Advertisement

Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 255–271 | Cite as

Teacher student interaction: A case study

  • Gilah C. Leder
Article

Abstract

This study is concerned with possible differences in interaction patterns between teachers and certain groups of students: high and low achievers, and boys and girls. Detailed and comprehensive records of all verbal teacher-student interactions, both public and private, were obtained through videotaping a grade 6 class in three different settings: mathematics, language and science. While there was much consistency in the way the teacher monitored in this study interacted with the different groups, some important differences occurred in the quality and quantity of his interactions with students perceived as ‘best’ and ‘weakest’, and with boys and girls in mathematics classes.

Keywords

Teacher Student Interaction Pattern Mathematics Class Student Interaction Teacher Student Interaction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ACER: 1977, Operations Test, Australian Council of Educational Research Ltd, Hawthorn, Victoria.Google Scholar
  2. Barnes M., R. Plaister, and A. Thomas: 1984, Girls Count in Maths and Science. A Handbook for Teachers, Mathematical Association of N.S.W., Darlinghurst, N.S.W.Google Scholar
  3. Becker J. R.: 1981, ‘Differential treatment of females and males in mathematics classes’, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 12, 40–53.Google Scholar
  4. Bourke, S.: 1985, Achievement and Attitudes in Mathematics: Some Relationships between Classroom Contexts, Teaching Practices and Student Outcomes, Paper presented at the annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Sydney, May 25–29.Google Scholar
  5. Brophy J. E.: 1981, ‘Teacher praise: A functional analysis’, Review of Educational Research 51, 5–32.Google Scholar
  6. Brophy J. E. and C. M. Evertson: 1981, Student Characteristics and Teaching, Longman, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Brophy J. E. and T. L. Good: 1970, ‘Teacher child dyadic interaction: A manual for coding classroom behavior’, in A. Simon and E. G. Boyer (eds.), Mirrors for Behavior. An Anthology of Classroom Observation Instruments, Research for Better Schools, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  8. Brophy J. E. and T. L. Good: 1974, Teacher Student Relationships: Causes and Consequences, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Cooper H. M.: 1979, ‘Pygmalion grows up: A model for teacher expectation communication and performance influence’, Review of Educational Research 49, 389–410.Google Scholar
  10. Equal Opportunity Unit: 1984, Classroom Dynamics, Education Department of Victoria, Carlton, Victoria.Google Scholar
  11. Galton M. (ed.): 1978, British Mirrors: A Collection of Classroom Observation Systems, School of Education, University of Leicester, Leicester.Google Scholar
  12. Gambrell L. B.: 1983, ‘The occurrence of think-time during reading-comprehension instruction’, Journal of Educational Research 77, 77–80.Google Scholar
  13. Good T. L.: 1981, ‘Teacher expectations and student perception: A decade of research’, Educational Leadership 28, 415–422.Google Scholar
  14. Good T. L. and J. E. Brophy: 1971, ‘Questioned equality for grade one boys and girls’, The Reading Teacher 25, 247–252.Google Scholar
  15. Good T., J. Sikes and J. Brophy: 1973, ‘Effects of teacher sex and student sex on classroom interaction’, Journal of Educational Psychology 65, 74–87.Google Scholar
  16. Gore D. A. and D. V. Roumagoux: 1983, ‘Wait time as a variable in sex-related differences during fourth grade mathematics instruction’, Journal of Educational Research 26, 273–275.Google Scholar
  17. Hassler, D. M.: 1979, A successful transplant of wait time and questioning strategies to children's oral language behaviors. (ERIC Domment Reproduction Service No. ED 205 951.)Google Scholar
  18. Johnson E. S.: 1984, ‘Sex differences in problem solving’, Journal of Educational Psychology 26, 1359–1371.Google Scholar
  19. Leinhardt G., A. M. Seewald, and M. Engel: 1979, ‘Learning what's taught: Sex differences in instruction’, Journal of Educational Psychology 71, 432–439.Google Scholar
  20. Lorenz J. H.: 1982, ‘On some psychological aspects of mathematics achievement assessment and classroom interaction’, Educational Studies in Mathematics 13, 1–19.Google Scholar
  21. Maltby F.: 1984, Gifted Children and Teachers in the Primary School 15-12, The Falmer Press, London.Google Scholar
  22. Marshall S. P.: 1984, ‘Sex differences in children's mathematics achievement: Solving computation and story problems’, Journal of Educational Psychology 26, 194–204.Google Scholar
  23. Peterson P. L. and E. Fennema: 1985, ‘Effective teaching, student engagement in classroom activities, and sex related differences in learning mathematics’, American Educational Research Journal 22, 309–335.Google Scholar
  24. Reyes, L. H.: 1981, Classroom Processes, Sex of Student and Confidence in Learning Mathematics, Unpublished doctoral disseratation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar
  25. Rowe M. B.: 1973, Teaching Science as Continuous Inquiry, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.Google Scholar
  26. Rowe M. B.: 1974a, ‘Relation of wait time and rewards to the development of language, logic and fate control: Part one—wait time’, Journal of Research in Science Education 11, 81–84.Google Scholar
  27. Rowe M. B.: 1974b, ‘Relations of wait time and rewards to the development of language, logic and fate control: Part two—rewards’, Journal of Research in Science Education 11, 291–308.Google Scholar
  28. Sharp R. and A. Green: 1975, Education and Social Control, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
  29. Simon A. and E. G. Boyer (eds.): 1967–1970, Mirrors for Behavior: An Anthology of Classroom Observation Instruments, Research for Better Schools, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  30. Stodolsky S. S.: 1984, ‘Teacher evaluation: the limits of looking’, Educational Researcher 13(9), 11–18.Google Scholar
  31. Swift J. N. and C. T. Gooding: 1983, ‘Interaction of wait time feedback and questioning instruction on middle school science teaching’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 20, 721–730.Google Scholar
  32. Tobin K. G.: 1980, ‘The effect of an extended teacher wait time on science achievement’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 17, 464–475.Google Scholar
  33. Tobin K. G. and W. Capie: 1982, ‘Relationships between classroom process variables and middle school science achievement’, Journal of Educational Psychology 74, 441–454.Google Scholar
  34. Weinstein R., H. Marshall, K. Brattesani, and S. Middlestadt: 1982, ‘Student perceptions of differential treatment in open and traditional classrooms’, Journal of Educational Psychology 74, 678–692.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gilah C. Leder
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of EducationMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations