A Behavioral Observation System for Classroom Foreign Language Skill Acquisition

Activities
Author(s): Gilbert A. Jarvis
Source: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 52, No. 6 (Oct., 1968), pp. 335-341
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers
Associations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/322052
Accessed: 27-06-2016 17:39 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/322052?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley, National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal

This content downloaded from 129.217.98.15 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 17:39:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

A Behavioral Observation System for Classroom

Foreign Language Skill Acquisition Activities
GILBERT A. JARVIS, Purdue University

ALTHOUGH the inauspicious history of research on teaching effectiveness can appear intimidating to the prospective researcher,

the recent widespread recognition of the need

for systematic observation of what actually
does happen within the classroom does seem to
provide an alternative to the futilitarian approach. While it is the most obvious approach
to research on teaching, it is very expensive in
terms of time, money, and the skill required of
the observers. In the literature one finds many
pleas for more systematic observation but fewer
reports of research utilizing the technique.? Re-

or in the target language. When it is in the

target language, he may be making the utterance because the temperature is in fact below
zero that day, and the teacher has asked him
how the weather is, or he may be making the
utterance because it is simply an item in a pattern drill on idiomatic expressions about the
weather. Moreover, the utterance may be an
answer to the teacher's question about the
weather despite its being a warm September
afternoon, because it is the only way the student has learned to respond to that question.
He may not yet have learned to say that it is
hot outside. These semantically identical utter-

cently Moskowitz2 has attempted to adapt the

Flanders System of Interaction Analysis to the

ances are not identical behaviors in terms of the

foreign language classroom. The ingenious

language learning outcomes.

Flanders system, now being extensively used in

research in other academic areas, categorizes
classroom verbal behavior into various types of

Thus, one is led to the need for a system for

classifying behaviors in terms of language skill

teacher talk and student talk. Teacher talk

instrument proposed below is derived from the

categories reflect the directness or indirectness

psychology of second language learning as it is

generally understood at present and from experiential knowledge of how these theoretical

of the teacher's influence. Matrices of behaviors

observed and recorded at three second intervals

provide a graphic abstraction of the classroom

behavior in terms of the categories used. Foreign languages were among those subject areas
excluded from the early extensive work of
Flanders because the interaction analysis data
"were too variable for efficient analysis."3 Mos-

kowitz suggests (p. 219) that this lacuna in interaction research may be due to the need for
the researcher to understand both the system of

interaction analysis and the peculiarities of the

foreign language classroom. While this need is
certainly critical, a fundamental factor may be
traceable to the objective of any behavioral description system, which is to abstract behavior
into kinds which in the classroom are significantly different from one another in terms of
learning consequences. A valid system of behavior analysis must in the foreign language
classroom differentiate between types of be-

haviors which are monolithic in other class-

rooms. For example, when a student verbalizes,

"It's cold outside," he may do it in English or

acquisition consequences of the behaviors. The

considerations do actualize in today's classrooms.

The Instrument

Inherent in any system of behavior classifica-

tion is the a priori postulating of a teaching

model. The defined categories peremptorily
represent judgments about which aspects of behavior to observe and which to ignore. In order
to avoid a restrictive model the instrument

here proposed presumes merely that language

skill acquisition means optimal student skill de1 A concise treatment of the entire subject can be found

in Donald M. Medley and Harold E. Mitzell, "Measuring

Classroom Behavior by Systematic Observation"; included
in Handbook of Research on Teaching, N. L. Gage, ed.
Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963, pp. 247-328.

2Gertrude Moskowitz, "The Effects of Training

Teachers in Interaction Analysis," in Foreign Language
Annals, Vol. I, No. 3 (March, 1968), pp. 218-235.
8 Ned A. Flanders, "Analyzing Teacher Behavior," in
Educational Leadership, Vol. XIX, No. 3 (December, 1961),
p. 173.

335

This content downloaded from 129.217.98.15 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 17:39:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

336

GILBERT

A.

JARVIS

velopment in each of the four language skills:

listening, speaking, reading, and writing. (The
instrument is intended for use only in language

skill acquisition activities; it is not applicable,

for example, to testing or a lecture about culture.) The implied model assumes that in language skill acquisition the student must proceed
through the stages of "encountering" (hearing or

The student's response about the weather depends upon what he really believes the weather
to be.' This "real" language occurs in the following categories.
REAL LANGUAGE CATEGORIES

A-Teacher evokes student response. The teacher

utterance results in a verbal response by the

seeing) elements of the language, imitating

student (or is intended to elicit such a re-

them, manipulating them, and finally using

guage. Above all, the model assumes that

sponse). The utterance is intended to result in

an interaction. Most entries would be questions
either personalized to individual students or re-

teaching effectiveness is in part attributable to

lating to material studied. Typical examples

them in innovative real communication lan-

the teacher's choice of behaviors and their fre-

quency of use.
Use of the instrument requires that an observer record a time sample of classroom behaviors in terms of the categories defined below.
At regular intervals of a predetermined number

of seconds the observer records an entry in

terms of what is occurring at that particular
instant. Using a ten second interval the first
five minutes of a class might appear as: A A 2 2
D2A H C 2 A 8 EEPA 2 41 BAD 2 2 G

4 3 3 A A. At the end of the class period one has

a sequential graphic sample of what occurred.

The frequencies of each category are then

totalled and easily converted to proportions or

percentages of the class period. A table of the
behavioral categories appears in Figure 1.
The format of Figure 1 can also be adapted to
that of a table for recording totals and propor-

tions of time for each behavior. Proportions of

the larger divisions of the instrument, such as
teacher talk and student talk, target language,
English, real communication language, or drill
language can be summarized from the individual categories.
The major dichotomies are required by the
nature of meaningful verbal behavior. Further
divisions are related to learning activities. Target language activity can involve either written

language or spoken language, which can be

further dichotomized into "real" or "drill"

language. "Real" language categories are those

where language is used to communicate. Control of the language is in the speaker's intent or

meaning rather than in the structure of the

language. The utterance is not invariably predictable by a potential auditor. It has furthermore, a meaningful and immediate context.

would be: "How are you?" "What time is it?"

"What color is your shirt?" (English examples
are used merely for convenience.)
B-Evoked by student. The teacher responds to
a student utterance (which is evoking), thus
making an interaction; e.g. "Yes, Mary, Mar-

seilles is in the south."

C-Management. The teacher uses the target

language in the mechanics of running the class-

room; e.g. "Open your books to unit ten."

"Would you go to the board, John?" "You

must study much more." "Change the verb to

the past tense in this drill."

D-Reinforcing or facilitating student performance. The teacher uses real communication

language in a way that has a positive affective

influence on students; e.g. "You did very well,
Paul." "Good." "I know how difficult this is."

"Would it help you to remember what John

said?" This category is differentiated from cate-

gories J and P by its communicative nature.

The focus is on the meaning of the teacher's
utterance.

E-Explanatory information presentation. The

teacher gives an explanatory presentation

which provides information to the students.

The focus is the meaning of what is said and
not the language forms used to express it. The
time involved can range from that of a short
utterance to a lengthy lecture. Typically the
teacher may be conveying information about
4 The need for this type of behavior in the classroom has

been a recurring theme in the professional literature,

especially since the publication of Wilga Rivers, The Psychologist and The Foriegn-Language Teacher, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964.

This content downloaded from 129.217.98.15 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 17:39:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

CLASSROOM FOREIGN LANGUAGE SKILL ACQUISITION ACTIVITIES 337

TEACHER

STUDENT

TARGET LANGUAGE

A Evoking student response 1 Evoking response

B Evoked by student 2 Responding
REAL C Classroom management
D Facilitating performance or reinforcing behavior

E Information explanation

G Evoking stimulus 3 Individual response

DRILL H Repetition reinforcement 4 Choral response
J Prompting
P Modeling or correcting

READING W Presenting written language 5 Writing

AND 6 Reading silently
WRITING 7 Reading aloud
ENGLISH

K About target structure or sound system 8 Question about target

M About meaning 9 Answer about target
N Management
+ Silence or English not in the above categories but which seems to facilitate learning
- Silence or English not in the above categories but which seems to impede learning

FIGURE 1

material studied (e.g. a story read), explaining

a grammar pattern, or explaining the meaning
of an item.

The "real language" student utterances are

all individual as opposed to choral. The very

nature of choral work excludes its communicative use.

drill including repetition (e.g. dialog repetition). It does always elicit student response.
H-Repetition reinforcement. The teacher approvingly repeats (echoes) student utterance.
Both informational feedback (about the accuracy of the student utterance) and affective
reinforcement are inherent in the repetition. It

1-Student evokes response. The student initiates an utterance to which the teacher (or another student) responds. Directed dialog which
is communicative is included.

2-Student responds. The response is to an

evoking utterance, thus completing an interaction; e.g. "Yes, I do have a sister." "I'm sixteen years old."
"Drill language" is language for the purpose
of facilitating the use of that language. It has
meaning but is not uttered for the purpose of
communication in this instance. It is "practice
language."
DRILL LANGUAGE CATEGORIES

G-Stimulus evoking response. The teacher

gives a drill stimulus for any type of pattern

may be slightly correctional; however, it does

not evoke an additional student repetition.

J-Prompting. The teacher provides the student with language forms he has momentarily

been unable to produce. The prompting is

associated with encouragement and should not

be a correction of forms already uttered by the

student.

P-Modeling or correcting. The teacher presents

examples of language forms so that students
can hear them, however, they do not evoke a
student response; or, secondly, the teacher pro-

vides a corrective representation of a student

utterance.

3-Individual response. The student utters

practice language forms individually.

This content downloaded from 129.217.98.15 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 17:39:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

338

GILBERT

A.

JARVIS

4-Choral response. The students utter practice

language forms chorally (two or more stu-

dents).

The reading and writing categories are essentially self-explanatory. These behaviors can
in certain circumstances occur simultaneously
with spoken language. A decision must then be
made as to whether the learning is primarily

centered in an oral skill or in a written skill. A

transformation drill which requires major

changes in the stimulus is not being read when
the student is looking at the printed stimulus.
Reading a sentence where the central task is
simply the placement of a correct verb form
into a blank is, however, essentially a reading
task.

9-Student response about target. The student

completes an interaction by talking about any
aspect of target language.

Any behavior not appropriately classified

into the above categories is considered in the
following dichotomy. These behaviors all involve either a use of English not subsumed by
the above categories or a state of silence or confusion.

+-Lack of verbal behavior or English which

seems to have a positive effect upon learning (in its

broadest sense); e.g. appropriate amount of

time spent on administrative activities; joking,
laughing, comments, all of which seem to contribute to the situation; other necessary English.

Categories W and 6 can also occur simultaneously. Here again judgement must be made
about which is dominant. "Teacher presenting
written language" involves a small segment of
classroom behavior when the teacher simply
turns on an overhead projector; but when a sentence is written on the chalkboard, the shift to

student reading logically occurs only when the

teacher completes the writing. In category 5
the source initiating the student behavior can

be written language (as in a writing drill),

spoken language (as in dictation), or it may be

innovative writing (student writes a description of an object).
The categories in English refer to all English
talk. Included are all uses of target language
words, phrases, or sentences within English
frames. For example, "You should say, 'Il en a

besoin.' "

K-About target. All teacher talk about "grammar" and the sound system. Most commonly
this category represents generalizations about
structure.

M-About meaning. The teacher clarifies meaning by the use of English. The teacher either
gives or asks for an English equivalent. The
English portion of "translation drills" is included in this category.

--Lack of verbal behavior or English seeming to

impede learning; e.g. excessive pauses for any

purpose, irrelevant digressions, excessive

teacher hesitancy.

These latter two categories require observer

inference. The observer must make a judgment

in categorizing the behavior occurring. All

other categories require a relatively low degree
of observer inference. The only other use of inference involves the duration of pause following

a verbalization. When, for example, the teacher

asks a question, there is frequently a pause of
varying length before another behavior (such
as a student answer) occurs. In recording the
behavior the pause is, of course, considered a
part of the question, the prior behavior. However, inference is involved if the pause is judged
to be excessive. After this point the behavior
occurring belongs to the final negative category.
In order to make a determination about the

validity of the instrument's categories as indicating differences in teaching effectiveness a

correlational study was made.
Procedures and Findings

Fourteen graduate teaching assistants in

French at Purdue University were ranked according to their effectiveness as judged by their

N-Management. The same as C but in Eng-

two most immediate supervisors. A third ranking was obtained from the teaching assistants
themselves by using a "pair comparison" technique.6 Effectiveness was defined in terms of

8-Student question about target. The student

begins an interaction by inquiring about any
aspect of the target (including meaning).

5 An adaptation of the technique found in J. P. Guilford,

Psychometric Methods, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954, pp.

lish.

154-177.

This content downloaded from 129.217.98.15 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 17:39:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

CLASSROOM FOREIGN LANGUAGE SKILL ACQUISITION ACTIVITIES 339

existence of a very detailed course outline

attainment of course objectives. High reliability existed between the rankings of the three

which specifies the content for each class hour

judges. Using an analysis of variance for ranked

of the course. Furthermore, if a teacher felt that

data6 a Kendall Coefficient of Concordance of

a class was atypical, the class was eliminated

from the data, and further observation was
made. If the observer suspected that the class
did not represent the typical pattern of the

.9365 was computed. From this the average

intercorrelation between the judges was calcu-

lated. It was .9047.

On a theoretical and experiential basis a

model of an ideal average frequency for the
various behaviors was then postulated for the
teaching situation involved. The model took
into account the nature of the course: objectives. text materials, contact time, methodology
used, type of student, teacher qualification, and
time of the semester. The model then served as
a standard to which the behavior of the teach-

teacher, it was retained in the data; however, an

additional observation was made and included
in the mean profile of that teacher.

Following the observations, a classroom behavior profile was made for each teacher. It consisted of the mean proportions of the classes de-

voted to each behavior. It was then relatively

simple to determine each teacher's congruence

to the model which had been postulated. A

deviation-from-the-model score which con-

ing assistants could be compared.

Following this, the teachers were observed
and their teaching behaviors recorded. It was
not feasible to obtain a large random sample of
their teaching patterns. Therefore, the classes

within each category was computed. Each percent deviation (.01) was counted as 1.00 in obtaining a deviation score. Figure 2 represents

to be observed were chosen in a very restricted

the model profile and that of one of the teachers

sisted of the sum of the absolute deviations

manner. Each teacher was to be observed for at

(broken line). The deviation score of 61.10 is

least two class hours. To provide standardiza-

then the sum of the absolute differences be-

tion the total time for the two classes had to be

tween profiles at each category. A deviation

score of zero would indicate exact congruity to
the model. The maximum possible score is two
hundred. It could occur only when a single behavior observed was a zero percentage category
in the postulated model.

approximately equally divided between teaching structure and teaching vocabulary. If dia-

logue work (primarily vocabulary) required

eighty percent of a class hour with the remain-

ing twenty percent grammar pattern instruction, the second observation was selected so
that the class was made up of approximately
eighty percent grammar instruction. This careful selection of classes was made possible by the

The deviation scores were then correlated

6 B. J. Winer, Statistical Principles In Experimental
Design, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962, pp. 136-138.

'

'

*
*I

---

gI
10

--

AB C.D E GH T P IK M N 123 4.5 678 9 + FIGURE 2

This content downloaded from 129.217.98.15 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 17:39:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

340

GILBERT

A.

JARVIS
Devia-

Teach- Judge Judge Judge Average tion

ers 1 2 3 Rank Score

A

12

C
E

F
H

14

12

14

92.5

42.8

14

87.4

33.8

61.6

5
6

12

14

12

2.67

10

10

13

40.9

48.0

5.67

11

64.3

9.67

60.6

52.8

K 11 11 10 10.67 55.1
8

13
4

13

68.8

13

3.33

91.1
60.8

r3 = . 9047 rRD= .8275

FIGURE 3

with the average rank to obtain an indication of

the validity of the categories as an indicator of

the judged effectiveness. The complete data are
represented in Figure 3.
The strikingly high Pearson r is significant
beyond the .01 level. There are no apparent artifacts in the design which have tended to in-

crease the magnitude of this coefficient. It

seems to indicate that the instrument does re-

cord behaviors which differentiate degrees of

what is judged as effectiveness. Significant aspects of teaching behavior do seem to be recorded. The instrument is not, however, intended as an evaluative tool. It is, rather,
strictly a descriptive tool, the data from which,

can be utilized not only in evaluation but for

many other purposes. Undoubtedly much more

information is included in the data than has

been utilized here. No information about the
patterns or timing of the various behaviors was

used; nevertheless, it is available in the data

and is certainly a factor in learning conse-

quences.

In recording data at five, ten, and fifteen

second intervals there was some indication that
very little information seemed to be lost by
using a fifteen second interval. In three hours

ference per category between the two time intervals was .0048 (.48%). The range was from
0.00 to 2.33 percent. A classroom observer who
wishes to record additional information (e.g. a
supervisor) can make brief notes identifying
structures, activities used, language errors, or
other comments while using a fifteen second
interval.

Recording data was greatly facilitated by the

use of a small electronic device' which indicated

by a high frequency "beep" the intervals at

which entries were to be made. Its use freed the

observer from watching a timepiece and permitted concentration upon what was occurring
in the classroom. Moreover, the observer did
not have to transfer his attention from a visual
cue to an instantaneous decision about verbal

behavior which is primarily auditory. The interval indicator "beep" was directly superimposed upon the verbal behavior.
Reliability in terms of observer agreement
presented no particular difficulties. The degree
of observer agreement seems to be strictly a
function of observer training. After approximately three and one-half hours of familiariza-

tion and practice in using the instrument two

graduate students and I viewed three one-half

hour segments of video-taped high school

classes. Making simultaneous entries the coefficient of the number of agreeing entries to

total entries (a most conservative approach)

was .84. Using an analysis of variance of the
category summaries for the three classes over
the three observers the reliability was .98.
Implications and Limitations

The primary limitation of this study is its

small size. The assumption of consistency of
behavior, implicit in all evaluation, is likewise
present here despite the precautions taken in
selecting the classes which were observed.
The measurement of language skill has become increasingly sophisticated recently. As a
consequence, student achievement becomes a
highly desirable variable in research on teaching behavior. In many ways it is more desirable
than judgment ratings of effectiveness. Control

of five second observation the proportions of all

behaviors differed very little from those obtained by using every third entry, the equiva-

lent of a fifteen second interval. The mean dif-

7 The instrument, basically an audio oscillator, was designed and built by Harry Smith, technician for the Depart-

ment of Modern Languages, Purdue University.

This content downloaded from 129.217.98.15 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 17:39:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

MA THEMA TICS WITHOUT BLACKBOARDS

341

the instrument in this context is, therefore, ex-

of other variables remains as the primary difficulty in such research.

The instrument is intended for use in integral

pensive in terms of time.

segments of teaching time. The logical segment

gruence to a model is but a single, if not novel,

is the class hour; portions of it are not satisfactory. Class hours are not homogeneous blocks of

used to determine and construct such a model

behavior. Moreover, certain kinds of behavior

tend to occur at particular stages of the class. A

"warm-up" in the audio-lingual class tends to

put a great deal of real communication language
into the first few minutes of the class period. A

generalization about structure would, however,

be quite rare in these first few minutes. Use of

The use of the instrument to reflect con-

application. The instrument can, of course, be

for a particular teaching situation. It seems to

have particular relevance to any research in-

volving teaching behavior change. The data

obtained is immediately quantifiable and amenable to statistical analysis. The very use of such
instruments may, in fact, be a causal factor in
behavior change.

Mathematics without Blackboards*

An Innovative Use of the Language Laboratory
GENEVIEVE T. MEYER, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

S IGNIFICANT changes in teaching and

learning require significant changes in the

organization of instruction. This premise implies a willingness to explore new methods and
to adopt a flexible approach to scheduling, materials, size of class, and to the use of educational facilities.' When the use of instructional

media is not accompanied by fundamental

changes in the organization of instruction the
results may be disappointing but may not indicate a failure in the adaptation of this medium
to specific areas. While articulated media in
most educational institutions are designated as

Language Laboratories or Audio-Visual Services, other disciplines may find a new approach

and much value in their use.2 Cooperation here

can lead to a fresh attack even on "dreaded
mathematics."

"Historically speaking," says Omar Khayyam Moore,3 "man's long experience with machines had led him to conceptualize them as a
kind of nonhuman or subhuman force which

moves inexorably along predetermined lines. It

is degrading to be thought of as a machine. It is

even risky to be considered too mechanical: the

great liberal arts tradition has placed itself in a
sphere high above machines and machinists."

He goes on to say that in the past few decades,

the ordinary citizen has begun to alter his con-

ceptions about machines and he no longer

* I am indebted to Dr. Joseph G. Baier, former Dean of
the College of Letters and Science, University of Wisconsin-

Milwaukee, and to the Program for Articulated Instructional Media (AIM) of the University of Wisconsin for
grant support, which made this experiment possible, and to

Dr. Robert F. Roeming, Director of the Department of

Language Laboratories, for advice in planning and executing it.

[See previous reference to this project: The Modern

Language Journal, Vol. LII, No. 4 (April, 1968), p. 218.1

1 J. Lloyd Trump, "Improving Modern Language

Teaching and Learning" in Papers and Reports of Groups
and Committees, Part I, International Conference on Mod-

em Language Teaching, Berlin: Paedagogische Arbeitsstelle und Paedagogisches Zentrum, 1964, pp. 359-375;

Donald C. Manlove and David W. Beggs, III, Flexible

Scheduling, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1965.

2 Robert F. Roeming, "The Research Potential of the
Language Laboratory," in Das Sprachlabor und der audiovisudle Unterricht, Beilage zu Die Neueren Sprachen, June
1965, pp. 11-18, Frankfurt-am Main: Diesterweg; reprinted
in the Canadian Modern Language Review, Vol. XXII, No.
1 (October 1965), pp. 9-15.
3 Omar Khayyam Moore, From Tools to Interactional
Machines, New Approaches to Individualizing Instruction, a
report of a conference on May 11, 1965, Princeton: Educational Testing Service.

This content downloaded from 129.217.98.15 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 17:39:58 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms