A COMPARISON O F INTERACTION VARIATIONS I N TEAM AND SELF-CONTAINED CLASSROOMS’

PHILIP LAMBERT, WILLIAM L. GOODWIN, AND RICHARD F. ROBERTS

University of Wisconsin

Of great importance to educators is classroom interaction, the interplay and exchange that take place between pupil and pupil and between teacher and pupil. Seldom, however, has this aspect of the teaching process been systematically studied. The traditional concern with pupil achievement to the exclusion of other dependent variables has been lamented by Pitruzzello (1962).

Several reasons have been advanced for the reluctance of researchers to in- vestigate interaction rigorously (Medley & Mitzel, 1963). Reasons often given are the expense of training and using in-class observers, the hesitancy (and, in some cases, hostility) of many teachers and administrators to close scrutiny of their in- structional programs, and the atypical classroom interaction that occurs when a “strange” observer enters with pencil in hand. Yet recent research in this area sug- gests that none of these reasons is prohibitive.

The first attempt to categorize classroom interaction was made by supervisors a half-century ago (Horn, 1914). More elaborate, complex schemes and models followed, such as those of Puckett (1928), Barr (1929), Wrightstone (1938), Ander- son, Brewer, and Reed (1946), Cornell, Lindvall, and Saupe (1953), and Medley and Mitzel (1958, 1963). In 1960, Lewis, Withall, and Newel1 constructed a com- munication model to use in classroom observation; this instrument (hereafter re- ferred to as the Withall Model) represents a modification of both Bales’ Interaction Process Analysis (1953) and Withall’s Index of Classroom Climate (1949). Flanders’ Interaction Analysis also appeared in 1960. This model (hereafter referred to as the Flanders Model) is sensitive not only to events, but uniquely also to the sequence of events taking place in the classroom.

Several studies have been concerned with the interaction between pupil and teacher in different types of classroom organizations (Anderson & Brewer, 1946; Bank St. College of Education, 1960; Brookover, 1940; and Cornell, Lindvall,& Saupe, 1953). As of this writing, no controlled study comparing the interaction processes in self-contained and team classes, and making use of the communication models cited above, has been reported in the literature.

However, various team projects have resulted in subjective evaluations that relate to classroom interaction. These have tended to cluster in two areas: student discussion and student discipline. Student participation and discussion must cer- tainly be curtailed in the frequent large-size team classes according to Hoppock (1961); Keliher (1962) expresses concern about the passivity of children taught by a team. In contrast, Heller and Belford point out that a well-prepared master teacher can conduct effective large classes :

This interaction between the teacher and the pupil is dependent upon the activity of the learner. To many educators this activity is often interpreted as physical activity which is focused upon the completion of some project. Such an interpretation, however, is shortsighted. The crucial factor in the learning situation for the learner is his mental activity. A pupil may be overtly very passive and docile, but his mind may be racing (1962, p. 109).

‘The research reported herein was supported by the Cooperative Research Program of the Office of Education, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

A COMPARISON OF INTERACTION VARIATIONS IN CLASSROOMS 353

Organization

In actual experiments, Smith (1961) reports increased discussion under a team ap- proach while Dillion (1961) reports less.

Almost all sources report fewer discipline problems using the team approach (Bloomenshine, 1960; Brunta, 1960; Giltinan, 1963; Jonason, 1962; Loretan, 1962; Marsh, 1961; McCurties & Schycker, 1962; Montague, 1961; Noall & Jensen, 1960; Sweet & Dunn-Rankin, 1962; Taylor, 1960; and Ward, 1960; the reader is reminded that these are subjective, not controlled and objective, evaluations). Only Adams (1962) reported additional discipline problems; these problems appeared for a second grade team but not for fourth and sixth grade teams in the same project.

