198

Research in Science Education 1989, 19, 198 - 209

THE INFLUENCE OF CLASS DYNAMICS ON INDIVIDUAL LEARNING

lan Mitchell

BACKGROUND

In 1985 a group of teachers and academics set up the Project for

Enhancing Effective Learning (PEEL) at Laverton High School. This was a

cross-faculty action-research project which aimed to teach students how to

learn more metacognitively (Baird and Mitchell 1986). A range of changes in

students' learning behaviour were hoped for. For instance, i t was hoped that

students would routinely ask themselves a range of self-questions such as

"What do I think about this?", "Is my view different from other peoples'

views?", "What other situations should this be relevant to?", "Can I think of

a situation where this explanation does not seem to work?" These self-

questions were expected to often result in new classroom behaviours; among

other things, students would be encouraged and trained to offer and jus t i fy

alternative opinions, to suggest new act iv i t ies and to seek links between the

content of the lesson and other lessons, other subjects and the outside world.

Changes such as these should signif icant ly al ter the class dynamics in a

number of ways.

This paper reports on attempts to discover i f PEEL does change class

dynamics and i f so, how; what effects does this have on individual learning.

The nature of the study has led me to choose to report i t in the f i r s t person.

In 1987 and 1988 I had two Year 10 Science classes which had had a

number of PEEL teachers over several years. I had taught one of them (IOA)

for four years and the other (IOD) for two. I had a third Year 10 class in

1988 (tOE) Which had had signif icantly fewer PEEL teachers and had had a very

traditional Science teacher in Year 9. Data was collected from these classes

throughout their Year 10 year. Students were studied particularly intensively

during a Mechanics unit which incorporates a large number of PEEL strategies.

Data sources included audiotapes, student and teacher diaries, other written

feedback from the students, cl inical interviews (by a third person) and the

records of an outsider who observed some lessons.

199

WHAT WERE THE CLASS DYNAMICS?

My global impression was that the dynamics of IOA and IOD in Science

were excellent and very different to many other classes. The atmosphere was

consistently warm, trusting, co-operative, collaborative, participatory, and

intel lectual ly active; discipline problems never arose. These dynamics were

highly resistant to short-term influences such as weather, the time of day,

disruptive events outside the classroom, etc. fOE were very di f ferent; the

lesson quality fluctuated wildly (much more than normal) with short-term

influences, especially the time of day. Their good lessons were very good in

many ways. IOE did not represent a completely traditional class, but I s t i l l

f e l t the class dynamics never reached the levels of the other two classes.

These impressions, i f accurate, would support the conclusion that PEEL did

improve class dynamics and that this improvement continued over several years.

My problem was how to just i fy this. The d i f f i cu l t i es of reporting this type

of research is one theme of this paper. A study of the learning, teaching and

dynamics of a whole class has the advantage of being very natural ist ic. I t

is more l ike ly to produce findings which are direct ly relevant to real

classrooms than research which has a narrower focus and a t ighter control over

more variables. The sources of "error" and "noise" in the la t ter style

research are often important aspects to be studied in the former style.

However, there are disadvantages - the researcher tends to be swamped with

data. Reflecting on this data may well lead to the formation of a range of

inferences and insights but i t can be d i f f i c u l t to organize and report on what

occurred in ways which allow others to evaluate the val idi ty of the findings.

What follows is a description of the development of one attempt to

solve this problem. Since total ly non-PEEL classes do not exist at Laverton

I decided as a f i r s t check to carry out an Interaction Analysis (Amidon and

Flanders 1963) on tapes of several IOA lessons and compare these with some

data collected by Theobald (1978). During 1975 Theobald studied the Year 11

biology classes of four teachers who were selected to represent a range of

teaching styles prevalent at the time. An interaction analyst classif ies the

nature of the teacher-student interaction at fixed, short time intervals

throughout a lesson. The classes Theobald studied wi l l be referred to as the

'75 classes.

There are several uncontrolled variables in comparing these classes

with mine and I did not intend to draw inferences from anything other than

gross differences between them.

200

Since mally of the desired changes of PEEL involve student talk, I

i n i t i a l l y compared the percentage of total class time spent in student talk

between the '75 classes (23%) and 10A (31%). This change is not large and

may not be significant, i t certainly does not ref lect the differences I fe l t

existed. I then looked at what type of student talk was occurring. Theobald

had classified student talk as either In i t ia t ing or Responding. Measured as

a percentage of total student talk, 10A did show signif icantly more In i t iat ion

(68%) than the '75 classes (44%). What were they talking about? Theobald had

classified talk as either about Content or about Management (which included

raising procedural issues such as "How do I do this task?"). The difference

here was very substantial - 49% of the total student talk in the '75 classes

was about content whereas the figure was 88% for 10A. Measured as a

percentage of total class time, student in i t ia tea talk about content averaged

18% for 10A and below 5% for the '75 classes. In the description of

Interaction Analysis by Amidon and Flanders (1963), student ini t iated talk

about the content does not even appear as a possible category, hence 10A's

progress in this area does appear substantial.

A sample of lessons from 10E showed that they had a lower proportion of

student talk (20%) a similarly high proportion of student talk on content

(92%) rather than on management and an even higher proportion of in i t ia t ing

(79%) rather than responding. The proportion of total time which was student

ini t iated talk about content was 15%. These figures confirmed that 10E had

also made progress, however they did not ref lect what I fe l t was a significant

difference in quality between the 10A and the 10E class dynamics. There were

several aspects about 10A which I f e l t were "better." One was the very

errat ic nature of the 10E dynamics, this wi l l be discussed shortly. A second

was that while a number of 10E students would contribute useful ideas and

questions, they were much more dependent on me to produce the "right" answer.

A third was that I fe l t there was a generally broader level of class

involvement with 10A (and 10D). Once again my problem was how to jus t i fy

these last two assertions.

One outcome of the reflection by PEEL teachers on their practice has

been a l i s t of some specific behaviours which we were looking for in the

classroom -several of these were l isted on page 198. All three classes

regularly displayed many of these behaviours but, as Table I shows, 10A and

10D displayed them more often and had far fewer students who (over 5 lessons)

did not display any. This data supported my bel ief that very few students in

201

IOA and IOD had no commitment to the lessons, but IOE contained a significant

group who were l ikely to be uncommitted.

Table I : Pattern of Good Learning Behaviours ( G.L.B.'s )

Number of students who display G.L.B.s over 5 lessons

Number of Good Learning Behaviours Total Number

Form 0 1-2 3-7 8-12 13-15 18-27 >28 of G.L.B.s

10A (n=23) 2 5 5 3 2 2 4 253

10D (n=23) 4 4 5 3 2 3 3 230

10E (n=23) 10 3 5 2 1 2 135

Although the pattern of tOE lessons clearly contains a quite reasonable

level of intellectual act iv i ty ( i .e . , clear progress had been made), I fe l t

IOA were much better at listening to each others' comments and questions and

hence following an issue through or developing a major new idea. To verify

this opinion I decided to try a di f ferent analysis by recording (as a

percentage of total talk) the proportion of student comments which were

responding to an idea or question raised by another student as dist inct from

either responding to something said by the teacher or raising a quite new

issue. Over a sample of four lessons there was a substantial difference

between fOE (2.7%) and IOA (11.4%).

WHAT WERE THE EFFECTS OF THE CLASS DYNAMICS?

The above data indicates that the global impressions mentioned earl ier

had some basis. What effects did this have on the learning of individual

students? Theories of learning often consider the learner to be an individual

interacting with a teacher and/or instFuctional materials. Grafted onto this

is the common knowledge that peer group interactions are an important

influence on a student's general willingness to work. I would argue that the

learner needs to be seen as a member of a class and the dynamics of that class

202

wi l l usually have a significant influence not only on his or her level of

involvement, but also on the way the student learns, and on their beliefs

about teaching and learning.

Effect on the Inclincation to Contribqte

A number of interview comments from both IOA and IOD supported the

assertion that students are much more l i ke ly to get involved and contribute

to class discussion when there is a high level of involvement. "When there's

a good discussion and everybody's having a say then I wi l l too" was a typical

comment. The PEEL strategies have been strongly influenced by Barnes's views

about the central role oflanguage in learning (Barnes 1976). I f one supports

these views, then the powerful influence of the class dynamics on individual

learners willingness to participate and contribute is seen as a significant

influence on each individual's learning. This is particularly true during

f lu id, loosely structured and highly interactive lessons which are a common

outcome of PEEL. In these lessons each student's learning is dependent on all

the others. Only a very few students have been found who, in these sorts of

lessons, can divorce their own learning from a low level of involvement by the

rest of the class.

Effects on the Type of Good Learning Behaviours Exhibited

Not only do good class dynamics encourage students to contribute more

often, they also change the type of learning behaviours students exhibit and

hence change the way individuals are learning. Laverton is near a large Air

Force base and there is a steady turnover of students. At the start of, and

during 1987 and 1988, both IOA and IOD had several new students arrive.

Invariably they were i n i t i a l l y non-plussed by the class dynamics and exhibited

some very different learning behaviours. They would seek (in order to

memorize) simplistic answers to complex questions, they could not (and would

not) ref lect on their own views, they would not search for weaknesses in the

teacher's explanations, seek reasons and purposes, suggest new act iv i t ies,

etc. These are major changes; we have found that for a whole class they

usually require more than one year. However, when new students entered a

class already displaying these behaviours they would change much more quickly

- some substantial changes occurred in a ~ew months. The other students were

acting as role models for the new students, obviously the new students were

influenced by how the teacher dealt with them, but they were also influenced

by watching how the teacher reacted to other students' comments.

203

Effeqts on Beliefs About Teachina and LearninQ

As we reported earlier in the project (e.g. Baird and Mitchell 1976)

achieving student change during the f i r s t year of PEEL was particularly

d i f f i cu l t because the students had strongly held conceptions of, and attitudes

to learning which were in direct conflict with the goals of the project.

Students strongly rejected such activit ies as discussing, using speculative

language, and considering "wrong" answers; they demanded written notes

containing "right" answers. The interview (and other) data from IOA and iOD

provides good evidence of a very substantial shift by most students - only a

very few of the students who had been in the class for some time said they

would prefer to be told right answers and most strongly endorsed the need for

f luid lessons. Comments such as "I think i t is good to get us confused and

then to clear the air", "I predicted wrongly, ~o I learnt something" would not

have been made in 1985. A number of students expressed this support in terms

of the whole class; "we like class discussion", "Our class is good at

discussion" were typical comments. A number of students in IOA and IOD were

very positive about the value of other students' comments for their learning;

"They are useful because you think one thing and then they say something else,

i t may make you change your mind". "They help you sort out your own ideas,

but you have to l isten". This is testimony to the value of good class

dynamics.

These changes are certainly due, at least in part, to the long period

of contact with PEEL teachers which IOA and lOO students had. To gain some

further insight into how much they were also due to the class dynamics i t is

worth contrasting the IOE students and the newstudents in IOA and IOD: they

had an exposure to PEEL teachers which was roughly comparable. In IOA and

IOD there were 28 students who had been in the class for two years or longer,

twelve who had joined at the start of Year 10, and 6 who came in during the

Year 10 year. The students who came in during the year showed (in interviews

and class behaviour) a considerable variation in their conceptions of learning

which correlated closely with the length of time they had been in the class.

The ones who had only been present for a few weeks recognized a clear

difference in the class dynamics but had very l i t t l e understanding of i t , two

students who had been present for longer (about 3 months) showed a clearer

understanding of some aspects but not others. The students who had been

204

present From the start of the year had made most progress in this area but

differences could s t i l l sometimes be seen between them and the students who

had been in the class for longer. As might be expected, changes in attitudes

were slower than changes in conceptions. Only one of the six newest students

showed any support for what we were doing, and this was uneven: she enjoyed

discussion and question asking but was i r r i ta ted by mydelayed judgement - she

wanted answers. The twelve students who were new at the start of the year

varied but overall were more supportive; most of them were defini te in their

support for most of what we were doing however some reservations were

expressed, several students stated that they had changed their opinions (to

more positive ones) during the year. The 10E students showed much less

development in both conceptions and attitudes. Only a few of them understood

the possible purposes of discussion, delayed judgement and question asking and

only Four students expressed support for these act iv i t ies.

One needs to be careful in interpreting interview data, but these

results would support two conclusions. First ly , that changes in conceptions

of learning are necessary before changes in attitudes can occur; one needs to

be able to imagine something in order to be able to support i t . Secondly,

good class dynamics are very helpful in changing students' conceptions of

learning and probably their attitudes as well. One needs to regularly see

alternative learning behaviours working successfully in order to understand

them.

Resistance to Short Term Influences

As mentioned earl ier, IOA and IOD were highly resistant to the short

term influences which can so often destroy a good lesson. The students got

into a routine of active learning and rarely broke this. One of the sources

of data was student journals in which the students were asked to describe

each science lesson and their reactions to i t to an outsider. I had asked

them to record (without revealing personal secrets) i f their general mood had

been affected by an outside event. Understandably, only a few such instances

were recorded, but there were four cases where a student reported and s/he

entered the classroom upset, or angry or distracted, but did not t ry and

interfere with the lesson because i t wasobvious to them that the rest of the

class wanted to get on with i t .

205

HOW DO YOU GET GOOD CLASS DYNAMICS, WHAT AFFECTS THEM?

Just as government in a democracy can only occur with the consent of

the governed, so good learning can only occur with the consent of the learner.

In a highly structured lesson, where the tasks are more rout ine, a teacher can

mandate working; "Get on with your work!" is a sensible command. However, one

cannot mandate high order in te l lec tua l a c t i v i t y such as re f lec t ing on and

contr ibut ing one's own ideas. Behaviours such as these w i l l only be exhibi ted

i f the student understands and supports t he i r purpose. Hence changes in

conceptions and at t i tudes are absolutely essent ia l .

Several related, but d i f f e ren t , changes are necessary. Each has a

somewhat d i f f e ren t e f fec t on the class dynamics. For instance, the students

need to understand and support the value of putt ing up new ideas and asking

r e f l e c t i v e questions. This change may be easier to generate than the next

three, i t was the only one which was widespread among the IOE and new

students. Students also need to understand and support the value of arguing

an idea through, of l i s ten ing to and reacting to other students'

contr ibut ions, and the ro le of and need fo r in te l lec tua l stress and confusion

during a uni t . A number of IOD students were interviewed at a point of high

(and del iberate) confusion - I had made them aware that there were a range of

con f l i c t i ng explanations in the class and that many of the i r own be l ie fs

about forces and movement did not explain some s i tuat ions. These IOD students

recognized that they were confused, but they had experienced th is before,

understood the need fo r i t and expressed a l o t of confidence that i t would

eventual ly be resolved.

As I mentioned ea r l i e r , not only were IOA and IOD unusually consistent

in t he i r behaviour, IOE were unusually e r r a t i c . When analysing the audiotapes

of good and poor lessons with IOE one key fac tor emerged; the amount of what

I shall cal l "bushfire t ime". By th is I mean time when the teacher is forced

to abandon what s/he was intending to do to deal with management issues or an

in ter rupt ion (such as a v i s i t o r ) . I t does not include time spent on classroom

organization or administration which was olanned for . With very f l u i d lessons

the amount of bushfire time appears to be c r i t i c a l and to render such lessons

unstable towards e i ther clear success or c lear fa i l u re . One typical scenario,

which is i l l us t ra ted by Figure 1 goes l i ke th is .

206

~ ~ S l t l d ~ ( ch~sc not roger )

. f harder to follow and some role models//

(More students~ .~ i~ .

/'Bushfire t i m ~ ( andteacher keeps )

'returning to J ~_ lSSUe~ . . , . ,...-~ Figure 1. Effect of high bushfire time

207

A discussion begins with some students participating however some others

don't understand or are not interested in the question(s). These students

begin off-task act iv i t ies and the teacher has to halt the discussion to deal

with them ("bushfire time"). The teacher then tr ies to "return to the issue"

however this interruption has made the discussion harder to follow (more

sustained concentration is required), moreover, off-task act iv i ty is being

role modelled. A few more students drop off , bushfire time increases, the

discussion becomes even harder to follow and so on. This cycle provides

strong negative feedback and the lesson fa i ls . However, another scenario is

possible; which is i l lustrated in Figure 2.

The discussion begins and, for several possible reasons, some key

students get i n i t i a l l y involved who thus role model active participation.

The low (or zero) bushfire time means the discussion remains coherent and

easier to follow, more students get involved, there is a general atmosphere

of active learning, the discussion remains easy to follow, more students

contribute and we now have a cycle providing strong positive feedback. This

model is obviously somewhat simplistic but in seven successive 10E classes

the bushfire time was either over 25% of the total class time or under 2%.

With 10A i t was generally zero and never exceeded I%.

Another reason for the difference between IOA, IOD and IOE was the need

for the students to develop a series of trusts. They need to trust the

teacher in several ways. They need to trust him or her to be supportive of

their views and not to react disparagingly to incorrect comments. This trust

appears to be relat ively easy to generate. I t was strongly held by all the

students interviewed. The students also need to trust the teacher to

eventually deal with all (or most) issues and questions. This is crucial to

good class dynamics. IOE students did not have this trust - they tended to

be aggressively demanding that I deal with ~heir question Row - the "squeaky

wheel gets the grease". A third trust that clearly takes some time to develop

is that confusion wil l be temporary - resolution wi l l eventually occur and the

confusion wil l have led to better learning. Students must experience complete

units to begin to develop this trust. Finally they need to trust the other

students to be supportive, and not disparaging. This is assisted by overt

intervention by the teacher to make clear the discussion behaviours expected.

Figure 2.

208

- ~ get initially involved )

f )

Effect of low bushfire time - ' - It is easier t ~

As stated at the outset, the reason for this research dealing with

whole classes (rather than selected individuals) is to make the findings as

transferrable as possible to normal classrooms. Generating each of the

understandings and trusts l isted above requires related, but dif ferent actions

by teachers. Planning a long tenn strategy is made more purposeful i f one is

aware of the l ike ly barriers to change. For instance i t is very useful after

a unit has been completed to review what occurred, to remind the students of

the fact that their i n i t i a l confusion was resolved, and to discuss with them

the value to generating intellectual conf l ic t .

209

Finally, there are two administrative implications of these findings.

First ly there are strong arguments for keeping a group of students intact and

not reshuffling classes at the end of each year. This is common, but i t is

not so common for teachers to take classes for successive years. My

experiences with both IOA and IOD have convinced me of the power of taking

the one class for several years. Some of the trusts I referred to earlier

take a long time to develop - the best part of a year, i f not longer. Once

they are developed the quality of the whole class dynamics and the student

learning can rise to levels which are extremely d i f f icu l t to attain without

them.

REFERENCES

AMIDON, E., and FLANDERS, N. (1963). The role of the teacher in the classroom. Minneapolis: Paul S. Amidon and Associates, Inc.

BAIRD, J.R., and MITCHELL, I.J. (Eds) (1986). Improving the quality of teaching and learning: An Australian case study the PEEL project. Melbourne: Monash University Printery.

BARNES, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. Penguin.

THEOBALD, J .H. (1978). Attitudes and achievement in bioloqy: ~n investigation of the effects of student attributes and teaching styles on attitudes and achievements in secondary school biology. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis.