| 000 | 07699nam a2201225Ia 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 000 | 05893ntm a2200229 i 4500 | ||
| 001 | 68986 | ||
| 003 | 0 | ||
| 005 | 20250921111113.0 | ||
| 008 | 171029n 000 0 eng d | ||
| 010 |
_z _z _o _a _b |
||
| 015 |
_22 _a |
||
| 016 |
_2 _2 _a _z |
||
| 020 |
_e _e _a _b _z _c _q _x |
||
| 022 |
_y _y _l _a2 |
||
| 024 |
_2 _2 _d _c _a _q |
||
| 028 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 029 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 032 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 035 |
_a _a _b _z _c _q |
||
| 037 |
_n _n _c _a _b |
||
| 040 |
_e _erda _a _d _b _c |
||
| 041 |
_e _e _a _b _g _h _r |
||
| 043 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 045 |
_b _b _a |
||
| 050 |
_a _a _d _b2 _c0 |
||
| 051 |
_c _c _a _b |
||
| 055 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 060 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 070 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 072 |
_2 _2 _d _a _x |
||
| 082 |
_a _a _d _b2 _c |
||
| 084 |
_2 _2 _a |
||
| 086 |
_2 _2 _a |
||
| 090 |
_a _a _m _b _q |
||
| 092 |
_f _f _a _b |
||
| 096 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 097 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 100 |
_e _e _aCamacho, Judito P. _d _b4 _u _c0 _q16 |
||
| 110 |
_e _e _a _d _b _n _c _k |
||
| 111 |
_a _a _d _b _n _c |
||
| 130 |
_s _s _a _p _f _l _k |
||
| 210 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 222 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 240 |
_s _s _a _m _g _n _f _l _o _p _k |
||
| 245 | 0 |
_a _aThe development and validation of an achievement test in Philippine history for freshman students of public secondary schools in the National Capital Region / _d _b _n _cJudito P. Camacho. _h6 _p |
|
| 246 |
_a _a _b _n _i _f6 _p |
||
| 249 |
_i _i _a |
||
| 250 |
_6 _6 _a _b |
||
| 260 |
_e _e _a _b _f _c _g |
||
| 264 |
_3 _3 _a _d _b _c46 |
||
| 300 |
_e _e _c28 cm. _ax, 48 pages _b |
||
| 310 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 321 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 336 |
_b _atext _2rdacontent |
||
| 337 |
_3 _30 _b _aunmediated _2rdamedia |
||
| 338 |
_3 _30 _b _avolume _2rdacarrier |
||
| 340 |
_2 _20 _g _n |
||
| 344 |
_2 _2 _a0 _b |
||
| 347 |
_2 _2 _a0 |
||
| 362 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 385 |
_m _m _a2 |
||
| 410 |
_t _t _b _a _v |
||
| 440 |
_p _p _a _x _v |
||
| 490 |
_a _a _x _v |
||
| 500 |
_a _aThesis (Ph.D.) -- Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, 1997.;A dissertation presented to the faculty of Graduate School of Arts, Sciences and Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Education major in Educational Administration. _d _b _c56 |
||
| 504 |
_a _a _x |
||
| 505 |
_a _aABSTRACT: This study describes the interaction modes among High-Achieving, Average, and Low-Achieving classrooms of selected Grade Four English classes in the Division of City Schools, Manila. Specifically, it sought to determine the 1) proportion of teacher talk and pupil talk in the three classrooms; 2) comparison of the three in terms of proportion of teacher talk - pupil talk; 3) interaction patterns prevalent in the three sampled groups; and 4) strategies employed by teachers that would likely encourage active classroom interaction. METHODOLOGY: The data was drawn from actual observations and tape recordings of classroom interactions involving six (6) Special Teachers of English and their respective pupils totaling 236 representing High-Achieving, Average, and Low-Achieving classrooms of two (2) selected schools in the Division of City Schools, Manila. The study attempted to describe classroom interaction within the natural context. Thus, teacher and pupil behaviors as well as, methodology and subject content were not controlled in any way. However, the inclusion of as much classroom interaction as possible was the only condition asked of the participating teachers. Hence, the findings of the study may be applicable only to schools similar to the schools under study. Two approaches of systematic observation of classroom behaviors were used in the study. They were the quantitative or the coded category system and the qualitative or the anthropological system. The Flanders