www.ijsernet.org Page 51
CLASSROOM INTERACTION PATTERNS BETWEEN GRADUATE
STUDENTS AND PROFESSORS IN THE UNIVERSITY: A QUALITATIVE
SURVEY
Sharon Jepchumba Kosgey1 Victor Emali Mukaka1
1Department of Clinical nursing and health informatics, Masinde Muliro University of science
and technology.
ABSTRACT
Background: Classroom interaction describes the form and content of behavior or social
interaction in the classroom. Since learning is a vibrant and active process, the interactions that happen in a classroom can greatly influence student learning and classroom atmosphere. Professors also have their own personalities and backgrounds that may set the mood of the classroom atmosphere and how they relate to their students in various academic subjects.
Objective: To determine the classroom interaction patterns between graduate students and
professors in the graduate school program of the Saint Louis University – School of Nursing. Methodology: The study utilized an ethnographic qualitative research design. Participants included in the study were graduate students. Tools used in data gathering were participant observation, semi-structured interviews, and focus group discussions and were recorded through field notes and transcript files, and were simultaneously analyzed throughout the data collection process. Participant observations were done in five classes where we were enrolled in. There were four semi-structured interviews and four focus group discussions. Data were then sorted, analyzed, until patterns and themes emerged. Results: Four themes emerged in our study and these are proxemics, formality, and interrelationships between students and professors. Subthemes for each category were also identified. It was found in the study that graduate students choose professors first before enrolling subjects except in cases wherein students are left with no choice. Since the teacher is more influential than anyone else in the setting of the classroom variables, teacher’s behavior is the central determinant of student’s outcome
Conclusion: Classroom interaction patterns were influenced by language, proxemics, formality
and interrelationships between students and professors
Keywords: Qualitative study, Class interactions, graduate students, students’ relationships, university students, professors.
Background
www.ijsernet.org Page 52 expected that students should be interactive to express their ideas and share what they know and have experienced. There are some students who actively participate and openly express themselves and their relevant experiences and opinions during discussions. There are also some students who tend to be content with listening attentively and even will not talk for the whole semester of the school year. Certainly, there are reasons behind the interactions of the students to the whole class. Professors also have their own personalities and backgrounds that may set the mood of the classroom atmosphere and how they relate to their students in various academic subjects. Based from these, classroom interactions come about among students inside a class and between the students and their professor.
In the 1970’s, various studies have been reported on teacher and student’s interaction, particularly the gender differences (Brophy, 1985; Saker, & Klein, 1991). In addition to gender as a factor in classroom interaction, the style of communication of the teacher is an important factor in influencing classroom interaction. Pollard (1984) specifies the source of initiation of the interaction in the classroom: student or teacher. Therefore, a qualitative ethnographic approach may prove to be more helpful in understanding and revealing the classroom interactions between professors and students in the graduate program. It may also be complementary to relevant quantitative studies, in order to better appreciate classroom interactions among individuals in the specified setting. Since we are also part of the group being studied, it is interesting to know how graduate students interact with their professor inside the classroom. The aim of the study was to find out the classroom interactions among graduate students in graduate programs of Saint Louis University – School of Nursing.
Methods
Research Design
The ethnographic qualitative research design was utilized in this study. Ethnographic research is in some cases concerned with broadly defined cultures referred to as macro ethnography. However, in this study, the focus is more on narrowly defined culture referred to as micro ethnography or focused ethnography (Polit, 2008). Furthermore, he suggests that it is a useful tool for understanding how other people see their experience.
Participants
www.ijsernet.org Page 53 Advanced Medical-Surgical Nursing, MS 4 of the MN Program or Clinical Research Methods in Advanced Nursing Practice, and Advanced Clinical Pharmacology. In this way, the participants were studied in their naturalistic setting. Since we were part of the classes, limiting role conflict was done by dispersing the researchers in class, jotting down key words, and completion of field notes immediately after class. A verbal consent indicating the purpose of the study, what is expected of a research participant, the amount of time likely to be required for participation, how confidentiality will be protected, the fact that participation is voluntary and that one can withdraw at any time with no negative consequence, and what are to be observed in the duration of the study were obtained in each class. Furthermore, verbal content was also obtained when the researchers used web cameras during classes. Participants were also assured that their identities were protected, ensuring them that the data they have provided will never be linked to them. We used the last names of behavioral theorists for the pseudonyms of the male participants and the last names of nursing theorists for the female participants.
