- Email: [email protected]
A study of teacher behaviour in high school biology classes
Studies in Educational Evaluation. Vol. 17, pp. 99-115, 1991 Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved.
0191-491X/91 $0.00 + .50 © 1991 Pergamon Press plc
A STUDY OF TEACHER BEHAVIOUR IN HIGH SCHOOL BIOLOGY CLASSES Sam T. Bajah* and Mercy E. Chidoluet * Faculty of Education, University of Ibadan, Nigeria t Institute of Management and Technology, Department of Science Education, Enugu, Nigeria
Description a n d Analysis Most r e s e a r c h e r s on science t e a c h i n g seem to have c o n c e n t r a t e d on the a n t e c e d e n t s a n d c o n s e q u e n c e s of the classroom b e h a v i o u r of t e a c h e r s a n d p u p i l s r a t h e r t h a n on w h a t t e a c h e r s a n d pupils a c t u a l l y do in the c l a s s r o o m . A gap therefore exists in o u r knowledge of t h e n a t u r e of t e a c h e r s ' a n d pupils' b e h a v i o u r in science classes. U n d e r s t a n d i n g the t e a c h i n g t a s k - a complex p h e n o m e n o n - would in no small way help in developing the m u c h needed theories of science teaching. The first step of t h e r e s e a r c h s t r a t e g y w o u l d be to describe, categorize a n d a n a l y s e objectively the s y s t e m a t i c observation of the teacher's classroom behaviour. This descriptive p h a s e would t h e n be followed by identification of teaching styles from the observed classroom behaviour of the teacher. The teaching styles t h u s identified, t o g e t h e r with some o t h e r t e a c h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , would be u s e d to explain s t u d e n t s ' learning outcomes in biology. The p r e s e n t s t u d y w a s d e s i g n e d to m e e t t h r e e m a j o r objectives, namely:
1) 2)
To describe, a n a l y s e and interpret the behaviour profile of the teacher in high school biology classes and laboratory. To identify t e a c h i n g styles or p a t t e r n s of t e a c h e r b e h a v i o u r of the s a m p l e d teachers. 99
100
S. To Bajah and M. E. Chidolue
3)
To d e t e r m i n e t h e e x t e n t to w h i c h t e a c h i n g s t y l e s a n d t e a c h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s explain s t u d e n t s ' affective a n d cognitive a c h i e v e m e n t in biology. The first p a r t of this s t u d y focused on the first objective while the s e c o n d p a r t a d d r e s s e d i t s e l f to t h e s e c o n d a n d t h i r d objectives. Specifically, the first p a r t of t h i s s t u d y a n s w e r s the following r e s e a r c h questions:
1) 2)
W h a t is the classroom behaviour profile of form four biology teachers? W h a t is the laboratory behaviour profile of form four biology teachers?
Procedure An ex p o s t facto design was u s e d w h i c h involved a s a m p l e of 11 biology t e a c h e r s , a n d 375 form four biology s t u d e n t s in 11 high schools located in E n u g u Local g o v e r n m e n t a r e a of A n a m b r a State, Nigeria. The s t u d y w a s carried o u t b e t w e e n November 1984 a n d M a r c h 1985. The selection of c l a s s e s w a s p r e d i c a t e d on evidence of c o m m o n topics in the s c h e m e s of work of all the form four classes in the area of s t u d y . Of the 14 high schools in the area, 11 h a d c o m m o n topics. Consequently, the sample u s e d was a selected r a t h e r t h a n a r a n d o m sample. One class was r a n d o m l y selected from all the s t r e a m s of form four in each of the 11 schools. The procedure involved writing the n a m e of each s t r e a m in a school on a piece of paper. The pieces of p a p e r were mixed together in a bowl. The class indicated on the piece of p a p e r t h u s r a n d o m l y selected w a s u s e d for t h e s t u d y in a p a r t i c u l a r school. In this w a y 11 classes were selected from 11 schools. Classroom observations were carried o u t u s i n g a modified form of a n o b s e r v a t i o n i n s t r u m e n t for science t e a c h i n g developed b y F i s c h l e r a n d Z i m m e r (1967, 1968). T h e m o d i f i e d i n s t r u m e n t is p r e s e n t e d in Appendices A and B. Method Eleven t e a c h e r s (10 female a n d 1 male) from u r b a n a n d s e m i - u r b a n schools, with 1 to 18 y e a r s of t e a c h i n g experience were i n c l u d e d in the study. Eight t e a c h e r s (01, 03, 05, 06, 08, 09, 10 a n d 11) h a d the Bachelor of Science degree. F o u r of t h e s e (03, 05, 08, 09) h a d t e a c h i n g qualifications of one kind or a n o t h e r in addition. The r e m a i n i n g three (02, 04,
Teacher Behaviour
101
07) h a d only the National Certificate of E d u c a t i o n (NCE). The ages of the subjects ranged from 22 to 40 years. The c o m m o n topics t a u g h t by the t e a c h e r s were d e t e r m i n e d by inspection of s c h e m e s of work for form four classes. The topics included classes in h u m a n food digestion, fate of p r o d u c t s of digestion, w a t e r a n d food t r a n s p o r t in flowering plants. C l a s s r o o m o b s e r v a t i o n s were carried o u t by the two investigators: i n t e r - o b s e r v e r reliability, u s i n g P e a r s o n ' s P r o d u c t M o m e n t Correlation, r a n g e d from 0.72 to 0.79. These reliability co-efficients were considered r e a s o n a b l y high for the p u r p o s e of s t u d y . Three lecture classes a n d one l a b o r a t o r y s e s s i o n of each of the 11 t e a c h e r s were observed d u r i n g the period of s t u d y (7 to 8 weeks). During each observational visit, teacher behaviour was categorized and coded on t h e s p o t by t h e investigators. The coding p r o c e d u r e w a s as follows: The investigators wrote down the m o s t d o m i n a n t category n u m b e r in the observation i n s t r u m e n t at 30 second intervals. At the end of a class period of 3 5 / 4 0 m i n u t e s , the observational record or coding s h e e t would consist of a b o u t 7 0 / 8 0 category n u m b e r s written in vertical columns, in the s e q u e n c e in w h i c h the b e h a v i o u r s h a d o c c u r r e d . In o t h e r words, the observation d a t a were in the form of n u m b e r s . The classroom observation d a t a on a coding sheet would look like this: 9, 1, 2, 13, 13. T h e s e n u m b e r s r e p r e s e n t c a t e g o r i e s of t h e o b s e r v a t i o n i n s t r u m e n t (Appendix A a n d B), a n d t h e y r e p r e s e n t a s e q u e n c e in w h i c h the t e a c h e r u s e s a n a u d i o aid (category 9) for 30 s e c o n d s , t h e n r e q u e s t s q u e s t i o n s (category 1) for 30 s e c o n d s , a c k n o w l e d g e s s t u d e n t ' s idea w i t h praise (category 2) for 30 seconds, and lectures (category 13) for 60 seconds. In the laboratory classes the t e a c h e r behaviours were categorized and coded at intervals of 60 seconds.
Data Analysis Data analysis was guided by the following questions:
102
]) 2)
S. T. Bajah and M. E. Chidolue
W h a t is the c l a s s r o o m b e h a v i o u r profile of form four biology t e a c h e r s ? W h a t is the l a b o r a t o r y b e h a v i o u r profile of form four biology t e a c h e r s ? T h e b e h a v i o u r profile of t h e s a m p l e d biology t e a c h e r s w a s derived
f r o m t h e o b s e r v a t i o n d a t a w h i c h w ere in t h e form of n u m b e r s .
These
n u m b e r s were p r o c e s s e d to yield m a t r i c e s a c c o r d i n g to t he m e t h o d u s e d by F l a n d e r s (1965). T h i s e n t a i l e d t h e e n t e r i n g of o v e r l a p p i n g p a i r s of n u m b e r s into t he cells of t he matrix. For ex amp le, t h e s e q u e n c e : 9 ) I ( 2 ) 13 { 13 c o n s i s t s of four overl appi ng pairs 9-1, 1-2, 2-13, 13-13. T h e first m e m b e r of e a c h pai r d e t e r m i n e s the row, a n d t h e s e c o n d n u m b e r of t h e p a i r d e t e r m i n e s t h e c o l u m n . T h e r e f o r e , t h e first p a i r 9-1 w o u l d be e n t e r e d as a tally in t h e 9-1 cell f o r m e d b y t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n of r ow 9 a n d c o l u m n 1. T h e s e c o n d pai r 1-2 would be e n t e r e d as a tally in t he 1-2 cell formed by the i n t e r s e c t i o n of row 1 a n d c o l u m n 2, a n d so on. A m a t r i x of every l e s s o n o b s e r v e d and cat egori zed w a s c o n s t r u c t e d . T h e r e were on t h e whole 33 c l a s s r o o m biology l e s s o n s a n d 11 l a b o r a t o r y sessions.
