South Eastern Journal of Research

Download 28.32 Kb.

bet	6/6
Sana	21.01.2023
Hajmi	28.32 Kb.
	#1106206

1 2 3 4 5 6

Bog'liq
86-Article Text-183-2-10-20210804

Total	252
24.4
Direct Teacher Talk Lectures	223	21.4
Gives direction	64	6.2
Criticizes or Justifies	47	4.6
authority

Manipulates apparatus	13	1.8
Supervises	18	1.7
Total	365	35.2
Student Talk Responses	142	13.8
Initiates talk	36	3.5
Questions	28	2.6
Experiments
Read, writes and draws	96	9.3
Student-Student	87	8.4
interaction
Total	389	37.6
Silences	29	2.8
Grand Total	1032	100
Table 1 indicates the	frequency	and percentage	of

classroom interaction patterns. It shows that the percentage of teacher talk is 59.6%, with indirect as 24.4% and direct talk as 35.2%; student talk (response and initiation) is 37.6% and silence is 2.8%. The percentage of teacher talk is more than that of student talk and silence.
Research Question 3: What is the relationship between the amount of teacher talk (direct and indirect influence) and students‟ achievement in chemistry?
The SIC and CAT were used to answer research question 3.

Table 2: Mean, Standard deviation and Pearson correlation of the amount of teacher talk and students’ achievement.

Variable

Teacher talk

Students‟ achievement

51.42

38.59

6.02

2.13

-0.61

The result as shown in Table 2 shows that the mean of teacher talk is 51.42 and standard deviation is 6.02 and that of students‟ achievement score is 38.59 and the standard deviation is 2.13.The Pearson product moment correlation coefficient (r) is -0.61. This indicates a high value of correlation. This also indicates that there is a strong negative relationship between teacher talk and mean achievement scores of students in chemistry. This means that as the amount of teacher talk is increasing, the students‟ achievement scores is decreasing.
Hypothesis 1: There is no significant relationship between the amount of teacher talk (direct and indirect influence) and mean achievement scores of students in chemistry.

Table 3: The correlation between teacher talk and mean achievement scores of students

Variable N X SD r Sf P Decision

Teacher talk 12	51.42	6.02
Achievement		-0.61 0.05 0.04 Reject H_o
scores 12	38.59	2.13

The Pearson Correlation coefficient statistics in table 3 shows P value of 0.04 which is less than 0.05 0f significance (2 tailed). That is P<0.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is upheld. This means that there is significant relationship between the amount of teacher talk (direct and indirect influence) and mean achievement scores of students in chemistry.

Research Question 4: What is the relationship between the amount of student talk (response and initiation) and students‟ achievement?

Variable

N

X

SD

r

Student talk

12

32.42

6.05

-0.76

Achievement

12

38.59

2.13

Table 4: Mean, Standard deviation and Pearson correlation of the amount of student talk and students’ achievement.

Scores Table 4 shows the mean of the amount of student talk is
32.42 and the standard deviation is 6.05. That of students‟ achievement score is 38.59 and the standard deviation is 2.13.The Pearson correlation value (r) is -0.76. This indicates a high value of correlation. This indicates that there is a strong relationship between the amount of student talk and mean achievement scores of students in chemistry.
Hypothesis 2: There is no significant relationship between the amount of student talk (response and initiation) and mean achievement scores of students in chemistry.

Table 5: The correlation between student talk and achievement scores

Variable N X SD r Sf P Decision

Student talk 12 32.42 6.05

-0.76 0.05 0.01 Reject H_O
Achievement 12 38.59 2.13 Scores
The table 5 shows that P value is 0.01 which is less than
0.05 0f significance (2 tailed). That is P<0.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is upheld. This means that there is significant relationship between the amount of student talk (response and initiation) and mean achievement scores of students in chemistry.
Research Question 5: What is the relationship between the period of silence or confusion and students‟ achievement in chemistry?

Table 6: Mean, Standard deviation and Pearson correlation of the period of silence and students’ achievement.

Variable N X SD r

Silence 12 2.42 1.88

-0.18
Students‟
achievement 12 38.59 2.13

Table 6 shows the mean of period of silence to be 2.42 and standard deviation as 1.88. That of students‟ achievement score is 38.59 and the standard deviation is 2.13. Pearson correlation coefficient (r) value is -0.18, this indicates a very low value of correlation. This means that there is no relationship between the period of silence and mean

achievement scores of students in chemistry. This also means that increase or decrease in the period of silence does not have an impact on the mean achievement scores of students.
Hypothesis 3: There is no significant relationship between the period of silence and mean achievement scores of students in chemistry.

Table 7: Correlation between period of silence and mean achievement scores of students

Variable

P Decision

Silence

2.42

1.88

-0.18

0.05

0.58 Accept H_O

Achievement 12 38.59 2.13 scores

The table shows that P value is 0.58 which is greater than

0.05 (P>0.05). This indicates that the correlation is not significant at 0.05(2 tailed). Therefore the null hypothesis is accepted and upheld. This means that there is no significant relationship between the period of silence and mean achievement scores of students in chemistry.

Discussion

From the result of this study in table 2, the amount of teacher talk (direct and indirect influence) is 59.6%. This result is in agreement with the views of Zaheed and Moenikia (2010) who stated that the share of teacher talk
is 57.1%. The analysis also revealed that as the amount of teacher talk is increasing, the students‟ achievement scores are decreasing. This is due to the fact that teacher talk entails active involvement of teachers and passive involvement of students. Teaching and learning process that has been based only on teacher talk as a pattern of interaction, have been shown by Zaheed etal to be relatively ineffective on the students‟ ability to retain important concept and has made learning to be passive rather than active. Maduewesi and Ezeani (2012) in their contribution asserted that teacher talk does not encourage creativity because students are reduced to mere passive listeners and not thinkers.

Conclusion

The study has provided insight into the significant relationship between teacher talk, student talk and improved academic achievement among students. Classroom interaction that do not create integral opening for practicing or applying what is taught, will be reduced to mere rote learning for academic achievement and what is assumed to have been learnt may not be applied elsewhere. Therefore, in line with the best practices in classroom interaction, some measure of democracy should become part of the classroom, by giving students some powers to control their own learning. This can be achieved through allowing the students to be actively involved in the learning process by increasing the amount of student talk (response and initiation) and reducing the amount of teacher talk(direct and indirect influences).
This study has also created the awareness to chemistry teachers who hitherto did not have the learner at centre during lessons but totally dominate the class. Too much teacher talk therefore reduces students „achievement but practicing student centered learning through active student talk is most rewarding.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations were made:

Teachers should establish high level of student talk through initiation and response as it promotes involvement and enhances achievement.
Teachers should also ask questions that will encourage students‟ participation in chemistry teaching.
Teachers should provide chances to the student to participate in teaching and learning process and start classroom discussion.
Ministry of education (Federal and State) should organize seminars and workshops to keep teachers (chemistry teachers inclusive) abreast of the application of classroom interaction patterns for instructional delivery.
Teachers should endeavor to make teaching more learner‟s centered by encouraging student talk. This will improve achievement in science subjects, including chemistry.

References

Abe, R.T & Bello,G. (2019). Patterns of classroom interactions and students reactions toward study barriers in Biology lessons. Lonaka JoLT, 10 (1), 82-93.
Adedeji, T. (2007). The impact of motivation on students‟ academic achievement and learning outcomes in Mathematics among secondary school students in Nigeria. Ogun State. Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 3(2), 149-156.
Adesoji, F. & Olatunbosun S.M (2008). Student, teacher and school environment factors as determinants of achievement in senior secondary school chemistry in Oyo State, Nigeria. Journal of International Social Sciences, 1(1), 56-78.
Awal, H. (2010).Classroom interaction in English in mathematics and science classes. Retrieved from http:acanp.bravehost.com.
Bruce, C.D. (2010).Student interaction in Mathematics classroom. Journal of Education, 1(4),121-134
Fakeye, D. O. (2007).Teacher questioning behavior and classroom interaction patterns. Journal Humanities and Social Sciences, 2,127-131.
Hussain, L. (2011). The effects of classroom interaction on students‟ achievement at secondary school level. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 2(3),123- 134
Ifamuyiwa, A.S. & Lawani, O. (2009). Interaction patterns in Mathematics classroom in Ogun State. Journal of Education, 6(3),35-56
Kalu, I. (2008) .Classroom interaction patterns, teachers‟ and students characteristics and student learning outcome in physics. Journal of Social Sciences, 3(1),57-60.
Kouicem, K.(2012). The effect of classroom interaction on developing the learner speaking skills. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 39 (2), 1-27.
Maduewesi, B.U & Ezeani, L.U. (2012).Curriculum implementation and instruction. Onitsha: West and Solomon Publishing co. Ltd.
Offiah,F.C. & Akusoba , E.U. (2009). Effectiveness of metacognitive learning Cycle to science instruction for secondary school chemistry students. Journal of Science, Technology and Mathematics,1(1), 23-30.
Onwioduokit, F.A & Oranu, P.C.(2012). Relative effectiveness and classroom interaction technique in senior secondary students‟ silence and confusion in government classroom in Port Harcourt metropolis. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 2(3),51- 70
Sahlbery, P. (2010). Interaction Analysis category systems. Journal of Education. Retrieved from Pasi sahbery.com.
Zaheed, B. &Moenikia, M.(2010). Study of teacher- student interaction in teaching process and its relation with students‟ achievement. Medwel Journal of Social Sciences, 1(1)55-59.