DESIGN AND PROCEDURE Subjeets

Approximatel 380 elementary school pupils made up the po ulation for this stud . Washington School, Madison, bisconsin, housed 60 per cent of these pup&. while Longfellow Jchool, also in Madison, enrolled the remaining 40 per cent. Both schools are bcated in an economically depressed area of the city (i.e., 25 cent of the families are receiving aid under the Public Assistance Program, 80-70 per cent of the fat em are working in unskilled or semi-skilled occupations, etc.). Design

The experimental design randomly assigned Washington School students either to a team or a self-contained or anization. Two multi-grade teams were formed within the team organization. these teams corresponcfed to grades 1-3 and 4-6, and are referred to as the Primer and Intermediate 'fearna, respectively. Each team was composed of a team leader, a regular teacler, two graduate teacher- interns, and a half-time instructional secretar .

The second control organization, Lon elow School, continued a self-contained approach and waa

give greater power to the statistical analyses. Table 1 gives the organizational design. TABLE 1. APPROXIMATE DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS PARTICIPATING IN

INTERACTION STUDY BY GRADE AND ORGANIZATION

included in the project to mewure possib f e contamination of variables in W a s h i n e n School and to

Grade

1 I 2 l 3 4

Washington Self-

Contained

Washington Team 1

-

Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher 20 Pupils 15 Pupils 20 Pupils 20 Pupils

--

Team Leader Regular Teacher Interne (2) 55 Pupils

Team Leader Regular Teacher Interns (2) 50 Pupils

Longfellow 1 Teacher 1 Teacher I Teacher self- 35 Pupils 25 Pupils 25 Pupils

Contained

Teacher Teacher Teacher WPupils 1 25Pupils 1 30Pupils

Procedure Three independent studies of studentteacher interaction in the team and self-contained class-

rooms of Wavhington School and the self-contained classrooms of Longfellow School were conducted during the first and second semesters of the academic year 1'961-62, and the first semester of the academic year 1962-83. These studies used the Withall and Flanders Models of classroom interaction, or variations of these models, arid two observational procedures (ta e recordin and within claw observation). These three studies are reported in full in an Office of %ucation, fS. Department of Health, Educution, and Welfare Report (Lambert, Wiersma, Goodwin, C Roberts, 1964), but only the third study will be reported in detail here. The third study used the Flandem Model with in-claw

354 PHILIP LAMBERT, WILLIAM L. GOODWIN, AND RICHARD F. ROBERTS

observers and was designed to take full advantage of the findings of the two previous interaction studies.

Since subject area had been found significant in all categories in the second study, the third study blocked observations for three subject areas. Eight periods each, of reading, arithmetic, and social studies, were observed for each organization. Periods of observation were conducted for 20 minutes and categorizations were made every three seconds in accordance with the normal Flanders procedure. To make a series of observations complete, it must begin and end with the same number; this has arbitrarily been selected as the number 10. The 399 observations were entered by category number on a data matrix. The summation of either the rows or columns of the data matrix reveals the frequency of responses within each category (disregarding the additional arbitrary 10). The breakdown of the observations for each of the 20 teachers involved is shown in Table 2.

TABLE 2. DISTRIBUTION OF 20-MINUTE INTERACTION PERIODS PER TEACHER

Team Washington Washington Washington Grade Team Self-contained Self-Contained

Primary 3 3 3 3

4 4 4

4 1 4 2 4 3

Intermediate 3 3 3 3

4 4 4

4 4 4

4 5 6

Observations per 24 24 24

Total N 72

Organization

Two graduate students who had not participated in the previous studies were used as observers. Their training consisted of listening to and categorizing five tapes of classroom sessions and of ob- serving and categorizing five classroom sessions. The inter-observer reliability during training was computed using Scott’s Coefficient (Flanders, lY60) and ranged from .60 to .85 with a mean of .75. Three reliability checks were made a t intervals during the stiidy itself; observers independently rated the same class session and the computed reliabilities were .82, .80, and .91.

