This article was downloaded by: [University College London]

On: 17 April 2015, At: 06:03

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational Research
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rere20

Systematic Classroom Observation: British Research

Maurice Galton

School of Education , University of Leicester

Published online: 09 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Maurice Galton (1979) Systematic Classroom Observation: British Research, Educational Research, 21:2,
109-115, DOI: 10.1080/0013188790210205
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0013188790210205

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Educational Research Volume 21 Number 2

109

Systematic Classroom
Observation: British Research
Downloaded by [University College London] at 06:03 17 April 2015

Maurice Galton, University of Leicester, School of Education

Summary
A survey published in 1970 by Simon and Boyer,
two American researchers; contained some 79
'observation systems' - sets of instructions or
categories which the researcher can use to note
down what is happening in the classroom he is
observing. Of these, only two were British in origin.
The information for this article is derived from a
survey of 41 native British systems currently in use
(Galton, 1978). In contrast with most of the
American studies, which are geared to formal
classroom climates, many of the British studies are
concerned with the more flexible type of classroom and teaching methods. This perhaps will be
one of the distinctive contributions of British
researchers to this field, where there is always a
danger that formal methods of teaching will receive
more attention and seem more productive simply
because, by their very nature, they are more amenable to observation and validation. At the same
time, much of the British research is simply
descriptive, and there is a need for more studies
showing the link between teacher behaviour and
effectiveness.
Introduction
The direct systematic observation of pupil and
teacher behaviour in the classroom has become an
important element in current educational research
methodology. The origin of these techniques can
be traced to the American 'Child Study Movement'
where researchers were forced, in their attempts
to define 'normal' and 'deviate' behaviours in preschool children, to record behaviour directly on to
a checklist, since the subjects were too young to
respond to interviews or fill in questionnaires. The
first schedules, as we now know them, were introduced by Olson (1929), who was the inventor of
time sampling techniques whereby the amount of

time spent in a particular category of behaviour

became a quantifiable variable. The influence of
these early workers can clearly be seen in, Tor
example, the Flanders Interaction Analysis System
(FIAC), which has proved to be the most popular
of all observation systems (Flanders, 1964).
Recent workers in the field have, however,
extended the term 'interaction analysis' to include
observation systems which cover non-verbal communication such as movement and gesture besides
those which simply analyse aspects of pupil and
teacher talk. The essential characteristic of all
these systems is that they involve the presence of
an observer in the classroom, the recording of
events in a systematic manner as they happen and
the coding of the interactions in such a way as to
make possible a subsequent analysis of teacher and
pupil behaviour. In some cases, notably that of
Smith and Meux (1962) and Nuthall and Lawrence
(1965), these behavioural events have been first
'captured' on either video or audio tape so that
subsequent analysis can be checked and re-checked.
The publication of Simon and Boyer's (1970)
version of Mirrors for Behaviour listed some 79
systems only two of which originated in Britain.
The Wragg system was a simple modification of
FIAC to allow for coding in a foreign language,
while that of Barnes provided a series of categories for coding different teacher questions
OVragg, 1970; Barnes, 1971). The recent publication of a similar anthology of British classroom
observation systems now lists over 40, most of
which, unlike their American counterparts, are not
simply off-shoots of the Flanders instrument. The
information collected for British Mirrors provides
many of the data for this review (Galton, 1978).
Problems of classification
An essential requirement for presenting any

Downloaded by [University College London] at 06:03 17 April 2015

110

Systematic classroom observation: British research

collection of observation systems is a classification

procedure to enable some regular format to be
used when presenting each entry. Mirrors for
Behaviour used eight main categories of classification which were subsequently extended by
Nuthall and Church (1972), who sub-divided the
cognitive dimension so as to distinguish between
instruments with 'special theoretical concerns' and
those directed towards linguistic analysis'. Others,
such as Rosenshine and Furst (1973) and Eggleston,
Galton and Jones' (1975a),have extended the 'uses'
category to distinguish between process, prescriptive, matching and process-product studies. Process
studies provide a description of classroom activity
in terms of the nature and the frequency of interaction between the participants. Process-product
studies attempt to correlate this description with
pupil outcomes, both cognitive and affective, in
order to judge the effectiveness of the teaching.
The use of observation schedules in teacher training is held to be prescriptive because the very
selection of any set of categories for the instrument is by implication a statement about the kind
of behaviours students have to include within their
performance if they are to be deemed competent
to teach. Perhaps the most interesting use of interaction analysis is for matching studies, in which
curriculum objectives are expressed in terms of
logically contingent behaviours and the classroom
process then examined to see how far the predicted and observed behaviour overlap. While
many of the schedules have the potential for this
development, only one (21) is specifically designed
for such a purpose.
Even so, a classification including all these
modifications is still found to be less than satisfactory. It would contain no data about the interobserver reliability or on the consistency of teacher
behaviour from occasion to occasion. Such information might be of primary concern to a researcher
who might also wish to know just how easy it was
to train others in the use of the particular observation schedule. Those who wish to use such
instruments for teacher training also need more
information about the subject area and the focus
of the instrument to include the kinds of distinctions made by Dunkin and Biddle (1974) in their
extensive review of existing research findings on
teaching. They list such characteristics as classroom
climate and organization, cognitive content and
linguistic analysis. Another distinctive feature of
British research has been the wide variety of

different organizational contexts within the classrooms where observation has been carried out.
Much criticism has been directed at American
instruments because they often seem appropriate
only to the more formal type of teaching situation
(Hamilton andDelamont, 1974). British researchers
require instruments that will cope with pupils in a
highly individualized open plan classroom and
others for use in the more limited setting of microteaching as an aid to improving the university
teacher's skill in lecturing. The type of classroom
setting in which each observation schedule has
been used is therefore also.an important piece of
information.
AD these different features were incorporated
into a questionnaire which was sent to each contributor to the classification. Authors were asked to
rate on a three-point scale how far the different
concerns reflected in Dunkin and Biddle's categorization reflected a central or subsidiary aim of
their observation schedule. They were also
requested to give details of training methods and
to estimate the length of time it took to achieve
satisfactory levels of inter-observer agreement.
Prior to publication all these entries were then
returned to the authors for re-checking so that the
information presented would be as accurate and
up-to-date as possible.
British research
The names of every author and, where available,
the reference dates are given in Table 1. Each
system is numbered for easy identification during
the subsequent discussion. Just over half the
systems can be traced through publications in
either books or journals, a far higher proportion
than in the original Simon and Boyer anthology
where many of the observation instruments were
'one-off presentations developed as part of higher
degree fulfilments. Table 2 provides a breakdown
of the main characteristics of the 41 observation
systems. It is clear that the major focus of British
observational research is the primary classroom,
given that nine of the 21 schedules listed for use in
secondary or higher education were not used in
schools but as part of micro-teaching programmes.
The wide variety of classroom organization
which exists within the primary sector constitutes
a special challenge for these authors since the
observation schedules must be flexible enough to
cope with open plan areas, vertical grouping, team
teaching and a high level of pupil mobility. Many

Systematic classroom observation: British research

111

Table 1: Author and reference for the 41 observation systems

Downloaded by [University College London] at 06:03 17 April 2015

No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Authors
Alexander
Allen et al.
Barnes
Boydell (PR)
Boydell (TR)
Breen et al.
Brown (BIAS)
Brown etal. (SAID)
Byattefa/. (RECAL)
Classen et al. (PETAR)
Cortis et al.
Delafield
Duthie
Egglestonef al (STOS)
Fox
Garner
Garner et al.
Hallam
Hilsumefo/. (JNR)
Hilsum et al. (Sec)
Hobbse/a/. (EXRIB)

Reference

No.

1974
1979
1971
1974
1975

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41

1975a
1978
1976
1971
1970
1975b
1972
1973
1971
1978

Authors
Johnson etal. (SAG)
Lea
McAleese (VIAT)
McAleese (CAL)
McAleese
McAleese etal. (SOSOP)
Mclntyre and Brown
Mclntyre et al.
Morrison
Powell
Raban
Resnick
Sinclair et al.
Sylva etal.
Underwood
Wade
Woodhead
Wragg
Wragg et al.
Yorke

Reference

1973

1977
1973
1974
1978
1972
1975
1976
1976
1970
1977

Within the subsequent text each system is referred to by its number within brackets thus (1, 7,8)

of the studies focus on pupil activity, with an

emphasis on the frequency of pupil-teacher contact
(16, 17, 33) and the proportion of time spent on
task as against routine or time wasting activity (5,
37). A weakness of these instruments is that no
attempt is made within the schedule to examine
the varying difficulty of the task, so that copying
or tracing a picture, for example, is given the same
status as solving mathematical problems or working
on a piece of creative writing. The more recent
version of Boydell's pupil record, as used in the
ORACLE study (Galton and Simon, 1975),
attempts, to overcome this defect by crosstabulating 'time on task' against each curricular
area so that in mathematics and English, for
example, rote learning and recall is differentiated
from the higher order cognitive processes.
An additional weakness in some published
studies involves the sampling problem in classrooms
where individual choice of work topic is permitted.
In a class where all the pupils are following the
same timetable any pupils sampled would be compared with each other while performing tasks in
the same or a similar curriculum area. In a class
where pupils are free to choose their own activities
within an overall timetable this will not be so as
sampling errors may result in an over-representation
of some curriculum areas as against others. No
attempt to check this was made in the Lancaster

study (Bennett, 1976), for example, and, since it is

known that the level of task involvement increases
when pupils are working on the basic skills, it is
important to monitor the range of curriculum
activity across the whole class at regular intervals
and then to check that the sample pupils' involvement approximates to the profile for the whole
group.
Studies of pupil-teacher contact show that
pupils receive unequal amounts of teacher attention (Garner and Bing, 1973), with the suspicion
that 'slow', 'quiet' pupils are discriminated against.
Only one system (12) makes it possible to study
dyadic interactions in a similar manner to Brophy
and Good (1970), which enables a teacher's
response to similar initiations from different pupils
to be compared for 'expectancy effects'. Finally,
studies of the primary teacher's day (13, 19) go
some way to explain why the number of work
contacts between teachers and pupils falls below
the expected average value, and points to a need to
explore ways in which teachers might be freed
from the wide variety of routine tasks which
emphasize the role of child minder rather than of
instructor.
The second major area of research concerns the
use of interaction analysis within the microteaching context. The main centres of activity are
to be found in the Universities of Aberdeen (6,9,

Systematic classroom observation: British research

112

Table 2: Breakdown of the classification data foi the 41 observation systems

1

Classroom Setting

a Nursery
b Primary
c Primary/secondary
d Secondary/higher
e Higher education
f Other

2
15
2
16
5
1

Downloaded by [University College London] at 06:03 17 April 2015

2 Method of Recording
a Live observer
b Sound
c Audio-visual
d Live + other
3

Target

a
b
c

Teacher
Pupil
Both

Coding Units

a
b
c
d
e

Time unit
Category change
Topic or speaker change
Time sample
Mixed

22
4
6
9

13
2
26

30
3
1
1
1
4
1

a
b
c
d
e

Descriptive
Process-presage
Process-product
Matching objectives to process
Teacher training

8
a
b
c
d

Training Method
Unaccompanied + manual
Unaccompanied + videotape
With instructor
No details

9
a
b
c
d

One day or less

Two days
Three days or more
No details

5
3
12
4
17

2
6
20
13

Training Time

13
3
13
12

a
b
c

% agreement or correlation
Anova
None reported

11

Visit Consistency

a
b
c

% agreement or correlation
Anova
None reported

18
5
18

4
2
35

12 Use

6 Instrument's Main Focus

a Classroom climate
b Classroom organization
c Cognitive content
d Linguistic analysis

Main Application

10 Observer Agreement
9
11
1
10
10

5 Subject Focus
a Across curriculum
b Science
c English
d Politics
e Foreign language
f Physical education
g Other

16
9
9
7

22, 24-7), Nottingham (7, 8) and Stirling (29).

Evidence from a series of small-scale studies
(Brown, 1975b; Mdntyre etal, 1977) suggests that
the use of interaction analysis in conjunction with
micro-teaching increases sensitivity, and results in
improved performance, at least in the short term.
Of the remaining systems used in secondary level
the emphasis has been placed on the evaluation of
new science curricula (1, 14, 28), and these are all
school-based studies while, in comparison, the
observation schedules used in physical education
at secondary level have been used only for in-service
and initial teacher training (10, 15, 36). Initial

a
b

Author alone
Author + others

17
24

teacher training is also the focus of studies by

Wragg, not only for comparing language students
with those teaching other subjects (Wragg, 1973),
but also as part of the Teacher Education Project
in the unit on classroom management (40).
In many American-produced observation
schedules the influence of Flanders can easily be
discerned, just under half the schedules in the
1970 version of Mirrors appearing as direct derivatives. In contrast, relatively few British systems
closely resemble FIAC (7, 36, 39), and the complexity and range of the 41 systems are one of
their obvious features. Because of this complexity

