Detection of Communicative Behavior Patterns AMONG College Students during Lab Practice

Edgardo Ruiz Carrillo^1,

¹Universidad NacionalAutónoma de México, Mexico, México

Cite this paper:
Edgardo Ruiz Carrillo. Detection of Communicative Behavior Patterns AMONG College Students during Lab Practice. American Journal of Educational Research. 2014; 2(1):1-5. doi: 10.12691/education-2-1-1

Abstract

The aim of this work is to detect the existence of communicative interaction patterns from the conversations among Biology students during lab practice. Observational methodology was used by creating a category system as an observation tool, and continuing with a process of re-categorization. A total of six sessions were observed and each one last one hour. It was used a software called SDIS-GSEQfor the inter-sessional sequential analysis. The results highlight that it is important for the students the use of question-answer (IAE) in its different modalities: in probability of occurrence, first are the categories of Persuading and Proposing, the next significant sequential probabilities are: Evaluating, Confirming, and Confusing; followed in sequential occurrence order by: Arguing, Classifying, Correcting, Clarifying, and Suggesting and lasting in sequential inhibitory occurrence are: Creating an opinion, Directing, and Evaluating. These are the particular ways in which students encourage their participation during laboratory practice, opening their minds to their classmates’ feedback, which invites them to revalue their initial questions and answers and encourages new discussion topics and increase learning opportunities.

Keywords:
learning evaluation patterns behaviors categories SDIS-GSEQ program

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	Barnes, D. (1992). From communication to curriculum. Portsmouth, NH:Boynton/ Cook.
[2]	Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom Discourse. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
[3]	Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Press.
[4]	Sinclair, J. &Coulthard, M. (1975).Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
[5]	Gutierrez, K. (1994). How talk, context, and script shape contexts for learning: a cross- case comparison of journal sharing. Linguistics and Education, 5, 335-365.
[6]	Green, J., & Dixon, C. (1993). Introduction to “Talking knowledge into being: Discursive and social practices in classrooms. Linguistics and Education, 5 (3&4), 231-239.
[7]	Nystrand, M, Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Pendergast, C. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York: Teachers’ College Press.
[8]	Smagorinsky, P. & Fly. P. (1993). The social environment of the classroom: A Vygotskyan perspective on small group process. CommunicationEducation, 42 (2), 159-71.
[9]	Joan Kelly & Hall Ellis, R. (1994). A theory of instructed second language acquisition. In N. Ellis. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of language (pp. 79-115). London: Academic Press.
[10]	Hall, J.K. (1995b). ‘Aw, man, where we goin?’: Classroom interaction and the development of L2 interactional competence. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6 (2), 37- 62.
[11]	Lin, A. (1999a). Resistance and creativity in English reading lessons in Hong Kong.Language, Culture and Curriculum, 12 (3), 285-296.
[12]	Lin, A. (1999b). Doing-English-Lessons in the reproduction or transformation of social worlds?TESOL Quarterly, 33 (3), 393-412.
[13]	Lin, A. (2000). Lively children trapped in an island of disadvantage: Verbal play of Cantonese working-class schoolboys in Hong Kong. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 143, 63-83.
[14]	Wells, G. (1987). Aprendices en el dominio de la lengua escrita. En A. Alvarez (Eds.). Psicología y Educación. Realizaciones y tendencias actuales en la investigación y en la práctica. Aprendizaje Visor /Madrid.
[15]	Nassaji, H. & Wells, G. (2000). What’s the use of ‘traidicdialogue’?: An investigation of teacher-student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21 (3), 376-406.
[16]	Bakeman, R. &Quera, V. (1992). SDIS: A sequential data interchange standard. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 24(4), 554-559.
[17]	Bakeman, R. &Quera, V. (1995).Analyzing Interaction: Sequential Analysis with SDIS and GSEQ. Nueva York: Cambridge Universiy Press.
[18]	Bakeman, R. (1978). Untangling streams of behavior: Sequential analysis of observation data. In G.P. Sackett (Ed.) Observing Behavior, Vol. 2: Data co- llection and analysis methods (pp. 63-78). Balti- more: University of Park Press.
[19]	Bakeman, R. &Gottman, J. (1986).Observing interaction: An introduction to Sequential Analysis. Traducción española en Ed. Morata, 1989. Nueva York: Cambridge UniversiyPress.
[20]	Sackett, G.P. (1980). The lag sequential analysis of contingency and cyclicity on behavioral interac- tion research. In J.D. Osofsky (Ed.), Handbook of infant development (pp. 623-649). New York: Wi- ley.
[21]	Sackett, G. P. (1987). Analysis of sequential social interaction data: Some issues, recent developments, and causal inference model. En J.Osofsky (eds.), Handbook of infant development. Wiley: Nueva York, 855-878.
[22]	Bakeman, R. &Dabbs, J. M. (1976). Social interaction observed: Some approaches to the analysis of behavior streams. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2, 335-345.
[23]	Anguera, M.T., Magnusson, M.S. y Jonsson, G.K. (2007). Instrumentos no estándar. Avances en Medición, 5(1), 63-82.
[24]	Arias i Pujol, E. (2003). Estudi observacional de la in- teracció en un grup de psicoterapia d’orientació psicoanalítica, a partir de l’anàlisis de la conversa. Tesis Doctoral no publicada. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona.
[25]	Anguera, M.T., Blanco, A. & Losada, J.L. (2001). Diseños observacionales, cuestión clave en el proceso de la metodología observacional. Metodología de las Ciencias del Comportamiento, 3(2), 135-160.
[26]	Bakeman, R. & Brown, J. V. (1977). Behavioral dialogues: An approach to the assessment of mother-infant interaction. Child Development, 48,195-203.
[27]	Gorospe, G., Hernández Mendo, A., Anguera, M.T., y Martínez de Santos, R. (2005). Desarrollo y optimización de una herramientaobservacional en el tenis de individuales. Psicothema, 17 (1), 123-127.
[28]	Pérez-Tejera, F., Valera, S. y Anguera, M.T. (2011).Un nuevo instrumento para la identificación de patrones de ocupación espacial. Psicothema, 23 (4), 858-863.
[29]	Roustan, M., Izquierdo, C. & Anguera, M.T. (2013, in press). Sequential analysis of an interactive peer support group. Psicothema.
[30]	Gimeno, A., Anguera, M.T., Berzosa, A. y Ramírez, L. (2006). Detección de patrones interactivos en la comunicación de familias con hijos adolescentes. Psicothema, 18 (4), 785-790.
[31]	Sackett, G.P. (Ed.)(1978). Observing Behavior (Vol. 2): Data collection and analysis methods. Baltimore: University of Park Press.
[32]	Coll, C. &Onrubia, J. (2001). Estrategias discursivas y recursos semióticos en la construcción de significados compartidos entre profesores y alumnos. Investigaciónen la escuela, 45, 7-19.