If 3 l e s s o n s , for example, were o b s e r v e d a n d cat egori zed for a
t e a c h e r , 3 m a t r i c e s were p r e p a r e d . F r e q u e n c y c o u n t s a n d p e r c e n t a g e s of tallies w e r e c a l c u l a t e d f r o m t h e m a t r i c e s . C o l u m n t o t a l s gave t h e p e r c e n t a g e of time the t e a c h e r s p e n t on e a c h category. T he m e a n s of t he p e r c e n t a g e s for e a c h c a t e g o r y w e r e f o u n d to give t h e i n t e r a c t i o n or b e h a v i o u r p a t t e r n for e a c h t e a c h e r . T h u s , t h e m e a n s of 11 s e t s of p e r c e n t a g e s for e a c h of t h e c a t e g o r i e s w e r e c a l c u l a t e d . T h i s gave t he b e h a v i o u r p a t t e r n or l e s s on profile of t h e 11 biology t e a c h e r s . T he profile gave t h e p e r c e n t a g e of t i m e t h e a v e r a g e t e a c h e r s p e n t on e a c h of t he c a t e g o r i e s of t h e o b s e r v a t i o n i n s t r u m e n t . T h e s e d a t a are p r e s e n t e d in Tab les 1 (lesson profile) a n d 2 (laboratory profile). A l e s s o n c o m p o s i t e (19 x 19) m a t r i x for t h e 11 biology t e a c h e r s was c o m p u t e d from 33 m a t r i c e s (Table 1.3). This w as achi eved b y a d d i n g the n u m b e r of tallies in t he c o r r e s p o n d i n g cells in the 33 m a t r i c e s , a n d t h e n finding t h e p e r c e n t a g e for e a c h cell of the 19 x 19 matrix. A total of 2 6 4 0 tallies m a d e u p t he l e s s o n c o m p o s i t e matrix. T he c o l u m n t ot al s i ndi cat e th e average p e r c e n t a g e of time t e a c h e r s s p e n t in a p a r t i c u l a r category.
Teacher B e h a v i o u r o~ o '-" ol
o
4~
'~
0
~ ~
~ 0
~ ~
~ 0
0 ~
0
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
N
~ ~
~
0
o
0 ~
~ ~
~ ~ 0 0
~ ~
0 ~
~ ~
~
~
~
~
~
0
~
~
~
0
~
~
~
~
~ 0
~
~ ~
~ ~
° ° ~ ° o o ~ o o d o
o
0
oo~
~ 0
0
0
0 ~
~
~
~ 0 ~ 0
~ o d d d ~ o ~ M
~
0
~
0
103
0
,-i o ,-.i o
~ ~
0 o
~o~
o
O ~
~ 0 ~
~
o
0~ 0q
,_;
o
~ o m m
0
o
~
~
00'~
° "~
~
~ ° 4 o o d ~ O ~ o
b. 0
0
0
0
~
~
~ o
0
0
o ~ O
~ 0 0
0
4 ° ~ d d d ~ d O o
~ o
0 4 0 0
g N d g o ~ 4 o d o
0 ~ 0
0
~44
o o o o
o
~
~o
O O o o
~
~
~
0 0
0
0
m
do
~2 o
~
~
o
~
o
o
~
o
O
0
~
~
~
0
~
~
~
~
~ ~
o
o
4 f i d ~ 6 ~
~oo
~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
0
~
~
~
~
o
M m .N
~ o
0
4~
4°
~
~
~
~
~
4 6 6 ~
0
~ ~
0
~
4 6 6 o
~ ° d ° 4 4 ~ ° ° °
~
° ° o ~ ~ 0
~ ~d
~ ° 6 °
~o~
-,J
oo~o .~ o
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
d
~; c4
~
4
~5
~
~-, oo o~
104
S. 7". Bajah a n d M. E. C h i d o l u e
03
~ ~
~ 0
~ ~
~ ~
0 0
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ 0
~ 0
0
~
0
0
~
~
~
~
~
~
~ 0 O~
0
t.O t.O
~o
o
~
0
~
~
cO
¢q b.- o
1.0 '~'
°
c~ °
~i
o5
~
cO ,~
,~ co
o0~o4ooo6oo 09
~
o3
o 09
.,.9 °
0
~ ~
~ o oo
~ o o
CO
o
c4O
o
cO 0 o
o ~
0
o
t.O
,~
o
~ 0
~ o O O O ~ O O
~ o ~ o o
0
0
0
0
~
0
0
GO
p.. 0
c4o
o ~o
t.o 0
0q t.O
~
~
~o
4
~
0
o
0
~
r~
~ 0 ~ 0 ~
~ ~ ~ 0
o
~o
o
o o ~ o o
o
~ o o ~ o o
~
~
~oo
o "o/) c~ 0 00
o~
0 0
~ ~
o 0
~ ~
O 0 0 o 0 ~
~ o ~ O O ~
~
~
~
o d ~ d d ~ o ~ o
~
o
~
o
~
o
o
~o
o
~
~o
o ~ o ~ o G d o o
0
~
~oo~oo
° d ° ° ~ o o ~ o o 0
0
d o ~ o o o
~ o o ~ o ~ ~ 0
g t~
b~
!
o o ~ o o
Teacher Behaviour
t~
O0
0
0
~
0
00
0
0
oo
o o ° o o o o o ~ o
0
0
0 0
0
~
0
0
o 0
0
0
~ 0 0
0 0 0 0 ~
0
0 0 0
00
°oo
o~.o
0
o
o
o
~
o
o
o
o
o
~
~.,
o
o
~,
o o
I.O
~. o
0
u'~
o
o
o. o
R o ~ o o g o o o o
~oo
oo~o~
00
~. 0
~
0 0 0 0
"
o
o
~
oo
o
o
o
.~
0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.
" 0
"
"
~
"
"
o o
~ q o o q o o o
Oo
o o ~ o o o q o ~ o
O0
0
0
0
0
~
~
"
O•~
m
.
~ o o 0
.
.
~
.
o o o o ~
0
~oo
O ~
105
oooo~
0
0
0
~
0
0
0
~ 0 0
0
0
~
0
0
0
0
~
0 0 0 0
.
o
0
0
~
0
0
o
~.
o
o
o
o
o. o
o
o
o
o
~. o
o
~
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0 '~
0 ~
~ ~
~
~ 0 0 0
0 ~
0 0 0
~ ~
•
.
0
~
0
0
0
0
'~.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
~ ~
0 0 0 0
o
o
.
o •
m 0
oRgoooggoo
o o
0
0 0 0 0
i6
~
o
I.O
0 ~
0
~ ° ~ o
~
~
Ro °°°o
o
~o
~
~°°
o ~ o o ~ o ~ o o~
.
o
o
o
o
~'~o
oooo
~
o o ~ O
o
go~
F-
s~
~
.
o. ~. .o . .
~
~
106
S. 7". Bajah and M. E. Chidolue
Results a n d Discussion For e c o n o m y of p r e s e n t a t i o n the r e s u l t s will be d i s c u s s e d in t e r m s of t h e "average" or, m o r e a c c u r a t e l y , t h e generalized t e a c h e r . P e r c e n t a g e score above, below or equal to those of the "average" t e a c h e r s h o u l d not be i n t e r p r e t e d as "good" or "bad", since t h e p u r p o s e w a s primarily descriptive a n d not evaluative. T e a c h e r Talk The d o m i n a n t feature of the observed biology classes was the frequent occurrence of t e a c h e r talk as s h o w n by t h e s u m of categories 1-3, 5-8, 1116 a n d 19 w h i c h is a b o u t 79.03% of total lesson time (See Table 1), a n d the s u m of categories 1-2, 4, 8-12, a n d 14-18 w h i c h is a b o u t 56.97% of total l a b o r a t o r y time (see Table 2). This p a t t e r n of t e a c h e r b e h a v i o u r is n o t specific to the g r o u p s a m p l e d in t h i s s t u d y . F l a n d e r s (1970), P a r a k h (1967, 1968), A b o a b a (1984) a n d KubeyinJe (1982) r e p o r t e d s i m i l a r findings. It would s e e m t h a t the sample of t e a c h e r s in the p r e s e n t s t u d y were p r i m a r i l y c o n c e r n e d with i n f o r m a t i o n giving, implying t h a t t h e r e is little s t u d e n t inquiry in the learning process. Non-verbal Behaviour of the Teacher T e a c h e r n o n - v e r b a l b e h a v i o u r w a s identified t h r o u g h categories 9 (audio-visual aid: 12.05%) a n d 10 (demonstration: 3.74%) in biology lesson (Table 1) a n d t h r o u g h c a t e g o r i e s 5 (blackboard: 3.24%) a n d 6 (lab d e m o n s t r a t i o n : 23.31% in biology l a b o r a t o r y (Table 2). T e a c h e r non-verbal b e h a v i o u r therefore a c c o u n t e d for a b o u t 15.79% of total lesson time a n d 26.55% of total laboratory time. Insight into the role of audio-visual aids, for example, was gained from a n e x a m i n a t i o n of the composite l e s s o n m a t r i x (Table 3) of the s a m p l e d teachers. This matrix indicates t h a t over 50% of the category - audio-visual aid - is of t h e e x t e n d e d n a t u r e , i.e. categories t h a t are s u s t a i n e d for more t h a n one interval of time (30 seconds). This c a n be seen by comparing the figure of 7.24% in the s t e a d y state cell (cell 9-9: Table 3) with the c o l u m n total 12.85 (Table 3, c o l u m n 9). F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e m a t r i x i n d i c a t e s t h a t d e m o n s t r a t i o n s are brief a n d t r a n s i t i o n a l . This category, w h e n e v e r it occurred, w a s followed immediately by other categories. Indeed, the s t e a d y s t a t e cell of t h i s category r e c o r d e d zero (cell 10-10: Table 3). P a r a k h (1967, 1968) reported t h a t non-verbal b e h a v i o u r a c c o u n t e d for a b o u t 8% of
Teacher Behaviour
107
