The relative effects of video and audio models on the acquisition of a teachers and concomitant student learning

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The relative effects of video and audio models on the acquisition of a teachers and concomitant student learning
Physical Description:
x, 93 leaves. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Santiesteban, A. Joseph
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Elementary school teaching   ( lcsh )
Audio-visual education   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 88-92.
Statement of Responsibility:
by A. Joseph Santiesteban.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 000871563
notis - AEG8786
oclc - 14276388
System ID:
AA00002225:00001

Full Text











THE RELATIVE EFFECTS OF VIDEO AND A
ACQUISITION OF A TEACHING SKILL
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS AND CONCOMITANT


A. JOSEPH


UDIO MODELS ON TO
BY PRESERVICE
STUDENT LEARNING


SANTIESTEBAN


A DISSERTAT

IN PARTIAL


'ION PRESENTED TO
THE UNIVERSITY
I FULFILLMENT OF
DEGREE OF DOCTOR


THE
OF
THE
OF


GRADUATE CO
FLORIDA
REQUIREMENTS
PHILOSOPHY


UNCIL

FOR


OF

THE





























As a child


them more.


I loved


How wrong


them
was.


and


thought


could


not


love


I dedicate


their


love


this
and g


work


to Rene


and


Digna,


parents,


guidance.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


I ~uld


like


to thank


John


. Koran,


guidance


through


conceptualization


implementation


this


study


and


introducing


me to the


realm


educational


research.


Mary


Budd


Rowe


deserves


sin-


cere


thanks


generous


contributions


, both


to this


study

the m


and


embers


'my

of


general

my super


education.


visory


would


committee,


Drs.


like


to thank


Eugene


Todd,


Vynce


Hines,


Robert


Jester,


their


constructive


suggestions,


Joseph


Gufford,


who


ass


listed


me in


securing


Loose,


the sample

friend an


preservice


colleague,


teachers.


lasting


Kenneth


appreciation


his


thank


assistance


love


analysis


Camile


this


patience


study.


and


Finally,


understanding


through


this


ordeal.
















TABLE


CONTENTS


Page


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


LIST


S. a . a S . iii


OF TABLES


ABSTRACT


viii


CHAPTER


INTRODUCTION


a . 0 . 1


The Problem
Modeling or
Independent
Psychologic
Modeling in
Modeling an
Observation


Observat
t Variabi
al Theory
Children
d Reinfor
and Clas


ional
e .
and


. .
ement
ifica


Formation: The Dependent
Independent and Dependent
Research Hypotheses .


Learning

Modeling


. .


tion in
Variable
Variable


EXPERIMENTAL


The Design
Treatment
Treatment
Audiotape


DESIGN


Procedur
Material
Analysis


. . S . 19


* a 0 0 .
0 0 0 S .
* a . 0
* .


III.


RESULTS


S. . . . 32


Main Effects . .
Written Measures .
Microteaching Audio Intera
Student Attitude Measure


Stion
tion


DISCUSSION


AND


IMPLICATIONS


a . . 52


Treatment Main Ef


fects


a A a a a a .


* 0 0 0 5
: The
* S 0 0 0
* a a a a
. .
. .i .


L












Page


Audio


Modeling:


Some


Practical


Considera-


tions


Modeling


Some


Implication


Research


Conclusions


. . 65


APPENDICES


SET


INDUCTION


MATERIALS


S. . 67


MATERIAL

WRITTEN


LIST


MEASURES


S I 0

a a a S S S


RATER


TRAINING


MANUAL


0 . S 80


FACTOR ANALYSIS


DATA


. . 84


REFERENCES


S . . 0 0 0 88


BIOGRAPHICAL


SKETCH


0 0 0 0 93
















LIST


OF TABLES


Table


Page


Experimental


Design


S. . 20


Research Model


S. . . 20


Means
Test


and


Standard


Sex,


Grade,


Deviations


and


Race


Student


Process


S. 22


Treatment


Procedures


and


Times


. . .* 24


Item


Analys


s--


Teacher


Criterion


Test


Item Analysi


-Student


Process


Test


S. . 28


Reliability


Written


Measures


. 0 28


Rater


Reliability


Verbal


Measures


. 30


Means


and


Standard


Deviations


Written


Mea-


sure


S. . . . 33


Analysis


Variance


Teacher


Criterion


Test


Tukey'


HSD


Test


Difference


Between


Means--


Teacher


Criterion


Test


a . . 0 35


Analysis


Variance


Student


Process


Test


36


Analys


Sex


and


Variance


Treatment


Student


Process


Test


. . . 36


Analys
Grade


and


Variance
Treatment


Stud


Process


Test


. . . . 36


Analysis


Race


and


f Variance
Treatment


Student


Process


Test


. a . . 0 37


Analysis


Vari anr,


a -LL -U L~ -a


Teacher


Observation


r











Table


Page


Analysis


Variance


Student


-Imposed


Classification


Questions


Analysis o
Questions


Variance


Total


Clas


sification


S. . . . . 40


Tukey'


Teacher


HSD


Test


.Observation


Difference
Questions


Between Means--


. . . 40


Tukey'


HSD


Test


Teacher-Imposed


Cla


Difference
ssification


Between Means--


Questions


. 41


Tukey'
Total


HSD


Class


Test


ification


Difference


Questions


Between Means--


S. .. . 42


Analysis


Observation


Variance


Questions


Student


Responses


. . . . 44


Analysis


Variance


Student


Responses


Teacher-Imposed


ssification


Questions


. 44


Analysis


Variance


Student


Responses


Student-Imposed


Cla


ssification


Questions


. 44


Analysis
Total


Tukey'


Student


Tukey's HS
Responses
Questions


Clas


HSD


Variance
sification


Test


Responses


Test


Student


Questions


Difference


to Observation


Difference


to Teacher-Imposed


Responses to
. . 45


between Means--
Questions .


Between Means--


Clas


sification


. . . . . 46


Tukey'


HSD


Student
Question


Test


Responses


Difference


to Total


Between Means--
ssification


Correlation


dent


Variabli


Matrix


Audio


Interaction


Depen-


. . 0 . . 47


Factors


on the


Student


Attitude


Measure


Analysis


Variance


Frustration


Factor


. 50











Abstract
of the U


Dissertation


university


Requirement s


Presented


Florida


the


Degree


to the


Partial
if Doctor


Graduate


Fulfillment


Council
of the


Philosophy


RELATIVE


ACQUISITION


EFFECTS


OF VIDEO


OF A TEACHING


AND


SKILL


AUDIO


MODELS


BY PRESERVICE


ON THE


ELEMENTARY


TEACHERS


AND


CONCOMITANT


STUDENT


LEARNING


A. Joseph Sa


August,


intiesteban


1974


Chairman:


Major


John


Department


. Koran, Jr.
Curriculum


and


Instruction


Forty-eight


preservice


elementary


teachers


were


ran-


daily


assigned


to a video


mode


an audio


model,


or a control


trea


nt- condition


Subjects


the


video


model


treatment


observed


a videotape


classification


question


a teacher using

nc behavior with


observation


four


and


fourth-grade


students.


Subjects


the


audio


model


treatment


listened


to the


audio


track


video


model


previously mentioned.


The control


Ss did


not


observe


a model.


Subsequently,


prepared


a 15-minute


microteaching


lesson.


Three


third-


or fourth-grade


students


were


randomly


ass


signed


to each


preservice


teacher,


and


a microteaching


lesson


was


taught


and


audiorecorded.


Preservice


teachers


were


tested


with


a written


criterion


Am 1r at4 4n r r


THE


hk~rtlc3f~ia C ; nn


Aa4^& r ^mJkJ


anrl


Sa~


mdtA Cf~l1


-n


A-T











Audiotapes


the


microteaching


interactions


were


analyzed


three


trained


raters


the


frequency


obser-


vation


questions,


categories,


the


frequency


total


number


classification

classification


questions

questions,


and


student


responses


to each


categories


listed.


Classification


questions


were


coded


as being


either


teacher-


imposed


classification


or student-imposed


classification


questions.


In the


former


category


the


teacher


selects


characteristic


to be


used


classifying


objects;


latter


category


teacher


allows


student


to devi


classification


scheme.


Subjects


the


audio


model


treatment


performed


sig-


nificantly


criterion


better


test.


than


control


No differences


were


on the


found


teacher


between


audio model


and


the


video


model,


or between


video


model


and


control


group,


on the


teacher


criterion


test.


No significant


differences


were


found


main


effects


the


student


process


test.


Both


audio


and


video model


performed


significantly


better


than


control


on the


fre-


quency


imposed


observation


classification


classification


questions.


questions,


frequency


questions,


total


No significant


teacher-


number


differences


were


found


between


audio


and


video


model


on any


audio-











questions,


total


teacher-imposed


sification


classification


questions


questions,


categories.


This


study


suggests


that


audio


models may


be useful


teacher-training


device s


when


competency


to be acquired


verbal.


Students


exposed


to teachers


who


have


acquired


questioning


skill


perform


better


than


those


exposed


teachers


who


have


not.















Chapter


INTRODUCTION


There


a recent


movement


education


towards


teacher-


training


programs


based


upon


teacher


competencies


teacher

training


performance


programs


(Houston,


this


1972;


nature


Elam,


usually


1971).

include


Teacher-

extensive


lists


competencies


teachers


should


acquire


through


training.


The


Florida


Catalog


Teacher


Competencies


(Dodl,


1973)


an example


such


a list.


It has


been


sugge


sted


that


appropriate


teacher


competencies


can


identified


instructional


strategies


devised


that maximize


teacher


gains


and


degree


achievement


the


competencies


evaluated


(Houston,


1972).


Koran


(1972)


has


agreed,


but


added


that


instructional


strategies


training


teachers


should


explored


that


are


inexpensive,


have


demonstrated


effectiveness,


and


are


easily


portable.


The ela

competencies


student


boration

gains u


gains.


teaching


utility


A number


strategies


can


researchers


show


and teacher

n to relate


on teacher


behavior


have


indicated


that


little


known


concerning


rela-


tionshin


between


A .


teacher


emnetenecies.


student


achievement.


#









on teacher

respect to

Therefore,


teacher


behavior


student

student


comapetencies


has bee

gains (S

learning


appears


n


generally


iegel

and


inconclusive


and Rosenshine,

its relationship


to be


an area


with


1973).

to acquired


continuing


research


interest.


Some


skills


researchers


implemented


have

the


shown

teacher


that

can


particular

influence


teaching

student


learning.


Rowe


(1973,


1974)


summarized


some


factors


relating


influence


teacher


wait-time


on student


behavior.


When

after


teachers

asking


were


trained


a question


to wait

to wait


at leas

three


three


seconds


seconds


after


student


haviors


response,


developed.


a number


Some


advantageous


student


student


characteristics


associated


with


wait-time


are:


slower


students


contribute


more


to class


discussion,


confidence


increases,


speculative


thinking


increases,


number


experiments


proposed


students


increases.


Koran


et al.


(1973)


found


that


stu-


dents


exposed


to teachers


trained


asking


analytic


ques-


tions


made


more


analytic


responses


more


categories


analysis


this


than


study


students


level


exposed


teacher


to nontrained


acquisition


teachers.


skill


was


directly


related


to the


level


subsequent


student


performance.


Rosenshine


and


Furst


(1971)


have


suggested


that


re-











Essential

specific


components or

to a curriculum


instructional


should


variables


identified.


considered

Teachers


should


then


trained


use


these


instructional


variables


properly.


The


relationship


between


instructional


activities


behavioral


changes


student


should


be identified.


Modification


training


procedures


and/or


materials


should


made


on the


basis


the


latter


phase.


Finally,


new


research


with


appropriate


controls


on training


procedures


and/or


materials


should


undertaken.


Thi


study


attempts


to examine


first


three


phases


described


Rosenshine


and


Furst.


The


Problem


The


purpo


ses


this


study


are:


compare


relative


effects


videotape


audio


models


on the


acqui-


sition


observation


classification


questioning


skills


preservice


elementary


teachers


and


to validate


acquired


teaching


skills


terms


elementary


school


stu-


dent learning

observation a


as measured


nd


classification


frequency


questions


and


responses

performance


the


student


process


test.


Modeling
The


or Observational


Independent


Learning:


Variable


- a -


*


I











(Bandura

stated,


and

the


Walters,

behavior


1963).


others


As Bronfenbrenner


contagious.


(1970)

Modeling


has

has


been


variously


termed


imitation,


observational


learning,


identification,


copying,


psychological


introjection


modeling,


(Bandura,


role-taking,


1971).


Models


can


presented


a number


different


ways,


the


most


common


form being


live


model.


Children


adults

these


observe


behaviors.


behaviors


Bandura


other


et al.


(1963)


and


adopt


found


that


many


live


models


are


as effective


as film-mediated


models


pro-


during


behavior


change.


From


this


study


alone,


however,


cannot be

equivalent


alternate


concluded


effect.


modeling


that


film models


It is


methods


most


live


probable


depends


on the


models


that


number


are

effect


ex-


posures


to each


model,


relative


strength


models,


the


task


modeled


characteristics


observer.


With


advent


television


and


films,


film-mediated


models


have


become


popular


devices


influencing


behavior


and


under


many


conditions


are


very


effective


influencing


behavior


(Bandura,


1971).


Modeling


can


also


conveyed


through


symbolic


means


form


written


communica-


tions.


Written models


have


been


found


to be


effective


vices


behavioral


change


teacher


trainees


(Koran


- a1a


1











observer may


acquire


new


responses


that


did


not


previously


exist


his


repertoire.


Through


observation


a model


an individual


performs


a behavior


that


had


not


pre-


viously


produced.


The


observation


a model


may


strengthen


or weaken


existing


responses,


or the


model


may


increase

possessed


or decrease


observer.


frequency


Observatio


behaviors

n of a mo


d


already

el that


either


rewarded


or punished


may


increase


or decrease


performance


observed


behavior.


Behaviors


displayed


the


model


may


acquired


without


observer


overtly


reproducing


behavior


newly


acquired


behaviors


may


stored


stances


and


later


develop.


used


This


an appropriate


related


to the


circum-


acquisition-


performance


phenomenon


described


Bronfenbrenner


(1970)


and


suggested


research


(Bandura


et al.,


1963;


Bandura,


1971;


Koran,


1969a,


1970,


1971a)


An individual


may


serve

havior


a model

s for u


using


sing


a rifle


and


weapon.


acquire


But,


the

the


necessary

individual


be-

does


not


actually


manipulate


weapon,


will


unable


perform


acquired


behaviors


(Bronfenbrenner,


1970).


Psychological


Theory


Modeling


Bandura


(1970)


suggested


that


a number


major


nank nhrw 4 ait 1 arn 4


hns1ua4S a


4trrttl iroir


1 aavr;n iVr


f^ uqVI jaaCa


?I'Cr6


n











are


assumed


to be


acquired


as a function


the contiguity


learning


process


(Bandura,


1969).


According


to this


contiguity-mediational


theory,


while


subject


observes


the


modeling


sensory


stimuli,


experiences


configurations


are


elicited.


Then,


sequences or

on the basis


past


associations


the


stimuli


integrated


y!a-P


into


per-


ceptual


responses


(Bandura


et al.,


1966)


conti-


guilty must


accompanied by


the mediational


performance


discrimination


to facilitate


During


exposure


between


learning


observations.


process


to stimnlsn


This


(Bandura,


sequences


necessary


1970).


(observation


a model)


observer


tends


to code,


classify,


re-


organize


elements


into


more


easily remembered


schemes.


Elements


Where


(stimuli)


overt


are


performance


perfo


not


either


feasible,


overtly


covert


or covertly.


performance


as a practice


variable.


Sheffield


(1961)


has


described


symbolic


or representa-


tional


responses


form of


images


and


verbal


associates


as perceptual


blue-printing.


Patterns


become


essential


elements


and,


when


acquired,


patterns


allow


observer


to reproduce


overt


sequences


patterns.


These


overt


sequences


not


have


to be


precisely


like


observed


patterns. O


Svert


sequences


ay be rep
a -


reduced


at the


- -


time


* m-


rmed


acts











Modeling


Teacher Training


With


ever-increasing


cost


education


necessary


that


techniques


teacher


training


be developed


that


are


effective,


inexpensive,


and


portable


(Koran,


1969a,


1972).


Modeling


approaches


show


promise


as techniques


which may prove


useful


training


teachers


inexpensively


effectively


Videotape


modeling


been


found


effec-


tive


promoting


questioning


behavior


change


preservice


teachers.


Koran


(1969b)


found


that


a film-mediated


(videotape)


model


was


more


effective


than


a written model


training


preservice


teachers


producing


observation


and


classification


que


stions.


A videotape


model


was


compared


to a self-rating


pro-


cedure


another


study


Koran


(1970)


In that


study,


preservice


teachers


observed


a kit


Science-A Process


Approach


material


Each


teacher


was


then


asked


generate,


writing,


observation


classification


ques-


tions


they


would


ask


about


material.


Part


group


observed


a teacher-pupil


interaction


a teacher


eliciting


observation


and


classification


responses


while


other


group


self-rated


their


questions


generated


on a pretest


using


a rater-protocol


as a guide.


After


weeks,


responded


to a retention


test.


Written


questions


generated











videotape


model


was


superior


self-rating


system


producing


results


on the


retention


test,


but


on initial


acquisition


skills.


In a follow-up


study,


Koran


(1971a)


compared


ef-


fects


written


and


film-mediated


models


on the


acquisi-


tion


observation


and


classification


eliciting


skills


preservice


elementary


teachers.


Again


Koran


found


that


videotape


models


were


superior


to written models.


written


model


produced


significantly


more


desired


behaviors


than


control


even


though


written


model


treatment


group


scored


significantly


lower


than


video


model


group


or the


control


group


on the


pretest


Koran


et al.


(1971)


found


that


a videotape


model


was


more


effective


than


a written


model,


but


both


modeling


groups


quantity


Koran


models


and


et al.


higher


quality


(1973)

e their


than


analytic


compared

relative


no-modeling


questioning


two .types

effect o


group


behavior


written


n analytic


questioning


behavior


preservice


teachers.


One


model,


"the


protocol


model,


was


administered


a group


ran-


domly

a set


assigned


explicit


teachers.


and


The


sample


model


questions


related


to analytic


questioning.


Another


group


received


a tran-


a a


scored


significantly


to determine


preservice


definitions


consisted


S


am


I


* ct


I











teacher


prepared


a 20-minute


microteaching


session


using


selected


teacher


article


microtaught


as a basis


the


for


lesson


instruction


to three


after


or four


which


eighth


graders.


Each microteaching


session


was


audiorecorded


students


and


teachers


were


administered


written


tests


at the


conclusion


sess


ion.


Ratings


audio-


tapes


showed


that


protocol


model


was


more


effective


than


written


model


producing


both


types


and


frequency


analytic


questions.


Protocol


model


did


not


perform


as well


did


as the


perform


written


model


significantly


the


better


than


written measures


control


but


group.


Children


both


modeling


treatments


performed


significantly


better


tween


than


types


modeling


control


analytic


treatments


on the


ability


questions.


and


control


The


was


to distinguish


difference


not


be-


between


significant


content


and


transfer


tests


administered


to the


children.


One


most


interesting


effects


found


was


that


students


exposed


to teachers


who


asked


more


analytic


questions


re-


sponded


with more


analytic


responses,


and


their


responses


were


more


varied.


The


mediated

desired


evidence


model


questioning


so far


presented


superior


the


behavior


suggests


written


types


that


model


described


film-


producing

Both


* a a


* J


1 I


I











investigated


as a mode


training


teachers


on the


evolving


lists


teacher


competencies.


Since


many


desired


teacher


behaviors


are


verbal,


audio


modeling


techniques


may


be suitable


alternatives


to audio-


visual


presentations


teaching


these


behaviors.


audio


modeling


effective


as a training


method,


offers


a number


advantages


over


video models.


Modeling


Children


Three


sets


conditions


affecting


the


modeling


pro-


cess


children


are:


the


characteristics


the


sub-


ject,


characteristics


the


stimulus


act,


and


characteristics


model


(Bronfenbrenner,


1970;


Bandura,


1971).


Characteristics


the


Subject.


In the


first


condi-


tion,


the


subject


must


able


to perceive


the


stimulus


act


perform


(Bandura,


1971).


same


Differential


or other


age


associated


responses


behaviors


to certain


models


have


been


reported


(Denney,


1972;


Leifer


et al.,


1971;


Liebert


children


have


et al.,

modeled


1969).

the be


fha


In a number

viors in si


studies


gnificantly


older

higher


frequencies


than


younger


children.


Masters


and Morris


(1971)


report


that


boys


tend


to imitate


a male


or female


mode l


t a rrsTatsw


dFarsef


than


airls


and


that


hbvy


shonw











counterpart


Portuges


performed


Feshbach


as a neutral


(1972)


model.


advantaged


In a study


disadvantaged


third


and


fourth


graders


were


used


as subjects


a study


compare


acquisition


incidental


behaviors


through


film-mediated


tively


models.


reinforcing white


Advantaged


teacher


girls


modeled


significantly


posi


more


than


advantaged


white


boys.


Disadvantaged


girls


displayed


fewer


incidental


behaviors


than


advantaged


boys


while


disadvantaged


boys


displayed


fewest


incidental


behaviors.


Incidental


behaviors


this


study


are


defined


as gestures


or remarks


arms


not


during


essential


to the


questioning,


communication.


clasping


hands,


Folding


encouraging


students


with


remarks


such


as "think


hard"


are


considered


incidental


behaviors


author s.


apparent


contra-


diction


between


the


studies


cited


may


due


to the


use


a bearded male model


Masters


Morris


study.


The


authors


hypothesize


that


male


model


may


have


dampened


imitation


model


girls.


Characteristics


of the


Stimulus


Act.


Complex


behaviors


may


more


easily


learned


through


modeling


they


are


divided


into


smaller


components


(Bandura


et al


, 1966).


The


relation


one


to the


next


a sequence


exhibited


the


model


becomes


important


when


model


divides


com-


* .


(I


*


* *





I q


*


I











Characteristics


Model.


The


third


condi-


tions


has


greatest


potential


influencing


the


modeling


process


(Bronfenbrenner,


1970)


The


potency


model


perceived


increases


with


as possessing


extent


a high


to which


degree


model


competence,


status,


and


control


over


resources


(Bandura


et al.,


1963).


Teachers


that


perform more


effectively


as evidenced


the


appro-


private


implementation


the


desired


competencies


may


pro-


duce


more


modeling


desired


outcomes


the


students.


The


inductive


power


model


increases


with


the


degree


prior


nurturance


or reward


exhibited


model


(Bandura


most


and


powerful


Huston,


1961;


models


Mussen


a child's


Parker,


life


are


1965)


those


The


perceived


the


child


as major


sources


support


and


control.


The


most


effective


models


the


child


are


likely


to be


those


who


are


maj or


sources


support


and


control


his


environment.


Parents,


peers,


older


children,


adults


who


are


important


as supportive


agents


models

are of


(Bandura


ten


and


sources


Walters,

support


1959;

and c


Hartup,


certainly


1969).

control


Teachers

a part


the


child's


environment.


Teachers


who


are


more


capable


as measured


their


performance


during


classroom


instruc-


tion


may


appear


to have


greater


control


environment











1967; Bu

Stotland


rnstein


and Dunn,


et al.,i


1961;


1962).


Stotland


Children


et al.,


imitate


1962;


models


similar


to themselves.


behavior


noted


Female


female


for male


teachers


students;


teachers


may produce


corresponding


male


greater

results


students.


modeling


may


evidence


here


inconclusive;


much


research


needs


to be


performed


with


respect


sex


race


as modeling


variables.


Several:

powerful


models ex

inducers


hibiting


change


similar

than


behaviors

a single m


are


odel


more

(Bandura,


1967).


The


students


this


study


had


only


one


exposure


microteacher


as a model.


potency


model


enhanced when


feature


already


the actions


or aspires


behavior


a group


to be a member


exhibited


which


a salient


child


(Bronfenbrenner,


1970).


Measures


student


aspirations


were


not


employed


this


study.


The


power


model


to induce


actual


per-


formance


distinguished


from


acquisition)


strongly


influenced


observed


consequences


model


exhibited behavior


(Bandura,


1965a,


1965b;


Bandura,


1971;


Bandura


et al.,


1963)


That


a child


may


acquire


a behavior


but nay not


perform


behavior


until


a particu-


circumstances


present.


relevance


foregoing


discussion


that,


training


effects


are










Modeling


Reinforcement


Modeling


presented


appears


without


to produce


positive


significant


reinforcement


effects


to the


when


observer


or the

1966;


model

Bandura


(Bandura

, 1969;


Walters,


Masters


1963;


Morri


Bandura

1971).


et al


Yet,


some


studies,


positive


reinforcement


been


essential


producing


significant


effects


(Masters


Morris,


1971;


Zimmerman


(1969)


have


Pike,


found


1972;


Geshuri,


that modeling


plu


1972).

s reward


Liebert

yields


et al.

sig-


nificant


results


with


young


children


as subjects.


It has


been


hypothesized


a number


researchers


men-


tioned


that


imitation


a model


some


fashion


a form


vicarious


reinforcement.


Here


lies


one


con-


flicts


that


requires


further


investigation.


Modeling


alone

ment


produces


also


behavioral


produces


change;


behavioral


modeling


change.


Which


plus


reinforce-


procedure


more


effective


an elementary


classroom


setting


or in


teacher-training


situation?


In this


study


type


verbal


reinforcement


frequency


reinforcement


were


held


constant


both


models.


Observation


Classification


Dependent


Concept


Formation:


Variable


A number


science


curricula


elementary


science











Thier

ment


1967)


Study,


One


or SCIS,


these,


bases


Science


approach


Curriculum


on the


Improve-


acquisition


certain


essential


concepts


BemBt-ar


student


(Karplus


and


Thier,


1967).


Equilibrium,


interaction,


systems


represent


abstract


concepts


found


in SCIS


that


are


subsumed


less


complex


concepts


such


cities,


populations,


and


food


web


life


science


stream.


There


are


corresponding


illustrations


physical


science


stream.


Another


elementary


science


curriculum,


Science-A


Process


Approach,


or SAPA,


uses


selected


concepts


as vehi-


cles


leading


to the


acquisition


processes


(Gagnd,


1963).


Once


formed,


concepts


are


used


to develop


both basic


higher


level


scientific


processes.


Colors,


shapes,


sizes


are


concepts


employed


leading


to the


acquisition


basic


processes


such


as observing,


classifying,


comm


unicating.


Examples


higher


level


processes


are


controlling


varia-


bles,


interpreting


data,


experimenting.


According


to Pella


(1966),


Koran


(1971b),


and Mechner


(1965),


concepts


are


formed by


four


essential


steps:


ob-


servation,


classification,


generalization,


and discrimina-


tion.


Mechner


provided


an example


four


steps


concept


formation


discussion


the concept


* -- *


enrmmu


and


_-


--


S- -


ft


_ _









In other

In other


words,


he makes


same


an individual


response


generalizes


to different


among


things


things


(calls


when


large


and


small


three-sided


figures


"triangles")


and


discriminates


between


classes


to different


things


classes


when


(triangles


makes


are


different


different


from


responses


circles)


Gagnd


(1970)


agreed


principle


with


four


steps


concept


formed,


formation


concepts


as presented


allow


suggested


individual


that,


to simplify


once


en-


vironment


reducing


cognitive


load.


Independent


Dependent


Variables


The


independent


variables


this


study


are


video


del,


the


audio model,


no-model


treatment


or con-


trol.


The


video


model


a ten-minute


videotape


teacher


asking


observation


classification


questions


four


fourth


graders.


The


audio


model


consists


a ten-


tute


audiotape


the sound


track


video model


previously mentioned.


A control


group


will


neither


view


nor


listen


to the


model.


The


dependent


variables


this


study


are


teacher


and


student microteaching


performances,


teacher


criterion


test


performance,


student


process


test


performance,


student


attitude t
nun e4 4~(rr an


.est


performance.


Frequencies


observation


*n' a r. 4arn ns


ff^ftV JnfinV ^.^


Fram~ arrn--- i^h j- k^^B aj^^.^


rnn


~ Clr n


|






17


Student


microteaching


performance


will


measured


fre-


quencies


and


responses


categories


to observation


classification


questions,


questions,


frequency


total


number


responses


to classification


questions.


Research


Hypotheses


Based


upon


following


previous


research


discussion


hypotheses


were


literature,


tested.


Teachers


observing


the


video model


will


produce


higher

higher


frequencies

frequencies


observation


more


questions


categories


of classi-


fiction


questions


than


teachers


not


exposed


model


as measured


audiotape


written


performances.


Teachers


listening


to the


audio


model


will


pro-


duce


and


higher


higher


frequencies


frequencies


observation


more


questions


categories


classification


questions


than


teachers


not


ex-


posed


to the


model


as measured


audiotape


written


performances


The


video


model


will


more


effective


than


audio


model


producing


higher


frequencies


observation


questions


and


higher


frequencies


more


categories


w


classification


questions as











Teachers


eliciting


higher


frequencies


observa-


tion


questions


and


higher


frequencies


in mre


categories


classification


questions


will


pro-


duce


higher


student


scores


on written


test


and


audiotape


performances.
















CHAPTER


EXPERIMENTAL


The Des


DESIGN


sign


A modified


postest


only,


control


group


design


described


Table


was


used


this


study.


Although


the


design


does


not


permit


evaluation


of entering


behavior


teachers,


random


assignment


subjects


assures


equivalent


entry


behavior.


The


design


allows


a com-


prison


relative


effects


treatments


The


use


observation


classification


questioning


skills


should


sufficiently


novel


so that


random


assignment


preservice


teachers to

acquisition


treatment


groups


skills.


guards

In order


against


previous


to measure


sporadic

enter-


behavior


students


, 40


third


fourth


graders


were


randomly


assigned


This


group,


to a posttest


taking


only,


only


no microteaching


posttest,


treat-


served


a measure


entering


behavior


students.


A comparison


was


then


possible


between


posttest


only,


no-microteaching


group,


and


the microteaching


groups


to determine


skills


measured


student


process


test


had


been


achieved


t 4-1


*


- a


--


*











Table


Experimental


Design


Treatment Measures

Teachers

R X1 01 04

R X2 01 04

R -- 0 04

Students

R 01 02 03
R 01 02 03

R 01 02 03

-- 02 03

I = video model, X2 = audio model, 01 = audio-
recording of microteaching session, 04 = teacher written
criterion measure, 02 = student process test, and 03 =
student attitude measure.

Table 2
Research Model


Acquisition Measures
Teacher Student Student
Audio- Criterion Process Affective
Treatments Recording Test Test Measure

Video model // / /

Audio model / / / /
n-*r l--1 J J J J











Treatment


Procedures


Subjects


Forty-eight


preservice


teachers,


enrolled


sec-


tions


a general


curriculum


course,


were


selected


subjects


this


study


preservice


teachers


were


college


seniors


working


on kindergarten-through-twelfth


grade


teacher


certification


in music,


physical


education,


or library


science.


Most


of the


subjects


were


between


ages


with


three


of the


sample


being


above


of 30.


None


preservice


teachers


parti-


cipated


student


teaching.


One-hundred-eighty


-four


third


and


fourth


graders


en-


rolled a

teaching


t a local

subjects.


elementary

Three th


school


ird-grad


were

e and


chosen

four


as micro-

fourth-grade


classes


were


used.


A breakdown


student


population


sex.


grade,


and


race


shown


Table


Neighborhoods


from


which much


student


population


drawn


can


characterized


as lower-middle


cla


ss.


General


Procedures


Preservice


teachers


each


class


section


were


informed


that


a mandatory


microteaching


session


would


be part


of the


course


requirements.


Each


section


was


given


a general












during


a convenient


time.


Maps


and


general


directions


the


elementary


school


were


furnished


each


preservice


teacher


Table


Means


and


Standard


Deviations


Student


Process


Test


Sex,


Grade,


and


Race


N Mean SD


Sex

Males 81 14.20 5.48

Females 103 16.05 4.09


Grade

Third 85 14.29 5.08

Fourth 99 16.04 4.47


Race

White 135 16.73 3.38

Black 49 11.12 5.78


= 184.


Preservice


three


teachers


treatment


were


groups.


randomly


A set


assigned


induction,


one


generally


describing


concept


formation,


and


instructions


on the


task


- a


a


- S 0 S .-... 4.......-


* .


i


I t I 1


m I











from


directions


given


to subjects


assigned


to the


control


group.


Examples


inductions


are found


Appendix


The


only


difference


between


inductions


was


that


ence


instructions


to a demonstration


preservice

materials


teachers

before co


viewed


ntinuing


modeling


subjects

the Scien

with the


C


subjects


were


made


to observe.


e-A Process

treatments.


refer-


All


Approach

After


observing


the


model,


modeling


treatment


subjects


prepared


microteaching


lesson


using


Science-A


Process


Approach


mate-


rials.


A list


materials


used


study


found


Appendix


Control


subjects


observe


model


immediately


began


preparing


microteaching


lesson


using


same


materials.


Since


cla


ssroom


space


was


at a premium,


was


neces-


sary


to convert


a science


equipment


storage


room


into


microteaching


lab.


room


was


large,


clean,


well-lighted


and


and


equipped


testing


teaching


with


a table


situations


students


were


were


four


chairs.


performed


escorted


from


treatments


room.


their


classroom


Micro-

to the


microteaching


investigator


or one


his


assistants.


Once


students


were


seated,


preservice


teacher


was


reminded


to teach


at least


minutes,


cassette


recorder


S.. ... -


4 3 -


*


4


* .


- -











administered


written


tests


to the


preservice


teacher


microteaching


students.


Students


were


read


test


directions.


Words


were


pronounced


a request


help


microstudents


to complete


the


was


tests


made.

but n


Twenty


either


minutes


preservice


was


available


teachers


nor


microteaching


students


required


allotted


time.


Treat-


ment


procedures


and


times


each


procedure


are


listed


Table


Table


Treatment


Procedures


and


Tines


Steps


Timea


Set


Induction


5 mmn,


Introduce

Introduce

Introduce


concept

procedures

materials


Treatments


Video


10 min.


Audio


I min.

- -


Control


Lesson


preparation


5 min.


M4nrnn.aarhi nl


enneinn


15 min.











Treatment


The


Materials


Model


The


video


model


consisted


a 10-minute


segment


a videotape


exhibiting


a female


teacher


using


observation


and


classification


questions


with


four


fourth


graders


microteaching


lab.


Science


Process


Approach


observation


and


and


classification


students


material


teacher


were


in the


used


the model


video model


asked


teacher


a high


frequency


observation


and


class


sification


questions.


Fourth


their


graders


responses


could


were


seen


clearly


manipulating


audible.


material


audio model


and


was


a taperecording


of the


same


teacher-pupil


interaction.


Material


Science-A


Process


Approach


observation


and


classifica-


tion


material


were


provided


each


teacher


in a kit


form.


The


materials


permitted


a wide


range


observation


and


classifications


trial


color,


consisted


shape,


variously


texture,


colored


size.


wood


The


blocks, balloons,


construction


paper


rec


tangles


squares,


pieces


felt,


and


nuts.


The


video


model


was


shown


through


the use of


19-inch


monitor


a Sony


2200V Videocorder.


Wollensak


audio


cassette


recorders


were


used


to exhibit


the


audio


model











Written Measures


At the


conclusion


the microteaching


session,


pre-


service


teachers


received


a 29-item


criterion


test.


The


criterion


test


required


selection


those


statements


or questions


that


were


observations, classifications,


neither.


Students


received


a 20-item


process


test


designed


to measure


their


acquisition


observation


classifi-


cation


processes.


Geometric


figures,


such


as triangles,


rectangles


and


circles,


along


with


a few


terms,


were


categorized


according


to individual


item


criteria.


Upon


completion


the


proc


ess


test,


students


received


an 11-


item


attitude


test.


Attitudes


toward


microteaching


lesson,


tasks


performed,


feelings


teacher


vere


explored.


The


attitude


measure


used


a modified


Likert


scale.


The


affective


responses


to each


item


were


coded


on a 3-point


scale,


from


agreement


with


statement


to disagreement.


Copies


the


teacher


criterion


test,


student


process


test,


and


student


attitude


test


are


found


in Appendix


Reliability


Written Measures


Both


the


teacher


criterion


test


items


student


process


test


items


were


subjected


to a point


serial


-,, ~ L- S-a-aIA t i.ea l ~


LIIIL!Ia


- A. -


mLk *


r, ia_ 1: 1 *


L~ ~IIL t LL


A











test


and


those


that


score


high.


Item


difficulty,


defined


as the


percent


answering


item


incorrectly,


was


also


calculated.


High


values


indicate


item


was


diffi-


cult.


The


point


hi-serial


correlations


and


item


difficul-


ties


are


shown


Tables


5 and


The


mean


difficulty


Table


Item Analysis--Teacher


Criterion


Test


Question Difficultya Point Bi-serial


1 0.27 0.40
2 0.23 0.46
3 0.63 0.43
4 0.69 0.34
5 0.63 0.18
6 0.29 0.24
7 0.60 0.30
8 0.60 0.34
9 0.69 0.39
10 0.79 0.17
11 0.31 0.29
12 0.73 0.44
13 0.58 0.34
14 0.48 0.63
15 0.48 0.36
16 0.13 0.18
17 0.02 0.44
18 0.90 0.15
19 0. 65 0.12
20 0.69 0.21
21 0.63 0.32
22 0.50 0.27
23 0.54 0.08
24 0.75 0.46
25 0.52 0.36
26 0.21 0.41
SlA f A jn











the


teacher


criterion


test


was


0.53


while


mean


difficulty


student


process


test


was


0.24.


The


Cronbach


alpha


technique


determining


test


reliability


was


computed


each


test.


Test


reliabilities


are


reported


Table


Table


Item


Analysis--Student


Process


Test


Question Difficultya Point Bi-serial

1 0.09 0.22
2 0.34 0.48
3 0.41 0;42
4 0.42 0.69
5 0.29 0.55
6 0.32 0.37
7 0.29 0.60
8 0.30 0.59
9 0.32 0.63
10 0.30 0.59
11 0.16 0.73
12 0.16 0.78
13 0.21 0.72
14 0.32 0.64
15 0.18 0.58
16 0.18 0.65
17 0.11 0.58
18 0.24 0.59
19 0.13 0.63
20 0.20 0.67

aThe mean difficulty for this test was 0.24

Table 7

Reliability of Written Measures

Measure N No. of Items Reliability

i -in











Audiotape


Analysis


Rater


Training


Procedures


Three


college


freshmen


were


hired


to perform


analysis


tapes.


Raters


were


trained


approxi-


mately


hours


to code


observation


questions,


teacher-


imposed


classifications,


student-imposed


classifications,


appropriate


student


responses


to the


categories


noted.


The


raters


and


experimenter


observed


a random


selection


tapes.


Appropriate


responses


were


verbally


highlighted


Following


this


procedure,


another


group


tapes


was


selec-


ted

and


rated.


responses


Feedback


was


on correct


immediate.


Once


and

the


incorrect questions

experimenter be-


lived


raters


an analysis


rater


reached


a high


reliability


was


level


of proficiency,


performed


on three


tapes


chosen


at random.


Further


training


was


necessary


since


raters


difficulty


determining


cate-


gories


which


class


sification


questions


belonged.


A second


analysis


rater


reliability


was


conducted


using


ran-


danly

satis


selected


factory,


tapes.

raters


Since


were


this


allowed


second

to rate


analysis

the rem


was


gaining


tapes.


Table


8 lists


rater


reliability


each


vari-


able.


Appendix


D includes


a copy


rater


manual.











Table


Rater


Reliability


Verbal


Measures


i II- III- IIII III- I- I-~ I--Y I ~ II- II I II IIII

Mean Rater
SMeasures Reliability


Observations

Observation questions
Student observation
responses . . . . .92

Classifications . . . .. *. .92

Teacher-imposed categories . . .83
Student responses . . . .. .83

Student-imposed categories . . .92
Student responses . . . .91

Total classification questions . . .93
Total student responses . . . .92


and

and


categories

categories


of classification


student


quest


responses.


ions, and

Observatio


frequency

n questions


required


student


to identify


a particular


characteris-


tic


an object


such


as its


shape,


color,


or texture.


Questions


such


as:


What


color


and


How


does


feel?


are


examples


observation


questions.


Classification


questions


required


students


compare,


contrast,


or group


objects


similarities


and


dissimilarities.


Teacher-


imposed


categories


required


student


to classify


objects











teacher-imposed


categories.


In each


latter


ques-


tions


the


teacher


told


students


which


characteristics


are


to be


considered


classifying


objects


presented.


Student-imposed


classification


questions


required


student


gorizing


to select


objects.


an appropriate


Examples


characteristic


student-imposed


cate-


classifica-


tion


questions


are:


How


can


you


group


these?


How


are


the


objects


different?


When


teacher


selected


student- imposed


category


cla


ssification,


he allowed


student


student


to devise


responses


a scheme


classification.


to observation


Correct


classification


ques-


tions


were


tabulated


under


appropriate


student


re-


sponse


category.


Examples


observation


classification


questions


and


rater


form are


found


Appendix
















CHAPTER


RESULTS


The major


objectives


this


study were:


compare


relative


effects


audio


and


video


models


the


acquisition


teaching


skills


preservice


teachers


and


to determine


student


learning would


increase


teaching


skills


were


implemented.


Main


Effects


Main


effects


were


evaluated


using


two


general


modes


measurement.


Upon


completion


the microteaching


ses-


sion,


use


preservice


written


teachers


measures.


and


These


students


measures


were


evaluated


were


the


jective


type,


and


items


were


scored


either


correct


incorrect.

interaction


During

between


audiorecorded.


The


pre


microteaching s

service teacher


audiorecordings


session

and s


were


the


verbal


students


rated


was

specific


verbal


behaviors


previously


described.


Comparisons


between


treatment


groups


dependent


variables


comprised


tests


main


effects.


Interaction


effects


were


analyzed


the student


process


test.


Neither


the


teacher


criterion











Written


Measures


The


teacher


criterion


test


a range


scores


from


I to 22,


with


a mean


and


a standard


deviation


4.07


Cell


sizes,


cell


means,


and


cell


standard


deviations


are


reported


Table


one-way


analysis


variance


was


used


to determine


significant


differences


occurred


tween


groups.


A significant


difference


was


found


(F=3.77,


05).


A test


significant


differences


between


means


using


Tukey'


HSD


test


was


per formed


whenever


significance


was


encountered.


calculated


and


A harmonic


used


cell


size


in computing


mean


HSD.


was


On the


teacher


criterion


test


audio


model


performed


significantly


better


than


control


No significant


differences


were


found


between


video


and


audio


models


and


the


video


model


and


control


groups.


Table


Means


and


Standard


Deviations


Written


Measures


Measure N Mean SD

Teacher criterion test
Total group 48 13.23 4.07
Video model 16 13.31 3.38
Audio model 1 114.94 3.81
Control 15 11.20 4.33

Student process test











Scores


on the


student


process


test


ranged


from


with


a mean


and


a standard


deviation


of 4.83


A one-way


analysis


variance


technique


found


no signifi


cant


differences


student


process


test


between


groups.


The


results


analysis


variance


are


reported


Table


Cell


sizes


, cell


means,


cell


standard


devia-


tions


student


process


test


are


sted


in Table


Two-way


analy


ses


of variance


were


performed


sex


and


treatment,


grade


and


treatment,


race


and


treatment


the


student


process


test.


This


analytic


technique


was


employed


to determine


interactions


existed


between


treat-


ments


and


sex,


grade,


race.


No significant


differences


were


found


interactions


or treatments


sex,


grade,


race.


Significant


differences


were


found


between males


and


females,


third


and


fourth


graders,


and


between


black


and white


students,


with


female


students


scoring


signifi


cantly


better


than


mal


(F=7


.74,


.01)


on the


process


test,


fourth


graders


scoring


significantly


higher


than


third


grade-students


(F=6


.25,


.05),


white


students


performing


significantly


better


on the


student


process


test


(P=72


.87,


.01)


than


black


students.


Summaries


two-way


and


analyses


Cell


variance


zes


, means,


are


listed


standard


Tables


deviations











Table


Analysis


Variance


Teacher


Criterion


Test


Source of Variation SS df MS F


Between groups 111.70 2 55.85 3.77*

Within groups 666.77 45 14.82

Total 778.48 47

N = 48.
*p < .05.

Table 11

Ttkey's HSD Test for Difference Between Means--
Teacher Criterion Test


Treatment Cell Mean Cell N


1) Video 13.31 16

2) Audio 14.94 17

3) Control 11.20 15



Contrasted Pairs 1-2 1-3 2-3


Difference between
means -1.73 2.21 3.74*


Tukey's HSD: *(p<.05) = 3.30;
**(p_.01) = 4.19.











Table


Analysis


Variance


Student


Proces s


Test


Source of Variation SS df MS F

Between groups 13.05 3 4.35 0.18

Within groups 4253.89 180 23.63

Total 4266.94 183

N = 184.

Table 13

Analysis of Variance for Student Process Test
by Sex and Treatment

Source of Variation SS df MS F


Sex


174.71


7.74**


Treatment


5.39


0.24


Interaction


Within


3972


= 184


< .01.


Table


Analysis


of Variance


Student


Process


Test


Grade


and


Treatment


Source of Variation SS df MS F

Grade 140.99 1 140.99 6.25*

Treatment 4.99 3 1.66 0.07
Tn4d-a^n4-im 4 anCA 13 2 C1 C1AA












Table


Analysis


Variance


Race


Student


Process


Treatment


Source of Variation SS df MS F

Race 1238.42 1 1238.42 72.87**

Treatment 120.53 3 40.18 2.36

Interaction 128.61 3 42.87 2.52

Within 2991.18 176 16.99


= 184


.01.


Kicroteaching


Audio


Interaction


Eight


dependent


variables


were


examined


raters


from


audiotape


recordings.


dependent


variables


preservice


teachers


which


were


derived


from


audio


record-


ilngs


were:


total


number


teacher


observation


questions,


number


of teacher-imposed


student- imposed


ass


classification


ification


questions,


questions,


number


total


number


teachers.


classification questions

Classification questions


asked

were


rated


preservice

as using


either


teacher-imposed


or student-imposed


categories


classification.


A discussion


the


ess


ential


elements


each


type


classification


stion


found


Chapter


Appendix


D contains


examples


observation


classifica-


-- -- A-- -


Test


A- '


. -e -= -


i 4b


_ _^ J1 L ^


a .- _ *


I


3











responses


sponses


to teacher-imposed


to student-imposed


classification questions,


classification


re-


questions,


total


number


student


responses


to classification


ques-


tions.


One-way


audio


analyses


interaction


variance


dependent


were


used


variables


to test


significant


differ-


ences.


Both


audio


and


video


model


groups


scored


signifi-


cantly


better


than


control


group


(F=6


p<.01)


on the


total


number


observation


questions


asked.


No signifi-


cant


difference


was


found


between


audio


video


model


treatments


Analysis


frequency


teacher-imposed


observation

category


questions


dependent


asked.


variable


indicated


that


both


audio


and


video


models


were


significantly


better


than


control


group


(F=8.


p<.01).


No signifi-


cant


difference


was


found


between


audio


and


video model


treatments.


Analy


student


-imposed


category


pendent


variable


indicated


that


no significant


differences


existed


(F=2.76).


Although


both


video


and


audio model


groups


higher


cell


means


than


the


control


and


2.07


respectively),


differences


were


not


sufficient


to produce


significance


at p<


Video


and


audio model


groups


produced


greater


frequencies


total


classifica-


tion


questions


than


control


(F=9.16,


p<.01).


No sig-


a a a


- r


--1


*-


1 I_











rize


results


one-way


analyses


variance


on the


teacher microteaching


performance.


Tukey'


HSD


tests


are


reported


Tables


through


Table


Analysis


Variance


Teacher


Observation


Questions


Source of Variation SS df MS F


Between groups 249.37 2 124.69 6.87**

Within groups 816.54 45 18.15

Total 1065.92 47

N = 48.
**p < .01.



Table 17

Analysis of Variance for Teacher-Imposed
Classification Questions


Source of Variation SS df MS F


Between groups 275.73 2 1-37.87 8.64**

Within groups 717.94 45 15.95

Total 993.67 47


- 48.


**p


.01.











Table


Analysis of
Clas


Variance f
sification


r Student-Imposed
Questions


Source of Variation SS df MS F

Between groups 105.54 2 52.77 2.76

Within groups 860.46 45 19.12

Total 965.99 47

N = 48.


Table 19

Analysis of Variance for Total
Classification Questions

Source of Variation SS df MS F

Between groups 671.81 2 335.90 9.16**

Within groups 1650.17 45 36.67

Total 2321.98 47

N = 48.
**p < .01.

Table 20

Tukey's HSD Test for Difference between Means--
Teacher Observation Questions

Treatment Cell Mean Cell N


Video


8.12


Aud io


6.24











Table


20-- (continued)


Contrasted


pairs


Difference


means


between


1.88


5.59**


3.71*


Tukey's


ESD:


*(p<
**(p<


.05)
.01)


= 3.66;
= 4.64.


Cell


size


mean


= 15


Table


Tukey'


HSD


Teacher


Test


-Imposed


Difference


Cla


Between


ssification


Means--


Questions


Treatment Cell Mean Cell N


1) Video 7.19 16

2) Audio 6.88 17

3) Control 1.87 15



Contrasted pairs 1-2 1-3 2-3


Difference between .31 5.32** 5.01**
means


Tukey's HSD: *(p<.05) = 3.43;
**(p. 01) = 4.35.











Table


Tukey's


HSD


Test


Difference


Between


Means--


Total


Classification


Questions


Treatment Cell Mean Cell N


Video


11.56


Audio

Control


4.00


Contrasted


pairs


Difference


between


7.56**


8.47**


means


Tukey's


HSD:


*(p<.05)
** (p<.01)


= 5
= 6


.20;
.60.


Cell


size


mean


= 15.97.


Analysis


frequency


student


responses


teacher


observation


questions


was


found


to be significant


(F=6.28,


01).


Both


audio


and


video


model


groups


were


significantly

nificantly di


better


fferent


than

from


control

another.


group


Audio


sig-


and


video


model


treatments


were


superior


to the


control


group


producing


student


responses


to teacher-imposed


classification


ques-


tions


(F=8


.23,


a


.01).


Again,


no difference


was


found











No significant


difference s


were


found


student


responses


to student-imposed


classification


questions


(F=2.47)


The


difference


between


groups


total


frequency


student


responses


to teacher


class


sification


questions


was


found


significant


(F=8


.96,


<.01).


Both


video


audio


model


groups


were


superior


control


group,


no signifi-


cant


difference


was


found


between


audio


video


model


treatments


through


on the


frequencies


summarize


of student


one-way


analy


responses.


ses


Tables


variance


student


performances


on the


microteaching


audio


interaction


dependent


variables.


Tukey'


HSD


test


significant


dif-


ferences


are


found


Tables


through


Results


correlations


between


audiotape


dependent


variables


indicate


that


frequencies


teacher


ques-


tions


and


student


responses


within


same


category


ccrre-


late


very


highly


(Table


There


are


also


high


correla-


tions


between


total


ass


ification


questions,


teacher-


imposed


classification


questions,


student


-imposed


classi-


fiction


questions.


Thi


finding


is consistent


with


pre-


viously


reported


data,


since


teacher-imposed


classification


and


student-impo


class


ification


questions


were


summed


produce


total


classification


question


category.


It also


suggests


that,


when


teachers


are


trained


to elicit


more










Table


Analysis


Variance


Observation


Student


Responses


Questions


Source of Variation SS df MS F

Between groups 225.03 2 112.51 6.28**
Within groups 806.64 45 17.93
Total 1031.67 47


N = 48.
** p <.01.

Table 24

Analysis of Variance for Student Responses to
Teacher-Imposed Classification Questions

Source of Variation SS df MS F

Between groups 230.80 2 115.40 8.23**
Within groups 630.86 45 14.02
Total 861.67 47

N = 48.
**p <.01.

Table 25

Analysis of Variance for Student Responses to
Student-Imposed Classification Questions

Source of Variation SS df MS F

Between groups 80.83 2 40.43 2.47
Within groups 735.62 45 16.35
Total 816.48 47


- AR











Table


Analysis


Variance


Student


Responses


Total


Classification


estions


Source of Variation SS df MS F


Between groups 572.50 2 286.25 8.96**

Within groups 1438.17 45 31.96

Total 2010.67 47


N = 48.
**p < .01.



Table 27

Tukey's HSD Test for Difference Between Means--
Student Responses to Observation Questions


Treatment Cell Mean Cell N


Video


7.81


Audio


6.17


Control


2.53


Contrasted


pairs


1-3


Difference


between


means


1.63


5.28**


3.65*










Table


Tukey'


Responses


HSD Test


to Teacher


Difference


-Imposed


Between


ssification


Means--Student


Questions


Treatment Cell Mean Cell N

1) Video 6.50 16

2) Audio 6.29 17

3) Control 1.67 15


Contrasted pairs 1-2 1-3 2-3

Difference between
means .21 4.83** 4.62**

Tukey's HSD: *(p<.05) = 3.21.
**(p<.01) = 4.08.

Cell size aan = 15.97

Table 29

Tukey's HSD Test for Difference Between Means--Student
Responses to Total Classification Questions

Treatment Cell Mean Cell N

1) Video 10.75 16

2) Audio 11. 53 17

3) Control 3.73 15


Contrasted pairs 1-2 1-3 2-3

Difference between 0.78 7.02 7.80**
means








47


I U
M ~C
a O a a a
Cu Ol I cr c a a o
a a a 0 -, o





riCO 0 0 Ho 49 IM 0s r o
E 02U-e J * 0 *









0 I 0 0
-'4

-o- o

U nO r4 l0 (0 0 IC) 0
r- 0 01
00 0 0






O 4 C.
4o ) C d O-i J 0 0 H ri 0^ o

Co ., o o
o 14 oa a 4,0 o.
40 P 00 *
* uC
.4 H
SI
00 614 C

C COmCO H e 0 0
4 OQCOWo- a a 0

oO 0HO
4 10 Cuo

4) 0
3 I I U


a 00MCO m 0
E Ce OM-rc o o o

o 0 000



1 mco N n

OCQ O M w as o cI o ^











Student Attitude


Measure


The


11-item


attitude measure


was


factor


analyzed


determine


subsets


covarying


variables


could


explicated.


An orthogonal


factor


analysis


using


a Varimax


solution


was


employed


to determine


principal


axes


factor


matrix.


The


principal


axes


factor


matrix


accounted


percent


total


score


variance.


An oblique


factor


analysis


using


a simple


loadings


solution


was


next


performed.


Oblique


solutions


are


recommended


when


there


doubt


that


factors


are


completely


orthogonal


(Guertin


and


Bailey,


1970).


Intercorrelations


simple


loadings


the

tion

were


primary

should


obl


extracted


ique factors

used .to inte


rotated.


indicated

pret the

Factors


that

data.

were


an oblique


Four


examine


factors

d and


labeled


according


to the


way


factor


loadings


related


attitude


items.


Factors


their


label


are


found


Table


In order


to determine


there


was


a difference


re-


sponse


to the


items


comprising


four


factors


students


exposed


to teachers


different


treatments,


one-way


analyses


variance


groups.


were


Scores


performed


on each


between


factors


and


each


four


factors


were


summed.


Total


maximum


scores


(all


"yes"


responses)


and


solu-


item


treatment


r]
















SH m Oi


) 0




54

4 a o
u 4


tC
eg'd
CA
(0 4


amm
*.*


am
. .o
* *


'D'ou,
ko ^on
* .



*

a
U
0
0
0
t
4
aD

<8
*##

0
O Q.



<- C
M# 0
00'0*






.c c
4'


*O



( a1
.r40

a C
4560i~e


U'
C 0
. 0
crO
0
ow
O
> c
#r4
ER
C
0c4
40
MA

4JS
414)
0 0



S51
O q
MM J
o 0
&A Atj


m
.5
U




O)
0
9

a
S
0"

(0

0


014
rt

Sc
S
U



0
M a


. 09
e4 0
ao
Ca)
(U iP
*d *


*
0
S
3
04
0


*M
0

tr
r4

- C0
-rl

U9)
O


U ki
0
QM
* &t &











A significant


difference


between


treatments


was


found


factor


III,


labeled


the


frustration


factor


(F=4.09,


p<.05).


Scheff 4'


test


multiple


comparisons


was


used


since


cell


size


differences


were


large.


Subjects


who


been


taught


video


model


preservice


teachers


scored


signifi-


cantly


higher


than


control


group


No significant


differ-


ences


were


found


between


audio


and


video


model


treatment


or between


audio


control


groups.


No significant


difference


between


treatment


groups


was


found


the


three


remaining


factors.


A high


score


on items


2 and


(factor


III)


indicated


that


students


perceive


test


and


microteaching


task


as being


difficult.


No significant


differences


were


found


between


groups


on items


comprising


the


three


remaining


factors.


Tables


32 and


report


analysis


variance


and Scheff4 's


test


factor


The


remaining


analyses


variance,


factor


loadings,


and


intercorrelation


matrix


are


found


Appendix


Table


Analysis of


Variance


Frustration


Factor


Source of Variation SS df MS F

Between groups 12.08 2 6.04 4.09*

Within groups 207.92 141 1.47











Table


Scheffe 's


S Test


Difference


Frustration


Between


Means--


Factor


Treatment Cell Mean Cell N


1) Video 3.19 48

2) Audio 2.82 51

3) Control 2.47 45



Contrasted pairs 1-2 1-3 2-3


Difference between
means .27 ,72* .35


Scheffe's S: *(p<.05) .61 .61 .61
**(p<.01). .75 .75 .75















Chapter


DISCUSSION


AND


IMPLICATIONS


This


modeling


study


on the


examined the


acquisition


effects


two modes


performance


a teaching


skill


preservice


teachers


and


effect


that


performance


teaching


skill


had


on elementary


students


. Video


and


audio


models


were


compared


to a no-model


control


group.


The


model


teacher


displayed


observation


and


classification


questioning


behaviors


and


elementary


students


responded


verbally


answering


questions


by manipulation


ob-


jects.


The


model


neither


defined


observation


classifi-


cation


questions


nor


did


verbally


highlight


an observa-


tion


or classification


question.


That


the


model


d.d


not


state,


"This


an observation


question"


or "This


classification


question.


treatments


were


introduced


to the


lesson


materials


before


observing


the


model.


This


precaution


was


taken


so that


treat-


ments


would


have


similar


backgrounds


before


training.


Vali-


dation


effectiveness


acquired


teaching


strategy


(observation


classification


questioning


be-


havirli


WSt


a ln


ftsstsd.


erminina


re W at inn ah i0


Um -


KJ


* I WT











Treatment


Main


Effects


The


first


hypothesis


tested


was:


Teachers


observing


video


model


will


produce


higher

higher


fiction


frequencies

frequencies


questions


observation


more


than


questions


categories


teachers


classic


exposed


the


model


as measured by


audiotape


and


written


performances.


Results


video model


on the


treatment


teacher


and


criterion


control


test


did


indicate


not


that


perform


significantly


different


way.


This


test


required


that


sub-


jects


identify


which


test


items


were


observations,


classi-


fications,


or neither.


A between-group


comparison


(Table


indicates


that


video


model


had


a higher


mean


score


on the


teacher


criterion


test.


the


teacher


four


audiotape


dependent


variables


performances,


three


used


had


analyzing


significant


ratios


(Tables


was


more


through


effective


19).


Observation


training


preservice


video


teachers


ask


observation


questions


than


control


no-model


condi-


tion


(Table


20).


Preservice


teachers


control


group


asked


significantly


fewer


teacher-imposed


classification


questions


than


video


model


condition


(Table











observed


video


model


asked


a significantly


higher


fre-


quency


total


classification


questions


than


control


(Table


22).


From


the


foregoing


discussion,


data


support


the overall


hypothesis


that


the


video model


produces


greater


performance


desired


teaching


skill


than


no-model


condition.


It should


noted


that


three


five


dependent


variables


had


F ratios


which


were


significant


favor


video


accepted.


model,


This


and


thus


result


hypothesis


agreement


generally


with


existing


research


on video


model


teacher


training


(Koran,


1969b,


1970,


1971a;


Koran


et al.


1971)


The


second


hypothesis


tested


was


Teachers


listening


to the


audio


model


will


pro-


duce


and


higher


higher


frequencies


frequencies


observation


more


questions


categories


classification


questions


than


teachers


not


ex-


posed


the


model


as measured


audiotape


written


per formance s.


Subjects


exposed


to the


audio


model


were


able


to iden-


tify which


items


were


observations,


classifications,


neither


on the


teacher


criterion


test


significantly


better


than


the


control


group


(Table


11).


Significant


between-


group


differences


were


found


on the


frequency


observa-


L 1











on the


frequencies of


student-imposed


classification


ques-


tions


asked


(Table


18).


Although


all


the dependent


variables


not


support


this


hypothesis,


evidence


was


found


four


out


five measures


to support


hypothesis.


The


hypothesis


that


audio


model


superior


to the


"no-


model


condition


producing more


the desired


behaviors


generally


supported


data.


Preservice


teachers


who observe


a teaching


strategy


means


an audio


model


reproduce


teaching


strategy more


effectively


than


teachers


not exposed


to the


model.


Training


necessary


appropriate


teaching


strategies


this


nature


are


to be


implemented.


The


third hypothesis


tested


was:


The


video


model


will


more


effective


than


audio model


producing


higher


frequencies


observation


questions


and


higher


frequencies


in more


categories


as measured


audiota


classification

pe and written


questions

perfor-


No significant


difference


was


found on


teacher


criterion


test


between


audio


video model


treatments


(Table


11).


Subjects


audio


model


treatment


did


per-


form better


as evidenced


their


higher mean


score.


Al-


- aa S


*I m


) r r


1 1


I











Preservice


teachers


who


observed


video model


performed


as well


as the


audio


model


treatment


Video iodel


asked more


observation


questions


while


audio model


asked


a higher


frequency


student-imposed


classification


ques-


tions.


The


data


results


discussed


not


support


third hypothesis.


The


fourth


hypothe


tested


was:


Teachers


eliciting


higher


frequencies


obser-


ovation


questions


and


higher


frequencies


in more


categories


classification


questions will


produce


higher


student


s core s


on the


written


and


audiotape


performances.


No significant


differences


were


found


between


four


student


treatment


conditions


on the


student


process


test.


The


student


process


test


was


a 20-item


test


requiring


students


to make


observations


and


classifications


geo-


metric


shapes


terms.


The


test


was


not


difficult


indicated


mean


test


difficulty


0.24.


Many


stu-


dents


received


perfect


scores.


Examination


data


dicates


that


test


may


have


been more


a measure


reading


ability


than


a measure


observation


classifi-


cation


skills.


Students


appear


to have


been


able


to perform


required


written


processes


even


without


experiencing


-


_


_f











four


audiotape


student


dependent


variables,


three were


found


significant


(Tables


through


26).


Com-


prisons


between


treatments


indicate


that


audio


video model


treatments


produced


significantly


more


student


responses


than


control


(Tables


through


29).


follows


that


teachers


who


more


observation


and


classic
tf~lA C0


fiction


questions


will


produce


more


student


responses


these


categories.


Control


subjects


asked


few


observation


and


classification


questions


thus


elicited


fewer


stu-


dent respon


ses.


The


fourth


hypothesis


generally


sup-


ported


data,


but


again


should


noted


that


decision


to accept


this


hypothesis


based


upon


three


out


five


dependent


variables


with


significant


F ratios.


Between-group


comparisons


revealed


that


there


was


no sig-


nificant


difference


on the


student


process


test,


perhaps


because


test's


simplicity


Students


exposed


preservice


teachers


who


elicited


more


appropriate


behaviors


responded more


frequently.


Interpretation


A number


theories


have


been


introduced


to explain


effects


(1961)


modeling.


interpreted


Bandura


modeling


(1970)


process


Sheffield


as a contiguity-


mediational


process


whereby


stimuli


become


integrated


into











an audio


or a video


model.


When


tasks


performed


the


model


are


primarily


psychomotor


with


little


verbaliza-


tion


to the


where


the processes

audio model.


the model


video model


Bandura's


displays


work


physical


should


on aggression


aggressive


superior


children


behavior


example


case.


the


tasks


are


verbal


and


psychomotor


components


are


negligible,


both


audio


video


models


should


equally


effective.


psychomotor


case


auditory


input


would


not


facilitate


acquisition


haviors


means


an audio


model.


In the


second


case


both


models


should


equivalent


effect.


video


model


particularly


distinctive,


potency


model


may


favor


video


model


(Bandura,


1973).


The


model


teacher


and


students


study


displayed


some


psychomotor


actions.


Yet,


most


interactions


between


model


teacher


and


students


were


verbal.


audio


along

were


model


with

taking


some


were


able


verbal


place.


to observe


indication


In the


modeling


verbal


interactions


manipulations


treatments


that


tasks


were


asking


and


trained


to perform


questions


reorganization


of

of


the

the


were

type


verbal.

used re


stimuli.


That


Iquired


When


is,

the

above


the

synthesis

training


occurs


and


teacher


performance


enhanced,


can


ex-


a


- S


. a


- -A -- a- a --- a aa s-l a1 *anaiL


0.0


!I IIIIII


I1 Ix


iriL1


r *


a AL YCY L ~*A ii l qiAA


J *











as to the


nature


the


task.


Allen


et al.


(1967)


suggested


that,


verbal


skills


such


as the


ones


used


this


study,


video


model


may


superfluous


a written


transcript


model


video model


may


just


as appropriate.


audio model


used


this


study was


an audio


transcript


video model.


Another


explanation


lack


support


'the


third


hypothesis


that,


although


video


model


supplies


both


verbal


visual


stimuli,


other


factors


may


have


interfered


with


video


model's


potency.


Attentional


volvement


may


be greater


observing


audio


model


than


video


audio


audio


model.


model


Since


subject


interaction


more


fewer


may


stimuli


are


required


closely.


offered


to focus


Koran


on the


et al.


(1971)


stated


that


video


models


are


rich


perceptual


detail,


with


a complex mixture


relevant


and


irrelevant


cues.


Subjects


observing


the


video


model


may


have


had


an over-


abundance


information.


That


may


have


concentrated


on the


manipulations


objects,


on facial


expressions,


on the


verbal


stimuli.


Allen


et al.


(1967)


agreed


that


video


models


may


unnecessarily


rich


behaviors


that


observers


may


have


many


cues


to which


to attend.


Subjects


observing


audio


model


had


to focus


on one











model


may


serve


as a practice


variable


and


thus


reinforce


retention

rehearsal


behavior.


operations


which


Practice

s trengthen


variables

acquired


serve


responses.


The


discussion


modeling


behavior


children


(Chapter


suggested


that


children model


those


individuals


who


appear


possess


a high


degree


competence


more


than


individuals


perceived


as ineffective


(Bandura,


et al


, 1963).


Preservice


teachers


who


elicited


high


frequencies


ob-


servation


and


classification


questions


can


thought


being

posed


competent

to these


models

teachers


for t

will


hese

tend


behaviors


to model


Students


ex-


desired


behaviors


more.


It has


been


suggested


Koran


and


Wilson


(1974)


that


learning


can


represented


as a five-phase


paradigm.


Acquisition--->


Performance--->


Practice--->


Retention--->


Transfer


used


here


to suggest


that


students


exposed


to preservice


teachers


both


video


and


audio


model


treatments


learned


more


the


desired


processes


(observing


classifying)


than


students


control


group.


The


data


suggest


that


both modeling


conditions


required


students


to perform


desired


behaviors


and


practice


behaviors


more


than


control.


Although


no pretreatment measure


was


employed


60











stimuli,


students


who


practiced


retained


observation


and


classification


processes


could make


generalizations


towards


new


stimuli.


Student


Attitudes


Four


factors


were


extracted by


a factor


analytic


pro-


cedure.


Analysis


variance


on clusters


items


that


comprised


each


factor


indicated


that


there


was


a significant


difference


between


treatments


on the


frustration


factor


(factor


III,


see


Table


Students


exposed


to the


video


model


indicated


that


"the


test


was


hard"


and


that


"the


teacher


asked


too many


questions"


more


often


than


students


control


group


(Table


32).


Between-group


comparisons


for


the


video


and


audio


treatments


and


audio


and


control


showed


no significant


differences.


High


scores


on items


comprising


factor


indicate


that


students


video


model


treatment


considered


the


tasks


test


to be


diffi-


cult. Video model

control teachers.


teachers

Students


did

may


ask many more

have consider


questions


than


large


number


questions


manipulations


excessive.


The

things,


other


three


learning


factors


small


were:

groups


lesson

(Table


enjoyment,


30).


naming


No signifi-


cant


differences


were


found


between


groups


on responses


__UI4 *


nl ir aLnra


Ar : L nr~ n


r,,~:,,,


L~AIIA


C r rL n ~~


FI1 nl ru


*











Audio


Modeling:


Some


Practical


Considerations


It was


previously


suggested


that,


audio


prove

cation


effective


can


as teacher


widespread.


training


devices,


Audio models


their


type


appli-

used


this


study


are


inexpensive


to produce


as measured by


relative


costs


equipment


and materials.


Audio models


and


cassette


recorders


necessary


their


display


are


more


portable


than


video


monitors


videorecorders.


Audio models


can


developed


school


districts,


state


departments


education,


and


colleges


education


training


teachers


evolving


list of


teacher


cQmP


etencies.


This


study


alone


does


not


afford


sufficient


evidence


suggest


that


audio models


are


as effective


video


models


although,


the


tasks


modeled


used,


both modes


were


equally


effective.


So when


cost and


logistics


a verbal


prove


one,


to be


audio


training


models


constraints


appear


and


to provide


task


a promising


training method.


Modeling:


Some


Implications


Research


In Teacher


Training.


Many


different


types


audio


and


video models


need


to be


investigated.


Teacher


ques-


tioning


behavior


been


explored


this


and


other


studies.


as of











Many


the


modern


science


curricula


require


that


teachers


employ


problem-solving


techniques


stress


divergent


thinking.


Models


can


developed


that


exhibit


a teacher


using


problem-solving


strategies


a microteaching


setting.


Other


models


may


stress


hypothesis


zing,


making


inferences,


using


experimental


procedures.


Verbal


highlighting


may


strengthen


potency


model.


The


model


exhibits


a behavior


and


verbally


notes,


am stressing


hypothesis


making"


or "This


statement


hypothesis.


sets


effect


The


stimuli--t


observer

he model,


highlighting.


the


student


Allen


model


et al


receives


responses

., (1967)


have


various


the

used


audiotapes


as a feedback


mechanism


that


highlighted


essen-


tial


behaviors


displayed


a video


model.


incorpora-


tion


the


model


feedback


into


one


package


may


prove


a very


effective


model.


Similar


models


could


developed


and


compared


where


one


model


exhibits


a teacher


eliciting


hypothesis-making


while


second


model


exhibits


hypothesis-


making


plus


verbal


highlighting.


Repeated


exposures


to the


same


model


or different


models


lar


should


strategy.


investigated.


Part


A model


experimental


displays


sample


a particu-


observes


the model


once,


another


sample


observes


model


twice,


a


a


r~ -


r


1 B











performance.


Complex


teaching


strategies may


appro-


private


repetitive


exposures


to the


same


or a different


model.

cation


Simple


strategies


questioning


model,


so that


are


such


probably


repeated


as observation


acquired


exposures


and


one


would


show


classifi-


exposure


a ceiling


effect


when measured.


Classroom


Applications.


Many


same


tasks


that


should


investigated


with


teachers


are


appropriate


students


as well.


Students


can


selected


as models


to be


used


teaching


other


students


problem-solving,


experi-


meeting,


making


inferences,


etc.


Koran


Deture


(1974)


have


completed


a pilot


study


examining


effects


student


models


acquisition


scientific


processes


other


students.


Much


more


research


needed


this


area.


Cultural


and


physical


characteristics


model


may


great


importance


to the


potency


the model.


Teacher models


should


compared


to student models,


black


models


to white


models,


male


models


to female


models.


Finally,


research


should


continue


into


relative


strengths


models


and


operant


conditioning


classroom


application


and

and


relationship


related


student


between

learning


acquired t

as a basis


teacher

for c


performance


ompetency-


based


teacher


training.











Conclusions


Support


was


found


this


study


the


efficacy


audio models


teacher-training


devices.


Further


support


was


also


found


indicating


that


video


models


are


effective


training


teachers.


Teachers


not


trained


to ask


observa-


tion


classification


questions


performed


significantly


fewer


these


behaviors


than


teachers


trained


via


models.


Students


taught


teachers


modeling


treat-


ments


responded


more


frequently


than


students


taught


nontrained


teachers.


Practical


applications


audio


and


video


models


are


numerous as

structional

undertaken


teacher-training


alternatives.


to examine


methods


Much


a number


and


research


variables


as student


remains


and


to be

their


effects


on the


modeling


process.




















































APPENDICES





















*a
































APPENDIX


SET


INDUCTION


MATERIALS
















SET


VIDEO,


AUDIO


INDUCTION


MODEL


TREATMENTS *


Name


The


Development


Concept


Formation


Skills


Please


read


It is


teacher


learning


following


believed


to help


that


occurs


that


instructions


one


students


very


major


form


schools


concepts.


and


carefully


objectives


Much


world


simplified


through


acquisition


concepts.


Therefore,


role


teacher


to assist


students


developing


concept-formation


skills


acquiring


new


concepts.


Concept


formation


can


broken


down


into


four


procedures


observation,


classification,


generalization,


and


discrimination.


It will


eliciting


your


observation


task


and


prepare


classification


teach


a lesson


questions


from


three


students.


Observe


materials


that


will


available


to you. in


teaching


lesson.


Do not


manipulate


materials


now.










After


and


reading


observing


previous


materials,


information


please


on this


observe


handout


following


demonstration


then


prepare


a 15-minute


lesson.


You


may


use


observed


materials


as part


lesson.


The


lesson


will


audiorecorded.


You


will


have


5 minutes


prepare


lesson.















SET


CONTROL


INDUCTION


GROUP*


Name


The


Development


Concept


Formation


Skills


Please


read


It is


following


believed


that


instructions


one


very


major


carefully


objectives


teacher


to help


students


form


concepts.


Much


learning


simplified


that


occurs


through


schools


acquisition


world


concepts.


Therefore,


role


teacher


to assist


students


developing


concept-formation


skills


acquiring


new


concepts.


Concept


formation


can


broken


down


into


four


procedures


observation,


classification,


generalization,


and


discrimination.


will


eliciting


your


task


observation


prepare


class


sification


teach


a lesson


questions


from


three


students.


Observe


materials


that


will


available


you


teaching


lesson.


Do not manipulate


materials


now.











After


and


reading


observing


previous


materials,


information


prepare


on this


a 15-minute


handout


lesson.


You may


use


observed materials


as part


lesson.


The


lesson


will


audiorecorded.


You


will


have


5 minutes


prepare


lesson.
































APPENDIX


MATERIALS


LIST















SCIENCE--A
OBSERVATION AND


PROCESS APPROACH
CLASSIFICATION


Colored
Colored
Assorted
Colored
Hard-She
Paper P1


Wood Blocks (6)
Balloons
Pieces of Felt Cloth
Rectangles--Construction
11 Nuts
ates


AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT


2 Wollensak Cassette Recorders
Sony 2200V Videocorder
19-inch Monitor
Videotape Model
Audiotape Model
48 Audiotape Cassettes


Paper
































APPENDIX


WRITTEN


MEASURES















R CRITERION


TEST


Name


Directions:


Place O (for
tion), or N (
or statement.


observation),
for neither)


C (for
beside


classifica-
each question


Which plate does this belong
How can we separate these?
What is similar about all th
How are cucumbers and banana
Which one of these is differ
Can you tell me which of the
sides?


Bow does
Which ar
What is


How
What
How
How
What
What
What


are
doe
arc
does
is
is
col


Oranges
Polygon
Capital
How tal
Lemons
Freckle
What is
How are
How are
In what
What sh
Why did


S
i


ese things?
s similar?
ent from the
se does not


rest?
have three


this feel?
e the smooth objects?
the difference between A and B?
circles and triangles different?
s a signature on a picture indicate?
these boxes different?
the sun feel?
similar about tacks and nails?
the difference between draperies and
or is the sky?
and apples are fruits.
are many-sided figures.
sm is an economic system.


1 are you?
taste sour.
s and moles
the wind-ch
these thing
radios and
ways can yo
ape does thi
you group t


are
ill
s di
tele
u gr
s lo
hese


a


curtains?


skin characteristics.
factor today?
fferent?
visions alike?
oup these?
ok most like?
this way?


TEACHE


I















STUDENT


TEST


Name


Put


the


letters


answers


you


think


are


best


space


beside


the


number


Choose


ones


that


look


alike.


Which


Which


are


large


picture


looks


ones


like


Put


into


groups.


Which


tallest?


d


Which


are


alike?


I I










Which


one


different?


Which


one


Horse
a


does


free


belong?


Put


Which


into


groups.


looks


like


bL
b


Which


Which


c d


smallest?


round?


Which


picture


does


look


like?


Which


are


alike?


Cs+


Horse


d


a


PoNY


Srd












Which


picture


looks



C


like


Which


are


smallest?


Put


2 that you


think


belong


together.


Which


one


has


more


lines?


Which


looks


more


like


Which


are


biggest?


N.


~I I
! ^^mh^B^^B^^MMi


0^^_^^^^^^_^__--_^
















STUDENT


ATTITUDE


MEASURE


Name


Circle


answer


you


like


best.


Yes


Don't


Know


I like


this


lesson.


Yes


Don't


Know


The


many


teacher


asked


questions.


Yes


Don't


Know


Questions


help


me learn.


Don't


Know


The


teacher


was


nice.


Yes


Don't Know


This


test


hard.


Yes


Don't


Know


was


into


to put


things


groups.


Yes


Don't


Know


I like


questions.


Yes


Don't Know


I like


to tell


name


things.


Don't


Know


I learn
group.


better


a small


Yes


Don't


Know


I talk more


small


groups.
































APPENDIX


RATER


TRAINING


MANUAL















RATER


TRAINING


MANUAL


Your


task


to analyze


a series


audiotapes


type


and


frequency


observation


and


classification


ques-


tins


teachers


and


responses


students.


Please


read


the


following


material


carefully.


Definitions


Observation


and


Classification


Questions:


Observation


Questions:


Questions


which


require


from


the


students


physical


observations


character


Observations


can


stic


relate


about


are


one


or more


observation


to color,


size,


questions.

texture,


or shape.


Examples

What


Observation


color


Questions:


this?


What


How


shape


does


your


nut


balloon?


feel?


Classification


Questions


Questions


which


require


stu-


dents


to classify


objects


one


or more


charac-


teristics.


There


are


two


types


or categories


classification


questions.


Teacher-Imposed


Classification


Question


When


asking











Examples:


How


can


you


arrange


these


size?


Separate


these


objects


using


color.


Put


these


into


groups


using


texture


as a guide.


Student-Imposed


Classification


Question:


When


asking


this


question


the


teacher


allows


student


develop


the


characteristic


student


believes


appropriate


placing


objects


into


categories.


Examples:


Where


could


you


put


these?


HOW


Are


can


we separate


these


same


these?


or different?


Can


you


make


groups


these


objects?


How


are


these


nuts


different?


What


thing


about


these


groups


alike?


Student


Responses


Rate


one


or more


correct


student


responses


to a particular


question


as one


re-


sponse.


The


teacher


must


verbalize


each


question


order


a correct


student


response


to be


coded.











Teacher


Tape


Rater


[OBSERVATIONS i


Shape


Teacher

Student


Teacher
Texture
Student


Size



Color



Other


Teacher

Student

Teacher

Student

Teacher

Student


Teacher


Observations


Total


Student


Responses


[CLASSIFICATIONS]


Teacher-Imposed


Categories


Student-Imposed


Categories


Teacher


Total


Categories


Student


Total


Categories


" '' I


11111
































APPENDIX


FACTOR ANALYSIS


DATA











Means


and


Standard


Student


Deviations


Attitude


Items--


Measure


Item Mean SD

1 2.82 0.54
2 1.52 0.82
3 2.80 0.59
4 2.90 0.44
5 1.31 0.69
6 2.76 0.62
7 2.48 0.84
8 2.65 0.69
9 2.42 0.86
10 2.00 0.93
11 2.76 0.58




Oblique Primary Factor Matrix--Simple Loadings Solution


Items I II III IV

1 0.60 0.24 -0.01 -0.02
2 -0.12 0.45 0.06 -0.22
3 0.61 0.10 0.01 0.01
4 0.04 -0.28 0.33 0.41
5 -0.04 0.65 -0.13 0.04
6 0.53 -0.03 0.34 0.02
7 0.39 0.01 -0.21 0.25
8 -0.06 0.04 0.02 0.80
9 0.01 -0.01 0.51 -0.01
10 0.08 0.32 0.24 0.12











Intercorrelations


Primary


Factors


Factor 1 2 3 4


1 1.00 -0.18 0.18 0.57

2 1.00 0.01 -0.09

3 1.00 1.17

4 1.00



Analysis of Variance for Learning in Small Groups


Source of Variation SS df MS F


Between groups 2.07 2 1.03 0.53

Within groups 272.93 141 1.94

Total 275.00 143


N = 144.


Analysis of Variance for Lesson Enjoyment


Source of Variation SS df MS F


Between groups 1.20 2 0.60 0.34

Within groups 250.55 141 1.78

Total 251.75 143












Analysis


Variance


Naming


Things


Source of Variation SS df MS F


Between groups 0.67 2 0.33 0.27

Within groups 176.16 141 1.25

Total 176.83 143


= 144.
























**




-m ao-


Allen, D. W., Berliner,
Sobol, F. T. 1967
ing procedures in
Paper presented at
Education Research


D. C., McDonald, F. C., and
A comparison of different model-
the acquisition of a teaching skill.
the meeting of the American
Association, New York.


Bandura, A. 1965a. Vicarious processes:
trial learning. In L. Berkowitz (ed.
experimental social psychology. Vol.
Press. New York.


Bandura, A. 1965b. Influence of models' reinforcement
contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 589-
595.


Bandura, A.
Comments
Character


1967. Externalization of t
on conduct and conscience.
r development in the child.


he


superego:
In M. Hoffman (ed.),
Aldine. Chicago.


Bandura, A
Holt,


1969.
Rinehart


Principles
& Winston.


of behavior
New York.


modification.


Bandura, A. 1970. Modeling theory: Some traditions, trends
and disputes. In W. Sahakian (ed.), Psychology of
learning. Markham. Chicago.


Bandura, A.
Chicago.


1971.


Psychological


modeling.


Aid ine-Atherton.


Bandura, A. 1973.
Prentice-Hall.


Aggression:
Englewood


A social
Cliffs, New


learning
Jersey.


analysis.


Bandura, A. and
process of
and Social


Huston, A.
incidental
Psychology,


1961. Identification as a
learning. Journal of Abnormal
63, 311-318.


Bandura, A.


and Walters,


1959.


Adolescent


aggression.


A case of no
), Advances in
II. Academic




S- ,- 4*: -/ S]


Bandura, A., Grusec,
tional learning
incentive set.


J., and Menlove, F
as a function of s
Child Development,


. 1966. Observa-
;ymbolization and
37, 499-506.


Bandura, A., Ross,
reinforcement
Abnormal and


Dorothea, and Ross, W. 1963. Vicarious
and imitative learning. Journal of
Social Psychology, 67, 601-607.


Bronfenbrenner, U.
Sage Foundation


1970.
New


Two w
York.


worlds


childhood.


Russell


Brunstein, E., Stotland,
Similarity to a mode
Abnormal and Social


E., and Zander, A. 1961.
1 and self-evaluation. Journal-of
Psychology, 52, 257-264.


Denney, D.
gies.


1972.
Child


Modeling effects
Development, 43,


upon conceptual
810-823.


Dodl,


N. R
cies.
.mmmm OCE


1973.
Florida


The Florida
Department


catalog of teacher competen-
of Education, Chipley, Florida.


S. 1971.
What is the
Colleges for


Performance-based
state of the art?
Teacher Education


teacher education:
American Association
Washington, D.C.


Gagnd, R. 1963. The individual basis of scientific inquiry
Paper presented at summer writing conference, Science-A
Process Approach, Stanford, University, California.


Gagn4, R.
and


1970.
Winston.


The conditions
New York.


of learning.


Holt,


Rinehart


Geshuri, Y. 1972. Observational learning:
observed reward and response patterns.
Educational Psychology, 63 (4), 374-380.


Effects
Journal


Guertin, W. and Bailey,
factor analysis.
Michigan.


J. 1970. Introduction to
Edwards Brothers, Inc. Ann


modern
Arbor,


Hartup, W.
In P.
Wiley


1969.
Muassen
& Sons


Peer
(ed.),
New


interaction and
Manual of child
York.


social organization.
psychology. John


Houston, W. R. 1972. Designing instructional systems for
performance-based programs. American Association of
Colleges for Teacher Education. Houston, Texas.


Elam,


strate-




- "- .- -- -^ I *. -


Koran, J. J., Jr. 1969a. Two paradigms for training of
science teachers using videotape and simulated con-
ditions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
(3), 22-28.


Koran, J. J., Jr.
room instruc
on the acqui
science teac
Teaching, 6


69b. The relative
and subsequent obs
on of a questioning
. Journal of Resea
217-223.


effects of class-
ervational learning
behavior by
rch in Science


Koran, J. J.,
observat
tion and
element
54 (4),


Jr.
ional
rete
ry sc
385-3


1970
lear
nation
ience
89.


. A comparison of the effects of
ning and self-rating on the acquisi-
of a questioning behavior by
teacher trainees. Science Education,


Koran, J. J.
written
a scien
teacher
8 (1),


, Jr. 1971a.
and film-medi
ce teaching sk
s. Journal of
45-50.


A study of the effects of
ated models on the acquisition
ill by preservice elementary
Research in Science Teaching,


Koran, J. J., Jr
in teaching
Teacher, 33


197 Ib. Concepts a
high school biology.
(7), 405-408.


concept
American


formation
Biology


Koran, J. J., Jr. 1972. The use of modeling, feedback,
and practice variables to influence science teacher
behavior. Science Education, 56 (3), 285-291.


Koran, J. J. a
models to
ties: A
of the Na
Teaching,


nd Det
promp
pilot
tional
Chica'


ure, L. 1974
t children's
study. Paper
Association
go.


* The use of film-mediated
scientific process activi-
presented at the meeting
for Research in Science


Koran, J. J. and Wilson, J. 1974. Research on
behavior: Implications for science instru
learning. Paper presented at the National
for Research in Science Teaching, Chicago.


Koran, J. J
Effect
inform
skill.


., Jr., Koran, M. L., and McDonald,
s of different sources of positive a
action on observational learning of a
Journal of Educational Psvcholov,.


L
L


mathemagenic
action and
Association


F. J. 1972.
nd negative
teaching
63 (5).