Flanders Interactional Analysis

Technique/Method

By Dr. Atul Thakur

Dronacharya College of Education Rait, Kangra Himachal Pradesh
• Competency of teacher = degree of
effectiveness of teaching (observed by
classroom interaction)
• Definition:
 Interactional analysis is a technique consisting of
objective and systematic observation of the
classroom events for the study of the teacher’s
behaviour and the process of interaction going
inside the classroom.
Systems of Interactional Analysis

• By Richard L. Ober (1971)

 (i) Sign
 (ii) Category

 (i) Sign
• Checklist
• Irrespective of frequency
• Only once observed
 (ii) Category
• Behaviour is classified in categories
• Observation at regular interval
• (eg. Flander’s Intereaction Analysis )
Flanders Interaction Analysis
Technique
• Developed by Ned A. Flanders (1959) at
university of Minnesota
• Classroom behaviour is divided into three majot
sections
1. Teacher talk (4+3=7 sub Categories)
2. Student Talk (2 sub Categories)
3. Silence or confusion
total = 10 sub Categories
Teacher talk

• Teacher talk (apiq)

 Indirect Teacher talk/Influence
• Accepts feelings
• Praises or encourages
• Accepts or uses student’s idea
• Asks questions
 Direct Teacher talk/Influence (ldc)
• Lecturing
• Giving directions
• Criticising or justifying authority
Student Talk
• Student Talk Response
• Student Talk Initiation

• Silence or Confusion
Using Flanders interaction
analysis
• Steps
1. Observing or recording classroom events
2. Construction of interaction matrix
3. Interpretation on interaction matrix

1. Observing or recording classroom events

 Appropriate position
 No interference or disturbance
 Proper recording (memorization of codes)
 Noting at every 3 seconds
 Column or row
 Note if any
Rules

1. When not certain to which two or more

categories a statement belong, chose the
category that is numerically farthest from
category 5.
2. If the primary tone of the teacher’s behaviour
has been consistently direct or indirect, do not
shift to the appropriate classification unless a
clear indication of the shift is given.
3. Observer must not be concerned by his own
bias.
4. If more than one category occurs in 3 second
interval, note all.
Construction of interaction
matrix

10 3 10 6 2 6 1 8

2 4 3 10 6 2 6

1 8 3 10 6 2 6

1 8 2 4 3 10 6

2 6 1 10 6 2 1

1 8 2 10
Interaction Matrix Table
Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 total
1 l 1
2 l l 2
3 l 1
4 l 1
5 l 1
6 l l 2
7 0
8 l 1
9 0
10 l l 2
Total 1 2 1 1 1 2 0 1 0 2 11
Interpretation

1. Quantitative
1. Interaction categories
2. Areas of Interaction
3. Behaviour ratios
4. Interaction Variables
2. Qualitative
1. Clockwise flow diagram
2. Box-flow diagrams
3. Interaction models of critical teaching
behaviours
1. Behaviour ratios
1. Teacher Talk Ratio (TT)
TT = (1+2+3+4+5+6+7)/NX100
2. Indirect Teacher Talk (ITT)
ITT = (1+2+3+4) /NX100
3. Direct Teacher Talk (DTT)
DTT = (5+6+7) /NX100
4. Pupil Talk (PT)
PT = (8+9) /NX100
5. Silence or Confusion (SC)
SC = (10) /NX100
6. Indirect to Direct Ratio (I/D)
I/D = (1+2+3+4)/(5+6+7)X100
Behaviour Ratio Norms
Sr. No Behaviour Symbol By Indian
Ratio Flanders
1 Teacher Talk TT 70 67
2 Pupil talk PT 19 21
3 Silence/ SC 11 12
Confusion
4 Direct teacher DTT 35 26
Talk
5 Pupil Talk PT 20 19
6 Indirect/Direct I/D 52 46
Advantages

1. Reliable and objective for verbal behaviour

2. Determines pattern and flow of teaching
behaviour
3. Analytical
4. Desirable behaviour of trainee teachers
5. Modifies behaviour by feedback
6. Supplements microteaching and teamteaching
Limitation

1. Verbal behaviour only

2. No quality of content judgment
3. Mainly on teacher behaviour
4. No place for Pupil-pupil interaction
5. Laborious
6. Shortage of expert