Gire TUNE al subtítulo que quiere utilizar y confirme con OK/MENU.

Observations were conducted in the following way:

General school observation paid attention to issues such as classroom size, seating, available materials, and whether the teachers were knowledgeable about ICAT and monitored the classes properly.

In terms of pair observation, which consisted of the majority of time, the following was the procedure: First the name of the teacher and the topic of mathematics was recorded on the observation sheet. The mathematics areas observed were: for school A ‘written mental methods’ and ‘data interpretation and representation’, for school B ‘factor multiplying’ and

185

‘equations’, for school C ‘area and volume’ and ‘equations’. The observations took place during the second half of peer tutoring, so that the students had enough time to master the ICAT framework. For school A the observations took place during the last two ICAT lessons, Monday mornings, both at 9am. For school B the observations also took place during the last two ICAT lessons, Thursdays at 1pm. For school C the observations took place during the fourth and the sixth session, Wednesday mornings at 10am.

To begin, the researcher was first introduced to the class in an informative manner and the class was informed that the researcher would just walk around the classroom to learn more about how the students worked together. If any of them did not want to be observed then they just had to say so. The older students, the tutors, were then politely asked to all sit on the right hand side of their tutee, in order to make the observations easier for the researcher. During the observation the researcher maintained a positive facial expression. During the pair observations the researcher walked slowly behind each pair, stopping two steps away, so that the students were not disturbed, in order to minimise the chances for the students to alter their behaviour.

Each pair of students was observed in a structured manner throughout five windows of time. For a Year 8 student tutoring a Year 6 student, and a Year 9 student tutoring a Year 7 student each window lasted approximately 30 seconds, 5 seconds to adjust, 15 seconds to observe and 10 seconds to record. For the school of Year 9 student tutoring a Year 7 student the window was longer, as there were only 9 pairs per class, 40 seconds long. On a few occasions the students had to work in groups of three as their tutor or tutee was not present on the day, those students were not observed.

Figure 27 below shows the observation items, influenced by Social Interdependence Theory (Argyle, 1976; Allen & Feldman, 1976; Johnson & Johnson 1975; Johnson 1990). However, some came from other related theories such as Social Constructivism (Fitz-Gibbon

186

2000, Roscoe & Chi, 2007; Topping, 2011). All together they measured the level of interdependence, meta-cognition and cognition. The only difference being that the observations took place at the individual level, concentrating more specifically on tutors’ and tutees’ questions and answers rather than overall pair interaction as previously conducted by Topping, (2011). Table 25 on the next page provides a more detailed picture of what each indicator aimed at measuring and their respective observatory method.

187

Table 25. Area of measurement and method by observation indicator

Indicators Method Measuring

Goal Interdependence

The pair had written down the points they wanted to achieve. The point could have been written on the ICAT format or a separate paper

if there was one. If a pair did not write down a point they wanted to achieve, however discussed and agreed on this was also marked

as goal interdependence. Goal interdependence and interpersonal interdependence. Tutor B-Language/T- Voice

Tutor had a relaxed body language and tone of voice, and sat close to his/her tutee.

Tutor Praises Correctly

When tutor praised, the praise had to be warm and genuine. When the praising was associated

with a smile this was marked as correct praising.

Interpersonal interdependence and cognitive engagement (as

praising is a form of feedback).

Tutor M/C Questions

Tutor read the questions which were written in the ICAT, or asked how questions. A closer eye

for meta-cognitive questions was paid to the Connect section which was designed specifically to make students reflect, connect,

categorise.

Meta-cognitive engagement. Tutee Self Corrects Tutee reflected back on own work to correct

him/herself. Tutee

Connects/Categorises

Tutee connected or categorised ideas to other previous ideas or to real life. Again, this usually took place at the Connect section. However if in the other sections the tutee reflected back to previous knowledge this was

188

Tutor Questions General questions from the tutor, taking place throughout the entire peer tutoring interaction.

Cognitive engagement. Tutee Answers General attempts to answer by the tutee. Tutee

answers were marked if the tutee provided a verbal answer, or started to write straight after

the tutor explained something. Tutee Questions Tutee asked tutor a question

Tutor Explains Tutor provided spoken explanations; the explanations could have been conceptual or

procedural. Task Engagement

(alone)

Tutee worked alone on the exercise, while tutor watched.

In-Audible Too much noise coming from the rest of the class when observing a pair.

Noise.

Table 25, shows that most of the indicators measure cognition. The remaining measured meta-cognition and interdependence levels between the tutee and the tutor. Certain indicators such as ‘praise’ fell into two categories, interdependence as well as cognition, since praising stimulates both affection (interpersonal interdependence) as well as serving as a feedback mechanism for knowledge construction/acquisition (cognition).

189 6.7 Chapter conclusion

This chapter has looked at how each instrument used in this research was developed. Half of the instruments were researcher made; they were those measuring mathematic performance and group-level analysis to investigate social interdependent variables (and school level implementation/fidelity variables). The remaining instruments, the questionnaire measuring attitudes, social and academic, and the observation items, were all researcher modified instruments.

All the instruments measured different aspects of social interdependence: For example, the observations were mainly to be used as implementation fidelity. They measured students’ behaviour in terms of goal and interpersonal interdependence, cognitive and meta-cognitive elements at the student level, and general teacher observations at the classroom level. The questionnaires on the other hand measured attitudes, again both social and academic. Finally, in terms of analysing the lesson materials, the instruments used to investigate tutees’ group differences also measured and aimed at exploring the level of social interdependence, cross- ability, cognitive and meta-cognitive elements. Lesson materials were also used to investigate implementation fidelity at the school level; the indicators used for this analysis were the same indicators as those identified for the tutee group comparison purposes.

The strength of using the lesson materials is that one could gain a view of the learning process during the entire peer tutoring process, rather than concentrating on one or two lessons as was the case with observations, or with the 10 minute attitude responses, as was the case with the attitude questionnaires.

190