What Is Content Analysis ?

Much of human activity is not directly observable or measureable, not is it always possible to get
information from people who might know of such activity from firsthand experience. Content
analysis is technique that enables researchers to study human behaviour in an indirect way, through
an analysis of their communications. It just what its name implies: the analysis of a communication.
Textbooks, essays, newspaper, novels, magazine articles, cookbooks, songs, political speeches,
advertisements, pictures-in fact, the contents of virtually any type of communication can be
analyzed. A person’s or group’s conscious and unconscious beliefs, attitudes, values, and ideas often
are revealed in their communications.

In today’s world, there is a tremendously large number of communications of one sort or another
(newspaper editorials, graffiti, musical compositions, magazine articles, advertisements, films, etc.).
Analysis of such communications can tell us a great deal about how human beings live. To analyze
these messages, a researcher needs to organize a large amount of material. How can this be done ?
By developing appropriate categories, ratings, or scores that the researcher can use for subsequent
comparison in order to illuminate what he or she is investigating. This is what content analysis is all
about.

By using this technique, a researcher can study (indirectly) anything from tends in child-rearing
practices ( by comparing them over time or by comparing differences in such practices (by
comparing them over time or by comparing differences in such practices among various groups of
people), to types of heroes people prefer, to the extent of violence on television. Through an
analysis of literature, popular magazines, songs, comic strips, cartoons, and movies, the different
ways in which sex, crime, religion, education, ethnicity, affectin and love , or violence and hatred
have been presented at different times can be revealed. He or she can also note the rise and fall of
fads.

From such data, researchers can make comparisons about the attitudes and beliefs of various groups
of people separated by time, geographic locate, culture, or country.

Content analysis as a methodology is often used in conjunction with other methods, in praticular
historical and ethnographic research. It can be used in any context in which the researcher desires a
means of systematizing and (often) quantifying data. It is extremely valueable in analyzing
observation and interview data.

Let us consider an example. In a series of studies during the 1960s and 1970s, Gerbner and his
colleagues did a content analysis of the amount of violence on television. They selected for their
study all of the dramatic television programs that were broadcast during a single week in the fall of
each year (in order to make comparisons from year to year) and looked for incidents that involved
violence.

They videotaped each program and then developed a number of measures that trained coders used
to analyze each of the programs. Prevalance, for example, reffered to the percentage of pragrams
that included one or more incidents of violence; rate reffered to the number of violent incidents
occuring in each program; and role reffered to the individuals who were involved in the violent
incidents. (The individuals who commited the violent act or acts were categorized as ‘’violents”,
while the individuals againts whom the violence was commited were categorized as “victims.”

Gerbner and his associates used these data to report two scores: a program score, based on
prevelence and rate; and a character score, based on role. They then calculated a violence index for
each program, which was determined by the sum of these two scores. Figure 20.1 shows one of the
graphs they presented to describe the violence index for different types of programs beetween 1967
and 1977. It suggests that violence was higher in children’s programs than in other types of
programs and that there was little change during the 10-year period.

Some Applications

Content analysis is a method that has wide applicability in educational research. For example, it can
be used to:

- Describe trens in schooling over time (e.g., the back-to-basics movement) by examining
professional and/or general publications.
- Understand organizational patterns (e.g., by examining charts, outlines, etc., prepared by
school administrators).
- Show how different schools handle the same phenomena differently (e.g., curricular
patterns, school governance).
- Infer attitudes, values, and cultural patterns in different countries (e.g., through an
examination of what sorts of courses and activities are-or are not-sponsored and endorsed).
- Compare the myths that people hold about schools with what actually occurs within them
(e.g., by comparing the result of polls taken of the general public with literature written by
teachers and others working in the schools).
- Gain a sense of how teachers feel about their work (e.g., by examining what they have
written about their jobs).
- Gain some idea of how schools are perceived (e.g., by viewing films and television programs
depicting same).

Content analysis can also be used to supplement other, more direct methods of research.
Attituteds toward women who are working in so-called men’s occupations, for example, can be
investigated in variety of ways: questionnaires; in-depth interviews; participant observations;
and/or content analysis of magazine articles, television programs, newspapners, films, and
autobiographies that touch on the subject.

Lastly, content analysis can be used to give researchers insights into problems or hypotheses
that they can then test by more direct methods. A researcher might analyze the content of a
student newspaper, for example, to obtain information for devising questionnaires or
formulating questions for subsequent in-depth interviews with members of the student body at
a particular high school.

Categorization in Content Analysis

All procedures that are called content analysis have certain characteristics in common. These
procedures also vary in some respects, depending on the purpose of the analysis and the type of
communication being analyzed.

All must at some point convert descriptive information into categories. There are two ways that
this might be done:
1. The researcher determines the categories before any analysis begins. These categories are
based on previous knowledge, theory, and/or experience. For example, later in this chapter, we
use predetermined categories to describe and evaluate a series of journal articles pertaining to
social studies education.

2. The researcher becomes very familiar with the descriptive information collected and allows
the categories to emerge as the analysis continues.

Steps Involved in Content Analysis

Determine Objectives

Decide on the specific objectives you want to achieve. There are several reasons why a
researcher might want to do a content analysis.

- To obtain descriptive information about a topic.

Content analysis is a very useful way to obtain information that describes an issue or topic.
For example, a content analysis of child-rearing practices in different countries could provide
descriptive information that might lead to a consideration of different approaches within a
particular society. Similiarly, a content analysis of the ways various historical events are
described in the history textbooks of different countries might shed some light on why
people have different views of history (e.g., Adolf Hitler’s role in World War II).
- To formulate themes (i.e., major ideas) that help to organize and make sense out of large
amounts of descriptive information.
Themes are typically groupings of codes that emerge either during or after the process of
developing codes. An example is shown on page 489.
- To check other research findings
Content analysis is helpful in validating the findings of a study or studies using other
research methodologies. Statements of textbook publishers concerning what they believe is
included in their company’s high school biology textbooks (obtained through interviews), for
example, could be checked by doing a content analysis of such textbooks. Interviews with
college professors as to what thes say they teach could be verified by doing a content
analysis of their lesson plans.
- To obtain information useful in dealing with educational problems.
Content analysis can help teachers plan activities to help srudents learn. A content analysis
of student compositions, for example, might help teachers pinpoint grammatic or stylistic
errors. A content analysis of math assignments might reveal deficiencies in the ways student
attempt to solve word problems. While such analyses are simial to grading practices, they
differ in that they provide more specific information, such as the relative frequency of
different kinds of mistakes.
- To test hypotheses.
Content analysis can also be used to invetigate possible relationships or to test ideas. For
example, a researcher might hypothesize that social studies textbooks have changed in the
degree to which they emphasize the role of minority individuals in the history of our
country. A content analysis of a sample of texts published over the last 20 years would
reveal if this is the case.
Research Report

Student Teachers and Classroom Discipline

Abstract
Participants in this study were 135 student teachers at Indiana University who submitted
detailed written narratives describing one effectively managed and one ineffectively
managed incident involving a discipline problem. Results showed that the srudent teachers
cited five types of discipline problems; the most frequently described involved disruption,
defiance, and inattention. The student teachers used seven different strategies when
attempting to manage these discipline problems, the most effective of which were positive
reinforcement, explanation, and a change of teaching strategy. The major conclusions of
study were that (a) elementary- and secondary-level student teachers defined and managed
discipline problems in much the same way, (b) the most effective strategies were the most
“humanistic,” and (c) the least effective strategies were most “authoritarian.”

Effective classroom discipline continues to be one of the most universal and troubling
problems faced by teachers (Charles, 1989; Edwards, 1993). Preservice teachers have
consistently ranked discipline as one of their greatest sources of anxiety and uncertainty
(Lindgren, 1972; Wesley & Vocke, 1992), and discipline is also a major factor in student
teacher failure (Rickman & Hollowell, 1981). Desite this, student teachers identify discipline
as an area in which they believe they receive little preparation (Purcell & Seifert, 1982).

In studies in which student teachers and discipline have been examined, researchers
generally focused on the way that student teachers handle common classroom occurences.
Among the findings of such research are that (a) student teachers tend to prefer humanistic
approaches to classroom management (Hall & Wahrman, 1987; Osoborne & Boisvert, 1989),
(b) the classroom management strategies student teachers select can be related to
personality type (Halpin, 1982), university-level course work (Tingstrom, 1989), the subject
being taught (Brand, 1982; Clayton, 1984; Murwin & Matt, 1990), and grade level (Jones,
1982; Sage, 1990); and (c) after their field experience, student teachers are more willing to
use harsher discipline methods (Moser, 1982).

Authors of similiar studies have often relied on student teachers prediction about how they
might behave in hypothetical situations, rather than on examinations of their actual
classroom decisions and actions. And many of these researchers have relied on relatively
simple and standard survey methods to gain insight into how student researchers have
relied on relatively simple and standard survey methods to gain insight into how student
teachers respond to “typical” classroom events. As such, much of this research is of
somewhat limited used to teachers educators.

Where discipline is concerned, the goal of teacher education is to help individuals devolp the
expertise necessary to effectively manage a learning environment. Ultimately, individual
teachers values and versatility most influence classroom culture and climate. Of greater
relevance, therefore, is an understanding of student teachers decisions about classroom
management, within the context of what they believe constitutes a “discipline problem” in
the first place.
Our purposes in this study were to investigate student teachers perceptions about the
discipline problems they encountered during their student teaching experience and to
examine the strategies they used-both effectively and ineffectively-when dealing with those
problems. Specifically, the study attempred to answer these questions:
1. What kinds of classroom behaviors do student teachers define as discipline problems ?
2. What strategies do student teachers use when dealing with these discipline problems ?
3. Which strategies are effective with which discipline problems, and which are ineffective ?

Method
Participants
The participants in this study were 135 undergraduate elementary- and secondary-level
student teacher (119 women and 16 men) who were completing teacher-training programs
at one of four campuses in the Indiana University (IU) system. (The IU system comprises
eight campuses) The participants were enrolled in education programs at regional campuses
located in Kokomo, South Bend, Indianapolis, and Gary. Of the total, 81 participants were
elemantary-level, preservice teachers and 54 were secondary-level preservice teachers. Of
the elementary-level student teachers, 58 (72%) were assigned to primary-level classrooms
and 23 (28%) were assigned to intermediate-level classrooms. Of the secondary-level
student teachers, 16 (30%) were assigned to junior high classrooms and 38 (70%) were
assigned to senior high classroom. Twenty-seven (33%) of the elementary-level student
teachers were parents, as were 19 (35%) of the secondary-level student teachers.
Participants ranged in aged from 21 years to 48 years, with a median age of 27.8 years.

Data Collection
In this study we used the critical incident technique originally proposed by Flanagan (1954)
and adapted to classroom research by Ryans (1960). Using this technique, we asked the
student teachers to identify and describe specific classroom incidents considered to be
examples of “discipline problems,” and also to identify and describe the specific action or
strategy used when attempting to manage that incident. This technique is considered
superior to traditional surveys and observations because it yields in-depth, rich narratives
that are usually more insightful and relevant to classroom practice. All participants were
asked to submit detailed written narrative responses to two questions:
1. Think over the past month or two and recall the last time you did something especially
effective in dealing with a discipline problem. What did the student(s) do ? What did you do?
2. Think over the past month or two and recall the last time you did something especially
ineffective in dealing with a discipline problem. What did the student(s) do ? What did you
do ?

“Discipline problem” was not defined for the participants because their perceptions of the
kinds of student behaviors that were problematic was one of the issues of concern in this
study.
Data were Collected during a three-semester period from fall 1990 through fall 1991, in one
of two ways, depending on the campus at which student teachers were enrolled. Most
participants were asked to write and submit their narratives during an on-campus seminar
held during the latter portion of their student-teaching semester. Other participants
received written instructions by mail, and their narratives were written independently and
then returned to researchers at the completion of their student teaching.
Data Analyses

Critical incidents described by participants were subjected to content analyyses typical of

those used with qualitative data (Guba & Lincoln, 1981; Miles & Huberman, 1984).
Specifically, the student teachers narrative responses to the two broad questions (i.e.,
problems and strategies) were first examinde for naturally occuring or “grounded”
categories (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Guba, 1978). Each response was then coded and placed
into a category and then reviewed to ensure that each was externally distinct and internally
consistent. Responses in each category were then subjected to descriptive statistical
analyses.
The three examples below illustrate how the anecdotal data were analyzed and coded. The
first is an except from a narrative contributed by a student teacher in a fisrt-grade classroom
who described an incident that was effectively handled.

Several students were tipping their chairs and continually falling to the floor. I decided that
they wanted to sit on the floor. Now, when students tip their chair, they move it back and sit
‘Indian style’ on the floor with their work.

The discipline problem described here was coded as a “disruption” because the most salient
factor about student behavior appears to be that it interrupted instructional flow. The
strategy was coded as a “change of strategy” because the teacher adopted a new approach,
style, or policy as a way to deal with the disruption.
The second example is an except from a narrative contributed by a student teacher in a
second-grade classroom who also decribed an incident of “disruption” that was effectively
handled but, in this instance, with a strategy coded as “positive reinforcement” because of
the emphasis on praise and approval:

Justin has a real problem with self-control, especially when walking in the hall. I fell like i am
constantly asking him to keep his lips together and to keep his hands together. . . . I told
Justin, i front of all the children, that i needed him to show the other students how to walk
appropriately down the hall. I told him was counting on him to do a good job. It worked. I
was pleased and Justin was pleased with himself. . . .

The third example is an except from a narrative contributed by a student teacher in a high
scholl classroom who described an incident thas was ineffectively handled: