Video Analysis of Student Teaching Using Satic Model Essay

One of the most essential components of effective science teaching is the use of effective asking (Clough, 2007). Abraham and Schlitt (1973) argue that, “Teaching requires continuous analysis of both scholar and educator behaviors and subsequent modificationof classroom functionality. ” Additionally they say educators must be their own critics in the event that continuous evaluation is to arise (Abraham & Schlitt, 1973).

The topic i chose to concentrate on analyzing are the interactions, just like questioning and responding, that take place among teachers and the students. Offered the topic, this kind of final video analysis project will focus on answering the question, “What types of interactions take place in the classroom? ” One way to improve teacher communications and behaviors is through deep reflection on one’s own practice through action research (Capobianco et ing. 2004). I selected to research this topic because it is important for myself to better appreciate whether We am properly asking concerns that information students for the desired results or basically lecturing.

Through this exploration, I hope to find out who is undertaking most of the speaking in the classroom and whether I actually am performing most of the notify them or perhaps if I am pushing them to think more deeply about the subject so that they can help to make their own cable connections. I also want to see what types of questions I am asking my college students and whether the majority of choices simple get suggestions or if perhaps they require my own students to believe critically and make links to preceding knowledge ahead of answering a question I have asked.

Finally, I would like to know if, after asking a question, We give my personal students the required time to think about their answers and whether I actually give them the answer directly or if I support my pupils to find their particular answers. Researching this issue will have an important impact on my teaching by simply helping myself to quantify what types of educating strategies I prefer and which of them I could employ more frequently. The analysis for this paper will probably be of a two day lesson that I trained to a ninth grade integrated science category on the subject of normal selection.

Asking has become a fundamental element of the science class.  Inquiry teaching, a relatively fresh paradigm in teaching offers shifted in the non-interactive/authoritative style of lecture-based teaching to the usage of the concerns and scholar responses to explore students’ thoughts about science (Chin, 2006). “Unlike teacher wondering in classic lessons where purpose is always to evaluate what students know, the nature of questioning in constructivist-based or inquiry-oriented lessons differs from the others. In this sort of lessons, the teacher’s intent is to elicit what learners think, to encourage them to cite their prior answers and ideas, and also to help students construct conceptual knowledge. (Chin, 2006 pp.

1319) These kind of questions are accustomed to extend students’ ideas and scaffold their particular thinking into higher-order pondering (Chin, 2006). Some research have shown that after students should struggle with a question and create their own ideas as to why tendency occur, they learn the preferred concepts better because they are engaged in the material (Fay & Bretz, 2008). There have been several studies by many diverse authors that argue when you use more broad questions in their classroom as opposed to narrower questions which can be usually used.

Traditionally, focused questions have been used to see whether the student can recall certain facts that they were advised (Manouchehri & Lapp, 2003). A quotation from Manouchehri and Lapp (2003) best explains their position on how questioning ought to be used in the classroom and provides insights into types of questions plus the role asking plays in learning. “Traditionally, inquiries have been accustomed to determine what continues to be learned – too often since isolated bits of knowledge. Building procedural abilities is no longer the sole purpose of math instruction.

Teachers should include questions that are directed toward evaluating students’ thinking. The teacher’s concerns must give learners a chance to communicate all their reasoning process. These types of inquiries allow the teacher to gather detailed data on how students believe and the actual actually learn from instruction. ” (Manouchehri & Lapp, 2003 pp. 564) There are many different authors including Chin (2006), Herman (2008), Karusi (2009), and Bells that would are likely to agree with Manouchehri and Lapps’ position.

Disputes for more broad vs . ocused style questions have become more prevalent in recent times as a result of need for reforms in the way today’s students happen to be taught. In the article, Herman says that teachers have difficulty using powerful questions within their teaching because of the way these were taught, in which, “Factual asking yourself strategies are the norm. ” (Herman, 2008 pp.

12) In The Art of Asking, Bell provides the reader with questioning tactics he implemented in his personal classroom after receiving measely feedback via his students when using a conventional questioning method (Bell pp. ). Krusi experimented with revoicing (a technique used to restate students’ responses) her students’ statements and found that right at the end of the yr, “The students’ turn extent, participation, and involvement improved and the pupils attempted to clarify so that other folks could figure out. ” (Krusi, 2009 pp. 132) Your research presented in Herman’s article seems to confirm what other creators have said about questioning. “The way teacher questions happen to be worded really does make a difference in student response. ” (Herman, 2008 pp.

6) Herman (2008) discovered that educators were more likely to elicit prolonged answers through the use of more open-ended questions. Following reading these articles, I was persuaded that I needed to improve my very own questioning abilities, which lead me to work with the SATIC model for a self-evaluation of my make use of questioning in the classroom. The device that I uses to help answer this question is the SATIC (Student and Teacher Interaction Coding) (Abraham & Schlitt, 1973) which is a tool that was developed intended for monitoring certain teacher manners.

In order to better understand how the SATIC performs and translate the results, Abraham and Schlitt (1973) explain the use of the SATIC tool; its record, uses, and implementation, along with a coding piece to help the user analyze your data they have accumulated. I will use the SATIC to investigate a 15 minute of the section of the lesson and the coding linen to evaluate teaching behaviours and types of reactions so that I could quantify just how many times My spouse and i used each type of interaction or patterns as opposed to one other. In order to execute my evaluation, I will use data gathered from scholar work and video data that was recorded during my lesson for later guide.

The video facts will come from the second day of the two part lessons that I taught to a senior high school integrated science class within the topic of natural selection. The student data will help inside my analysis by providing feedback about whether the learners met the objectives from the lesson and whether the actual learned was obviously a direct result of behaviors and strategies that we used through the entire lesson. Video evidence will even help my own analysis by giving a way i can go back to notice and sort out what types of connections there were among me and my learners. The video proof will also present me with the information I want to complete the coding sheet for SATIC analysis.

To analyze the student/teacher interactions at my lesson, We watched a fifteen minute noted section of my lesson and used it to aid me finish the SATIC coding bed sheet by Abraham and Schlitt (1973) and modified by simply Clough (1996). The section of lesson assessed begins regarding 26 minutes into the lessons and ends at 41 minutes and encompasses a dialogue between me, my spouse, and the students regarding types of adaptions of animals that they are shown plus the reasons why that animal could have developed all of them.

A copy from the completed coding sheet can be found in Appendix A. After the online video evidence was reviewed and the coding linen analyzed, the total number of tallies for instructor initiatory (lines 1-4) relationships were added together and divided by the total number of teacher responding (lines 5-12) interaction tallies to give an interaction index. This index is a way of measuring students’ involvement as well as instructing behavior (“What is satic? ” 2005). The conversation index We obtained from this lesson was handed by the equation, Interaction Index = Responding (R)Initiatory (I) = 3334 = 0. 97. In respect to Abraham and Schlitt (1973), in case the interaction index is low ~0. 60 it indicates which the teacher initiates about twice as much because they respond.

A decreased interaction index is also indicative of a educator dominated classroom, (Abraham & Schlitt, 1973) which is not a trademark of query teaching (Fay & Bretz, 2008). Relating to Abraham and Schlitt (1973), an ideal interaction index should be near 1 . 0 or higher. The final tally of initiatory and response interactions indicated that there was a 34: 33 or ~50% ratio of initiation of dialogue to respond to student answers from the educator, respectively.

Through the initiatory regions of the lessons, 44% of the time was spent talking. According to the SATIC, discussing is defined as period that the tutor spends lecturing, giving guidelines, making assertions, and requesting rhetorical questions. Around 66% with this time was spent lecturing and giving long directions that has been calculated by providing a tally for every 12-15 continuous mere seconds of lecturing in which the learners were not taking part in discussion.

The remaining 34% of initiating discussion was put in by the tutor making assertions such as providing short units of guidelines or asking rhetorical questions that the students weren’t expected to answer. An example by my lesson that reveals this type of interaction is while i am supplying directions upon what the students should be referring to within their discussion groups. On the other hand, 56% from the initiatory areas of the lessons was spent asking questions to students.

The SATIC specifies questioning because asking certainly or no queries, short-answer inquiries, thought invoking short-answer concerns, and extended-answer questions. The coding piece shows that 42% of the starting questions were short-answer and yes/no type questions. For instance , a yes/no type query in my lessons is a single where Specialists whether there were an edition present after showing the students a picture of Darwin’s finches.

The remaining 58% of the initiating questions part was spent asking thought provoking questions which necessary a considerate response of some words for a short-answer or perhaps interpretation, description, or activity of a trends for a long-answer. A short-answer question of this type asked students to speculate what the animal’s adaption was; while a long-answer issue asked students to synthesize what they believed the animal’s adaptation was useful for and why. The responding relationships composed the rest of the interactions that took place throughout the section of online video that I utilized for this evaluation. There was a single instance exactly where I refused a student review and lower him away before having been through explaining his answer.

All learners should be presented an equal possibility to express their very own thoughts, whether they are right or wrong (Chin, 2006), and I believe that I produced a mistake while i interrupted this student. I was disappointed to see this is a type of interaction by myself as it does not overlap with my personal teaching sagesse. The majority of responses that were provided to the students, about 45%, were ones that accepted the scholars answer with a response including “okay” or “all right”.

I would like to view less of these types of responses since they fail to measure the response the fact that student has given (Abraham & Schlitt, 1973). One other similar type of response is one that concurs with the student’s answer which has a response like “that’ right” or “good job”. Even though a response like this may be more positive than a straightforward “okay”, it fails to assess the student’s response and the scholar does not get any helpful feedback with this type of response.

This response type happened only 2 times during my lessons. The second-largest type of response was one particular where the student’s comment was repeated. By repeating the comment, the teacher indicates that they read the student’s response, allows other college students to hear the response, and enables trainees to listen to the actual said (Krusi, 2009). Following hearing their particular response, students may verify what they supposed to say although other students are given the opportunity to respond to what their classmate has just stated.

This response occurred 24% of the time during responsive communications. Clarification and interpretation of any student’s response helps the teacher to comprehend whether they observed the student’s response appropriately and can serve to clarify the particular student has just said throughout the class (Abraham & Schlitt, 1973). This kind of response took place twice inside my lesson. I would really like to see me personally using really these types of reactions since they present constructive opinions to the college student and stimulates them to believe more deeply as to what they have merely said (Chin, 2006). The next type of response is a single where the teacher answers trainees question.

I do not feel that answering a student question downright is appropriate for an inquiry-based lesson and thus, this type of response was not used by me or my spouse. I believe that students should be allowed to struggle with an answer to get a little while and reflect on the relating concepts before a remedy is simply directed at them. This kind of behavior is not really characteristic of inquiry learning since it will not encourage college students to come up with their own solutions and later serves to aid to scholar move on to the next question (Fay & Bretz, 2008). Asking students to clarify or complex made up the last 15% of response relationships during my lessons.

In these types of answers, students happen to be asked to explain their ideas further or perhaps explain what is meant by way of a responses. I really like that this sort of response was used somewhat inside my lesson and can strive to integrate more of these responses in to future lessons. There are many types of interactions that occur between the instructor and their students.  For the most part, We am pleased with interactions that occurred during the section of my lesson that was assessed. It appeared that my partner and I had a lot of quality asking and reactions that we gave to our college students.

In general, our students could actually gain beneficial feedback and learned a whole lot by being pushed to think deeper about the underlying ideas of all-natural selection. Resulting from the wondering strategies employed, I believe our students were better able to understand the driving forces of adaptions and their functional applications for the real world.