total time in l e c t u r e s a n d 3 7 % in l a b o r a t o r y . A b o a b a (1984) r e c o r d e d 19.89% in c h e m i s t r y lecture a n d 22.23% in c h e m i s t r y laboratory. The d a t a of t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y on t e a c h e r n o n - v e r b a l b e h a v i o u r a n d t h o s e o f P a r a k h a n d A b o a k a indicate, t h a t it is indeed a regular feature, at l e a s t in s c i e n c e l e s s o n s , a n d t h e r e f o r e s h o u l d n o t b e ignored w h e n a c c o u n t i n g for the teacher's total c l a s s r o o m behaviour. A b a s i c a s s u m p t i o n underlying the Flanders ° category system and other verbal interaction a n a l y s i s s y s t e m s is t h a t v e r b a l b e h a v i o u r is a n a d e q u a t e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a m p l e of the teacher's total classroom behaviour. The d a t a obtained in this s t u d y clearly m a k e s u c h an a s s u m p t i o n u n t e n a b l e , especially in laboratory classes. S t u d e n t Participation This is identified t h r o u g h categories 3 (discussion), 4 (small group), a n d 17 (note taking). These jointly a c c o u n t e d for a b o u t 10.79% of total l e s s o n time (Table 1). In t h e l a b o r a t o r y , s t u d e n t p a r t i c i p a t i o n w a s identified t h r o u g h categories 3 (lab discussion: 3.60%), 7 (lab small group: 10.0O/o a n d 13 (report writing: 3.56%). These Jointly a c c o u n t e d for a b o u t 17.16% of total laboratory time (Table 2). The lower rate of o c c u r r e n c e of small g r o u p s in l e s s o n periods (Table 1) a s c o m p a r e d to l a b o r a t o r y s m a l l g r o u p s (Table 2), i n d i c a t e s a n i n a d e q u a c y in biology t e a c h i n g given t h e fact t h a t this l e s s o n is highly s u i t e d for giving individual attention. Note taking, w h i c h claimed a b o u t 4.11% of l e s s o n time, should be re-examined. Better organisation of classtime could yield time saving p r o c e d u r e s in w h i c h s t u d e n t s ' ideas could be developed i n s t e a d of the mere copying of notes, the s u b s t a n c e of which, in a n y case, could be found in text books. The d a t a in Table 1 i n d i c a t e s o m e e n c o u r a g i n g b u t i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence of d i s c u s s i o n in the average teacher's classroom. T e a c h e r s should e n d e a v o u r to s p e n d more class time on d i s c u s s i o n , since it is a w a y of d e m o n s t r a t i n g teachers' willingness to a c c e p t pupils ideas. Table 2 s h o w s t h a t s t u d e n t participation in terms of laboratory groups (category 7) w a s virtually n o n - e x i s t e n t in 4 teachers' l a b o r a t o r y b e h a v i o u r (05, 09, 10 a n d 11). The l a b o r a t o r y c l a s s e s of t h e s e t e a c h e r s could be d e s c r i b e d a s d e m o n s t r a t i o n c l a s s e s in biology since t h e t e a c h e r s , r a t h e r t h a n t h e s t u d e n t s , interacted with the l a b o r a t o r y materials. F u r t h e r m o r e , the neglect of this category a n d its infrequent u s e (10% of total laboratory time; Table 2) indicate t h a t the inquiry a p p r o a c h to l a b o r a t o r y p r o c e d u r e s
108
S. T. Bajah and M. E. Chidolue
w h i c h is m u c h a d v o c a t e d in the literature is n o t reflected in the laboratory classes of the t e a c h e r s observed in this study. Teacher Evaluative Behaviour E v a l u a t i v e b e h a v i o u r is identified t h r o u g h c a t e g o r y 2 (positive affectivity/praise) in lesson a n d t h r o u g h category 16 (positive activity/praise) in laboratory. The average t e a c h e r devoted a r e a s o n a b l e a m o u n t of time (9.20% in l e s s o n a n d 8.11% in laboratory; Tables 1 a n d 2 respectively) to this motivational a s p e c t of t e a c h e r behaviour. Insight into t h e n a t u r e of c a t e g o r y 2 is afforded b y t h e 19 x 19 category matrix (Table 3). Comparing ceils 5-2, 6-2, 7-2 a n d 8-2 it is found t h a t t e a c h e r praise almost always follows pupils' r e s p o n s e s . The evaluative function is exclusively the prerogative of the teacher. There is no evidence of pupils evaluating their own r e s p o n s e s . P a r a k h (1967, 1968) a n d Bellack and Davitz (1963) recorded similar findings. T e a c h e r Procedural B e h a v i o u r The p r o c e d u r a l b e h a v i o u r of t h e t e a c h e r is identified t h r o u g h categories 1 (request question), 11 (give directives) 12 (state objectives) 14 (summarise) a n d 18 ( a s s i g n m e n t a n d routine) in lesson, a n d t h r o u g h 1 ( l a b o r a t o r y directive) a n d 2 ( l a b o r a t o r y s t a t e m e n t of o b j e c t i v e s ) in l a b o r a t o r y . T h e s e categories in t h e l e s s o n period a c c o u n t e d for 8 . 6 7 % (Table 1) of total class time, a n d 10.0% of total l a b o r a t o r y time (Table 2). The s h e e r m a g n i t u d e of c l a s s time d e v o t e d to p r o c e d u r a l b e h a v i o u r s indicates a need for more careful s t u d y of this all too often neglected a s p e c t of classroom behaviour. Teacher B e h a v i o u r in the Cognitive Dimension An average of a b o u t 53.71% (sum of categories 5 to 8: q u e s t i o n s and 13: lecture; Table 1) of total lesson time w a s devoted to information giving (lecture) a n d information seeking (questions). F o u r d i m e n s i o n s were u s e d in s e e k i n g information, t h e s e were recall q u e s t i o n (7.18%), o b s e r v a t i o n q u e s t i o n (0.74%), relationship q u e s t i o n (1.08%) a n d h y p o t h e s i s q u e s t i o n (2.42%). T h e s e d a t a i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e a v e r a g e t e a c h e r a s k e d recall questions m o s t frequently. Observation and hypothesis q u e s t i o n s a s k e d less frequently, while relationship q u e s t i o n s s e l d o m occurred. Similar findings were r e c o r d e d b y P a r a k h (1967, 1968). The c o r r e s p o n d i n g figures for
Teacher Behaviour
109
l a b o r a t o r y c l a s s e s were 10.58% ( s u m of c a t e g o r i e s 9-12; Table 2) a n d 2 0 . 3 4 % (category 4; Table 2}. Here too, similar findings were reported b y P a r a k h (1967, 1968). The relative high incidence of observation q u e s t i o n s (7.62% of l a b o r a t o r y time; Table 2) w a s noted with satisfaction, b e c a u s e this indicated the average teacher's a w a r e n e s s of the need to u s e one's s e n s e s in learning science. However, a t t e n t i o n is d r a w n to the relatively infrequent u s e of h y p o t h e s i s a n d r e l a t i o n s h i p q u e s t i o n s as w a s t h e c a s e in l e s s o n c l a s s e s (Table 1). The relatively high f r e q u e n c y of information giving a n d information s e e k i n g b e h a v i o u r s i n d i c a t e s t h a t a c o n s i d e r a b l e p o r t i o n of t e a c h e r b e h a v i o u r f o c u s e s on facts a n d definitions, as o p p o s e d to explanation and opinion (relationship a n d h y p o t h e s i s questions}. H e n c e t h e r e w a s more i n p u t a n d retrieval from m e m o r y t h a n there w a s processing of information.
Conclusions In s u m m a r y , objective, d e t a i l e d a n d q u a n t i t a t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n of t e a c h e r b e h a v i o u r in biology l e s s o n s a n d laboratories c a n be obtained b y a s y s t e m a t i c observational t e c h n i q u e u s i n g the category s y s t e m p r e s e n t e d in this study. The p r e d o m i n a n t feature in biology c l a s s r o o m is t e a c h e r talk. Non v e r b a l b e h a v i o u r of t h e biology t e a c h e r o c c u p i e s a r e a s o n a b l e a m o u n t of time. D e m o n s t r a t i o n s a n d u s e of small g r o u p s are infrequent. T e a c h e r p r o c e d u r a l b e h a v i o u r , an a s p e c t of t e a c h e r b e h a v i o u r neglected in m o s t category s y s t e m s , calls for closer examination. Q u e s t i o n s on a "lower" level of c o g n i t i o n a s d e s c r i b e d b y B l o o m (1956} w e r e m o r e f r e q u e n t t h a n q u e s t i o n s on a "higher" level of cognition. T h e l a b o r a t o r y s e s s i o n s a r e c h a r a c t e r i s e d b y v e r i f i c a t i o n or c o n f i r m a t o r y p r o c e d u r e s {some teachers, however, c o n d u c t d e m o n s t r a t i o n classes}. The complete neglect of laboratory d i s c u s s i o n s b y the majority of the t e a c h e r s s a m p l e d is regrettable since this category could serve as one of t h e b e s t opportunities for developing a n d practising intellectual skills, as well a s help in conceptualization and deeper u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the n a t u r e of scientiAc p r o b l e m s .
110
S. T. Bajah and M. E. Chidolue
References Aboaba, Y.A. (1984). Outcomes of patterns of classroom verbal and nonverbal behaviour o f some selected secondary school chemistry teachers. Unpublished thesis, University of Ibadan. Bellack, A.A. and Davitz, J.L. (1963). The language of the classroorrr )Coop Res. Project No. 1497.) Institute of Psychological Research, Teachers College, Columbia University. New York: N.Y. Mimeo. Bloom, B.S. (Ed.), (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: David Mckay. Flanders, N.A. (1956). Teacher Influence, Pupil Attitudes and Achievement, Cooperative Research Monograph No.12 (05-25040).) U.S. Office of Education. The University of Michigan, School of Education. F1eschler, A.S. and Zimmer, G. (1967/68). The development of an observation i n s t r u m e n t for science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5, 127-137. Kubeyinje, T.A. (1982). A study of the teacher pupil verbal interaction during science classes in some secondary schools in Ibadan. Unpublished M.Ed. Project, University of Ibadan. Parakh, J.S. (1967/68). A Sstudy of teacher-pupil interaction in high school biology classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5, 183-192.
Teacher behaviour
111
Appendix A
C a t e g o r i e s for O b s e r v i n g T e a c h e r B e h a v i o u r i n Biology L e s s o n
1.
Request Question: Teacher requests and answers questions asked by students. Unless t e a c h e r a s k s for q u e s t i o n s t h i s category s h o u l d n o t b e coded.
2.
P o s i t i v e Affectivity:
T h o s e b e h a v i o u r s t h a t elicit i n a positive m a n n e r c o n t r i b u t i o n s b y t h e s t u d e n t s to t e a c h i n g a n d l e a r n i n g process, i.e. t e a c h e r a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t ,
support,
e n c o u r a g e m e n t or praise.
3.
Discussion:
Involves give a n d t a k e b e t w e e n t e a c h e r a n d s t u d e n t s . U s u a l l y t e a c h e r lets m o r e t h a n one s t u d e n t c o n t r i b u t e in a n s w e r i n g a q u e s t i o n . In general, d i s c u s s i o n q u e s t i o n s will t e n d to b e r e l a t i o n s h i p or h y p o t h e s i s r a t h e r t h a n recall questions.
4.
Small Group:
A s t u d e n t or s m a l l g r o u p of s t u d e n t s p e r f o r m s before t h e class. S t u d e n t m a y b e giving oral r e p o r t w o r k i n g o n a p r o b l e m o n t h e b l a c k b o a r d , or r e a d i n g f r o m a book.
5.
Recall Q u e s t i o n s :
T e a c h e r a s k s recall q u e s t i o n s , i.e. q u e s t i o n s w i t h only one p o s s i b l e a n s w e r , r e q u i r i n g r e g u r g i t a t i o n of f a c t s a l r e a d y learnt.
6.
Observation Question:
T e a c h e r ' s q u e s t i o n r e q u i r e s s t u d e n t to m a k e a n o b s e r v a t i o n , u s u a l l y d i r e c t e d t o w a r d a d e m o n s t r a t i o n or l a b o r a t o r y work. T h e t e r m "observation" is u s e d in t h e scientific s e n s e of u s i n g o n e ' s s e n s e s to d e t e r m i n e t h e n a t u r e of s o m e t h i n g . T h i s does n o t m e a n o b s e r v a t i o n outside the classroom.
7.
Relationship Question:
T e a c h e r a s k s q u e s t i o n r e q u i r i n g u n d e r s t a n d i n g relations h i p s e.g., "Can a n y o n e t h i n k of a n o t h e r way we m i g h t o b t a i n t h e n e e d e d data?"
112
S. T. Bajah and M. E. Chidolue
Appendix A Continued
8.
Hypothesis Question:
T e a c h e r ' s q u e s t i o n r e q u i r e s s t u d e n t to r e a s o n o u t or e v e n g u e s s t h e answer, b a s e d o n p a s t knowledge or experience; e.g., %Vhat are t h e
p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s w h y t h e frog did n o t
swallow t h e r u b b e r fly?"
9.
Audio-Visual Aid:
T e a c h e r u s e s o n e o r m o r e a u d i o - v i s u a l aids, e.g., microscope, movie, o v e r h e a d projector, p i c t u r e , etc.
10.
Demonstration:
T e a c h e r s h o w s a n d i l l u s t r a t e s a p r o c e s s , p r i n c i p l e or t h e f u n c t i o n i n g of s o m e t h i n g . U s u a n y o b j e c t s a n d e q u i p m e n t are u s e d , b u t n o t always. T h e c r i t e r i o n for d e m o n s t r a t i o n is action. J u s t showing a n object s u c h a s a m o d e l does n o t constitute demonstration.
11.
Directive:
T e a c h e r gives i n s t r u c t i o n s , c o m m a n d s to w h i c h c o m p l i a n c e is expected.
12:
13.
S t a t e m e n t of Objective o r
T e a c h e r i n t r o d u c e s l e s s o n b y i n d i c a t i n g p u r p o s e or object of
Introduction:
l e s s o n , or w h a t to look for, a s i n d e m o n s t r a t i o n .
Lecture:
T e a c h e r t a l k s to c l a s s for e x t e n d e d p e r i o d s of time, giving information, explaining concepts.
14.
Summarize:
T e a c h e r r e c a p i t u l a t e s t h e m a i n p o i n t s of t h e l e s s o n or summar~s
15.
Negative Affectivity:
t h e a n s w e r s to a s e r i e s of r e l a t e d q u e s t i o n s .
Behaviours that inhibit students' thinking and verbalisation. S u c h b e h a v i o u r s t a k e t h e f o r m of corrective f e e d b a c k , c r i t i c i s m r e p r i m a n d , a c c u s a t i o n or willful disregard, e.g,, "No t h a t ' s wrong, y o u are n o t t h i n k i n g " "I don~ agree with you, t h a t ' s n o t w h a t you were told".
16.
Discipline:
B e h a v i o u r s of t e a c h e r a i m e d a t m a i n t a i n i n g c l a s s r o o m order.
TeacherBehaviour
113
Appendix A Continued
17.
Note Giving:
T e a c h e r d i c t a t e s n o t e s or w r i t e s t h e m o n b l a c k b o a r d , or even a s k s s t u d e n t s to m a k e n o t e s i n class.
18.
Assignment Routine:
T e a c h e r t a k e s a t t e n d a n c e , m a k e s a n n o u n c e m e n t s , distrib u t e s m a t e r i a l s i n c l u d i n g exercise b o o k s , gives a s s i g n m e n t s .
19.
Misconceptions of T e a c h e r :
If t e a c h e r gives i n a c c u r a t e i n f o r m a t i o n t h e m i s c o n c e p t i o n is w r i t t e n v e r b a t i m a t b a c k of c o d i n g s h e e t .
114
S. T. Bajah and M. E. Chidolue Appendix B
Categories for Observing Teacher Behaviour in the Biology Laboratory
Laboratory categories which are parallel to those in the biology lesson i n s t r u m e n t have definitions as given in the biology lesson instrument. New categories are, however, defined.
1.
Lab Directives:
Same as biology lesson directive.
2.
Lab Statement of Objective:
Same as biology lesson statement of objective.
3.
Lab Discussion:
Same as biology lesson discussion.
4.
Lab Lecture:
Same as biology lesson lecture.
5.
Blackboard:
Same as biology lesson audio visual aid.
6.
Lab Demonstration:
Same as biology lesson demonstration.
7.
Lab Small Group:
Same as biology lesson small group.
8.
Teacher Monitors:
Teacher examines, checks, walks round, looks
9.
Lab Recall Questions:
Same as biology lesson recaU question.
10.
Lab Observation Question:
Same as biology lesson observation question,
11.
Lab Relationship Question:
Same as biology lesson relationship question.
12.
Lab Hypothesis Question:
Same as biology lesson hypothesis question.
13.
Report Writing:
This category is coded if students write report
14.
Lab Misconception:
Same as biology lesson misconception.
15.
Lab Routine:
Same as biology lesson routine/assignment.
16.
Lab Positive Affectivity:
Same as biology lesson positive afl'eetivity.
Negative Affectivity:
Same as biology lesson negative affectivity.
at students' work.
of experiment or lab exercise in their notebooks.
17.
Teacher Behaviour
115
T he A u t h o r s SAM T. BAJAH is a Pr of es s or of Science E d u c a t i o n . He w as Director of the I n s t i t u t e of E d u c a t i o n , University of Ibadan, Nigeria, a n d is n o w D e a n of the F a c u l t y of E d u c a t i o n at t he s a m e university. MERCY E. CHIDOLUE is a R e a d e r in Science E d u c a t i o n at t h e I n s t i t u t e of M a n a g e m e n t a n d T e c h n o l o g y , E n u g u , Nigeria.
S h e g r a d u a t e d in Biology
fr o m t h e Un ive r s i t y of I b a d a n w h e r e s h e also received t h e M.Ed. a n d Ph.D. degrees. Recently she spent some time at Huddersfield Polytechnic, E n g l a n d as a R e s e a r c h FeUow.