RESULTS It was noted above that the Flanders Model is sensitive to the sequence of

events occurring in the classroom. Thus data was recorded in two inter-related ways: by actual frequency for each category which led t o a statistical analysis, and by matrix or sequence tabulation which led to a descriptive analysis. Statistical Analysis

Flanders Model as shown in Table 3. A 3 x 3 factorial ANOVA was computed for each of the ten categories of the

TABLE 3. I ~ I V I S I O N OF 3 X 3 ANALYSIS O F VARIENCE FOR FLANDERS CATECOllIES

Subject Area Washington Team

Washington Self-contained

Longfellow Self-Con tained

Arithmetic

Social Studies

Reading

A COMPARISON OF INTERACTION VARIATIONS I N CLASSROOMS 355

Table 4 gives the F-ratios for the main effects and interaction for each of the ten computed ANOVAs.

TABLE 4. F-RATIOS OF FLANDERS CATEGORIES BY CATEGORY AND SOURCE^

Category and Description Organization Subject oxs 1 Accepts Feeling 2 Praises or Encourages 3 Accepts or Uses Student Ideas 4 Asks Questions 5 Lectures 6 Gives Directions 7 Criticizes or Justifies Authority 8 Student Response 9 Student Initiation

10 Silence or Confusion

1.60 1.81

2.25

1.23 4.06*

2.01

-

-

- -

2.14 1.98 - -

4.32 7.40** - -

10.05** 5.41*

2.11 2.02 2.74*

**; < j i aA dash indicates an F < 1; categories 1 through 7 reflect teacher talk while 8 and 9 reflect student talk.

In only one case, Category 7, was organization significant; the self-contained classes were close in frequency while the team was significantly higher, according to the Duncan Multiple Range procedure outlined in Edwards, 1960: this procedure yields three between-organization gaps, one for each combination of two means. However, since the total organizational frequencies were equal and the minimum gaps necessary for significance were very similar, only the largest (and, therefore, the most conservative statistical estimate) of the three minimum gaps is reported in the table. Table 5 gives the breakdown of mean frequencies by organization.

TABLE 5. MEAN NUMBER OF FREQUENCIES OF FLANDERS CATEGORIES BY ORGANIZATION

Category Washington Washington Longfellow Duncan Team Self-contained Self-contained Range

1 2 . 4 2 6 . 8 3 38.8 4 48.8 5 49.4 6 78.0 7 8

13.8 105.7

9 22.5 10 32.8

1 . 3 3 . 1

45.4 60.7 50.2 62.1 8.8

118.6 21.0 27.7

1 . 2 3 .7 ...

41.6 66.8 54.3 60.4 7 . 0

116.8 14.3 33.3

5.0

The significant interaction of Category 3 was due to the crossover between the two self-contained classroom organizations. Washington Self-contained was high in Category 3 in social studies, and low in reading, while Longfellow Self-contained was low in social studies and high in reading.

Descriptive Analysis Flanders (1960) also provides for a descriptive analysis which consists of the

summary tabulation of specific areas of the data matrix. The main report is very extensive in this regard, therefore, only portions of it will be discussed here. Note that no statistical tests are made of between-organization differences. The assump-

356 PHILIP LAMBERT, WILLIAM L. GOODWIN, AND RICHARD F. ROBERTS

tions for the usual parametric and nonparametric tests do not hold because of the unique interdependence of the matrix elements. The discussion in this descriptive section is based entirely upon inspection of the tabulations. Table 6 denotes the categories making up the interaction areas of the Flanders Matrix. The categories follow Flanders (1960) with the exception of “Disciplines Students” which is equiva- lent to Flanders’ (‘Vicious Cycle” minus the 6-6 interaction cell. (An explanation of this variation is given below.)

TABLE 6. INTERACTION AREAS OF THE FLANDERS MATRIX

Interaction Area Matrix Area Description

Indirect Teacher Influence

Direct Teacher Influence

Student Talk Silence or Confusion Students Develop Own Ideas Constructive Integration

Disciplines Students

Encourages Student Participation Ignores Student Participation Content Cross

Columns 1, 2, 3, 4

Columns 5, 6, 7

Columns 8, 9 Column 10

Cells 9-9, 8-8

Columns I, 2, 3- Rows 1 , 2 , 3

Column 7, C611 7-6

Columns S; 9- Rows 1, 2, 3, 4

Rows 5 ,6 Columns 4, 5- Rows 4, 58

Columns 8, 9-

Teacher Accepts Feeling Praises or Encourages Accepts or Uses Ideas of Student Asks Questions Teacher Lectures Gives Directions Criticizes or Justifies Authority Student Response or Initiation

Student Talk followed by continued Student Talk Indirect Teacher Influence (except Asks Questions) followed by Indirect Teacher Influence Criticizes or Justifies Authority and Gives Directions followed by Criticism Student Talk followed by Indirect Teacher Influence Student Talk followed by Direct Teacher Influence except Criticism All interaction either preceded by or following Asks Questions and Lectures

Cells common to both are counted only once.

Table 7 shows percentages of the total observations on each organization which correspond t o each interaction area. The percentages may be read as the average

TABLE 7. PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL OBSERVATIONS OF FLANDERS INTERACTION AREAS BY ORGANIZATION

Interaction Washington Washington Longfellow Team Self-contained Self-contained

Indirect Teacher Influence 24.3 Encourages Student Participation 8.8 Constructive Integration 3 . 2

Direct Teacher Influence 35.4 Ienores Student ParticiDation 4 .1 6isciplines Students *

Students Develop Own Ideas Student Talk

Silence or Confusion Content Cross

3 . 9 32.1 15.7 8.2

34.3

27.7 11.2 3 .2

30.3

28.4 11.4 3 .2

30.5 3 .3 2 . 4

35.0 18.5 7 . 0

39.4

3 .8 2 . 0

32.8 15.9- 8 . 3

43.0

A COMPARISON OF INTERACTION VARIATIONS IN CLASSROOMS 357

amounts of time in a class period occupied by student-teacher interaction of the types described. Note that four interaction areas (Indirect Teacher Influence, Direct Teacher Influence, Student Talk, and Silence or Confusion) are mutually independent and include all interaction within the class period.

DISCUSSION In general, the interaction model analyses located fewer differences in class-

room interaction between the team and self-contained organizations than might be expected. Only two of the interaction studies, those conducted during the first and third semesters, collected data that could be used in comparing all three organiza- tions. Although a number of differences appeared between any given pair of organ- izations, the results showed significant differences between the team and both self- contained organizations in only two categories. The first of these appeared during the first semester, not heretofore discussed, when team teachers asked questions significantly less often ( p < .01) than teachers in the self-contained organizations (Lambert, et al., 1964, p. 66). During the third semester, the study described in detail above, the second difference was that team teachers criticized the students and/or justified their authority significantly more often ( p < .05) than teachers in the self-contained organizations. The interesting thing to note is that neither significant difference showed up in both studies; however, the third study was not a replication of the first.

The descriptive analysis shows the Team clearly higher in Direct Teacher Influence and lower in Indirect Teacher Influence than either self-contained organ- ization, In Student Talk and Silence or Confusion the differences are minor.

As a part of Direct Teacher Influence, Disciplines Students is disproportionally higher in the Team than self-contained classes, compared to the proportion of total Direct Teacher Influence. This was reflected by the fact that only Category 7 (Criticizes or Justifies Authority) proved significant in the ANOVA across organiza- tions (see Table 4). This is in sharp contrast to the bulk of the subjective evaluations made in other team projects, noted above in the introduction. Further analysis in the main report indicated that the significant difference was caused by the great number of disciplinary measures taken by the interns on the teams.

Content Cross was lower in the Team than in the self-contained classes, in- dicating that self-contained teachers occupied more of the total teaching time with lecturing and asking questions than the team teachers. Note that total teaching time (the sum of Direct and Indirect Teaching Influence) is almost the same in the three organizations.

Two modifications in the use of the Flanders categories are recommended. First, Category 7 (Teacher Criticizes or Justifies Authority) should be separated into strong and mild criticism. Second, Category 10 (Silence or Confusion) should also be separated; the differences between, and implications of, the two situations (silence and confusion) are large and pooling them seems illogical. In addition, the observers had to establish several “ground rules” for special situations while using the model; classification of these by Flanders himself would lead to increased uni- formity in the use of the model. For example, what category(ies) is (are) appro- priate when class and teacher recite together; or when the teacher writes on the

358 PHILIP LAMBERT, WILLIAM L. GOODWIN, AND RICHARD F. ROBERTS

chalkboard while the students, a t the same time, copy; or when the teacher talks to a pupil individually and you cannot hear what she says,, etc.

One modification of the descriptive analysis procedure suggested by Flanders was made. Flanders labels the 6-7, 6-6, 7-6, 7-7 combination of cells the “Vicious Cycle” (“Giving Directions” followed by “Criticizes or Justifies Authority” and vice versa). It was felt that the 6-6 cell, “Giving Directions” followed by “Giving Directions,” does not necessarily occur with Criticism, and, in fact, should not be definitely associated with a “Vicious Cycle.” Thus, the descriptive analysis de- scribed above labeled “Disciplines Students” used the total of column 7 and cell 7-6 to locate the disciplinary action more precisely (as it does not include the 6-6 interaction cell).

It also should be noted that the observer-reliability methods suggested by Flanders measure observer agreement on total number of responses in each of the ten categories, but fail to consider the order in which the responses occur, i.e., does 6 follow 8, etc.? Although this method is appropriate for the statistical analysis, it is inappropriate for the descriptive analysis. A technique appropriate for both would require comparison of the observers’ choices for each specific three-second interval. An electronic signal sounded each three seconds and audible to only the two observers (by using earphones) would permit identical pacing and would allow computation of an appropriate reliability coefficient.

REFERENCES ADAMS, A. S. Operation co-teaching, dateline: Oceano, California. Elementa y School Journal., 1962,

ANDERSON, H. H., & BREWER, J. E. Stuhies of teachers’ classroom personalities, 11: Effects of teach- ers’ dominative and integrative contacts on children’s behavior. Applied Psychological Mono- graphs, 1946, No. 8.

ANDERSON, H. H., BREWER, J. E., & REED, M. F. Stuaies of teachers’ classroom personalities, 111: Follow-up studies of the effects of dominative and integrative eoptacts on children’s behavior. Applied Psychology Monographs, 1946, No. 11.

BALES, R. F. Interaction process analysis. Cambridge, Mass. : Addison-Wesley, 1953. BANK STREET COLLEGE OF EDUCATION. The classroom processes study. Working paper prepared for

BARR, A. S. Characteristic di erences in the teaching pe-rformance of good and poor teachers of the social

BLOOMENSHINE, L. L. Team teaching in San Diego-the fist year. National Association of Secondary

BROOKOVER, W. B. Person-person interaction between teachers and pupils, and teaching effective-

BRUNTZ, G. G. The team approach to social science teaching. High School Journal, 1960,427,370-374. CORNELL, F. G., LINnvALL, C. M., & SAUPE, J. L. An exploratory measurement of individualities of

schools and classrooms. University of Illinois Bulletin, 1953. DILLION, C. L. Taylorville, Illinois, Senior High School uses tape recorders, team tearhing, and large-

group instruction to improve staff utilization. National Association of Secondary School Prin- cipals Bulletin, 1961, 45, 178-188.

EDWARDS, A. L. Experimental design in psychological research. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1960.

FLANDERS, N. A. Interaction analysis in the classroom. Minneapolis: Univer. of Minn., 1960. GILTINAN, B. We solved the problem of size. English J o u F l , 1963,52, 89-93. HELLER, M. P., & BELFORD, E. Team teaching and staff utilization a t Ridgewood High School.

National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 1962, 46, 105-122. HOPPOCK, A. Team teaching; form without substance. Education Digest, 1961,,?7,9-11. HORN, E. Distribution of opportunity for participation among pupils in classroom recitations. Teach-

JONSSON, S. R. Team teaching? Enthusiasm is high. New York State Education, 1962,50, 1416.