Systematic classroom observation : British research

113

Table 3: Main characteristics of the 41 observation systems

Downloaded by [University College London] at 06:03 17 April 2015

Classroom
setting

35,38

4,5,10,11-13,16,
17,19,21,23,32,
33, 34, 37

15,18

1-3,6-9,14,20,
24, 28-30, 36, 39,
40

Recording
method

1,2,4,5,12-20,
23,26,32,33,35,
37,38,39,40

3,6,31,34

8,11,22,25,
29,41

7,9,10,21,27,
28, 30, 36

Subject
focus

3-9,11-13,16,17,
19-25,29,31,33-35,
37, 38, 40, 41

1,14,28

32.

Main
instrument
focus

1,7,10,12,15-17,
22,26,27,29,
32,36, 37, 39,40

4,13,18-20, 23,
24, 33, 38

3,5,9,11,14,21,
28,30,41

2,6,8,25,31,34,
35

Main
application

13,16, 26, 33,

40

17,19, 20

2,4,5,8,12,14,
21, 23, 28, 30, 32,
37

1,10,18, 38

Training
method

1,7

3,9,10, 25-27

4-6,8,14,15,18-21, 2,11-13,16,17,22,
24,30,31,33,37,
21,23,28,29,32,
38
34-36, 39-41

Training
time

3,7,9.14, 25-27,
29,34-36,39,41

8, 37,40

1,4-6,10,15,18-21, 2,11-13,16,17,22,
24,30,31,33,38
21,23,28,32

22,25,
27,31,
41

The numbers in the cells of the matrix refer to the systems listed in Table 1. The letters a-e at the top of each column
are the sub-divisions listed under each main heading in Table 2.
a large number of these instruments for which
details are available appear to need the presence of
an instructor for training purposes, and over half
of these need three days or more for the traineeobserver to reach a satisfactory level of competence. Details of the training procedures used can
be obtained from Table 3 in conjunction with the
use of the data in the previous two tables.
Most of the instruments use a live observer (80
per cent against 69 per cent in Simon and Boyer's
Mirrors), while there is a wide range of coding units
in contrast to the American systems, where over
70 per cent use a change of category to indicate
movement from one unit to the next. The use of
time units in which every behaviour is recorded
within a given interval is relatively less common,
perhaps because the greater complexity of British
schedules requires some form of time sampling
so that the selected behaviours need to be recorded

only once during the unit. Classroom climate

appears to be the most important descriptive
feature of most systems, with a small number
devoted exclusively to linguistic analysis (6,31,32,
34, 41). Although many authors claim that the
schedules can be used to identify relationships
between the process, presage (teacher variables,
training, experience, etc.) product and in
attempting to match curricular objectives to logically contingent behaviours, most, are, in fact, used
to provide descriptions or to reflect how far the
student teacher's intentions are congruent with his
performance. The use of observational data either
to identify or to validate teaching styles (14,37) is
a small but important development.
Suggestions for future research
Similar criticisms to those made by Medley and
Mitzel (1963) and by Rosenshine and Furst (1973)

Downloaded by [University College London] at 06:03 17 April 2015

114

Systematic classroom observation: British research

could be made about British research, particularly

in relation to the calculation of reliability coefficients. Medley's caution that simple comparisons
using pairs of observers will tend to overestimate
the coefficient of observer-agreement seems to
have gone unnoticed, since nearly half the authors
use either product-moment correlation, percentage
agreement or the Scott (1955) coefficient, and
only five authors report the use of analysis of
variance to estimate the between-teacher within
observer F-ratio (4, 5, 14, 19, 20) as a measure of
how well the group of observers agree. Other types
of reliability coefficient which attempt to estimate
either the consistency of teaching behaviour on
different occasions, an essential feature of schoolbased research, since the observations will constitute a small sample of the total lesson time, or the
degree of correspondence between the author's
interpretation and that of the observers after training are an almost totally neglected feature. Few
studies are reported in which more than one
schedule is used within the same classroom setting
(4, 5, 28), another of Rosenshine's recommendations.
Looking to the future, the original publication
of the American Mirrors resulted in an upsurge of
interest in the area so that the number of observation schedules rapidly doubled within the space of
five years. Because of the greater diversity of the
British educational scene it is likely that the number of instruments will increase even more rapidly
since each fresh research tends to have its own
special requirements which cannot be met by the
existing systems. Even so a degree of consolidation
is now perhaps necessary, and Nuthall's (1972)
comment on the American scene is also equally
pertinent to the British one:

who differ in effectiveness differs in their behaviour within the classroom, little progress towards
a 'practical theory of teaching' for which there is
much call, is likely to be made.

We have always had a large number of

different ideas about how teachers should
behave without any evidence that these ideas
were right or wrong. Now we have a large
number of observation systems for describing
how teachers do behave without any evidence
that the things we're observing are the right
or wrong things to observe.
Nuthall's solution is to engage in more studies of
the process-product variety in an attempt to
demonstrate the validity of some observation
systems. Far too much of the British research is
simply descriptive, and unless researchers can
direct their attention to describing how teachers

Bibliography
ALEXANDER, D. J. (1974). Nuffield Secondary Science:
An Evaluation. Schools Council Research Series. London: Macmillan.
ALLEN, G. and LISTER, I. (1979). 'Political Education
Research Unit Observation Schedule', International
Journal of Political Education, 1, 5 (in press).
BARNES, D. (1971). 'Language in the secondary classroom'. In: BARNES, D. et al. Language, the Learner
and the School. Harmondsworth: Penguin Papers in
Education.
BENNETT, N. (1976). Teaching Styles and Pupil Progress.
London: Open Books.
BOYDELL, D. (1974). Teacher-pupil contact in junior
classrooms', Br. J. Educ. Psychol., 44, 313-18.
BOYDELL, D. (1975). 'Pupil behaviour in junior classrooms', Br. J. Educ. Psychol., 45, 122-9.
BROPHY, J. and GOOD, T. (1970). 'Teachers' communication of differential expectations for children's classroom performance: some behavioral data', J. Educ.
Psychol., 61, 365-74.
BROWN, G. (1975a). Microteaching: A Programme of
Teaching Skills. London: Methuen.
BROWN, G. (1975b). 'Some case studies of teacher
preparation', Br. J. Teacher Educ, 1, 1, 71-85.
BROWN, G. and ARMSTRONG, S. (1978). 'SAID: a
System for Analysing Instructional Discourse'. In:
HAMILTON, D. and McALEESE, R. (Eds) Understanding Classroom Life. Slough: NFER.
BYATT, A. M. (1976). Analysis of the verbal content of
lectures. Unpublished MEd thesis, University of
Aberdeen.
CLASSEN, O. (1971). The Primary Physical Education
Teacher Analysis Record (PETAR). Unpublished MEd
thesis, University of Aberdeen.
DUNKIN, M. J. and BIDDLE, B. J. (1974). The Study of
Teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
DUTHIE, J. H. (1970). The Primary School Survey.
Scottish Education Department, Edinburgh: HMSO.
EGGLESTON, J. E., GALTON, M. J. and JONES, M. E.
(1975a). 'A conceptual map for interaction studies'.
In: CHANAN, G. and DELAMONT, S. (Eds) Frontiers
of Classroom Research. Slough: NFER.
EGGLESTON, J. F., GALTON, M. J. and JONES, M. E.
(1975b). A Science Teaching Observation Schedule.
Schools Council Research Series. London: Macmillan.
EGGLESTON, J. F., GALTON, M. J. and JONES, M. E.
(1976). Processes and Products of Science Teaching.
Schools Council Research Series. London: Macmillan.
FLANDERS, N. A. (1964). 'Some relationships among
teacher influence, pupil attitudes, and achievement'.
In: BIDDLE, B. J. and ELLENA, W. J. (Eds) Contemporary Research on Teacher Effectiveness. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
GALTON, M. J. (1978). British Mirrors: A Collection of
Classroom Observation Systems. University of
Leicester, School of Education.

Downloaded by [University College London] at 06:03 17 April 2015

Systematic classroom observation: British research

GALTON, M. J. and SIMON, B. (1975). Observational
Research and Classroom Learning Evaluation. An
SSRC Research Programme, University of Leicester,
School of Education.
GARNER, J. (1972). 'Some aspects of behaviour in infant
school classrooms', Res. in Educ., 7, 28-47.
GARNER, J. and BING, M. (1973). 'Inequalities of
teacher-pupil contacts', Br. J. Educ. Psychol., 43, 5,
234-43.
HAMILTON, D. and DELAMONT, S. (1974). 'Classroom
research: a cautionary tale', Res. in Educ., 11, 1-15.
HILSUM, S. and CANE, B. S. (1971). The Teacher's Day.
Slough: NFER.
HILSUM, S. and STRONG, C. (1978). The Secondary.
Teacher's Day. Slough: NFER.
McALEESE, R. (1975). 'Towards a meta-language of
training in higher education', Br. J. Teacher Educ., 1,
2, 213-20.
McALEESE, R. (1973a). 'The use of interaction analysis
in the training of university teachers', Educational
Resources Information Center, IR 005, p 369.
McALEESE, R. (1973b). 'The systematic observation of
lecturing: its use in training', Educational Resources
Information Center, IR 005, p 368.
McINTYRE, D., GRIFFITHS, R. and MacLEOD, G.
(1977). Investigations in Microteaching. London:
Croom Helm.
MEDLEY, D. M. and MITZEL, H. E. (1963). 'Measuring
classroom behaviour by systematic observation'. In:
GAGE, N. L. (Ed) Handbook of Research on Teaching.
American Educational Research Association, Chicago:
Rand McNally.
MORRISON, A. and CAMERON-JONES, M. (1973).
Teachers' assessments of their pupils*. In: CHANAN,
G. (Ed) Towards a Science of Teaching. Slough:
NFER.
NUTHALL, G. A. and CHURCH, J. (1972). 'Observation
systems used with recording media', Int. Rev. Educ.,
18, 491-507.
NUTHALL, G. A. and LAWRENCE, P. J. (1965). Thinking
in Classrooms: The Development of a Method of
Analysis. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand
Council for Educational Research.
OLSON, W. C. (1929). 'The measurement of habits in
normal children', Institute of Child Welfare Mimeographs, 3.

115
POWELL, J. P. (1974). 'Small group teaching methods in
higher education', Educ. Res., 16,163-71.
RABAN, B., WELLS, G. and NASH, T. (1977). 'Observing
children learning to read', Res. Intell., 3, 1. Reprinted
in BENNETT, N. and McNAMARA (Eds) (1978).
Focus on Teaching. Harlow: Longman.
RESNICK, L. (1972). 'Teacher behaviour in the informal
classroom', J. Curric Stud., 4, 99-109.
ROSENSHINE, B. and FURST, N. (1973). 'The use of
direct observation to study teaching'. In: TRAVERS,
M. W. (Ed) Second Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally.
SCOTT, W. A. (1955). 'Reliability of content analysis:
the case of nominal coding', Public Opinion
Quarterly, 19, 321-5.
SIMON, A. and BOYER, E. G. (Eds) (1967; 1970; 1975).
Mirrors for Behaviour: An Anthology of Classroom
Observation Instruments. Philadelphia: Research for
Better Schools Inc.
SINCLAIR, J. McH. and COULTHARD, R. M. (1975).
Towards an Analysis of Discourse. London: Oxford
University Press.
SMITH, B. O. and MEUX, M. (1962). A Study of the
Logic of Teaching. Urbana, Illinois: Bureau of Educational Research, University of Illinois.
UNDERWOOD, G. L. (1976). 'The use of interaction
analysis and videotape recording in studying teaching
behaviour in physical education'. In: GLAISTER, I. K.
(Ed) Evaluation in Physical Education. Report of the
NATFHE Physical Education Section 1976 Conference,
pp 24-34.
WADE, B. (1978). Anxiety and motivation in relation to
pupil behaviour in formal and informal classrooms.
Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Lancaster. Also
in: BENNETT, N. (1976). Teaching Styles and Pupil
Progress. London: Open Books.
WRAGG, E. C. (1970). 'Interaction analysis in the foreign
language classroom', Modern Language Journal, LIV,
2, 116-20.
WRAGG, E. C. (1973). 'A study of student teachers in
the classroom'. In: CHANAN, G. (Ed) Towards a
Science of Teaching. Slough: NFER.
YORKE, M. (1977). 'The analysis of verbal exchanges in
small group teaching', Programme Learning and
Educational Technology, 14, 294-9.