Flanders Interactional Analysis Technique/Method

By Dr. Atul Thakur Dronacharya College of Education Rait, Kangra Himachal Pradesh

 Competency of teacher = degree effectiveness of teaching (observed classroom interaction)

of by

Definition:
Interactional analysis is a technique consisting of objective and systematic observation of the classroom events for the study of the teachers behaviour and the process of interaction going inside the classroom.

Systems of Interactional Analysis

By Richard L. Ober (1971)
(i) Sign (ii) Category
(i) Sign
Checklist Irrespective of frequency Only once observed

(ii) Category
Behaviour is classified in categories Observation at regular interval (eg. Flanders Intereaction Analysis )

Flanders Interaction Analysis Technique

Developed by Ned A. Flanders (1959) at university of Minnesota Classroom behaviour is divided into three majot sections
1. Teacher talk (4+3=7 sub Categories) 2. Student Talk (2 sub Categories) 3. Silence or confusion total = 10 sub Categories

Teacher talk
Teacher talk (apiq)
Indirect Teacher talk/Influence
Accepts feelings Praises or encourages Accepts or uses students idea Asks questions

Direct Teacher talk/Influence (ldc)

Lecturing Giving directions Criticising or justifying authority

Student Talk
Student Talk Response

Student Talk Initiation

Silence or Confusion

Using Flanders interaction analysis

Steps
1. Observing or recording classroom events 2. Construction of interaction matrix 3. Interpretation on interaction matrix
1. Observing or recording classroom events Appropriate position No interference or disturbance Proper recording (memorization of codes) Noting at every 3 seconds Column or row Note if any

Rules
1. When not certain to which two or more categories a statement belong, chose the category that is numerically farthest from category 5. 2. If the primary tone of the teachers behaviour has been consistently direct or indirect, do not shift to the appropriate classification unless a clear indication of the shift is given. 3. Observer must not be concerned by his own bias. 4. If more than one category occurs in 3 second interval, note all.

Construction of interaction matrix

10 3 2 1 1 2 1 10 4 8 8 6 8 6 3 3 2 1 2 2 10 10 4 10 10 6 6 6 3 6 1 2 2 10 2 8 6 6 6 1

Interaction Matrix Table

Category 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 l total 1

2
3 4 5 6 7 l l l l

l
l

2
1 1 1 2 0

8
9 10 Total

l
l l

1
0 2 11

1 2 1 1 1 2 0 1 0 2

Interpretation
1. Quantitative
1. 2. 3. 4. Interaction categories Areas of Interaction Behaviour ratios Interaction Variables

2. Qualitative
1. Clockwise flow diagram 2. Box-flow diagrams 3. Interaction models of critical teaching behaviours

1. Behaviour ratios
1. Teacher Talk Ratio (TT)
TT = (1+2+3+4+5+6+7)/NX100

2. Indirect Teacher Talk (ITT)

ITT = (1+2+3+4) /NX100

3. Direct Teacher Talk (DTT)

DTT = (5+6+7) /NX100

4. Pupil Talk (PT)

PT = (8+9) /NX100

5. Silence or Confusion (SC)

SC = (10) /NX100

6. Indirect to Direct Ratio (I/D)

I/D = (1+2+3+4)/(5+6+7)X100

Behaviour Ratio Norms

Sr. No 1 2 3 Behaviour Ratio Teacher Talk Pupil talk Silence/ Confusion Symbol TT PT SC By Flanders 70 19 11 Indian 67 21 12

4
5 6

Direct teacher DTT Talk

Pupil Talk PT Indirect/Direct I/D

35
20 52

26
19 46

Advantages
1. Reliable and objective for verbal behaviour

2. Determines pattern and flow of teaching behaviour

3. Analytical

4. Desirable behaviour of trainee teachers

5. Modifies behaviour by feedback 6. Supplements microteaching and teamteaching

Limitation
1. Verbal behaviour only

2. No quality of content judgment

3. Mainly on teacher behaviour 4. No place for Pupil-pupil interaction 5. Laborious 6. Shortage of expert