62, 203-212.

the work conference of four NIMH-related projects, Univer. of Wis., 1960.

studies. Bloomington, 1 l f Public School Publishing Co., 1929.

School Principals Bulletin, 1960, 4, 181-196.

ness. Journal of Educational Research, 1940, 274, 272-287.

ers College Contributions to Education, 1914, No. 67.

A COMPARISON OF INTERACTION VARIATIONS IN CLASSROOMS 359

KELIHER, A. V. Team teaching. Highpoints, 1962,44, 65-68. LAMBERT, P., WIERSMA, W., GOODWIN, W. L., & ROBERTS, R. F. Classroom interaction, pupil achieve-

ment and adjustment in team teaching as compared with the self-contained classroom. Cooperative research project No. 1391. Madison, Wis.: Univer. of Wis., 1964.

LEWIS, W. W., WITHALL, J. G., & NEWELL, J. M. A description of two instructional approaches. Univer. of Wis. Mental Health Teacher Education Project, 1960, mimeo.

LORETAN, J. 0. Team teaching; plus and minus in New York City’s junior high schools National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 1962, 46, 135-140.

MARSH, R. Team teaching-new concept? Clearing House, 1961,35,496-499. MCCURTIES, H. L., & SCHYCKER, B. H. Two teachers and a one-room school. ChicagoSchools Journal,

MEDLEY, D. M., & MITZEL, H. E. A technique for measuriiig classroom behavior. Journal of Educu- tional Psychology, 1958, 49, 86-92.

MEDLEY, 1). M., & MITZEL, H. E. Measuring classroom behavior by systematic observation. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handboolc of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand NcNally, 1963.

MONTAGUE, D. 0. Team teaching in Berkeley’s Burbank Junior High School. Journal of Secondary Education, 1961, 36,420-422.

NOALL, M. F., & JENSEN, L. Team teaching a t Roosevelt Junior High School, Duchesne County, Utah. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 1960, 44, 156-163.

PITRUZZELO, P. R. A report on team teaching. Clearing House, 1962,36, 333-336. PUCKETT, R. C. Making supervision objective. School Review, 1928, 36, 209-212.

1962, 44, 131-133.

SMITH, G. Experimentation a t Verdugo Hills High School. Journal of Secondary Education, 1961, 36, 433-440.

SWEET, R., & DUNN-RANKIN, P. An experiment in team teaching seventh grade arithmetic. School

TAYLOR, H. A. Claremont Graduate School program for team teaching. High School Journal, 1960,

WARD, J. 0. Another plan for co-ordinate teaching. American School Board Journal, 1960, 140, 10. WITHALL, J. G. Development of a technique for the measurement of social-emotional climate in

WRIGHTSTONE, J. W. Appraisal of newer elementary school practices. New York: Teachers Coll., 1938.

Science and Mathematics, 1962, 62, 341-344.

4S, 277-282.

classrooms. Journal of Experimental Education, 1949, 17, 347-361.

A NORMATIVE STUDY OF DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES IN SCHOOL PLAY

NAOMI L. SHUMAN AND DONALD A. LETON

University of Hawaii University of California, Los Angeles

The lack of an adequate instrument to measure school adjustment in the pri- mary and intermediate grades led to the development of the School Play Kit. The School Play Kit presents a miniature classroom with a teacher and pupil dolls, and utilizes play techniques for an assessment of the child’s attitudes and feelings about school. The kit was devised with a threefold purpose in mind; first, t o facilitate the teaching of concepts and attitudes about school to preschool children; second, to assist in diagnosing the nature and conditions of school maladjustment; and third as a therapeutic device, to elicit the exprcssions of feelings of anxiety and hostility toward the resolution of classroom problems.

A preliminary study of the validity of the School Play Kit for the diagnosis of kindergartcri pupils’ adj ustmcnt has been reported (Leton, 1960). Subsequent studies have utilized the kit for the idcritification of cmotional needs of first-grade childrcn, (Dyer, 1962) and for thc study of school adjustment in relation to family