-interns and teacher objects (pupils) . 67
Empirical V-Analysis of behavioral and demo-

graphic variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Correlations between oblique cluster domains

for the empirical clusters . . . . . . . . . . 77
Empirical V-Analysis of behavioral variables . . 33

Correlations between oblique cluster domains
for the empirical clusters . . . . . . . . . . 94

Preset key-cluster analysis of behavioral
variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Correlations between oblique cluster domains
for the preset key-cluster analysis . . . . . . 111

vi

Table Page

13. O-Types for the three preset key-clusters of
behavioral variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

14. Overall homogeneity across the three dimen-

sions (factor scores) given for each of the
three O-Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

vii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Review of the Literature

 

Interpersonal Communication

 

Verbal behavior has long been a principal subject of
experimental scrutiny over the years, and until recently, to
the relative exclusion of systematic attention directed to
the study of nonverbal interactional behaviors. It has been
amply demonstrated that a wide range of verbal stimuli can
influence a variety of behaviors of participants in social
encounters. Both verbal and nonverbal responses have been
shown to be systematically acquired, maintained, and elimi-
nated, as a function of the contingent manipulation of a host
of verbal stimuli (for extensive reviews of the literature,
see Krasner, 1958; Salzinger, 1959; Williams, 1964).

A body of research is accumulating, however, leading
communication analysts to agree that nonverbal behavior is a
significant medium of communication, and in fact largely
represents the medium by which emotional and motivational
states are expressed (Argyle, 1969; Birdwhistell, 1961; Bkman,

1965; Bkman and Friesen, 1967). Interactants in social

encounters are continually transmitting and concomitantly
monitoring nonverbal signals communicating about the immedi-
ate social situation. These signals, as with verbal cues,
have been posited and established to provide information
affecting mutual attentiveness and responsiveness, channel
control (speech and listening periods), interpersonal atti-
tudes, and emotional reactions (Argyle, 1969; Bkman, 1965;
Ekman and Friesen, 1967; Kendon, 1967).

Argyle (1969) has extensively reviewed recent experi-
mental studies investigating the relative efficacy of non-
verbal cues (e.g., facial expression, head orientation, and
tones of voice), on subject's reactions. He found that non-
verbal cues clearly had greater impact on subjects reactions
than the actual words used to convey emotions. Similarly,
Argyle reports that such nonverbal operants as smiling, pos-
tural and proximal orientation, eye contact, and facial
expressiveness have been shown to function as more effective
social reinforcers than such simple verbal reinforcers as
"good” or "right" used by themselves. Nonverbal, non-content
characteristics of speech including pitch, rate, density,
length, pauses, and silences represent channels of communica-
tion which have also been found to act as determinants of the
social interactive process (Matarazzo, Wiens, and Saslow,
1965). As Krasner and Ullmann (1965) have observed, it is
often not what an individual says but the way he says it that

influences how his peers react to him.

Interpersonal relations is negotiated by what Argyle
(1969) calls the "silent language," or the nonverbal code
which is always present but often implicit and ambiguous in
social episodes. It is so integrally a part of the social
context that both its processes, characteristics, and its
operant effects, are frequently overlooked. This, despite
the rich, varied, and complex meanings with which nonverbal
language is weighted. In reference to this other half of
the communications signal, and pointing up its significance
to the teacher-learner setting, Galloway (1966) has observed
that nonverbal communications are constantly being monitored
by pupils, the meaning of verbalizations being emphasized or
even contradicted by the constellation of operant expressions
and conduct exhibited by a teacher irrespective of the
teacher's design or wishes. The nonverbal dimension Galloway
asserts, "has been minimized, underplayed, and sometimes over-
looked in teacher-pupil research," (p. 57).

An attempt to remediate the neglect of research on
teachers nonverbal responses has been made by Galloway (1962),
who demonstrated that teachers who tended to be encouraging
in their communicative contacts with pupils exhibit their
interest in pupils through nonverbal listening behaviors,
congruent responsiveness, and emotional support. Teachers
who exhibited inhibiting communicative behaviors showed
(1) disinterest in pupil talk, (2) were inconsistent in their

behavioral re5ponses to pupils, and (3) tended to express

disapproval in their nonverbal contacts with students.
Research by Bernstein (1961) also suggests that nonverbal
communication by teachers may be more significant to pupils
than teacher verbalizations. Bernstein found that "disadvan-
taged" youngsters from "lower classes" depend almost exclu-
sively upon nonverbal messages for the detection of meaning
in classroom situations.

From these observations the implication is clear that
pupils who have not achieved the skills necessary to compre-
hend (decode) the verbal language and signals of teachers are
at a disadvantage in competing in the academically oriented
classroom. The learner who seemingly "fails" to comprehend
teacher's complex verbal communications (or cues conveyed in
any of a variety of channels) may merely reflect the fact that
he has not acquired those skills necessary to decode or inter-
pret the novel behavioral messages. It follows that in
programming a learning enviornment, teachers who erroneously
assume that pupils possess the normatively standard repertoire
of ”average" pupil compentencies in a given social context,
may be programming their learners for academic failure.
Academic performance, this suggests, may largely be a func-
tion of the acquisition of specific compentencies either more
or less appropriate to a given, contextually specific situa-
tion in which the compentency is to be learned and exhibited.
The special language and signals (i.e., linguistic codes and

nonverbal cues) emitted by teachers and present in the

learning milieu, can either increase or decrease the
probabilities that the critical responses to be acquired

by learners shall be achieved. Any wide disparity in cul-
turally and experientially derived patterns of verbal and
nonverbal conduct and stimulus cues between partners in the
learning situation must be recognized and appropriate strate-
gies designed and implemented in order that critical perform-
ance behaviors may be achieved and manifested by those who
are present to learn, interactants in a situation which is
predicated upon effective, efficient, and mutually interpret-
able communications.

Aside from the above general comments about the impor-
tance of nonverbal behaviors in the context of the teacher-
learner setting, there are a number of studies exploring more
specific aspects of nonverbal communication in interpersonal
episodes which shall be considered, followed by a brief over-
view of research studying the role of verbal behavior in
social interaction. This material shall be described gener-
ally within the context of a reinforcement paradigm. The
following information should indicate the range of variables
extant in, and their implications for, categories of both

verbal and nonverbal communications in interpersonal contacts.

Nonverbal Behavior in
Social Interaction

 

 

Gaze Direction.--Attentiona1 behaviors, reflected in

 

large part by eye contact, is an important factor in the ini-
tiation and maintenance of social encounters. It is signifi-
cantly influenced by the social reinforcing stimuli manifest
in the situation, and itself represents a medium by which
social reinforcement can be conveyed. A number of studies
point up the influence that "looking" can have in interper-
sonal communications, and the effects of various reinforcing
variables as they interact with eye contact.

Exline and Messick (1967) report that dependent sub-
jects who were given low verbal reinforcement for looking,
looked more at the interviewer. Consistent with this observa-
tion, Efran (1968) demonstrated that subjects looked more at
a confederate who was positively reinforcing, in the form of
smiling and nodding, especially if the confederate was per-
ceived to be of higher social status. These results support
Efran and Broughton's (1966) earlier finding that subjects
maintain more eye contact with individuals toward who they
have developed higher expectations for reinforcements in the
form of social approval. Similarly, Exline and Winters (1965)
found that subjects increase frequency of eye contacts with
an interviewer perceived as evaluating them positively, and

reduce eye contacts with a negatively evaluating interviewer.

A study by Ellsworth and Carlsmith (1968) indicates
that in a situation in which positive verbal content is com-
municated, frequent eye contact produces more positive
evaluations in the dyadic interaction; conversely, with nega-
tively verbal content frequent eye contact produces negative
evaluation. The researchers caution against assuming that
lack of eye contact is a necessary indicant of a negative
or disinterested reaction on the part of a participant in a
social encounter. It is suggested that in some verbal com-
munications (in which the speaker emits negative remarks
about himself), an interactant may avoid frequent eye contact
(which may be perceived as threatening) and yet prove to be
an ideal companion, signifying his attention merely by remain-
ing discretely silent. Examples of such a situation noted by
the authors, include religious confessions and psychiatric
sessions.

The foregoing hypothesis is consistent with Kendon's
(1967) suggestion that the degree of emotionality in social
interaction can be regulated through the amount of mutual
gaze the interactants allow each other. Kendon posits that
gaze direction has monitoring, regulatory, and expressive
functions in verbal exchange situations. He bases this con-
clusion on an extensive review of studies of visual inter-
action in natural settings. Monitoring is posited to provide
feedback on an interactant's attentiveness and reaction, and

information on conclusions of thought units. Regulatory and

expressive (signalling) functions are said to control the
level of involvement or arousal allowed by participants in
the social episode.

Argyle and Dean (1965) found that gaze direction
also varies as a function of distance between interactants.
Visual interaction was found to decrease as communicants
move closer together in physical proximity. It has also
been widely found that both males and females exhibit more
eye contact when listening than when speaking (Argyle and
Dean, 1965; Duncan, 1969; Exline, Gray and Schuette, 1965;
Exline and Winters, 1965), and that in social encounters
having an aversive quality, both male and female subjects
tend to look less at the experimenter, though females look
more in general (Exline, Gray, and Schuette, 1965). Further-
more, females tend to increase eye contact in positively
valenced interactions, while males decrease visual contact
(Exline and Winters, 1965).

Clearly, visual interaction in social episodes has
important implications as it affects the initiation, mainte-
nance, and termination of the encounter. It is a medium by
which interactants may both transmit and receive discrimin—
able cues which provide feedback on the process of the
interaction, and the attitudenal orientation of the partici-
pants. It appears also to regulate the degree of emotionality

permissable in the encounter.

Facial Expression.--In concomitance with speech,

 

facial expression is the major channel of nonverbal communi-
cation. In social interaction facial expressions provide
feedback cues revealing an interactants emotional state, and
the degree to which he comprehends and agrees with the verbal
message (Argyle, 1969). Osgood (1966) identified three
dimensions of facial expressions by factor analysis, inferring
"Pleasantness," Activation," and "Control.” He suggests that
7-10 basic regions can be discriminated by cluster analysis,
these possibly corresponding, as Argyle (1969) suggests, to
such inferred emotions as happiness, surprise, sadness, fear,
anger, contempt, and interest. Rosenfeld's (1966) work indi-
cates that attitudes can be conveyed by facial expression.

He found that subjects instructed to win approval emitted
more smiles, as well as exhibited more positive head nods and
gesticulations. Rosenfeld (1967) subsequently found that the
facial component has a stronger effect than the vocal compon-
ent (both being independently significant), in his study of
positive, neutral, and negative attitudes inferred from two-
channel facial-vocal attitude communications. Clearly,
affective information is conveyed in social interactions by
facial expression; however, as Argyle and Kendon (1967)
observe, some expressions (e.g., smiles) may be employed as
part of a highly ritualized culture-based code used by inter-
actants to control aspects of the interaction process, and

hence may not necessarily represent an operant expression of

10

a particular emotion. The authors note that an entire body
of research awaits investigation, the functions of facial
expressions and other nonverbal communications within an
interaction sequence having yet to be fully explored.

Proximity.--Physical distance between interactants

 

has been correlated with attentional or "attending" responses,
and approach-avoidance behaviors. Mehrabian (1968) found that
subjects stand closer to someone they like, and Little (1965)
reports that closer spatial proximity between communicator
and addressee is associated with more positive attitudes.
Congruently, Campbell, Kruskal, and Wallace (1966) have shown
that subjects move closer to members of preferred racial
groups. Willis (1966) recorded initial speaking distance
between standing interactants. He found significant
variations in distance as a function of the relationship'
between participants in the social episode, their sex, age,
and race. Porter, Argyle, and Salter (1969, in Argyle, 1969)
are reported to have found that females stand closer than
males to same-sexed targets, and that individuals are highly
consistent in the proximity they adopt in different situah‘
tions. Proximity varies, however, with the social setting
(Sommer, 1967), and has been shown to differ for persons from
different cultures (Watson and Graves, 1966). Argyle and
Dean (1965) postulate that proximity is a function of the
equilibrium of approach-avoidance forces. It is suggested

that degree of attitude or liking-disliking between

 

ll

interactants is reflected in the proximal relationship which
they assume vis-a-vis each other, mutual liking being
reflected in stronger approach forces and hence, closer
proximity. The researchers also propose that closer dis-
tances and increased eye contacts with the other indicate
higher degrees of intimacy, a postulate confirmed by their
finding that subjects within close proximity (i.e., two feet
apart) exhibited much less visual interaction than they did
when there was greater distance between them. Confirmation
is also provided by Porter g£_al. (1969, in Argyle, 1969) who
reportedly found that subjects more closely approach someone
whose eyes are closed, the effect being greater for males
approaching females.

Posture.--Postural orientation may be categorized
into several dimensions including standing, sitting, lying
down, forward-back lean of trunk etc., and has been corre-
lated with liking-disliking (Mehrabian, 1968), and emotional
congruency or non-congruency (Scheflen, 1965), and perceived
status in relation to others (Goffman, 1961). Mehrabian
(1968) found that subjects exhibited different postures to
those they liked or disliked; forward lean of trunk (concomi-
tant with closer proximity) toward one's addressee communi-
cated a more positive attitude to the addressee than did a
backward lean of posture and a greater distance. Posture was
also found to be associated with high-low status relation-

ships, subjects being more posturally relaxed with a low

12

status person, facing him less directly, and having a less
open arm or leg position. Consistent with these findings,
Goffman (1961) has observed that high status persons (e.g.,
psychiatrists) adopt a much more relaxed posture (putting
their feet on the table) than that exhibited by lower status
individuals. Scheflen (1964; 1965) has shown how partici-
pants in a social encounter may vary their sitting or
standing positions to be congruent or non-congruent with
others present, a finding consistent with that reported by
Charney (1966) who studied congruency and non-congruency of
postures of client and therapist during a single psycho-
therapy hour. Charney found a progressive increment in
congruent postures during the hour, with the content of ver-
bal material during the congruent periods differing from that
during the non-congruent periods. In this vein, Argyle (1969)
reports that posture can also reflect an individual's emo—
tional state. ‘Reliable agreements among judges as to which
emotion a given posture expresses, have been obtained. It
may also be noted that various categories of social responses
have been shown to be reinforced (increased in rate of occur-
rence) by an interactant's forward lean toward the speaker
(Argyle, 1969; Krasner, 1958; Williams, 1964).

Head Movement.--Head-nodding and head-shaking can play

 

important roles in verbal interaction. A head-nod may serve
as a talker's cue for feedback from a listener, or function

as a signal to an addressee that he has permission to speak;

13

when emitted by an addressee it may signal that he wishes to
speak (Dittmann and Llewellyn, 1968). Head-nods can also

act as a reinforcing stimulus of a behavior which it follows
in the course of interaction (Argyle, 1969; Krasner, 1958;
Williams, 1964). Mattarazo g£_al,, (1965) reports that inter-
viewer head-nodding led to an increment in the duration of
interviewee speech. Rosenfeld (1966) has shown that subjects
motivated to seek approval, positively nod while approval-
avoiders exhibit more head-shaking in free social interaction;
the positive responses, he reports, are associated with
approving reactions from the peers to whom they were directed.
Positing that the maintenance of free social interaction may,
in part, be a function of the normative reciprocation of com-
mon approval-related responses, Rosenfeld (1967) demonstrated
that subjects emit more smiles and positive head nods in
response to approving interviewers than to disapproving or
non-responsive interviewers. These results are interpreted

to support Rosenfeld's hypothesis of a reinforcement-feedback
system which may significantly determine the social interac-
tion process.

Gesticulation.--Gestural activity, here defined as

 

any observable movement of arm, hand, or finger not in contact
with another part of the body, has been related to affiliative
responses (Rosenfeld, 1966; 1967), and emotional states exhib-
ited in psychotherapy sessions (Bkman and Friesen, 1967; Wach-

tel, 1967). Argyle (1969) reviews the limited experimental

l4

literature on the t0pic, and reports that gestural movements
primarily convey emotion, playing a central part in social
interaction. He notes that hand movements are especially
associated with agitation (e.g., clasping them tightly
together and hand-face contact). Krout (1954, in Argyle,
1969) elicited hand movements by asking subjects personal
questions designed to arouse different emotional and motiva-
tional states; subjects were asked to delay their reply until
signalled, the signal being given when a gesture manifested.
Some statistical regularities were found among the thousands
of gestures produced and recorded from 100 subjects, the data
suggesting that fear was associated with hand-to-nose contact;
shame, with finger at lips; aggression, with fist gestures;
and frustration, with Open hand dangling between legs. Ekman
and Friesen (1967) report that among disturbed patients, there
is a great deal of hand-face contact, and suggest that some
gestural behaviors may have meaning in terms of attacking the
self, reassurance, and exhaustion.

Body Contact.--Despite the paucity of research on

 

physical contact in social encounters, some studies have indi-
cated that there may be important differences within and
between cultures, in the form and extent of normatively per-
missable bodily contact, and that tactile communication may
represent a limited language of affectivity (Argyle, 1969;

Duncan, 1969).

15

Jourard (1966, in Duncan, 1969) found that there were
significant sex differences in accessibility to touch by all
target persons in his study; females being considerably more
accessible to touch than males. Tactile interaction with
Opposite-sexed friends was also notably greater than with any
of the other target persons. Argyle (1969) observes that
physical contact is the most basic form of social behavior;
early interpersonal relation between infant and other people
consisting almost entirely of patterns of physical contact.
Later, however, these patterns of body contact become largely
transformed into a relationship which is mediated almost
exclusively by visual cues of facial and gestural expression,
and the auditory cues of speech. Certainly, tactile interac-
tion as with other dimensions of nonverbal communication, has
yet to be systematically investigated and functionally sys-
temized into a comprehensive theoretical framework describing
the stimulus-response characteristics of verbal and nonverbal
behaviors in interpersonal relations.

To summarize the research findings cited on the
effects and implications of nonverbal behavior in social inter-
action, the following points seem salient:

l. Gaze direction affects the degree of emotionality
permitted in an interaction, and is related to the perceived
social status of the participants and their expectations of

positive/negative reinforcements;

16

2. Facial expressiveness conveys cues indicating the
emotional and attitudinal states of interactants;

3. Proximity relates to, and can convey, attitudinal
states of interactants, distance between communicators reflect-
ing level of permissable intimacy, and liking/disliking;

4. Posture reflects emotionality and attitudinal
states in an interaction, and is related to the perceived
social status of the participants, and the degree of liking/
disliking between them;

5. Head movements can convey degree of approval/
disapproval between communicators, functioning as positive/
negative reinforcers of behavior which it follows in interac-
tions;

6. Gestures relate to the emotional state of partici-
pants in an interaction, and have also been associated with
affiliative approach behaviors by interactants;

7. Body contact, the most basic form of social inter-
action, relates to the degree of emotionality by participants
in an interaction;

8. Nonverbal behaviors have been shown to be both
discriminately perceiveable and interpretable as cues which
influence the actions and reactions of participants in social
exchanges, and may be conceptualized as discrete channels of
communication which may supplement each other by reinforcing
or even contradicting a predominant verbal or nonverbal mode

of presentation in social encounters.

17

Verbal Behavior in
Social'lnteraction

 

Language.--There has been little systematic investiga-
tion of the functioning of language in social interaction.
Argyle and Kendon (1967) report on the findings of some
exploratory studies which might be mentioned. They cite a
study by Joos that indicates that for different types of
encounters, a different linguistic style is adopted--
"Intimate," "Casual-Personal," "Social-Consultative," "For-
mal," and "Frozen" styles. Moscovici and Plon (1966, in
Argyle, 1969) are reported to have shown experimentally how
the physical arrangement of interactants may affect the style
of language that is used in the behavior space. They found
that pairs of subjects seated face-to-face, but screened,
exhibited linguistic styles in which they spoke more, used
more verbs, and more redundancy, and were less abstract in
conversation than the more formal linguistic style shown by
subjects seated side-by-side and back-to-back.

Speech and Movement Coordination.--Investigations of

 

patterns of hesitation and of disturbances in the production
and sequences of words has suggested that such variation in
speech performance may be associated with variations in the
speaker's emotional state, there being evidence strongly
indicating that more hesitation pauses and a faster rate of
Speech are exhibited when subjects are anxious (Mahl, 1956).

Condon and Ogston (1967) have examined the interrelations of

18

the movements of listeners and speakers. The researchers
describe the phenomenon of "interactional synchrony" in which
it is found that the flow of movement configurations in the
listener (at motoric, phonic, syllabic, and word levels) may
be rhythemically coordinated with the patterns of speech in
the Speaker. Kendon's (1970) findings support those of
Condon and Ogston, and also Show how the manner in which
individuals may be in synchrony with one another can vary,
and that these variations are related to their respective
roles in the interaction.

Modifications of Verbal Behavior.--In their review of

 

the experimental literature on verbal behavior, Kanfer and
Phillips (1970) report that modifications of verbal content,
duration, and Speaker order have been clearly demonstrated
to occur as a function of the contingent use of subtle verbal
reinforcers. It might be mentioned that in line with an
Operant paradigm, Heller and Marlatt (in Franks, 1969) view
such verbal reinforcers as discriminative stimuli which pro-
vide information as to the appropriate or desired response
class for the subject; thus setting the occasion for, and
increasing the probability that, the critical response Shall
be emitted.

Two classic studies of verbal learning were done by
Greenspoon (1955) and by Taffel (1955). Greenspoon demon-
strated that classes of subjects' verbal behaviors could be

modified as a function of the contingent use of subtle verbal

19

reinforcers (mmm-humm) by the experimenter. Similarly,

Taffel Showed that the contingent use of a positive verbal
stimulus ("good") resulted in increased emission of the rein-
forced verbal response class. Hildum and Brown (1956) early
demonstrated that verbal reinforcers utilized in a particular
way, is effective both for increasing the frequency of opin-
ion statements as well as for shaping Opinions. .Among more
recent work in the area, Kanfer and McBrearty (1962) used
minimal cues such as physical attitude and nondirective verbal
responses 'U) reinforce selected topics in a structured inter-
view, finding that such reinforcement resulted in an increment
of time spent on such topics. Haas (1962) studied condition-
ing of affective responses, finding that both positive and
negative sentence endings were increased by the verbal rein-
forcement of their occurrence. A number of studies (e.g.,
Adams and Frye, 1964; Noblin, Timmons, and Reynard, 1963;
Timmons, Noblin, Adams, and Butler, 1965) have shown within
the framework of psychotherapy, that interviewer comments,
such as verbal interpretations, confrontations, or reflections,
can be used successfully as contingent reinforcing stimuli,
producing predictable changes in the patient's productions.

In the context of the psychotherapeutic interview situation,
Kanfer and Phillips (1970) observe that whether intentional

or not, the therapist may consistently communicate verbal

cues for particular behaviors with the result that modifica-

tions may be observed in the responses of the attending

20

subject. The authors conclude that there may be few areas

of verbal content that cannot be manipulated in the inter-
view situation by systematic utilization of subtle reinforcing
cues (e.g., head nods, smiles, verbal sighs of approval) from
the interviewer. Truax (1966) has shown, in studies of the
behavior of patients in psychotherapy, that even when the
therapist is not deliberately attempting to modify the
patient's verbal output by contingent reinforcement, his gen-
eral attitude toward the patient's behaviors and his style of
interviewing can achieve the same results as the systematic
reinforcement approach.

These findings particularly pOint to the special sig-
nificance that verbal cues and the contingent use of verbal
(and nonverbal) reinforcing stimuli may have on interactants
in the teacher-learner setting. Whether the emission of
these cues, or contingent delivery of reinforcers by teachers
is unintentional and unsystematic, or deliberately programmed
in the learning milieu, it is clearly possible that many ver-
bal and motor behaviors by pupils may be manipulated and
controlled.

Verbal Reinforcement in the Classroom.--The proce-

 

dures Operative and effective in the modification of behavior
in the social milieu are hypothetically the same as those

executed by experimenters manipulating verbal and motor behav-
iors in more controlled laboratory and field settings (Argyle,

1969; Hall, Lund, and Jackson, 1968; Truax, 1966; Williams,

21

1964). Studies employing an operant conditioning paradigm
have clearly shown that rewards and punishment can be con-
veyed by teachers' utterances. Verbal agreement, encourage-
ment, support, and praise, as well as negative cues by
teachers, have been demonstrated to significantly affect
future behaviors by the recipient pupil, insofar as he will
produce more or less of whatever was reinforced (Ayllon and
Haughton, 1964; Hall, Lund, and Jackson, 1968; Hall, Panyan,
Rabon, and Broden, 1968). A number of studies (Hall, Lund,
and Jackson, 1968; Madsen, Becker, and Thomas, 1968; Thomas,
Becker, and Armstrong, 1968) have established that the con-
tingent use by the teacher of reinforcing verbal stimuli
result in improvements in pupils' study behavior, attentive-
ness, and non-disruptive operants emitted in the classroom.
There is a continuous flow of both verbal and nonverbal cues
being emitted in the teacher-learner setting, making up the
interpersonal communications which serve to modify and control
responses by interactants.

