DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 092 367 SE 017 734

AUTHOR Wright, Delivee L.TITLE A Study of Student Verbal Behaviors in Inquiry and

Noninquiry Settings in Biology.PUB DATE Apr 74NOTE 11p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

National Association for Research in Science Teaching(47th, Chicago, Illinois, April 1974)

EDRS PRICE MP-$0.75 HC-$1.50 PLUS POSTAGEDESCRIPTORS *Biology; Educational Research; *Inquiry Training;

Science Education; *Secondary School Science;*Student Behavior; *Verbal Ability

IDENTIPIERS Research Reports

ABSTRACTReported is a study of the verbal behaviors used, by

biology students in inquiry and noninquiry settings. The populationfor this study included 10 BSCS teachers who had enrolled for twosemesters in an instructional program designed to make teachers awareof alternative skills and strategies of inquiry; to recognize thoseused in their own classrooms; to select, practice, and implementselected strategies; and to plan instructional activities to developinquiry behaviors in students. This Instructional Staff Developiont(ISD) Program was designed for experienced teachers interested inimproving inquiry learning in their classrooms, Each participatingteacher was videotaped in one randomly selected class before andafter instruction in the XSD program. Verbalized behaviors were codedusing the Revised Inquiry Analysis Instruitent..The Self4paring ofobservations technique was used with measurement of the sameindividuals-before and after treatment. Results shoved the perCentageof total teacher talk was significantly lover in the inquiry Settingand student talk higher. Variety of verbal influence behaviors usedby students was greater. The percentage of time spent verbalizing"data analysis and interpretation" and "procedures" was significantlygreater in the inquiry setting. (Author/EB)

OS,

A STUDY OF STUDENT VERBAL BEHAVIORSIN INQUIRY AND NONINWIRY WITINGS IN BIOLOGY

U S OEPASITMENT OF HIEALtItEQUCATiONY WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATIONTHis DOCUMENT HAS gEEN REPROOUCE0 EXACTLY AS RECEivE0 FROMtHE PERSON UN ORGANtlatiON °WANAtiNC, 11 PO:NTSOI VIEW OR OPINIONSSTAIED 00 NOT

NECESSARILY RE PREs£N101F1CiAL NATIONAL INS/rTuTEOFLOUCAtfoN POSITION ON POLICY

by

Delivee L. WrightUniversity of Nebraska

Lincoln, Nebraska

Presented at the

Forty-Seventh Annual Meetingof the

NATIMAL ASSOCIATION FOR EMEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING

Chicago, IllinoisApril 150.80 1974

A STUDY OF STUDY. B2UtVIOSIN INQUIRY A!) NONI=Ti bSTTINGS XN BXOTAOY

Pzoblem

It is the purpose of this paper to objectively identify verbal behaviors

observed in inquiry settings and to compare these with the verbal-behaviors

observed in noninqpiry settings. For purposes of this paper, inquiry has been

defined as "a set of activities directed tovards solving an open number of

related problems in which the student has as his principal focus a productive

enterprise leading to increased understanding and applics.tion."1

Population_ and Procedures

The University of Nebraska - Lincoln Teachers College in cooperation with

the Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory, Inc., Kansas City, has

conceptualized, developed and tested a staff development program designed for

experienced teachers who are interested in imploving inquiry learning in their

claesrooms. The program is designed to make teachers aware of alternative

skills end strategies of inquiry; to recognize those used in their own class-

rooms; to select, practice, and implement selected strategies; and to plan

instructional activities to develop inquiry behaviors in students.

The population for this study included ten BSCS teachers who had enrolled

for two semesters in this Instructional Staff Development (MD) Program in

Inquiry for university credit. These biology teachers taught in the Omaha

1

InquimAjectives in the Toecbi.n of Biolea, Richard M. Dingman,Editor, Muse; City: Mid-continent Regional Educational Labsrutory,September, 190, p. 1. ,

2

and litacoln, Nebraska, area schools. Two trainer° who were also classroom bioleei

teeehers conducted the program after ywcipatine in a workshop designed to

prepare trainers.

The instructional treatment inclIuded six components or 4.mits of study in

fifteen instructional sessions and five microteaching sesoions. Each perticipaUve

teacher was videotaped in one randomly selected clan before and after instruction

in the ISD prceram. Verbalized behaviors were coded from the videotaped observe.

ations using the fever It_latam Analysis Instrument. Coders were consistent in

the identification of categories of behavior at the 90 percent level.

Research Dints

The "Self-pairing" of observations technique vas used with measurement of

the same individuals before and after treatment. This technique reduces

extraneous influences on the variable being meaeured. That is, pairing reduces

the effect of subjeet-to.subject

To compute t for paired samples, the paired difference variable

D = Xi - X2 is formed. D is normally Mr tributed with man (. Toe

sample mean and variance a' and ad2are computed, then:

t=

X31 x2fe the ecomriance between X and X2

n - 1

df = n 1 where n is the number of pairs, end

812 281 + s22 Xi X2 ) /

1Statiotical cka e for the Social Seiencee: date Manual,Norman 11.1r57-era17

Pa;

41 faa-trp niOrgraliErtater$ Witai giv ofChicago, Reltisod April 1972.

N!!ertotton of the Inntrumont

The Revised Insolu System1is an observational instrument designed

to simultaneously record three kinds or vozhal behavior iu three respective

columns' (See Figure 1.)

(a) Column One: Categories one through ten identify the verbal influencebehaviors as defined by the ton categories of FlandersInteraction Analysis.

Categories one throng): sevenlidOtify the verbalinfluence behaviors used by students and definedas being analogous to the seven categories ofteather behavior as defined by Flanders Inter-action Analysis.-

) Column Three: Categoriee one through nine ielentify verbalized imnirYand noninquiry behaviors.

When this instrument vas applied, a three-digit code was recorded every

three seconds or with every behavior change, whichever occurred first. When the

tencher was talking, the appropriate code was recorded in Column One, zero in

Column Two (unless it was a decision), and the appropriate inquiry or neninquiry

code in Column Three. For example, a teacher's factual question would be coded

401. If a student was speaking, an "6" or "9" vas coled for ColuTn'One, the

appropriate categ.A7 vas recorded fo../.. Columns Two and Three. For example, a

student initiating a question about procedures would be recorded as 946.

Silence or confusion 'was ruled as 100.

11.17,1.100117M.,=1.111

anis inatrument vas designed with input from the following: "TheInquiry Analysis System," Corr ovnt III: Inquitl Behaviors, John E. LUX)et. al., July 1972, Copyright 1972 by Mid-continent Regional Efteational tabor4tor;Inc. '0. H318-1 to 11308-4; "Cognitive Operations Monitored in the Classroom,"11,91,ordirtTaleher aid Pupil verbal Inouir Behaviors is thy qUes.room, a technicalmtuii for "observers, Jelin n.-Aadegil and-Matto M. Bing 60 Octobor 1969,Copyright 1969 by Matt; and Inqg Ob et a in thp litaeblog of bioloax,Bteberd M. tingmen, Editor, Copyrf t,19 9 by Me and_the Rologial sdienoesCurrioulum Study.

REVISED MQUIR! =MISSYSTE14 EISUKBENT

-----Cola= One

(Interaction,Anelysis)

(Student Talk & Decisions)

1Tchr. A.-cepts Fee

s

2Tchr.,Reinf _a-emei:a/Humor

3,Tch:r.:uses etudezrt ideas

4 T

chr.

(itienrs

5 -

. Gives Information

Column Three

(Inquiry Behaviors)

6 -Tchr- Gives ,DiieetiOnS

-..T

ustr

sice

aoti:

or Authority,

Crttictimi; by Tchr.

8 -

Stv

ici=

t,'Itesporses

9-'Student Initiated Talk

10 -,,Si lenCe,',CtmetuAna

I - Student Accepts/StatesFeeIincs

2 - Student ReitforcecAucor

- Phetual Analysis

- Analysis, Interpretation,

IdentifyingEtlationShips

Hypotheses, Plans to Foil=

- Process (Inquiry intoIngairy)

5 - Peelings,

Attitudes, Values

6 - Ptocedures

- Sensory Oboervations

3 - Student Uses Ideas

of Others

4 - StudentQueetions

5 - Student Gives Information

6 - StudentGives Directions

7 - Student JustifiesAuthority,

Criticizes

8 - Decisionbased on Stated

Alternatives

0 - Elan k (TeacherTalk)

Identification &/or Goal

or Problem Foraulation

- Assessment of Content/Pocess

ItImotheees

It was hypothesized that after instruction in the ISD program:

1. Teachers would use more indindot (Column I, Categories 1 through 4) than

direct (Column I, Categoriee 5 through 7) verbal influence behaviors.

2. Students would use a greater variety ofverbal behaviors (Column II,

CategoTies 8 and 9 compared to Categories 1 through 7).

3. atidents would use a greater variety Of verbal behaviors (Oluma rt,

Categories 1 through 7).

The mean percentage of time used for verbalizing decisions would ins me

(Column II, Category 8).

5. Students would increase their use of indirect venal influence behaviors

( Column II, Categories 1 through 4).

6. The total percentage of time verhalizing inquiry behaviors (excluding the

category of "factual data") would increase (Column III, Categories 2 through 9).

ResultsOMM.100.

Results in terms of the mean percentages of time speot'in the verbal

behaviors identified in Columns I, II and XIX of the Revieed InglitzAnalnie

System are reported in this cectton.

Table I repovto the rean poreentegee of time spent in behavior° identified

by Column I categories. Data indicate tiwt the teacher talk categories of

"reinforcement /humor" (2), "uoe of student ideas" (3), "questions" (4), and

"information-giving" (5) decreased at the .001 level of significance.

Category 7, "criticizes/justifies authority" also decreased at the .05

level of significance. The mean percentages of teacher categories of

"accepting feelings" (1) and "direction.giving" (6) did not change Significantly.

Tab

le I

CO

MPA

RIS

ON

OFM

EA

UPE

EC

EN

TA

GE

S O

F C

OL

UM

N T

CA

TE

GO

RIE

S O

FVEAL BEHAVIOR, PREAND POST OB01EEVATIONS

':Ca:

pego

ry'D

esm

-ipt

ions

1,W

POST

S.D

.X

S.D

.t

Val

veSi

gnif

ican

ce.

leve

l1.

Tea

cher

.Acc

epts

Fee

lings

11.58.

13.9

517

.41

4.43

1.24

N.S

.2.

Tesa:bar]ieirforces,

Hum

or3.

671.

89.1

0.2

66.

11.0

013.

Tea

l6m

!trs

eerS

tidei

tId

eas

5.38

3.08

.27

5.16

.001

4.

Tea

cher

Oue

stIo

ns13

.E4

6.68

.64

6.46

.001

-T

each

er G

ives

Inf

'orm

atio

n42

.07,

21.5

12.

614.

175.

22.0

016.

Tvi

Che

r, G

iven

Dir

ecU

ons

3.72

2.77

2.60

2.97

.59

N.S

.7.

TeatChee'Critietzes/

.64

.82

.01

.03

2.27

.05

Juiti

ffes

Aut

hori

ty8.

,Stt4

entR

espo

nse

14.111

8.35

.17

-31

5.01

.001

9.St

uden

t' In

itiat

edT

aIk

4.4.96

75.87

9.83

19.1

8.0

01

ti

Category 8, "student response", decreased significantly at the .001 level

while category 9, "student initiated tank ", increased from a mean of 18.70 percent

to a mean of 76.04 percent.

The mean percentage of indirect teacher behaviere was 34.47 percent before

instruction and 18.29 tercent after instruction. Direct teacher behaviors

decreased from 46.43 percent to 5.42 percent.

Table II reports means, standard deviation's and significance levels of

changer, for the categories of student verbal behaviors and of student and teacher

decisions. All categories of student verbal behaviors increased after instruction.

Category 2, "Student reirfc....cement/humor"; category 4, "student questions"; and

category 5, "student gives information increased at the .001 level of sivificance

Category 6, "student gives directions" increaced at the .01 level while category

7, "student criticizes/justifies authority" increased at the .05 level. Category

1, "student accepts/expresses feelings" and category "student uses ideas of

others" also increased from no occurrence before instruction to means of 4.89

percent and 2.00 percent respectively.

The mean percentage of student indirect verbal behaviors was 1.73 percent

before instruction and 27.78 percent after instruction. Direct student behaviors

decreased from 16.99 percent to 11.29 percent.

Mean percentage of time that decision° (Column II, Category 8) were

verbalized, did not change significantly.

Table III reports the mean percentages of time spent in the specific inquiry

behaviors identified in Column III categories. Total time using inquiry behaviors

excluding "factual data" increased from a mean of 20.68 percent to 40.35 percept.

The verbalization of "factual data", category li decreased significantly at the

.05 level from a mean Of 65.00 per4ont tol mean of 3208 percent. SignificAnb

chums occurred in the behaviore of "ans4sio, interpretation, and identifying

relattons4ps", category elat_ths_.10, love]. and in,"proceduree, category :6, pt,

Tab

le I

IC

OM

RIZ

OIV

OF

MO

IM

ICE

NT

AM

SO

F C

OM

O I

I C

AT

EG

OR

IES

OF

=PA

LA

ND

PO

ST 0

EM

- N

AT

ION

S

Cat

egor

y D

eser

ipzi

ons

PRE

POST

S.D

.7

S.D

..V

alue

1.St

azde

at' A

cces

tsft

rore

sses

.00

0

2.St

uder

lt R

eior

ce /H

umor

.07

3.st

uden

t,Uce

i Ide

as o

f O

ther

s.0

04.

"Stu

dezr

6,Q

zes

t o..a

1.66

5.st

ud'a

t..G

ives

laro

zrat

ion

26.9

6'

stri

tt fi

ves

Dir

ectio

ns.0

17.

.28.

Dee

l'Sla

ns-3

7

3.60

8.43

.03

.07

.69

Sign

ific

ance

leve

l4.

89

10.8

3

2.00

10.C

1.3

0

5.64

4....

.-1

.,.....,

5.72

8.15

.001

.001

52.60

7.142

9.27

.001

2.88

:2.

473.

47.0

1

1.17

1.40

2.56

.05

.44

.46

.28

N.S

.

Table 111

CO1r2.ARISON OF i7.".3 PER. CENTAMB OF C.OLUZGI III CAMGCEZIES OF VeMBA.I.=VIM, ME AND POST

OB

SER

VA

TIO

NS

Catego'Descriptions

PRE

S.S.D.

XHOST

S.D.

-

tValue

SiCuificance

level

1.

Fact!lal.Data

65.00

21.02

37.6

619

.89

2.65

.05

2.

Ans.1,:mis, Interpretation,

Ideutifying Melationsbips

8.70

4.99

24.28

5.66

2.02

.10

3-

3.

Hyp

othe

ses,

Pla

ns2.

013.

92.1

7.4

01.

38N

.S.

4.Pr

oces

s at

Inquiry

.61

1.28

.01

.03

1.39

N.S.

5.

Feelings/Attitudes/Values

.22

.63

.12

. 4:4

-^1

.43

Ls.

6.ProeedFes

5.81

4.24

13.18

7.92

2.21

.05

7.

,

Sensory Observations

1.60

2.89

.88

2.24

.54

N.S.

8.Identificationef Goal/

.20

-53

-39

.55

.66

N. S

.Pr

ob1e

z

9.A

sEss

ism

ent

1.53

3-23

1.32

1.75

.17

N.S.

10

the .05 level. While other verbalized inquiry behavior categorieo did rot

change significantly, it should be noted that the proportion of student tslh

significantly increased (ceo Table I) indicating that use of inquiry behaviors

by. students increased while teacher use of the behaviors decreaead.

1. Hypothesis one was accepted with indirect teacher behaviors decreasing

from a mean of 34.47 percent to a mean of 18.29 percent after instruction while

direct teacher behaviors decreased from a mean of 46.43 percent to a neon of

5.42 percent.

2. Hypothesis two was accepted with the total percentage of student talk

inereaeing from a mean of 18.70 percent before instruction to a mean of 76.04

percent after instruction.

3. Hypothesis three was accepted with five student talk categories being

used before instruction and seven student categories being used after instruction.

All categories of student talk increased after instruction.

4. Hypothesis o-four wee rejected clv::e the percentage of time for veelal-

izing deeisions did not change significant)y.

5. Vypahesto five won accepted vith student indirect beJaavtors increasing

from a :teen of 1.73 percent before instruction to a mean of 27.78 percent after

instruction.

6. hypothesis six was accepted with the mean percentage of all inquiry be-

haviors (excluding "factual data" increasing from 20.68 percent before inetiguet-

ion to 40.35 percent after instruction.