INFORMATION TO USERS

This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While
the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original
submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand

markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.

1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent
pages to insure you complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it
is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have
moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a
good image of the page in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being
photographed the photographer followed a definite method in
"sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper
left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to
right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is
continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until
complete.

4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value,
however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from
"photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver
prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing
the Order Depertment, giving the catalog number, title, author and
specific pages you wish reproduced.

5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as

received.

Xerox University Microfilms

300 North ZM b Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48100
 74-24,390

REYNOLDS, Kay, 1939-

MODIFICATION OF THE OBSERVATIONAL SYSTEM FOR
INSTRUCTIONAL ANALYSIS FOCUSING ON APPRAISAL
BEHAVIORS OF MUSIC TEACHERS IN SMALL
PERFORMANCE CLASSES.
The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1974
Music

University Microfilms, A XEROX Com pany, A nn Arbor, M ichigan

© Copyright by

Kay Reynolds

1974

THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED.

 MODIFICATION OF THE OBSERVATIONAL SYSTEM

FOR INSTRUCTIONAL ANALYSIS FOCUSING ON

APPRAISAL BEHAVIORS OF MUSIC TEACHERS

IN SMALL PERFORMANCE CLASSES

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School
of The Ohio State University

By
Kay Reynolds, B.Mus.Ed., M.A.

* * * * * *

The Ohio State University

1974

Reading Committee: Approved by

Henry L . Cady
A. Peter Costanza
John B . Hough

School of Musi;
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
IV

The writer thanks those student teachers who were the

subjects of this study, and whose cooperation made it possi

ble.

Special appreciation is extended to Merry Texter and

Dr. Gerald Doan, who assisted as colleagues, trainees, and

observers. Thanks are also due Charles Layne, who assisted

in observer training procedures, and Dr. A. Peter Costanza,

for his support and suggestions.

The writer is especially grateful to Dr. John B.

Hough, whose expert advice was invaluable.

The critical judgment, insight, support, encourage­

ment, and editing offered by Dr. Henry L. Cady were indis­

pensable .

Finally the writer expresses her appreciation for the

late Eli L. Pacetti, whose deep commitment to instrumental

music and to teacher education greatly influenced the under

taking of this study.

 VITA

June 1, 1939 Born— Shreveport, Louisiana

1962 B. Mus. Ed., Louisiana State

University, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana

1962-1965 Junior High School Band Instruc­

tor, Mobile, Alabama County
School System

1965-1967 Elementary School Band Instruc­

tor, Meridian, Mississippi City
School System

1967-1970 Elementary School Woodwind

Instructor, Mount Vernon, Ohio
City School System

1969 M.A., The Ohio State University,

Columbus, Ohio

1970-1973 Teaching Associate, School of

Music, The Ohio State University,
Columbus, Ohio

Fields of Study

Major Field: Music Education

Studies in Music Education. Professors Henry L. Cady

and A. Peter Costanza
Studies in Music History. Professor Richard Hoppin
Studies in Music Analysis. Professor William E. Poland
Studies in Teacher Education. Professors L. O. Andrews
and Donald E. Cottrell

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....................................... ii

VITA...................................................^ iii

LIST OF T A B L E S ................................................................................................................ V

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION AND P R O B L E M ..................... 1

II. SURVEY OF L I T E R A T U R E ......................... 20

III. P R O C E D U R E S .................................... 46

IV. PRESENTATION OF D A T A ......................... 88

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS,RECOMMENDATIONS ......... 118

APPENDIX

A .................................................... 133

B ..................................................... 138

C .................................................... 140

BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................... 169

iv
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Flanders' Interaction Analysis Categories

( F I A C ) ......................................... 24

2. The Rehearsal Interaction Observation System . . 29

3. Snapp's Description of Categories for the

Modified System of Interaction Analysis for
Music C l a s s e s ................................ 32

4. Modified O S I A .................................. 55

5. Observational System for Instructional

Analysis (OSIA) .............................. 56

6. Coefficients of Inter-Observer Agreement

for First C h e c k .............................. 71

7. Coefficients of Inter-Observer Agreement

for Third Check— L i v e ........................ 72

8. Comparison of Observers One and Three for

Inter-Observer Agreement Check Three— Live . . 73

9. Total Tallies, by Observer, for Third Inter-

Observer Checks— Live and T a p e d ............. 75

10. Comparison of Third Inter-Observer Agreement

Check— Live with Taped Version ............... 76

11. Coefficients of Agreement for Third Inter-

Observer Check— T a p e d ........................ 78

12. Combined Totals for Fifty-Six Observations:

Frequencies and Percentages of All Behaviors . 90

13. Categories Ranked by Percentage of Contri­

bution to Total T a l l i e s ..................... 94

14. Three Highest Categories for Four Observa­

tions Combined Per T e a c h e r ................... 98

v
Table Page

15. Category Percentages Per Teacher, Omitting

the Three Highest Categories and Those
Less than 1 Per C e n t .......................... 99

16. Mean Percent of Behaviors Recorded in Each

Category for Four Observations by Each of
Fourteen Teachers (StudentTeachers 1-14) . . 103

17. Coefficient of Agreement between Pairs of

Teachers in Basic Categories, Using the
Cohen F o r m u l a ................................ 105

18. Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient (Rho)

for Pairs of T e a c h e r s ........................ 107

19. Type and Frequency of Behaviors Preceding

Each Appraisal Behavior ..................... 109

20. Type and Frequency of Behaviors Following

Each Appraisal Behavior ...................... Ill

21. Type and Frequency of Extended Appraisal

Behaviors for the Fourteen Student
T e a c h e r s ....................................... 115

22. Type and Frequency of Appraisal Behaviors

Followed or Preceded by the Same Behavior
Subscripted or Separated by Y ................ 117
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

There are many facets of instrumental music teacher

behaviors with which educators of prospective teachers have

been concerned. Some of the variables which impinge on the

teaching-learning processes are personality characteristics

of the teacher; musical skills of listening, conducting, and

performance; and teaching skills of organization, presenta­

tion, and evaluation. Another variable is the interaction

which occurs in classes between teachers and students. Edu­

cators in many fields have considered these types of vari­

ables— personality, preparation in the subject matter to be

taught, teaching skills, and classroom interaction— and have

wondered about the weight of their respective contributions

to the effectiveness or success of the teacher.

In an effort to improve music teacher education, re­

searchers have attempted to find out what makes teachers

successful or unsuccessful, effective or ineffective. Be­

cause it is difficult to determine what is meant by success­

ful or effective, some researchers have thought it profit­

able to study the negative aspects. For example, the ques­

tion has been asked why teachers fail, or what their

weaknesses are. In his 1949 study, Ehlert found that

. . . supervisors and administrators ranked person­

ality weaknesses and general training weakness as
primary causes for teacher failure while lack of
various performance skills were ranked as least
important causes for failure.1

In a later study, Brown (1955) asked music teachers

and supervisors to list major weaknesses of music teachers.

The lack of sufficient discipline control appeared

to be the most common weakness. More than one-
half of the subjects indicated that teaching skill,
leadership, cooperation, emotional stability, tact­
fulness, and academic knowledge were common weak­
nesses. Seven of the highest percentages were weak­
nesses not connected with musical training.2

In her 1957 study utilizing the critical incident tech

nique, Fenton found that

. . . more non-musical skills than musical skills

were listed by teachers and educators of teachers
as crucial to effective teaching. Particularly

Jackson K. Ehlert, "The Selection and Education of

Public School Music Teachers" (Ed.D. dissertation, Univer­
sity of Colorado, 1949), cited by Erwin H. Schneider and
Henry L. Cady, Evaluation and Synthesis of Research Studies
Relating to Music Education (Columbus; The Ohio State
University Research Foundation, 1965), p. 388.

2Robert D. Brown, "A Study Concerning the Major Weak­

nesses of Music Teachers in the Secondary Schools of Kansas
(M.A. thesis, University of Kansas, 1955), cited by Erwin H
Schneider and Henry L. Cady, Evaluation and Synthesis of
Ressearch Studies Relating to Music Education (Columbus:
*The Ohio State University Research foundation, 1965), p.
374.
 important was the skill of directing the learning
process.3

There seems to be a general conclusion from the small amount

of research that music teachers need to have more prepara­

tion in the actual processes of teaching.

These teaching processes are perhaps most appropriately

observed in small instrumental classes such as a beginning

brass class, a sectional rehearsal, or a combination of

chamber music players. One might expect that the small size

and lack of immediate performance constraints, as compared

with the high school ensemble rehearsal, would make the

beginning class especially suited for study of teacher-

student interactions.

There is a belief in the profession, documented to a

small degree, that instrumental music classes are designed

primarily for teaching performance skills, and that they are

taught in a rather authoritarian manner. In a plea forless

of this type of teaching and more teaching about music within

the ensemble framework, Thomson has said:

What is needed in the rehearsal room is the

conductor's calculated desire to transmit the
very techniques he already possesses in a sophis­
ticated form. His directions are based on deci­
sions born from an understanding of the musical

Winnifred L. Fenton, "Effectiveness of Music Teachers

Identified Through Behavioral Criteria: A Basis for Redi­
rection in Teacher Education" (Ed.D. dissertation, Wayne
State University, 1957), cited by Erwin H. Schneider and
Henry L. Cady, Evaluation and Synthesis of Research Studies
Relating to Music Education (Columbus: The 6hio State Uni­
versity Research Foundation, 1965), p. 144.
 4

substance. Only through his conscious attempts to

make these processes of decision-making known to
his students can he nurture the independence of
judgment required by the mature musical person.
The conductor's rehearsal monologue can be greatly
altered to become more of a dialogue, more of a
guided search for common musical goals than a search
of automatons to the tap of one man's drum.

Because the general teaching skills, rather than the

musical skills, have been critically important to music

teachers, it may be profitable to see what has been done in

other areas of education.

Development of Interaction Analysis

As educators in all fields have tried to analyze

teacher behavior in order to improve, teacher education,

several basic questions have emerged.

One question i s : "Can we describe the personal quali­

ties of the ideal or effective teacher?" In Ryans' 1960

study, various personal characteristics of teachers were

noted, as they were observed in classroom teaching situa­

tions. Three major patterns of teacher classroom behavior

and seven major teacher characteristics were identified.

TCS pattern X warm, understanding, friendly versus

aloof, egocentric, restricted teacher
classroom behavior
TCS pattern Y responsible, businesslike, systematic
versus evading, unplanned, slipshod
teacher classroom behavior

^William Thomson, "The Ensemble Director and Musical

Concepts," Music Educators Journal 54 (May 1968); 46.
 5

TCS pattern 2 stimulating, imaginative versus dull,

routine teacher classroom behavior
TCS characteristic R favorable versus unfavorable
opinions of pupils
TCS characteristic R^ favorable versus unfavorable
opinions of classroom procedures
TCS characteristic Q favorable versus unfavorable
opinions of administrative and other
school personnel
TCS characteristic B learning-centered ("Tradi­
tional” or "directive”) versus child-
centered ("permissive" or "indirect")
educational viewpoints
TCS characteristic I superior verbal understanding
(comprehension) versus poor verbal
understanding
TCS characteristic S emotional stability (adjust­
ment) versus instability
TCS characteristic V validity of responses versus
invalidity of response^

To gather information, observers used a classroom observa­

tion record and a glossary, which gave operational defini­

tions of the behaviors to be assessed. Of the research which

focuses on the personal qualities of teachers, the Ryans

study is probably the best known and most highly regarded.

A second question i s : "Can we describe the classroom

behaviors of the ideal of effective teacher?" In 1940,

Withall built on the work of Anderson and Lippitt^ to develop

^David G. Ryans, "Research on Teacher Behavior in the

Context of the Teacher Characteristics Study," in Contem­
porary Research on Teacher Effectiveness, eds. Bruce J.
Biddle, and William J. Eilena (New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1964), pp. 67-101.
6 See, for example, Harold H. Anderson, "The Measure­
ment of Domination and of Socially Integrative Behavior in
Teachers' Contacts with Children"; and Kurt Lewin, Ronald
Lippitt, and Ralph White, "Patterns of Aggressive Behavior
in Experimentally Created 'Social Climates'," in Interaction
Analysis: Theory, Research, and Application, eds. Edmund J.
Amidon and John B ‘
. Hou'gn (Heading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley
Pub. Co., 1967), pp. 4-23, 24-46.
a way of measuring the social-emotional climate of a class­

room. Withall assumed "that the teacher's behavior is the

most important single factor in creating climate in the

classroom, and that the teacher's verbal behavior is a repre­

sentative sample of her total behavior."^ The climate was

defined as "the emotional tone which is a concomitant of

interpersonal interaction."® Withall, then, was using the

study of behaviors to explore relationships between those

teacher behaviors and the concept of social-emotional climate.

In the 1950's and '60's, building on Withall's work,

Ned A. Flanders asked a third question: "Can we describe the

interactions which occur between teachers and students with­

in the c l a s s r o o m ? 'I®/11*12,13 ne described what an

'John Withall, "The Development of a Technique for the

Measurement of Social-Emotional Climate in Classrooms,"
Journal of Experimental Education 17 (1949) : 347.

8Withall, "The Development of a Technique . . . ,"

p. 348.

8For an introduction to interaction analysis, see the

article by James R. Campbell and Cyrus W. Barnes, "Inter­
action Analysis— A Breakthrough?" Phi Delta Kappan: A
Journal for the Promotion of Leadership in Education 50
TJune 1969} /"ITT:----------------------------------- —

^ F o r the development of interaction analysis, see

Edmund J. Amidon and John B. Hough, eds.. Interaction Anal­
ysis: Theory, Research and Application (Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., 1967).

1^-The manual for using the Flanders system of interac­

tion analysis is his recent book. Ned A. .Flanders, Analyz­
ing Teaching Behavior {Reading/ Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1970).

^ A collection of observation instruments for class­

room interaction has been made by Anita Simon and E. Gil
 7

interaction analysis system is and how it is used as follows:

Interaction analysis is a label that refers to any

technique for studying the chain of classroom
events in such a fashion that each event is taken
into consideration. An observer sits in the class­
room, or views a video-sound playback, or just
listens to a voice recording and keeps a record of
the flow of events on an observation form. He
might punch the keys of some mechanical device, if
it is available. He is trained to use a set of
categories. He decides which category best repre­
sents each event and then writes down the code sym­
bol of that category. His speed of recording de­
pends on the category system, the skill of the
observer, and the difficulty of the interaction,
but an average speed of 10 to 30 symbols per minute
can be expected. The product of his observation is
a long list of code symbols, one symbol to each
event. An analysis can be made of the frequency
of events in each category, a profile of the dis­
tribution can be drawn, or a simple display can be
created which shows how each event is part of the
chain. Inference about the chain of events can
then be made, keeping in mind the limitations of
the overall process.14

Some teacher verbal behavior categories of the Flan­

ders system are considered direct behaviors, and others are

considered indirect. Flanders' system has seven teacher

behavior categories, and only two student categories.

Boyer, e d s ., Mirrors for Behavior II; An Anthology of Obser­

vation Instruments, Vols. A and B (Phila.: Research for
Better Schools, Inc., 1970).

^ N o t all interaction systems have been used exten­

sively after their development. For detailed information
on two which have been, see John B. Hough and James K.
Duncan, Teaching Description and Analysis (Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley Pub. C o . , 1^70) . Also see Richard L. Ober,
Ernest L. Bentley, and Edith Miller, Systematic Observation
of Teaching: An Interaction Analysis-Instructional Strategy
Approach (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1971).

Flanders, Analyzing Teaching Behavior, pp. 5, 6.

 8

Although the system has been useful, it obviously is not

designed to provide as much information about students as it

does about teachers. Looking back on his own early research

and that of his predecessors, Flanders has said:

The work of H. H. Anderson, of Lewin, Lippitt, and

White, of Withall, and of Flanders appears to be
originally motivated by a desire to prove that cer­
tain preferred patterns were superior for just
about anything. The concepts "integrative-
dominative," "democratic-authoritarian," "student
centered-teacher centered" and "indirect-direct,"
all spring from a conviction that most teachers
could be more effective if they would interact
with pupils rather than direct them. This sounds
innocuous enough, but a disposition to prove one
relationship can hide others. A small step toward
a broader view, away from a single-value orienta­
tion, can be found in the introduction of the con­
cept of "flexibility of teacher influence." This
movement toward a more objective description of
teaching behavior has not yet run its course. I
believe that the balance between "initiating" and
"responding," to be found in both teacher and
pupil statements, will become a focus for further
research.15

Interaction Analysis and Music Classes

Music educators have not felt that interaction analysis

systems would be appropriate for use in their classes. Evi­

dence for this contention is the paucity of studies which use

interaction analysis for investigating teacher and student

behaviors in music classes.

l^Ned A. Flanders, "Introduction," in Interaction

Analysis: Theory, Research, and Application, eds. tedmund J.
Amidon and John B. Hough (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley
Pub. Co., 1967), pp. viii, ix.
 9

This investigator believes that most researchers have

been hesitant for two reasons. One is that the Flanders

system, its modifications, and other more recent quasi-

Flanders systems are designed to measure verbal behaviors;

but music classes may have long periods in which there is

singing, playing of instruments, or silent listening to music.

The other reason is that the music performance classes,

by their very nature, require a person who is called a

director or conductor. This person's role is to direct—

that is, he expects and is expected to tell or to demonstrate

to students how he believes the music should be performed

and to insist, through the use of rehearsal, comprising drill

and practice, that it be performed in the expected manner.

How, then, can one study teacher behavior with a system which

contains "indirect” or "democratic" behavior categories and

find it useful in measuring behaviors which are expected to

be direct and authoritarian?

Snapp spoke to these two points in his 1967 study.

The interaction problems faced by an instrumental

music teacher differ from those of an "academic"
teacher. The fact that students in music classes
have instruments which produce sounds— the chief
ingredient for music— in itself creates quite a
different class atmosphere. Thus, the influence-
behavior of music teachers results from inter­
action not only with student talk, but also with
student musical activities . . . A fifth grade
instrumental music class setting almost seems to
dictate direct teacher behavior. The amount of
direct behavior needed to coordinate student musi­
cal activities in itself is substantial. Addi­
tionally, since one of the primary objectives is
 10

skill development with a large portion of class

time devoted to this objective, opportunities for
critical evaluation of student achievement abound.*-®

In his 1969 study, Nolin made a similar observation

about the usefulness of interaction analysis.

. . . the performance classroom (choir, band, or­

chestra) would not be appropriate for similar anal­
ysis due to the unique and rather specialized nature
of instruction employed there, and the extended
period of time during which no verbal interaction
would take place. . . .
It was assumed prior to the conduct of this
study, that the performance classroom . . . would
not be appropriate to analysis through the use of a
behavioral scale designed primarily to measure
verbal behaviors, because of the autocratic dom­
inance of the performance classroom teacher. . . .
The desirability of indirect teacher influence
or the democratic influence of the teacher sug­
gested by previous Flanders Interaction Analysis
applications, apparently is not quite so highly
desirable in music teachers. A music teacher can
be effective while being centrally direct, or auto­
cratic in character.17

To summarize the preceding discussion, interaction

analysis systems have been developed to describe teacher-

student behaviors related to the social-emotional climate of

classrooms. These have not been used by music educators to

study the performance classroom because the largely non-verbal

activities of students and the autocratic nature of the per­

formance class teacher seemed to make them inappropriate.

l^David W. Snapp, "A Study of the Accumulative Musical

and Verbal Behavior of Teachers and Students in Fifth Grade
Instrumental Music Classes" (M.A. thesis, The Ohio State
University, 1967), pp. 3, 93.
17
Wallace H. Nolin, "Patterns of Teacher-Student In­
teraction in Selected Junior High School General Music
Classes" (Ph.D. dissertation. The Ohio State University,
1969), pp. 12, 138, 140.
 11
Interaction Analysis as a Research Technique
in Music Classes'

The question might be raised, if better teacher educa­

tion is the issue, why not study our prospective music

teachers with some sort of rating scale or checklist instead

of interaction analysis? There are several answers to the

question. One is the relatively greater objectivity of a

behavioral category system, such as an interaction analysis

system.

Category systems are classified as low-inference

measures because the items focus upon specific, de-
notable, relatively objective behaviors such as
"teacher repeats student ideas," or "teacher asks
evaluative questions,” and also because the behav­
iors are recorded as frequency counts. . . .
When rating systems are used to obtain data on
teacher behavior, the rating systems are referred
to as high-inference measures because they lack the
specificity of low-mference variables. Items on
rating instruments such as "clarity of presentation,"
"enthusiasm," or "helpful towards students" require
that an observer infer these constructs from a
series of events. In addition, an observer must
infer the frequency of such behavior in order to
record whether it occurred "consistently," "some­
times," or "never," or somewhere on the set of grad­
ations used in the scale of the observational rating
instrument.18

Another reason for using interaction analysis to study

the performance class is that the authoritarian rehearsal

concept of teaching, discussed previously, is beginning to

change. As teachers try to go beyond the teaching of per­

formance skills alone, their teaching methods can be expected

^■^Barak Rosenshine, Teaching Behaviours and Student

Achievement (London: National Foundation for Educational
Research in England and Wales, 1971), p. 19.
 12

to change. In the 1965 publication, Music in General Educa­

tion, the narrowness of performance classes is discussed.

Participation in instrumental music represents

an area of specialized activity through which
the development and application of the tech­
nical skills of performance enhance the oppor­
tunities for the individual's association with
and involvement in music. The premise that
instrumental music has for its major objective
the development of technical, manipulative and
reading skills falls short of realizing the ob­
jectives of music education.19

More recently (1970), Thomas, in a discussion of the

Manhattanville Music Curriculum Program, asks questions

which imply that the ideal has not been reached.

What would happen if . . . a beginning instru­

mental program encouraged and valued the musical
judgment of students; the instrumental class be­
came an integral part of the total music program;
each child employed his creative imagination in
his instrumental learning experience; the goals
of the program were broadened to include musical
cognition, musical attitudes, and aesthetic con­
cern as well as skill development; aural sensitiv­
ity and discrimination were emphasized; the student
didn't depend solely on a visual stimulus and a
kinesthetic response at early stages; and the in­
strumental class were intended to serve the student,
not train him to serve the instrumental p r o g r a m ? ^ 0

If the performance teacher becomes less concerned that

he teach a given selection of music and that he teach more

about the music, then more interaction of the type found in

I Q
Karl D. Ernst and Charles L. Gary, eds.. Music in
General Education (Washington, D.C.: Music Educators
National Conference, 1965), p. 11.

20Ronald B. Thomas, "Rethinking the Curriculum,"

Music Educators Journal 56 (February 1970): 70.
 13

other classrooms could be expected. The use of interaction

analysis to study the performance class would be more

appropriate.

Finally, a third reason is the lack of information

about the teaching-learning processes in performance classes

which an interaction analysis system seems most suited to

rectify. Studying teachers' behaviors only is insufficient.

If one is interested not only in how teachers teach, but

also in how students learn, an interaction analysis system

which gives the students equal attention seems necessary.

In summary, three reasons have been given for the de­

sirability of trying to use an interaction analysis system

in the music performance class. They are (1) the relative

objectivity of an observational system with categories of

behavior carefully defined and instances of the behaviors

counted, (2) the fact that performance classes may not be so

very different from other classes where interaction analysis

has been used successfully, and (3) the need for an instru­

ment to measure teacher-student behaviors in the performance

class, about which little is known at present.

Evaluation as Teacher Behavior

It was noted previously that Snapp characterized the

instrumental performance class as offering many opportunities

for teacher evaluation of student achievement. The evalu­

ation would, one assumes, consist of criticism or praise.

 14

Rosenshine, in his survey and synthesis of research on

teacher behaviors and student achievement, has pointed out

the need for greater study of evaluation behaviors.

. . . the existing research on teacher disapproval

or teacher criticism appears inadequate because
insufficient attention has been given to the con­
text in which these behaviors occur . . . it is pos­
sible that certain types of approval may be posi­
tively related to achievement, and some forms of
approval may be negatively related to achievement.
One interesting variable might be extended praise
because such praise contains a reason for the
praise; another might be praise in response to
student-initiated questions.21

The difficulty, then, is in developing an interaction

analysis system that would take into account the musical

behaviors of the performance class, provide for the measure­

ment of a variety of student, as well as teacher behaviors;

and allow for the expansion of the evaluation, or appraisal,

categories, as these behaviors apparently form an important

part of performance classes.

The OSIA

The interaction analysis system that seemed most likely

to fill these needs was one that was originally devised in

1965 by Hough and modified by Hough and Duncan in 1970 and

again in 1972. This system was first called the Observation

System for the Analysis of Classroom Instruction. In the

original system, Hough wanted to "more precisely describe the

classroom behaviors that are associated with the facilitation

21Rosenshine, Teaching Behaviours, pp. 61, 69.

 15

of learning as they are implicitly described in commonly

accepted principles of learning and instruction."22

The Observational System for Instruction A n a l y s i s , 23

especially in its latest revision by Hough and Duncan, has

indeed moved away from a single value approach. Rather than

being designed to deal with the concept of indirect versus

direct teacher behaviors and their relation to social-

emotional climate, as in Withall's and Flanders's systems,

the OSIA allows the researcher to attach his own set of

values to the behaviors he measures. Although modification

is necessary for all forms of musical activity to be included,

its categories encompass a great variety of teaching-learning

behaviors. Any behavior category can be labeled "teacher"

or "student," so that evaluations by students are recordable

as such, where they have not been in other s y s t e m s . 24

22john B. Hough, "An Observation System for the Analy­

sis of Classroom Instruction," in Interaction Analysis:
Theory, Research, and Application. Eds. Edmund .7. Amidon
and John b. Hough (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub Co.,
1967), p. 157.
2^
Hough, "An Observation System . . . ," pp. 151-153.
John B. Hough and James K. Duncan, Teaching: Descrip-
tion and Analysis (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.,
I970T,'p."T30.
John B. Hough and James K. Duncan, "Observational
System for Instructional Analysis" (Columbus, The Ohio State
University, 1972), mimeographed.
24compare, for example, the OSIA with the system given
in Edmund Amidon and Elizabeth Hunter, "Interaction Analysis:
Recent Developments," in Interaction Analysis: Theory, Re­
search, and Application, eds. Edmund J. Amidon and John B.
Hough (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., 1967),
p. 389.
 16

Because there is so little information of any kind

about the teaching-learning processes in instrumental music

classes, and because the Observational System for Instruc­

tional Analysis provides for the recording of a variety of

both teacher and student behaviors, this system seemed most

appropriate for the purposes of this study. The 1972 ver­

sion of the Observational System for Instructional Analysis

(OSIA) is the form that was modified for use in the present

study, and it therefore will be described in detail in

Chapters II and III.

The Problem

Considering the lack of information regarding the

behaviors in teaching-learning processes in music classes,

the problem was the development of an interaction analysis

instrument for studying a broad range of teacher-student

behaviors, including the unique musical features of such

classes and the appraisal behaviors important to perform­

ance classes.

The Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this investigation was to gather and to

analyze information regarding small instrumental performance

classes through the use of a modified form of the Observa­

tional System for Instructional Analysis.

Although some research has been done that relates stu­

dent achievement to certain teacher behaviors, it was not the

 17

purpose of this study to determine such correlations. Des­

cription and quantification through a systematic, reliable

procedure was the fundamental intention. Also, the study

was not designed to yield an observation system for use in

every conceivable music teaching situation. The delimita­

tions and limitations of the study follow.

Delimitations

Only small group performance classes in instrumental

music were studied. Large ensemble rehearsals and private

lessons, music theory or history classes, and vocal music

classes were not a part of the study.

Only student teachers in the public schools of the

Columbus, Ohio area were studied. No public school teach­

ers or university faculty (full-time staff) were involved.

Limitations

The observational system devised is an interaction

analysis system. It shows what kinds of behaviors occur

according to predetermined category definitions. It does

not purport to account for every behavior which may take

place within a classroom.

Because in this study the system was used in conjunc­

tion with audio-tape and a live observer, not video tape,

some non-audible events were undoubtedly lost.

The subjects were student teachers and were chosen on

the basis of their availability. They were not selected for

 18

any factors related to their training, sex, socio-economic

level of their classes, or any other variable.

Significance

If a modified interaction analysis system is devised

that is easily usable in the music performance class, it

could be used for teacher education classes, for student

teacher supervision, and for in-service teacher education.

The results of the study contributed to the information

now available regarding the teaching behaviors of the stu­

dents in the study, while they were engaged in student

teaching.

Summary

Because there is a need for a relatively objective means

of observing the activities of the instrumental music class,

an existing interaction analysis system was modified. It was

based on the OSIA of Hough and Duncan, which had been de­

rived from the work of Flanders. The basic question asked by

the investigator w a s : "Can an interaction analysis system be

devised which will measure teacher and student behaviors

common to small instrumental performance classes?"

In the following chapter, the earlier interaction analy­

sis modifications used for music classes will be discussed,

and their deficiencies for the purposes of this study will

be explained. The investigator will describe the

 19

Observational System for Instructional Analysis (Hough and

Duncan) and will show why this system seemed more adaptable

to the study of the instrumental music class.

 CHAPTER II

SURVEY OF LITERATURE

Studies Related to Music Classes

In an effort to improve music teaching, programs of

teacher education are being studied and redesigned. A prior

step to improving the quality of music teaching has been the

study of the behaviors in music classrooms. These have

included the musical, verbal, and physical behaviors that

are a part of the instructional process. The music classes

studied have been instrumental performance rehearsals, gen­

eral music classes, or small classes of instrumentalists.

The subjects have been elementary through high school ages.

Various emphases have resulted in the variety of approaches

to research that are discussed in this chapter. Although

it is only tangential to the present investigation, one

relatively early study should be mentioned.

In a 1955 study, Van Sickle was interested in learning

more about the social-psychological forces at work in group

rehearsals.

The nature of the music performance group is

such that people in interaction are a necessity
for the production of music. . . .
With the increased importance of music in­
struction in the American public schools the

20
 21

opportunity to increase the application of social-

psychological forces to the improvement of music
assumes the proportions of a challenge. The re­
sponsibility of creating meaningful experiences in
the process of achieving group-oriented goals be­
comes greater in a culture based on democratic
principles.1

He designed an exploratory investigation based on group dy­

namics theories as set forth by the National Training Lab­

oratory of Group Dynamics. Data was obtained from audio

tape recordings of fifteen public school and three community

bands or orchestras. Small groups of players were chosen

randomly to take part in group interviews and paper-and-

pencil tests. The data obtained from the forty-four players,

the directors, and the recordings were related to concepts

derived from group dynamics research.

Van Sickle found that public school instrumental music

directors were generally unaware of group dynamics in their

classrooms (rehearsals). The goals of the players tended to

be different from those of the directors. Although Van

Sickle did not study interaction between teachers and students

in the same sense that later studies have, his study appears

to be the earliest one related to the social-emotional

climate in the instrumental music performance class.

One study has since been which used Withall's Social-

Emotional Climate Index to study music classes. The Index

^Howard M. Van Sickle, "An Exploratory and Descriptive

Study of the Interpersonal Factors and Group Dynamics of
Instrumental Music Groups" (M.Ed.D. dissertation, Chicago
Musical College, Roosevelt University, 1955), p. 3.
 22

consists of seven teacher verbal behavior categories which

Withall related to learner-centered (indirect) versus

teacher-centered (direct) patterns. The categories are:

1. Learner-supportive statements that have the

intent of reassuring or commending the pupil.
2. Acceptant and clarifying statements having
an intent to convey to the pupil the feeling
that he was understood and help him to eluci­
date his ideas and feelings.
3. Problem-structuring statements or questions
which proffer information or raise questions
about the problem in an objective manner with
intent to facilitate learner's problem-solving.
4. Neutral statements which comprise polite for­
malities, administrative comments, verbatim
repetition of something which has already been
said. No intent inferrable.
5. Directive or hortative statements with intent
to have pupil follow a recommended course of
action.
6. Reproving or deprecating remarks intended to
deter pupil from continued indulgence in
present "unacceptable" behavior.
7. Teacher self-supporting remarks intended to
sustain or justify the teacher's position or
course of action.2

Verrastro (1970) used the Index to study thirty-nine

music student teachers for five observations each in several

kinds of classes (vocal, instrumental, general music) and at

several levels (elementary through high school). Relevant

findings which he reported include the following:

Student teachers of music appear not to be pre­

disposed to the employment of indirect instruc­
tional behaviors as determined by the verbal be­
havior sampling procedure utilized in the study.
. . . The verbal patterns of student teachers in

^John Withall, "The Development of Technique for the

Measurement of Social-Emotional Climate in Classrooms,"
Journal of Experimental Education (March 1949): 349.
 23

music appear to be rather stable and not observ­

ably influenced by the grade level of the learners
or the nature of the instruction being provided.3

It is obvious from the structure of the Index that Verrastro

did not study any kind of student behaviors, nor did he study

any musical behaviors of teachers. Only verbal behaviors

of teachers were studied as they relate to the concept of

social-emotional classroom climate.

Building on the work of Withall, Flanders devised his

system for observing classroom behaviors of teachers as they

interact with students, so that student behavior categories

are included. Even so, there are seven teacher categories

and only two student categories. The system, in its most

recent form, is shown on page 24.

Five studies were found that used an interaction analy­

sis system. In one of these cases, the interaction analysis

system was the "Observation System for the Analysis of

Classroom Instruction" (Hough), which was the original (1965)

version of the later instrument by Hough and Duncan, the

Observational System for Instructional Analysis (OSIA, 1970,

1972) .

3Ralph E. Verrastro, "An Experimental Investigation of

Verbal Behavior Analysis as a Supervisory Technique with
Student Teachers of Music" (Ed.D. dissertation, The Penn­
sylvania State University, 1970), pp. 98, 99.
 24
Table 1: Flanders' Interaction Analysis Categories*
(FIAC)

1. Accepts feeling. Accepts and clarifies an attitude or the

feeling tone of a pupil in a nonthreatening manner. Feelings
may be positive or negative. Predicting and recalling feel­
• ings are included.
2. Praises or encourages. Praises or encourages pupil action
or behavior. Jokes that release tension, but not at the ex­
Response pense of another individual; nodding head, or saying "Urn
hm?” or "go on" are included. <
3. Accepts or uses ideas o f pupils. Clarifying, building, or
developing ideas suggested by a pupil. Teacher extensions
o f pupil ideas are Included but as the teacher brings more
of his own ideas into play, shift to category five.
4. Asks questions. Asking a question about content or pro­
Teacher
cedure, based on teacher ideas, w ith the intent that a pupil
Talk w ill answer.
3. Lecturing. Giving facts or opinions about content or
procedures; expressing his own ideas, giving his own ex­
planation, or citing an authority other than a pupil.
6. Giving directions. Directions, commands, or orders to
Initiation which a pupil is expected to comply.
7. Criticizing or justifying authority. Statements intended
to change pupil behavior from nonacccptable to acceptable
pattern; bawling someone out; stating why the teacher is
doing what he is doing; extreme self-reference.
8. Pupil-talk— response. Talk by pupils in response to
teacher. Teacher initiates the contact or solicits pupil state­
Response ment or structures the situation. Freedom to express own
Ideas is limited.
Pupil Talk
9. Pupil-talk— initiation. Talk by pupils which they initiate.
Expressing own ideas; initiating a new topic; freedom to
Initiation develop opinions and a line of thought, like asking thought­
ful questions; going beyond the existing structure.
10. Silence or confusion. Pauses, short periods of silence and
Silence periods of confusion in which communication cannot be
understood by the observer.

•There is no seal? Implied by these numbers. Each number Is classUicaiory; it designates a particular
kind of communication event. To write these numbers down during observation is to enumerate,
not to judge a position on a scale.

i
 In a 1969 study, Nolin^ used Hough's (1965) "Observa­

tion System for the Analysis of Classroom Instruction" to

study the behaviors of general classroom music teachers.

The system was used without modification, because Nolin was

not concerned with creating categories related to music. He

recorded at least ten class sessions for each of the nine

public school teachers participating in the study. The

teachers were selected on the bases of their willingness to

participate and their teaching for more than one year within

the school system and at the school building where they were

teaching at the time of the study. Nolin's comparisons of

patterns were done with the three highest rated (by music

supervisors) teachers and the three lowest, eliminating the

middle three. Recordings were made without the presence of

the researcher, who analyzed them later. Nolin concluded:

. . . no completely significant pattern differ­

ence could be found between the most effective
and least effective teachers in terms of an en­
tire pattern of interaction.5

This finding is in conflict with those of Flanders and

Swineford, as cited by Moskowitz in her 1965 study:

. . . the matrices of low achieving teachers

contained identical teaching patterns, while
the matrices of high achieving teachers contained

Wallace H. Nolin, "Patterns of Teacher-Student Inter­

action in Selected Junior High School General Music
Classes" (Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University,
1969).

5Nolin, p. 120.
 repertoires of varied patterns that differed
from teacher to teacher. Swineford (1964),
too, found that analysis of the teaching be­
haviors of the highest-rated student teachers
disclosed no single characteristic pattern.®
•J
In addition, Koakowitz found that student and cooper­

ating teachers trained in interaction analysis became more

individualistic in their teaching patterns.

However, in comparing Nolin's study with the others

cited, it should be noted that Nolin dealt with teachers of

general music, and the Flanders and Swineford studies dealt

with classroom teachers and student teachers. Because Nolin

did not take the musical performance factors into account,

further research into the complete teacher-student behaviors

of general music classes may be needed before comparisons

can be made.

In another study of the general music teacher, White-

Q
hillQ observed thirteen public school teachers, using a

modification of Flanders' system. The teachers had been

Gertrude Moskowitz, "The Attitudes and Teaching Pat­

terns of Cooperating Teachers and Student Teachers Trained
in Interaction Analysis," in Interaction Analysis: Theory,
Research, and Application, eds. Edmund J. Amidon and John
B. Hough (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., 1967),
p. 279.

7Moskowitz, pp. 271-282.

8Charles D. Whitehill, "The Application of Flanders'

System of Classroom Interaction Analysis to General Class­
room Music Teaching" (Ph.D. dissertation, West Virginia
University, 1970), in Dissertation Abstracts, XXXI (5),
p. 2428—A.
 27

rated according to teaching ability. He collected approxi­

mately 5,000 category number-tallies for each teacher.

Unlike Nolin, Whitehill attempted to account for musical

behaviors to some extent. Categories were added for record­

ing non-verbal praise or encouragement, non-verbal criti­

cism, teacher demonstration, student performance under the

teacher's direction, and student-initiated performance.

The system was successful as a discriminator of teaching

behaviors.

The best discriminators were found in Flanders'

indirect categories and in the categories of
student talk and performance under the direction
of the teacher. The teachers in the high group
accepted and clarified the feeling tone of the
students, praised and encouraged, made use of
student ideas, and asked questions significantly
more often than the teachers in the low group.
The highest incidence of student talk in the
classes of the teachers in the high group prob­
ably resulted from this greater use of indirect
influence.9

A third study, which is now in progress, involves using

an interaction analysis system to study the general music

teacher. Kirkwood is using the Flanders system modified to

include musical performance activities and a rating system

involving the high inference variables of teacher enthusiasm,

task focus, and clarity. Her system is called the Classroom

Music Analysis System (C.M.A.S.), and it also includes a

checklist for noting types of music, actual compositions,

9Whitehill, p. 2428-A.
 28

types of instruments, and audio-visual aids used. Video­

taping was used for the observations; the data are now

being analyzed.*®

There are two studies that were investigations of the

instrumental music classroom through a form of interaction

analysis. In 1972, Erbes used a very slight modification

of the Flanders system to study interaction in rehearsals

of large musical organizations. In order to develop his

system, Erbes observed live high school instrumental re­

hearsals. The Rehearsal Interaction Analysis System (RIOS)

includes a category for the nonverbal acts of "singing,

whistling, or other oral sounds, slapping, tapping, or play­

ing an instrument to illustrate an idea or opinion."** With

the addition of the demonstration category there are eight

teacher behavior categories and two student categories. The

system is shown in Table 2.

The other study was by Snapp^-2 (1967) who developed a

modification of Flanders' Interaction Analysis for use in

lOGay Kirkwood, "Description of Categories for the

Classroom Music Analysis System," 6 Nov., 1972. (Typewrit­
ten. ) Enclosure, personal letter.

**Robert L. Erbes, "The Development of an Observational

System for the Analysis of Interaction in the Rehearsal of
Musical Organizations" (Ed.D. dissertation, University of
Illinois, 1972).

^2David W. Snapp, "A Study of the Accumulative Musical

and Verbal Behavior of Teachers and Students in Fifth Grade
Instrumental Music Classes" (M.A. thesis, The Ohio State
University, 1967).
 Table 2: The Rehearsal Interaction Observation System (Erbes)

Category Category
Number________________________________Description

1. Uses - Conductor uses, clarifies, or repeats ideas, performance,

behavior, or feelings suggested by the students.
Supportive

2. Encourages - Conductor encourages, praises, or accepts student

ideas, performance, or behavior.

3. Questions - Conductor questions with the intent that the student

Conductor
Behavior

respond. Questions may also occur in other teacher categories.

4. Informs - Conductor gives information, lectures, or states

opinions based on his own ideas or those other than the students.
Short responses to student questions and rhetorical questions are
included in #4.

5. *Demonstrates - A conductor demonstrates the manner in which an

act is or should be performed or accomplished. (Generally non­
Non-Supportive

verbal in nature).

6. Directs - Conductor directs or commands student with intent that

he comply.

7. Criticizes - Conductor criticizes, rejects, or challenges student

ideas, performance, behavior, or feelings.

8. Corrects - Conductor checks or corrects student ideas, performance

or behavior in an obvious manner.
Table 2: (Continued)

Responds - Student responds or questions in a manner structured

by the conductor.
Student

Initiates - Student initiates communication or questions in a

manner unstructured by the conductor.

11. Silence or Confusion - Periods in which verbal communication

cannot be understood. Constructive periods should be indicated
by 11+ and nonconstructive periods by 11-.

/ Denotes periods of group or individual performance.

*A Nonverbal Demonstration (x) - When demonstration by the conductor or

student Is nonverbal in nature, an "x" code should be added to Category
5. Demonstration of this type is an extension of verbal categories and
would include singing, whistling or other oral sounds, clapping, tap­
ping, or playing an instrument to illustrate an idea or opinion.
 31

elementary school music classes of instrumentalists. The

modification consisted of the addition of five musical be­

havior categories to Flanders' ten original categories.

From the category system modification given in Table 3, one

concludes that, while there were four student behavior cate­

gories rather than two, the system was designed to measure

a greater variety of teacher than student behaviors.

Snapp's study is apparently the first reported research

that used interaction analysis in music classes, and the

only one that used it in small performance classes. The

subjects, nine public school music teachers, made tape re­

cordings of at least three class sessions, which were later

analyzed by Snapp. Findings of special interest are shown

below.

1. The findings concerning the teacher praise

characteristic indicate that the subjects were
effective with their praise usage and tended
to praise student musical activities more them
student talk.
2. The findings concerning the teacher acceptance
or use of ideas of students characteristics
indicate that the subjects accepted or used
ideas of students largely in conjunction with
question-answer drills.
3. The findings concerning the teacher giving
directions characteristic indicate that tne
highest single form of teacher behavior was
giving directions— preceded by most forms of
classroom behavior and followed principally by
student musical activities . . .
4. The findings concerning the teacher criticism
characteristic indicate that only five per cent
of the interaction involved criticism. This
criticism generally was directed at some aspect
related to student musical activities and
TABLE 3: Description of Categories for the Modified System
of Interaction Analysis for Music Classes (Snapp)

Category
Number Description of Behavior
T 1. ACCEPTS FEELINGS: accepts and clarifies the
feelxng tone of the student in a nonthreat­
E ening manner. Feelings may be positive or
I negative, and expressed verbally or musical­
A ly. Predicting and recalling feelings are
N also included.
C
2. D PRAISES OR ENCOURAGES: praises or encour-
H ages student action or behavior. Jokes that
I release tension, not at the expense of an­
E other individual, nodding head or saying
R "uh-huh,r or "go on" are included.
R
3. E ACCEPTS OR USES IDEAS OF STUDENT: clarifying,
building, or developing ideas or suggestions
C of student or implied musical ideas as ex­
B pressed through student musical activities'.
T
E 4. ASKS QUESTIONS: asking a question about con­
tent or procedure with the intent that a
H student answer.

A
*5. MUSICAL ACTIVITIES: playing an instrument,
V D clapping/ singing7 tapping of foot, or any
other form of physical movement which dem­
I I onstrate elements pertinent to the music
process.
0 R
6. LECTURES: giving facts or opinions about
E content or procedure; expressing his own
R ideas; asking rhetorical questions.
7. C GIVES DIRECTIONS: directions, commands, or
orders with which students are expected to
comply.
8. CRITICIZES OR JUSTIFIES AUTHORITY: State-
ments intended to change student behavior
from a nonacceptable to an acceptable pat­
tern; "bawling out" someone; stating why the
teacher is doing what he is doing so as to
achieve or maintain control; rejecting or
criticizing a student's thought or deed.
 33

TABLE 3: (Continued)

Category
Number Description of Behavior

S STUDENT TALK-RESPONSE: talk by Students, in

T response to teacher. Teacher initiates the
T contact or solicits student's statement.
A
U 10 STUDENT TALK-INITIATION: talk by students,
L which they initiate. If "calling on" stu­
D dent is only to indicate who may talk next,
K observer must decide whether student wanted
E to talk. If he did, use this category

N
*lla. M INDIVIDUAL MUSICAL ACTIVITIES; those activ-
T ities undertaken by one student which in­
U volve some form of physical movement and are
pertinent to the process of making music,
S such as playing an instrument, clapping,
B singing, tapping of foot, etc.
I
E *llb. INDIVIDUAL MUSICAL ACTIVITIES-CONDUCTED:
C the same student activities as category 11a
H except that they are performed while the
A teacher is conducting.
A
*12a L GROUP MUSICAL ACTIVITIES: the same musical
V activities as category 11a except that a
group of students is involved.
I
*12b. GROUP MUSICAL ACTIVITIES-CONDUCTED; the
0 same musical activities as category 11a
except that a group of students performs
R while the teacher is conducting.

13. SILENCE OR CONFUSION: pauses, short periods

of silence, and periods of confusion in
which communication cannot be understood by
the observer.
 34

usually occurred after conducted musical activ­

ities, particularly those of individual stu­
dents .13
5. Teacher behavior made up approximately 58 per
cent of the tallies, and student behavior, approx­
imately 40 per cent.14

In a different approach to studying the teaching-

learning behaviors that take place in music classes, Daellen-

bach felt that before studying teachers and students with an

instrument, behaviors pertinent to music class teaching and

learning needed to be identified. He conducted two studies

to identify behaviors and to create observation instruments,

one focusing on teachers and the other, on students. In his

first study (1968), Daellenbach used video-tape recordings

of music teachers to "identify music teaching behaviors at

several instructional levels, several levels of teaching

experience, and in music teaching environments ranging from

studio to large group instruction." String, wind, percus­

sion, and vocal teaching were included.1'* The list of

teacher behaviors1** is as follows:

13Snapp, p. 92.

14Snapp, pp. 53, 93.

^ c . Charles Daellenbach, "An Investigation of the Use

of Videotape Recorder Techniques in the Identification of
Behavioral Characteristics of Music Teachers" (M.A. thesis,
Eastman School of Music of the University of Rochester,
1968), p. 6.

^Daellenbach, pp. 33, 34.

 35

I. Verbal behaviors

A. Directions or instructions
B. Information or teaching
C. Positive reinforcement
D. Negative reinforcement
E. Questioning
F. Disciplinary comments
G. Manneristic use of a word or phrase

II. Nonverbal behaviors

A. Directed motor behavior

B. Nondirected motor behavior
C. Random or impromptu mannerism
D. Patterned mannerism
E. Concentrated listening

III. Conducting behaviors

A. One-hand (patterns, tempo)

B. One-hand (interpretations)
C. Two-hand (patterns, tempo)
D. Two-hand (interpretations)

IV. Model behaviors

A. Playing (alone— solo model)

B. Singing (alone— solo model)
C. Playing (with student)
D. Singing (with student)
E. Baton or implement tapping
F. Foot beating
G. Clapping

After making a one-hour videotape recording of each sub­

ject, ten minutes of each tape was chosen randomly to use in

making a master tape. The master videotape was studied, and

from it the teaching behaviors which were observed were used

to form the List for Identification of Teacher Behaviors.

In 1970, Daellenbach made a similar study using video­

tape recordings to study music student behaviors. Seventeen

students were videotaped at two different lessons, and

 36

ten-minute samples from each taping were selected randomly

to form i 340-minute master tape. Students were chosen to

represent a wide range of age (pre-school to college), type

of medium (string, wind, percussion, and vocal performance),

and environment (private lesson to group rehearsal).

Several observers viewed many videotapes prior to

studying the master tape. Using these earlier tapes, the

observers categorized behaviors. These categories were then

used in classifying behaviors from the master tape. Seven

viewings of each ten-minute segment on the master tape were

required to code the behaviors. The Observable Performance

17
Learning Behavior Classificatxon Index was formulated:

TYPE I BEHAVIORS: VERBAL

A. Response Verbal Behaviors (Elicited)

1. Directed to Instructor
2. Directed to Another Student

B. Stimulus Verbal Behaviors (Emitted)

1. Directed to Instructor
a. Question
b . Statement
c. Interjection
2. Directed to Another Student
a. Question
b. Statement
c. Interjection

type iia BEHAVIORS: MOTOR (Performance and Nonperformance

Related)

A. Visual Contact
1. Directed toward Instructor

1?C. Charles Daellenbach, "Identification and Classifi­

cation of Music Learning Behaviors Utilizing Videotape Record­
ing Techniques" (Ph.D. dissertation, Eastman School of Music
of the University of Rochester, 1970), pp. 54, 55.
 2. Directed toward Another Student
3. Directed toward Music (Score) or Book
4. Directed to Musical Instrument
5. Other Directed
6. Nondirected (Random)

B. Arm and Hand Movement

1. Raised (Attention Seeking)
2. Directed to Music (Score) or Book
3. Directed to Musical Instrument
4. Other Directed
5. Nondirected (Random)

C. Fingers
1. Directed to Musical Instrument
2. Pointed to Printed Material
3. Other Directed
4. Nondirected (Random)

D. Paralinguistic Facial Expression

1. Positive (Pleasure)
2. Negative (Displeasure)

E. Body (Trunk) Position

1. Seated
2. Standing
3. Walking
a . Directed
b. Nondirected

TYPE IIB BEHAVIORS: MOTOR (Performance Related only)

A. Response Performance Behaviors (Elicited)

1. Performance Alone (Solo)
a. Initial
b. Subsequent (Adjustive Behaviors)
2. Performance with Instructor
a. Initial
b. Subsequent (Adjustive Behaviors)
3. Performance with Other Students
a. Initial
b. Subsequent (Adjustive Behaviors)

B. Stimulus Performance Behaviors (Emitted)

1. Performance Alone (Solo)
2. Performance with Instructor
2i Performance with Other Students

TYPE III BEHAVIORS: ATTENDING (Nonverbal)

A. Listening to Aural Behaviors

 38

1. Listening Directed to Instructor While He:

a. Verbalizes
b. Performs
2. Listening Directed to Other Student While He:
a. Verbalizes
b. Performs
3. Listening Directed to Recorded Stimulus

B. Attendance to Instructor's Motor Behaviors

(Nonperformance)

C. Attendance to Other Student's Motor Behaviors

D. Attendance to Nondirective Stimuli

Daellenbach concluded:

The recommendation for in-depth, long-term study

of the music teaching-learning interaction
process is supported by this study. Previous
research into music teaching behaviors by the
present writer, coupled to the present study in­
vestigating music learning behaviors, provide a
unified fundamental nonverbal interaction. The
present study was designed to consider the be­
havior of learners separate from specific teacher
behavior; in spite of this, interaction was im­
plied throughout from the kind of behaviors in evi­
dence— response ("to instructor" implied) or self­
initiated behaviors. It is important to continue
one step further to consider instructor activity
in relation to the responses elicited from the
learner and the reverse of this. The results of
that interaction wohld then be available for de­
tailed analysis: Stimulus Response •*-*■ Consequence.18

Despite Daellenbach's conclusion, it seems apparent

that the two sets of behaviors will not fit together to form

a unified interaction analysis system. For example, why are

the attending behaviors very important to the learner, but

not as important to the teacher, judging from the smaller

number of teacher attending categories? Why isn't visual

18Daellenbach, Identification, pp. 94, 95.

 39

contact with the class given on the teacher list/ if numbers

of eye movement categories are given for students?

Daellenbach used repeated viewings to categorize

behaviors. His system/ even if it could be converted into

an interaction system, would be difficult to use because of

its complexities, and because the videotaping process would

need to include both teacher and pupil(s). it was not his

purpose to deal with this problem, but Daellenbach's advan­

tages in using videotaping would be altered by the need for

encompassing a larger interaction situation.

To the best of the investigator's knowledge, the studies

just cited constitute the entire body of research using some

form of interaction analysis of music teaching-learning

processes. This investigator's primary interest is in

instrumental music classes. Only Snapp's study investigated

such classes, and it did not involve the use of a live ob­

server or of videotape. Therefore, it may be assumed that

the aural recording did not include those behaviors which may

have been non-verbal and non-musical. Examples could have

been silent fingering of instruments and nodding the head

"yes" or "no.”

From Snapp's research, the interaction in the instru­

mental music class does begin to emerge. The basic inter­

action seems to be directions given by the teacher, followed

by a student musical response. The teacher praises or

 40

criticizes the musical responses more than the verbal, which

are generally short answers to questions.

The investigator chose to study two areas. The first

was patterns of teacher-student behaviors, or how frequently

various behaviors were present in the instrumental music

class. It will be recalled that Nolin and Verrastro found

no significant differences in patterns of teaching by various

music teachers. Therefore, the intent was to learn whether

or not instrumental music teachers exhibit the same limited

number of teaching behaviors that has been reported in the

research reviewed above. The second area was that of ap­

praisal behaviors— praise, criticism, and acceptance of stu­

dent ideas. Some studies in fields other than music have

provided suggestions for improving the quality and quantity

of information about appraisal behaviors.

Studies Outside the Field of Music

In his book Teaching Behaviours and Student Achieve­

ment, Rosenshine has reviewed the research in studies of

correlation between teaching behaviors and student achieve­

ment. In some of the studies an interaction analysis system

was used to measure instructional behaviors, while in others,

various rating scales were used. In the chapter on teacher

approval and disapproval, Rosenshine comments on some as­

pects of the area which Hough and Duncan have called

appraisal behaviors in the OSIA. Speaking of the 42 studies

 41

summarized, Rosenshine says that

The reviev of research appears to indicate that

there is no evidence to support a claim that a
teacher should avoid telling a student that he
is wrong, or should avoid giving academic direc­
tions. However, teachers who use a great deal
of criticism appear consistently to have classes
who achieve less in most subject areas.

Rosenshine cites a 1965 study by Spaulding, who devel­

oped a category system which included a criticism category

with sub-categories of "teacher tone, technique, topic, and

the basis for disapproval."2® In discussing the results of

Spaulding's study, Rosenshine reports the finding that

tallying counts of approval is insufficient.

In that study 'total approval' did not load on

a component which was significantly related to
any achievement measure. But 'approval regard­
ing student's interpretation' and 'approval re­
garding pupil planning' each loaded positively
on a component which was significantly related
to reading growth . . . whereas 'approval' using
teacher-centered 'I' had a negative loading.21

Suggestions for other research have been given by

Rosenshine, based upon clues from the work of Spaulding and

others.

For example, it is possible that certain types

and topics of approval may be positively related
to achievement, and some forms of approval may be
negatively related to achievement. These ideas
remain to be studied. It is unfortunate that

1®Barak Rosenshine, Teaching Behaviours and Student

Achievement (London: National Foundation for Educational
Research in England and Wales, 1971), p. 61.

^ORosenshine, pp. 61-62.

2Rosenshine, p. 69.
 42

those investigators who used Interaction Analysis

did not inspect the correlation of cell frequen­
cies with achievement. One interesting variable
might be extended praise because such praise con­
tains a reason for the praise; another might be
praise in response to student-initiated questions.
• • •

Regarding the possibility of subscripting categories

to gain more specific data, Rosenshine comments that

One point made in the discussion of the results

on each counted behaviour was that specific
types of praise, use of student ideas, criticism,
or control yielded higher correlations than the
entire category. Unfortunately, there were too
few studies on these specific types to warrant
conclusions. However, there may be value in ex­
panding category systems to code specific forms
of criticism or praise. Such expansion could
focus on the intensity of the behaviour, the con­
text in which it occurred, and in the events
which preceded and followed the teacher behav­
iour .22

None of the observation instruments previously used in

studies of music classes seemed to the writer capable of

producing the desired results. That is, none seemed to lend

itself to recording all of the activities of both teachers

and students in instrumental music classes and, at the same

time, to be adaptable for the types of extensions which

Rosenshine suggests for future research. Neither did other

interaction analyses systems used in other fields.

For reasons stated below, the system which appeared

most likely to be easily adapted without becoming too

2 2 Rosenshine, p. 69.

2 2 Rosenshine, p. 84.
 43

complicated to use was the most recent system developed by

John B. Hough and James K. Duncan.

The Observational System for Instructional Analysis

The Observational System for Instructional Analysis

(OSIA) developed by Hough and Duncan contains eleven basic

categories, five of which are appraisal categories. The

remainder lend themselves to the other verbal and to the

musical behaviors of the instrumental class. The eleven

basic categories are as follows:

Soliciting Clarification
Responding
Initiating
Soliciting
Judging Incorrectness
Judging Correctness
Acknowledging
Personal Positive Judging
Personal Negative Judging
Reflecting-Manipulating
Instructionally Nonfunctional

The OSIA was chosen because it is not linked primarily

to the one-value approach begun by Withall and Flanders,

wherein the concepts of indirect-direct or teacher-centered

versus learner-centered classrooms were the primary concern.

An instrument was desired which had benefited from these

forerunners, but which would offer much greater possibili­

ties for obtaining data about both teacher and student

behaviors. One can attach values to the OSIA categories,

but they are not intrinsically linked to a classroom climate

concept.
 44

For the sake of comparison/ the basic Flanders system,

the Snapp modification, and the basic OSIA have been in­

cluded in this chapter. The Flanders FIAC has two student

behavior categories. Snapp*s modification provides four

additional student behavior categories for musical activi­

ties. Nonetheless, there are only the two original Flanders

categories for analyzing student verbal behaviors. One of

the chief differences between the first two and the OSIA is

that the latter allows for the possibility of designating

any of the behaviors "Teacher” or "Student."

Also, using the OSIA, a student evaluation of his own

or another's performance would be categorized appropriately

as one of the appraisal behaviors. Under either of the

first two systems, it would fall under one of the blanket

headings student response or initiation. In the OSIA, the

teacher's complimentary remark would fall under one of two

headings, rather than a single category. The same is true

for a critical comment.

Even though the OSIA was designed to be adaptable for

many types of classes through its use of the reflective-

manipulative category, it did not appear to be adequate for

recording a variety of musical and physical behaviors with­

out modification. The modifications which were made as the

prime purpose of this study are described in Chapter III,

with the rationale for the changes.

 Summary

Seven studies have been reported that were directly

related to the present study or were tangential to it. The

five studies that used an interaction analysis system were

evaluated and their inadequacies for the purposes of this

study explained.

Research from outside the field of music was cited as

it related to problems of expanding interaction analysis

systems to include more appraisal information categories.

The Observational System for Instructional Analysis

was introduced and reasons given for its appropriateness

for this investigation.

 CHAPTER III

PROCEDURES

Introduction

The procedures used in the development of the inter­

action analysis system modification will be discussed in

this chapter, and the use of the system explained. Proce­

dures included in the latter were the selection of student

teachers whose classes met the requirements of the study,

the selection and training of observers, the making of fifty-

four observations, the checking of inter-observer agreement,

the analysis of the data, and establishing validity of the

modified system.

Developing Category Modifications

The categories of the OSIA were modified for use in

small instrumental music classes. To account for special

cases of behaviors not already included in the OSIA as

separate categories, the process of subscripting was used.

For the purposes of interaction analysis, subscripting con­

sists of dividing a category into additional categories.^-

*Ned A. Flanders, Analyzing Teaching Behavior (Reading,

Mass., Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1970), pp. 126-139.

46
 47

As the investigation proceeded, the observers found it

quicker to record subscript letters on the same level as

the code number, so that S2M , for example, became S2M.

Following the sequence of the OSIA (see Table 5), each

category is presented below and the modifications are dis­

cussed.

Soliciting Clarification.— No reason was found for

changing this category.

Responding.— Because responses in an instrumental music

class might be physical or musical (in addition to being

verbal), the subscripts "M" (musical) and "P" (physical)

were added to the category. Responses which produced a

tonal or rhythmical sound were considered musical, and other

nonverbal responses were considered physical. For example,

the clapping of a rhythmic pattern was considered to be a

musical response, and the silent fingering of pitches a

physical response.

Because an instrumental music class by definition

involves the use of musical instruments, it appeared logical

to make some provision for the ways in which instruments are

used in such classes. The investigator and the observers,

in the course of field-testing and learning to use the sys­

tem, found the M and P subscripts adequate for coding be­

haviors in which musical instruments were involved.

Initiating.— Because initiating behaviors might be

physical or musical (in addition to being verbal), the

 48

subscripts "M" (musical) and "P" (physical) were added to

the category. Demonstrations by the teacher, when they were

not responses to student behaviors, fell into this category.

The demonstration might be physical or musical.

Soliciting.— Because soliciting behaviors might be

physical or musical (in addition to being verbal), the sub­

scripts "M" (musical) and "P" (physical) were added to the

category. Physical solicitations would include fingering

or holding an instrument with the expectation that students

would respond in some way such as imitation. Musical solic­

itations would include the playing of an introduction on the

piano, with the expectation that students would begin play­

ing at the correct time. The teacher would also be using a

musical solicitation when playing a pitch and expecting

students to imitate that pitch.

Appraisal Categories.— Except for "acknowledging," the

five appraisal categories (judging incorrectness or correct­

ness, acknowledging, and personal positive or negative

judging), were the categories expanded most through sub­

scripting. Acknowledging— the indication that some person,

product, or behavior has been perceived, but not judged—

appeared to require no modification or expansion.

However, it was felt that there could be a variety of

ways of rendering judgments, and that subscripting these

 49

categories would be productive.2 In an attempt to devise

subscripts that would include the gamut of possible ap­

praisal behaviors, the following procedures were used

During the first week of the Spring Quarter, 1 9 " , the

26 student teachers of instrumental music and seven super­

vising teachers were asked to respond to 25 classroom

incidents.3 These incidents were described by the writer

in written form, with space left for a brief response, to

be given in the actual words of the respondent. The situ­

ations described were drawn from the writer's own experience

as a teacher of instrumental music and observer of student

teachers and experienced teachers. They were designed to

draw from the respondent some type of appraisal reaction.

Nineteen of the forms were completed and returned in time

for use.4

Using the student teachers' responses, subscripts of

the four judging categories were made. Any of the sub­

scripts could be applied to student or teacher judgments.

In order to decide which of the subscripts, if any, to use,

the observer had to ask the question, "In what manner did the

person make an appraisal or judgment?" If the teacher gave

2Barak Rosenshine, Teaching Behaviours and Student

Achievement (London, National Foundation for Educational
Research in England and Wales, 1971), p. 69.

3see Appendix A.

4See Appendix B.
 50
t

a reason for his judgment, the subscript "RM (reason) was

used. If the teacher exaggerated his appraisal, the sub­

script "H" (hyperbole) was used. If the teacher was ironic,

saying the opposite of what he really meant, the subscript

"I" (irony) was used. If the teacher was sarcastic, using

appraisal in a harsh and destructive way, the subscript

"N" (negative) was used.

Although the sarcastic person might exaggerate or say

the opposite of what he meant, the categories of hyperbole

and irony were considered non-destructive or positive, and,

perhaps, humorous. If the behavior was clearly destructive

or harsh, the sarcastic category was used.

For a better understanding of the difference between

irony and sarcasm, we referred to the following discussion

of this point in the Random House Dictionary of the English

Language;

IRONY, SARCASM, SATIRE indicate mockery of some­

thing or someone. The essential feature of
IRONY is the indirect presentation of a contra­
diction between an action or expression and the
context in which it occurrs. In the figure of
speech, emphasis is placed on the opposition of
the literal and intended meaning of a statement;
one thing is said and its opposite implied, as
in the comment, "Beautiful weather, isn't it?"
made when it is raining or nasty. . . . IRONY
differs from SARCASM in greater subtlety and wit.
In SARCASM ridicule or mockery is used harshly,
often crudely and contemptuously, for destruc­
tive purposes. It may be used in an indirect
manner, and have the form of irony, as in "What
a fine musician you turned out to bel" or it may
be used in the form of a direct statement, "You
couldn't play one piece correctly if you had two
 51

assistants." The distinctive quality of SARCASM

is present in the spoken word and manifested
chiefly by vocal inflection, whereas SATIRE and
IRONY, arising originally as literary and rhet­
orical forms, are exhibited in the organization
or structuring of either language or literary
material.5

Adding subscripts obviously increases the complexity

of an interaction analysis system. To reduce the number of

categories, the substantive-managerial distinctions of the

OSIA were omitted. It was felt that much of the verbal

behavior that would be considered managerial in the non­

music classroom would be less so in the instrumental music

class. For example, the adjustment of physical equipment

affecting posture and hand position for playing an instru­

ment is part of the learning of performance techniques.

Learning how to get set to learn is an integral part of the

instructional situation in instrumental music classes. Thus

the managerial behavior merges with the instructional.

The distinction between spoken and unspoken responding

and initiation behaviors was also deleted. Because many

unspoken behaviors in the instrumental music class can be

subscripted as musical or physical, other unspoken behaviors

were left undifferentiated. As in the OSIA, the appraisal

behavior categories include either spoken or unspoken

behaviors.

5jess Stein, E d . , The Random House Dictionary of the

English Language (New York, Random House, 1967), p. 753.
 52

The "Reflecting-Manipulating" category of the OSIA was

replaced with a "Silent Reflection" category. Because

manipulating is represented by musical and physical sub­

scripts for categories, the manipulating term was not needed.

The silence that may occur while students or teachers re­

flect or pause before responding needed to be accounted for.

The designation "Silent Reflection" was used for this mean­

ingful type of silence. Silence during which one could not

assume that reflection was taking place would fall under

the instructionally nonfunctional category.

The "Instructionally Nonfunctional" designation would

encompass behaviors totally unrelated to the teaching situ­

ation. Examples include (1) silence during which the teacher

was checking the class roll, (2) an interruption by a visi­

tor to the class, (3) confusion caused by several class

members playing their instruments while the teacher was not

directing the activities of the class, and (4) inability of

the observer to hear and categorize behavior because of

noise or confusion from within or without the class.

Musical Direction.— If the teacher or a student con­

ducted the class in some way, this category was used. It is

the one completely new category added to the OSIA. It

included conducting with a baton or hand, beating time with

an implement or with the hands or feet, and verbally count­

ing time or singing. Directing the class through the use

of a musical instrument would also fall into this category.

 53

Teacher Error.— This category could be called a new

category, as it is not found in the OSIA, but it involves

the categories already available. If the teacher made an

error in any behavior 1-10, which was apparent to the

observer, the symbol for the behavior which was erroneous

would be encircled by the observer. Note that this category

is the only one intended for teacher behaviors only.

Interaction Separation Designation.— The Interaction

Separation Designation (Y) used is the same as that of the

OSIA. Hough and Duncan have pointed out that this designa­

tion may be used to show interaction between two different

students with no teacher intervention, and it may also be

used to show interaction between two teachers with no stu­

dent intervention.® Because this study involved student

teachers and their classes, a supervising or cooperating

teacher was sometimes present when the class was being

observed. Therefore, there were several instances in which

the separation designation was used between two teacher

behaviors.

Prefixes.— The Prefixes "T" or "S" are used to indicate

that a behavior was performed by a teacher (T) or by a stu­

dent (S). These prefixes may be used with any of the cate­

gories of the system except "Teacher Error," for which it is

obvious that only the teacher would be involved.

®See OSIA definitions, Chapter III, p. 54.

 54

The modified system, with code numbers and symbols is

as shown in Table 4. On the following pages, the original

(1972) system is shown, with category definitions (see

Table 5). Definitions of the category modifications (sub­

scripts and additions) made in this study are given below.

OSIA Category Definitions

Soliciting Clarification.— Any manifest nonappraisal behav­

ior (spoken and/or unspoken) that evokes or is intended to
evoke from another person the fuller meaning of an ante­
cedent behavior of that other person or a product of his
behavior. The antecedent behavior may have involved ex­
pressions of knowledge, expressions of feeling states or
value preferences, and/or expressions through motor behav­
ior. The behavior intended to evoke the fuller meaning may
be in the form of a question, direction, or suggestion.

Responding.— Any spoken, nonappraisal behavior that responds

substantively or managerially to an element in the instruc­
tional situation (i.e., the antecedent behavior of self or
another or an instructional artifact(s)). The responding
behavior may be a spoken expression of knowledge, and/or
an expression of a feeling state or value preference.

Initiating.— Any spoken, nonappraisal behavior that presents

substantive or managerial information to another or others.
The initiating behavior may be a spoken expression of knowl­
edge and/or an expression of feeling states or value pref­
erences.

Soliciting.— Any manifest (spoken and/or unspoken) non-

appralsal behavior that evokes or is clearly intended to
evoke substantive and/or managerial behavior from another
person in the instructional situation. Specifically exclud­
ed here are those behaviors which fall in the category of
soliciting clarification. The soliciting behaviors may be
expressions of knowledge, expressions of feeling states or
value preferences, or expressions through motor behavior.

Judging Incorrectness.— Any manifest (spoken and/or un­

spoken) behavior that responds or reacts to an antecedent
behavior of the self or another or to a product of such
behavior appearing in the instructional situation by judg­
ing the behavior or the product of behavior to have been
 55

TABLE 4: Modified OSIA

Categories

1. Soliciting Clarification
2. Responding
3. Initiating
4. Soliciting
5. Judging Incorrect
6. Judging Correct
7. Acknowledging
8. Personal Positive Judging
9. Personal Negative Judging
10. Musical Direction
X Instructionally Nonfunctional
0 Silent Reflection

Interaction Separation Designation

Y Interaction Separation Designation

Prefixes Used in Conjunction with Categories

T Teacher 1, 2, 3, 4 , 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
S Student 1, 2 , 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 , 9, 10

Subscripts Used in Conjunction with Categories:

M Musical 2, 3/ 4
P Physical 2, 3, 4
R Gave a Reason 5, 6, 8, 9
H Hyperbole 5, 6, 8, 9
I Irony 5, 6, 8, 9
N Sarcasm 5, 6, 8, 9

Teacher Error
Designation Used in Conjunction with Categories:

Teacher Errora 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 , 7, 8, 9, 10

aCoding is circle around appropriate number.

 56

TABLE 5: The Observational System for Instrucational

Analysis

a b
Code® Category Type Code

T1 Soliciting Clarification (Substantive) SI

T2 Responding (Substantive) S2
T3 Initiating (Substantive) S3
T4 Soliciting (Substantive) S4
T5 Judging Incorrectness (Appraisal) S5
T6 Judging Correctness (Appraisal) S6
T7 Acknowledging (Appraisal) S7
T8 Personal Positive Judging (Appraisal) S8
T9 Personal Negative Judging (Appraisal) S9
T10 Soliciting Clarification (Managerial) S10
Til Responding (Managerial) Sll
T12 Initiating (Managerial) S12
T13 Soliciting (Managerial) S13
T14 Unspoken Responding (Substantive) S14
T15 Unspoken Initiating (Substantive) S15
T16 Reflecting-Manipulating (Substantive) S16
T17 Unspoken Responding (Managerial) S17
T18 Unspoken Initiating (Managerial) S18
T19 Reflecting-Manipulating (Managerial) S19

X Instructionally Nonfunctional X
Y Interaction Separation Designation Y

aTeacher Code.

^Student Code.
 57

logically, empirically, or normatively incorrect in some

degree. Publically accepted criteria are invoked or could
be invoked to support the judgment.

Judging Correctness.— Any manifest (spoken and/or unspoken)

behavior that responds or reacts to an antecedent behavior
of the self or another or to a product of such behavior ap­
pearing in the instructional situation by judging the
behavior or the product of behavior to have been logically,
empirically, or normatively correct in some degree. Pub­
lically accepted criteria are invoked or could be invoked
to support the judgment.

Acknowledging.— Any manifest (spoken and/or unspoken) be-

havior that responds or reacts to a person (self or other),
an antecedent behavior of the self, or of another, or to a
product of such behavior appearing in the instructional
situation by acknowledging the person, behavior, or prod­
uct in ways that indicate that the person, behavior, or
product has been perceived. No judgment is expressed.

Personal Positive Judging.— Any manifest behavior (spoken

and/or unspoken) tha t re spond s or reacts to a person (self
or another), an antecedent behavior of the self or another,
or to a product of such behavior appearing in the instruc­
tional situation by expressing a personal, positive judg­
ment about the person, behavior or product of behavior.
The criteria for making the judgment are personal and arise
from the feeling states or value preferences of the person
doing the judging.

Personal Negative Judging.— Any manifest behavior (spoken

and/or unspoken) that responds or reacts to a person (self
or another), an antecedent behavior of the self or another,
or to a product of such behavior by expressing a personal,
negative judgment about the person, behavior or product of
behavior. The criteria for making the judgment are per­
sonal and arise from the feeling states or value preferences
of the person doing the judging.

Numbers 10-18 are categories previously defined, except that

spoken behaviors (Nos. 2, 3) are now unspoken, and cate­
gories which were substantive in nature (Nos. 1-4, 14-16)
are now managerial.

Substantive Behavior.— Any manifest behavior that is di-

rectly associated with facilitating the attainment of new
learnings or sustaining or extinguishing prior learnings
that are considered by those in the instructional situation
to be a legitimate part of the subject matter of the field
under study.
 58

Managerial Behavior.— Any manifest, non-appraising behavior

that is directly associated with creating nonsubstantive
conditions that facilitate the attainment of new learnings
or sustaining or extinguishing prior learnings. The cre­
ation of such conditions may involve: (1) attaining, sus­
taining or extinguishing non-substantive learnings (i.e.,
learnings not directly related to the subject matter of the
field under study) that are considered pre-conditions to
the attainment of new learnings or the sustaining or'ex­
tinguishing of prior learnings; (2) the activating, direct­
ing, redirecting or terminating previously learned non­
substantive behavior in such a way as to influence a per­
son to be set to learn.

Reflecting-Manipulating.— Any manifest (spoken and/or un­

spoken) , nonappraisal behavior that involves a person sub­
stantively or managerially with himself, an instructional
artifact and/or with other(s) being treated as an arti­
fact (s). When the person is involved’ in the reflecting-
manipulating behavior there is either clear evidence or a
reasonable presumption that the person is dealing with sub­
stantive or managerial content that involves knowledge,
motor behavior, and/or states of feeling or value preference.

M (Musical) Subscript.— Any responding, initiating, or solic­

iting behavior involving pitched or rhythmic sounds. Pitched
sounds include performance on an instrument of single tones
or sequences of tones, and performances by singing, humming,
or whistling of single tones or sequences of tones.

P (Physical) Subscript.— Any responding, initiating, or

soliciting behavior Involving physical motions that are part
of instrumental performance technique, but are used separ­
ately from the actual production of pitched or rhythmical
sounds. Body movement pertinent to posture, holding an
instrument, finger or hand position, breathing for playing
a wind instrument, and embouchure formation fall into this
category. (The term "embouchure" refers to the placement
of the lips, teeth, and facial muscles involved in playing
wind instrument.)

R (Reason) Subscript.— Any judgment behavior for which a

reason was given with the judgment. Teacher or student
justifications for their judgments are included.

H (Hyperbole) Subscript.— Any judgment which is made through

the use of exaggeration, without harsh or destructive in­
tent. Highly figurative language and the stretching of the
truth fall into this category.
 59

I (Irony) Subscript.— Any judgment in which the speaker

says the opposite of what he means in a gentle, perhaps
witty or amusing, way clearly without harsh or destructive
intent.

N (Sarcasm) Subscript.— Any judgment in which ridicule,

mockery, or irony is used in an intentionally harsh or des­
tructive manner. This category includes the showing of
contempt through the harshness of the language used or
through vocal inflection.

Category 10 (Musical Direction).— Any conducting activity

designed to cause the class to respond in a musical or
physical manner as these terms have been defined previously.
This category includes the use of the hands, the voice, or
an implement in such a way that the class is expected to
follow the instructions being given regarding musical or
physical performance. Verbal counting of time, singing,
beating time with the foot or with a baton or other imple­
ment are included.

Teacher Error.--Any category prefixed as being a teacher

Behavior that the observer recognizes as having been er­
roneous. This category includes errors obvious to the
observer, whether or not they are obvious to the teacher
or class being observed.

Field-Testing the OSIA Modification

So that the feasibility of using the OSIA modifica­

tion could be established, the system was tried by the

investigator in several actual teaching situations similar

to those planned for the study. One purpose of these ob­

servations was the planning of training materials for other

observers. In effect, the field testing allowed the inves­

tigator to teach herself the use of the system. Then, using

this experience, she was able to plan suitable, helpful ways

of teaching the system to the other observers.

Prior to observing a class, the investigator had

studied the OSIA material and had used the training kit of
 60

tape recordings and typescripts, one coded for reference and

one uncoded for practice. However, she deliberately avoided

thorough familiarity with the OSIA so as to minimize pro­

active inhibition in learning the modified system.

Practice tapes were made of three instrumental music

classes. Two were of instrumental classes at The Ohio State

University— one brass and one woodwind. These were for

music majors having little or no experience with the instru­

ments being studied. A third recording was made in an ele­

mentary school with a student teacher and four flutists in

a sixth grade class.

In learning to use an interaction analysis system, one

expects to practice categorizing behaviors rapidly, and to

use the tape recorded material, which can be replayed at

will, in addition to live interaction. The brass class tape

was found unusable for the investigator's practice because

the rather loud brass sounds masked the teacher's comments,

which were made often while the class continued playing.

Sections of the other two tapes were extracted to make a

training tape, the selections being based on the variety of

behaviors present. The investigator also made an accompany­

ing typescript from this material.

This training material was used by the investigator for

part of her self-instruction. During the recording of the

three classes, the investigator practiced using the obser­

vation system for a total of approximately two hours. Also,

 61

these recording sessions provided the investigator with

practice in using the tape recorder. The best position for

the observer seemed to be behind the class with the micro­

phone facing the teacher. The observer was not in constant

view of the students, and the tape recorder could almost

certainly pick up the teacher's comments. Because the

microphone was quite sensitive, there was no problem in

recording students unless the playing of instruments covered

the verbal sounds.

The original plan had been to use two microphones— one

to record the class interaction, both musical and verbal,

and a second on an extended cord for the observer to u s e .

It was thought that the observer could speak softly into

this microphone, recording non-verbal behaviors, while cod­

ing other behaviors on an observation sheet. A stereo tape

recorder had been provided with equipment designed to keep

the two channels separated. In practice, the small class­

rooms prevented the observer from achieving the distance

needed to keep the channels separated. Even had this separ­

ation been achieved, so that one could later hear either

channel with complete clarity, it was doubtful to the inves­

tigator that the simultaneous written coding and verbal

recording of nonverbal behaviors could be done very easily.

The complexity of the system made observation difficult, even

without the added measure. The original plan was discarded

as the result of the field trials. Instead, the stereo

 62

recorder was used with a single stereo microphone for re­

cording musical and verbal behaviors. Nonverbal behaviors

had to be included in the written coding.

The investigator felt that the ideal means of observing

would be the combined use of live observer and video-taping.

The cost of video-taping was prohibitive and the use of a

live observer and audio-taping was felt to be the next most

satisfactory method, and the one used in the study. In the

Snapp investigation, no live observer was used. Having only

an observer and no recording was considered a disadvantage,

but Snapp seems not to have considered both the observer and

the recording. He felt that with the tape coded later

all questionable interaction could be reobserved;

second, tabulation regularity could be judicious­
ly controlled and, thus, not be influenced by
class tempo— either verbal or musical. The ob­
vious disadvantage was that the observer would
not "see" the classroom setting and, therefore,
not sense completely the prevailing classroom
atmosphere. Not being influenced by the class­
room atmosphere, however, can be advantageous;
because there would be fewer distractions, possi­
bly more accurate tabulations could be made. . .
Presence of the tape recorder in the classroom
was not felt to have much effect on the students'
behavior. In fact, casual observations indicated
that the tape recorder tended to have less effect
than the presence of an observer would have had.7

In the present study it was assumed that the live ob­

server could obtain non-audible material otherwise lost. The

David W. Snapp, "A Study of the Accumulative Musical

and Verbal Behavior of Teachers and Students in Fifth Grade
Instrumental Music Classes" (M.A. thesis, The Ohio State
University, 1967), pp. 25-6.
 63

observer could refer to her tape recording for later clari­

fication, filling an omission, or verifying a categoriza­

tion.

The classes were accustomed to student teachers being

observed by supervisors. When the recording and coding was

being done, students were told by the student teacher that

the observer was studying his teaching procedures, not the

musical performance of the class. It seemed to the inves­

tigator that any effect which the recording may have had on

the class behavior was offset by the additional data which

could be obtained. Also, the distractions to the observer

by being physically present in the classroom were compen­

sated for by the availability of the recording for re­

checking, if necessary.

Had video-taping been used, the observer would have

required a second person to operate the camera, and dis­

traction of the students may have been more severe than

with audio-taping and one observer.

In actually coding behaviors, the investigator made

some ground rules, some of which were supplemented during

the training of the two other observers. In the Flanders

system, there is a three-second rule, and in the OSIA, a

five-second rule. That is, whenever behavior changes, these

changes are coded, no matter how fast the changes take

place. However, if a behavior is sustained, repeated re­

cordings of that behavior are made at five-second intervals.

 64

The five-second rule was used in this study, because the

investigator assumed that the playing of a complete song or

exercise could result in sustained behavior for as long as

a minute or more. Therefore, the five-second rule seemed

more useful than the three-second rule. TO keep track of

five-second periods readily, a stopwatch with five-second

numberings was used.

The investigator did not become proficient in using

the system during the time of field testing. Instead, she

continued to practice and to discuss problems with the ob­

servers during their training period, so that other ground

rules were made with their help (see pp. 70, 71).

Using the Modified OSIA

Following the modification and field trial of the OSIA

by the investigator, the new system was taught to two other

observers, and, finally, used by the three observers to study

a group of instrumental music classes. Before and after

these observations, inter-observer reliability checks had to

be made, with the three observers in the same classroom.

A schedule was planned for accomplishing these tasks

within the ten weeks of the Spring Quarter, 1972. It was

as follows:

1st Week— Select observers. Complete develop­

ment of the conceptual basis for the
categories of the observational system.
 65

2nd Week— Obtain student teacher schedules. Com­

plete category definitions, revise the
observation system, and field test it.

3rd Week— Select student teachers from schedule

availability and devise an observation
schedule. Prepare final revision of
the observation system. Prepare train­
ing material.

4th,5th,
6th Weeks— Train observers to acceptable agreement
level. Try to average ten hours of train­
ing per week.

7th Week— Establish pre-observation inter-observer

agreement. Begin observations of
student teachers.

8th,9th
10th Weeks— Observe each of sixteen student teachers
four times, thirty minutes per observa­
tion. During the last week, establish
post-observation inter-observer agreement.

Selecting Observers

Two observers in addition to the investigator were used

in the study. Two graduate students in music education, both

instrumentalists, were asked to participate. Their consid­

erable teaching experience and their access to the student

teachers whom they were supervising made them particularly

appropriate choices. This selection also resulted in having

a stringed instrument specialist observing the teaching of

string classes only, and the two wind instrument special­

ists observing wind instrument classes primarily.

None of the observers, including the investigator, had

had any experience in the use of an interaction analysis

system. The observers were given the OSIA description and

 66

introductory material prepared by Hough and Duncan, but

they were forewarned that this system would be modified be­

fore their use of it.

Because the investigator and the two observers chosen

were serving as student teacher supervisors for The Ohio

State University, there was no need for seeking permission

to visit classes in the schools of Columbus, Ohio and

Franklin County.

Selecting Student Teachers

During a meeting at the beginning of the Spring Quar­

ter, all of the instrumental student teachers were asked to

provide schedules of their small classes and the number of

students in each class. Twenty students or less was consid­

ered a small class. It was hoped that sixteen teachers could

be selected, using availability as the only criterion. That

is, each observer would choose from the assigned student

teachers those whose schedules contained small instrumental

classes. Some student teachers were discounted because they

were teaching no such classes, and one was omitted because

scheduling at the school involved was too irregular to pro­

vide definite observation times in advance.

Sixteen teachers were found who met the requirements of

the study, and they were apportioned as follows: the inves­

tigator had seven student teachers; another observer had

four; and the other, five. However, two of the investiga-

 67

gator's student teachers were dropped from the study. One

could not be rescheduled for observation following unfore­

seen cancellation of some of his classes for an assembly,

and the other could not be rescheduled after the observed

classes were of too short duration. Therefore, fourteen

student teachers were observed, four times each, for a total

of fifty-six observations.

Training the Observers

Not only did the group of three observers work to­

gether to solve problems related to learning and using the

system, but another graduate student in education was con­

sulted because of his experience in the training of observers.

He helped the investigator to resolve problems of categor­

izing behaviors and met with the three observers to discuss

a portion of a training tape. He also clarified the timing

process used in coding. These two problems were the chief

problems encountered in training.

Although the schedule called for three weeks of train­

ing, the unexpected absence of one observer for a week (the

fourth of the Quarter) reduced this period to two weeks.

The group met for an hour or more daily for the first week.

This time was spent discussing category definitions, the

coding process, and timing procedures. Then the observers

were provided with training tapes and matching typescripts.

They were used independently by each observer and the

 68

results discussed at the next meetings. Where coding was

different for the three observers, the reason for the choice

of a category was discussed and the errors pointed out.

During the second week, the investigator made written exam­

ples of verbal behaviors that had been found difficult to

categorize, and the three observers drilled each other in

responding to these.

During both weeks of training, the trainees also did

some brief live coding without taping. At the next group

meeting, problems of process or categorization arising from

these individual experiences were discussed.

Also during this time of using the practive tapes, the

observers had ample time to become familiar with the oper­

ation of the tape recorder and stopwatches. Some unused

tape remained on the training tape so that practice record­

ings could be made if desired.

Making Classroom Observations

The observers made their own schedules, and the student

teachers were informed ahead of time about the planned

observations. Although it could be argued that prior knowl­

edge of these times may have affected the teaching behav­

iors for these classes, the teachers had been observed by

the supervising teachers and cooperating teachers earlier, so

that these particular observations were not the first ones

experienced by the student teachers.

 69

It should be noted that prior scheduling was necessary,

despite its possible effect, because of scheduling problems

peculiar to the instrumental music classes. For example,

near the end of the school year, small classes may be com­

bined into large ensembles for the preparation of a Spring

concert. Scheduling had to be done with such things in mind.

Concert preparation sometimes meant that even though the

class remained a small unit, the cooperating teacher took

over its direction for a time.

Other deviations from schedules involved the disband­

ing of the small classes after a final concert but before the

school year had ended. A fire drill, absenteeism which re­

duced a very small class to a private lesson, and classes cut

short by assemblies were other problems encountered in the

study.

In making observations, it was felt that if the class

changed at the end of a thirty-minute period, the two con­

secutive classes could be observed. Had a teacher taught one

group of students for an hour, this class could not have been

used for two thirty-minute observations. If the teacher had

three or four consecutive thirty-minute classes, it would

have been possible, theoretically, to have completed that

teacher's observations readily. In practice, however, the

high degree of concentration required to do the coding was

found to be fatiguing. After two consecutive sessions, the

observers found that the level of concentration was difficult

 70

to maintain. Therefore, no more than two sessions of the

four per teacher were recorded in immediate sequence.

The actual number of tallies for a session varied

somewhat because a class scheduled for thirty minutes may,

for example, have had five minutes used in assembling and

disassembling instruments. If the teacher did not consider

this time as part of the class and interact with the stu­

dents, the class session was only twenty-five minutes long.

Inter-Observer Agreement

At the beginning of the seventh week of the quarter, a

reliability check was made. All three observers visited a

class of elementary school instrumentalists and the results

of the observations were studied for inter-observer agreement.

The Scott formula Pi = was used, where Pi is the

1-Pe
coefficient of agreement, Po is the proportion of agreement,

and Pe is the proportion of agreement expected by chance.

Pe is found by squaring the proportion of tallies in each

category and summing these over all categories.8

Table 6 shows the coefficients of agreement for the

first check. There was agreement between observer A and

observer C. Observer B was not in close agreement with A

and C. A difference in the method of keeping track of five-

8Ned A. Flanders, "The Problem of Observer Training and

Reliability," in Interaction Analysis; Theory, Research, and
Application, eds. Edmund J. Amidon and John B. Hough (Read­
ing , Mass., Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1967), pp. 158-
166.
 71

second periods was found to account for some disagreement.

A and C were not waiting a full five seconds before tallying

sustained behavior periods. B's method was more accurate

and was afterwards adopted by all. Other points of differ­

ence were discussed regarding categorization decisions,

which had caused most of the discrepancy between observa­

tions.

Table 6: Coefficients of Interobserver

Agreement for First Check

Observer
Observer B C

A .6490 .9322

B .6401

Because the goal of achieving agreement of .80 or better

had not been reached, a second check was made between Ob­

server A and Observer B. In this check, the agreement was

.8226. The changes in method that were necessary for the

observers to be in closer agreement had been made easily.

Following the gathering of data in the fifty-six obser­

vations, a third agreement check was made during the tenth

week of the quarter. In this instance, the standard of

agreement was achieved by Observer A with B, and by Observer

B with C. The failure of Observer A and C to agree at the

.80 level was discussed by the investigator and the two

other observers. Table 7 shows the results of the third

agreement check. An analysis follows.

TABLE 7: Coefficients of Agreement for

Third Check— Live

Observer
Observer B C ’"

A .8425 .7342

B .8232

To find the areas of discrepancy between two observers

the table used with the Scott formula is helpful. By con­

sulting it, the categories that have the largest differences

can be located. Table 8 indicates the percentages of the

categories for Observer One and Observer Three.

The largest differences occur in categories 3, 4, 9,

and 10. In discussing these differences afterward, the

observers agreed that the conditions under which the data

had been gathered contributed to the discrepancies. The

teacher being observed was teaching in a school auditorium

with the class members seated in the stage area. Rather than

being in a semi-circle, they were seated in lines opposite

each other, woodwinds on one side, and brasses on the other.

This arrangement made it necessary for the teacher to move

first from one side of the stage area to the other in order

to help individual students. When the teacher was on one

side of the area, students on the other would talk or play

Table 8: Comparison between Behavior Percentages by Category for Observers A
and C for Inter-Observer Agreement Check Three— Live

Percentages by Category
Observer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 X

A .0188 .3761 .0282 .3197 .0156 .0188 .0219 .0125 .0125 .1724 .0031

C 0 .3597 .0495 .2904 .0033 .0033 .0165 .0165 .0594 .1947 0

Diff,a .0188 .0164 .0213 .0293 .0123 .0089 .0054 .0040 .0469 .0223 .0031

aDifference in percentage between observers per category.

 74

softly, making it difficult for the observers to understand

what type of interchange was taking place between the teach­

er and an individual student. Although it was obvious that

some interaction relevant to the lesson was occurring, it

was impossible for all observers to categorize the behaviors

accurately. Therefore, the observer seated closer to the

teacher's location could make accurate categorizations, but

the observer farthest away could not always do so. Obser­

ver A, for example, might hear and see that a student

response to a teacher question was a personal negative

judgment (9), whereas Observer C might only know that a

response was made and code it as a response (2).

In addition, the position of the teacher in relation to

the three observers made it difficult to know whether the

teacher was conducting or otherwise giving musical direction

when he moved to either side of the area to work with small

groups or individuals. Rather than code musical direction

(10), the observers who could not be sure that this was

taking place omitted it. It was the conclusion of the

observers that the problems of arrangement were the cause

of the discrepancies in coding that appeared in the third

agreement check. In the earlier checks, the teaching-

observation situation had been much more compact and had

lent itself to greater accuracy.

Because the third inter-observer agreement check had

not yielded a coefficient at the desired minimum level for

 75

one of the three possible comparisons (Observer A and C ) ,

another check was m a d e .

The observers made this additional agreement check by

using the stereo tape recording of the same class session

used for the third check. The investigator believed that,

although visual material would be lost, the three observers

would have the same aural information to code. That is,

the problems of observer placement that were experienced

previously would be removed. As expected, there was a loss

of total information from using the taped class session. A

comparison for the two checks is shown in Table 9.

Table 9: Total Tallies by Observer for Third Inter-Observer

Agreement Checks— Live and Taped

Third Check— Live Third Check— Tape Recording

Observer Tallies Observer Tallies

A 319 A 243
B 316 B 249
C 303 C 249

By studying the results from each observer for the two

observations, one can find the categories in which differ­

ences of coding occurred. Table 10 gives this information.

The largest reduction in tallies was in the category Musical

Direction (10). It seems apparent that the reason for this

reduction was the impossibility of coding the silent conduct­

ing actions by the teacher. The percentages for this cate­

gory were reduced by approximately one-half.

TABLE 10: Comparison between Taped and Live Version of Inter-Observer Reliability Check Three:
Tallies and Percentages.

Categories
Observers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 X Total
Obs. A— Live:
Tallies 6 120 9 102 5 6 7 4 4 55 1 319
Percent .0188 .3761 .0282 .3197 .0156 .0188 .0219 .0125 .0125 .1724 .0031
Obs. A— Taped:
Tallies 3 108 1 89 4 3 8 1 3 23 3 243
Percent .0123 .4444 .0041 .3662 .0164 .0123 .0329 .0041 .0123 .0946 .0123

Obs. B— Livet
Tallies 5 111 8 98 3 7 8 2 13 61 0 316
Percent .0158 .3512 .0253 .3101 .0094 .0221 .0253 .0063 .0411 .1930 0
Obs. B— Taped:
Tallies 3 101 10 84 5 3 10 2 4 23 4 249
Percent .0120 .4056 .0401 .3373 .0200 .0120 .0401 .0080 .0160 .0923 .0160

Obs. C— Live:
Tallies 0 109 15 88 1 3 5 5 18 59 0 303
Percent 0 .3597 .0495 .2904 .0033 .0099 .0165 .0165 .0594 .1947 0
Obs. G ~ T a p e d :
Tallies 2 111 5 77 4 3 14 2 5 22 4 249
Percent ,0080 .4457 .0200 .3092 .0160 .0120 .0560 .0080 .0200 .0883 .0160
 77

The number of tallies for Category 2 (Response) fell in

the taped observation, but the number in Category 7

(Acknowledgment) rose. The investigator has surmised that

this shift was the result of better differentiation when the

l

tape recording was used. That is, some behaviors previously

coded as responses were heard more clearly from the record­

ing and were determined to be neutral statements (acknowl­

edgments) .

It is interesting to note that the category Personal

Negative Judgment (9) fell for Observers B and C, and the

category Judging Incorrect (5) rose. For Observer A, cate­

gory 9 fell by only one tally, and category 5 also fell by

one tally.

There are at least two possible reasons for these

changes. One could, suppose that in the live observation,

Observer A failed to note the visual instances of Personal

Negative Judgment (9). The other observers did note them,

so that when the tape recording was used, these behaviors

were not recorded, and thus not coded. However, the in­

crease in the category Judging Incorrect (5) for Observers

B and C, when using the tape recording, may reflect a change

in coding. Some of the behaviors coded as Personal Nega­

tive Judgments in the live situations could have been coded

as 5 (Judging Incorrect) from the tape recording.

The greatest reduction in tallies, then, occurred in

category 10 (Musical Direction). After noting that there

 78

were other minor shifts both up and down in category tal­

lies, we find that the overall agreement rose from the live

to the taped observation. In Table 11 we see that the

*
inter-observer agreement coefficient reached and slightly

surpasses the desired minimum of .80.

Table 11: Coefficients of Inter-Observer

Agreement for Third Check Using
a Tape Recorded Version of Class
Situation

Observer
Observer B C

A .8107 .8177

B .8282

Validity

Validity refers to the extent to which a testing instru­

ment measures those things which it purports to measure. An

interaction analysis system made of behavior categories is

designed to meet these requirements through the careful

selection of categories and through the careful definition

q
given for each of them.

In addition to the category definitions, several other

factors and their relationship to validity will be discussed.

These include previous validation of the basic OSIA

^John B. Hough and James K. Duncan, Teaching: Descrip­

tion and Analysis (Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley Publish­
ing Co., 1976), p. 117.
 79

categories, inter-observer agreement, and the procedures of

data collection.

In 1972, Broadwater conducted an exploratory study to

determine the representative validity of the OSIA. Repre­

sentative validity— also called logical or content valid­

ity— refers to the degree to which test items represent that

which they are intended to measure.

In his study, Broadwater investigated

the extent to which subjects trained in the Obser­

vational System for Instructional Analysis who
were placed in the role of teacher, student, and
observer for peer-microteaching lessons, agreed
on the classification of behaviors recorded during
each lesson. These subjects classified these
peer-microteaching behaviors in which they them­
selves assumed one of the above roles. The repre­
sentative validity of the classified behaviors
using the Observational System for Instructional
Analysis was investigated by analyzing inter­
observer agreement of behaviors recorded by obser­
vers, teachers, and students.H

Through his procedures, Broadwater hoped to achieve a

more direct logical (content) validity measure than if he

had depended on inter-observer agreement measures only. He

found that

persons in the various peer-microteaching roles

were in general agreement regarding behaviors
recorded. However, behaviors in the lessons were

^ H o u g h and Duncan, p. 285.

•^Ernest H. Broadwater, "An Exploratory Study of the

Representative Validity of the Observational System for
Instructional Analysis" (Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State
University, 1972), p. 8.
 80

primarily substantive and substantive behaviors

were tallied with higher inter-observer agreement
than were the appraisal.*2

Because he used only eleven basic OSIA categories of

the 1970 version of the system, and because the present study

used the same basic categories, some helpful comparisons can

be made. The basic categories from the 1972 version are

shown below, with the revised terms and with the changed

code symbols used in the present study.

Broadwater's shortened list of OSIA categories was as

follows:

Behaviors Code

Clarification 1
Response to Clarification 2
Initiation of Information 3
Solicitation of Response 4
Corrective Feedback 5
Confirmation 6
Acceptance 7
Positive Personal Judgment 8
Negative Personal Judgment 9
Silence 10
Confusion 11

The Revised (1972) OSIA contains thesame basic categories.

The form of the above categories that were used in the

present study follow:

Behaviors Code

Soliciting Clarification 1
Responding 2
Initiating 3
Soliciting 4
Judging Incorrect 5

12
Broadwater, p. 79.
 81

Behaviors Code

Judging Correct 6
Acknowledging 7
Personal Positive Judging 8
Personal Negative Judging 9
Silent Reflection 0
Instructionally Nonfunctional X

The change in terminology for the appraisal behaviors

(code numbers five through nine) appears to reflect the

results of Broadwater's study. He found that representative

validity was significantly lower for the appraisal categories

than for the other categories. In his recommendations for

further study, Broadwater suggested changes in definitions

for categories five, six, eight, and nine to give greater

specificity to those behaviors involved.

1. Categories five and six would be defined in

terms of content, e.g., indication that a re­
sponse was incorrect by virtue of a stated or
understood external authority would be classi­
fied in category five; an indication of a cor­
rect answer under the same conditions would be
classified in category six.

2. Categories eight and nine should be limited to

personal exchanges not involving content, e.g.,
any personal comments would be classified in
category eight or nine depending upon whether
it was positive or negative.13

The change in terminology, then, for the revised OSIA re­

flects the change in the definition clarifications given

in Broadwater's recommendations.

l3Broadwater, pp. 89-90.

 82
Because the basic categories used in Broadwater's

study were the same, except as indicated for the present

study, the representative validity for those identical cate­

gories can be said to have been established to the degree

that Broadwater noted.

Relation of Category Definitions to Validity

For the purposes of the present study, modifications of

the OSIA were necessary to provide for the instrumental

music activities not found in other classrooms. In addi­

tion, the appraisal behaviors were singled out for further

study, so that modifications in the form of subscripting

were made.

This process was described in detail earlier in the

section of this chapter titled "Developing Category Modifi­

cations." The investigator established the fact that, by

definition, instrumental music classes will involve the use

of musical instruments by students or teachers. Behaviors

that involve the playing of musical instruments were listed

by the investigator and divided into two types of categor­

ies— musical and physical. Behaviors that produce a pitched

sound were included in the former, while behaviors related

to playing an instrument that did not produce a pitched sound,

were included in the latter. Specific behaviors to be cate­

gorized as musical or physical were given in the definitions.

The new category, musical direction (10) was added, and

specific behaviors listed for the category.

 83

If one asks how closely these categories conform to the

important teaching-learning behaviors of the instrumental

music classroom, the answer is that they conform quite

closely. Evidence for this is in the fact that the cate­

gories allowed the observers to record a variety of musical-

physical behaviors. Also, they had no recommendations for

adding other categories to accommodate the behaviors that

they saw but had no means of recording.

In making subscripted forms of the appraisal behaviors,

the investigator collected reactions of other teachers to a

number of teaching situations for use in determining the

appropriateness of subscripts. This procedure was described

in full earlier in this chapter under the heading "Develop­

ing Category Modifications.

By using the opinions of others who had taught instru­

mental music classes were preparing to teaching them, and/or

had experience observing others teach them, the investi­

gator felt that a true indication of the varieties of

commonly used appraisal behaviors could be collected.

These were then grouped and carefully defined. Because

each of the subscripts was used during the course of the

observations, it is evident that they have practical value

in recording the behaviors observed in instrumental music

classes.
 84

Because the observers agreed to a great extent in

their categorizations, further support was added to the be­

lief that the modified form of the OSIA was producing valid

data. In order to be certain that each of the observers

were viewing behaviors in the same ways, it was necessary to

have several inter-observer agreement checks. The pro­

cedures followed in carrying these out were discussed in

detail earlier in this chapter under the Inter-Observer

Agreement Data. The fact that the observers achieved the

desired minimum level of agreement of at least .80 demon­

strated that they agreed in their use of the category

definitions as reflectors of observed behaviors.

Relationship of Data Collection

Procedures to Validity

In order to achieve a natural setting in which to use

the modified OSIA, normal public school classes in which the

student teachers were already established were used for the

study. No special groupings or subdivisions of classes were

used in order to obtain small groups of instrumentalists.

The regular class setting was disturbed very little, because

class members were accustomed to having the student teachers

observed by a supervisor. The small portable tape recorders

used were not particularly conspicuous, although no attempt

was made to conceal this equipment. There was no disruption

involved in setting up the recorder.

 85

The observers agreed that the coding process was taxing

and that fatigue was likely to lead to error, so that no

more than two consecutive thirty-minute class sessions were

observed. In order to gain a sufficient amount of observa­

tion time, providing four opportunities to see the full

range of a teacher's behaviors, sessions were made for each

of the fourteen teachers. Both teachers and classes to be

observed were chosen as they fitted into the observers'

schedules, so that no selection was made with a particularly

"good" or "poor" class in mind. Neither were factors of

socio-economic background, race, or sex considered.

The use of a live observer and an audio tape recorder

were considered more likely to yield accurate observation

data than the use of the observer or the tape recording

alone.

For these reasons, the investigator believed that the

procedures followed in collecting the data were designed to

provide accurate observations of typical instrumental music

classes as they were taught by typical student teachers.

The modified OSIA was considered by the investigator

to exhibit content or representative validity. This was

established through the utilization of Broadwater's study of

eleven basic categories, and through the processes involved

in the category modification that were a part of the pres­

ent study. A high inter-observer agreement also contributed

 86

to the case for content validity, as did the procedures for

gathering data.

Data Analysis Procedures

After data were collected from the fifty-six observa­

tions, they were analyzed and arranged in tables for display.

The methods of presentation were intended to show basic ways

in which similar data from future uses of the system could

be simply and effectively organized for study.

The information was given in terms of percentages of

categories for each teacher's four observations, as this

type of arrangement is helpful for comparisons of teacher

or class behavior. Percentages of behavior by category are

also helpful for comparison with other studies, where obser­

vations were made involving similar or equivalent categories.

In order to have an overall view of the results of the

study, a compilation of percentages of category tallies for

the entire fifty-six observations was also made. The Cohen

formula*^ was used to compare the agreement in percentages

of behaviors, by category, for the fourteen teachers. The

Spearman Rho was used to compare them in regard to the im­

portance of the categories. That is, the rank orders of

categories for the fourteen teachers were compared.

*^Broadwater, pp. 14-16.

 87

Because the appraisal categories had been singled out

for special treatment by being subscripted and thus had been

enlarged, these were also given special attention in the

analysis. The types and frequencies of! behaviors preceding

and following each appraisal behavior were reported, and

cases of extended appraisal behavior were studied.

Summary

In this chapter, the procedures used throughout the

investigation were described. The development of the modi­

fied OSIA was discussed and the final form and definitions

shown. The field testing of the instrument, in which the

feasibility of its use was determined, was described. A

schedule for the completion of the investigation was given,

and the actual carrying out of the study was then explained

in detail. This included the selection and training of ob­

servers, the selection of student teachers with classes

appropriate to the study, and the processes of observing and

coding. The inter-observer agreement checks were described,

and high agreement was established. Validity-related fac­

tors were discussed and content validity of the modified

OSIA was established. The data analysis procedures to be

shown in Chapter IV were then discussed briefly. These will

be shown in detail as they are used to present the data

obtained from the observations.

 CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

Introduction

After the modification of the interaction analysis sys­

tem was completed, the investigator learned to use it in

classroom observations and then trained two other observers

in its use. Three inter-observer agreement checks were

made— one before, one during, and one after the observations

were undertaken. The three observers made fifty-six thirty-

minute observations of fourteen student teachers in small

instrumental music classes. The information derived from

the observations was tallied and subjected to several types

of statistical processes.

In this chapter, the information obtained from the

observations will be used to answer the question posed in

Chapter I. During the project, further questions evolved.

As subquestions, these will be stated and answered also.

Analyses of Data

Primary Question

Question:— Can an interaction analysis system be

devised which will measure teacher and student
behaviors common to small instrumental music
performance classes?

88
 89

Results:— The category system used in the OSIA modi­

fication was found adequate for reporting the behaviors

observed. When the categories did not seem completely ade­

quate, the observers made further modifications by apply­

ing the subscripts in ways which had not originally been

thought necessary.

Table 12 shows the combined results of all fifty-six

observations, four for each of the fourteen teachers. All of

the basic categories were observed at least once, with the

exception of Student Musical Direction (S10). The subscripts

were used with the categories for which they were intended.1

As originally planned, the observers coded categories 2

(Responding), 3 (Initiating), and 4 (Soliciting), with the

subscripts indicating that they were sometimes musical (M)

or physical (P). Also, as originally planned, the categories,

involving judgments (5, 6, 8, and 9) were subscripted R (Gave

a Reason), H (Hyperbole), I (Irony), and N (Sarcasm).

However, the observers apparently found these sub­

scripts useful for other categories, and they used them when

it was appropriate to do so. For example, there are seven­

teen tallies in the category SIP, indicating that the students

sought clarification (SI) through physical actions (P). If

the teacher had told his class a new fingering and a student

responded by fingering his instrument while asking "This

1See Chapter III.

 90
Table 12: Combined Totals for Fifty-Six Observations: Fre­
quencies and Percentage of All Behaviors by
Category and Subscript

Tallies (f) Teacher Categories and Subscripts Tnt-.ai

Per Cent- Cat! R H I N H F ”"“
Soliciting Clarification
Tl
f ST 57
% .00 •00
Responding
T2
f 824 1 1 3 - 20 19 868
% .04 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .04
Initiating
T3
f 752 —
3 - 2 58 31 886
« .03 .00 .00 .00 .00 .04
Soliciting
T4
f 58ITT 1 5 2 9 208 112 6147
% .25 .00 .00 .00 .00 .01 .01 .26
Judging Incorrect
T5
f 1ST 24 1 17 5 230
% .01 .00 .00 .00 .00 .01
Judging Correct
T6
f 15T 1 - -1 126
% .01 .00 .00 .01
Acknowledging
m7
f itr - - -1 - 112
% .00 .00 .00
Personal Positive Judgment
T8
f 452 2 3 - 1 - 458
% .02 .00 .00 .00 .02
Personal Negative Judgment
T9
f 45T 166 10 4 12 9 10 703
% .02 .01 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .03
Musical Direction
T10
f TU70 4070
« .17 .17
Teacher Error
T Error
f '' 37 ™ 37
% .00 .00
 91

Table 12 (Continued)

Tallies (f) Student Categories and Subscripts _

Per Cent CaF:----K------ H---- T ---- FJH I1 Total

-
Soliciting Clarification
51 - - - - -
f 47T 17 490
« .02 .00 .02
Responding
52
f 1671 - - - 4 5865 157 7652
% .07 .00 .25 .01 .33
Initiating
53
f 27F - 1 4 2 277
% .01 .00 .00 .00 .01
Soliciting
54
f 393 - - - 2 1 - 396
% .02 .00 .00 .02
Judging Incorrect
55
f 17 - - - - - - 17
% .00 .00
Judging Correct
56
f -t - - - - - - 1
% .00 .00
Acknowledging
57
f 3F - - 36
% .00 .00
Personal Positive Judgment
f H - 3 - _ _ - 26
% .00 .00 .00
Personal Negative Judgment
S9
f 1ST 7 1 1 3 1 194
% .01 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .01
 92

Table 12 (Continued

Tallies (f)
Per Cent______ Category____________________________________
Interaction Separation Designation

Y
f STS’
% .03

Not Instructionally Functional

X
f 531
% .02

Silent Reflection
O
“ITS
.00
I

All Teacher Categories 13,657

All Student Categories 9,089
X and O 617

Total Tallies 23,363

 93

fingering or this one?," the student would have sought

clarification both verbally (SI) and physically (P). The

student behavior was coded SIP.

Both the musical and physical subscripts were added to

the basic categories T5 (Teacher Judging Incorrect) and T9

(Teacher Personal Negative Judgment). Also, the physical

subscript was added to the S9 (Student Personal Negative

Judgment) category.

Discussion.— The addition of the subscripts where they

were not originally intended to be used could be considered

an error on the part of the observers. However, because the

basic categorizations seemed to be correct, the addition of

the subscripts was considered by the investigator to be jus­

tifiable as additional information rather than errors.

Subquestions

Subquestion One.--What percentage of the combined

total of all tallies for the fifty-six observations
did each category contribute to the whole?

Results.--Table 12 contains the percentage of tallies

in each category, including categories with subscripts, and

the total for the entire category. Table 13 presents the

categories ranked by their percentage of contribution to the

total of all tallies. The three largest categories are S2

(Student Response), T4 (Teacher Solicitation), and T10

(Teacher Musical Direction).

Table 13: Categories Ranked by Percentage of Contribution
to Total Tallies

Category Per Cent

Student Response (S2) 32

Verbal (S2, S2N) (6%)

Musical (S2M) (25%)
Teacher Solicitation (T4) 26

Teacher Musical Direction (T10) 17

(Usually simultaneous with S2M) ____

Subtotal 75

Teacher Response (T2) 4

Teacher Initiation (T3) 4
Teacher Personal Negative Judgment (T9) 3
Teacher Personal Positive Judgment (T8) ' 2
Student Soliciting Clarification (SI) 2
Student Soliciting (S4) 2
Instructionally Nonfunctional (X) 2
Student Initiation (S3) 1
Student Personal Negative Judgment (S9) 1

Subtotal 21

All other categories @ < .01% 2

TOTAL 98
 95

Although Student Response (S2) was the largest category,

it is interesting to note that only about 7 per cent of the

total behavior recorded was student verbal response (S2 and

S2N). This category accounted for about one-half of all

the student verbal behaviors. Student musical response (S2N)

accounted for about 25 per cent of the total behavior re­

corded, so that all types of student response, then, accounted

for approximately 32 per cent of the total behaviors tallied.

Teacher Solicitation was the second largest category,

approximately 26 per cent. The third largest category was

Teacher Musical Direction, about 17 per cent. After the

three highest categories, which comprise approximately 75

per cent of the total, the percentages are quite small for

the remaining categories.

The total percentages of all behavior, separated ac­

cording to teacher or student behaviors, were fifty-eight

for teacher and thirty-nine for student behaviors. After

the three highest teacher categories, the next largest teach­

er category was only about 4 per cent (Teacher Response, T2) .

The percentage of Teacher Initiation was almost the same

per cent.

For the student behaviors, the percentages drop off

even more abruptly, with the second highest category (after

Response, 2) being about 2 per cent for Student Soliciting

Clarification (SI). After this came Student Solication (S4)

and Student Initiation (S3), each about 1 per cent.

 96

Because teachers and classes vary somewhat in their

behaviors, the results, when viewed for the four observa­

tions combined into a total for each of the fourteen teach­

ers, may have differed from the overall results given above.

These results will be discussed under Subquestion 2.

Discussion.— It should be understood that the cate­

gory Teacher Solicitation (T4) included several kinds of be­

haviors. For example, a question would be a solicitation.

A request that the class play would also be a solicitation.

Because the asking of questions was not differentiated from

other soliciting behaviors, the investigator was not able to

state what percentage of behaviors was questioning and what

percentage was requesting the students to play their instru­

ments. With the Student Musical Response category forming

about 25 per cent of all behavior tallied, the investigator

surmised that the requests for performance surpassed the

questioning behaviors on the part of the teachers. Students

rarely played without being requested to do so. (Student

Musical Initiation, S3M, formed a negligible percentage of

the total behavior.)

The total percentage of Teacher Solicitation was about

26 per cent. The total percentage of Student Musical

Response was about 25 per cent. l£ is not true, however,

that there was a solicitation for every tally of Student

Musical Response. That is, there may have been a request for

a student to play, after which the musical response may have

 97

continued for many seconds. For long responses, there would

have been many tallies of responses (one every five seconds)

for the one tally of solicitation. On the other hand,

teachers sometimes made solicitations which were requests to

play, interspersed with other behaviors, so that a musical

o
response did not follow immediately. Therefore, it is impos­

sible to know with certainty, and difficult to approximate,

how much behavior was questioning by the teacher, rather than

requesting performance or giving directions. This problem

will be considered in the Recommendations for Further Study

in Chapter V.

It should be noted that in computing the totals of

teacher and student behaviors, only the categories prefixed

T or S were used. The omission of the silent reflection (0)

and the confusion (X) categories caused the sum of teacher

and student behavior to be less than 100 per cent.

Subquestion Two.— Combining the data for each

teacher's four observations, what percentage of
the total tallies per fourteen sets of data did
each of the categories contribute?

Results.— The detailed, subscripted category informa­

tion regarding each of the fourteen teachers is found in

Appendix C, pp.140 - 168. A summary of the comparisons and

contrasts, however, is shown in Tables 14 and 15.

^See Tables 6 and 7.

Table 14: Three Largest Categories by Percentages for Four Observations
Combined Per Teacher

Largest % Teachers 1-14

Categories 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 13 14
7 10 11 12

1 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 T4 S2 T4 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2

2 T10 T4 T4 T4 T4 T4 S2 T4 S2 T4 T4 T4 T10 T10

3 T4 T10 T10 T10 T10 T10 T10 T10 T10 T10 T10 T10 T4 T4

VO
00
Table 15: Category Percentages Per Teacher, Omitting the Three Largest Categories
and Those Less than 1 Per Cent

Cate- Teachers

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

T1 _a - .01 — — - - .01 - — — 0b 0 -
T2 04 .06 1 1.07 1 .03 .03 .04 .03 .04 .02 .04 .02 .04 .03
ir02 ,

CO

13
o•
T3 02 .06 1 .04 .04 .02 .01 .04 .02 .02 .06 1-06 | U jQ9|

o
•
T4(omitted)
T5 01 .01 .03 .01 .03 .01 _ . mm
.01 .02 .01 0
T6 - - .01 .01 .01 .01 - .01 .01 .01 - - - -

T7 - — - — — - -
.01 .01 - .01 - .01 .01
T8 01 .01 .03 .04 .02 .02 .01 .01 .01 .01 .03 .05 .02 .01
T9 02 .01 .02 .04 .04 .02 .01 .01 .04 .02 .03 .04 .02 .02
T10(omitted)
SI .02 .02 .03 .01 .01 .04 .03 .03 .02 .03 .02 .01 .01
S2(omitted)
01 .01 _ .03 .01 .01 .01 .02 .01 .02 .01
S3 .01 .01 .01
S4 02 .03 .03 — .01 .01 .01 .01 - - .02 .01 .04 .05
S5 - - - - - 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - -
S6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
S7 - - 0 0 0 - - - 0 - - - - -
S8 - - - - 0 - 0 - 0 - - - .01 -
S9 01 - - - — - .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .02 .02 .01
— — -

o
00
X 02 .01 - .04 .04 .02 .02 .02 .01 .05

.
0 - - - - - - - - .01 - - .01 0 -
Y 03 .02 .04 .01 .02 .04 .01 .03 ’ .03 .02 .01 .03 .05 .05

aDash (-) indicates < .01.

Zero (0) indicates no tallies.

 100

The teachers as individuals working with particular

classes did reflect the combined results shown previously in

Table 12. By referring to Table 14 we find that the same

three categories— Student Response (S2), Teacher Solicita­

tion (T4) , and Teacher Musical Direction (T10)— were highest

in all fourteen cases. Notice that for nine of the teachers,

these three categories are in the order S2, T4, T10. This

agrees with the figures in Table 12 where the largest cate­

gory was S2, the second was T4, and the third highest per

cent was T10. The exceptions are for teachers Seven and

Nine, who each have the first two categories reversed in

rank from the others. Teachers One, Thirteen, and Fourteen

have the second and third categories reversed in rank from

that of the others.

The reader will recall that every category was repre­

sented in Table 12, each having been recorded at least once

during the fifty-four observations. If the three categories

having the highest percentages are omitted, there is a rapid

decline in the size of the percentages in the remaining cate­

gories, the next highest being 9 per cent for Teacher 14 in

category T3. Of the 266 possible entries (14 teachers by

nineteen categories), 114 were less than 1 per cent. If the

three highest categories and those with less than 1 per cent

are eliminated, 152 remain with a range of 1 to 9 per cent.

Table 15 shows these 115 categories with those above 5 per

cent enclosed in a box.

 101
Tables 14 and 15 show that the fourteen teachers were

quite similar in that they tended to have the same three

highest categories of behavior. However, they were differ­

ent in the variety of other behaviors that occurred in their

classes. Two teachers (Eight and Nine) had thirteen cate­

gories that were 1 per cent or more of the total behavior,

excluding the three highest categories. The teacher having

the least variety of behavior was Teacher Four, with eight

categories comprising 1 per cent or more of his total tallies.

None of the student behavior shown in Table 14 was

greater than 5 per cent of the total. All of the student

appraisal behaviors that were more than 1 per cent were

negative (S9). All of the behavior categories which were

greater than 5 per cent were teacher behaviors, with one

exception. That was one instance of the Confusion category

(X), which was about 7 per cent, for Teacher Fourteen. The

Confusion category is never prefixed T or S.

Discussion.— The total number of tallies for each of

the fourteen teachers varied, for any of several reasons.

This phenomenon was discussed in Nolin's study, and the

reasons he found were valid for the present study.

Variance in the total number of tallies can be

explained in a number of ways. Class periods
vary in length, instruction often does not begin
at the same time due to interruptions, or class
management activities at the start of the period,
and some teachers require more tallies due to the
 102

frequent use of more than a single tally behavior

in a three [five] second period.3

The overall differences and similarities found between

the fourteen teachers' combined four observations will be

discussed under Subquestion Four.

Subquestion Three.— What was the mean per cent

and range of percentages of each basic cate­
gory (unsubscripted) for each of the fourteen
teachers' four observations?

Results.— In Table 16, the mean per cent for four obser­

vation recordings in each basic category is given for each

of the fourteen teachers. From the table, we find that

there was considerable disagreement in the mean percentages

of some behaviors. We previously found that all fourteen

teachers had the same three highest categories, although

they were not always ranked the same. Considering these

categories— Teacher Solicitation (T4), Student Response (S2),

and Teacher Musical Direction (T10)— we see that for Teacher

Solicitation, Teacher Seven had a mean percentage of about

.35 and Teacher Nine, about .34. The teacher with the lowest

mean percentage for this category was Teacher Fourteen with

.13. The range was .13-.35.

For the Student Response category, the teacher with the

highest mean percentage for the four observations was Teacher

Four with .38. The range for this category was not great

3Wallace H. Nolin, "Patterns of Teacher-Student Interac­

tion in Selected Junior High School General Music Classes"
(Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1969), pp.
77-78.
Table 16: Mean Percent and Ranges of Tallies per Behaviors Recorded in Each Category
for Four Observations by Each of Fourteen Teachers

Cate- ________ Percentages Per Teacher___________ Percentage

gories 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Range

T1 .00a .00 .01 .00 .00 .00 .00 .01 .00 .00 .00 0b 0 .00 0 _ .01
T2 .04 .06 .08 .03 .04 .04 .04 .04 .02 .04 .02 .02 .04 .03 .02 - .08
T3 .02 .06 .02 .03 .04 .02 .01 .04 .02 .02 .06 .06 .06 .09 .01 - .09
T4 .21 .26 .19 .32 .26 .28 .35 .31 .34 .28 .22 .24 .15 .13 .13 — .35
T5 .01 .01 .03 .01 .03 .01 .00 .00 .01 .02 .01 0 .00 .00 0 — .03
T6 .00 .00 .01 .01 .01 .01 .00 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .00 .00 .00 - .01
T7 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .01 .01 .00 .01 .00 .01 .01 .00 .01
T8 .01 .02 .03 .04 .02 .02 .01 .01 .01 .01 .03 .05 .02 .01 .01 - .05
T9 .02 .01 .02 .04 .04 .02 .01 .01 .04 .01 .03 .04 .02 .02 .01 - .04
T10 .26 .21 .08 .15 .17 .16 .15 .15 .16 .19 .21 .14 .21 .23 .08 - .26
SI .02 .02 .03 .01 .01 .04 .03 .03 .02 .03 .02 .01 .02 .00 .00 _ .04
S2 .34 .28 .33 .38 .33 .32 .33 .33 .31 .32 .32 .37 .32 .31 .28 - .38
S3 .01 .01 .01 .00 .01 .03 .01 .01 .01 .02 .01 .01 .02 .01 .00 - .03
S4 .01 .03 .03 .00 .01 .01 .01 .01 .00 .00 .02 .01 .04 .05 .00 - .05
S5 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 0 0 .00 0 0 0 0 .00 .00 0 - .00
S6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00 0 - .00
S7 .00 .00 0 0 0 .02 .00 .00 0 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 0 - .02
S8 .00 .00 .00 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 .00 .00 .01 .00 0 - .01
S9 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .01 .01 .00 .01 .01 .01 .03 .02 .01 .00 - .03
X .02 .01 .00 .00 .00 .04 .04 .02 .02 .02 .01 .00 .05 .07 .00 - .07
Y .03 .02 .04 .01 .02 .04 .01 .03 .03 .02 .01 .03 .05 .06 .01 - .06
0 .01 .00 .00 0 .00 .01 .00 .00 .01 .00 .00 .01 0 .00 0 - .01
T Error .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 0 .00 0 .00 .00 .00 0 .00 .00 0 - .00

a .00 = Less than 1 per cent.

b 0 = Zero.
 104

(.28-.38), the lowest mean percentage being .28 for Teacher

Two.

For the Teacher Musical Direction category, the dif­

ference between the mean percentages for Teachers One and

Three was quite large. The range for this category (.08-

.26) is the largest for any category in the table.

Discussion.— The large mean percentage difference be­

tween Teachers One and Three can be explained only by the

circumstance that the investigator was the observer for

Teacher Three. During at least two of his classes that

were observed, the teacher was giving a performance test to

his classes, having each student perform a short piece of

music. During these playing episodes, the teacher rarely

gave any kind of musical direction. Therefore, the kind of

class activity, that is, the strategy employed, which pre­

dominates for a period may greatly influence the amounts and

types of teacher behaviors recorded. The system, however,

does not provide for noting overall teaching strategies.

This point will be discussed further in Chapter V.

Subquestion Four.— What was the coefficient of

agreement between any teacher's total observa­
tions and any other teacher’s total observa­
tions?

Results.— Table 17 shows the coefficient of agreement

between each teacher and every other teacher. Using these

coefficients, we can compare the overall agreement of

teachers according to the percentages in each basic category

Table 17: Coefficient of Agreement among Basic Categories,a between Pairs of
Teachers Using the Cohen Formula

Teachers Teachers
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1 .62 .47 .39 .61 .63 .54 .58 .52 .64 .71 .50 .62 .51

2 .61 .43 .67 .64 .58 .65 .59 .71 .75 .53 .62 .51

3 .66 .67 .64 .60 .68 .55 .66 .50 .53 .37 .21

4 .68 .57 .62 .67 .66 .57 .52 .67 .33 .19

5 .72 .62 .70 .66 .78 .73 .70 .55 .41

6 .77 .80 .73 .82 .65 .59 .58 .41

7 .82 .82 .75 .53 .52 .47 .34

8 .75 .80 .63 .61 .52 .38

9 .84 .62 .57 .37 .32

10 .63 .53 .57 .41

11 .69 .72 .61

**
VO
12 .35

•
13 .75
aBasic categories are totals for four observations per category exclud­
ing subscripted subdivisions of each category.
 106

of behavior for the four observations. Teacher One, then,

is most like Teacher Eleven (.71). The two who have the

highest agreement are Teachers Nine and Ten (.84), and the

two who are least alike are Teacher Four and Teacher Four­

teen (.19). The range of coefficients is .19-.84.

Discussion.— The agreement between any two of the

teachers' total observations was determined by the use of

the Cohen formula.* This formula is used usually to deter­

mine inter-observer reliability. It was used in this case,

however, to determine agreement between the observations

made of the fourteen teachers.

Subquestion Five.— Using the rank order of the

total percentage of each category of behavior
for each teacher's combined fourteen observa­
tions, how did the fourteen observations compare
with one another?

Results.— The average correlation coefficient was .87,

using the Spearman Rho to show the agreement in rank order

of behavior category percentage. Complete results are shown

in Table 18.

There was considerable agreement among all fourteen

teachers in the rank order of categories, the highest coef­

ficient being that between Teachers Six and Seven (.98), and

the lowest between Teachers Ten and Fourteen (.64).

*Jacob Cohen, "A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal

Scales," Educational and Psychological Measurement 20
(Spring 1960) : 37-46.
 Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficients (Rho) for Pairs of Teachers

Teachers
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

00
00
1 • .87 .88 .95 .95 .96 .86 .87 .91 .83 .87 .80

2 .93 .92 .93 .92 .93 .95 .88 .87 .93 .82 .88 .81

3 .91 .91 .88 .89 .83 .86 .90 .86 .69 .75 .68

4 .95 .88 .90 .87 .93 .86 .91 .81 .77 .73

5 .85 .88 .86 .90 .87 .92 .79 .83 .83

6 .98 .95 .90 .92 .90 .85 .86 .75

7 .95 .94 .92 .94 .87 .87 .80

8 .88 .84 .92 .89 .88 .82

9 .91 .90 .79 .78 .72

10 .85 .72 .76 .64

11 .93 .91 .88

12 .90 .86

12 .92

107
 108

Discussion.— Whereas the two previous tables indicated

agreement in percentages for each basic category, the

Spearman Rho indicates agreement in rank order of the per­

centages in each category. Using nineteen basic behavior

categories, that is, omitting Silent Reflection (0), Con­

fusion (X), and the separation designation (Y), the per­

centages for the four observations per teacher were obtained

C
by means of the computer program NPAR.

Subquestion Six.— What kinds of behaviors preceded

and followed each of the appraisal behaviors?

Results.— The behaviors which preceded and followed

each of the appraisal behaviors included a wide range of

categories. The behaviors, combined for all teachers for

all fifty-six observations, are shown in Tables 19 and 20.

In these tables, a zero is not an indication of the absence

of data, but is the coding symbol for the category Silent

Reflection. Also, because teachers frequently gave musical

direction while students played, this simultaneous activity

was recorded on the tables as T10S2M. Encircled numbers

indicate teacher error.

There appear to be no patterns in which one kind of

appraisal behavior is very frequently preceded and followed

by the same behaviors. That is, the investigator did not

^The program used was the Nonparametric Statistical

Analysis (NPAR), Computer Institute for Social Science
Research, Modified for IBM 360/75 at The Ohio State Univer­
sity. All of the coefficients were significant at the .001
level.
TABLE 19: (Part I)— Type and Frequency of Behaviors Preceding Each
Teacher Appraisal Behavior

Teacher Appraisal Behaviors

T5 T6 T7 T8 T9
Cat. Cat. F Cat. F*~ Cat. F- Cat. F
.... 3
T2 4 T1 1 T2 1 T2 T2 7
T4 28 T2 2 T3 1 T2M 1 T3 18
T5 4 T3 1 T4 2 T3 12 T3M 1
m T6 2 T4 7 T6 1 T4 30 T4 91
n
o T8 8 T5 1 T8 1 T4M 2 T5 2
•rl
> SI 1 T7 2 T9 1 T5 1 T6 2
S2 38 T8 1 SI 3 T5R 1 T7 1
si
Q) S2M 65 SI 4 S2 64 T6 1 T8 29
CO T10S2M 64 S2 50 S2M 6 T7 1 T9 9
&> S2P 2 S2M 42 T10S2M 13 T9 10 T9R 2
c
•H S3 2 T10S2M 11 S2P 2 T10 1 T9H 2
•O
V S4 4 S2P 8 S3 9 S2 28 SI 4
O S9 2 S3 2 S4 2 S2M 161 S2 30
0)
u S9R 1 S4 1 S5 1 T10S2M 163 S2M 177
(U S7 1 S2P 7 T10S2M 3.86
S8 1 T10S2P 1 S2P 5
S9 4 S3 4 T10S2P 1
S4 2 S3 3
S8 1 S3M 1
S9 2
S9R 2
0 2
X 2

109
Table 19: (Part II)— Type and Frequency of Behaviors Preceding Each
Student Appraisal Behavior

S5 S6 SI S8 S9
Cat. f Cat. f Cat. f Cat. f Cat. f

T2 1 S4 1 Tl 1 T2 1 T2 7
T2) 1 T2 2 T3 3 T3 6
CO T3 1 T3 6 T4 4 T3M 1
u
0 <T3) 2 T4 15 T8 4 T4 64
•H
> T4 2 T5R 1 S2 5 T6 1
(0 T5 1 T8 1 S2M 2 T7 1
Xi
0) CT5> 1 T9 2 T10S2M 3 T8 2
CQ
S2 3 S2 2 S4 2 T9 16
O' S4 3 T10S2M 1 S9 1 S2 15
g
-H S7 1 S5 1 X 1 S2M 24
*0 T10S2M 1 S7 T10S2M 27
<U 1
o S9 2 S3 1
<u
u S4 2
cu
S5 1
S7 1
S9 17
0 1
.

110
TABLE 20: (Part I)— Type and Frequency of Behaviors Following Each
Teacher Appraisal Behavior

T5 T6 T7 T8 T9
Cat. f Cat. f Cat. f Cat. f Cat. f

T1 1 T3 9 T1 1 T2 1 T1 1
T2 1 T4 89 T2 1 T2M 1 T2 1
T3 9 T5 2 T3 10 T3 30 T3 37
T3M 1 T7 1 T4 72 T3M 1 T3M 2
T4 195 T8 1 T6 2 T4 294 T4 354
T5M 3 T9 1 T8 1 T5 6 T7 2
Behaviors

T5P 1 T9M 1 T9 1 T5R 2 T8 11

T6 1 SI 3 SI 1 T6 1 T9 2
T8 3 S2 3 S2 5 T7 1 T9R 3
T9 1 S2M 5 S2M 2 T8 1 T9H 4
T9R 1 S2P 3 T10S2M 1 T9 17 T9M 3
SI 5 S3 2 S2P 1 T9R 7 T9P 1
SIP 1 S4 3 S3 2 T91 1 SI 4
Following

S2 32 S9 1 S4 8 T9N 2 S2 44
S2M 19 X 1 S9 1 SI 2 S2M 51
T10S2M 6 0 1 X 2 S2 7 T10S2M 22
S3 3 S2M 21 S2P 4
S5 2 T10S2M 20 S3 8
S7 1 S3 8 S4 12
X 2 S4 12 S4M 1
S7 1 S7 2
S8 3 S9 14
S8H 1 S9R 1
S9 2 X 6
X 4 0 1

t-*
i—1
TABLE 20: (Part II)— Type and Frequency of Behaviors Following Each
Student Appraisal Behavior

Student Appraisal Behaviors

S5 S6 S7 S8 S9
Cat. £ Cat. £ Cat. £ Cat. f Cat. £
T2 9 S4 1 T2 1 T2 1 T1 1
T3 2 T3 2 T3 2 T2 14
T6 1 T3) 1 T4 17 T2M 2
U) T7 1 T4 15 T7 1 T3 11
M
_0
_i S2 1 T7 1 T8 2 T4 90
•rl
> S4 1 SI 1 S2 3 T5 4
(0
S7 1 S2 2 S3 1 T7 4
o
rrt S9 1 T10S2M 1 S4 1 T8 3
S3 2 X 1 T9 9
cn S4 3 T9R 1
c
»> S5 1 T9P 1
0 S7 1 SI 1
pH
iH S9 1 . S2 8
r0
_ X 2 , S2M 5
W
T10S2M 1
S3 4
S3M 1
S4 7
S7 2
S8 1
S9 16
S9R 1
X 4
0 1

112
 113

find sequences such as T9, S2, T4 occurring with regularity.

There were some noticeable frequencies, however.

One can see that there was a greater amount and a

greater variety of positive appraisal behavior used by the

teachers than by the students. In Table 19 it is apparent

that the teachers praised student musical behaviors more

than they praised verbal behaviors. Personal Positive

Judgment (T8) followed musical and physical behaviors in

332 cases (the sum of all S2M, T10S2M, S2P, and T10S2P).

It followed verbal behavior in only 39 cases (the sum of all

S2, S3, S4, S8, S8H, S9, and S9R) .

Personal Negative Judgment (T9) and Judging Incorrect

(T5) were used most often following student musical behav­

iors. Table 19 indicates that the largest categories pre­

ceding T5 were S2M (65 cases) and T10S2M (64 cases). For

T9, the largest number of behaviors preceding were T10S2M

(186 cases) and S2M (177 cases).

It is interesting to note that, of the thirty-seven

teacher errors reported for the entire study, only three

were immediately challenged by students. These are the three

encircled behaviors in the S5 column of Table 19.

By consulting Table 20, one can find which type of

appraisal— negative or positive— elicited more student

verbal response. The negative teacher behaviors (T5 and T9)

are followed by student verbal responses (S2) in seventy-six

cases. The positive teacher behaviors (T6 and T8) are

 114

followed by student verbal responses (S2) in only ten cases.

The behavior which most often followed all of the

appraisal behaviors, excepting S5 and S6, was Teacher

Solicitation (T4). One may assume that, after an appraisal,

the teacher frequently asked for information or solicited

another response for further evaluation.

Discussion.— To obtain the appraisal data, the inves­

tigator returned to the original observation sheets and

extracted each instance of an appraisal behavior, along with

the behaviors immediately preceding and following it.

Evidently, criticism or praise may be preceded and

followed by T4 {Teacher Solicitation). The appraisal may

be related to an earlier student verbal or musical behavior.

There is no way to extract this information from the coding

system.

Subquestion Seven.— How many cases of extended

appraisal behaviors were found in the fifty-six
observaiIons?

Results.--There were nineteen cases of extended ap­

praisal behaviors reported for the entire study. Of the

nineteen, thirteen were negative and six positive. The

instances of extended appraisal behaviors are shown in

Table 21.

Discussion.--Because a five-second rule was used in the

coding of the fifty-six observations of the study, extended

behavior would be any behavior which continued for over

 TABLE 21: Type and Frequency of Extended Appraisal Behaviors for Fourteen Teachers*

Teachers
2 3 4 5 7 10 11 12 13 14
Cat. f Cat. F Cat. F Cat. F Cat. F CatT. F Cat. £ Cat. f Cat. £ Cat. £

T9 1 T5 1 T9 2 T5R 1 S9 1 T9 1 T8 2 T8 2 T8 1 T9R 1

rt T5R 3 T9 1
Extended

os
g T5M 1
Q*

*
None for teachers 1, 6, 1, 8, 9.
 116
five seconds. Thus it would be coded and marked with at

least one tally mark.

The only method of finding how much extended appraisal

behavior occurred was to return to the original observation

sheets and note the appraisal behaviors with at least one

tally mark.

The extended behavior definition did not include those

changes from one category to a subscript of the same cate­

gory. When an appraisal behavior was followed by the same

behavior, but separated by a Y (the student or teacher

separation designation), this behavior was reported as a

separate case, not as an extended behavior. If such cases

were considered extended behaviors, a number of additional

cases could have been included in Table 21. Table 22 shows

cases in which appraisal behaviors were followed by or pre­

ceded by the same behaviors, either subscripted or separ­

ated because a different teacher or student was acting.

Seventy-two cases of extended appraisal behavior can be

established in this manner.

Table 22: Type and Frequency of Teacher and Student Appraisal Behaviors Followed
or Preceded by the Same Behavior Subscripted or Separated by Y

Appraisal Behaviors
T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9
Cat. f Cat. £ Cat. £ Cat. f Cat. f Cat. f Cat. £ Cat. f Cat. £ Cat. £

T5 4 T8 1 T9 11 S7 2 S9 33

T5M 3 T9R 5 S9R 1

T5P 1 T9H 6

T9M 3

T9P 1

117
 CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Summary

Problem

Very little information regarding processes of in­

struction in instrumental music classes is available. In

an effort to find a relatively objective, and reasonably

uncomplicated method for observing the instrumental music

class, the Flanders Interaction Analysis System was con­

sidered.

After surveying the music education literature, the

investigator found that the Flanders system had been modi­

fied slightly and used by Snapp to study instrumental music

classes in elementary schools. Nevertheless, it was felt

that Snapp's modification did not provide sufficient cate­

gories to account for the unique behaviors present in instru­

mental music classes.

After studying the various interaction analysis sys­

tems that have been devised since Flanders' original work,

the OSIA (Hough and Duncan) was considered, because it

appeared to be most adaptable for the purposes of the study.

118
 119

However, the OSIA also required modifications, and the veri­

fication of the validity of the modified system then became

an integral part of the study.

Procedures

During the Spring Quarter of 1973, a modification of

an interaction analysis system was developed for use in

small instrumental music classes. The OSIA of Hough and

Duncan was modified, with the expansion of appraisal cate­

gories and the addition of coding symbols to account for

behaviors unique to such classes.

<

Three observers, including the investigator, were

trained in the use of the modified OSIA. The investigator

taught herself the use of the system, and then, during a

two-week period, taught the other two observers to use it.

The three observers used the system to observe fourteen

student teachers for a total of 56 observations, four per

teacher, for approximately thirty minutes each. The stu­

dents observed were those instrumental music teachers at

The Ohio State University who were engaged in their student

teaching, and whose schedules made them available for the

study.

Three inter-observer agreement checks were made— one

immediately after training, one during the time of the o b ­

servations, and the third at the conclusion of the observa­

tions .
 120

The data were then analyzed to determine similarities

and differences among the fourteen teachers' observations.

Questions regarding the development and use of the modified

OSIA were answered.

Findings

Modification of the OSIA

The primary question w a s :

Can an interaction analysis system be devised

which will measure teacher and student behaviors
common to small instrumental music performance
classes?

In order to answer this question, seven subquestions were

posed dealing with the data obtained when the observers used

the modified OSIA to observe fourteen student teachers in

small instrumental music classes.

Findings.— The first five subquestions dealt with per­

centages of behaviors present in the observations and with

comparisons of results by each teacher's four combined ob­

servations. When all 56 observations were combined, the

three largest categories were Student Response (S2), 32 per

cent; Teacher Solicitation (T4), 26 per cent; and Teacher

Musical Direction (T10), 17 per cent. None of the other

categories was greater than 3 per cent of the total per­

centage of all behaviors, and most were less than 1 per cent.

The percentages of behaviors for teachers and students

were 58 per cent teacher behaviors and 39 per cent student

behaviors. Classes were definitely teacher dominated, with

 121

students usually acting in response to the teacher's b e ­

haviors. Students seldom questioned (solicited), initiated

behaviors, or appraised their own behaviors or those of the

teacher.

When the observation data were combined for the four

observations for each of the fourteen teachers, there were

large variations in the percentages of each behavior cate­

gory. The coefficients of agreement between teachers' ob­

servations ranged from .19 to .84.

However, when the rank order (Spearman Rho) of cate­

gories for each teacher's four combined observations was

considered, the range of agreement was from approximately

.64 to .97, the average being .86.

Apparently, the preponderance or scarcity of the vari­

ous categories of behavior was quite similar for all four­

teen teachers, but there was a range from low to moderately

high agreement in actual percentages of behavior by category.

Subquestions six and seven dealt with the appraisal

behaviors— judging correct or incorrect, acknowledging, and

personal positive or negative judgment.

There was more negative (5 per cent) than positive

(3 per cent) appraisal behavior. The teachers used a greater

amount (3 per cent) and a greater variety (seven forms) of

positive appraisal behaviors than did the students (less

than 1 per cent and three forms). Teachers praised student

musical behaviors (332 instances) more than they praised

 122

student verbal behaviors (39 instances). Teacher criticism

occurred usually after conducted musical responses. Of the

cases of extended appraisal behavior# more cases were nega­

tive (thirteen cases) than were positive (six cases).

Discussion.— Where the procedures and categories are

similar# the findings of the study may be compared with

Snapp's investigation in which Interaction Analysis was

used in small instrumental music classes.

The total percentage of all behaviors# separated as to

teacher or student behaviors# were 58 per cent for teacher

and 39 per cent for student behaviors. The 58 per cent

is the same percentage that Snapp found in his study of

fifth-grade instrumental music classes. Snapp found about

40 per cent student behaviors— approximately the same found

in the present study.^

As in Snapp's study# the greatest percentage of teacher

behavior was-what Snapp's system labeled "Giving Direc­

tions."^ The equivalent category for the present study was

Teacher Solicitation (T4). The T4 category# however, in­

cluded several kinds of behaviors. A question could be a

solicitation. A request that a student or the entire class

■^■David W. Snapp# "A Study of the Accumulative Musical

and Verbal Behavior of Teachers and Students in Fifth Grade
Instrumental Music Classes" (M.A. thesis# The Ohio State
University# 1967), pp. 51# 91.

2Snapp# p. 92.
 123

play their instruments could be a solicitation. This second

type, when made with suggestions regarding how the student

or class was to respond, could be equated with the "Giving

Directions" category of Snapp's study. If it were possible

to eliminate from the total percentages all the questioning

behaviors, the addition of the Musical Direction percentage

to the remaining behaviors would probably result in the

finding that Giving Directions was the largest teacher

behavior category.

Regarding appraisal behaviors, it was shown in Chapter

IV that criticism or praise may be preceded and followed by

T4 (Teacher Solicitation). The appraisal may be related to

an earlier student verbal or musical behavior. There is no

way to extract this information from the coding system ob­

servation sheets. Snapp has called those behaviors follow­

ing immediately after the student behavior "effective praise"

or "effective criticism." This is a value judgment on his

part, and is not part of his coding system, but rather an

interpretation of his data analysis.

It is also interesting to note that the modified OSIA

allowed the recording of student appraisal behaviors. Snapp

used a Flanders modification which had no such categories.

In both this study and in Snapp's, teachers praised

student musical behaviors more than they praised verbal

 124
3
behaviors. Also, criticism occurred usually after con­

ducted musical r e s p o n s e s , 4 and teachers used more extended

criticism than they did extended praise.^

Conclusions.— The modified OSIA can be used to iden­

tify and quantify teacher and student behaviors common to

small instrumental music classes. Where comparisons were

made with the results of Snapp's study, the results of the

present study were in agreement with the earlier study, but

provided a more complete analysis and varieties of data.

Validity of the Modified OSIA

Findings.— The results of the inter-observer agree­

ment checks indicated that the investigator was able to

train herself and the two others to use the modified OSIA

with a high degree of agreement. The desired minimum level

of observer agreement (.80) was achieved in most cases.

Where it was not achieved, the causes were determined and

the problems remedied.

Other factors that were related to the validity of the

OSIA modification were Broadwater's earlier validation

(representative validity) of the eleven basic OSIA categor­

ies, and processes of this study used in the category

3
Snapp, p. 65.

4Snapp, p. 81.

5Snapp, pp. 65, 80.

 125

modification and definitions and the processes used in the

collection of the data.

Conclusions.— The investigator and other observers

evidently were able to use the modified OSIA as an obser­

vation system that adequately reflected the important behav­

iors which take place in the teaching-learning situations

of small instrumental music performance classes.

Practicality of Using the Modified OSIA

Findings.— The observers found the learning of the

modified OSIA a challenging task, and the usage of it a tax­

ing process. However, the results that were achieved in

terms of observer agreement, following a relatively brief

training period, for observers totally unfamiliar with in­

teraction analysis, indicate that the system is reasonably

easy to learn and to use.

Discussion.— The three observers who learned to use the

system with an acceptable degree of reliability did so in a

period of two weeks, for approximately ten hours of group

work. A record was not kept of the time spent in individual

practice.

The fact that none of the observers had any previous

experience in using interaction analysis, and that they were

nevertheless trained in the two week period rather than the

three intended, seems to indicate that learning the system

was not extremely difficult.

 126

The observers used the system with an acceptable degree

of agreement, but they concurred with the investigator that

the actual coding process was taxing. A very high level of

concentration was required of the observer throughout the

time span of the observation. Although this requirement is

true of other interaction analysis systems, the fact that

two and sometimes three simultaneous behaviors can be

recorded with the modified OSIA increases the complexity of

this system.

The only equipment needed for using the modified OSIA

was a pencil, coding sheets, a stopwatch, and a tape re­

corder. Portable, battery-operated tape recorders were used

in the study, so that a minimum of time was required to set

up and begin coding. Thus, the mechanical aspects of

using the system were quite simple.

The observers were graduate students who had limited

experience in student teaching supervision, but whose back­

grounds included considerable experience as instrumental

music teachers. It seems reasonable to assume that a col­

lege teacher of instrumental music teaching methods, a col­

lege student teaching supervisor, or a cooperating teacher

in the public schools could also learn to use the modified

OSIA with similar, if not greater, ease.

The three observers were developing a system so that

various decisions were being made about categorizations and

 127

procedures as problems arose during the training time.

Others who learn to use the system would not have these

problems, but can follow established guidelines for making

categorizations and for coding.

One difficulty in using the system is the need for

thorough familiarity with the coding process so that deci­

sions can be made very quickly. Should someone try to use

the system alone for a long period of time, the need would

arise to check periodically for consistent coding.

For the present study, the observers felt that it

would have been beneficial to have frequent group practice

in coding throughout the entire time span of the study.

The problem of continued consistency in observing pro­

cedures is not unique, but is a problem with other inter­

action analysis systems also.

Conclusion.— The learning and using of the modified

OSIA, while not a simple process, would be practical to

teach to those involved in music teacher education.

Conclusions

1. The modified OSIA was found useful in measuring the

full range of teacher and student behaviors common to

small instrumental music performance classes.

2. The modified OSIA was considered to be a valid

measure of the teacher-student behaviors in small

 128

instrumental music performance classes in that it evidenced

content validity.

3. The modified OSIA was found reasonably easy to

learn and to use by those involved in instrumental music

teacher education.

Recommendations

Using the OSIA

Coding.— Observers should agree whether or not they

will use only the subscripting originally planned for the

OSIA. Future users of the system would need to decide

whether or not the value of additional subscripting com­

pensates for the added complexity.

The category Solicitation (4) seems rather broad in

that it includes requests for performance and all types of

questions, except for Soliciting Clarification (1). There­

fore, if the differentiation between questioning and re­

questing performance is important to the investigator, a

"Q" subscript could be used to denote questioning.

Because the type of lesson influenced the types of

behavior found in the observation in one documented in­

stance,^ some notation should be made regarding the type of

6Chapter IV, p. 104.

 129

instruction involved. Hough and Duncan identified several

of these in their OSIA training materials.^

In addition, designations could be chosen to specify

teaching situations unique to music classes. Examples in­

clude the basic tuning procedures used at the beginning of

a class period, and the ensemble class in which a student

conducts the group, as in a string quartet rehearsal.

Just as in other types of classes, one can expect

differences in lesson procedures for the introduction of

new material, work on this material at an intermediate stage

of mastery, and at the completion of a unit.

In cases where the observer might use the modified

OSIA to gather information for supervisory purposes, he

could easily recall what type of lesson had been involved,

especially if he planned a conference with the teacher

immediately after the lesson. For research purposes or for

gathering information not to be studied immediately, the

designation of lesson type or types seems desirable.

The observers felt the need for better understanding

of the definitions of Initiation (3), as there was some

difficulty in coding this behavior. The problem occurred

in differentiating between actual initiating and the state­

ments which were sometimes part of a Solicitation (4).

^See John B. Hough and James K. Duncan, "OSIA Training

Kit. 11 Columbus: The Ohio State University, 1972. (Mimeo­
graphed .)
 130
Future training should include greater emphasis on this

problem of differentiation.

Inter-Observer Agreement.— The observers felt that

continued joint practice in coding throughout the course of

the observations would have been helpful. For a longer

time span than the few weeks involved in the present study,

it would be imperative.

In making inter-observer agreement checks, a compact

observation situation is helpful if all observers are to

have equal access to all audible and visible class be­

haviors .

Data Analysis.— In order to facilitate the analysis

of data from observations using the modified OSIA, a com­

pletely computerized system would be helpful. A problem

with the modified OSIA that does not occur with the original

OSIA is the possibility of recording two or three simultane­

ous behaviors. The problem of punching this information and

designing a program for use with the computer was not

solved in time for the present study to have a completely

computerized data analysis.

If the data is to be analyzed by hand, it would be

helpful to have a form for tallying the information avail­

able with the coding sheets, so that the procedure could

be done immediately, perhaps by the teacher being observed.

 131

Recommendations for Future Studies

1. Studies should be done to determine if differences

in behavior occur when class size and lesson content or

structure change.®

2. The modified OSIA could be used to study other

kinds of music classes to determine its usefulness for the

large ensemble rehearsal, the private lesson, choral

classes, and general music classes.

3. The modified OSIA could be used to study groups

of teachers designated high achieving and low achieving to

determine whether or not Nolin's findings would be verified

g
for small instrumental music classes. Nolin found no

difference in teaching patterns for the high-rated teach­

ers. In the present study, the student teachers were not

rated in any way, and no comparisons with Nolin's study

can be made. Also, Nolin's study used public school

teachers, not student teachers.

4. An interesting study could be done to determine what

correlations may exist between the use of the several

appraisal behaviors and other facts, such as teacher

effectiveness, teacher personality factors, and student

achievement.

8Chapter IV, p. 104.

^Chapter II, p. 25.

 132

Implications

Only a small amount of information has been available

regarding the teaching-learning processes that occur in in­

strumental music classes. Using an instrument such as the

modification of the Observational System for Instructional

Analysis developed in this investigation to study typical

classes seems advisable. It is in this way that the educa­

tion of future music teachers can be grounded on a more

secure base of knowledge. Using the system as a vital part

of the training process itself appears to be the desirable

second step.
APPENDIX A: Classroom Incident Form

133
Picture a small instrumental music class. Assume that there
are twelve players or less. It might be a beginning string
or wind instrument class, an ensemble, or a sectional re­
hearsal from the band or orchestra. Consider the situations
below. Give one or more teacher reactions to the situation
described. You may think of yourself and how you would ver­
bally react, or you may recall how other teachers have
reacted. Please give actual response phrases rather than
describing. For example:

Situation: Sammy has just played his part perfectly for the
rest of the class.
Teacher response: "Very good, Sammyi" or "O.K., Now let's
add the rest of the class." But not, "Teacher praises Sammy."

Typical responses are desired. It doesn’t matter whether you

feel that a given response is good or bad.

1. The entire class misses a fairly simple rhythm pattern.

2. Everyone in the class just played the entire piece

through perfectly, except Tyrone, who has not done it cor­
rectly yet.

3. Bob has had to work harder than most of the class. He

usually gets nervous and makes errors when he plays by
himself. However, today he plays an exercise without
error when called upon to play it alone.

4. Fred notices that when he presses down on a left-hand

key of his clarinet, there is one on the right side which
moves at the same time. He discovers that either one
will produce a B. He tells his teacher this.

5. Herb wanted to play a song for his classroom (not his

music class.). He didn't know how to finger one of the
notes needed for that song. He learned it by looking
up the fingering in his fingering chart. Later, he
reports this to the music teacher.

134
 135
6. Sarah tells her teacher that she has figured out how to
play a popular song on her flute, without ever having
seen the music for it.

7. At the end of a good class session, the students are b e ­

coming tired, and the whole class fails to observe a
rest in the final song which they play.

8. Before the teacher arrived, Martha and Tanmy try to see

who can get the loudest squawk on their clarinets. This
contest is still going on when the teacher comes in.

9. Diane has been unable to get the high E on her flute.

Today it comes out, but not with a clear tone, and not
in tune.

10. Martin has seen a jazz trumpet player on television who

always plays with his cheeks puffed out. He has been
taught not to do this, but he tries it in class. When
asked about this, he tells about the performer on tele­
vision who was great.

11. Kathy never tongues her bassoon except when reminded.

Then she can do it fairly well. She forgets again when
she's on her own.

12. Barbara and Steve (beginning clarinetists) still squeak

on low notes because they don't cover the last holes
completely. The rest of the class rarely squeaks by now.
I

13. Barry finds the class boring when his teacher is explain­
ing things to someone else. He talks to his stand part­
ner, whispering rather loudly.

14. The teacher walks in to find that Jerry and Pam have
swapped instruments and are trying them out.
 136

15. Connie is the best violist in the class, but today she
seems to be all thumbs and is a little embarrassed to
be making errors she doesn't usually make.

16. Michael had a really old cello which wasn't very good.
Today he came to class with the new one his parents
bought for him, after the teacher had encouraged them
to get it.

17. Carl has gotten very upset because he can't play the
portion of music assigned for today. He tells the
teacher that he played it perfectly at home.

18. Mary always has some reason why she can't perform as
well as others in the class. Her lips are chapped, the
flute is slippery because her hands sweat, et cetera.
Today she says that she dropped the flute and thinks
maybe a key is bent.

19. Marcy has figured out a way to finger a high C sharp on

her saxophone, but it is not the standard fingering for
this note. She proudly shows it to her teacher.

20. Fred and Karen (flutists) are usually flat to the rest
of the class. Today the whole class sounded like one
instrument because they played in tune.

21. Corey has ruined the third sax reed in a month, by chip­
ping it on something. Today he can't play because he
hit the corner of the reed and broke it while assemb­
ling the instrument. There aren't any other reeds avail­
able at school.

22. Carol says that she doesn't like the new music book for
string quartet, because it doesn't have any good songs
in it.
 137
23. After the sectional rehearsal has been underway a few
minutes, it has become apparent that no one has prac­
ticed the first selection, except for the solo player,
who is invariably well prepared.

24. The teacher has «sked the class to play the Bb in the
third measure. Jimmy points out that the teacher must
mean the Ab, as there is no Bb in the third measure.

25. George, in the beginning trumpet class, says he can't

play the test exercise yet. The class was to be pre­
pared to play for grading today.
APPENDIX B: Types and Frequencies of Categories on
Classroom Incident Forms

138
 Types and Frequencies of Categories on Classroom
Incident Forms

Type Frequency

Responding (2) 14

Initiation (3) 33

Solicitation (4) 279

Judging Incorrect (5) 16

Gave Reason (5R) 3

Irony (51) 1

Judging Correct (6) 33

Gave Reason (6R) 2

Hyperbole (6H) 2

Personal Positive Judgment (8) 77

Gave Reason (8R) 17

Hyperbole (8H) 9

Personal Negative Judgment (9) 31

Gave Reason (9R) 1

Hyperbole (9H) 7

Sarcasm (9N) 39

139
APPENDIX C: Combined Observation Data by Teacher (1-14)

140
Observer ______ ^ Student Teacher ^

Cat. Tallies Per Cent Cat. Tallies Per Cent

T1 5 .00 T5P
T2 64 .04 A11T5 9 .01
T2R T6 3 .00
T2H T6R
T2N 1
oi
o T6N
T2M 2 .00 A11T6 3 .00
T2P
A11T2 T7

o
o
67 .04 ?

•
T3 19 .01 T7N
T3H A11T7 2 .00
T3N T8 16 .01
T3M 11 .01 T8R 1 .00
T3P T8H
A11T3 30 .02 T8N
T4 323 .20 A11T8 17 .01
T4R T9 32 .02
T4H T9R
T4I T9H
T4N 1 .00 T9I
T4M 16 .01 T9N 2 .00
T4P 1 .00 T9M 1 .00
A11T4 341 .21 T9P 2 .00
T5 5 .00 A11T9 37 .02
T5R 1 .00 T10 425 .26
T5N SI 31 .02
T5M 3 .00 SIP
A11S1 31 .02

141
 142

Observer A Student Teacher 1

Cat. Tallies Per Cent Cat. Tallies Per Cent

S2 136 .08 S9P
S2I A11S9 9 .01
S2N 2 .00 X 29 .02
S2M 396 .25 Y 44 .03
S2P 2 .00 0 9 .01
A11S2 536 .33 T.Error 2 .00
S3 21 .01
Total
S3I Tallies 1604
S3M
S3P 1 .00 All T 9 36 .58
A11S 3 22 .01 All S 630 .39
S4 25 .02
S4N
S4M
A11S4 25 .02
S5 3 .00
S6
S7 3 .00
S8 1 .00
S8H
A11S8 1 .00
S9 7 .00
S9R 1 .00
S9H
S9I
S9N 1 .00
 143

Observer A Student Teacher 2

Cat. Tallies Per Cent Cat. T allies Per Cent

1
3 T5P

•
o
o
T1

i !
T2 66 .06 A11T5 12

o o
• •
i
T6 4

o
T2R
T2H T6R
T2N T 6N
T2M 4 . .... .00 A11T6 ... 4 .00
T2P
T7

o•
O
A11T2' 70 ^06 . 3

1
o•

T3 48 T7N
i

T3H A11T7 3 .00

T3.\T T8 15 .01
T3M 16 .01 T 8R
T3P 6 .01 T 8H
i

A11T3 T 8N
o•
VO

70
T4 285 .26 AllTS 15 .01
T4R T9 12 .01
T4H T9R
©.
o
1

\
T4I T9H
T4N T9I
T9N
©i
°!

T4K 4 1
o
o
.
•
i

T4P 1 .00 T9M

A11T4 290 .26 TOP
T5 9 .01 A11T9 14 .01
T5R T10 232 .21
CM
O•

T5N Si 27
T5M 3 .00 SIP
A11S1 27 .02
 144

Observer A Student Teacher

Cat. Tallies Per Cent Cat. Tallies Per Cent

S2 67 .06 S9P
S2I A11S9 2 .00
S2N X 14 .01
S2M 226 .20 Y 22 .02
S2P 14 .01 0 5 .00
A11S2 307 .28 T.Error 1 .00
S3 13 .01
Total
S3I
Tallies 1115
S3M
S3P All T 713 .64
A11S 3 13 .01 All S 383 .34
S4 31 .03
S4N
S4M
A11S4 31 .03
S5 1 .00
S6
S7 1 .00
S8 1 .00
S 8H
Alls 8 1 .00
S9 2 .00
S9R
S9H
S9I
S9N
 145

Observer A Student Teacher 3

Cat. Tallies Per Cent Cat. Tallies Per Cent

T1 11 .01 T5P

i
T2 A11T5 51 .03

o
10 3

•
T2R T6 11 .01
T2H T 6R
§•
T2N 1 T6N
T2M 2 .00 A11T6 11 .01
o.
o

T2P 2
A11T2 10 8 _ _ .07 T7 5 .00
T3 31 .02 T7N

o
o.
T3H TilIT 7 5
T3N T8 47 .03
T3M 3 TSR .00
o

1
o
•

T3P T 8H
A11T3 34 .02 T 8N
T4 4 "1fi .27 A11T8 48 .03
T4R T9 29 -02
T4H T9R 2 .00
1
o

T4I T9H
o
.

T4N 3 .00 T9I

o•
o

T4M 15 .01 T9N 2

i

T4P 10 T9M
0
•
1

A11T4 445 .29 T9P 2 .00

T5 31 .02 A11T9 35 .02
T5R 12 .01 T10 134 .09
T5N SI 44 .03
T5M 8 .01 SIP
A11S1 44 .0 3
 146

Observer A Student Teacher 3

Cat. Tallies Per Cent Cat. Tallies Per Cent

S2 188 • 12 S9P
S2I 2 .00 A11S9 4 .00
S2N X 4 .00
S2M 319 .21 y 57 .04
S2P 5 .00 0 5 .00
A11S2 514 .34 T.Error 5 .00
S3 18 .01
Total
S3I
Tallies ISlfi
S3M
S3P All T 882 .58
A11S 3 18 .01 All S 625 .41
S4 41 .03
S4N
S4M
A11S 4 41 .03
S5 2 .00
S6
S7
S8 2 .00
S 8H
A11S 8 2 .00
S9 4 .00
S9R
S9H
S9I
S9N
 147

Observer A Student Teacher

Cat. Tallies Per Cent Cat. Tallies Per Cent

.00 T5P

©•
o
T1 3 1
T2 43 .03 A11T5 10

o o
H o
.
i
i
...
T2R T6 12

1
1

.
T2H T6R
T2M T 6N
j
o
O
T2M 3 A11T6 12 .01
•

T2P
A11T2 46 .03 T7 4 .00
T3 42 .03 T7N
T3H A11T7 4 .00
T3N T8 58 .04
T3M 12 .01 T 8R
T3P 1 .00 T 8H
o

A11T3 55 T 8N
i
•

T4 459 .30 A11T8 58 .04

T4R T9 50 .03
6
o
o
T4H T9R
.
o
T4I T9H 2 o
.
o.
o
T4N T91 1
T4M 22 .01 T9N
1
o
o

T4P 5 T9M 4 .00

.

o o
o

A11T4 486 .32 T9P 2

•

T5 8 .01 A11T9 65
•
i

T5R 1 .00 T10 175 .11

T5N SI 16 .01
T5M SIP
A11S1 16 .01
 148

Observer A Student Teacher 4

Cat. Tallies Per Cent Cat. Tallies Per Cent

00
o
S2 128 S9P

•
1
S21 A11S9 1 .00

o
o
S2N X 3

•
S2M 454 .29 Y 15 .01

o
o
8
o
S2P 0 0

•
•

i
A11S2 590 .38 T.Error 4 .00
S3 6 .00
S3I Total
Tallies 15 39
S3M
S3P All -T 914 .59
6
o
.
o

A11S 3 All S 622 .40

I
i

S4 7 .00
S4:i
S4M
A11S4 7 .00
S5 1 .00
S6
S7
o
O

S8 1
•

1
!

S8H
o
o

Alls 8 1
•

S9
S9R
S9H
S9I 1 .00
S9N
 149

Observer A Student Teacher 5

Cat. Tallies Per Cent Cat. Tallies Per Cent

T1 3 .00 T5P 3 .00
T2 49 .03 A11T5 43 .03
T2R T6 16 .‘01
T2H T6R
T2N T 6N
T2M 1 .00 A11T6 16 .01
T2P
A11T2 50 .03 T7

o
6

•
o
T3 33 .02 T7N
T3H A11T7 6 .00
T3N T8 34 .02
T3M 8 .01 T 8R
T3P 18 .01 T 8H
A11T3 59 .04 T 8N
T4 362 .25 A11T8 34 .02
T4R T9 45 .03
T4H T9R 5 .00
T4I T9H
T4N T9I
T4M 12 .01 T9N 1 .00
T4P 6 .00 T9M 3 .00
A11T4 380 .26 T9P 1 .00
T5 32 .02 A11T9 55 .04
T5R 5 .00 T10 255 .18
T5N SI 11 .01
T5M 3 .00 SIP
A11S1 11 .01
 150

Observer A Student Teacher 5

Cat. Tallies Per Cent Cat. Tallies Per Cent

S2 116 .08 SDP

o. °.{
o o
S31 A11S9 3
S2N X 1
S2M 357 .25 Y 23 .02
i

o.
o
S2P 10 0 6
•
A11S2 483 o
.34 T.Error 3 .00
i

i—*
16
o
•

S3
Total
S3I 1440
Tallies
S3K
S3P All T 901 .63
A11S 3 16 .01 All S 532 .37
S4 18 .01
S4?Q
S4M
A11S4 18 .01
S5 1 .00
S6
5 7___________________________
5 8__________________________
S 8H_________________________
A11S8_______________________
5 9_______________ 3_______ .00
SDR_________________________
S9H_________________________
S9I
S9N
 151

Observer B Student Teacher 6

Cat. Tallies Per Cent Cat. Tallies Per Cent

T1 6 .00 T5P 1 .00
T2 59 .03 A11T5 9 .01
T2R 1 .00 T6 14 .01
T2H T6R
T2N T 6N
T2M 1 .00 A11T6 14 .01
T2P 10 .01
A11T2 71 .04 T7 6 .00
T3 26 .01 T7N
T3H A11T7 6 .00
T3M T8 31 .02
T3M T 8R
T3P 3 .00 T 8H
A11T3 29 .02 T 8N
T4 460 .26 A11T8 31 .02
T4R T9 36 .02
T4H T9R 8 .00
T4I T9H
T4N T9I
T4M 15 .01 T9N
T4P 11 .01 T9M
A11T4 486 .27 T9P
T5 6 .00 MIT 9 44 .02
T5R 2 .00 T10 278 .16
T5N SI 56 .03
T5!l SIP 11 .01
A11S1 67 .04
 152

Observer B Student Teacher 6

Cat. Tallies Per Cent Cat. Tallies Per Cent

1 1

1 !
U1
82

.
0
S2 S9P

1
1
S2I_________________________________ A11S9________ 16____ j__ .01
S2N X 62 .04
S2M 462 .26 Y 64 .04
S2P_____________ .01________0____________ 10_______ £0_1
A11S2 560 .32 T.Error 0
S3 50 .03
Total
S3I
Tallies 1768
S3M____________1________ ._00
S3P_____________ 1________JJO All T_______ 2.2J_______ .55
A11S 3 52 .0 3 All S 722 .41
34 20 .01
S4N
S4M 1 .00
A11S4 21 .01
S5
S6
S7 5 .00
S8 1 .00
S 8H
A11S8 1 .00
S9 12 .01
S9R 4 .00
S9H
S9I
S9N
 153

Observer B Student Teacher 7

Cat. Tallies Per Cent Cat. Tallies Per Cent

Tl 2 .00 T5P
.03

o• '
o
T2 70 A11T5 10

1
T2R T6 4 .00
T2H T6R
T2N T 6N

o•
o
T2M A11TG 4

1
T2P 1 .00
71

o•
o
A11T2 .03 T7 6
T3 22 .01 T7H
T3H A11T7 6 .00
T3N T8 25 .01
T3M T 8R
T3P T 8H
A11T3 22 .01 T 8N
T4 716 .33 A11T8 25 .01
T4R T9 20 .01
9

o
o
T4H T9R
•
T4I T9H
T4N T9I
T4M 23 .01 T9N
T4P 5 .00 T9M
A11T4 744 .35 T9P
T5 10 .00 A11T9 29 .01
T5R T10 326 .15
T5N SI 61 ... .03
SIP
o•
o

T5M 1
A11S1 62 .03
 154

Observer B Student Teacher 7

Cat. Tallies Per Cent Cat. Tallies Per Cent

S2 83 .04 S9P
S2I A11S9 13 .01

l
S2N X

o•
79

1
1i

i H° *
S2M 624 .29 Y 25

1
I•
i
S2P 4 .00 0 1 .00
A11S2 711 .33
I—1 T .Error 4 .00
o•

S3 20
11
1

Total
S3I
Tallies 2145
S3M
S3P All-T 1239 .58
A11S 3 20 .01 All S 826 .39
S4 17 .01
S4N 1 .00
S4M
A11S4 18 .01
S5
S6___________________________
§2______________ 2L________ JlflL
_______________ U __________ J L L
S 8H_________________________
A11S8_______________________
S 9 _____________________
S9R_________________________
S9H_________________________
S9I
S9N
 155

Observer B Student Teacher 8

Cat. Tallies Per Cent Cat. T allies Per Cent

T1 13 .01 T5P
T2 79 .04 A11T5

o•
o
7
T2R T6 12 .01
T2H T6R
T2N 1 .00 T6N
T2M A11T6 12 .01
1

o• oft
o

T2P 3
A11T2 83 T7

o
o
10

.
i
1

T3 77 .04 T7N 1 .00

T3H A11T7 11 .01
T3N T8 19 .01
T3M 1 .00 T 8R
T3P T 8H 1

o
o
1
A11T3 78 .04 TSN
T4 ___5 3fi .27 A11T8 20 .01
T4R T9 24 .01
T4H TOR 1 .00
T4I T9H
i
1
o
O
T4N T9I 1
•

T4M 58 .03 T9N

T4P 14 .01 T9M
A11T4 608 .31 T9P
T5 7 .00 A11T9 26 .01
T5R T10 290 .15 .
T5N SI 64 .03 _
T5M SIP 1 .00
A11S1 65 ,03
 156

Observer B Student Teacher 8

Cat. Tallies Per Cent Cat. Tallies Per Cent

S2 166 .08 S9P
S2I AllS 9 14 .01
S2N X 38 .02
S2M 460 .23 y 51 .03
S2P 16 .01 0 7 .00
A11S2 642 .33 T .Error
S3 17 .01
Total
S3I Tallies 196 4
S3M 1 .00
S3P All. T 1148 .58
A11S 3 18 .m All S 771 .39
S4 21 .01
S4N
S4M
A11S4 21 .01
S5 2 .00
S6
S7 8 .00
S8 1 .00
S 8H
A11S 8 1 .00
S9 14 .01
S9H
S9H
S9I
S9N
 157

Observer B Student Teacher 9

Cat. Tallies Per Cent Cat. Tallies Per Cent

o
o
Tl 2 T5P

•
T2 . . 37 .02 A11T5 13 .01
T2R T6 12 .01

o•
o
T2H T6R 1
T2N T 6N
T2M A11T6 13 .01
T2P
A11T2 37 .02 T7 20 .01
to
'O

T3 28 T7N
*
l
I

T3H A11T7 20 .01

T3N T8 19 .01
T3M T 8R

o
o
T3P T 8H 1

•
A11T3 28 .02 T 8N
T4 569 .32 A11T8 20 .01
T4R T9 64 .04 _
T4H 2 T9R
o•
o
.00 4
1

T4I 1 .00 T9H 4 .00

T4N 2 .00 T9I 1 .00
T4M 14 .01
o

T9N' 3
•
o

T4P 16 .01 T9M 1 .00

A11T4 604 ,34 T9P 1 .00
T5 12 .01 A11T9 78 .04
T5R T10 2 81 .16
T5N 1 .00 SI 33 .02
[
©•
o

T5M SIP 3
AllSl 36 .02
 158

Observer B Student Teacher

Cat. Tallies Per Cent Cat. Tallies Per Cent

S2 157 .09 S9F 1 .00
S2I A11S9 11 .01
S2N X 31 .02
S2M 361 .21 Y 56 .03
S2P 28 .02 0 12 .01
A11S2 546 .31 T.Error 7 .00
S3 12 .01
S3I Total
Tallies 1753
S3M 1 .00
S3P All T 1096 .63
A11S 3 13 .01 All S 614 .35
5 4____ -O0-
S4N
S4M__
■A11S 4 Jl£L
5 5___
5 6____
5 7___
5 8___
S 8H__
Aiise
S9____
S9R
SDH
S9I
S9N .00
 159

Observer B Student Teacher 10

Cat. Tallies Per Cen t Cat. Tallies Per Cent

T1 * .00 T5P

to
T2 74 .04 A11T5 39

|•
o
[
T2R T6 17 .01
T2H T 6R

o
o•1
T2N T 6N 1

1
T2M A11T6 1R .01
o
o

T2P 1
.

A11T2 75 .04 T7 8 .00

T3 36 .02 T7N
T3II A11T7 8

o
•
o
T3N T8 OA ni
T3M T 8R
T3P T 8H
A11T3 36 .02 T 8N
T4 479 .25 A11T8 24 .01
T4R 1 T9
o

27 .01
o
•

T4H T9R 1 .00

T4I T9H
T4N T9X
28
o
o

T4M .01 T9N 1

•

T4P 34 .02 T9M

A11T4 542 .28 T9P
T5 39 .02 A11T9 29 .02
T5R T 10 362 .19
T5N SI 59 .03
T5M SIP 1 .00
AllSl 60 .03
 160

Observer B Student Teacher 10

Cat. Tallies Per Cent Cat. Tallies Per Cent

S2 111 . .06 S9P
S2I A11S9 19 .01
f
S2N X 36 .02
S2M 494 .26 Y 39 .02
S2P 11 .01 0 2 .00
A11S2 616 .32 T.Error :i .oo
S3 28 .01 -

Total
S3I 1907
Tallies
S3M 1 .00
S3P All T 1137 .60
A11S 3 29 .02 All S 731 .38
S4 4. .00
S4N
S4M
A11S 4 4 .00
S5
S6
S7 1 .00
S8 2 .00
S 8H
A11S8 2 .00
S9 18 ,01
S9R 1 .00
S9H
S9I
SDN
 161

Observer C Student Teacher H

Cat. Tallies Per Cent Cat. Tallies Per Cent

T1 3 .00 T5P
T2 40 .02 A11T5 15 _ .01

i
1

o•
o
T2R T6 9

i
o
o
T2H 1 T6R
.
1
1
1
T2N T6N

1
!

o•
T2M A11T6

o
9
1
1
1

o
o

T2P 1
.

A11T2 42 .02 T7 11 .01

T3 104 .06 T7N

H*
T3H 2 .00 11

•
A11T7

o
1
1

o•
T3N 1 .00 T8 50

<
1

o
o

T3M 5 T 8R
•
1

T3P T 8H

o o•
o o
2 .00 1

•
O!
VO

A11T3 114 T 8N 1
•

T4 406 .22 A11T3 52 .03

T4R T9 45 I .02
i

T4H 2 T9R 8
* •
.00
o o
o o
■)
T4I T9H 4
1
i

o
o

T4N 3 T9I
.

o•
o

T4M T9N 2
T4P T9M
A11T4 411 .22 T9P 2 .00
T5 12 .01 A11T9 61 .03
T5R 3 .00 T10 39 3 .21
T5N SI 33 .02
T5M SIP
A11S1 33 .02
 162

Observer C Student Teacher

Cat. Tallies Pc-r Cent Cat. Tallies Per Cent

S2 85 ___ .05 S9P
S2I A11S9 19 .01
S2N X 26 .01
S2M 496 .27 Y 26 .01
S2P 8 .00 0 9 .00
A11S2 589 .32 T.Error 3 .00
S3 13 .01
S 31 Total '
Tallies 1848
S3M
S3P A l l .T 1111 .60
A11S 3 13 .01 All S 702 .38
S4 39 .02
S4N
S4M
A11S4 39 .02
S5
S6
S7 6 .00
S8 2 .00 ...........
S 8H 1 .00
A11S8 3 .00
S9 19 .01
S9R
S9H
S9I
S9N
 163

Observer C Student Teacher 12 .

Cat. Tallies Per Cent Cat. Tallies Per Cent

T1 T5P
T2 24 .02 A11T5
T2R T6 6 .00
T2H T6R
T2N TGN
T2M 6 .00 A11T6 6 .00
T2P

o•
o
A 11T 2 30 .02 T7 2
T3 77 .06 T7N
T3H A11T7 2 .00
T3N T8 64 .05
T3M T 8R
T3P T 8H
A11T3 77 .06 T 8N
T4 317 .24 A11T8 64 .05
T4R T9 51 .04
o
o

T4H 1 T9R 8 .01

•

T4I T9H
T4N T9I 1 .00
T4M T9N
T4P 2 .00_ T9M
A11T4 340 .25 T9P
T5 A11T9 60 .04
T5R T10 199 .14
T5N SI 11 .01
T5M SIP
A11S1_______ U,
 164

Observer C Student Teacher 12

Cat. Tallies Per Cent Cat. Tallies Per Cent

00
114

o
S2

•
S9P

l
S2I A11S9 33 .02

©:
o
S2N X 4

•I
.j

1
S2M 379 .27 Y 47 .03
l |
! 1
1i
S2P 17 0
0
15
.
H
.01

1
A11S2 510 .37 T.Error
S3 8 .01
Total
S3I
Tallies 1381
S3M
S3P All. T 778 .56
A11S 3 8 .01 All S 584 .42
S4 16 .01
S4N
S4M____________________ _____
A11S4__________16_________J U
S5
S6
S7 3 .00
S8 3 .00
S 8H
3
o•

A11S8
o

S9 32 .02
SDR 1 .00
S9H
S9I
S9N
 165

Observer C Student Teacher 13

Cat. Tallies Per Cent Cat.. Tallies Per Cent

Tl T5P
T2 66 .04 A11T5 _____ 8 .00
T2R T6 1 .00
T2H T6R
T2N T6N
T2M A11T6 1 .00
T2P 1 .00
A11T2 67 .04 T7 16 .01
T3 102 .06 T7N
T3H 1 .00 A11T7 16 01
T3N 1 .00 T8 30 .02
T3M T 8R
T3P 1 .00 T 8H
A11T3 105 .06 T 8N
T4 257 -15 A11T8 30 .02
T4R T9 37 .02 _
T4H T9R
T4I T9H
T4N T9I
T4J1 1 .00 T9N
T4P 3 .00 T9M
A11T4 261 .16 T9P
T5 8 .00 A11T9 37 .02
T5R T10 351 .21
T5N SI 25 t01
T5M SIP
AllSl_______25_________jn
 166

Observer C Student Teacher 13

Cat. Tallies Per Cent Cat. Tallies Per Cent

S2____________ U 9 _ ____ .07________ S9P
S2I_________________________________ A11S 9________32________.02
S2N 2 .00 X 80 .05
S2M 421 .25 Y 89 .05
S2P 7 .00 0
A11S2 549 .33 T .Error 1 .00
S3 37 .02
Total
Tallies 16 82
S3M______________________________________ .
_____________________
S3P All T________876______ .52
A 1 1S3__________ 37^_______ *_02________ All S________ 726______ .43
§4______________20________„0_4.__________________________________
S4N
54M
Alls 4 70 .04
S5 1 .00
S6
S7 1 .00
S8 9 .01
S8H 2 .nn
Alls 8 11 -01
”2_____________ 12________JCL2.
S9R_________________________
S9H_________________________
SOI
S9N
 167

Observer C Student Teacher 14

Cat. Tallies Per Cent Cat. Tallies Per Cent

Tl 1 .00 T5P
T2 50 .03 A11T5 4 _ .00
T2R T6 3 .00
T2H T6R
T2N T 6N
T2M l .00 A11T6 3 .00
T2P
A11T2 51 .03 T7 12 .01
T3 147 .09 T7N
T3H A11T7 19 .01
T3N T8 20 .01
T3M 2 .00 T 8R
T3P T 8H
A11T3 149 .09 T 8N
T4 205 .13 A11T8 20 ..01
T4R T9 20 .01
T4H T9R 10 .01
T4I T9H
T4N T91
T4M T9N
T4P 4 .00 T9M
A11T4 209 .13 T9P
T5 4 .00 A11T9 30 .02
T5R T10 369 .23
T5N SI 2 .00
T5M SIP
A11S1 . 2 .00
 168

Observer C Student Teacher 14 ..

Cat. Tallies Per Cent Cat. Tallies Per Cent

S2 72 .05 S9P
S2I A11S9 18 .01
S2N X 124 .08
S2M 416 .26 y 87 .05
S2P 11 .01 0 5 .00
A11S2 499 .31 T .Error 6 .00
S3 11 .01
S3I Total
1 .00 Tallies 1599
S3M
S3P All T 848 .53
A11S 3 12 .01 All S .39
S4 76 .05
S4H 1 .00
S4M
A11S4 77 .05
S5 6
o
o
•
o* o
o o

S6 1
S7 6
•
1

S8 1 .00
SSH
A11S8 1 .00
i
1-*

S9 16
o
!

.
i

SDR
S9H 1 .00
S9I
S9N 1 .00
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Amidon, Edward J., and Hough, John B., eds. Interaction

Analysis: Theory, Research and Application. Reading,
Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1567.

Biddle, Bruce J., and Ellena, Williams J., eds. Contemporary

Research on Teacher Effectiveness. New York: Holt,
kinehart and Winston, 1964.

Ernst, Karl D., and Gary, Charles L., eds. Music in General
Education. Washington, D.C.: Music Educators National
Conference, 1965.

Flanders, Ned A. Analyzing Teaching Behavior. Reading,

Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1970.

Hough, John B . , and Duncan, James K. Teaching: Description

and Analysis. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publish­
ing Co., 1970.

Ober, Richard L.; Bentley, Ernest L.; and Miller, Edith.

Systematic Observation of Teaching: An Interaction
Analy. Is-Instructional Strategy Approach! Englewood
Clift's, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., T57TT

Rosenshine, Barak. Teaching Behaviours and Student Achieve­

ment. London: National Foundation for Educational
Research in England and Wales, 1971.

Schneider, Erwin H . , and Cady, Henry L., eds. Evaluation

and Synthesis of Research Studies Relating to Music
Education"! Columbus: The Ohio State University Research
Foundation, 1965.

Simon, Anita, and Boyer, E. Gil. Mirrors for Behavior II: An

Anthology of Observation Instruments, VoIs. A and B.
Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools, Inc., 1970.

Stein, Jess, ed. The Random House Dictionary of the English

Language. New York: Random House, 1967.

169
 170
Articles

Amidon, Edmund, and Hunter, Elizabeth. "Interaction Analysis:

Recent Developments." In Interaction Analysis: Theory,
Research, and Application, pp. 388-91. Edited by Edmund
J. Amidon and John B. Hough. Reading, Mass.: Addison-
Wesley Publishing Co., 1967.

Anderson, Harold H. "The Measurement of Domination and of

Socially Integrative Behavior in Teachers' Contacts with
Children," In Interaction Analysis: Theory, Research,
and Application, pp. 4-23. Edited by Edmund J. Amidon
and John B. Hough. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub­
lishing Co., 1967.

Brown, Robert D. "A Study Concerning the Major Weaknesses

Music Teachers in the Secondary Schools of Kansas." M.A.
thesis, University of Kansas, 1955. Cited by Erwin H.
Schneider and Henry L. Cady, eds., Evaluation and Syn­
thesis of Research Studies Relating to Music Education,
pT 374. Columbus: The Ohio State University Research
Foundation, 1965.

Campbell, James R., and Barnes, Cyrus W. "Interaction

Analysis— A Breakthrough?" Phi Delta Kappan: A Journal
for the Promotion of Leadership in Education, 50 (June
1969):10
\

Cohen, Jacob. "A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales."

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20 (Spring 1960):

Ehlert, Jackson K. "The Selection and Education of Public

School Music Teachers." Ed.D. dissertation, University of
Colorado, 1949. Cited by Erwin II. Scheider and Henry L.
Cady, eds., Evaluation and Synthesis of Research Studies
Relating to Music Education, p. 388. Columbus: The Ohio
State University Research Foundation, 1965.

Fenton, Winnifred L. "Effectiveness of Music Teachers Iden­

tified Through Behavioral Criteria: A Basis for Redirection
in Teacher Education." Ed.D. dissertation, Wayne State
University, 1957. Cited by Erwin H. Schneider and Henry
L. Cady, eds., Evaluation and Synthesis of Research Studies
Relating to Music Education, p. 144. Columbus: The Ohio
State University Research Foundation, 1965.
 171
Flanders, Ned A. "The Problem of Observer Training and Relia
bility." In Interaction Analysis: Theory, Research, and
Application, pp. 158-66. Edited by Edmund J. Amidon and
John B. Hough. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing
Co., 1967.

Hough, John B. "An Observation System for the Analysis of

Classroom Instruction." In Interaction Analysis: Theory,
Research, and Application, pfTI 150-57. Edited by Edmund
J. Amidon and John B. Hough. Reading, Mass.: Addison-
Wesley Publishing Co., 1967.

Hough, John B. "Classroom Interaction and the Facilitation

of Learning: The Source of Instructional Theory." In
Interaction Analysis: Theory, Research, and Application,
pp. 375-387. Edited by Edmund J. Amidon and John B.
Hough. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.,
1967

Lewin, Kurt? Lippitt, Ronald; and White, Ralph. "Patterns

of Agressive Behavior in Experimentally Created 'Social
Climates.'" In Interaction Analysis: Theory, Research,
and App lication, pp. 24-46. Edited by Edmund J. Amidon
and John B. Hough. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Co., 1967.

Moskowitz, Gertrude. "The Attitudes and Teaching Patterns

'of Cooperating Teachers and Student Teachers Trained in
Interaction Analysis." In Interaction Analysis: Theory,
Research, and Application, pp. 271-82. Edited by Edmund
J. Amidon and John B ‘. Hough. Reading, Mass.: Addison-
Wesley Publishing Co., 1967.

Ryans, David G. "Research on Teacher Behavior in the Context

of the Teacher Characteristics Study." In Contemporary
Research on Teacher Effectiveness, pp. 67-101. Edited by
Bruce J. Biddle and William J. Ellena. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1964.

Thomas, Ronald B. "Rethinking the Curriculum." Music Edu­

cators Journal 56 (February 1970): 68-70.

Thomson, William. "The Ensemble Director and Musical Con­

cepts." Music Educators Journal 54 (May 1968): 44-46.
 172

Whitehill, Charles D. "The Application of Flanders' System

of Classroom Interaction Analysis to General Classroom
Music Teaching." Ph.D. dissertation, West Virginia
University, 1970. In Dissertation Abstracts. XXXI (5),
p. 2428-A.

Withall, John. "The Development of a Technique for the

Measurement of Social-Emotional Climate in' Classrooms."
Journal of Experimental Education 17 (March 1949):347-
361.

Unpublished Materials

Broadwater, Ernest H. "An Exploratory Study of the Represen­

tative Validity of the Observational System for Instruc­
tional Analysis," Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State
University, 1972.

Daellenbach, C. Charles. "An Investigation of the Use of

Video Tape Recorder Techniques in the Identification of
Behavioral Characteristics of Music Teachers." M.A.
thesis, Eastman School of Music of the University of
Rochester, 196 8.

Daellenbach, C. Charles. "Identification and Classification

of Music Learning Behaviors Utilizing Videotape Recording
Techniques." Ph.D. dissertation, Eastman School of Music
of the University of Rochester, 1970.

Erbes, Robert L. "The Development of an Observational System

for the Analysis of Interaction in the Rehearsal of Musi­
cal Organizations." Ed.D. dissertation, University of
Illinois, 1972.

Hough, John B., and Duncan, James K. "Observational System

for Instructional Analysis." Columbus: The Ohio State
University, 1972.(Mimeographed.)

Hough, John B . , and Duncan, James K. "OSIA Training Kit."

Columbus: The Ohio State University, 1972.(Mimeographed.)

Kirkwood, Gay. "Description of Categories for the Classroom

Music Analysis System." Enclosure; personal letter,
6 Nov., 1972. (Mimeographed.)
 173

Nolin, Wallace H. "Patterns of Teacher-Student Interaction

in Selected Junior High School General Music Classes."
Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1969.

Snapp, David W. "A Study of the Accumulative Musical and

Verbal Behavior of Teachers and Students in Fifth Grade
Instrumental Music Classes." M.A. thesis, The Ohio State
University, 196 7.

Van Sickle, Howard M. "An Exploratory and Descriptive Study

of the Interpersonal Factors and Group Dynamics of In­
strumental Music Groups." M.Ed.D. dissertation, Chicago
Musical College, Roosevelt University, 1955.

Verrastro, Ralph E. "An Experimental Investigation of Ver­

bal Behavior Analysis as a Supervisory Technique with
Student Teachers of Music." Ed.D. dissertation, The
Pennsylvania State University, 1970.