Questionnaire
Tools used in data gathering were participant observation, semi-structured interviews, and focus group discussions.
Participant observation
Participant observation is a long-term engagement in the field setting. To develop an understanding of the patterns of classroom interaction in the graduate programs of Saint Louis University – School of Nursing, we became participants in the life of the setting while also maintaining the stance of observers. The researchers were actively immersed in the classes they were enrolled in. Participant observations were done under ongoing, natural classroom settings and done unobtrusively to prevent reactivity of participants being observed. We made careful, objective notes about what we have observed, and recorded all accounts and observations as field notes in a field notebook. Informal conversations and interactions with members of the classes were also important components of the method and were recorded in the field notes, in as much detail as possible. Since we were part of the classes, limiting role conflict was done by dispersing the researchers in class, jotting down key words, and completion of field notes immediately after class.
Through participant observation, data obtained served as a check against participants’ subjective reporting (from interviews and focus group discussions) of what they believe and do. This also helped us, not only to understand data collected through other methods, but also in designing questions for those methods that will give us the best understanding of the event being studied.
Semi-structured interviews
semi-www.ijsernet.org Page 54 structured interviewing, the researchers elicit answers fully from the perspective of the study participant, and attempt to gain a greater understanding of the context and meaning of the responses through various forms of probing.
Focus group discussions
Focus group discussions were also conducted wherein a purposively selected set of participants gather to discuss issues and concerns based on a list of key themes drawn up by the researchers. It was made in an informal discussion with open-ended guided questions to keep track of the discussion. We conducted four focus group discussions composed of students with attributes distinct from each other to detect patterns and trends across groups. Each session has a range of 3 – 8 participants, small enough for everyone to have opportunity to share insights and yet large enough to provide diversity of perceptions. Focus group discussions were held at accessible places where participants are comfortable, free of distractions, and which privacy concerns were assured.
Data Analysis
The researchers’ task was to describe, interpret, and understand in considerable depth people and the cultural scenes in which they exist. We read through the field notes, interview and focus group transcripts that were collected during the participant observations, semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions. We sorted out interviews and focus group transcripts by cutting verbatim related to the areas earlier identified namely: languages/dialects used by the students; formality of communication; proxemics (physical arrangements and groupings, distances between students); direction or flow of communication among students. Upon sorting out of data, we have decided to merge the flow of communication and engagement since engagement or involvement is needed to have communication. Also, during sorting out of data we identified patterns, connections, similarities, or contrastive points in the data. Through this, we were able to further sub-categorize data we have gathered. For the flow of communication and engagement, we changed the theme to interrelationships among students. Previous sub-categories in these themes were repeatedly analyzed and modified and re-evaluated and revalidated between and among our group. Language, formality, and proxemics were retained as themes for this study.
www.ijsernet.org Page 55 read data, analyzed them, theorized with them, and revised the concepts accordingly until the findings provided depth (persistent observation).
Results
Three themes were developed from the data analysis, these are: Formality, Proxemics and Inter-relationships between students and professors. The study presents the flow chart of these three themes, originating from the main topic of “Interaction Patterns”. It also presents the subthemes for each theme. The study had fourteen respondents. The study used codenames to protect the identity of our respondents. For the male respondents, the study used the family names of male behavioral theorists. The male respondents included Adler, Erikson, Jung, Skinner, Freud, Sullivan, and Fromm. For the female respondents, the study used the family names of nursing theorists. The female respondents included Nightingale, Henderson, Orem, Peplau, Watson, Roy, and Leininger. All of them were enrolled in the Graduate School Programs of the SLU – School of Nursing. To protect their identity, the study did not divulge their age and the length of time they had been enrolled in the Masters ‘program as well as the subjects they enrolled in.
Formality
Subtheme 1: Addressing the Class
a.Professor Addressing Students
In general, we had observed that professors in the graduate school address their students as ‘ma’am or sir’. When the professor addresses students with ma’am or sir, it is usually followed by the first name of student. In a certain class, the identified situations in which the professors use ma’am or sir in addressing the students is when the professor is not familiar to the student or first time to meet the student.
But, as time passes by, when the professor gets accustomed to the new student, the professor would tend to call them by first names, except for co-faculty of almost the same age or older, and students who are perceived to be older also.
There are also professors who address students as “sis”. This creates an atmosphere for the students to feel at ease, comfortable and equally treated as students at the moment. But when the student is perceived to be older, the professor still respects the student by addressing them as ma’am or sir. The subsequent testimonies were experiences and observations of participants regarding this matter.
Nightingale: “…Professor XXX addresses the students with “sis”. It’s like she wants to create an atmosphere that you are all welcome. Everyone is comfortable to share ideas no matter what your background is. Even if you are a professor or a student; at this moment you are all my students.”
www.ijsernet.org Page 56 Aside from “sis”, we also learned that some professors also used “ate” to address students. But it was observed that respect between students and professor still remains.
Henderson: “.... I think, respect still maintained, that ma’am or sir. Then, we have a co-CI, specifically Sir XXX, he would just say ate.”
b.Students Addressing Professor
In the graduate school, in the aspect of student addressing the professor, we observed the use of simply ma’am or sir; or ma’am/sir followed by the professor’s first name or surname. Students always give a high regard to the professor. One particular observation is when a faculty member remained to address the professor as ma’am or sir, despite of being a colleague. As we learned from our participant Henderson that respect to the professor is maintained even if the professor calls her “ate”.
Henderson: “…But even though he calls me ‘ate’, still I would address him as sir. Because this somehow shows my respect to him as my professor.)
We also found out that the level of professor’s achievement influences the way the student addresses the professor with ma’am or sir, as supported by the statement of Orem.
Orem: “I think highly of my professors, so I still address them as sir or ma’am.”
In contrary to the above statements, we also learned that graduate students, especially co-faculty of the professor and have known each other, sometimes, they just address the professor with their names.
Peplau: “…I think there are those that when they are close to the CI, well, they don’t need to. Sometimes I just observe that from Sir Hans Selye. When they are close to him. But those I heard who are close to Sir Hans Salye, they don’t seem to address him as sir or ma’am. They just call him Hans Selye. Especially if a fellow CI. I just heard this ok.”
Sub theme 2: Professionalism
Professionalism of Professors
We observed in the graduate school that professors are democratic and approachable. Professors in the graduate school, by and large treat students equal, fair and objective. Professors also respect the students as we observed in one of our classes wherein, they accept suggestions from the whole class and consider the benefit of the majority.
Orem: “Professors are fair in giving grades. They are somehow objective.”
www.ijsernet.org Page 57 Nightingale: “…The professor makes sure that he/she respects his/her students.”
But we also learned that some professors show bias in giving grades and considerations to the students, especially to their co-faculty members. Because, it was observed that one factor identified by our participant that can lead to bias between a professor and a co-faculty student is the “human factor”.
Nightingale: “…For example, when the CI are enrolled in a subject of a professor close to them, there’s really an attachment to that person that you cannot get rid of.”
Adler: “…Bias exists especially when they are comfortable with each other and were friends. Either inside or outside the classroom, there’s really a bias. Sometimes, professors are more in favor of the faculty members. Like for instance today is the deadline and faculty members ask to submit at a later day, sometimes the professor would allow their co-faculty despite it is already late. Sometimes during exam, this was last sem. There was also this student who is a faculty member whom I think had a duty, the professor allowed the student to take the exam at a later date. For us, it’s unfair. Those were the biases I observed to the professors.”
Jeung: “…The professor does not fail students but if you are a faculty member, your grade is 91, and if not familiar o the professor, your grade is just 90.”
Furthermore, class discussion is usually done by students. The professors observe and listen to the reporter while also add information in between. Most of the professors help students to become better. But some professors do critique students’ works in an embarrassing way putting down the students’ self-esteem. It was observed that respect to the student is determined by his performance or work.
Erikson: “…Professionalism should really be practiced. Because with professor X like when, I had a classmate before was verbally abused in front.”
On the other hand, sometimes arguments also occur during discussions. Some professors do not take into account the tension between students. For some professors also call attention of a student who always talks in the class to give chance to others in a way positive way, as quoted by our participant, the professor would say, “Should I also call for the others?” Moreover, when conflicts arise between students, professor was also observed to fix the problems. It was shared by a participant, when a student verbalizes to the professor the problem of a fellow student of dropping from the class due to certain classmate, the professor acted on it and was able to solve the conflict.
Proxemics
www.ijsernet.org Page 58 Subtheme 1: Professor’s location in the classroom
Professors have their own preferences as to where they would sit. As observed by the students, professors sit in front, at the back, at the backmost center aisle of the class or at the sides alone. However, during examinations, professors usually sit in front of the class in a table and chair rested on a platform. Professors usually do not sit beside a student. In an interview, Orem shared her observation,
Orem: “No professor will sit beside a student. Usually professors are at the back or side.”
This is supplemented by an observation in one class where no student sits in the same row with the professor since it has been discouraged when someone sat near or in the same row with the professor before. Students’ preference of where they sit is also influenced by the professors. Students feel more comfortable if seated away from the professor. Student’s perception of the professors dictates the seating preference. If a student is terrified of the professor, upon entering the door, the student checks first where the professor is seated then student will stay away from the professor. This statement is made by Sullivan stating,
Sullivan: “I’m scared of the professor, so upon entering I first see where the professor is then I will sit away from him/her.”
Interrelationship skills among Students
Interrelationship refers to relatedness or mutual or reciprocal relation. This is an important aspect between professor-student relationships because this may affect how they interact with one another.
Subtheme 1: “Professor first, subject later”
Few students find a quality mentor relationship with their professor which also influences the students in choosing a subject to enrol. There are factors that are attributed to this. Students choose the subjects wherein they feel comfortable with and will really learn from the professor. Students also enrol subjects previously endorsed by other graduate students. Basis of these endorsements is how professors give grades. Unfamiliarity with professors is another factor. Adler shared that,
“Basic subjects can be taken later. In later parts, the non-interesting subjects and if I don’t know the professor. But if no choice, just go ahead.”
In a class, a group of students seated together discusses who will be the professor for a subject for second semester.
Subtheme 2: Professor and the Class
www.ijsernet.org Page 59 Expectations are usually set during the first meeting in order to create understanding leading to a smooth classroom relationship. Students have their expectations regarding graduate school professors. Professors are different compared to the undergraduate level in terms of how they facilitate, teach, and even the knowledge that they impart to their students. There is a high expectation that students would really learn from professors for additional knowledge for them to apply what was been taught in their respective career. Also, aside from facilitating class discussions, and giving inputs, they also motivate students. However, this is not the case experienced by Henderson when she shared that,
“You can only count by your fingers how many times the professor provided inputs.”
Professors also expect students to know the basics and share their ideas during class discussions to facilitate better learning. In a class, the professor always reminds the class to make work scholarly and as much as possible speak in English during class discussions for the students to be trained for future careers and personal development. During classes, there are factors that stimulate class participation. One of these is interesting topics introduced by the professor. Students discuss among their seat mates regarding these topics while others freely express their ideas to the class. Adler shared experienced stating,
“An interesting topic raised by the professor catches the attention of the class, then each one would want to have their side to be heard to share information. I have noticed that there are some discussions even if professor is talking, so it only shows that each person has many ideas he/she wants to share. “
Professors’ teaching methods are varied wherein some professors give specific topics for the students to discuss and the professor serves as a facilitator and also ask questions but also gives his/her inputs during discussions and expounds on certain topics. Even if the professor discusses the topics, the professor encourages everyone to participate and give their opinions about the topic. The following are accounts of students,
Erikson also shared that, “Even though it has been reported, the professor also explains. So, the professor expounds on reports not understood.”
In class Y, the professor asked questions to the reporters but also provides additional information regarding the report and shares studies or researchers read. Furthermore, in class Z, the professor further explained concepts in more simple terms and made sure that the class understood.
Furthermore, the professors’ teaching methods also depends on the size of a class. And the size of the class contributes to the class interaction during discussions. There is less interaction during class discussions when the class is big. However, professors also make it a point that everyone will talk or participate by calling on to that student who’s quiet or shy.
www.ijsernet.org Page 60 Henderson: “…Our professor did not allow our classmate to monopolize the class. The professor encouraged the others for example when our classmate raised hands, the professor would say, “should I also call for the others?”
However, one participant shared that in a certain class, the professor wants to be the only one asking questions to the reporter to a point of embarrassing the student.
Fromm: “For others, the professor is the only one who asks questions. But of course, the student also has different ideas from the professor. But one certain professor likes that she/he will only ask questions, that the class is sometimes embarrassed.”
With regards to requirements in the graduate school, some professors accept suggestions from the class from which the students could negotiate. In the graduate school, professor also serves as a guide to the students unlike in the undergrad that students perform on their own.
Students reporting style depends on the class atmosphere. According to Skinner, reporting in a serious type of class atmosphere makes him feel nervous. During reporting, Fromm experiences that the professor was the only one asking questions. Though a certain professor asks question from the reporter in a way to redirect the discussion when it goes out from the topic. But when professor knew the student having also a remarkable position, professor also is ashamed to ask question. With regards to student’s reaction during reporting, according to the experience of Roy, one classmate just blurts out answers without the professor calling him. As we have observed also in some of our classes, inputs almost all are provided by the professor and few students do participate during discussions. But during “heated” discussion, professor should take the role to bring to an end between students. As participants expressed their feelings being bombarded during heated discussion, they “lost confidence” and “get more nervous”.
Certain students may not talk and share ideas at all for the entire semester while another student may dominate class discussions. A small class facilitates more interaction during class discussions. Statements below support this,
Lienenger: “Since were few, our interaction was not conventional. It was still a group discussion but informal.”
But in a big group, someone dominates.”
Lastly, classroom set-up is a factor in facilitating learning and interaction in a class. If cases of group activities, the students from a circle but for more usual class discussions, students face the board. It was observed that the classroom set-up in the graduate school is unstructured compared to the undergraduate level which is very structured.
www.ijsernet.org Page 61 the professor. In the class wherein, traditional classroom set-up is used, it was observed that there is a limited participation from the class, unlike in a round interactive set-up.
Discussion
There are many factors that may influence classroom interaction and these may affect students’ performance and learning as well as classroom management and relationships. The results of our study showed that formality, proxemics, interrelationship between students and professors influence classroom interaction in the graduate school of Saint Louis University – School of Nursing.
The graduate school environment is a very unique one indeed. Based from our observations and interviews, as well as the results of our data collection and analysis, shows that the graduate school programs of the SLU – School of Nursing is a dynamic culture. Students with various backgrounds come together in an environment where learning is student-centered, and where every student learns to be accountable for his or her own learning. Professors, well-seasoned and expert nurses in their own right, share their knowledge and motivate students to do more for themselves and the profession. It is clear that a culture exists in the graduate programs of the SLU – School of Nursing. To be part of this culture and to learn about our culture as graduate students of this program is an eye-opening experience.
Learning in the graduate school is different. Smith et al (2005) presents it as a “keep it flowing model”, where information passes not only from teacher to students, but also from students to teacher, and among students. This model of teaching and learning emphasizes that the simultaneous presence of interdependence and accountability are essential to learning, and its presence is at the heart of a student-engaged instructional approach. It has been presented in our results that graduate students learn not only from the professor, but also from their fellows. Using the most common method of reporting, students have employed various teaching methods to deliver their reports to the class. The class also engages in feedback through queries and additional inputs and the professor facilitates the flow of the discussion.
Proxemics involves the physical arrangement of persons inside a given environment. Our research reveals that proxemics is one element that may affect the interactions among the persons inside the classroom. In terms of professor-student interaction, it was revealed that the location of the professor inside a classroom may or may not affect where a student may seat. Also, the physical arrangement of chairs inside a classroom and how the professor chooses to arrange it can affect where students sit. It was found in our study that graduate students choose professors first before enrolling subjects except in cases wherein students are left with no choice. Since the teacher is more influential than anyone else in the setting of the classroom variables, teacher’s behavior is the central determinant of student’s outcome (Ann, 1974, Bergan and Dunn, 1976). Hence, students’ outcome also encompasses performance in class interactions.
www.ijsernet.org Page 62 programs have high expectations from their professors. Professors in turn also have high expectations from their students. In his study, Davies (1983) found that by cueing into what the teacher wants of them, the kind of student s/he wants them to be, and by allowing him or her to be the sort of teacher s/he wants to be, the teacher and students agree to construct the particular order of the classroom. This major finding suggested that order in the classroom is actually an outcome of mutually negotiated meaning between the teacher and students about what they were expecting from each other (Icbay, 2008). Graduate students as well as professors have high expectations from each other. Having an open dialogue provides better understanding of these expectations that will help in developing a good student and professor interrelationship.
Through the teachers, action and the choice of means of communication including, verbal and nonverbal, the classroom is stimulated. Christensen, at al. (1995), found that students were more willing to participate when they found the topic of discussion or the class to be interesting and if they were prepared for class. Consequently, they concluded that the instructor determines the level of verbal participation by students (Meyer, 2009). We found in our study that interesting topics raised by professors arouse students’ participation in class but not all topics to be discussed in the classroom are of interest to the students. The topics may not be interesting at first but as the students and the class discuss these topics, they become more interesting and relevant to the student.
These relationships influence the attitude developed by the students as well as their performances in the subject taught (Ogaboh, 2010). When the student's interactions in the classroom result in a cloudy and negative perception, it influences students' performance (Meyer, 2009). This is because when classroom interactions engender positive attitude, it enhances the willingness and the capacity of the student to benefit substantially in the teaching-learning process (Meyer, 2009). It was found in our study that students chose their professors because they promote a conducive learning atmosphere leading to positive classroom interactions. Students in the graduate programs appear to choose classes where they can freely express themselves and opinions which will be criticized positively. This in turn will promote meaningful learning process and experience.
www.ijsernet.org Page 63 Conclusion & Recommendation
Based from the study conducted, the researchers have drawn the following conclusions. Interrelationships between students and professors are influenced by the classroom setup, class size and interactions, topics that arouse the interest of the students, professor’s expectations of the student and student expectation.
Graduate program professors should ensure a positive interrelationship between their students to facilitate meaningful learning experience. Meaningful learning experiences are not only limited to the good ones but also to those that challenge and test a student’s capacity to handle situations. Professors should also have time to process not only lessons but also the experiences of students. One way to establish this is through team building and post-conferences. These sessions can become avenues for self-expression and open-minded discussions. Professors should also provide positive remarks and suggestions to improve students’ performance and build students’ confidence and self-esteem. Though negative situations cannot be avoided, professors still have to take control of the class. Since the graduate programs require group works, professors are encouraged to check the involvement of each group member in accomplishing these tasks. They are also crucial in developing student interrelationships
Reference
Dyrbye, L.et al. (2009). “A Qualitative Study of Physicians’ Experiences with Online Learning in a Master’s Degree Program: Benefits, Challenges, And Proposed Solutions”.
Medical Teacher 31: e40–e46. Retrieved from
http://fhs.mcmaster.ca/surgery/documents/Dyrbyeetal2009.pdf. Accessed June 22, 2011.
S Liu, S. (2008). “Student Interaction Experiences in Distance Learning Courses: A Phenomenological Study”. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 10, I. Retrieved from http://distance.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring111/Liu111.html. Accessed June 22, 2011.
Picciano, A. (2002). “Beyond Student Perceptions: Issues of Interaction, Presence, and Performance in an Online Course”. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6, 1.
Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.98.6506&rep=rep1&type=pd f. Accessed June 23, 2011.
Rovai, A. (2002). “Development of an Instrument to Measure Classroom Community”. Internet
and Higher Education 5 (2002) 197 – 211. Retrieved from
