Evaluating Classroom Interaction with the iPad®: An Updated Stalling's Tool

INTRODUCTION: ASSESSING CLASSROOM INTERACTIONSClassroom interactions have been studied at length from the perspective of both teacher-student interaction and student-student interactions (Cazden & Beck 2003, Fairclough 2013.) Most recently the complex role of technology in mediating learning between teacher and student has also been articulated (Mishra & Koehler 2006, Rosenberg & Koehler, 2015) in the TPACK model. As teachers are encouraged to engage action research in their classrooms as reflective practitioners (Robinson & Lai 2005) quality mixed methodologies for classroom observations have become increasingly important.The notion of student-centred learning has been promoted for some time through the works of Dewey (1938), Piaget (1977) and Vygotsky (1989). Nonetheless, the ideal of constructivist classrooms (Brooks & Brooks 1999) continues to be hampered by the pressures of standardized assessment (Popham 2001; Ravitch 2011). Widespread assessment trends have been shown (PISA, 2014) to support passive versus active learning. Recognizing the danger of departure from authentic, situated cognition in schools, some Caribbean and Latin American countries have undertaken studies that assess the level of active learning (Vegas, & Petrow 2008). The following research study sought to measure active learning in Barbadian public school classrooms using a valid instrument.In undertaking the research described herein, a variety of observation tools were considered and discounted for reasons of 1) lengthy and cumbersome recording formats, 2) specialized software required, 3) specialized populations observed and 4) extensive observer training or certification.The tools considered included: The Framework for Teaching Evaluation Instrument created by Charlotte Danielson (2011) utilized by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as one of the instruments in their Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) project, Pianta, La Paro & Hamre's (2008) Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) system which requires proprietary software, a lengthy observation guide that accompanies VanTasselBaska, Avery, Struck, Feng, Bracken, Drummond, & Stambaugh's, (2003) William and Mary Classroom Observation Scales and a range of population-specific instruments (Cassady, Speirs Neumeister, Adams, Cross, Dixon, & Pierce,2004; Sawada, Turley, Falconer, Benford, & Bloom, 2002; Weiss, Pasley, Smith, Banilower, & Heck, 2003). A simple tool with a manageable learning curve was chosen as best suited for the observation of Barbadian classrooms, the description of which follows.As early as the mid 1970s, an instrument was designed (Stallings & Kaskowitz 1974; Stallings & Giesin 1977; Stallings 1980) to give a valid measure of active instruction in the classroom. The Stallings Instrument represents a sophisticate three dimensional matrix involving (1) teacher approach, (2) teaching materials used and (3) the size of the teaching and learning groups (i.e. T=teacher, l=student; number of persons 1=single, S=small group, L=large group & E=everyone). This coding instrument was intended to be used in multiple snapshots during a classroom period so as to further differentiate the interaction activity as a function of the class time continuum. For each of 10 snapshots one paper sheet was used to code the teacher and the student activity. The instrument was modified by the World Bank in 2007 to assist in their studies of classrooms in South and Latin America (see: www.eddataglobal.org/embedded/stallings_snapshot.doc). More recently, Bando and Li (2014) have accessed the Stallings tool for a study of teacher training in the context of teaching English as a second language. The grid for scoring classroom interactions is shown in Figure 1. Developers supplemented this instrument with a systematic description of the definitions that scorers would use for assigning appropriate codes. This inherently improved the inter-rater reliability of the instrument. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.