0191-491X/91 $0.00 + .50 © 1991 Pergamon Press plc
A STUDY OF TEACHER BEHAVIOUR IN HIGH SCHOOL BIOLOGY CLASSES Sam T. Bajah* and Mercy E. Chidoluet * Faculty of Education, University of Ibadan, Nigeria t Institute of Management and Technology, Department of Science Education, Enugu, Nigeria
Description a n d Analysis Most r e s e a r c h e r s on science t e a c h i n g seem to have c o n c e n t r a t e d on the a n t e c e d e n t s a n d c o n s e q u e n c e s of the classroom b e h a v i o u r of t e a c h e r s a n d p u p i l s r a t h e r t h a n on w h a t t e a c h e r s a n d pupils a c t u a l l y do in the c l a s s r o o m . A gap therefore exists in o u r knowledge of t h e n a t u r e of t e a c h e r s ' a n d pupils' b e h a v i o u r in science classes. U n d e r s t a n d i n g the t e a c h i n g t a s k - a complex p h e n o m e n o n - would in no small way help in developing the m u c h needed theories of science teaching. The first step of t h e r e s e a r c h s t r a t e g y w o u l d be to describe, categorize a n d a n a l y s e objectively the s y s t e m a t i c observation of the teacher's classroom behaviour. This descriptive p h a s e would t h e n be followed by identification of teaching styles from the observed classroom behaviour of the teacher. The teaching styles t h u s identified, t o g e t h e r with some o t h e r t e a c h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , would be u s e d to explain s t u d e n t s ' learning outcomes in biology. The p r e s e n t s t u d y w a s d e s i g n e d to m e e t t h r e e m a j o r objectives, namely:
1) 2)
To describe, a n a l y s e and interpret the behaviour profile of the teacher in high school biology classes and laboratory. To identify t e a c h i n g styles or p a t t e r n s of t e a c h e r b e h a v i o u r of the s a m p l e d teachers. 99
100
S. To Bajah and M. E. Chidolue
3)
To d e t e r m i n e t h e e x t e n t to w h i c h t e a c h i n g s t y l e s a n d t e a c h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s explain s t u d e n t s ' affective a n d cognitive a c h i e v e m e n t in biology. The first p a r t of this s t u d y focused on the first objective while the s e c o n d p a r t a d d r e s s e d i t s e l f to t h e s e c o n d a n d t h i r d objectives. Specifically, the first p a r t of t h i s s t u d y a n s w e r s the following r e s e a r c h questions:
1) 2)
W h a t is the classroom behaviour profile of form four biology teachers? W h a t is the laboratory behaviour profile of form four biology teachers?
Procedure An ex p o s t facto design was u s e d w h i c h involved a s a m p l e of 11 biology t e a c h e r s , a n d 375 form four biology s t u d e n t s in 11 high schools located in E n u g u Local g o v e r n m e n t a r e a of A n a m b r a State, Nigeria. The s t u d y w a s carried o u t b e t w e e n November 1984 a n d M a r c h 1985. The selection of c l a s s e s w a s p r e d i c a t e d on evidence of c o m m o n topics in the s c h e m e s of work of all the form four classes in the area of s t u d y . Of the 14 high schools in the area, 11 h a d c o m m o n topics. Consequently, the sample u s e d was a selected r a t h e r t h a n a r a n d o m sample. One class was r a n d o m l y selected from all the s t r e a m s of form four in each of the 11 schools. The procedure involved writing the n a m e of each s t r e a m in a school on a piece of paper. The pieces of p a p e r were mixed together in a bowl. The class indicated on the piece of p a p e r t h u s r a n d o m l y selected w a s u s e d for t h e s t u d y in a p a r t i c u l a r school. In this w a y 11 classes were selected from 11 schools. Classroom observations were carried o u t u s i n g a modified form of a n o b s e r v a t i o n i n s t r u m e n t for science t e a c h i n g developed b y F i s c h l e r a n d Z i m m e r (1967, 1968). T h e m o d i f i e d i n s t r u m e n t is p r e s e n t e d in Appendices A and B. Method Eleven t e a c h e r s (10 female a n d 1 male) from u r b a n a n d s e m i - u r b a n schools, with 1 to 18 y e a r s of t e a c h i n g experience were i n c l u d e d in the study. Eight t e a c h e r s (01, 03, 05, 06, 08, 09, 10 a n d 11) h a d the Bachelor of Science degree. F o u r of t h e s e (03, 05, 08, 09) h a d t e a c h i n g qualifications of one kind or a n o t h e r in addition. The r e m a i n i n g three (02, 04,
Teacher Behaviour
101
07) h a d only the National Certificate of E d u c a t i o n (NCE). The ages of the subjects ranged from 22 to 40 years. The c o m m o n topics t a u g h t by the t e a c h e r s were d e t e r m i n e d by inspection of s c h e m e s of work for form four classes. The topics included classes in h u m a n food digestion, fate of p r o d u c t s of digestion, w a t e r a n d food t r a n s p o r t in flowering plants. C l a s s r o o m o b s e r v a t i o n s were carried o u t by the two investigators: i n t e r - o b s e r v e r reliability, u s i n g P e a r s o n ' s P r o d u c t M o m e n t Correlation, r a n g e d from 0.72 to 0.79. These reliability co-efficients were considered r e a s o n a b l y high for the p u r p o s e of s t u d y . Three lecture classes a n d one l a b o r a t o r y s e s s i o n of each of the 11 t e a c h e r s were observed d u r i n g the period of s t u d y (7 to 8 weeks). During each observational visit, teacher behaviour was categorized and coded on t h e s p o t by t h e investigators. The coding p r o c e d u r e w a s as follows: The investigators wrote down the m o s t d o m i n a n t category n u m b e r in the observation i n s t r u m e n t at 30 second intervals. At the end of a class period of 3 5 / 4 0 m i n u t e s , the observational record or coding s h e e t would consist of a b o u t 7 0 / 8 0 category n u m b e r s written in vertical columns, in the s e q u e n c e in w h i c h the b e h a v i o u r s h a d o c c u r r e d . In o t h e r words, the observation d a t a were in the form of n u m b e r s . The classroom observation d a t a on a coding sheet would look like this: 9, 1, 2, 13, 13. T h e s e n u m b e r s r e p r e s e n t c a t e g o r i e s of t h e o b s e r v a t i o n i n s t r u m e n t (Appendix A a n d B), a n d t h e y r e p r e s e n t a s e q u e n c e in w h i c h the t e a c h e r u s e s a n a u d i o aid (category 9) for 30 s e c o n d s , t h e n r e q u e s t s q u e s t i o n s (category 1) for 30 s e c o n d s , a c k n o w l e d g e s s t u d e n t ' s idea w i t h praise (category 2) for 30 seconds, and lectures (category 13) for 60 seconds. In the laboratory classes the t e a c h e r behaviours were categorized and coded at intervals of 60 seconds.
Data Analysis Data analysis was guided by the following questions:
102
]) 2)
S. T. Bajah and M. E. Chidolue
W h a t is the c l a s s r o o m b e h a v i o u r profile of form four biology t e a c h e r s ? W h a t is the l a b o r a t o r y b e h a v i o u r profile of form four biology t e a c h e r s ? T h e b e h a v i o u r profile of t h e s a m p l e d biology t e a c h e r s w a s derived
f r o m t h e o b s e r v a t i o n d a t a w h i c h w ere in t h e form of n u m b e r s .
These
n u m b e r s were p r o c e s s e d to yield m a t r i c e s a c c o r d i n g to t he m e t h o d u s e d by F l a n d e r s (1965). T h i s e n t a i l e d t h e e n t e r i n g of o v e r l a p p i n g p a i r s of n u m b e r s into t he cells of t he matrix. For ex amp le, t h e s e q u e n c e : 9 ) I ( 2 ) 13 { 13 c o n s i s t s of four overl appi ng pairs 9-1, 1-2, 2-13, 13-13. T h e first m e m b e r of e a c h pai r d e t e r m i n e s the row, a n d t h e s e c o n d n u m b e r of t h e p a i r d e t e r m i n e s t h e c o l u m n . T h e r e f o r e , t h e first p a i r 9-1 w o u l d be e n t e r e d as a tally in t h e 9-1 cell f o r m e d b y t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n of r ow 9 a n d c o l u m n 1. T h e s e c o n d pai r 1-2 would be e n t e r e d as a tally in t he 1-2 cell formed by the i n t e r s e c t i o n of row 1 a n d c o l u m n 2, a n d so on. A m a t r i x of every l e s s o n o b s e r v e d and cat egori zed w a s c o n s t r u c t e d . T h e r e were on t h e whole 33 c l a s s r o o m biology l e s s o n s a n d 11 l a b o r a t o r y sessions.