Interaction Category System or the FIAC was used to gather core data for the study. A chi-square test of independence was used to quantify difference in the proportion of talk among the three participant groups. Audio tapes of episodes of classrooms observed were likewise, transcribed and analyzed to further highlight qualitatively the interaction patterns in the English classrooms. FINDINGS: Findings of the study revealed that teacher talk predominates among the High-achieving, Average and Low-achieving classrooms, approximately 2/3 of the time, consisting mostly of asking questions. On the other hand, pupil talk comprised only about 1/3 of the time, answering to teacher's questions. All the three did not vary significantly at .05 level in terms of proportion of talk. Revealed too, was low rate of silence which means that there were few pauses in the interaction flow. Pattern of interaction was question-reply-evaluate sequence which implies that the English classrooms are highly structured. Teachers encouraged pupil participation by giving praise or encouragement and accepting pupils' ideas. Wrong answers were handled tactfully. There was no total rejection of pupils' responses; instead, they were patiently guided by the teacher to the desired response. In treating silence, the teacher usually repeated her question to give pupils time to think of the answer. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: In the light of the foregoing findings, this study has recognized the fact that since maturity and authority lie with the teacher, the predominance of teacher talk turned out as expected regardless of whether the teacher would be in the High-achieving, Average, and Low-achieving classroom. Moreover, she would be asking questions almost all the time while the pupils would be responding to teacher's questions all the time. With the predominance of question-reply-evaluate sequence of exchange, the lesson would proceed in a tightly structured manner-the teacher having a complete control over the interactional engagement and correspondingly, pupils having few conversational rights-that of essentially responding to teacher's questions, thus, the almost total absence of pupil-initiated talk. This study has also recognized that reinforcers that follow a response tend to strengthen behavior; therefore, praise or reward, acceptance of ideas, and no total rejection of pupils' wrong responses would intensify pupils' sense of accomplishment. Thus, encouraging them to participate further. It is therefore recommended that teachers should give emphasis on more pupil involvement-that is use of praise and encouragement, acceptance of ideas and feelings, and avoidance of blunt criticisms; that administrators and supervisors should conduct seminars and workshops on Interaction Analysis, particularly the FIAC; and that meeting should include skill sessions on favorable classroom behaviors and the art of questioning; and finally, that a replication f this study should be undertaken. _b _t _g _r |
||
| 506 |
_a _a5 |
||
| 510 |
_a _a _x |
||
| 520 |
_b _b _c _a _u |
||
| 521 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 533 |
_e _e _a _d _b _n _c |
||
| 540 |
_c _c _a5 |
||
| 542 |
_g _g _f |
||
| 546 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 583 |
_5 _5 _k _c _a _b |
||
| 590 |
_a _a _b |
||
| 600 |
_b _b _v _t _c2 _q _a _x0 _z _d _y |
||
| 610 |
_b _b _v _t2 _x _a _k0 _p _z _d6 _y |
||
| 611 |
_a _a _d _n2 _c0 _v |
||
| 630 |
_x _x _a _d _p20 _v |
||
| 648 |
_2 _2 _a |
||
| 650 |
_x _x _a _d _b _z _y20 _v |
||
| 651 |
_x _x _a _y20 _v _z |
||
| 655 |
_0 _0 _a _y2 _z |
||
| 700 |
_i _i _t _c _b _s1 _q _f _k40 _p _d _e _a _l _n6 |
||
| 710 |
_b _b _t _c _e _f _k40 _p _d5 _l _n6 _a |
||
| 711 |
_a _a _d _b _n _t _c |
||
| 730 |
_s _s _a _d _n _p _f _l _k |
||
| 740 |
_e _e _a _d _b _n _c6 |
||
| 753 |
_c _c _a |
||
| 767 |
_t _t _w |
||
| 770 |
_t _t _w _x |
||
| 773 |
_a _a _d _g _m _t _b _v _i _p |
||
| 775 |
_t _t _w _x |
||
| 776 |
_s _s _a _d _b _z _i _t _x _h _c _w |
||
| 780 |
_x _x _a _g _t _w |
||
| 785 |
_t _t _w _a _x |
||
| 787 |
_x _x _d _g _i _t _w |
||
| 800 |
_a _a _d _l _f _t0 _q _v |
||
| 810 |
_a _a _b _f _t _q _v |
||
| 830 |
_x _x _a _p _n _l0 _v |
||
| 942 |
_a _alcc _cBK |
||
| 999 |
_c32138 _d32138 |
||