Variables Affecting Reinforcement.--There are a number

 

of variables which have implications for the effects of condi-
tioning and reinforcement systems employed in a behavior .
Space. Kanfer and Phillips (1970) note that some of these
factors include '(1) the type of reinforcing stimulus used,
(2) characteristics of the critical response class, (3) the
relationship between the subject and the behavior modifier,

and (4) the extent to which the subject may be aware of the

22

response-reinforcement contingency. Gerwirtz and Baer (1958)
studied the effects of a social reinforcer on learning in
children under conditions of social deprivation and satiation.
They found that children who had been experimentally deprived
of social contact responded at a higher rate to the social
reinforcer than did children who had been experimentally
satiated with such contact. The response learned was not a
verbal one, but the study, as Williams (1964) notes, is per-
tinent in that it indicates that a verbal reinforcer is
responsive to deprivation and satiation of the social drives
of the subject. This finding has implications for understand-
ing learners' classroom performance and social behaviors in
interpersonal situations.

The emotional climate has implications for affecting
reinforcement and verbal learning, which may be especially
relevant to the classroom environment. Williams (1964)
reports on a study by Weiss and Ullmann (1960) investigating
the effects of emotional atmosphere and withholding of rein-
forcement in an interpersonal situation. It was found that
a hostile atmosphere (induced by the experimenter's interact-
ing in a hostile manner with subjects) and non-reinfOrcement,
both resulted in decreased responsiveness in using emotionally
primed words as compared with those subjects who experienced
a friendly interactive episode with the experimenter follow-
ing conditioning. In the same context, Argyle (1969) informs

that when verbal and nonverbal cues conflict for being hostile

23

or friendly, the total signal can be disturbing and confusing
to the auditor. An interactant in a behavior setting may be
exposed to a hostile or friendly atmosphere, or as often
happens in the classroom, may be reinforced individually and
exclusively in the presence of other interactants. Will an
increment in the frequency of response occur in a subject who
is present in a situation in which another subject is being
verbally reinforced? Williams (1964) reports that two studies
investigating the phenomenon show contradictory results. A
study by Spreen (1961) found that non-reinforced subjects did
not increase their use of the verbally reinforced response
class, while a study by Fadigan (1961) Showed that subjects
did increase their use of the reinforced response.

While the majority of studies report successful con-
ditioning of many types of response classes, some researchers
report negative results using Similar classes of responses and
reinforcing stimuli. These latter findings led to an issue
being raised about which there is still great controversy,
the issue being that of awareness as a precondition to changes
in performance in verbal learning tasks. Spielberger and
DeNike (1966) found that unaware subjects did not differ from
controls in rate of emission of plural nouns, suggesting that
awareness may be a necessary condition for learning. Dulaney
(1961, in Williams, 1964) provides evidence that the acquisi-
tion of a verbal response occurs through the mediation of

verbal hypotheses, implying that awareness on some level is

j?

...A

)A-‘——L-

 

24

always a factor where the conditioning effect is observed.
Williams (1964) and Bandura (1969) review a number of studies
investigating the role of awareness in learning, reporting
that some researchers conclude that learning without aware-
ness does occur, while others argue that awareness is pre-
requisite to changes in conditioning. It has been posited
that failure to detect awareness in subjects may be due to
insensitive and inadequate post-experimental measuring instru-
ments of the phenomenon. Kanfer and Phillips (1970) note
that numerous studies have demonstrated that those subjects
who can describe various elements of the task on a post-
experimental questionnaire show better learning of the task,
though it is not clear whether improvement in performance
follows or precedes awareness. The authors conclude that the
hypothesis that awareness is a prerequisite for learning is
not clearly supported by empirical evidence. The conflicting
findings continue to be unresolved about how awareness may be
adequately assessed, and the role of awareness as either a
mediating or a correlated process.

To summarize the literature relevant to verbal behav-
ior in social interaction, the following points seem salient:

l. Emotional states of interactants may be conveyed
by characteristics of speech which include rate of utterance
and verbal disfluencies;

2. Verbal and nonverbal movement configurations by
interactants may vary or coordinate with an addressor's pat-

terns of speech;

25

3. The content and duration of speech can be modi-
fied as a function of a variety of verbal and nonverbal
reinforcers, whether contingently or non-contingently deliv-
ered;

4. Teacher's contingently delivered verbal "rewards"
and "punishers" can modify a wide range of pupils' verbal and
nonverbal classroom behaviors;

S. The effectiveness of verbal reinforcers may be
mediated by the individual's history of reinforcement, the
extent to which the individual is aware of the response-
reinforcement contingency, and the emotional climate of the

behavior space.

Schedules of Observation

 

Behaviors can be observed on different schedules just
as reinforcers can be delivered on a number of varying sched-
ules. Ferster and Skinner (1957) have most extensively
studied the effects of schedules of reinforcement, their
book on the subject presenting data comprising a quarter of
a billion responses for 70,000 hours of recorded behaviors.
Their research demonstrates that a Variable Interval sched-
ule produces sustained responding at a low rate of occurrence,
with no delay after delivery of reinforcement. The stability
of the rates of responding is in part dependent on the inter-

vals composing the schedules, and the fact that responding at

a constant rate (resulting in reinforcement) itself becomes

26

reinforcing (Reynolds, 1968). A Fixed Interval schedule is
delineated by low overall response rate due to a pause fol-
lowing reinforcement, the length of pause increasing with the
length of the interval, with a gradual increment to high
terminal response rate as the interval ends. The deveIOpment
of the Fixed Interval performance is basically a discrimina-
tion process (observing the consistent absence of reinforce-
ment during the early part of the Fixed Interval), and hence,
the overall rate toward the end of each interval increases
over what it was during the Variable Interval. The organism,
as Reynolds (1968) observes, is controlled by its temporal
discrimination. Studies have Shown that the form and rate of
a wide variety of operant verbal and non-verbal behaviors,
emitted by psychotic and non-psychotic populations alike,
have been varied in predictable and controlled fashion as a
function of the schedules (specifying the contingencies) of
reinforcement (Bandura, 1969; Reynolds, 1968).

Whether schedules of observation may be associated

as discriminative stimuli* with the delivery or contingencies

 

*A discriminative stimulus refers to a class of stim-
uli which precede and accompany Operants but do not elicit
them as eliciting stimuli elicit respondents (i.e., non-
instrumental, reflexive responses). The presence of a given
discriminative stimulus increases the probability of those
Operants which have been reinforced in the presence of the
same discriminative stimulus. When responses composing an
Operant have been frequently reinforced in the presence of
the particular stimulus, that stimulus (discriminative stim-
ulus) achieves control over the operant to the extent that the
frequency of those responses is high in the presence of the
stimulus and lower in its absence (Reynolds, 1968).

27

of critical reinforcers in the teacher-learner setting, is
problematic. This issue, to the best of the present author's
knowledge, has not been considered experimentally, though
its implications as a possible discriminative stimulus are
clearly important. Assuming that schedules of observation
may function in the teacher-learner setting as a discrimina-
tive stimulus, it is significant in its potential effects on
the behaviors of classroom interactants to the extent that
responses under the control of a discriminative stimulus are
more frequent in the presence of that stimulus, and hence,
the frequency of the critical response may be controlled by
controlling the stimulus (e.g., by manipulating the observa-
tion schedule, the form and frequency of pupils' non-
disruptive, task-attending behaviors may be affected, and
the frequency of teachers' positive non—verbal and verbal
responses, etc.). The schedule, being temporally associated
with critical reinforcers, becomes a discriminative stimulus,
setting the occasion for the response to occur in the observa-
tion space. A schedule, as a possible discriminative stimulus,
is not itself a reinforcing event, but rather, is a cue indi-
cating the prevailing reinforcement contingencies, and is a
necessary condition under which a given reinforcer can occur.
The present research design includes an experimental
manipulation to assess the effects of two different interval
schedules of classroom observation as they may differentially

affect teacher-interns' behaviors.

28

Behavioral Analysis in the Field Setting:
The Use of Videotape

 

 

Videotape provides an exact audio-visual reproduction
of recorded events. This medium affords a means for observing
and analyzing a wide variety and a large number of behaviors
pertinent to the teaching situation. Moreover, these recorded
observations can be easily conducted in the natural setting
afforded in the classroom.

A number of recent studies have established the use-
fulness of videotape in educational research. Carus (1970)
conducted extensive videotaped observations of student
teachers' performance in the classroom. The results were
evaluated by the teachers in a training program designed to
improve their teaching effectiveness. Carus demonstrated
that videotape can be effectively used in describing, inter-
preting, and assessing the quality of teaching performance.
The researcher also found that students and student teachers
directed little attention to the videotaping process.

Stoller and Lesser (1963) found that recorded television
allowed teacher-trainees to more critically evaluate an
observed classroom lessOn than did ”live" T.V. observations,
which in turn were found to be superior to direct in-person
observations. In another study Stoller and Freedman (1964)
confirmed their view that students could more critically
evaluate an observed classroom lesson by the medium of pre-
pared films or television than by direct visitation in the

classroom.

-,__-r_.’.—-——-__.._—._°~". ——-—.__.-.— _.

 

.... f.
‘”.u

3

Au F

yu.C

!
6',
'ItV

Hm.

y‘i‘

'1: -1
('1')
.4

‘1 p
’.__l

29

A rationale underlying the use of videotape in this
study emanates from the need to provide an accurate record,
which may be reviewed a number of times by different judges,
for critically analyzing the frequency and duration of mole-
cular segments of teacher-pupil behaviors, using a Rating
Schedule constructed for this purpose. The major focus of
the videotape content in this research was the student
teacher in his actions and interactions with the class, in

both group and individual contexts.

Statement of the Problem

 

Despite the growing evidence of the importance of
both verbal and nonverbal mediums of communication in inter-
personal Situations, there are few studies which have
systematically explored both verbal and nonverbal interac-
tional phenomena in the classroom in terms that are Operation-
ally explicit, and replicably measurable. In general, studies
which consider a class of verbal or nonverbal behaviors in
the learning environment are limited in SCOpe to programs
designed to remediate specific pupil "problem" behaviors
(e.g., out of seat behaviors, aggression, inattentiveness,
and undesirable behavioral excesses or deficits; Ramp and
HOpkinS, 1971). Little material is available which looks at
the variety of verbal and nonverbal behaviors by teachers and
learners as they spontaneously manifest and interact in the

Classroom setting, seeking to determine relationships among

30

these naturally occurring events, and the conditions under
which they manifest. In addition, the role of scheduled
observation itself as a variable which may affect behaviors
in the learning environment, has been essentially overlooked.

Efficient management of the learning milieu, effec-
tive implementation of learning activities, and productive
behavioral programming designed to promote the acquisition
of skills by learners are common goals in education. In
order for these goals to be achieved, however, the educator
must identify, appropriately manipulate, and control the
relevant variables of which they are functions. This study
seeks to provide data which may partially indicate what some
of these pertinent variables are in terms of several teacher-
learner behaviors, their relative occurrences in free-operant
situations, and indices of the relationships among them.
Further, it examines the effects of two observation schedules
on teacher behaviors.

Specifically, this study is designed to provide basi-
cally descriptive, baseline data on classroom behaviors by
teacher-interns and learners. Briefly, the research represents
an experimental and exploratory study to determine the extent
of statistical relationships among selected classes of observ-
able verbal and nonverbal behaviors. The goals of the
research are summarized as follows:

1. The development and field-testing of a Behavior
Rating Schedule for multiple categories of verbal and non-

'W$rbal classroom behaviors by teacher-interns and learners;

31

2. Descriptive data on the relationships between
multiple categories of verbal and nonverbal responses by
teacher-interns and learners in the classroom;

3. Descriptive data on demographic variables as
they relate to the above-mentioned behavioral categories;

4. An experimental analysis of the effects of mani-
pulating Variable and Fixed Interval schedules of observation
on multiple categories of verbal and nonverbal classroom

behaviors by teacher-interns.

Statement of Hypotheses

Experimental Component.--Variable and Fixed Interval
schedules of classroom observations shall be differentially
related to verbal and nonverbal behaviors by teacher-interns.

Descriptive Component.--The following hypothesis pre-
dicts positive relationships between selected variables. It
should be recognized at the outset, however, that measures
of correlation are statistical estimates of the extent of
association among variables, under a given set of conditions,
and at a specific point in time. A high correlation between
two variables allows for prediction of values for one vari-
able from those of the other, but provides no justification
for inferring any causal relationship among those variables.

The generic hypothesis states that there is a signif-

icant positive relationship between multiple approving verbal

32

and nonverbal classroom behaviors by teacher-interns and task-
relevant verbal and nonverbal classroom behaviors by pupils.
Approving teacher-intern behaviors include (1) state-
ments or comments of praise, approval, or confirmation of
pupil behavior; (2) smiles; (3) positive physical contact
which promotes care, comfort, or contentment of the pupil;
(4) head-nods; (5) forward-lean of posture.
Task-relevant pupil behaviors include (1) answering
teacher when called upon; (2) asking teacher questions of
task-relevant nature; (3) discussing task-relevant topic;

(4) gaze toward teacher or teacher-designated stimulus.

CHAPTER II

METHODS

Design and Components of the Study

 

This study contained two components: (1) an experi-
mental manipulation of two interval schedules of classroom
observation of teacher-interns; (2) a molecular descriptive
analysis of the classroom behaviors of teacher-interns and
learners. Multiple behavioral categories were codified and
recorded on a Behavior Rating Schedule developed for this

study, to be described later.

Experimental Component

 

The experiment used a two cell design with the basic
comparison being of Variable and Fixed Interval schedules of
videotaped observations of teachers. The two schedules were
examined for their effects on the emission of multiple cate-
gories of verbal and nonverbal classroom behaviors by teacher-

interns.

Descriptive Component

 

Concomitant objectives of this component were to pro-

vide basically descriptive, baseline data on: (1) emitted

33

34

occurrences of multiple categories of verbal and nonverbal
classroom behaviors by teacher-interns and pupils; (2) the
extent of statistical relationship among multiple categories
of verbal and nonverbal classroom behaviors by teacher-interns
and pupils.

The descriptive component allowed the Behavior Rating
Schedule developed for this study to be field-tested in the
natural setting afforded by the classroom. The resulting
data yielded information which Shall be used in subsequent

research to determine the validity of the rating instrument.

Subjects

Selection of the Sample

In the summer of 1971 the College of Education at
Michigan State University assumed the responsibility for the
academic and experimental training of interns enrolled in the
Federally sponsored Lansing Schools' Teacher Corps Program.

The teacher-interns had completed an average of two years of
undergraduate college course work, and represented great diver-
sity in terms of their specialization in courses and their
experiential background.

In the winter quarter, 1972, forty-six Teacher Corps
teacher-interns were in their first quarter of in-service
training in extensive teaching experience and concurrent course
work in preparation for a baccalaureate degree in Education.

By successfully completing the curricular requirements set

3S

forth in the Teacher Corps program, met through the college of
Education, the teacher-interns could earn a standard teaching
credential with Specialization in elementary teaching.

The entire population of forty-six Teacher Corps
teacher-interns were selected as non-volunteer subjects. It
is to be emphasized that these subjects are not teachers per
se; they are sub-bacchalaureate level teacher-interns, engaged
at the time of this study,in their first quarter of in-service
training. Data from three of these subjects could not be ac-
quired due to their being ill during the observation program.
The remaining sample included forty-three subjects (N=43).
Their ages ranged from 19-40, with a mean age of 25.65. Demo-
graphic data on a number of variables was generally available
for most of the forty-three subjects. This data is given in

Tables 1 and 2.

Research Setting

 

To fulfill requirements for their field training experi-
ence as teacher-interns, each subject was required to work an
average of seventeen hours each week in supervised teaching
practicums. The forty-three subjects were placed in kinder-
garten, first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth grade
classrooms for their student teaching. In one instance a sin-
gle classroom contained mixed grades.

These classrooms were located in six Lansing metrOpoli-
tan public elementary schools. The subjects were assigned by
Teacher Corps staff to a teaching team consisting of seven to

eight subjects, and directed by a supervising teacher. The

36

Table 1. Comparison by percent of response on demographic
characteristics of the Teacher Corps sample.

 

 

% of 85 who

 

Category respondEH "yes" n
Sex:
Male 44 19
Female 56 24
Ethnicity:
Black 38 16
White 21 9
Mexican-American 41 18
Married 48 20
Have dependent children 36 15
Served in U.S. Armed Forces 37 7
Speak a second language fluentlya 30 12
Employed as a teacher prior to S 2

enrollment in Teacher Corps

Employed as teacher aide or
assistant prior to enrollment 33 14
in Teacher Corps

Undergraduate major in Education 63 26

 

aOf those who fluently spoke a second language,
the language was Spanish, and the Ss'were of Mexican-
American ethnicity.

37

Table 2. Comparison of range and mean response on demo-
graphic characteristics of the Teacher Corps

 

 

 

sample.
Range of S
Category response_ Mean n

Lived in low-income area

(number of years) 1 30 9'13 23
Worked in IOinncome area

(number of years) 1'21 3'64 22
Experience in employment

prior to enrollment in Q

Teacher Corps (number of 1 9 3'45 37

years)
Monthly salary of last _

employment $98 848 $388.65 37
Membership in civic, welfare,

school, college, or social 1-3 1.41 24

groups (number of groups)
Number of undergraduate

quarter credit hours in 0'68 14.71 24

education courses
Number of total undergraduate _

quarter credit hours 28 137 91'69 43
Overall undergraduate grade '

point average (4.00 scale) 1'00 3’60 2'53 43
Major undergraduate grade 2 00_4 00 3 00 24

point average (4.00 scale) ° ' '
Number of days into in-

service training by date 160—191 173.86 43

of observation

 

38

criteria for assigning subjects to teams included sex, ethni-
city, and performance on tests of cognitive skills. This
represented an attempt to stratify the composition of teams
on those variables. To varying degrees, subjects accepted
responsibility for the planning and direction of individual
lessons and larger units of classroom activities. In gen-
eral, the subjects worked with small groups containing less
than twelve pupils. The remainder of the class was directed

by a supervising teacher.

Subjects for Experimental
Component

 

 

At the time the experiment was conducted, twenty-one
of the forty-three Teacher Corps subjects were available for
observations. Data were obtained from observations of the
classroom behaviors of these twenty-one subjects, with a mean
age of twenty-five. Nine of the subjects were male.

The subjects in three schools were assigned on a
randomly determined basis to Group 1 (n1=9); subjects in
the remaining three schools were assigned to Group 2 (n2=12).
The subjects in Group 1 were each exposed to three videotaped
observations on a Variable Interval schedule, with an average
interval of eight days. The subjects in Group 2 were each
exposed to three videotaped observations on a Fixed Interval
schedule of fifteen days. The subjects were observed over a

period of six weeks.

39

Subjects for Descriptive
Component

 

In this phase of the research program data were
obtained from videotaped observations of the classroom behav-
iors of forty-three subjects (N=43). This represented the

full sample of available Teacher Corps teacher-interns.

Teacher Objects: Pupils

 

It will be recalled that the N_in this study consists
of teacher-interns. However, pupil responses were taken as a
subcategory of subject's (teacher-interns') behavior. Teacher-
interns' behavior was selected to be continuously monitored
throughout the period of observation. Data are available only
for those pupils who were within range of the videotape camera
focused on the teacher-intern--a maximum radius of approximately
12 feet. With this in mind, it should be recognized that both
the number of pupils observed for a given teacher-intern, and
the length of time pupils were observed, varied. The sample
of observed pupils included male and female children of white,
black, and Mexican-American ethnicity. Approximately two-

thirds of the pupils were white.

Instrumentation and Procedures

 

Eguipment and General Procedures

 

In this study data collection required the use of a

videotape recording unit. A Sony AV-3400 portable half-inch

4O

videotape recorder which records both picture and sound on
tape was used. The recorder allowed for sequences to be
repeated, the entire tape to be replayed, and had a facility
for stopping single pictures. Utilizing this latter mode
was important in permitting nonverbal responses as well as
verbal behaviors to be critically examined. Along with the
recorder, a Sony AVC-3400 camera with built-in condenser
microphone, and a Sony AC-3400 Power Adapter were used.
Videotapes were played back on a Sony CVM-llO UA 12" video
monitor. Sportcraft 60-second stop watches were used by
judges in the analysis of videotaped observations.

The general method of classroom observation used a
time sampling procedure. Time sampling assumes that, in a
given situation, the behavior observed at selected intervals
of time accurately represents the behavior occurring during
the total interval. At predetermined intervals over a period
of six weeks, each subject was videotaped by the experimenter
for ten minute periods on each of at least two separate
occasions. The observer entered and left the classroom as
quietly as possible and avoided interactional contact with
subjects and pupils.

An adaptation program was conducted prior to the
actual data collection. In the adaptation program each sub-
ject was exposed over a two week period to a series of video-

taped observations in the classroom. This program was

41

designed to minimize possible reactivity by subjects to both

the videotape equipment and the Operator using the equipment.

Behavior Rating Schedule

 

Introduction

 

The basic theoretical rationale for this study assumes
that certain directly observable and measurable key attributes
are associated with effective teaching. Whether the configura-
tion of teacher behaviors are stable through time as Hughes
(1959) concludes, or vary from observation to observation as
Medley and Mitzel (1958) and Mitzel and Rabinowitz (1953)
found, the problem involves reliably measuring changes in
teacher behavior.

To accomplish this end, those behavioral character-
istics that are important to observe, must be selected. What
the investigator considers to be important derives from his
theoretically based definitions of "good" and "bad" teaching.
Teacher effectiveness, however, must be defined in terms of
effects of change in pupil behavior. Hence, the variables to
be observed must reflect teacher's actions and interactions
with pupils.

Howsam (1960) indicates three methods by which teacher
effectiveness may be measured: (1) by the effects the teacher
has on the pupil; (2) by what behavior the teacher exhibits;

(3) by the characteristics of the teacher. The variables in

42

teacher effectiveness research have often been difficult to
quantify. The investigator encounters problems of adequate
criteria, of controlling variables, and explicitely defining
concepts; this latter factor especially representing a notable
problem permeating educational research. The results of such
research are often variably interpretable in terms of what
exactly was observed and measured in the classroom, and the
extent to which the measurement system accurately reflects
actual classroom performances by teachers and pupils. This
is a problem centering on the adequacy of operational defini-
tions of concepts which the investigator seeks to measure.
With this in mind, the present research largely addresses
itself to the construction of a rating schedule which is
explicitely operationalized, and which minimizes the role of

subjective interpretation in rating classroom behaviors.

Development of the
Behavior Rating Schedule

 

 

In developing an operationally explicit instrument
designed to measure teaching behavior, with implications for
teacher effectiveness, two prime objectives are herein
defined: (1) an attempt is made to empirically identify
behaviors and conceptual dimensions that may be used to help
isolate objective responses which distinguish effective teach-
ing from ineffective teaching performance; (2) the field-
testing of the instrument in the natural setting afforded by

the classroom represents the first part of a validation study

43

for the observation schedule. To this extent then, the
resulting data derives from exploratory research, basically
yielding a baseline profile of selected teacher-intern and pu-
pil responses. The observations should result in describing
elements of the teaching process and its relation to pupil
behaviors. Emphasis is herein given to interactional con-
tacts between teacher-interns and learners.

The observation schedule developed for this Study
represents an adaptation of concepts about observable behav-
ior derived from the literature on verbal and nonverbal
mediums of interpersonal communication (Argyle, 1969; Argyle
and Kendon, 1967; Duncan, 1969), operantly oriented research
in education (Birch, 1969; Carus, 1970; Hall, Lund, and
Jackson, 1968; Madsen, Becker, and Thomas, 1968; O'Leary and
O'Leary, 1972), and the investigator's own experiences.