If 3 l e s s o n s , for example, were o b s e r v e d a n d cat egori zed for a
t e a c h e r , 3 m a t r i c e s were p r e p a r e d . F r e q u e n c y c o u n t s a n d p e r c e n t a g e s of tallies w e r e c a l c u l a t e d f r o m t h e m a t r i c e s . C o l u m n t o t a l s gave t h e p e r c e n t a g e of time the t e a c h e r s p e n t on e a c h category. T he m e a n s of t he p e r c e n t a g e s for e a c h c a t e g o r y w e r e f o u n d to give t h e i n t e r a c t i o n or b e h a v i o u r p a t t e r n for e a c h t e a c h e r . T h u s , t h e m e a n s of 11 s e t s of p e r c e n t a g e s for e a c h of t h e c a t e g o r i e s w e r e c a l c u l a t e d . T h i s gave t he b e h a v i o u r p a t t e r n or l e s s on profile of t h e 11 biology t e a c h e r s . T he profile gave t h e p e r c e n t a g e of t i m e t h e a v e r a g e t e a c h e r s p e n t on e a c h of t he c a t e g o r i e s of t h e o b s e r v a t i o n i n s t r u m e n t . T h e s e d a t a are p r e s e n t e d in Tab les 1 (lesson profile) a n d 2 (laboratory profile). A l e s s o n c o m p o s i t e (19 x 19) m a t r i x for t h e 11 biology t e a c h e r s was c o m p u t e d from 33 m a t r i c e s (Table 1.3). This w as achi eved b y a d d i n g the n u m b e r of tallies in t he c o r r e s p o n d i n g cells in the 33 m a t r i c e s , a n d t h e n finding t h e p e r c e n t a g e for e a c h cell of the 19 x 19 matrix. A total of 2 6 4 0 tallies m a d e u p t he l e s s o n c o m p o s i t e matrix. T he c o l u m n t ot al s i ndi cat e th e average p e r c e n t a g e of time t e a c h e r s s p e n t in a p a r t i c u l a r category.
Teacher B e h a v i o u r o~ o '-" ol
o
4~
'~
0
~ ~
~ 0
~ ~
~ 0
0 ~
0
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
N
~ ~
~
0
o
0 ~
~ ~
~ ~ 0 0
~ ~
0 ~
~ ~
~
~
~
~
~
0
~
~
~
0
~
~
~
~
~ 0
~
~ ~
~ ~
° ° ~ ° o o ~ o o d o
o
0
oo~
~ 0
0
0
0 ~
~
~
~ 0 ~ 0
~ o d d d ~ o ~ M
~
0
~
0
103
0
,-i o ,-.i o
~ ~
0 o
~o~
o
O ~
~ 0 ~
~
o
0~ 0q
,_;
o
~ o m m
0
o
~
~
00'~
° "~
~
~ ° 4 o o d ~ O ~ o
b. 0
0
0
0
~
~
~ o
0
0
o ~ O
~ 0 0
0
4 ° ~ d d d ~ d O o
~ o
0 4 0 0
g N d g o ~ 4 o d o
0 ~ 0
0
~44
o o o o
o
~
~o
O O o o
~
~
~
0 0
0
0
m
do
~2 o
~
~
o
~
o
o
~
o
O
0
~
~
~
0
~
~
~
~
~ ~
o
o
4 f i d ~ 6 ~
~oo
~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
0
~
~
~
~
o
M m .N
~ o
0
4~
4°
~
~
~
~
~
4 6 6 ~
0
~ ~
0
~
4 6 6 o
~ ° d ° 4 4 ~ ° ° °
~
° ° o ~ ~ 0
~ ~d
~ ° 6 °
~o~
-,J
oo~o .~ o
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
d
~; c4
~
4
~5
~
~-, oo o~
104
S. 7". Bajah a n d M. E. C h i d o l u e
03
~ ~
~ 0
~ ~
~ ~
0 0
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ 0
~ 0
0
~
0
0
~
~
~
~
~
~
~ 0 O~
0
t.O t.O
~o
o
~
0
~
~
cO
¢q b.- o
1.0 '~'
°
c~ °
~i
o5
~
cO ,~
,~ co
o0~o4ooo6oo 09
~
o3
o 09
.,.9 °
0
~ ~
~ o oo
~ o o
CO
o
c4O
o
cO 0 o
o ~
0
o
t.O
,~
o
~ 0
~ o O O O ~ O O
~ o ~ o o
0
0
0
0
~
0
0
GO
p.. 0
c4o
o ~o
t.o 0
0q t.O
~
~
~o
4
~
0
o
0
~
r~
~ 0 ~ 0 ~
~ ~ ~ 0
o
~o
o
o o ~ o o
o
~ o o ~ o o
~
~
~oo
o "o/) c~ 0 00
o~
0 0
~ ~
o 0
~ ~
O 0 0 o 0 ~
~ o ~ O O ~
~
~
~
o d ~ d d ~ o ~ o
~
o
~
o
~
o
o
~o
o
~
~o
o ~ o ~ o G d o o
0
~
~oo~oo
° d ° ° ~ o o ~ o o 0
0
d o ~ o o o
~ o o ~ o ~ ~ 0
g t~
b~
!
o o ~ o o
Teacher Behaviour
t~
O0
0
0
~
0
00
0
0
oo
o o ° o o o o o ~ o
0
0
0 0
0
~
0
0
o 0
0
0
~ 0 0
0 0 0 0 ~
0
0 0 0
00
°oo
o~.o
0
o
o
o
~
o
o
o
o
o
~
~.,
o
o
~,
o o
I.O
~. o
0
u'~
o
o
o. o
R o ~ o o g o o o o
~oo
oo~o~
00
~. 0
~
0 0 0 0
"
o
o
~
oo
o
o
o
.~
0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.
" 0
"
"
~
"
"
o o
~ q o o q o o o
Oo
o o ~ o o o q o ~ o
O0
0
0
0
0
~
~
"
O•~
m
.
~ o o 0
.
.
~
.
o o o o ~
0
~oo
O ~
105
oooo~
0
0
0
~
0
0
0
~ 0 0
0
0
~
0
0
0
0
~
0 0 0 0
.
o
0
0
~
0
0
o
~.
o
o
o
o
o. o
o
o
o
o
~. o
o
~
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0 '~
0 ~
~ ~
~
~ 0 0 0
0 ~
0 0 0
~ ~
•
.
0
~
0
0
0
0
'~.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
~ ~
0 0 0 0
o
o
.
o •
m 0
oRgoooggoo
o o
0
0 0 0 0
i6
~
o
I.O
0 ~
0
~ ° ~ o
~
~
Ro °°°o
o
~o
~
~°°
o ~ o o ~ o ~ o o~
.
o
o
o
o
~'~o
oooo
~
o o ~ O
o
go~
F-
s~
~
.
o. ~. .o . .
~
~
106
S. 7". Bajah and M. E. Chidolue
Results a n d Discussion For e c o n o m y of p r e s e n t a t i o n the r e s u l t s will be d i s c u s s e d in t e r m s of t h e "average" or, m o r e a c c u r a t e l y , t h e generalized t e a c h e r . P e r c e n t a g e score above, below or equal to those of the "average" t e a c h e r s h o u l d not be i n t e r p r e t e d as "good" or "bad", since t h e p u r p o s e w a s primarily descriptive a n d not evaluative. T e a c h e r Talk The d o m i n a n t feature of the observed biology classes was the frequent occurrence of t e a c h e r talk as s h o w n by t h e s u m of categories 1-3, 5-8, 1116 a n d 19 w h i c h is a b o u t 79.03% of total lesson time (See Table 1), a n d the s u m of categories 1-2, 4, 8-12, a n d 14-18 w h i c h is a b o u t 56.97% of total l a b o r a t o r y time (see Table 2). This p a t t e r n of t e a c h e r b e h a v i o u r is n o t specific to the g r o u p s a m p l e d in t h i s s t u d y . F l a n d e r s (1970), P a r a k h (1967, 1968), A b o a b a (1984) a n d KubeyinJe (1982) r e p o r t e d s i m i l a r findings. It would s e e m t h a t the sample of t e a c h e r s in the p r e s e n t s t u d y were p r i m a r i l y c o n c e r n e d with i n f o r m a t i o n giving, implying t h a t t h e r e is little s t u d e n t inquiry in the learning process. Non-verbal Behaviour of the Teacher T e a c h e r n o n - v e r b a l b e h a v i o u r w a s identified t h r o u g h categories 9 (audio-visual aid: 12.05%) a n d 10 (demonstration: 3.74%) in biology lesson (Table 1) a n d t h r o u g h c a t e g o r i e s 5 (blackboard: 3.24%) a n d 6 (lab d e m o n s t r a t i o n : 23.31% in biology l a b o r a t o r y (Table 2). T e a c h e r non-verbal b e h a v i o u r therefore a c c o u n t e d for a b o u t 15.79% of total lesson time a n d 26.55% of total laboratory time. Insight into the role of audio-visual aids, for example, was gained from a n e x a m i n a t i o n of the composite l e s s o n m a t r i x (Table 3) of the s a m p l e d teachers. This matrix indicates t h a t over 50% of the category - audio-visual aid - is of t h e e x t e n d e d n a t u r e , i.e. categories t h a t are s u s t a i n e d for more t h a n one interval of time (30 seconds). This c a n be seen by comparing the figure of 7.24% in the s t e a d y state cell (cell 9-9: Table 3) with the c o l u m n total 12.85 (Table 3, c o l u m n 9). F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e m a t r i x i n d i c a t e s t h a t d e m o n s t r a t i o n s are brief a n d t r a n s i t i o n a l . This category, w h e n e v e r it occurred, w a s followed immediately by other categories. Indeed, the s t e a d y s t a t e cell of t h i s category r e c o r d e d zero (cell 10-10: Table 3). P a r a k h (1967, 1968) reported t h a t non-verbal b e h a v i o u r a c c o u n t e d for a b o u t 8% of
Teacher Behaviour
107
total time in l e c t u r e s a n d 3 7 % in l a b o r a t o r y . A b o a b a (1984) r e c o r d e d 19.89% in c h e m i s t r y lecture a n d 22.23% in c h e m i s t r y laboratory. The d a t a of t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y on t e a c h e r n o n - v e r b a l b e h a v i o u r a n d t h o s e o f P a r a k h a n d A b o a k a indicate, t h a t it is indeed a regular feature, at l e a s t in s c i e n c e l e s s o n s , a n d t h e r e f o r e s h o u l d n o t b e ignored w h e n a c c o u n t i n g for the teacher's total c l a s s r o o m behaviour. A b a s i c a s s u m p t i o n underlying the Flanders ° category system and other verbal interaction a n a l y s i s s y s t e m s is t h a t v e r b a l b e h a v i o u r is a n a d e q u a t e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a m p l e of the teacher's total classroom behaviour. The d a t a obtained in this s t u d y clearly m a k e s u c h an a s s u m p t i o n u n t e n a b l e , especially in laboratory classes. S t u d e n t Participation This is identified t h r o u g h categories 3 (discussion), 4 (small group), a n d 17 (note taking). These jointly a c c o u n t e d for a b o u t 10.79% of total l e s s o n time (Table 1). In t h e l a b o r a t o r y , s t u d e n t p a r t i c i p a t i o n w a s identified t h r o u g h categories 3 (lab discussion: 3.60%), 7 (lab small group: 10.0O/o a n d 13 (report writing: 3.56%). These Jointly a c c o u n t e d for a b o u t 17.16% of total laboratory time (Table 2). The lower rate of o c c u r r e n c e of small g r o u p s in l e s s o n periods (Table 1) a s c o m p a r e d to l a b o r a t o r y s m a l l g r o u p s (Table 2), i n d i c a t e s a n i n a d e q u a c y in biology t e a c h i n g given t h e fact t h a t this l e s s o n is highly s u i t e d for giving individual attention. Note taking, w h i c h claimed a b o u t 4.11% of l e s s o n time, should be re-examined. Better organisation of classtime could yield time saving p r o c e d u r e s in w h i c h s t u d e n t s ' ideas could be developed i n s t e a d of the mere copying of notes, the s u b s t a n c e of which, in a n y case, could be found in text books. The d a t a in Table 1 i n d i c a t e s o m e e n c o u r a g i n g b u t i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence of d i s c u s s i o n in the average teacher's classroom. T e a c h e r s should e n d e a v o u r to s p e n d more class time on d i s c u s s i o n , since it is a w a y of d e m o n s t r a t i n g teachers' willingness to a c c e p t pupils ideas. Table 2 s h o w s t h a t s t u d e n t participation in terms of laboratory groups (category 7) w a s virtually n o n - e x i s t e n t in 4 teachers' l a b o r a t o r y b e h a v i o u r (05, 09, 10 a n d 11). The l a b o r a t o r y c l a s s e s of t h e s e t e a c h e r s could be d e s c r i b e d a s d e m o n s t r a t i o n c l a s s e s in biology since t h e t e a c h e r s , r a t h e r t h a n t h e s t u d e n t s , interacted with the l a b o r a t o r y materials. F u r t h e r m o r e , the neglect of this category a n d its infrequent u s e (10% of total laboratory time; Table 2) indicate t h a t the inquiry a p p r o a c h to l a b o r a t o r y p r o c e d u r e s
108
S. T. Bajah and M. E. Chidolue
w h i c h is m u c h a d v o c a t e d in the literature is n o t reflected in the laboratory classes of the t e a c h e r s observed in this study. Teacher Evaluative Behaviour E v a l u a t i v e b e h a v i o u r is identified t h r o u g h c a t e g o r y 2 (positive affectivity/praise) in lesson a n d t h r o u g h category 16 (positive activity/praise) in laboratory. The average t e a c h e r devoted a r e a s o n a b l e a m o u n t of time (9.20% in l e s s o n a n d 8.11% in laboratory; Tables 1 a n d 2 respectively) to this motivational a s p e c t of t e a c h e r behaviour. Insight into t h e n a t u r e of c a t e g o r y 2 is afforded b y t h e 19 x 19 category matrix (Table 3). Comparing ceils 5-2, 6-2, 7-2 a n d 8-2 it is found t h a t t e a c h e r praise almost always follows pupils' r e s p o n s e s . The evaluative function is exclusively the prerogative of the teacher. There is no evidence of pupils evaluating their own r e s p o n s e s . P a r a k h (1967, 1968) a n d Bellack and Davitz (1963) recorded similar findings. T e a c h e r Procedural B e h a v i o u r The p r o c e d u r a l b e h a v i o u r of t h e t e a c h e r is identified t h r o u g h categories 1 (request question), 11 (give directives) 12 (state objectives) 14 (summarise) a n d 18 ( a s s i g n m e n t a n d routine) in lesson, a n d t h r o u g h 1 ( l a b o r a t o r y directive) a n d 2 ( l a b o r a t o r y s t a t e m e n t of o b j e c t i v e s ) in l a b o r a t o r y . T h e s e categories in t h e l e s s o n period a c c o u n t e d for 8 . 6 7 % (Table 1) of total class time, a n d 10.0% of total l a b o r a t o r y time (Table 2). The s h e e r m a g n i t u d e of c l a s s time d e v o t e d to p r o c e d u r a l b e h a v i o u r s indicates a need for more careful s t u d y of this all too often neglected a s p e c t of classroom behaviour. Teacher B e h a v i o u r in the Cognitive Dimension An average of a b o u t 53.71% (sum of categories 5 to 8: q u e s t i o n s and 13: lecture; Table 1) of total lesson time w a s devoted to information giving (lecture) a n d information seeking (questions). F o u r d i m e n s i o n s were u s e d in s e e k i n g information, t h e s e were recall q u e s t i o n (7.18%), o b s e r v a t i o n q u e s t i o n (0.74%), relationship q u e s t i o n (1.08%) a n d h y p o t h e s i s q u e s t i o n (2.42%). T h e s e d a t a i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e a v e r a g e t e a c h e r a s k e d recall questions m o s t frequently. Observation and hypothesis q u e s t i o n s a s k e d less frequently, while relationship q u e s t i o n s s e l d o m occurred. Similar findings were r e c o r d e d b y P a r a k h (1967, 1968). The c o r r e s p o n d i n g figures for
Teacher Behaviour
109
l a b o r a t o r y c l a s s e s were 10.58% ( s u m of c a t e g o r i e s 9-12; Table 2) a n d 2 0 . 3 4 % (category 4; Table 2}. Here too, similar findings were reported b y P a r a k h (1967, 1968). The relative high incidence of observation q u e s t i o n s (7.62% of l a b o r a t o r y time; Table 2) w a s noted with satisfaction, b e c a u s e this indicated the average teacher's a w a r e n e s s of the need to u s e one's s e n s e s in learning science. However, a t t e n t i o n is d r a w n to the relatively infrequent u s e of h y p o t h e s i s a n d r e l a t i o n s h i p q u e s t i o n s as w a s t h e c a s e in l e s s o n c l a s s e s (Table 1). The relatively high f r e q u e n c y of information giving a n d information s e e k i n g b e h a v i o u r s i n d i c a t e s t h a t a c o n s i d e r a b l e p o r t i o n of t e a c h e r b e h a v i o u r f o c u s e s on facts a n d definitions, as o p p o s e d to explanation and opinion (relationship a n d h y p o t h e s i s questions}. H e n c e t h e r e w a s more i n p u t a n d retrieval from m e m o r y t h a n there w a s processing of information.
Conclusions In s u m m a r y , objective, d e t a i l e d a n d q u a n t i t a t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n of t e a c h e r b e h a v i o u r in biology l e s s o n s a n d laboratories c a n be obtained b y a s y s t e m a t i c observational t e c h n i q u e u s i n g the category s y s t e m p r e s e n t e d in this study. The p r e d o m i n a n t feature in biology c l a s s r o o m is t e a c h e r talk. Non v e r b a l b e h a v i o u r of t h e biology t e a c h e r o c c u p i e s a r e a s o n a b l e a m o u n t of time. D e m o n s t r a t i o n s a n d u s e of small g r o u p s are infrequent. T e a c h e r p r o c e d u r a l b e h a v i o u r , an a s p e c t of t e a c h e r b e h a v i o u r neglected in m o s t category s y s t e m s , calls for closer examination. Q u e s t i o n s on a "lower" level of c o g n i t i o n a s d e s c r i b e d b y B l o o m (1956} w e r e m o r e f r e q u e n t t h a n q u e s t i o n s on a "higher" level of cognition. T h e l a b o r a t o r y s e s s i o n s a r e c h a r a c t e r i s e d b y v e r i f i c a t i o n or c o n f i r m a t o r y p r o c e d u r e s {some teachers, however, c o n d u c t d e m o n s t r a t i o n classes}. The complete neglect of laboratory d i s c u s s i o n s b y the majority of the t e a c h e r s s a m p l e d is regrettable since this category could serve as one of t h e b e s t opportunities for developing a n d practising intellectual skills, as well a s help in conceptualization and deeper u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the n a t u r e of scientiAc p r o b l e m s .
110
S. T. Bajah and M. E. Chidolue
References Aboaba, Y.A. (1984). Outcomes of patterns of classroom verbal and nonverbal behaviour o f some selected secondary school chemistry teachers. Unpublished thesis, University of Ibadan. Bellack, A.A. and Davitz, J.L. (1963). The language of the classroorrr )Coop Res. Project No. 1497.) Institute of Psychological Research, Teachers College, Columbia University. New York: N.Y. Mimeo. Bloom, B.S. (Ed.), (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: David Mckay. Flanders, N.A. (1956). Teacher Influence, Pupil Attitudes and Achievement, Cooperative Research Monograph No.12 (05-25040).) U.S. Office of Education. The University of Michigan, School of Education. F1eschler, A.S. and Zimmer, G. (1967/68). The development of an observation i n s t r u m e n t for science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5, 127-137. Kubeyinje, T.A. (1982). A study of the teacher pupil verbal interaction during science classes in some secondary schools in Ibadan. Unpublished M.Ed. Project, University of Ibadan. Parakh, J.S. (1967/68). A Sstudy of teacher-pupil interaction in high school biology classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5, 183-192.
Teacher behaviour
111
Appendix A
C a t e g o r i e s for O b s e r v i n g T e a c h e r B e h a v i o u r i n Biology L e s s o n
1.
Request Question: Teacher requests and answers questions asked by students. Unless t e a c h e r a s k s for q u e s t i o n s t h i s category s h o u l d n o t b e coded.
2.
P o s i t i v e Affectivity:
T h o s e b e h a v i o u r s t h a t elicit i n a positive m a n n e r c o n t r i b u t i o n s b y t h e s t u d e n t s to t e a c h i n g a n d l e a r n i n g process, i.e. t e a c h e r a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t ,
support,
e n c o u r a g e m e n t or praise.
3.
Discussion:
Involves give a n d t a k e b e t w e e n t e a c h e r a n d s t u d e n t s . U s u a l l y t e a c h e r lets m o r e t h a n one s t u d e n t c o n t r i b u t e in a n s w e r i n g a q u e s t i o n . In general, d i s c u s s i o n q u e s t i o n s will t e n d to b e r e l a t i o n s h i p or h y p o t h e s i s r a t h e r t h a n recall questions.
4.
Small Group:
A s t u d e n t or s m a l l g r o u p of s t u d e n t s p e r f o r m s before t h e class. S t u d e n t m a y b e giving oral r e p o r t w o r k i n g o n a p r o b l e m o n t h e b l a c k b o a r d , or r e a d i n g f r o m a book.
5.
Recall Q u e s t i o n s :
T e a c h e r a s k s recall q u e s t i o n s , i.e. q u e s t i o n s w i t h only one p o s s i b l e a n s w e r , r e q u i r i n g r e g u r g i t a t i o n of f a c t s a l r e a d y learnt.
6.
Observation Question:
T e a c h e r ' s q u e s t i o n r e q u i r e s s t u d e n t to m a k e a n o b s e r v a t i o n , u s u a l l y d i r e c t e d t o w a r d a d e m o n s t r a t i o n or l a b o r a t o r y work. T h e t e r m "observation" is u s e d in t h e scientific s e n s e of u s i n g o n e ' s s e n s e s to d e t e r m i n e t h e n a t u r e of s o m e t h i n g . T h i s does n o t m e a n o b s e r v a t i o n outside the classroom.
7.
Relationship Question:
T e a c h e r a s k s q u e s t i o n r e q u i r i n g u n d e r s t a n d i n g relations h i p s e.g., "Can a n y o n e t h i n k of a n o t h e r way we m i g h t o b t a i n t h e n e e d e d data?"
112
S. T. Bajah and M. E. Chidolue
Appendix A Continued
8.
Hypothesis Question:
T e a c h e r ' s q u e s t i o n r e q u i r e s s t u d e n t to r e a s o n o u t or e v e n g u e s s t h e answer, b a s e d o n p a s t knowledge or experience; e.g., %Vhat are t h e
p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s w h y t h e frog did n o t
swallow t h e r u b b e r fly?"
9.
Audio-Visual Aid:
T e a c h e r u s e s o n e o r m o r e a u d i o - v i s u a l aids, e.g., microscope, movie, o v e r h e a d projector, p i c t u r e , etc.
10.
Demonstration:
T e a c h e r s h o w s a n d i l l u s t r a t e s a p r o c e s s , p r i n c i p l e or t h e f u n c t i o n i n g of s o m e t h i n g . U s u a n y o b j e c t s a n d e q u i p m e n t are u s e d , b u t n o t always. T h e c r i t e r i o n for d e m o n s t r a t i o n is action. J u s t showing a n object s u c h a s a m o d e l does n o t constitute demonstration.
11.
Directive:
T e a c h e r gives i n s t r u c t i o n s , c o m m a n d s to w h i c h c o m p l i a n c e is expected.
12:
13.
S t a t e m e n t of Objective o r
T e a c h e r i n t r o d u c e s l e s s o n b y i n d i c a t i n g p u r p o s e or object of
Introduction:
l e s s o n , or w h a t to look for, a s i n d e m o n s t r a t i o n .
Lecture:
T e a c h e r t a l k s to c l a s s for e x t e n d e d p e r i o d s of time, giving information, explaining concepts.
14.
Summarize:
T e a c h e r r e c a p i t u l a t e s t h e m a i n p o i n t s of t h e l e s s o n or summar~s
15.
Negative Affectivity:
t h e a n s w e r s to a s e r i e s of r e l a t e d q u e s t i o n s .
Behaviours that inhibit students' thinking and verbalisation. S u c h b e h a v i o u r s t a k e t h e f o r m of corrective f e e d b a c k , c r i t i c i s m r e p r i m a n d , a c c u s a t i o n or willful disregard, e.g,, "No t h a t ' s wrong, y o u are n o t t h i n k i n g " "I don~ agree with you, t h a t ' s n o t w h a t you were told".
16.
Discipline:
B e h a v i o u r s of t e a c h e r a i m e d a t m a i n t a i n i n g c l a s s r o o m order.
TeacherBehaviour
113
Appendix A Continued
17.
Note Giving:
T e a c h e r d i c t a t e s n o t e s or w r i t e s t h e m o n b l a c k b o a r d , or even a s k s s t u d e n t s to m a k e n o t e s i n class.
18.
Assignment Routine:
T e a c h e r t a k e s a t t e n d a n c e , m a k e s a n n o u n c e m e n t s , distrib u t e s m a t e r i a l s i n c l u d i n g exercise b o o k s , gives a s s i g n m e n t s .
19.
Misconceptions of T e a c h e r :
If t e a c h e r gives i n a c c u r a t e i n f o r m a t i o n t h e m i s c o n c e p t i o n is w r i t t e n v e r b a t i m a t b a c k of c o d i n g s h e e t .
114
S. T. Bajah and M. E. Chidolue Appendix B
Categories for Observing Teacher Behaviour in the Biology Laboratory
Laboratory categories which are parallel to those in the biology lesson i n s t r u m e n t have definitions as given in the biology lesson instrument. New categories are, however, defined.
1.
Lab Directives:
Same as biology lesson directive.
2.
Lab Statement of Objective:
Same as biology lesson statement of objective.
3.
Lab Discussion:
Same as biology lesson discussion.
4.
Lab Lecture:
Same as biology lesson lecture.
5.
Blackboard:
Same as biology lesson audio visual aid.
6.
Lab Demonstration:
Same as biology lesson demonstration.
7.
Lab Small Group:
Same as biology lesson small group.
8.
Teacher Monitors:
Teacher examines, checks, walks round, looks
9.
Lab Recall Questions:
Same as biology lesson recaU question.
10.
Lab Observation Question:
Same as biology lesson observation question,
11.
Lab Relationship Question:
Same as biology lesson relationship question.
12.
Lab Hypothesis Question:
Same as biology lesson hypothesis question.
13.
Report Writing:
This category is coded if students write report
14.
Lab Misconception:
Same as biology lesson misconception.
15.
Lab Routine:
Same as biology lesson routine/assignment.
16.
Lab Positive Affectivity:
Same as biology lesson positive afl'eetivity.
Negative Affectivity:
Same as biology lesson negative affectivity.
at students' work.
of experiment or lab exercise in their notebooks.
17.
Teacher Behaviour
115
T he A u t h o r s SAM T. BAJAH is a Pr of es s or of Science E d u c a t i o n . He w as Director of the I n s t i t u t e of E d u c a t i o n , University of Ibadan, Nigeria, a n d is n o w D e a n of the F a c u l t y of E d u c a t i o n at t he s a m e university. MERCY E. CHIDOLUE is a R e a d e r in Science E d u c a t i o n at t h e I n s t i t u t e of M a n a g e m e n t a n d T e c h n o l o g y , E n u g u , Nigeria.
S h e g r a d u a t e d in Biology
fr o m t h e Un ive r s i t y of I b a d a n w h e r e s h e also received t h e M.Ed. a n d Ph.D. degrees. Recently she spent some time at Huddersfield Polytechnic, E n g l a n d as a R e s e a r c h FeUow.