The Behavior Rating Schedule was designed to meet
the following criteria: (1) The Schedule describes selected
significant aspects of the teacher-learner setting: (a) inter-
actional contacts by teacher-interns and pupils; (1) teaching
performance in classroom management and pedagogical method;
(c) pupil performance in the classroom environment;

(2) The measures consist of molecular categories of behavior
which can be directly observed; (3) The role of unreliable

judgment is minimized as much as possible.

 

44

Each behavioral concept was translated into a written,
operationally defined item, designed to maximize uniformity
among observers in recognizing and scoring the same acts.

The resulting group of items was copied on stencil, dupli-
cated onto pages, and assembled into separate packages for each
teacher-intern rated. The package contained the Operational
definitions of the items, directions for scoring items, and
space for scoring items. This was the instrument used by
judges to evaluate videotapes of subjects' behaviors. A five
minute segment of videotape was used for analysis for each
teacher-intern.

The methods by which the actual variables were
recorded on the Behavior Rating Schedule were as follows:

1. Frequency counts of discrete behavioral events
each time the event occurred over the period of observation;

2. Measures of duration, or the period of time during
which each separate instance of the behavior event occurred;

3. Measures of latency, the amount of elapsed time
between a stimulus event and the onset of a subsequent behav-
ioral event.

While it was previously mentioned that the raw data
were extracted from five minute sections of videotape, it
should be pointed out that different periods of observation
were used for different groups of variables. For example,
some variables used the entire five minute tape; other vari-

ables used a time sampling procedure in which ten periods of

45

observation were randomly selected from the tape and rated.
The rationale for this differential procedure was based on
initial pilot development which indicated that there was a
wide variability between the base rate of different types of
variables. For example, gaze direction was a constantly
changing behavior which would have been impossible to monitor
over the entire five minutes. In contrast, the frequency of
smiles was a variable which could be relatively easily moni-
tored over a five minute period. In addition, it was found
useful to use stop action shots for some of the variables
that were sampled. These general procedures resulted in two
time frames of observation:

1. Five minute continuous samples of behavior;

2. Ten randomly selected samples of behavior from
each five minute videotape section, for each subject. These
time samples were either stop action shots, or were each of

ten seconds duration.

Behavior Categories
and Definitibns

 

 

The behavioral categories developed for the study
were quite workable. Table 3 lists the fifty-seven cate-
gories of classroom behaviors for teachers and teacher objects
(pupils). Brief operational definitions are included with

each item. Appendix A Should be consulted for the complete

46

Table 3. Classroom behavior rating schedule.

 

 

Teacher Behaviors

 

Gesticulation

 

1.

Body

Baton Gesture. Movement of hand(s) and/or arm(s) which
accents or emphasizes words or phrases. Movement must
accompany speech.

 

Deictic Gesture. Movement of hand(s) pointing to an
object(S) present in the classroom, or waving motion of
hand(s) or arm(s). Movement may or may not accompany
speech.

 

Acts

 

3.

Locomotion Strength:Large Movement. Degree to which
teaCher moves body through classroom in movements of
seven or more consecutive steps (a distance of three or
more desks).

 

Locomotion Strength:Small Movement. Degree to which
teacher moves body through classroom in movements of from
one to six consecutive steps (a distance of less than
three desks).

Locomotion Strength:Stationary. Degree to which teacher
is stationary in geographic space, making no discernable
movement by taking steps or walking in the classroom.

 

 

Locomotion Frequency. The total number of counted
occurrences of Large Movement and Small Movement by
teacher (items 3 G 4).

 

Orientation

 

10.

11.

Gross Posture. Position of teacher's body with reference
to squatting or sitting beside pupil.

 

Gross Posture:Duration. The cumulative amount of time
teacher was countedlas squatting or sitting beside pupil.

 

Position of Trunk:Forward. Degree to which teacher's
trunk is physically oriented toward (i.e., leaning in
the direction of) pupil(s).

 

Position of Trunk:Erect. Degree to which teacher's trunk
is physically oriented along a vertical axis, neither
leaning toward nor away from pupil(s).

 

Position of Trunk:Eackward. Degree to which teacher's
trunk is physically leaning away from pupil(s).

 

47

Table 3 (Continued)

 

 

Facial Expression

 

12. Smile:Nondirectional. Degree to which teacher exhibits
smiling behavior (position of mouth in upsturned expres-
sion) without regard to a given target.

 

l3. Smile:Duration. The cumulative elapsed time between onset
of smile and return of mouth to nonsmile expression for
each counted occurrence of smile.

 

l4. Frown. Degree to which teacher exhibits a frowning expres-
S1on (position of eyebrows in knitted expression, fore-
head wrinkled).

Head Orientation

15. Head Nod. Degree to which teacher exhibits up-down
mot1on of head relative to axis of shoulders, while look-
ing at or toward pupil(s).

 

16. Head Shake. Degree to which teacher exhibits side-to-side
motion Ofihead relative to axis of shoulders, while
looking at or toward pupil(s).

 

Physical Orientation

 

17. Proximity:Close. Degree to which teacher's body is
within extended arm's reach of pupil(s).

 

18. Proximity:Distant. Degree to which teacher's body is
héyohd extended arm's reach of pupil(s).

 

Visual Orientation

 

19. Gaze Direction:Pupil. Degree to which teacher's direction
of gaze is toward pupil's face.

 

20. Gaze Direction:Other. Degree to which teacher's direction
of gaze is awaylfrom pupil's face.

 

Physical Contact

 

21. Physical Contact:Approving. Degree to which teacher
exhibits physical contact with pupil(s) which promotes
contentment, comfort, or care of the pupil.

 

22. Physical Contact:Approvinge-Duration. Cumulative duration
of each counted occurrence of Approving Contact (item 21).

 

23. Physical ContactzDisapproving. Degree to which teacher
exhibits physical contact With pupil(s) which disrupts or
inhibits pupil's ongoing behavior.

 

48

Table 3 (Continued)

 

_-’ —‘ rut
J 17;in

 

 

Punishment Procedures

 

24.

25.

Time-Out. Degree to which teacher removes pupil from
classroom, isolates pupil by himself, turns back and waits
for silence, turns lights out and says nothing.

Removal of Privilege. Enactment by teacher of removing
pupilTs rights, rewards, reinforcers, status, or privi'
leges. Teacher must actively remove privileges and not
merely threaten to remove them.

 

Verbal Behavior

 

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

VerbilizationzApproving. Degree to which teacher emits
verbalizations directed to pupil(s) which convey approval,
praise, or confirmation of pupil's behavior. These ver-
balizations encourage pupil's behavior, and express
pleasure by teacher.

 

Verbalization:Disapproving. Degree to which teacher emits
verbalizafions directed to pupil(s) which indicate dis-
approval of, or displeasure with, pupil's behavior. These
verbalizations may disrupt pupil's ongoing behavior, and
may include statements of threat of punishment or
criticism.

 

Verbalization:Total Disapproving. Total number of counted
occurrences oflisapproving verhalizations by teacher (item 27).

 

Eliciting Verbal Elaboration. Degree to which teacher asks
pupil(S) to explain or amplify own or other's statement,
comment, or question.

 

Verbal Questions. Degree to which teacher asks pupil(s)
a Specific question calling for a direct, Single verbal
response.

 

Use of Instructional Aids

 

31.

32.

33.

Usage of Blackbeard:OccurrenceS. The number of discrete
instances in Which teaEher uses blackboard as instructional
aid for pupil(s).

 

Usage of Blackboard:Duration. The amount of elapsed time
in seconds fOr eaCh discrete occurrence of teacher's
usage of blackboard as instructional aid for pupil(s).

 

Usage of Instructional Material:0ccurrences. The number of
discrete instances in Which teacher uses instructional
materials (exclusive of blackboard) as instructional aid
for pupil(s).

 

49

Table 3 (Continued)

 

 

34. Usage of Instructional Material:Duration. The amount of
elapsed time in seconds fOr each’discrete occurrence of
teacher's usage of materials as instructional aid for

pupil(s).

 

Teacher-Pupil Interaction

 

35. Interaction:Individual. Degree to which teacher exhibits
verbal and nonverhal behavioral interaction (i.e., talking
to, looking at, touching) with a single, individual pupil.

 

36. Interaction:Group. Degree to which teacher exhibits verbal
and nonverbal behavioral interaction (i.e., talking to,
looking at, touching) with two or more pupils at the same
time.

 

37. Interaction:Undetermined. Category to be rated only if
object of teacher's contact cannot be determined by judge.

 

Facial Attraction

38. Attraction:Pleasant/Unpleasant. Ordinal judgment by rater
of perceived degree of teacher's facial attraction.

 

 

 

Teacher Object (Pupil) Behaviors

 

Verbal Behavior

 

39. AnsweringTeacherzlndividual. Degree to which pupil
answers teacher's quesfion or responds verbally when
called upon or recognized by teacher.

 

40. Spontaneously Answering Teacherzlndividual. Degree to
which pupil answers teacher's question or responds verbally
to teacher without teacher's calling upon or recognizing
pupil.

 

41. Answering Teacher:Group. Degree to which two or more
pupils Simulianeoulsy answer teacher or respond verbally
when called upon or recognized by teacher.

 

42. Spontaneously Answering TeacherzGroup. Degree to which
two or more pupils simulianeously answer teacher's ques-
tions or respond verbally to teacher without teacher's
calling upon or recognizing pupils.

 

43. (Verbal Latency:lndividual. Degree to which pupil delays
emitting verbal response to teacher's question or request
for verbal response, directed Specifically to individual
pupil.

 

50

Table 3 (Continued)

44. Verbal LatencyzGroup. Degree to which pupils delay emitt-
ing verbdl response to teacher's question or request for
verbal response, directed specifically to two or more
pupils at the same time.

45. AskingTeacher Question(s). Degree to which pupil
elicits teacher verbalization by asking teacher questions.

46. Discussion of Task. Degree to which pupil talks about
assignment or task-relevant topic to teacher (excluding
questions asked by pupil).

 

47. Task-Irrelevant Verbalization. Degree to which pupil's
verbal responses are irrelevant and unrelated to teacher-
designated topic or assignment.

 

48. Paralingualism. Degree to which pupil emits nonverbal
vocalizations.

 

49. Eliciting Peer Verbalization. Degree to which pupil
inappropriately dlitits verbalizations by peers.

 

Visual Orientation

 

50. Gaze DirectionzToward Teacher. Degree to which pupil's
direction of gaze is toward teacher or teacher-disignated
stimulus.

51. Gaze Direction:Other. Degree to which pupil's direction
of gaze’is away from teacher or teacher-disignated
stimulus.

 

Motor Activity

 

52. Gross Motor Activity. Degree to which pupil exhibits body
activities involving gross muscular movements which have
not been sanctioned, requested, or designated by teacher.
This category is exclusive of Physical Contact responses.

 

Noisemaking Activity

 

53. Noisemaking. Degree to which pupil exhibits any nonverbal
and nonvocal noisemaking activities which do not involve
other persons and which are clearly identifiable and
audibly detectable. These activities are not approved by
teacher.

Mouthing

54. Mouthing Objects. Degree to which pupil brings object(s)
into contact with mouth.

 

51

Table 3 (Continued)

 

 

Object Disturbance

 

55. Disturbance of Other's Property. Degree to which pupil
distuibs other's property by grabbing, kicking throwing,
or destroying property owned by another person.

 

Physical Contact

 

56. Physical Contact:Negative. Degree to which pupil exhibits
physical’contact which'inhibits or disrupts ongoing
behavior of the person touched.

 

57. Physical ContactzPositive. Degree to which pupil exhibits
phySical contact whiEh promotes comfort, contentment, or
care of the person touched.

 

 

52

Behavior Rating Schedule, containing expanded definitions,

examples, and procedures for scoring categories.

Data Collection Procedures

 

Analysis of Videotape

 

Data from the analysis of videotapes for the experi-
mental component were used to test the experimental hypothesis
and to estimate the treatment effects of the independent vari-
ables. For the descriptive component, data were used to test
the non-experimental hypothesis and to estimate the extent of
statistical interrelationships among the variables considered.

Data were collected by four trained judges who
observed and rated the same videotape content for each sub-
ject. The basic data were collected from observations of
five minutes duration for each subject. The judges were one
male and three female undergraduate students who were paid
an hourly salary for their work. One judge was white; the
other judges were black. The order in which subjects were
rated was randomly determined. Each judge independently
rated the behavioral categories for each subject in the same
randomized order. The investigator was not present when
judges rated subjects during the data collection phase of the
study.

Forty-four behavior categories were rated using the

entire five minute videotape for the rating. Thirteen

53

behavior categories were rated using the time sampling
procedure outlined on pp. 44-45. A time sample unit for
each category rated by this method consisted of ten discrete
still pictures, or ten discrete sequences, each of ten
seconds duration. Time sampled items for each subject were
transcribed onto a single videotape to facilitate their
rating. The time samples were randomly selected from the
original five minute videotape for each subject. Each dis-
crete time sample was a discriminable separate unit, identifi-
able by a visual signal inserted between each sample per
category, and between each time sample category. The judges
rated time sampled items at one time, after they had com-
pleted the forty-four items to be rated from the full five
minute videotape. Each judge rated the same sample, for
each subject, in the same order. Time sampled variables
were recorded by frequency of occurrence each for a total of
ten samples.

An attempt was made to control for effects of pos-
sible contamination of ratings of nonverbal behaviors by
verbal cues. Judges were required to rate nonverbal items
without audio feedback. This reduced the liklihood that
judges would be influenced in their ratings of nonverbal

items by accompanying comments made by subjects.

54

Training of Raters

 

A training program was conducted to instruct the four
judges in the usage of the Behavior Rating Schedule deve10ped
for this research. The judges were supervised by the investi-
gator in a series of joint and independent exercises rating
each of the fifty-seven behavior categories under study. The
investigator served as expert judge. Each judge rated the be-
haviors of teacher-interns and teacher objects (pupils) from
several demonstration videotapes containing examples of each
category to be rated. The judges discussed the items and
examined particular examples of behavior on which there
appeared to be disagreement in rating. The videotapes used
for the training program were not used in the data collection
phase of research. The total amount of training time did not

exceed fifteen hours.

Estimation of Reliability

Inter-rater reliability should serve as a measure of
the clarity of operational definitions and the discreteness
of the categories. Data in the present study was in the form
of mean ratings by the four judges for each behavior category
considered. As an index of inter-rater reliability, intra-'
class correlation coefficients were computed by analysis of
vairance (Ebel, 1951; see Appendix B for computational pro-
cedure) yielding an estimate of reliability of average ratings

by the four judges for each of the fifty-seven behavioral

55

variables examined. The thirty-eight coefficients for teacher-
interns ranged from .52 to .99; 71 percent of the coefficients
were higher than .80. The nineteen coefficients for pupils
ranged from .39 to .97; 58 percent of the coefficients were
higher than .80. Table 4 presents the correlation coeffici-
ents of the four judges average ratings for each item in the

Behavior Rating Schedule.

Data Analysis Procedures

The mean of the ratings obtained by the four judges
was computed to serve as the best estimate for each behavior
category, and represented the data for this study. Data from
the experimental component, for the thirty-eight teacher cate-
gories, were submitted to statistical analysis by a "two-
tailed" E-test. Inasmuch as the assumptions underlying a
E-test for homogeneous variance could not be met in all cases,
a E-test for heterogeneous variance was computed where appro-
priate (see Garrett, 1971). The results of the E-test indicate
the extent to which differences between the means of two
groups may be attributed to the effects of the independent
variable. We will use a criterion level of p < .05 for indi-
cating a significant difference.

Data from the descriptive component were for fifty-
seven teacher-teacher object (pupil) behavior categories.

In addition, twenty-two demographic variables were examined

for levels of statistical relationship with each of the

Table 4.

56

Intraclass correlation coefficients of average

ratings by four judges for the 57 items in the

Behavior Rating Schedule.

 

 

 

 

Correlation
Coefficient
(Average Rating
Category by Judges)
Teacher Behaviors

l. Baton Gesture .91
2. Deictic Gesture .90
3. Locomotion Strength: Large Movement .93
4. Locomotion Strength: Small Movement .94
5. Locomotion Strength: Stationary .95
6. Locomotion Frequency .94
7. Gross Posture .89
8. Gross Posture: Duration .89
9. Position of Trunk: Forward .96
10. Position of Trunk: Erect .96
11. Position of Trunk: Backward .86
12. Smile: Non-directional .90
13. Smile: Duration .94
14. Frown .58
15. Head Nod .91
16. Head Shake .57
17. Proximity: Close .88
18. Proximity: Distant .81
19. Gaze Direction: Pupil .90

57

Table 4 (Continued)

 

 

 

Correlation
Coefficient
(Average Rating

Category by Judges)
20. Gaze Direction: Other .90
21. Physical Contact: Approving .93
22. Physical Contact: Approving-Duration .85
23. Physical Contact: Disapproving .46
24. Time-Out .54
25. Removal of Privileges .84
26. Verbalization: Approving .92
27. Verbalization: Disapproving .91
28. Verbalization: Total Disapproving .87
29. Eliciting Verbal Elaboration .77
30. Verbal Questions .99
31. Usage of Blackborad: Occurrences .99
32. Usage of Blackborad: Duration .99

33. Usage of Instructional Material: Occurrences .89

34. Usage of Instructional Material: Duration .94
35. Interaction: Individual .95
36. Insteraction: Group .84
37. Interaction: Undetermined .52

38. Facial Attraction .65

58

Table 4 (Continued)

 

 

 

 

Correlation
Coefficient
(Average Rating
Category by Judges)
Teacher Object (Pupil) Behaviors
39. Answering Teacher: Individual .84
40. Spontaneously Answering Teacher:

Individual .86
41. Answering Teacher: Group .96
42. Spontaneously Answering Teacher: .84
43. Verbal Latency: Individual .93
44. Verbal Latency: Group .97
45. Asking Teacher Questions .76
46. Discussion of Task .72
47. Task-Irrelevant Verbalization .77
48. Paralingualism .39
49. Eliciting Peer Verbalization .82
50. Gaze Direction: Toward Teacher .94
51. Gaze Direction: Other .52
52. Gross Motor Activity .92
53. Noisemaking .75
S4. Mouthing Objects .58
55. Disturbance of Other's Property .46
56. Physical Contact: Negative .91
57. Physical Contact: Positive .90

 

59

behavioral variables. The basic method of data analysis
employed in this component is as follows: correlational
analyses of both behavioral and demographic data were con-
ducted to determine the extent of statistical relationships
among those variables. The statistical technique selected

to analyze these data is Tryon and Bailey's (1970) methods

of cluster analysis. Its procedures are based on domain
sampling principles. These methods contain components
designed to reduce n variables to a composite, comparatively
discrete set of K general variables or dimensions (V-Analysis),
and of reducing n discrete individuals to P contrasting types
of individuals (O-Analysis).

In this study the V-Analysis was used to define the
empirical clusters. This allowed for determination of the
extent of statistical relationship among the several vari-
ables examined, and identification of those variables which
were most Significant in terms of composites which they
defined, and discrete dimensions which they formed. In regard
to the behavior rating instrument designed for this study,
identification of the definer items of behavioral categories
permit their extraction from the rating schedule, and shall
allow for a reconstruction of the device at a later date.
Both behavioral response variables and demographic variables
were studied in this empirical V-Analysis.

After the cluster definers were identified, a Preset

Key-Cluster Analysis (a special case of the empirical

6O

V-Analysis), was then conducted on the behavioral response
variables. The demographic variables were deleted from
further analysis. The objective of the preset analysis was
to refine and further clarify the discrete structure of
those clusters which were most reliable and which accounted
for the greatest amount of variance. Essentially, the pre-
set analysis further reduces n variables to a composite,
discrete set of more general variables. For the preset anal-
ysis, those composite variables were deleted which had
reliability coefficients of cluster scores on the full set
of defining variables, lower than .95, and/or which con-
tained a variable which was a definer of more than one
cluster, and/or a cluster having great specificity and which
was defined by a doublet. These criteria for eliminating
dimensions are consistent with Tryon and Bailey's (1970)
recommendations for generating meaningful clusters. Only
those definers having the highest reliability (r > .50) and
communality with a remaining, rationally selected cluster
were added to the appropriate dimension by the analyst.
Those variables having factor loadings below .40 and with a
communality below .20 are generally excluded from the V-
Analysis.

Following the preset analysis, an O-Analysis was
conducted on the behavioral variables to determine the extent
to which individual subjects in the study form distinct typo-

logies of the basis of their patterns of cluster scores on

61

the behavioral categories examined. If individual score
profiles fall into discrete groups or types, it may indicate
that particular patterns of behavior are generated with high
frequency by a variable(s) meriting examination (Tryon and
Bailey, 1970).

It will be recalled that in a previous section (pp.
31-32) a general hypothesis was made regarding the descrip-
tive component of the study. In terms of the above-outlined
procedures for the cluster analysis, some discrete rules for
determining whether the predicted relationships exist can
be formulated. These criteria are essentially twofold:
(1) If two variables, or groups of variables, which are pre-
dicted to be related appear in the same cluster domain, then
a relationship is supported; (2) If two groups of variables
appear in different clusters, but the two clusters are highly

related, then support for a relationship is indicated.

CHAPTER III

RESULTS

Experimental Component

 

To test the hypothesis that Variable and Fixed
Interval schedules of classroom observation of teacher—
interns have a differential effect between groups, a non-
directional t-test was computed on the data. The compari-
sons between Group 1 (Variable Interval schedule) and
Group 2 (Fixed Interval schedule) are presented in Table 5.
Results are applicable only for teacher-interns, each of
whom were observed on three separate occasions. The pupils
observed with teacher-interns on one occasion were often
different,from those observed with the same teacher-interns
on subsequent occasions. As would be expected where there
is no control over instructional activities with a specific
individual or group of pupils, in a class of 20-40 children,
it would be unlikely that a series of random observations
would consistently find teachers interacting with the same
pupils. Further, due to the technical limitations imposed
by the videotape recording device, it was impossible to
monitor the entire class. It will be recalled that the

camera was continually focused on the subject

62

63

Table 5. t—ratio (two-tailed) for behavioral response cate-
EOries by schedule of observation for Group 1
(Variable Interval schedule) and Group 2 (Fixed

Interval schedule).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group 1 Group 2
(VI Obser- f(FI Obser-
Behavior Category vation vation t
Schedule) Schedule) —
n =9 n =12
MBAN EAN
Gesticulation
l. Baton Gesture 5.22 2.16 1.3S**
2. Deictic Gesture 9.69 6.56 1.80
Body Acts
3. Locomotion Strength:
Large Movement '22 '16 '23
4. Locomotion Strength: *
Small Movement 1'44 1'08 3°21
5. Locomotion Strength:
Stationary 8.33 8.75 .47
6. Locomotion Frequency 1.61 1.21 .46
Body Orientation
7. Gross Posture .58 .95 .88
8. Gross Posture:Duration 52.41 100.50 1.10
9. Position of Trunk:Forward 2.25 3.29 .87
10. Position of Trunk:Erect 7.64 6.63 .87
11. Position of Trunk:
Backward .11 .08 .25
Facial Expression
12. Smile:Nondirectional 1.03 .90 .18
13. Smile:Duration 3.44 2.40 .37
14. Frown .02 .10 .58**
Head Orientation
15. Head Nod 3.28 2.46 .74
16. Head Shake .30 .87 l.55**
Physical Orientation
l7. Proximity:CIOse 7.06 9.23 2.13**
18. Proximity:Distant 2.69 .77 2.09

Table 5 (Continued)

 

_7-i—‘

 

 

 

 

 

64

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Behavior Category MEAN MEAN 3
Visual Orientation
19. Gaze Direction:
Toward Pupil 6.08 6.42 .32
20. Gaze Direction:Other 3.92 3.58 .32
Physical Contact
21. Physical Contact: 38 75 97
Approving ' ° '
22. Physical Contact: *
Approving-Duration 1‘50 1'52 ‘Ol*
23. Physical Contact: 02 06 21**
Disapproving ' ' ’
Punishment Procedures
24. Time-Out .94 1.00 .01
25. Removal of Privilege 1.00 1.00 .00
Verbal Behavior
26. Verbalization:Approving 4.69 5.58 .61**
27. Verbalization: **
Disapproving 1.06 .25 .09
28. gerballzationzTotal 1.03 .16 .23**
1sapprov1ng
29. Eliciting Verbal **
Elaboration '63 '39 '56
30. Verbal Questions 3.64 5.63 .22
Usage of Instructional Aids
31. Usage of Blackboard: 2 58 1 00 97
Occurrences ' ' °
32. gsage of Blackboard: 79.88 1.00 .57
urat1on
33. Usage of Instructional
Material:0ccurrences 1'67 3'48 '18
34. Usage of Instructional 79.81 193.00 .65
Material:Duration
Teacher-Pupil Interaction
35. Interaction-Individual 111.03 178.65 .81
36. Interaction:Group 159.19 118.44. .94
37. Interaction-Undetermined 52.44 42.86*** .60**
Facial Attraction
38. Attraction:Pleasant/
Unpleasant 1.92 1.88 .36
NOTE: CalculatiOn of variance ratios revealed that 11 of the 38

categories had unequal variances between Group 1 and Group 2.
these cases a t-teSt for heterogeneous variance was computed.

*p ‘<.05. -**t-ratio for heterogeneous variance

***n=10

65

(teacher-interns) throughout the period of observation.
Hence, only those pupils who were within the radius of
camera-range could be observed, thereby allowing for their
behaviors to be subsequently rated by the judges viewing
the videotaped observations.

With respect 1x>the statistical procedures used to
analyze the data for this component, it is to be noted that
in those cases where variance ratios indicated that the
assumption for homogeneous variance could not be met, a
p-test for heterogeneous variance (see Garrett, 1971) was
computed. The results of the p-tests indicate that only
one of the thirty-eight items reached an acceptable level
of significance between groups. In terms of procedures for
evaluating the significance of such a series of statistical
tests (see Sakoda, Cohen, and Beall, 1954), these results
are not supportive of an experimental effect. It is con-
cluded that the hypothesis predicting significant differ-
ential effects between treatment groups, is not supported

by the data.

Descriptive Component

 

Preview of the Cluster Analyses

 

The data for this study were submitted to four
separate cluster analyses (Tryon and Bailey, 1970) to

identify common patterns among variables and objects which

66

form relatively discrete, homogeneous dimensions. Aside
from the defining variables, only those items having factor
leadings of t .40 or better in a given cluster were included
in that dimension. Variables with communalities below .20
were rejected and not assigned to a cluster domain. In
Table 6 are presented the group means and standard devia-
tions for occurrences of the fifty-seven teacher-pupil
behavior categories which are to be cluster analyzed. The
group mean for each category was computed by summing the
total number of occurrences per category and dividing the
results by the total number of subjects rated per category
(N=43).

Initially an empirical V-Analysis was executed on
the fifty-seven behavioral and twenty-tWo demographic vari-
ables included in the study (see Tables 1 and 2). In
addition to those variables, the subjects' score on the
Val-Ed Firo B scale was included in this initial empirical
run. The results yielded ten clusters, five of which were
defined exclusively by demographic items. No noteworthy
relationships between demographic and behavioral factors
were indicated. Consequently, the demographic variables
were deleted from subsequent analyses, serving to eliminate
variance contributed by those factors, and to allow a more
intensive focus on the behavioral variables alone.

A second empirical V-Analysis was subsequently

conducted only on the set of behavioral variables, which

67

Table 6. Group means and standard deviations for categories
of observed classroom behaviors by teacher-interns
and teacher objects (pupils).

 

.7 _
1 I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. Mean SD
Behav1or Category (N=43) (N=43)
TEACHER

Gesticulation
l. Baton Gesture 3.19 4.75
2. Deictic Gesture 7.03 3.84
Body Acts
3. Locomotion Strengttharge Movement .26 .65
4. Locomotion Strength:Small Movement .89 1.36
5. Locomotion Strength:Stationary 8.84 1.75
6. Locomotion Frequency 1.17 1.74
Body Orientation
7. Gross Posture .75 .94
8. Gross Posture:Duration 90.18* 104.22
9. Position of Trunk:Forward 3.34 2.98
10. Position of Trunk:Erect 6.39 2.99
11. Position of Trunk:Backward .07 .25
Facial Expression
12. Smile:Nondirectional 1.14 1.67
13. Smile:Duration 3.17* 5.71
14. Frown .05 .20
Head Orientation
15. Head Nod 2.33 2.15
16. Head Shake .54 .91
Physical Orientation
l7. ProximityzClose 8.70 2.32
18. Proximity:Distant 1.02 1.69
Visual Orientation
l9. Gaze DirectionzPupil 5.87 1.99
20. Gaze Direction:Other 4.13 1.99
Physical Contact
21. Physical Contact:Approving .77 1.60
22. Physical Contact:Approving«Duration 1.80* 3.23
23. Physical ContactzDisapproving .05 1.48

68

Table 6 (Continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. Mean SD
Behav1or Category (N=43) (N=43)
Punishment Procedures
24. Time-Out .01 .08
25. Removal of Privilege .02 .15
Verbal Behavior
26. Verbalization:Approving 4.90 3.76
27. Verbalization:Disapproving .55 1.13
28. Verbalization:Total Disapproving .47 1.02
29. Eliciting Verbal Elaboration .61 1.09
30. Verbal Questions 6.14 5.56
Use of Instructional Aids
31. Usage of B1ackboard:0ccurrences .84 1.74
32. Usage of Blackboard:Duration 32.12* 68.55
33. Usage of Instructional Material: 2 26 1 85

Occurrences ' '
34. Usage of Instructional Material: *

Duration 145.53 107.04
Teacher—Pupil Interaction
35. Interaction:lndividual 189.72* 96.13
36. Interaction:Group 108.52* 94.99
37. Interaction:Undetermined 40.42* 33.83
Facial Attraction
38. Attraction:Pleasant/Unpleasant 2.31** 2.78

-TEACHER OBJECT (PUPIL)
Verbal Behavior
39. Answering Teacherzlndividual 12.16 10.55
40. Spontaneously Answering Teacher: 1 58 3 57

Individual ‘ '
41. Answering TeacherzGroup 2.30 5.25
42. Spontaneously Answering Teacher: 57 1 15

Group ' ‘
43. Verbal Latencyzlndividual 2.47*** 3.19
44. Verbal LatencyzGroup 1.94*** 3.83
45. Asking Teacher Questions .72 .83
46. Discussion of Task 1.37 3.01
47. Task-Irrelevant Verbalization .55 1.14
48. Paralingualism .10 .21
49. Eliciting Peer Verbalization 1.43 1.76

69

Table 6 (Continued)

#—
_—‘ J
1 :—_

 

 

 

 

 

 

. Mean SD
Behav1or Category (N=43) (N=43)
Visual Orientation
50. Gaze Direction:Toward Teacher 23.53 10.29
51. Gaze Direction:Other 5.05 4.76
Motor Activity
52. Gross Motor Activity 2.70 3.07
NoisemakinggActivity
53. Noisemaking .41 .68
Mouthing
54. Mouthing Objects 2.17 1.44
Object Disturbance
55. Disturbance of Other's Property .10 .25
Physical Contact
56. Physical Contact:Negative .27 .88
57. Physical Contact:Positive .73 1.41

 

NOTE: The rated period of observation was five minutes (300
seconds).
*Measure of duration in seconds.
**Ordina1 judgment.
***Measure of latency in seconds.

7O

yielded nine behavioral dimensions. Some of the resulting
clusters represented poor solutions by their extreme Speci-
ficity, poor communality, or non-exclusive definers. In
order to generate more adequate and representative clusters,
a number of highly reliable definers derived from the empiri-
cal analysis were preset to produce revised dimensions
(Preset Key-Cluster Analysis, Tryon and Bailey, 1970). Thus,
a preset cluster analysis was performed. The resulting
clusters represented more generalizable, homogeneous, and
independent dimensions for analysis.

Finally, an O-Analysis was run on the behavioral
dimensions derived from the preset analysis to identify
common typological patterns present in the subject sample.
Three relatively homogeneous O-types emerged for analysis,

and subjects were assigned to their respective O-types.

Cluster Analysis of Behavioral
and Demographic variables

 

 

The Clusters and Their
Interrelationships

The clusters obtained for the full set of behavioral
and demographic variables are presented in Table 7. The
correlations between oblique cluster domains (correlations
between the rotated oblique factors) are presented in

Table 8.

71

Table 7. Empirical V-Analysis of behavioral and demographic
variables.

Cluster Loading

 

1. Positive Task-Relevant Teacher—Intern and Pupil
Inteiaction

 

A. Smiling-Attractive Teacher-Intern

(D) l. Intern is attractive (judgment) 98
(Teacher Attraction:Pleasant/Unpleasant) '

2. Intern smiles longer ‘ 57
(Teacher Smile:Duration) °

3. Intern smiles more often 45
(Teacher SmilezNondirectional) '
B. Pupil Pondering

(D) 1. Student group thinking time 99
(Pupil Verbal Latency:Group) °

(D) 2. Individual student thinking time

 

(Pupil Verbal Latency:Individual) '96
3. Pupil mouthing object 42
(Pupil Mouthing Object) '
C. Pupil Responsiveness
(D) l. Pupils discuss more 96
(Pupil Discussion of Task) '
2. Individual students responds more
spontaneously 93
(Pupil Spontaneously Answering Teacher: '
Individual)
3. Individual pupil answers teacher more
often .72
(Pupil Answering Teacherzlndividual)
2. Teacher-Intern Observation and Group Interaction
A. Motor Active Teacher-Intern
(D) 1. Intern moves about classroom 98
(Teacher Locomotion Strength:Stationary) '
(D) 2. Intern moves about claSsroom for
short distance 98

(Teacher Locomotion Strength:Small
Movement)

Table 7

72

 

 

(Continued)
Cluster Loading
(D) 3. Intern' moves often about classroom 97
(Teacher Locomotion Frequency) ‘
4. Intern is beyond reach of pupil 64
(Teacher Proximity:Distant) '
5. Intern seldom exhibits long distance
movements in classroom 58
(Teacher Locomotion Strengttharge '
Movement)
6. Intern is beyond reach of pupil 49
(Teacher Proximity:Close) °
B. Observation/Group Interaction
(D) l. Intern often gestures emphatically 69
(Teacher Baton Gesture) ‘
2. Intern often looks toward pupil 54
(Teacher Gaze Direction:Pupil) '
3. Intern seldom looks away from pupil 54
(Teacher Gaze Direction:Other) '
4. Interns seldom interact with
individual .52
(Teacher Interactionzlndividual)
5. Intern often interacts with groups 49
(Teacher Interaction:Group) '
6. Intern seldom uses instructional
materials for long periods of time 47
(Teacher Usage of Instructional '
Materials:Duration)
C. Group Responsiveness
1. Pupils answer teacher more often 45
(Pupil Answering TeacherzGroup) '
3. Teacher-Interns' Disapproval of Task-Irrelevant
Behavior
A. Intern Disapproval During Instruction
(D) 1. Intern- Speaks disapprovingly to pupil
(Teacher VerbalizationzTotal .95

Disapproving)

73

Table 7 (Continued)

 

Cluster Loading

 

(D) 2. Intern speaks disapprovingly to pupil 94
(Teacher Verbalization:Disapproving) '

3. Intern disapprovingly touches pupil 51
(Teacher Physical Contact:Disapproving) ‘

4. Intern makes prolonged use of blackboard 46
(Teacher Usage of Blackboard:Duration) °

5. Intern leans away from pupil in
interaction .41
(Teacher Position of Trunszackward)

B. Pupil Misbehavior
(D) 1. Pupil makes unnecessary noise 88
(Pupil Noisemaking Activity) '

(D) 2. Pupil emits nonverbal vocal noises 80
(Pupil Paralingualism) °

3. Pupil moves about in seat or wanders
around room .75
(Pupil Gross Motor Activity)

4. Pupil talks out inappropriately to peers 69
(Pupil Eliciting Peer Verbalization) '

5. Pupil approvingly touches another person

 

 

(Pupil Physical Contact:Positive) '51
4. Positive Teacher-Intern Contact
A. Teacher-Intern Approvingly Touches Pupil
(D) 1. Intern approvingly touches pupil for
prolonged periods 95
(Teacher Physical Contact:Approving- '
Duration)
(D) 2. Intern often approvingly touches pupil 86
(Teacher Physical Contact:Approving) '
5. Senior Work-Experienced Teacher:Interns
A. Work Experienced Teacher-Interns
(D) l. Intern has extensive work background 95

(Formal Employment Experience)

Table 7 (Continued)

 

 

 

 

 

Cluster Loading
(D) 2. Intern has had high paying job 79
(Salary of Last Employment) '
B. Senior Married Teacher-Interns
(D) 1. Older teacher-interns 82
(Teacher:Age) '
2. Intern is married 59
(TeacherzMarital Status)
3. Intern has children 47
(TeacherzDependent Children) '
6. Verbally Probing Teacher-Interns
A. Verbally Elicitative Teacher-Interns
(D) 1. Intern asks more questions 93
(Teacher Verbal Questions) ‘
(D) 2. Intern more often praises pupil 65
(Teacher Verbalization:Approving) ’
(D) 3. Intern often asks pupil to amplify
on remarks or comments .64
(Teacher Eliciting Verbal Elaboration)
B. Classroom Experienced Teacher-Interns
1. Intern has more classroom experience
(Teacher:Experience as Teacher's Aide .42
or Assistant)
7. Teacher-Interns From Low Income BaCkground
A. Low Socio-Economic Background
(D) 1. Intern has worked longer in low-income
area 94
(Teacher:Number of Years Worked in Low '
Income Area)
(D) 2. Intern has lived longer in low-income
area 75

(Teacher:Number of Years Lived in
Low Income Area)

75

Table 7 (Continued)

 

 

 

Cluster Loading
B. Interns' New to Teaching
(D) 1. Intern has not been employed
as teacher 81
(Teacher:Employment Experience °
as Teacher)
8. Male Veteran Teacher-Interns
A. Male Veteran Interns
(D) 1. Male interns 99
(Teacher:Sex) °
(D) 2. Intern has military experience 94
(Teacher:Served in U.S. Armed Forces) °
3. Intern is Mexican-American 48
(Teacher:Ethnicity) '
9. Lower Socio—Economic and Academic Background
A. Low Academic and Income Teacher—Interns
(D) l. Intern has lower grades in school
(TeacherzMajor Undergraduate Grade .86
Point Average)

2. Intern has worked in volunteer
organizations 48
(Teacher:Active in Volunteer, Unpaid °
Work)

3. Intern has few credits in Education
(Teacher:Undergraduate Credits in .45
Education)

4. Intern. has lived longer in low—
income area 44
(Teacher:Number of Years Lived in '
Low Income Area)

B. Nondemonstrative Teacher-Interns

l. Intern seldom uses blackboard

(Teacher Usage of Blackboard: .59

Occurrences)

76

Table 7 (Continued)

_>
L

 

 

Cluster Loading
2. Intern seldom gestures 43
(Teacher Deictic Gesture) '
3. Intern seldom nods head approvingly 41
(Teacher Head Nod) °
C. Observation Schedule
(D) 1. More subjects observed on V1
Observation schedule 82
(Teacher:Observed on Variable '
Interval Schedule of Observation)
10. White High Academic Achievers
A. Predominantly White Academic Achievers
(D) 1. Intern has higher Val—Ed score 69
(Teacher:Val*Ed Pre-Test Score) °
(D) 2. Intern has higher grade point average
(Teacher:Overall Undergraduate Grade .63
Point Average)
3. More interns are white 63
(Teacher:White) °
4. Few interns are black 55

(Teacher:B1ack)

 

NOTE: (D) denotes a definer item for the cluster.

77

 

who>OHgo<

 

 

 

-- m¢.- oo.- wH.- mo. oH. oH. NH. No.- so.- OHEovmo< :me opan .OH
. -- . . . .- . .- .- . pesosmxomm OHEOOmO<
so - oN so oH HH oN Ns so so - UHsocoom-oHuom Noon .o
. . . . . . . . . mahoucH
oo - oN -- oo HH so oH Ho - NN - oH -sssusso csosss> sHsz .o
. . . . . . . . . scoooNHosm saouaH 30H
WH I GO 00 II NH 00 VH I OH I OH I CC EOHW m:H®H:HIHOSUNQB .B
mayo : -uo use
so. oH. HH. NH. -- sH. No.- HH.- sH.- oH. moHsowsHsHHmsHs» .s
. .- . . . -- .- . .- .- mcsoch-Ho;umoe
«H HH so mo OH mo mo mo mH woo:OHHomxm-xHoz HoHcom .m
pompco use»:
oH. oN. oH. oH. No. so. -- oo.- NH. HH.- -Hsgosso W>HHHsow .o
HOH>mzom pcm>OHOHHH
NH. Ns.- Ho.- oH. HH. oo. oo.- -- No.- so.- -Hmso so Hs>oomas
-mHm .mcuoucH-Ho;omoH .m
. . . . . . . . . :oHHostocH macho was
No - so - NN - H 3 so NH No - -- 3533330 535L288 .N
:OHuomHoucH HHQDQ
no.- 00.- wH. oo. mH. mH. HH.- oo.- no. .. cam duman-hoaumOH
pcm>OHom-xmmb o>HuHmom .H
OH m w o o m o m N H msoumsHu
.mHOpmsHo HmOHHHmEo on» How mchEow HoumsHo oscHHno coozpon mcoHpmHOHHoo .w OHan

78

Description and Interpretation
of the Clusters

The following is a descriptive summary of the con-
ceptual themes represented by each of the ten cluster
domains. Within each cluster, variables have been grouped
in terms of more coherent conceptual sub-categories. In
turn, individual variables are labeled both in terms of
a descriptive sentence or phrase, and parenthetically in
terms of their formal designation (see Table 3). Definers
of clusters have been designated by a capital 2.

Cluster 1, Positive Task-Relevant Teacher-Intern

and Pupil Interaction.--This cluster is defined by variables

 

reflecting pleasant, task-oriented teacher-intern and pupil
interactions, primarily with individual students. Teachers'
facial attraction appears largely to reflect a pleasant
facial expression in the form of smiles; longer and more
frequent smiles by teacher-interns are related to increments
in task-relevant pupil responsiveness. Pupils' verbal
response latency might be conceptualized as a cognitive
factor indicative of ”thinking time." It appears overall
that pupils' enthusiastic, task-related verbal behaviors
tend to be related to teacher-interns' nonverbally pleasant,
approving disposition toward pupils in general. The cluSter
appears to have only limited relationship to the other
dimensions,as seen in Table 8. There are slight relation-

ships to Cluster 6 (Verbally Probing Teacher-Interns, r = .19),

79

Cluster 8 (Male Veteran Teacher-Interns, r = .18), and
Cluster 5 (Senior Work-Experienced Teacher-Interns r = -.15).
The former relationship could be explicable on a common-
sense basis with probing teacher-interns assumed to elicit
greater "thinking" but more enthusiasm. In addition, there
seems to be a tendency for male Mexican-American teacher-
interns to be more probing and pleasant in classroom inter-
action, and for older, married, work-experienced teacher-
interns to be associated with less probing, pleasant,
enthusiastic interactions with pupils under observed condi-
tions. The reliability of Cluster 1 is .99.

Cluster 2, Teacher-Intern Observation and Group

 

Interaction.--This cluster is defined by variables reflect-

 

ing teacher-interns' gross movements in the classroom. The
pattern of correlations indicate that teacher-interns'
movements tend to be small (less than seven consecutive
steps) and frequent, often accompanied by demonstrative
gestural expressions in group interactions. Teacher-interns
appear generally to look toward students who are some dis-
tance away, and are more likely to move toward and interact
with, a group of pupils rather than a specific individual.
This suggests that the teacher-intern is monitoring segments
of the class as a whole, attending to small groups as atten-
tion is directed to them during, for example, a lecture or
-study period. Verbal responsiveness by the group, as con-

trasted to the individual, is high under these conditions.

80

The cluster is slightly negatively related to Cluster 8
(Male Veteran Teacher-Interns r = -.27), Cluster 7 (Teacher-

Interns From Low Income Background, r = -.19), and Cluster 6

(Verbally Probing Teacher-Interns r -.16). Apparently
male Mexican American teacher-interns are unlikely to engage
in highly motor active, observational group interactions
with students under observed conditions. Rather, they tend
to be quite verbally active and expressively pleasant with
individual pupils, as seen in Cluster 1. Verbally probing
teacher-interns appear to exhibit little movement and tend
neither to observe the class, nor to elicit group responses.
Verbal probing is primarily directed toward individuals.

The reliability of Cluster 2 is .96.

Cluster 3, Teacher-Intern Disapproval of Task-

 

Irrelevant Behavior.--This cluster is defined by variables

 

reflecting teacher-interns' verbal disapproval of noisey
pupils. Task-irrelevant motor movements, vocal and non-
verbal noisemaking activities, and talking out of turn to
peers tend to be associated with critical, "punishing"
remarks by teacher-interns. It appears that pupils task-
irrelevant behaviors and teacher-interns' negative comments
often manifest when teacher-interns use the blackboard for
long periods of time. Possibly pupils are bored into activ-
ity of some kind; they may simply want to participate
actively in the learning process rather than passively

observe beyond a certain limit. The cluster is moderately

81

negatively related to Cluster 9 (Lower Socio-Economic Academic
Background, r = -.32). The cluster has a reliability of .95.

Cluster 4, Positive Teacher-Intern Contact.--This

 

doublet cluster reflects only approving physical contact

by teacher-interns. It seems that frequency and length of
approvint contact are strongly related. The more often
approving contact occurs, the longer each episode will last.
The cluster is Slightly related to Cluster 9 (Lower Socio-
Economic Academic Background, r = .20). It seems that
there is a tendency for non-demonstrative teacher-interns
from a lower socio-economic background, with a lower acade-
mic record and fewer credits in Education courses, to more
often approvingly touch pupils, and for a longer duration
of time. The cluster has a reliability of .91.

Cluster 5, Senior Work-Experienced Teacher-Interns.--

 

This cluster is defined by demographic items, and merely
indicates that older teacher-interns tend to have had more
formal long-term work experience and higher salaries than
younger subjects in the sample. Older teacher-interns tend
more often to be married and to have children. This cluster
is slightly negatively related to Cluster 1 (Positive Task-
Relevant Teacher-Intern and Pupil Interaction, r = -.15)

and Cluster 6 (Verbally Probing Teacher-Interns r = -.l6).
The limited relationship of this dimension to Cluster 1 has
previously been described. Older, married subjects with

longer employment records tend not to be engaged in positive,

82

task-oriented interactions with students. In addition,
these teacher-interns tend not to elicit comments by pupils,
nor to praise them verbally, under observed conditions. The
reliability of the cluster is .88.

Cluster 6, Verbally Probing Teacher-InternS.--This

 

cluster is defined by variables reflecting teacher-interns
elicitative and praising verbal behaviors. It appears that
teacher-interns who more frequently ask questions of pupils
tend more often to be verbally approving, and to elicit
elaborative comments. There is a slight indication that
experience as a teacher's aide or assistant may be positively
related to verbally probing and approving behaviors. It
might be suggested that a cycle of task-oriented verbal
behaviors manifests when teacher-interns actively direct

more questions and requests for comments to pupils, combined
with supportive verbal praise for their contributions. This
cluster is slightly positively related to Cluster 1 (Posi-
tive Task-Relevant Teacher-Intern and Pupil Interaction,

r = .19) and Cluster 9(Lower Socio-Economic Academic Background,
r = .19), and negatively related to Cluster 2 (Teacher-Intern
Observation and Group Interaction, r = -.l6) and Cluster 5
(Senior Work-Experienced Teacher-Interns, r = -.l6). The
slight relationship of this dimension to Cluster 1 has been
explicated. Positive task-oriented interactions are largely
composed of verbal exchanges between teacher-interns and

pupils. The negative relationship of this dimension to

83

Clusters 2 and 5 have also been explicated. Teacher-interns
who are verbally probing tend not to engage, under observed
conditions, in frequent group interactions, motor movements,
nor to monitor students, and are unlikely to be older,
married, and to have a long employment record. Relevant
to Cluster 5, it appears that teacher-interns with a lower
socio-economic and academic background may more often exhibit
verbally elicitative, praising behaviors in their interac-
tions with students. The reliability of the cluster is .85.
Cluster 7; Teacher-Interns From Low Income Back—
ground.--This cluster, defined by demographic items, is
extremely specific. It indicates only that teacher-interns
who have lived or worked for any long period of time in a
low income area, tend not to have employment experience as
a teacher. Those who have lived long in a low income area
tend also to have worked longer in such a milieu. This
dimension is slightly negatively related to Cluster 2
(Teacher-Intern Observation and Group Interaction, r = -.19)
and Cluster 10 (White High Academic Achievers, r = -.18).
The relationship of this dimension to Cluster 2 has been
explicated. Teacher-interns with a low income background
tend not, under observed conditions, to exhibit great move-
ment in the classroom, nor to monitor students or engage in
frequent group interactions. Relevant to Cluster 10, these

teacher-interns are unlikely to have either high academic

84

records, or high scores on the Val-Ed. In addition, they
appear not to be white for the most part. The reliability
of the cluster is .90.

Cluster 8, Male Veteran Teacher-Interns.--This
cluster is defined by demographic variables, and indicates
only that more male teacher-interns of Mexican-American
ethnicity have served in the military, compared to male
white and black subjects in the sample. This dimension is
slightly negatively related to Cluster 2 (Teacher-Intern
Observation and Group Interaction, r = -.27) and positively
related to Cluster 9 (Lower Socio-Economic Academic Back-
ground, r = .28) and Cluster 1 (Positive Task-Relevant
Teacher-Intern and Pupil Interaction, r = .18). The rela-
tionship of this dimension to Clusters l and 2 have been
explicated. Male veteran Mexican-American teacher-interns
tend slightly, under observed conditions, to be associated
with more positive, verbally probing task-relevant inter-
action with individual students, and to seldom engage in
group interactions, monitoring of the class, or to exhibit
much motor movement. Relevant to Cluster 9, it appears
that these subjects tend to have lower academic records,
and often come from lower socio-economic backgrounds. They
also seem to be less likely to exhibit demonstrative
(gestural or nodding) behaviors. The reliability of the

cluster is .97.

85

Cluster 9, Lower Socio-Economic Academic Back-
ground.--This cluster is defined by demographic items and
indicates that teacher-interns who have lived long in low
income areas tend not to have high undergraduate grade
point averages, or many credits in Educational courses.

They also appear to make less use of the blackboard, and

tend to exhibit relatively few gestural expressions or head
nods. This dimension is moderately negatively related to
Cluster 3 (Teacher-Intern Disapproval of Task-Irrelevant
Behavior, r = -.32) and Cluster 10 (White Academic Achievers,
r = -.43), and slightly positively related to Cluster 4
(Positive Teacher-Intern Contact, r = .20), Cluster 6
(Verbally Probing Teacher-Interns, r = .19) and Cluster 8
(Male Veteran Teacher-Interns, r = .28). The relationship

of this dimension to Clusters 3, 4, 6, and 8 have been
explicated. Overall, teacher-interns from a lower socio-
economic background, and with lower academic ranking may

more often exhibit approving physical contact in the class-
room, and be more verbally probing and praising of students.
Under observed conditions, they seldom exhibited disapproving
behaviors. Many of these teacher-interns are likely to be
Mexican-American males. Relevant to Cluster 10, it appears
that these teacher-interns are unlikely to have high

academic records, high scores on the Val-Ed., or to be white.

The reliability of the cluster is .86.

86

Cluster 10, White High Academic Achievers.--This

 

cluster is defined by demographic items and indicates that
teacher-interns who have high scores on the Val-Ed., an
attitudinal measure of personal values and personality,
tend also to have high overall undergraduate grade point
averages. Most of these teacher-interns are white. This
dimension is Slightly negatively related to Cluster 7
(Teacher-Interns From Low Income Background, r = -.18) and
moderately related to Cluster 9 (Lower Socio-Economic
Academic Background, r = -.43). The relationships of this
dimension to Clusters 7 and 9 have been explicated. Pre-
dominantly white teacher-interns with high academic records,
and high scores on the Val-Ed., are unlikely to come from
a lower socio-economic background, to have lived long or
to have worked in a low income area. The reliability of

the cluster is .70.

Overview of Empirical
V-Analysis ofiBehavioral
andlDemographic’Variables

 

 

 

Considering the thrust of the results reported in
Table 7 and Table 8, some consistent patterns emerge, and
have implications for subsequent analyses.

It is apparent that the behavioral and demographic
variables are essentially unrelated empirically. In
Clusters l, 2, 3, 4, and 6, which are the principle clusters

attracting the behavioral categories, there is only one

87

demographic item present. The inverse is also largely true
in Clusters 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 which are almost completely
made up of demographic items. Although the correlations
between the oblique cluster domains (Table 8) mediate this
picture somewhat, the magnitude of these correlations is
not great.

It is for these reasons, and to return more closely
to the central focus of the research that demographic vari—
ables have been excluded from subsequent analyses. This
serves to eliminate variance contributed by those marginally
relevant items which have yielded no empirically significant
patterns of relationship with behavioral categories, failing
to contribute to basic understanding of teacher-learner per-
formances in the classroom. To consider the patterns of
relationships among the demographic items, carries us beyond
the scope of the present study. The essential absence of
interface between behavioral and demographic categories
thus invites subsequent concentrationon the foremost object

of interest, analyses of classroom behaviors.

Cluster Analysis of
BehaviOral Variables

The Clusters and Their
Interrelationships

The clusters obtained for the full set of behavioral

variables are presented in Table 9. The correlations

88

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 9. Empirical V'Analysis of behavioral variables.
Cluster Loading
1. Positive Task—Relevant Teacher-Intern and Pupil
Interactibn
A. Pleasant Probing Teacher-Intern
(D) l. Intern is attractive-«smiles more
(Teacher Attraction:Pleasant/ .98
Unpleasant)
2. Intern often asks pupils to amplify
on remarks or comments .47
(Teacher Eliciting Verbal Elaboration)
B. Pupil Pondering
(D) 1. Student group thinking time 99
(Pupil Verbal Latency:Group) '
(D) 2. Individual student thinking time 94
(Pupil Verbal Latencyzlndividual) ‘
3. Pupil mouthing object 42
(Pupil Mouthing Object) °
C. Pupil Responsiveness
(D) 1. Pupils discuss more 95
(Pupil Discussion of Task) °
2. Individual students respond more
spontaneoulsy 93
(Pupil Spontaneously Answering '
Teacher:Individual)
3. Individual pupil answers teacher
more often .72
(Pupil Answering Teacherzlndividual)
2. Motor Active Group Interaction
A. Motor Active Teacher-Intern
(D) 1. Intern moves about classroom 98
(Teacher Locomotion Strength:Stationary) '
(D) 2. Intern moves about classroom for
short distance 97

(Teacher Locomotion Strength:Small
Movement)

89

Table 9 (Continued)

L?!

l

-—‘w—

 

 

Cluster Loading
(D) 3. Intern moves often about classroom 97
(Teacher Locomotion Frequency) ’
4. Intern is beyond reach of pupil 64
(Teacher Proximity:Distant) ‘
5. Intern seldom exhibits long distance
movements in classroom 58
(Teacher Locomotion Strength:Large °
Movement)
6. Intern iS beyond reach of pupil 49
(Teacher Proximity:Close) '
B. Demonstrative Group Interaction
(D) 1. Intern often gestures emphatically 71
(Teacher Baton Gesture) °
2. Intern seldom interacts with individual 52
(Teacher Interactionzlndividual) °
3. Intern often interacts with groups 49
(Teacher Interaction:Group) '
4. Intern seldom uses instructional
materials for long period of time 47
(Teacher Usage of Instructional °
Materials:Duration)
C. Group Responsiveness
1. Pupils answer teacher more often 45
(Pupil Answering TeacherzGroup) '
3. Teacher-Interns' Disapproval of Task-Irrelevant
Behavior
A. Intern Disapproval During Instruction
(D) 1. Intern speaks disapprovingly to pupil
(Teacher VerbalizationzTotal .95
Disapproving)
(D) 2. Intern speaks disapprovingly to pupil 94
(Teacher Verbalization:Disapproving) '
3. Intern often uses blackboard
(Teacher Usage of Blackboard: .49

Occurrences)

90

Table 9 (Continued)

Cluster Loading

 

4. Intern makes prolonged use of blackboard

(Teacher Usage of Blackboard:Duration) '45

5. Intern leans away from pupil in
interaction .41
(Teacher Position of Trunszackward)

B. Pupil Misbehavior

(D) 1. Pupil makes unnecessary noise

(Pupil Noisemaking Activity) '88

(D) 2. Pupil emits nonverbal vocal noise

(Pupil ParalingualiSm) .80

3. Pupil moves about in seat or wanders
around room .75
(Pupil Gross Motor Activity)

4. Positive Teacher-Intern Contact

 

A. Intern's Approving Contact
(D) 1. Intern approvingly touches pupil 99
(Teacher Physical Contact:Approving) ’

(D) 2. Intern approvingly touches
pupil for prolonged periods

 

(Teacher Physical Contact:Approving- '80
Duration)
5. Teacher-Interns' Physical Position

A. Standing Instructional Teacher-Intern

(D) l. Intern seldom leans forward 93
(Teacher Position of Trunk:Forward) '

(D) 2. Intern. more often is erect 91
(Teacher Position of Trunk:Erect) °

3. Intern stands upright 52

(Teacher Gross Posture) '

(D) 4. Intern. often gestures emphatically 26
(Teacher Baton Gesture) '

(D) 5. Intern. often stands still 15

(Teacher Locomotion Strength:Stationary)

91
Table 9 (Continued)

Cluster Loading

 

6. Teacher-Interns' Facial Expression

 

A. Approving Expression

(D) 1. Intern smiles for prolonged periods

 

(Teacher Smile:Duration) '99
(D) 2. Intern often smiles 93
(Teacher SmilezNondirectional) '
7. Teacher-Interns' Gaze Direction
A. Monitoring Pupil
(D) l. Intern often looks toward pupil 99

(Teacher Gaze Direction:Pupil)

(D) 2. Intern seldom looks away from
pupil .99
(Teacher Gaze Direction:Other)

8. Pupil Taskslrrelevant Activity

 

A. Pupil's Nontask—Attending Behavior

(D) l. Pupil talks out inappropriately
with peers .89
(Pupil Eliciting Peer Verbalization)

(D) 2. Pupil talks about task—irrelevant
matters .74
(Pupil Task—Irrelevant Verbalization)

3. Pupil approvingly touches another
person .63
(Pupil Physical Contact:Positive)

(D) 4. Pupil negatively touches another
person .50
(Pupil Physical Contact:Negative)

92

Table 9 (Continued)

 

 

 

 

Cluster Loading
9. Teacher-Interns' Disapproval
A. Disapproval During Instructional Period
(D) 1. Intern disapprovingly touches pupil 86
(Teacher Physical Contact:Disapproving) '
(D) 2. Intern Frowns at Pupil 75
(Teacher Frown) °
3. Undetermined intern interaction 54
(Teacher Interaction:Undetermined) '
4. Intern often uses instructional
material 45
(Teacher Usage of Instructional '
Material:0ccurrences)
B. Nonattending Pupil
(D) 1. Pupil looks away from teacher or work-
materials during instructional period .45

(Pupil Gaze Direction:Other)

 

NOTE: (D) denotes a definer item for the cluster.

93

between oblique cluster domains (correlations between the

rotated oblique factors) are presented in Table 10.

Description and Interpretation
of the Clusters

The following is a descriptive summary of the con-
ceptual themes represented by each of the nine cluster
domains. Within each cluster variables have been grouped
in terms of more coherent conceptual sub-categories.

Cluster 1, Positive Task-Relevant Teacher-Intern

 

and Pupil Interaction.--This cluster is defined by vari-

 

ables reflecting pleasant, task-oriented teacher-intern
and pupil interactions, primarily with individual students.
Teacher-interns' facial attraction appears largely to re-
flect a pleasant facial expression, which may function as

a cue supportive of appropriate classroom behaviors, and
when combined with verbal probing, may promote enthusias-
tic verbal responsiveness by pupils. Pupils' verbal re-
sponse latency might be conceptualized as a cognitive
factor indicative of "thinking time." It appears overall
that pupils' enthusiastic, task-related verbal behaviors
tend to be related to teacher-interns' nonverbally pleas-
ant, positive disposition toward pupils in general.
Clearly, this is a highly verbal, time-on-task cluster with
regard to pupils, which is strongly associated with non-

verbally supportive or pleasant behavior by teacher-interns

94

 

Hm>opmmmmHm

 

-- Nm. HN. mo.- «N. oo.- om. HH.I oo.- .mchoucHIHoaomoo .m
. . . . . . . . HHH>HH6<
Nm -- so I mo I mH mo I Hm HN I mH - pcm>oHOHHH-xmmh HHmom .m
. . II . . . . . . :OHHOOHHQ onu
HN so mo NN mH we mm no .mnHounH-HonumOH .N
. . . II . . . . . :onmOmem HeHomm
mo mo mo mo Ho OH mo Nm .mcpoch-Honomoe .o
. . . . I- .- . .I . :oHoHsoa Hsonsna
«N mH NN mo mN oN Ho OH .mcuoqu-Honomoe .m
. . . . .I II . . .- Homucou asoucH
oo mo mH Ho mN mo HH HH -Honomoe o>HuHm0d .v
HOH>mnom enm>oHOHHH
om. Hm. mo. sH.I «N. oo.- -- No.- so.- Ixmmo mo Hs>oammm
-mHQ .mcuouaHIHonomoe .m
. . . . . . . . :oHuomHOHGH macho
HH HN mm mo Ho I HH No -I no was o>Huo< Houoz .N
:OHpomHOch HHmsm
so. mH. so. Nm. OH. HH.I so. no. II was :HoucH-Honomoe
ucm>oHom-xmmh O>HuHmom .H
m m N o m o m N H msoumoHu
.mHoumsHo HmOHHHmEO map How mchEow NoumzHo oscHHno coozuon mcoHumHOHHou .OH OHan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

95

combined with frequent probes and requests for pupil com-
ments and remarks. The cluster tends to be notably posi-
tively related to Cluster 6 (Teacherelnterns'Facial'
Expression, r =.52). This suggests that teacher-interns'
rated facial attraction is largely related to frequency and
duration of smiling by subject. The more smiles exhibited
by teacher-interns and the longer their duration, the more
"attractive" they tend to be perceived by raters. It might
also be suggested that "attractiveness", particularly
defined by smiling, may be importantly related as a non-
verbal cue, to approval and emotional supportiveness

in the classroom. The cluster has a reliability of

.99.

Cluster lnyotor Active Group Interaction.--This

 

cluster is defined by variables reflecting teacher-interns'
gross movements in the classroom. The pattern of correla-
tions indicate that teacher-interns' movements tend to be
small (less than seven consecutive steps) and frequent,
often accompanied by demonstrative gestural expressions in
group interactions. In these group interactions verbal
responsiveness by pupils, in form of answering teacher, is
high in terms of group rather than individual behavior.
Under these conditions it is quite unlikely that the teacher-
intern makes use of instructional materials for any long
period of time. Overall it appears that the teacher-intern

tends to approach groups (rather than an individual) and

96

engage in verbal exchanges with two or more pupils. The
cluster is notably positively related to Cluster 7 (Teacher-
Interns' Gaze Direction, r =.53) and slightly negatively
related to Cluster 8 (Pupil Task-Irrelevant Activity,
r‘=-.21). Apparently, teacher-interns are likely to more
often look toward pupils when they move about the classroom
(possibly seeking to approach or monitor specific targets)
and engage in verbal group encounters. In addition, it
appears to be unlikely that pupils exhibit task-irrelevant
verbal or nonverbal behaviors under these conditions. This
would not be unexpected if pupils were aware that they were
being observed by teacher, as a group, or were interacting
with him. The cluster has a reliability of .97.

Cluster 3, Teacher-Intern Disapproval of Task-

 

Irrelevant Behavior.--This cluster is defined by variables

 

reflecting teacher-interns' primarily verbal disapproval

of noisy pupils. Task-irrelevant motor movements (wander-
ing around the room, moving about in seat) and vocal and
nonverbal noisemaking activities tend to be associated with
more critical, "punishing" remarks by teacher-interns. A
further expression of disapproval is exhibited by teacher-
interns leaning away from misbehaving pupils. It appears
that pupils' task-irrelevant nonverbal behaviors and
teacher-interns' negative comments often manifest when
teacher-interns use the blackboard more often, and for

longer periods of time. Possibly frequent and longer

97

periods of instructional activity which does not directly
involve the active participation of pupils promotes their
non-attending misbehaviors, or restlessness. This may be
an especially notable factor in the early primary grades,
where many of the observations were conducted. The cluster
is notably positively related to Cluster 8 (Pupil Task-
Irrelevant Activity, r =.51), Cluster 9 (Teacher-Intern
Disapproval, r =.50) and slightly related to Cluster 5
(Teacher-Interns' Physical Position” I =.24); it is slightly
related to Cluster 6 (Teacher-Interns' Facial Expression,
I‘=.16). In terms of their facial expression, it is not
unexpected that teacher-interns would tend not to exhibit
smiles, approving of time-off-task behaviors by pupils. An
approving facial expression (smiling) appears to be dichot-
omous from verbal and nonverbal cues of disapproval, and to
be an unlikely event in the face of inappropriate classroom
behaviors. Conversely, it is conceptually consistent that
a variety of pupils' task-irrelevant activities during an
instructional period would be associated with verbal and
nonverbal communications of disapproval and criticism by
teacher, as suggested by Cluster 8. Similarly, Cluster 9
indicates that other forms of disapproval, frowns and
negative physical contacts, are more likely to occur when
pUpils emit undesired classroom responses, especially of a

noisemaking variety. Finally, it is suggested by Cluster 5

98

that teacher-interns' disapproval tends to be associated
with their standing still, erect, and being gesturally
active, as might occur during an instructional period. The
cluster has a reliability of .95.

Cluster 4, Positive Teacher-Intern Contact.--This

 

doublet cluster reflects only approving physical contact by
teacher-interns. It seems that frequency and length of
approving contact are strongly related. The more often
approving contact occurs, the longer each episode will last.
The cluster is slightly negatively related to Cluster 5
(Teacher-Irterns' Physical Position, = 7.23). It is un-
likely that teacher-interns will stand still and erect when
approvingly touching another person. The cluster has a
reliability of .91.

Cluster 5, Teacher-Interns' Physical Position.--

 

This cluster is defined by variables reflecting teacher-
interns' physical position in the classroom. It indicates
only that teacher-interns standing posture tends to be erect,
stationary, and often accompanied by demonstrative gestural
expressions. The cluster tends to be slightly positively
related to Cluster 3 (Teacher-Intern Disapproval of Task-
Irrelevant Behavior, r =.24), Cluster 7 (Teacher-Interns'
Gaze Direction, r =.22), and Cluster 9 (Teacher-Intern Dis~
Approval, r =.24); it is slightly negatively related to
Cluster 4 (Positive Teacher-Intern Contact, r= -.23). As

previously indicated teacher-interns more often exhibit

99

disapproval when they are erect and stationary; critical
comments, frowns, and negative contact is more likely to
occur when subject assumes an erect, fixed posture. In
regard to Cluster 7, teacher-interns appear more often to
look toward pupils while standing still and erect, and
Cluster 4 discloses that positive contacts are quite un-
likely to manifest under such conditions. The reliability
of the cluster is .89.

Cluster prTeacher-Interns' Facial Expression.--

 

This doublet cluster reflects only teacher-interns' approv-
ing facial expression in form of smiling. More frequent
smiles tend to be associated with smiles of longer duration.
The cluster is notably positively related to Cluster 1
(Positive Task-Relevant Teacher-Intern and Pupil Interaction,
r‘=.52) and slightly negatively related to Cluster 3 (Teacher-
Intern Disapproval of Task-Irrelevant Behavior, r'=e.16).

AS previously indicated, smiles are strongly associated with
verbally probing, task-oriented teacher-intern and pupil
interactions, primarily with individual students. Pupils
tend to more enthusiastically participate in frequent ex-
changes with teacher-interns under conditions in which the
teacher-intern combines requests for elaborative commrits
with supportive, approving cues for the desired beha.jors.
Consonantly, teacher-interns' disapproval is unlikely to

manifest to the extent that pupils are exhibiting

100

time-on-task responses during an instructional period. The
cluster has a reliability of .97.

Cluster 7L7Teacher-Interns' Gaze Direction.--This
doublet cluster reflects only direction of gaze by teacher-
interns, who most often look toward pupils. The cluster is
notably positively related to Cluster 2 (Motor Active Group
Interaction, r==.53), and slightly related to Cluster 5
(Teacher-Interns' Physical Position, r==.22) and Cluster 9
(Teacher-Intern Disapproval, r =.21). As previously indi-
cated, teacher-interns' frequent gaze toward pupils tends
to be associated with verbally active group interactions and
standing still and erect. In regard to Cluster 9, it
appears that more disapproving nonverbal behaviors (frowns
and negative contact) manifest with frequent gaze toward
pupils. The cluster has a reliability of .99.

Cluster 8, Pupil Task-Irrelevant Actiyity.--This
cluster describes a complex of time-off-task pupil behaviors.
Talking out of turn with peers during an instructional period,
and talking about task-irrelevant matters tends to be asso-
ciated with more task-irrelevant physical contact behaviors
in the classroom. Talking out of turn to peers may repre-
sent an inappropriate behavior which leads to more inappro—
priate behaviors, generating a cycle of time-off-task re-
sponses. The cluster is notably positively related to

Cluster 3 (Teacher-Intern Disapproval of Task-Irrelevant

Behavior, r==.51) and moderately related to Cluster 9

101

(Teacher-Intern Disapproval, r = .32); it is slightly nega-
tively related to Cluster 2 (Motor Active Group Interaction,
r = -.21). As previously indicated, a variety of verbal

and nonverbal task-irrelevant pupil behaviors are highly
associated with more frequent verbal and nonverbal dis-
approval by teacher-interns; this is especially the case
when teacher-interns' make frequent and prolonged use of

the blackboard. Teacher-interns seem to be much less likely
to exhibit disapproval in their primarily verbal inter-
actions with groups of students. In regard to Cluster 9,
this theme is reinforced. Increments in non-attending

pupil behavior during an instructional period is associated
with increments in disapproving physical contacts by
teacher-interns, along with a negative frowning expression.
Consonant with the observation that pupils tend to "mis-
behave" or exhibit task-irrelevant behaviors with more
frequent and longer use of the blackboard by teacher-interns,
Cluster 9 discloses that pupils tend more often to look

away from teacher or teacher-designated stimulus with more
frequent use of instructional materials. Clearly, it seems
that prolonged and/or frequent usage of materials or the
blackboard as instructional media may be counterproductive
in terms of maintaining attentive, task-oriented responses
by pupils. This, to the extent that pupils are not actively
engaged in the instructional activity. The cluster has a

reliability of .79.

102

Cluster 9, Teacher-Intern Disapprova1.--This cluster

 

is defined by variables reflecting disapproving nonverbal
behaviors by teacher-interns. More disapproving physical
contact is associated with more frowning expressions, which
are related to non-attending behaviors by pupils in the

form of looking away from the teacher or teacher-designated
stimulus during an instructional period. These behaviors
are likely to manifest with more frequent use of instruc-
tional materials. The cluster is notably positively related

to Cluster 3 (Teacher-Intern Disapproval of Task-Irrelevant

Behavior, r = .50), and slightly related to Cluster 5
(Teacher-Interns' Physical Position, r = .24), Cluster 7
(Teacher-Interns' Gaze Direction, r = .21), and moderately

related to Cluster 8 (Pupil Task-Irrelevant Activity,

r = .32). As previously indicated, teacher-interns' verbal
and nonverbal expressions of disapproval strongly relate

to frequent task-irrelevant, non-attending pupil responses
during an instructional period, which is likely to involve
frequent and/or long usage of instructional aids such as
the blackboard or materials. Disapproval seems to be asso-
ciated with teacher-interns' standing still and erect,
monitoring groups of pupils. The cluster has a reliability

of .80.

103

Overview of Empirical V-Analysis of
Behavioral Variables: Guidelines
for the Preset Ahalysis

 

 

 

In considering these clusters it is apparent that
they are similar in form and pattern to those making up the
behavioral clusters identified in the Empirical V-Analysis
of Behavioral and Demographic Variables. However, it is
also apparent that an improvement of the clusters, via
condensation and elimination, would be desirable from the
standpoint of both conceptual clarity and statistical
respectability.

A preset key-cluster analysis was conducted in order
to refine and further clarify the discrete structure of
those clusters which were most reliable, conceptually
coherent, and which accounted for the greatest amount of
variance. In presetting the number of dimensions or revising
the definers of one or more dimensions, the following speci-
fic objectives were identified:

1. Maximize the collinearity of the definers of
each dimension;

2. Increase the degree of independence of the
clusters from each other;

3. Attempt to create in each cluster a conceptually
coherent construct describing aspects of teacher-pupil
interactions;

4. Maximize reliability of the cluster score;

104

5. Contribute to the generality of each cluster
and the variables that define it.

The result should yield reliable, salient, discretely
generalizable dimensions identifying essential elements of
teachers' classroom behaviors.

In attempting to achieve these objectives and in-
crease the reliability of the clusters, the following rules
applied for the preset analysis:

1. Doublet clusters were eliminated, unless they
were of profound conceptual interest;

2. Clusters with low reliability (r = < .95) were
eliminated;

3. Clusters were eliminated which had a high cor-
relation with other, more reliable and more conceptually
coherent clusters;

4. Requirements of an O-Analysis dictate that a
relatively few number of clusters is desirable, thus demand-
ing a conservative approach to the total number of clusters
retained.

These rules were Specifically applied to the clusters
obtained in the preset analysis as follows:

Cluster 1 (Positive Task-Relevant Teacher-Intern
and PUpil Interaction), Cluster 2 (Motor Active Group Inter-
action) and Cluster 3 (Teacher-Intern Disapproval of Task-

Irrelevant Behavior) emerging from the Empirical V-Analysis

105

of Behavioral Variables were retained for the preset anal-
ysis. These clusters were highly reliable r = > .95),
conceptually coherent dimensions embracing a number of
teacher-intern and pupil variables describing aspects of
classroom interactions. In addition, these clusters were
comparatively discrete from the other dimensions, and were
relatively generalizable. Only definer items in those
clusters which had a correlation between oblique cluster
domains greater than +.5 to either Cluster 1, 2, or 3 were
included in the relevant cluster for further analysis. The
other less reliable domains were deleted from the preset
analysis. The following summary identifies those clusters
from which key definer items were included in one of the
above domains, and indicates the rationale for the selec-
tion:

Cluster 4 (Positive Teacher-Intern Contact), a
doublet, was largely unrelated to any cluster domain;
the definers (Teacher Physical Contact: Approving,
and Teacher Physical Contact: Approving--Duration)
were not included for the preset analysis.

Cluster 5 (Teacher-Interns' Physical Position) was
relatively specific and largely unrelated to any other
domain. Two of the definer items in this cluster were
unacceptably low (Teacher Baton Gesture, r = .26, and
Teacher Locomotion Strength: Stationary, r = .15). These

and the other definers (Teacher Position of Trunk: Forward,

106

and Teacher Position of Trunk: Erect) were deleted from
subsequent analysis.

Cluster 6 (Teacher-Interns' Facial Expression), a
doublet, contained reliable definers (Teacher Smile: Dura-
tion, r = .99, and Teacher Smile: Non-directional, r = .93)
which were notably related (r = .52) to Cluster 1. These
two definers were therefore included in that cluster for
the preset analysis.

Cluster 7 (Teacher-Interns' Gaze Direction), a
doublet, reliable definers (Teacher Gaze Direction: Pupil,

r = .99, and Teacher Gaze Direction: Other, r = .99) which
were notably related (r = .53) to Cluster 2. These two
definers were therefore included in that cluster for the
preset analysis.

Cluster 8 (Pupil Task—Irrelevant Activity), an
extremely specific dimension in which the definer items had
relatively low reliability (Pupil Eliciting Peer Verbaliza-
tion, r = .89, Pupil Task-Irrelevant Verbalization, r = .74,
and Pupil Physical Contact: Negative, r = .50) was notably
related (r = .51) to Cluster 3. Therefore, the definer
having the highest reliability in Cluster 8 (Pupil Eliciting
Peer Verbalization) was selected to be included in Cluster 3
for the preset analysis. The remaining definer items were
not used in the preset analysis.

Cluster 9 (Teacher-Intern Disapproval), in which the

definer items had relatively low reliability (Teacher

107

Physical Contact: Disapproving, r = .86, Teacher Frown,

r = .75 and Pupil Gaze Direction: Other, r = .45) was
notably related (r = .50) to Cluster 3. Therefore, the
definer having the highest reliability in Cluster 9
(Teacher Physical Contact: Disapproving) was selected to
be included in Cluster 3 for the preset analysis. The re-

maining definer items were not used in the preset analysis.

Preset Key-Cluster Analysis
of Behavioral Variables

 

The Clusters and Their
Interrelationships

The clusters for the behavioral variables resulting
from the preset key-cluster analysis are presented in
Table 11. The correlations between the oblique cluster
domains (correlations between the rotated oblique factors)

are presented in Table 12.

Description and Interpretation
of the Clusters

The following is a descriptive summary of the con-
ceptual themes represented by each of the three cluster
domains. Within each cluster variables have been grouped
in terms of more coherent conceptual sub-categories.

Cluster 1, Positive Task-Relevant Teacher-Intern

and Pupil Interaction.--This cluster is defined by variables

 

reflecting pleasant, task-oriented teacher-intern and pupil

108

Table 11. Preset key‘cluster analysis of behavioral

variables.

 

 

 

Cluster Loading
1. Positive Task-Relevant Teacher-Intern and
Pupililnteraction
A. Pleasant Probing Teacher-Intern
(D) l. Intern is attractive (judgment)
(Teacher Attraction:Pleasant/ .99
Unpleasant)
2. Intern smiles more often 60
(Teacher Smileznondirectional) '
(D) 3. Intern smiles longer 58
(Teacher Smile:Duration) ‘
4. Intern often asks pupils to amplify on
remarks or comments 49
(Teacher Eliciting Verbal Elaboration) '
B. Pupil Pondering
(D) 1. Student group thinking time 99
(Pupil Verbal Latency:Group) '
(D) 2. Individual student thinking time 92
(Pupil Verbal Latencyzlndividual) °
3. Pupil Mouthing Object .42
C. Pupil Responsiveness
(D) l. Pupils discuss more 98
(Pupil Discussion of Task) '
2. Individual students respond more
Spontaneously 92
(Pupil Spontaneously Answering '
Teacherzlndividual)
3. Individual pupil answers teacher
more often .72

(Pupil Answering Teacherzlndividual)

 

109

Table 11 (Continued)

 

 

 

Cluster Loading
2. Observation and Group Interaction
A. Motor Active Teacher-Intern
(D) l. Intern moves about classroom 97
(Teacher Locomotion Strength:Stationary) '
(D) 2. Intern moves often about classroom 96
(Teacher Locomotion Frequency) '
(D) 3. Intern moves about classroom for
short distance 96
(Teacher Locomotion Setrength:Small °
Movement)
4. Intern is beyond reach of pupil 66
(Teacher Proximity:Distant) °
5. Intern seldom exhibits long distance
movements in classroom 59
(Teacher Locomotion Strength:Large '
Movement)
6. Intern is beyond reach of pupil 49
(Teacher Proximity:Close) '
B. Observation/Group Interaction
(D) 1. Intern seldom looks away from pupil 71
(Teacher Gaze Direction:Other) ‘
(D) 2. Intern often gestures emphatically 79
(Teacher Baton Gesture) '
(D) 3. Intern often looks toward pupil 55
(Teacher Gaze DirectionzPupil) °
4. Intern seldom interacts with individual 55
(Teacher Interaction:Individual) '
5. Intern often interacts with groups 52
(Teacher Interaction:Group) '
6. Intern seldom uses instructional
materials for long period of time 48

(Teacher Usage of Instructional
Materials:Duration)

C. Group Responsiveness

______._.____l,

110

Table 11 (Continued)

Cluster

 

Loading

 

1.

Pupils answer teacher more often
(Pupil Answering Teacher:Group)

3. Teacher-Intern Disapproval

A.
(D)

(D)
(D)

(D)
(D)

(D)

Intern Disapproval During Instruction

1.

Intern speaks disapprovingly

to pupil

(Teacher VerbalizationzTotal Dis-
approving)

Intern speaks disapprovingly to pupil
(Teacher Verbalization:Disapproving)

Intern disapprovingly touches pupil
(Teacher Physical Contact:
Disapproving)

Intern often uses blackboard
(Teacher Usage of Blackboard:
Occurrences)

Intern leans away from pupil in
interaction
(Teacher Position of Trunszackward)

Pupil Misbehavior

l.

2.

Pupil makes unnecessary noise
(Pupil Noisemaking Activity)

Pupil emits nonverbal vocal noise
(Pupil Paralingualism)

Pupil moves about in seat or wanders
around room
(Pupil Gross Motor Activity)

Pupil talks out inappropriately
to peers
(Pupil Eliciting Peer Verbalization)

Pupil approvingly touches another
person
(Pupil Physical Contact:Positive)

.46

.94

 

.51

.46

.45

.88

.75

.75

.70

.60

 

NOTE:

(D) denotes a definer item for the cluster.

111

 

 

- HO.- OH.. Hm>oemmmmHQ :HOHGHIHonomOH .m

HO.I - . coHpomHou:H\msosu
NO was :OHum>Homno .N

:oHuomHOch

.I . HHmsm was :HoucH
OH NO II IHO:OOOH pcm>oHOmemmh .H
m N H HoumsHu

one

now qumEOO

.mmeHmcm HoumsHOIzox ucomopm
HoumsHO OOOHHQO coozpon mcoHumHoshou .NH OHQOH

112

interactions, primarily with individual students. It repre-
sents a cluster in which pupils are highly verbally active
on task-oriented themes introduced and/or promoted by a
nonverbally supportive teacher-intern who elicits verbal
responses. Teacher-interns' facial attraction appears
largely to reflect a pleasant facial expression in the form
of smiles, which seems to function as a cue supportive of
appropriate classroom behaviors, and when combined with

verbal probing or questioning, may promote enthusiastic

 

verbal responsiveness and "thinking" by pupils. More fre-
quent and longer smiles tend to be related to more enthusias-
tic verbal participation by students. Pupils' verbal'
response latency might be conceptualized as a cognitive
factor indicative of "thinking time." It seems to be
clearly apparent that a nonverbally approving behavior in
the form of smiling by teacher-interns' related to probing
requests of pupils to amplify or elaborate on their own or
others comments, is strongly associated with time-on-task
verbal participation which is often spontaneous, and may
in turn promote continuation of positive interactions. The
cluster is unrelated to other dimensions. The reliability
of the cluster is .96.

Cluster 2, Observation and Group Interaction.-—This
cluster is defined by variables reflecting teachers' gross
movements in the classroom. The pattern of correlations

indicate that teachers movements tend to be small (less

113

than seven consecutive steps) and frequent, often accompanied
by demonstrative gestural expressions in group interactions.
In these group interactions verbal responsiveness by pupils
is high in terms ofgroup rather than individual behavior.
Under these conditions it is quite unlikely that teacher
makes use of instructional materials for any long period

of time. Teachers exhibiting this motor active pattern of
behavior are likely to look toward pupils, possibly monitor-
ing group or class behaviors, as during an instructional

or lecture period. Overall it appears that the teacher tends
to approach groups of pupils and engage in verbal exchanges
with two or more students. The cluster is not distinguished
by variables reflecting any extreme emotional tone, either

in form of positive or negative interaction. The cluster

is unrelated to other dimensions. The reliability of the
cluster is .93.

Cluster 3L Teacher-Intern Disapproval.--This cluster

 

is defined by variables reflecting teacher-interns' verbal
and nonverbal disapproval of non-attending, noisey pupils.
Task-irrelevant motor movements (wandering around the room,
moving about in seat) and vocal and nonverbal noisemaking
activities, along with talking out of turn to peers, tend
to be associated with more critical, "punishing" remarks

by teacher-interns. They are also more likely to express
their disapproval by leaning away from misbehaving pupils,

and to exhibit negative contact. The most frequent form

114

of pupil misbehavior appears to be noisemaking activities
(moving objects around, kicking objects, scrapping or tapping
items, throwing materials) followed by vocal noisemaking and
talking out to peers during an instructional period. It
appears that pupils' task-irrelevant behaviors and teacher-

interns' disapproval often manifest when teacher-interns

.‘I. an."
.«

use the blackboard frequently. As has been previously sug-

gested, possibly frequent periods of instructional activity .

 

(e.g., using the blackboard) which does not directly involve
the active participation of students, serves to promote
their non-attending behaviors. The cluster is unrelated to

other dimensions. The cluster has a reliability of .92.

Overview of the Preset Kay-Cluster Analysis:
Dimensions for O-AnalySis

 

The three key clusters emerging from the preset
analysis represent highly reliable, independent, and gen-
eralizable dimensions describing aspects of teacher-interns'
classroom behaviors. These clusters were submitted to an
O-Analysis to identify unique or common patterns of profile
scores distinguishing conceptually coherent typologies for
teacher-interns. Specifically, to determine if the individ-
uals in this multidimensional study are unique on the
behavioral variables examined (that is, on the cluster
scores derived from them by the preset V-Analysis), an

O-Analysis was conducted. This analysis discloses whether

‘r.— -- “a.

 

 

115

the aggregate of behavioral patterns for teacher-interns are
undifferentiated, or fall into discrete groups or types pos-
sibly indicating that particular patterns of behavior are
generated with high frequency by, for example, social factors.
The objective of O-Analysis is essentially to reduce a large
number of individuals into a smaller number of collinear and
salient subgroups (O-Clusters) distinguished from each other
by their patterns of scores on the attributes examined (Tyron

and Bailey, 1970).

O-Analysis

 

An O-Analysis on the clusters generated by the preset
analysis yielded three distinct, though relatively trivial,
typologies for teacher-interns in the sample. Table 13 re-
ports the O-Type means for the three preset clusters. Table 14
presents the overall homogeneity across all dimensions given
for each O-Type, and indicates that the three types are dis-
tinct from each other.

O-Type 1 (Approving Teacher-Interns) describes a type
of teacher-intern oriented more toward pleasant, verbally
active task-relevant interactions (primarily with individuals)
than with disapproval or observation and group interactions.
Approving teachers may possibly represent an affectively active,
demonstrative group of individual-interns who stand somewhat
apart from the more emotionally inhibited (non-demonstrative)
teacher-interns. However, it should also be pointed out that
this O-Type was not distinctive in that thirty-four (34) sub-

jects (out of forty-three) were assigned to this category.

 

 

 

 

 

116
Table 13. O-types for the three preset key—clusters of
behavioral variables.
Cluster
O-Type Positive Task- Teacher
Relevant Teachers Observation. . Intern
Intern and Pupil and Group .
Interaction Interaction Disapproval E
l 2 3 f
l. Approving High Low Medium I
Teacher-Intern* 48.67 46.42 47.35 1
2. Disapproving Medium Low High i
Teacher-Intern** 48.30 46.82 81.46 3
3. Observing/Group . . A
Interactional 4%0g2 Edggl M2314?
Teacher-Intern ' ' '
*n=34 **n=5 ***n=3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 14. Overall homogeneity across the three dimensions
(factor scores) given for each of the three
Ovtypes.
O-Type Homogeneity
1. Approving Teacher-Intern .92
2. Disapproving Teacher-Intern .92
3. Observing Group/ 87

Interactional Teacher-Intern

 

117

This may represent, in a sense, modal effective teaching be-
havior by teacher-interns.

O—Type 2 (Disapproving Teacher-Interns) is clearly
less likely to be associated with pleasant, task-relevant
interactions or with observation and group interactions.
Overwhelmingly this teacher-intern type is the stereotypical
classroom "policeman." Disapproval tends to be distinct as
a dimension and type in that the p of this O-Type is five (5).

O-Type 3 (Observing/Group Interactional Teacher-
Interns) tends to have little association with pleasant, task-
relevant interactions. This type appears to have some greater
relationship to teacher disapproval as a dimension. As pre-
viously suggested, this type may possibly represent a group
of teacher-interns who are less free in their display of af-
fectivity in the classroom. The amalgam is of monitoring and
formally teaching the class as a group. Three (3) subjects
were assigned to this type.

These results are consistent with the findings reported
earlier on the independent preset clusters distinguishing be-
tween Positive Task-Relevant Teacher—Intern and Pupil Inter-
action, Observation and Group Interaction, and Teacher-Intern

Disapproval.

Hypothesis-Testing,Variables

 

It will be recalled that a generic hypothesis predicted
positive correlations among several approving verbal and non-
verbal teacher-intern behaviors and task-relevant learner be-

haviors. The results of the cluster analysis indicate that

118

only teacher-interns' smiles emerged as an approving non-
verbal variable correlated with increments in pupils' task-
oriented responsiveness (answering teacher and discussing
task-relevant topics). This finding is consistent with the
hypothesis to the extent that it defined a highly collinear
and independent domain composed of several pupil items ex-
clusively reflecting task-relevant (verbal) behaviors.

However, correlations among the other variables
describing aspects of teacher-interns approving behaviors
(e.g., approving comments, positive contact, head and body
orientation) failed to emerge in the clusters as expected.
Therefore, the generic hypothesis is only partially con-
firmed by the data.

In summary, a major finding of this research sug-
gests that a nonverbal behavior by teacher-interns in the
form of smiling (here assumed to convey approval and pos-
sibly promote or support behaviors with which it is
temporally associated), is more significantly related to
increments in desirable classroom performance by students,
under a given set of conditions, than is verbal praise or
other signs of approval. With the caveat in mind that
causal relationships cannot be determined from correlational
data, it might be opined that smiles or a pleasant facial
expression, can speak more loudly than words in terms of
affecting primarily verbal behaviors under the observed

conditions in the learning environment.

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION

Schedules of Observation

 

The results of the present experiment failed to
demonstrate that variable and fixed interval schedules of
observations differentially affect verbal and nonverbal
respOnses by teacher-interns in the classroom. Only one of
the thirty-eight variables examined reached an acceptable
level of statistical significance (see Table 5, Locomotion
Strength: Small Movement, 3 = 3.21, p < .05). In terms of
procedures for evaluating the significance of such a series
of statistical tests (see Sakoda g£_al., 1954), these results
are not supportive of an experimental effect and it is there-
fore concluded that the hypothesis predicting Significant
differential effects between treatment groups is not supported
by the data.

In interpreting this finding, two observations are
readily apparent: (1) Any potential effects videotape
observations may have had on the behaviors of the observed
could have been nullified by a saturation effect, that is,
exposure of the problematic stimulus to a point where it no

longer evokes measurable behavioral changes. It will be

119

.—

 

120

recalled that the subjects were exposed to a pre-experimental
adaptation period during which they were videotaped in the
natural setting on several occasions. The subjects may
Simply have become inured to the intrusion of the observa-
tion variable into their environment, a result which would

be consistent with that reported by Carus (1970) who found
that teachers ignored videotaped observations of their class-
room performance. (2) It has been well documented that vari-
ous schedules on which reinforcement is delivered can be
discriminated and can strongly influence behavior by the
recipient organism (Ferster and Skinner, 1957). The individ-
ual's awareness of environmental contingencies (the necessary
conditions under which reinforcement is delivered), combined
with incentive-related variables, can exert significant influ-
ence over behavior.

In the present research neither the schedule of obser-
vation nor the videotape observation variable itself appear
to have functioned as discriminative stimuli, setting the
occasion for particular patterns of response. These factors
were not associated with any effective reinforcing (or
aversive) stimuli. The variables apparently had no reinforc-
ing value to subjects in themselves. Having established no
contingent link between the observation schedule (or observa-
tion) and the delivery of incentive stimuli (planned or
randomly occuring), it is not surprising that observed sub-

jects may be largely indifferent to the observations. The

J

!n‘-I.gum'.'.
F‘v c .
,.— .

. ; I ‘.‘ ”III-H77“ Inf-{‘47-

11.
wa-
1.-
.

121

variables represent contextually neutral stimuli. This

assertion is lent some support by Spielberger, Berger, and

Howard's (1963) study of the reinforcing properties of

feedback events evaluated by subjects, disclosing that sub-

jects who were aware of the response-reinforcement contin-

gency, and who prized reinforcers, exhibited gains in F
criterion behaviors. Those aware subjects who were indif-
ferent to, or were irritated by, the reinforcing stimulus
tended not to exhibit notable changes in criterion behaviors.
Overall, incentives that are weak, delayed, or inconsistently
applied, as often happens in the natural setting, are found
to generate little or no modification in the behavior of
subjects exposed to such conditions. This implies that if
observations are to exert stable operant effects on the
behaviors of the observed, they must be programmatically

associated with effective reinforcing events.

Utility of the Behavior Rating Schedule

 

The Behavior Rating Schedule developed for this
research appears to have served adequately as an Operation-
ally explicit and replicable measurement instrument for
categorized verbal and nonverbal behaviors in the classroom
setting. The cluster analyses identified some duplicative
categories which may be eliminated in future adaptation of
the instrument. The analyses also pointed up the importance

of including additional categories measuring discrete

122

dimensions of teacher-learner behaviors. Items Should be
included to assess content-related areas of speech, includ-’
ing "opinion," "factual," "interpretative," "organizing," or
"personal reference" statement. Measures should also be
obtained of teacher leadership Skills, enthusiasm or Spon-
taneity, classroom control, acceptance/rejection of student f'
contributions, and attempts to engender student participa-

tion, as well as indices of teacher-pupil, teacher-group,

 

and intra-group cohesion. It could also prove useful to
include measures of speech disfluencies (patterns of hesi- y
tations and disturbances) to serve as indicants of emotional-

ity and processes of linguistic encoding. Analyses of tones

of voice and Speed of utterance may also be considered as

possible indicants of emotionality by interactants. Cer-

tainly the pupil categories should be refined and expanded

to include direct measures of behavioral, socio-emotional,

and cognitive performances which may be used to determine

effects of teacher behavior, and teacher effectiveness in

specific dimensions of classroom teaching. Further, it

would be especially relevant, operating within a

reinforcement-feedback paradign, to examine the form and

effects of pupil reinforcement upon teacher behaviors, as

such phenomena influence events in the learning environment.

123

Consideration of the Generic Hypothesis'

 

The generic hypothesis predicting significant posi-
tive relationships among verbal and nonverbal approving
responses by teacher-interns and task-oriented performance
by pupils is only partially confirmed by the present data.
The results of the cluster analyses, when considered in
terms of the initial hypothesis, indicate that categorized
approving teacher-interns' behaviors tend not to be systema-
tically or strongly associated with time-on-task pupil
performances. The results of the cluster analyses reveal
that teacher-interns' facial expression in form of smiling
emerges as a defining variable in a highly collinear and
independent dimension describing pupils' exclusively (verbal)
task-relevant behaviors. This result is consistent with
the predicted relationship, and is taken as partial confir-
mation of the generic hypothesis. Interestingly, verbal
communications of approval, more frequent than smiles,
unexpectedly showed no relationship to pupil responsiveness.
These results are consistent with Rosenfeld's (1967) finding
which indicated that as a medium of affective or attitudinal
communication, facial expressiveness (smiles) exerted
stronger effects than vocal cues in two-channel communica-
tions. Whether intended to elicit reciprocal signs of
approval, convey passive satisfaction, or contingently
delivered following the emission of critical behaviors,

facial expressiveness--Smiles--may possibly influence the

‘Q'

124

future probabilities of a variety of pupil's task-oriented
responses. Facial expressiveness may also have notable
implications for affecting the probabilities of pro-social
verbal classroom behaviors. Interestingly, approving com-
ments were emitted by teacher-interns four times as often

as smiles (see Table 5). Without exception, nonverbal

signs of approval were less likely than their verbal counter-
parts to be emitted by teacher-interns. The prevailing task-
relevant pupil response was looking toward teacher (or
designated stimulus) and to a lesser degree, answering
questions. Despite their more infrequent occurrence, it

is apparent that certain nonverbal cues, particularly those
conveyed by facial expression, are more importantly related
to outcome behaviors than are many forms of verbally or
vocally delivered communications.

These results of the cluster analyses indicating
that smiles and task-relevant pupil behaviors were related,
is consistent with studies which have demonstrated a con-
tingent relationship between teachers' nonverbal approval
and improvement in task-related verbal and nonverbal pupil
responses (Madsen g£_al,, 1968; O'Leary and O'Leary, 1972;
Ramp and Hopkins, 1971). However, because of the correla-
tional nature of the preset data, the temporal relationship
between teacher-interns' smiles and positive pupil responses
cannot be determined. The data allow only for statements

about associative interactions among variables. An obvious

125

question arises however; Are teacher-interns in any way
contingently delivering their nonverbal approval consequent
to the emission of appropriate pupil performances, possibly
strengthening the latter behavior? If smiles are unsystema-
tically (or non-contingently) delivered, then variations in
the form and rate of emitted occurrences of pupil responses
which they follow, may be expected. Another central ques-
tion concerns the extent to which pupil responses may
function (contingently or non-contingently) as reinforcing
stimuli which may promote certain teacher behaviors. Those
pupil behaviors which may function as reinforcers (or
aversive stimuli) for teacher (or pupil) responses, may

be expected to have implications affecting the efficiency
and effectiveness of the educational setting. The bi-
directional or reciprocal effects of reinforcing events
postulated to interact between teacher and pupils merits

examination.

Other Related Results

 

In addition to the results yielded by the cluster
analyses which relates teacher-interns observational and
approving and disapproving behaviors to pupil performances,
analyses of correlational trends among several of the
clustered variables disclose interesting findings. For

example, in addition to the relationship between smiling

126

and task-relevant student behavior, two other interesting
types of variables emerged in the Positive Task-Relevant
Teacher-Intern and Pupil Interaction cluster: a factor
assumed to reflect "thinking time" (verbal response latency),
and eliciting verbalizations by the teacher. Taken together,
these variables might argue for the importance of some kind F
of cognitive mediation process which is related to the

observed performance outcome. The "thinking time" vari-

 

able might represent a public referent for this process.

v.4- —"’*_ _ '
‘9’

Eliciting active, topic-relevant verbal interchange
between teacher and pupils, and possibly among pupils as
well, may represent a presthetic component promoting
pleasant, task-oriented interactions contributing to a
functional learning environment. This finding supports
Solomon, Bezdek, and Rosenberg's (1964) results indicat-
ing that teacher's encouragement of verbal student partici-
pation increases the rate of the desired behavior. It is
also consistent with Ryans (1960; 1961) findings that
”understanding" or friendly, "organized" and "stimulating”
teacher behaviors (assumed to be operative in a positive
social-emotional climate), relate to "purposeful and "pro
ductive" pupil behaviors. For Ryans ”organization" refers
to systematic vs. unplanned styles of performance.

In considering the data it is also indicated that
there is an apparent unidimensionality of task-relevant

pupil performance. Pupils who participate in one dimension

127

of task-oriented verbal behavior, for example, answering
teacher, tend to generalize their participation to other
verbal dimensions, such as discussing the task or Spon-
taneously emitting topic-relevant comments. Hence, it may
be expected that strengthening one domain of verbal parti-
cipant behavior may positively generalize to other relevant

domains.

.11.! Air-ho: L‘. Lad-n."

The second most salient dimension indicated by both

the V-Analyses and O-Analyses is represented by a group of

—’- —.—; W‘- 7’1." 514' I—

‘a_.

variables that, taken together, might reflect a behaviorally
constraining or inhibiting domain. In the Observation and
Group Interaction cluster, teacher-interns exhibited much
visual observation of students in general, interacting with
groups rather than with individual pupils. Verbal inter-
action was extremely limited, pupils only answering teacher-
interns' few comments or queries. Overall, the dimension
reflects monitoring teachers who direct their observations
and limited interactions to the class or groups of pupils,
and who seem to promote little interactionally participant
activity by the observed. The dimension is one of minor
conceptual or theoretical interest. The third cluster,
Teacher-Intern Disapproval, and its related O-Type is more
interesting in that it reflects disapproving interactions
between teacher-interns and pupils. Teacher-interns appear
to concern themselves with direct intervention to inhibit

"inappropriate” pupil performances. In this dimension,

128

pupil responses are all task-disruptive or irrelevant (e.g.,
pupil moves about in seat, talks out of turn, emits dis-
ruptive noises), and tend to occur when teacher-interns
frequently use the blackboard. Teacher-interns' disapproval
is conveyed principally by verbal comments of criticism or
threats of punishment. Though the temporal relationship f'
between events cannot be determined from the data, it is
not unlikely that teacher-interns' disapproval follows

pupils' task-irrelevant activities. This raises a question

 

as to what extent the various forms of disapproval can fi
generate increments in the undesired responses. What
appears to be punishment can be reinforcing. A pupil may
persist in "misbehaving" for example, in order to elicit
attention from his teacher or peers (Skinner, 1968). AS
earlier noted, Thomas g£_al., (1968) provides evidence that
pupils inapprOpriate behaviors (especially gross motor and
noisemaking categories, as are included in this cluster)
markedly increase with increments in the rate of-teachers'
verbal and nonverbal disapproval. Disruptive behaviors

were also found to increase each time approving teacher
behaviors were withdrawn. Verbal and nonverbal categories
of teacher approval served to inhibit certain pupil behav-
iors. This may be a factor in the present findings. In
this study it is indicated that teacher-interns' approval
tends to be passively, nonverbally expressed whereas dis-
approval tends strongly to be explicitely, verbally communi-

cated.

129

Interesting too, is the finding that frequent use
of the blackboard relates to task-irrelevant verbal, vocal,
and gross motor noisemaking behaviors by pupils (e.g.,
emitting unnecessary verbal and nonverbal noises, talking
out of turn, wandering around the room, etc.), as indicated
in the cluster describing teacher-interns' disapproval.
Apparently teacher-interns are most likely to overtly dis-
approve of pupils' inattentiveness when using the black-
board as an instructional aid. Either inattentive behaviors
are readily identified or teacher—interns tend to be more
demanding of pupils' attention when this aid is used.

These results lead to the observation that the
usage of this instructional aid represents interaction not
so much as it does action directed toward addressees. Par-
ticipation by pupils is minimal, and usually only under
invitation by teacher. The implication is clear that condi-
tions which provide for little or no inputs by pupils in
form of active participation appear, not unexpectedly, to
foster inattentive behaviors in that setting. This may in
turn engender teachers' disapproval, setting the tone for
a cycle of disapproving teacher-pupil, task-irrelevant

interactions.

Limitations of the Research

 

A chief deficiency of this study derives from its

methodology; as is generally true in the case of

0“ {largo—In.- EJEJ ' armi-

 

\‘é-I ' - ...11-5

J

' :.-. 1:2.1'

...—3 .
9
.L._

130

non-laboratory research, the problem of uncontrolled vari-
ables is a significant issue. The implications of this
issue are especially pertinent to the hypothesis-testing
facets of the research.

In the experimental component of the study, several
of the teacher-interns on the Fixed Interval schedule could
not be observed at precisely the same hours over the period
of observation. Another factor of note is the constraint
imposed by equipment limitations. In focusing upon the
teacher-intern as subject, the camera could not follow
those pupils who wandered beyond the scope of the wide-angle
lens. Hence, the duration of observation time for pupils
varied, as well, often, as the pupils themselves from one
observation session to the next. In this connection, con-
sistently monitoring verbalizations was a problem throughout
the study. In order to record verbal behaviors by the
often highly mobile teachers, the cameraman (with microphone
in the camera) had to follow his movements in the classroom,
maintaining a distance not greater than six to twelve feet
@epending upon background noise level); this was necessary
to record the audio signal.

Perhaps the most obvious shortcoming of the research
is that it contains no data allowing for determination of
causal relationships among the variables examined. This,
however, was beyond the sc0pe of its design. In terms of

the subjects of this study, it should be noted that the

 

131

results derive from and apply to the sample of Teacher Corps
teacher trainees as described earlier. The findings may not

be validly generalizable beyond the present sample.

Conclusions and Future Research

This study has provided evidence which suggests that
Fixed and Variable Interval schedules of observation, as well

as observation itself, exert little or no systematic effects

n t a: Swan-Lush: iguan- nz-ruy

.'.

on the spontaneous behaviors of observed teacher-interns in

flq

 

W4 -

the classroom. Neither the schedule nor the observations
appear to have functioned as discriminative or reinforcing
stimuli for any categorized behavior. These results, how-
ever, generate further questions which future research might
explore. What effect, for example, does the amount of

elapsed time between observations have as an independent
variable on the behavior of observed subjects? It is pos-
sible that a schedule of two observations per week may

yield results different from those obtained by conducting
observations at approximately two week intervals, though
effects of satiation may still be an intervening variable.
Also, the effect that observations may have as an established
discriminative or reinforcing stimulus periodically programmed
into the learning environment, is a moot issue. Conceiveably,
observation could be employed as a strategy to promote, main-
tain, or eliminate critical teacher-learner behaviors in

the classroom.

132

In regard to the exploratory phase of this study,
results point up the importance of nonverbal media in an
interactional context in the natural setting. Nonverbal
behaviors, which previous research has shown to be associated

with emotions, and which can communicate (and possibly regu-

late) affectivity in interactions (Argyle, 1969; Argyle and

0 51
b

Kendon, 1967; Ekman, 1965; Bkman and Friesen, 1967; Galloway,
1962; Kendon, 1967; Scheflen, 1964) were found to be dif-

ferentially related to discrete types of spontaneous social

IT' ._
m'i
C

 

encounters in the classroom. Affectively pleasant, pre- V
sumably supportive nonverbal responses by teacher-interns
(smiling) was strongly related to enthusiastic, participant
verbal activity by pupils. Specifically, the nonverbal
component of a communication may often be more important
than what is communicated in terms of content. In addition,
the data further indicates that the task-appropriate pupil
behavior which is related, tends to be highly interrelated
and essentially unidimensional. Finally, the role of media-
tional processes, both in terms of teacher-interns' elicit-
ing verbalization (probing), and pupil reSponse latency or
"thinking,” was demonstrated to be highly related to pupil
performance. We might attempt to encapsulate the findings
relevant to task-relevant teacher-pupil interaction as
follows: Smiling, verbally probing teacher-interns are
associated with thoughtful and responsive pupils over a

variety of performance measures.

133

What then are the implications for future research?
Based on these data, such research should be directionally
specific, and answer several specific questions, to wit:

1. Do teachers use smiling behavior in a non-
contingent or contingent manner and can they be trained to
elicit this behavior as a method by which behavior change
may be effectuated;

2. What are the full consequences and processes

in mediational activities engaged in by teachers and

”‘9'! “..uxmmfl an! “mu-as...”
“ - . I

students;

3. Clarify the extent to which pupil performance
is in fact unidimensional. In addition, it would be useful
to examine the form and effects of pupils' reinforcing
behaviors upon teachers.

Recognizing the responsibility assumed by the
teacher as chief conditioning agent and programmer of behav-
ior change communicated and effected through verbal and
nonverbal media, it would seem to be important that teachers
be trained systematically to control their own behaviors
in ways which will improve the behaviors of the pupils they
are teaching. Similarly, pupils should be made cognizant
of their own behaviors and be systematically trained to
emit responses which promote educationally relevant teacher
behaviors. To the extent that teachers and pupils are

knowledgeable of, and can control the ways in which they

134

respond to each other, the production of behaviors counter-
productive to educational achievement may be avoided, and
a supportive educational environment may be established
which promotes the reciprocal achievement of appropriate

behavioral changes in form of learning for both teachers

and pupils.

 

 

\t-i Inu'

REFERENCES

 

.59-O"-
“1.. _A .
I

‘U

REFERENCES

Adams, H. E. and Frye, R. L. Psychotherapeutic techniques as
conditioned reinforcers in a structured interview.
Psychological Reports, 1964, ii, 163-166. {1

 

Argyle, M. Social Interaction. New York: Atherton Press, g
1969. ;

 

Argyle, M. and Dean, J. Eye-contact, distance and affilia- , .
tion. Sociometry, 1965,,E8, 289-304. 134

 

 

Argyle, M. and Kendon, A. The experimental analysis of f
social performance. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 1967, 3, 55:98.

 

 

Ayllon, T. and Haughton, E. Modification of symptomatic
verbal behavior of mental patients. Behavior
Research and Therapy, 1964, 2, 87-97.

 

Bandura, A. Principles of behavior modification. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1969.

Bernstein, B. Social structure, language, and learning.
Educational Research, 1961, June, 3, 163-176.

 

Birdwhistell, R. L. Paralanguage 25 years after Sapir. In
H. W. Bresin (ed), Lectures on experimental psychia-
try. Pittsburgh: University Oi’Pittsburgh Press,

1.

 

Birch, D. R. Effects of inquiry orientation and guided self-
analysis using videotape on the verbal teaching
behavior of intermediate grade student teachers.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
California, Berkeley, 1969.

Campbell, D. T., Kruskal, W. H., and Wallace, W. Seating
aggregation as an index of attitude. Sociometry,
1966, 29, 1-15.

 

Carus, F. E. The use of closed circuit television (video-
tape) for psycho-galvanic response to increase the
rate of change in student teachers' classroom per-
formance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer-
sity of California, Berkeley, 1970.

135

136

Charney, E. J. Postural configurations in psychotherapy.
Psychosomatic Medicine, 1966, 38, 305-315.

 

Condon, W. S. and Ogston, W. D. A segmentation of behavior.
Journal of Psychiatric Research, 1967, 5, 221-235.

 

Dittman, A. T. and Lewellyn, L. G. Relationship between
vocalizations and head nods as listener responses.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968,
9, 79-84.

Duncan, S. Nonverbal communication. Psychological Bulletin,
1969, Zl:2, 118-137.

Ebel, R. L. Estimation of the reliability of ratings.
Psychometrika, 1951, lo, 407-424.

 

Efran, J. S. Looking for approval: effects on visual behav-
ior of approbation from persons differing in impor-
tance. 1968, University of Rochester (Mimeo.).

Efran, J. S. and Broughton, A. Effect of expectancies for
social approval on visual behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 103-107.

 

 

Ekman, P. Communication through nonverbal behavior: a
source of information about an interpersonal relation-
ship. In S. S. Tomkins and C. E. Izard (eds.),
Affect, cognition, and personality. New York:
Springer, 1965.

 

Ekman, P. and Friesen, W. V. Nonverbal behavior in psycho-
therapy research. Research on Psychotherapy, 1967,
3

Ellsworth, P. C. and Carlsmith, J. M. Effects of eye contact
and verbal content on affective response to a dyadic
interaction. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1968, lg} 15-20.

 

Exline, R., Gray, D., and Schuette, D. Visual behavior in a
dyad as affected by interview content and sex of
respondent. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1965, l, 201-209.

 

Exline, R. and Messick, D. The effects of dependency and
social reinforcement upon visual behavior during an
interview. British Journal of Social Clinical
Psychology, 1967, 6, 2561266.

1." _‘l m.lh‘m "1 '

m1;
'5

137

Exline, R. V. and Winters, L. C. Affective relations and
mutual glances in dyads. In S. S. Tomkins and C. E.
Izard (eds.), Affect, cognition, and personality.
New York: Springer,*l965.

 

Ferster, C. B. and Skinner, B. F. Schedules of reinforce-
ment. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957.

 

 

Franks, C. Behavior therapy: appraisal and status. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1969.

 

Galloway, C. M. An exploratory study of observational pro-
cedures for determining teacher nonverbal communica-
tion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Florida, 1962.

Galloway, C. M. Teacher nonverbal communication. Educa-
tional Leadership, October, 1966, 55-63.

 

 

Garrett, H. E. Statistics in Psycholo y and Education.
New York: David McKay Co., 19 1.

 

Gewirtz, J. L. and Beer, D. M. The effect of brief social
deprivation on behaviors for a social reinforcer.
Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 1958, s9,
49-56.

 

Goffman, E. Asylums. New York: Anchor Books, 1961.

Greenspoon, J. The reinforcing effect of two spoken sounds
on the frequency of two responses. American Journal
of Psychology, 1955, pg, 409-416.

 

Haas, K. Verbal conditioning of affective responses.
Journal of General Psychology, 1962, 91, 319-322.

 

Hall, R. V., Lund, D., and Jackson, D. Effects of teacher
attention on study behavior. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 1968, l, l-ll.

 

Hall, R. V., Panyan, M., Raben, D., and Broden, M. The use
of systematic reinforcement by beginning teachers to
achieve better classroom control. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 1968, l, 315-322.

 

Hildum, D. C. and Brown, R. W. Verbal reinforcement and
interviewer bias. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
1956, gs, 108-111.

Howsam, R. B. Who's a good teacher. Burlingame, Calif.:
CSBA and CTA, 1960.

 

 

Hughes, M.
the
Salt

Kanfer, F. H
ment
Psyc

138

DevelOpment of the means for the assessment of
quality of teaching in elementary schools.
Lake City: University of Utah, 1959.

. and McBrearty, J. F. Minimal social reinforce-
and interviewer content. Journal of Clinical
hology, 1962, ls, 210-215.

 

Kanfer, F. H
beha

. and Phillips, J. S. Learningsfoundations of
vior therapy. New York: Wiley, 1970.

 

Kendon, A.
acti

Some functions of gaze direction in social inter-
on. Acta Psychologica, 1967, ES, 1-47.

 

Kendon, A. Movement coordination in social interaction:

some
53.

Krasner, L.
Psyc

Krasner, L.

tion

Little, K. B
Soci

Madsen, C.,
igno
Jour

Mahl, G. F.
spee
Soci

Matarazzo, J
inte
Ullm
New

Medley, D. M
of t
Psyc

Mehrabian, A.
ntation and distance of a communication. Journal

orie
of C

Mitzel, H. E

examples described. Acta Psychologica, 1970,
100-125.

Studies of the conditioning of verbal behavior.
hological Bulletin, 1958».l§9 148-171.

and Ullmann, L. Research in behavior modifica-
. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1965.

. Personal space. Journal of Experimental
a1 Psychology, 1965, l, 237-247.

Becker, W., and Thomas, D. Rules, praise, and
ring: elements of elementary classroom control.
nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, l, 35-45.

Disturbances and silences in the patient's
ch in psychotherapy. Journal of Abnormal and
a1 Psychology, 1956, £29 1-15.

. D., Wiens, A. N., and Saslow, G. Studies of
rview speech behavior. In L. Krasner and L.P.

an (eds.), Research in Behavior Modification,
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965}

. and Mitzel, H. E. Some behavioral correlates
eacher effectiveness. The Journal of Educational
hology, 1959, s9, 239-246.

The inference of attitudes from the posture,
onsulting Psychology, 1968, is, 296-308.

. and Rabinowitz, W. Assessing socio-emotional

climate in a classroom by Whithall's technique.

Psyc

hological Monographs, 91:18, 1953.

 

.flu'Iiv-"yfl

.- v‘.‘-‘ F- Tia"

 

139

Noblin, C. D., Timmons, E. 0., and Reynard, M. C. Psycho-
analytic interpretations as verbal reinforcers:
importance of interpretation content. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 1963, l9, 479-481.

 

 

O'Leary, D. and O'Leary, S. Classroom Management: The
Successful Use of Behavior Modification. Ndw York:
Pergamon Press, T972.

 

 

Osgood, C. E. Dimensionality of the semantic space for
communication via facial expressions. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, 1966, 1, 1-30.

 

Ramp, E. A. and Hopkins, B. L. A New Direction for Educa-
tion: Behavior Analysis, 1971, Vol. One. The
Uhiversity of Kansas,il97l.

Reynolds, G. S. A Primer of Operant Conditioning. Glenview,
111.: Scott, Foresman andnCo., 1968.

 

Rosenfeld, H. M. Instrumental affiliative functions of
facial and gestural expressions. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 65-72.

 

Rosenfeld, H. M. Nonverbal reciprocation of approval: an
experimental analysis. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 1967,—3, 102-ill.

 

 

Ryans, D. G. Characteristics of Teachers. American Council
of Education: 1960.

Ryans, D. G. Inventory estimated teacher characteristics
as covariants of observer assessed pupil behavior.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 1961, 21: 91-97.

 

Sakoda, J. M., Cohen, B. H., and Beall, G. Test of signifi-
cance for a series of statistical test. Psychological
Bulletin, 1954, 51, 172-175.

 

 

Salzinger, K. Experimental manipulation of verbal behavior: a
review. Journal of General Psychologygll959,§lj 65-94.

 

Scheflen, A. E. The significance of posture in communication
systems. Psychiatry, 1964, 21, 316-331.

 

Scheflen, A. E. Stream and structure of communicational
behavior. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Eastern
Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute, 1965.

 

Skinner, B. F. Science and Human Behavior. New York:
Macmillan, 1953.

 

Skinner, B. F. The Technology of Teaching. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968.

 

 

140

Solomon, D., Bezdek, W. E., and Rosenberg, L. Dimensions of
teacher behavior. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 1964, ll, 23-40.

 

Spielberger, C. D., Berger, A., and Howard, K. Conditioning
of verbal behavior as a function of awareness, need
for social approval, and motivation to receive rein-
forcement. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
1963, 91, 241-246.

 

Spielberger, C. D. and DeNike, L. D. Descriptive behavior-
ism versus cognitive theory in verbal operant
conditioning. Psychological Review, 1966, ll,
306-326.

 

Steller, N. and Freedman, P. A comparison of methods of
observation in pre-service teacher training. Audio
Visual Communications Review, 1964, ll, 177-197.

 

Steller, N. and Lesser, G. The use of television for
improving teacher training and for improving measures
of student teaching performance. Phase 11: A com-
parison of methods of observation in pro-service
teacher training. New York: ‘anter COllege of the
City University of New York, 1963.

 

Taffel, C. Anxiety and the conditioning of verbal behavior.
Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 1955, El,
496-501.

 

Thomas, D., Becker, W., and Armstrong, M. Production and
elimination of disruptive classroom behavior by
systematically varying teachers' behavior. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, l, 35-45.

 

Timmons, E. O., Noblin, C. D., Adams, H. E., and Butler,
J. R. Operant conditioning with schizophrenics
comparing verbal reinforcers vs. psychoanalytic
interpretations: differential extinction effects.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965,
l‘, 373-377.

Truax, C. B. Reinforcement and non-reinforcement in Rogerian
psychotherapy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1966,
71, 1-9.

Tryon, R. C. and Bailey, D. E. Cluster Analysis. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1970.

 

141

Wachtel, P. L. An approach to the study of body language in
psychotherapy. Psyghotherapy: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 1967, 4:3: 97-100.

Watson, 0. M. and Graves, T. D. Quantitative research in
proximic behavior. American Anthropologist, 1966,
1966, 68, 971-985.

Williams, J. H. Conditioning of verbalization: a review.
Psychological Bulletin, 1964, 93:6» 383-393.

Willis, F. N. Initial speaking distance as a function of
the speakers' relationship. Psychonomic Science,
1966, s, 221-222.

 

APPENDIX A

CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR RATING SCHEDULE:
TEACHERS AND PUPILS

, .

w Mun-z». "pang-Is
C
.

APPENDIX A

CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR RATING SCHEDULE:
TEACHERS AND PUPILS

Teacher

Gesticulation

1.

2.

Baton Gesture

 

Definition. Movement of hand(s) and/or arm(s) which

 

accents or emphasizes words or phrases. Movement
must accompany speech.

Note: Count one discrete unit of occurrence when
three or more consecutive seconds elapse between
termination of gesture and onset of subsequent
response. Directional gestures are not counted.

Example. Hand slicing through air; first thumping
object; hand(s) up-turned with open palm(s); finger
to ear signalling listen; finger to mouth signalling
quiet; counting or showing fingers.

Measurement Scheme. Count number of occurrences over

 

a five minute period.

Deictic Gesture

 

Definition. Directional movement of hand(s) pointing

 

to an object(s) present in the classroom, or waving
motion of hand(s) or arm(s). Movement may or may not
accompany speech.

Note: Count one discrete unit of occurrence when
three or more consecutive seconds elapse between
termination of gesture and onset of subsequent
response. Emphatic gestures are not counted.

Example. Pointing to items on blackboard, in book,
or on paper; pointing to materials; waving motions
of hand or arm signalling stOp, approach, withdraw.

142

1,433". r ~.qu

 

143

Measurement Scheme. Count number of occurrences over

 

a five minute period.
Body Acts
3. Locomotion Strength: Large Movement.

Definition. Degree to which teacher moves body

 

through classroom in movements of seven or more con-
secutive steps (a distance of three or more desks).

Measurement Scheme. Ten time samples over a five

 

minute period, each sample of 10 seconds duration.
(Note: count only one and first occurrence of response
for each sample). Count number of samples in which
response was recorded (N to 10).

4. Locomotion Strength: Small Movement.

 

Definition. Degree to which teacher moves body through

 

classroom in movements of from one to six consecutive
steps (a distance of less than three desks).

Measurement Scheme. Ten time samples over a five

 

minute period, each sample of 10 seconds duration.
(Note: Count only one and first occurrence of response
for each sample). Count number of samples in which
response was recorded (N to 10).

5. Locomotion Strength: Stationary.

Definition. Degree to which teacher is stationary in

 

geographic space, making no discernable movement by
taking steps or walking in the classroom.

Measurement Scheme. Ten time samples over a five

 

minute period, each sample of 10 seconds duration.
(Note: Count one and first occurrence of response
for each sample). Count number of samples in which
response was recorded (N to 10).

 

144

6. Locomotion Frequency.

 

Definition and Measurement Scheme. The total number

 

of counted occurrences of items 3 and 4, large and
small movements, by teacher.

Body Orientation

7. Gross Posture.

 

Definition. Position of teacher's bodywith reference

 

to squatting or sitting position beside (within two
feet of) pupil.

Note: Count one discrete unit of squatting/sitting
when teacher arises. Do not rate teacher's sitting
in front of group (as in reading group).

Measurement Scheme. Count number of occurrences over

 

a five minute period.

8. Gross Posture: Duration.

 

Definition. The cumulative amount of time (in seconds)

 

teacher is counted as squatting or sitting beside
pupil (See item 7).

Measurement Scheme. Count cumulative duration in

 

seconds for each counted occurrence of Gross Posture

(7).

9. Position of Trunk: Forward.

 

Definition. Degree to which teacher's trunk is physi-

 

cally oriented toward (that is, leaning in the direction

of) pupil. To be counted, teacher must talk to, look
at, or touch pupil, or look at or touch pupil's mate-
rials in presence of pupil, or present material to
pupil.

Note: Count one discrete unit of sitting when

teacher arises. Rate "slouching" (drOOping shoulders

or hunched position while seated) as Erect.

Measurement Scheme. Ten time samples over a five
minute period (still shots). Sum counted occurrences

of item.

 

 

A!
‘3

'w

.12"

\r"
”
.AN- _

I

145

10. Position of Trunk: Erect.

Definition. Degree to which teacher's trunk is physi-
cally oriented along a ventrical axis, neither leaning
toward nor away from pupil. To be counted teacher must
talk to, look at, or touch pupil, or look at or touch
pupil's materials in presence of pupil, or present mate-

 

rial to pupil.
Note: Count one discrete unit of sitting when
teacher arises. Rate "slouching" (drOOping shoulders
or hunched position while seated) as Erect.
Measurement Scheme. Ten time samples over a five

minute period (still shots). Sum counted occurrences

 

of item.
11. Position of Trunk: Backward.

Definition. Degree to which teacher's trunk is physi-
cally oriented away from (that is, leaning backward
from) pupil. To be counted, teacher must talk to,
look at, or touch pupil, or look at or touch pupil's
materials in presence of pupil, or present material to

 

pupil.

Note: Count one discrete unit of sitting when
teacher arises. Rate "slouching" (drOOping shoulders
or hunched position while seated) as Erect.

Measurement Scheme. Ten time samples over a five
minute period (still shots). Sum counted occurrences

of item.
Facial Expression
12. Smile: Non-directional.

Definition. Degree to which teacher exhibits smiles
(position of mouth in up-turned expression) without

 

regard to any given target.

Note: Count one discrete unit of smile when mouth
returns to non-smile position.

 

”v- .4 ..—

—_._-..
o
a

146

Measurement Scheme. Count number of occurrences over

 

a five minute period.

13. Smile: Duration.

 

Definition and Measurement Scheme. The cumulative
elapsed time between onset of Smile: Non-directional
(Item 12) and return of mouth to non-smile expression
for each counted occurrence of smile. The duration

of each smile is measured in seconds.
14. Frown.

Definition. Degree to which teacher exhibits a frown-

 

ing expression (position of eyebrows in knitted expres-
sion, forehead wrinkled).
Note: Count one discrete unit of frown when face
returns to non-frown expression.

Measurement Scheme. Count number of occurrences over

 

a five minute period.
Head Orientation
15. Head Nod.

Definition. Degree to which teacher exhibits up-down

 

motion of head relative to axis of shoulders, while
looking at or toward pupil.

Note: Count one discrete unit of head nod when up-
down motion of head stOps for three or more consecu-
tive seconds.

Measurement Scheme. Count number of occurrences over

 

a five minute period.

16. Head Shake.

 

Definition. Degree to which teacher exhibits side-to-

 

side bilateral motion of head relative to axis of
shoulders, while looking or toward pupil.

 

147

Note: Count one discrete unit of head shake when
side-to-side motion of head stops for three or more
consecutive seconds.

Measurement Scheme. Count number of occurrences over

 

a five minute period.
Physical Orientation

17. Proximity: Close.

 

Definition. Degree to which teacher's body is within

 

extended arm's reach of pupil. Teacher must look at,
touch or talk to pupil, or look at pupil's materials
in presence of pupil, or present materials to pupil.

Measurement Scheme. Ten time samples over a five
minute period (still shots). Sum counted occurrences
of item.

 

18. Proximity: Distant.

Definition. Degree to which teacher's body is beyond
extended arm's reach of pupil, while teacher looks at,
touches, or talks to pupil, or looks at pupil's mate-
rials in presence of pupil, or presents materials to

 

pupil.

Measurement Scheme. Ten time samples over a five
minute period (still shots). Sum counted occurrences

 

of item.
19. Gaze Direction: Pppil.

Definition. Degree to which teacher's direction of

 

gaze direction is toward pupil's face. Teacher must
look at pupil to be counted.

Measurement Scheme. Ten time samples over a five
minute period (still shot). Sum counted occurrences of

item.

 

148

20. Gaze Direction: Other.

Definition. Degree to which teacher's direction of
gaze is away from pupil's face. Teacher must not look

 

at pupil to be counted.

Measurement Scheme. Ten time samples over a five
minute period (still shot). Sum counted occurrences

of item.
Physical Contact
21. Physical Contact: Approving.

Definition. Degree to which teacher exhibits positive
physical contact with pupil which promotes contentment,
comfort, or care of the pupil.

Note: Count one discrete unit of contact when
teacher terminates contact (ceases to touch pupil).

 

 

Example. Lightly touching (any body part); holding
hand or arm lightly (includes shaking hands);
patting; embracing.

Measurement Scheme. Count number Of Occurrences over

 

a five minute period.

22. Physical Contact: Approving-Duration.

Definition and Measurement Scheme. Cumulative duration
of each counted occurrence of item 21, Approvint Physi-
cal Contact. Duration is recorded in seconds. Sum
duration of counted occurrences.

23. Physical Contact: Disapproving.

Definition. Degree to which teacher exhibits negative
physical contact with pupil which disrupts or inhibits
pupil's ongoing behavior.

Note: Count one discrete unit of contact when .
teacher terminates contact (ceases to touch pup11).

 

Example. Forcibly holding; forcibly dragging or
pulling; grabbing; pushing into position; shoving;
shaking; slapping or hitting.

149

Measurement Scheme. Count number of occurrences over

 

a five minute period

Punishment Procedures
24. Time-Out.

Definition. Degree to which teacher isolates pupil.

 

Example. Teacher removes pupil from classroom;
isolates pupil by himself; turns back and waits
for silence; turns lights out and says nothing;
stops talking and waits for silence; places pupil
behind screen; places pupil beside teacher's desk
or in corner, etc.

Measurement Scheme. Count number of occurrences over

 

a five minute period.

25. Removal of Privilege.

 

Definition. Enactment by teacher of removing pupil's

 

rights, rewards, reinforcers, status, or privileges.
Teacher must actively remove privileges and not merely
threaten to remove them.

Example. Withholding or reducing pupil's playtime;
keeping pupil in for recess; marking points against
pupil or removing points earned by pupil.

Measurement Scheme. Count number of occurrences over

 

a five minute period.
Verbal Behavior

26. Verbalization: Approving.

 

Definition. Degree to which teacher emits verbaliza-

 

tions directed to pupil which conveys approval, praise,
or confirmation of pupil's behavior. These verbaliza-
tions encourage pupil's behavior, expressing pleasure
by teacher.

Example. Fine; good; right; excellent; great; you're
good; right on; bien (good); you're doing well; (like
you; thank you; that's nice; that's fine; correct;
perfect; wonderful; you did very well; okay.

 

150

Note: Count "okay" only when teacher emits word
within one second of pupil's observable behavior.

Measurement Scheme. Count number of occurrences over

 

a five minute period.

27. Verbalization: Disapproving.

 

Definition. Degree to which teacher emits verbaliza-

 

tions directed to pupil which indicates disapproval of
or displeasure with, pupil's behavior. These verbali-
zations may disrupt pupil's ongoing behavior and may

include statements of threat, punishment, or criticism.

Example. That's wrong; don't do that; quiet down;
stOp talking; be still; did I call on you; you're
wasting time; stOp that; you'd better not do that;

I don't like that; shut up; settle down; dummy;
stupid; wipe that look off your face; that's not
nice; what did I tell you to do; get busy right now;
you're not doing what I told you to do; behave; I'll
make you stay after class.

 

Measurement Scheme. Count number of occurrences over a

 

five minute period.

28. Verbalization: Total Disapproving.

 

Definition and Measurement Scheme. Total number of

 

counted occurrences of item 27, Disapproving Verbaliza-
tions by teacher.

29. Eliciting Verbal Elaboration.

 

Definitios. Degree to which teacher asks pupil's to

 

explain or amplify own or other's statement, comment,

or question.

Example. What do you (does he) mean by that; how do
you mean that; anything else; tell me more; explain;
anything to add; I don't understand what you mean-—
explain it.

Note: Any question on the same topic, asked by
teacher of the same pupil following pupil's initial
answer to question, is counted as request for explana-
tion or elaboration of topic, and is to be rated in
this category.

151

Measurement Scheme. Count number of occurrences over
a five minute period.

30. Verbal Questions.

 

Definition. Degree to which teacher asks pupil a
specific question calling for a direct, single verbal
response by pupil. Requests by teacher for clarifica-
tion, elaboration, or explanation of topic is not
counted in this category.

 

Example. What ?; Who ?; Why ?;
When ?; Where ?; Can ?; How ?;
Do you know ?; Is ?

 

Note: Any question on the same topic asked by
teacher of the same pupil following pupil's initial
answer to question, is counted as request for explana-
tion or elaboration of topic, and is not to be rated
in this category.

Measurement Scheme. Count number of occurrences over

a five minute period.
Usage of Instructional Aids
31. Usage of Blackboard: Occurrences.

Definition. The number of discrete occurrences that
teacher uses blackboard as instructional aid for pupil,
by writing or drawing on blackboard in presence of
pupils or verbally or physically referring to items on
blackboard by directing pupil's attention to it.

Note: Count one occurrence of Use of Blackboard when
three or more consecutive seconds elapse between end
of teacher's verbal or physical reference to board
and onset of subsequent verbal or physical reference
to board. Rate in this category each occurrence of
pupil's usage of blackboard (that is, writes or draws
on board, or emits verbal or physical reference to
items on board) under teacher's direction and in
presence of teacher.

Measurement Scheme. Count number of occurrences over
a five minute period.

 

 

 

152

32. Usage of Blackboard: Duration.

 

Definition and Measurement Scheme. The cumulative

 

amount of elapsed time in seconds for each discrete
occurrence of teacher's usage of blackboard as instruc-
tional aid for pupil as defined in item 31.

33. Usage of Instructional Material: Occurrences.

Definition. The number of discrete occurrences when

 

teacher uses instructional materials (exClusive of
blackboard) as instructional aid for pupils.

Exam 1e. Books, drill cards, maps, charts, pictures,
photos, graphics, prepared lesson cards.

Note: Count one occurrence of Usage of Instructional

Material when three or more consecutive seconds elapse

between end of teacher's verbal or physical reference
to materials and onset of subsequent verbal or physi-
cal reference to materials. Teacher's usage of black-

board should not be counted in this category. Teacher

must verbally or physically refer to materials in
presence of pupils. Include in this category occur-
rences wherein teacher looks at pupil or pupil's
materials or follows along in own materials while
pupil reads aloud or uses instructional item.

Measurement Scheme. Count number of occurrences over a

 

five minute period.
34. Usage of Instructional Materials: Duration.

Definition and Measurement Scheme. The cumulative

 

amount of elapsed time in seconds for each discrete
occurrence of teacher's usage of instructional materials
as instructional aid for pupils, as defined in item 33.

Teacher-Pupil Interaction
35. Interaction--Individual.

Definition. Degree to which teacher exhibits verbal

 

and nonverbal behavioral interaction with a single,
individual pupil. Rate only if teacher looks at and/or

 

 

 

153

touches and/or talks to pupil, or identifies pupil by
name, and/or looks at or touches pupil's materials in
presence of pupil, of presents materials to pupil.
This category also includes teacher's listening to
individual pupil reading aloud (that is, teacher looks
at book or materials while pupil reads aloud from his
own book or materials).

Note: Indicate if only one pupil is present in
observation space. In the case of multiple behavior
events directed by teacher to same pupil, the fol-
lowing rule applies: one discrete contact between
teacher and same pupil is rated each time five or
more consecutive seconds have elapsed between end

of teacher's behavior event (defined above) and on-
set of subsequent behavior event.

Measurement Scheme. Count cumulative duration in

 

seconds for each occurrence of individual interaction,
over a period of five minutes.

36. Interaction--Group.

 

Definition. Degree to which teacher exhibits verbal

 

and nonverbal behavioral interaction with two or more
pupils at the same time. A behavioral interaction is
defined as teacher's looking at and/or touching and/or
talking to pupils, or looking at or touching pupils'
materials in presence of pupils or presenting materials
to pupils.

Note: In the case of multiple behavior events
directed by teacher to same pupils--simultaneously--
the following rule applies: One discrete contact
between teacher and same pupils is rated each time
five or more consecutive seconds have elapsed between
end of teacher's behavior event (defined above) and
onset of subsequent behavior event.

Example. Story-telling; reading to group; demonstrat-
ing or showing something to group; singing to groups;
giving instructions to group; addressing group as
whole.

 

 

154

This category is rated only if teacher does not single
out, recognize or identify any specific individual
pupil, directing behavior event to the selected individ-

ual.

Measurement Scheme. Count cumulative duration in

 

seconds for each occurrence of group interaction over
a period of five minutes. F

37. Interaction--Undetermined.

 

Definition. Rate only if unable to classify direction
of teacher's behavioral contact as either Individual

 

or Group. This category includes teacher's direction
of behavior to targets outside the observation space

 

(i.e., beyond the field of vision).

Measurement Scheme. Count cumulative duration in

 

seconds for each occurrence of undetermined inter-
action over a period of five minutes.

Facial Attraction

38. Attraction: Pleasant/Unpleasant.

 

Definition. Ordinal judgment of perceived degree of

 

teacher's facial attraction.

Measurement Scheme. Rate full face shot. Score Not
Attractive, l; Attractive, 2; and Very Attractive, 3.

 

155

Teacher Objects
(Pupil)

Verbal Behavior
39. Answering Teacher--Individua1.

Definition. Degree to which individual pupils answer
teacher's questions or respond verbally when called

 

upon or recognized by teacher. This category includes
pupils' reading aloud as teacher directs.

Note: Each verbal response by pupil following a
question asked by teacher is counted as one unit of
occurrence. Count only verbal responses by one
individual alone. Do not count simultaneous re-
sponses by more than one pupil.

Measurement Scheme. Count number of occurences over a

 

five minute period.
40. spontaneously Answering_Teacher--Individual.

Definition. Degree to which individual pupils answer
teacher's questions or respond verbally to teacher

 

without teacher's calling upon or recognizing pupil.

Note: Each verbal response by pupil following a
question asked by teacher is counted as one unit of
occurrence. Count only verbal responses by one
individual alone. Do not count simultaneous responses
by more than one pupil.

Measurement Scheme. Count number of occurrences over a

 

five minute period.

41. Answering Teacher-~Group.

 

Definition. Degree to which two or more pupils simul-
taneously answer teacher or respond verbally when called

 

upon or recognized by pupils. This category includes
reading aloud or singing aloud as teacher directs.

Note: Each verbal response by two or more pupils
following a question asked by teacher is counted as
one unit of occurrence. DO not count individual

responses by one pupil alone.

' psi-"rm; l
l .

 

156

Measurement Scheme. Count number of occurrences over

 

a five minute period.

42. Spontaneously Answering Teacher--Group.

 

Definition. Degree which two or more pupils simul-

 

taneously answer teacher's questions or respond verbally
to teacher without teacher's calling upon or recognizing
pupils.

Note: Each verbal response by two or more pupils fol-
lowing a question asked by teacher is counted as one
unit of occurrence. Do not count individual responses
by one pupil alone.

Measurement Scheme. Count number of occurrences over a

 

five minute period.

43. Verbal Latenoyz' Individual.

 

Definition. Degree to which individual pupil delays

 

emitting verbal response to teacher's question or
request for verbal response, directed specifically to
individual pupil.
Note: Count only individual responsiveness. Do not
count simultaneous responses by two or more pupils.

Measurement Scheme. Measure latency of verbal reSponse

 

over a five minute period (that is, amount of elapsed
time in seconds between end of teacher's verbalization
and onset of pupil's verbal response for each separate
question or request for verbal response by teacher).

44. Verbal Latency: Group.

 

Definition. Degree to which pupils delay emitting
verbal response to teacher's question or request for

 

verbal response, directed Specifically to two or more
pupils at the same time.

Note: Count only simultaneous responses by two or
more pupils. Do not count individual respons1veness.

'd
-

 

 

157

Measurement Scheme. Measure latency of verbal response

 

over a five minute period (that is, amount of elapsed
time in seconds between end of teacher's verbalization
and onset of pupil's verbal response for each separate
question or request for verbal response by teacher).

45. Asking Teachers' Question(s).

 

Definition. Degree to which pupil elicits teacher

 

verbalization by asking teacher specific questions.
Count occurrences wherein pupil asks teacher to explain
or amplify own or others' verbalization or asks teacher
to explain or elaborate on assignment or explain use of
materials.

Note: Each teacher-pupil interaction (that is, single,
specific question by pupil followed by teacher's re-
sponse) counts as one occurrence. Teacher's response
to pupil's question may include statement, comment,

or question.

Example. What ? How ? Why ? Who ?
Where ? When ? Can ? Is ? Tell me
? I don't understand 7 Verballzations are

d1rected by pupil to teacher.

 

Measurement Scheme. Count number of occurrences over

 

a five minute period.
46. Discussion of Task.

Definition. Degree to which pupil talks about assign-

 

ment or task-relevant topic to teacher. This category
excludes questions asked by pupil (see item 44).

Note: This category does not include pupil's initial
answer or verbal reSponse to teacher's question.
Count only pupil's discussion of task with teacher.

Example. Verbalizations by pupil which extend discus-
sion of topic relevant to the teacher-designated task
or assignment, including anecdotal reports and state-
ments or comments by pupil elaborating tOpic.

Measurement Scheme. Count number of occurrences over a

 

five minute period.

 

158

47. Task-Irrelevant Verbalization.

Definition. Degree to which pupil's verbal responses
to teacher are irrelevant and unrelated to teacher-

 

designated tOpic or assignment. These pupil responses
include answering or asking questions, and include
responses directed to teacher and/or pupils.

Example. Pupil talks about play period activities
during math assignment; pupil talks about other's
activities when asked by teacher to read aloud.

Measurement Scheme. Count number of occurrences over
a five minute period.

48. Paralingualism.

 

Definition. Degree to which pupil emits non-verbal

 

vocalizations which are clearly audible and detectable.

Note: Count one unit of paralingual noise for same
pupil when five or more consecutive seconds have
elapsed between termination of noise event and onset
of subsequent paralingual vocalization.

Example. crying; screaming; singing (when not author-
ized or sanctioned by teacher); whistling; clicking
tongue; blowing.

Measurement Scheme. Count number of occurrences over

 

a five minute period.

49. Elicitihg Peer Verbalization.

 

Definition. Degree to which pupil inappropriately

 

elicits verbalizations by peers. This category is to
be rated only when pupil carries on conversation at

the same time teacher speaks to pupil or addresses
class as a whole or when teacher indicates that pupils
are to listen to another pupil, or are instructed to
tend quietly to work. Rate pupil who elicits (that is,
first initiates) verbal behavior and pupil who verbally
responds to eliciting pupil.

 

159

Note: Count one discrete occurrence of eliciting
behavior for pupil when five or more consecutive
seconds have elapsed between verbalizations by same
pupil.

Measurement Scheme. Count number of occurrences over a

 

five minute period.
Visual Orientation

50. Gaze Direction: Toward Teacher.

 

Definition. Degree to which pupil's direction of gaze

 

is away from teacher or teacher-designated stimulus.

Measurement Scheme. Ten time samples over a five minute

 

period (still shots). Sum counted occurrences of item.

51. Gaze Direction: Other.

 

Definition. Degree to which pupil's direction of gaze

 

is away from teacher or teacher-designated stimulus.

Measurement Scheme. Ten time samples over a five minute

 

period (still shots). Sum counted occurrences of item.
Motor Activity

52. Gross Motor Activity.

 

Definition. Degree to which pupil exhibits body activi-

 

ties involving gross muscular movements which have not
been sanctioned, requested, or designated by teacher.
This category excludes physical contact behaviors with

other persons (see items 56 and 57).

Note: Count one discrete unit of occurrence when five
or more consecutive seconds have elapsed between termi-
nation of behavior event and onset of subsequent be-
havior event rated in this category.

Example. Getting out of seat; standing up; running;
walking around; hOpping; skipping; jumping; moving
chair or desk; rocking body without moving chair;
arm-flailing; stamping feet; crawling.

h-‘Wbc-nw-
--. -\- .... (I3. ~ m

160

Measurement Scheme. Count number of occurrences over a

 

five minute period.
Noisemaking Activity

53. Noisemaking.

 

Definition. Degree to which pupil exhibits any non-

 

verbal and nonvocal noisemaking activities which do not

involve other persons and which are clearly identifiable
and audibly detectable. Count only behaviors which have
not been authorized or sanctioned by teacher.

Note: Count one discrete unit of occurrence when five
or more consecutive seconds have elapsed between termi-
nation of behavior event and onset of subsequent be-
havior event rated in this category.

Example. Tapping feet; tapping objects; clapping,
rattling or tearing papers; throwing books or mate-
rials on desk or floor; slamming desk; kicking desk,
chair, or other objects; scraping or dragging objects;
throwing objects.

Measurement Scheme. Count number of occurrences over a

 

five minute period.
Mouthing

54. Mouthing Objects.

 

Definition. Degree to which pupil brings objects into

 

contact with mouth. Count occurrences of eating in
this category.

Note: Count one discrete unit of occurrence of
mouthing when object is removed from contact with
mouth.

Example. Sucking thumb or fingers; mouthing pencil;
chewing gum.

Measurement Scheme. Count number of occurrences over

 

a five minute period.

 

 

161

Object Disturbance

55.

Disturbance of Others' Property.

Definition. Degree to which pupil disturbs prOperty

 

by grabbing, kicking, throwing, hitting or destroying
property owned by another person.

Measurement Scheme. Count number of occurrences over

 

a five minute period.

Physical Contact

56.

57.

Physical Contact: Negative.

 

Definition. Degree to which pupil exhibits physical

 

contact which inhibits or disrupts ongoing behavior

of the person touched.
Note: Count one discrete unit of contact when pupil
ceases to touch target.

Example. Hitting; striking; kicking; shoving;
pinching; dragging; slapping; biting.

Measurement Scheme. Count number of occurrences over

 

a five minute period.

Physical Contact: Positive.

 

Definition. Degree to which pupil exhibits physical

 

contact which promotes comfort, care or contentment

of the person touched.
Note: Count one discrete unit of contact when pupil
ceases to touch target.

Example. Lightly touching; patting; lightly holding;
embracing; kissing; shaking hands.

Measurement Scheme. Count number of occurrences over a

 

five minute period.

fl 358"“. m5 -‘_

 

APPENDIX B

FORMULA FOR COMPUTATION OF INTRACLASS

CORRELATION COEFFICIENT BY ANOVA

11'

q ."x “w \r.
- ‘m
I
:.

 

APPENDIX B

FORMULA FOR COMPUTATION OF INTRACLASS
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT BY ANALYSIS
OF VARIANCE TO YIELD ESTIMATE OF

RELIABILITY OF RATINGS.*

 

_ MS subjects - MS error
MS subjects

SS total - SS subjects - SS raters
df error

(a) MS error

(b) df error

(N -1) (N l)

raters subjects-

 

*(See Ebel, 1951.)

162

"IWill“!lllT‘LfllIll