TEACHER CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR AND STUDENT SCHOOL ANXIETY LEVELS
93
FLANDERS,
N.
A.
Interaction analysis in the classroom:
A
manual for observers.
Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press,
1960.
FLANDERS,
N. A. Some relationships between teacher influence, pupil attitudes, and achievement.
In B.
J.
Biddle
&
W.
J.
Ellena
(Eds.),
Contemporary research
on
teacher effectiveness.
New
York:
Holt, Rinehart, &Winston,
1964.
Pp.
196-231.
GARRETT,
H.
E.
Statistics in psychology
and
education.
New
York:
David McKay Co.,
1966.
HO~GH,
J.
B.
Classroom interaction and the facilitation of learning: The source of instructional
theory. In
E.
Amidon
&
J.
Hough
(Eds.),
Interaction analysis: Theory, research,
and
application.
Reading,
Mass.
:
Addison-Wesley,
1967.
Pp.
375-387.
LIPSET,
S.
M., LAZARSFIELD,
P.
F.,
BARTON,
A.
H.,
&
LINZ,
J.
The psychology
of
voting; an analysis
of
political behavior. In
G.
Lindzey
(Ed.),
Handbook
of
social
psychology.
Cambridge, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley,
1954.
Pp.
1124-1175.
MANN,
J.
A
comparison
of
the effects of direct versus vicarious individual and group desensitization
of
test-anxious students. Unpublished master’s thesis, University
of
Arizona,
1969.
SAMPH
T.
Observer effects on teacher behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
M’ichigan,
1968.
SCHELKUN, R.
F.,
&
DUNN,
J.
A.
School anziety and fhe facilitation of perfonncinee.
Paper presented
at the meeting
of
the Midwest Psychological Association, May
1967.
SCOTT,
W.
A. Reliability of content analysis: The case
of
nominal
coding.
Public Opinion Quarterly,
SOAR, R.
S.
Pupil needs and teacher- upil relationships:
Experience needed for comprehending
reading. In
E.
Amidon
&
J.
Houg!
(Eds.),
Interaction analysis: Themy, research, application.
Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley,
1967.
Pp.
243-250.
SUINN,
R.
M. The desensitization
of
test anxiety by group and individual therapy.
Behaviour
Re-
search and Therapy,
in
press.
WOLPE,
J.
Psychotherapy by reciprocal inhibition.
Stanford,
Cdif.:
Stanford University Press,
1958.
1955,
19,
321-325.
ERROR PATTERNS IN PROBLEM SOLVING FORMULATIONS
GEORGE KENNEDY, JOHN ELIOT, GILBERT KRULEE
Northwestern University
High school teachers frequently have noted that many “competent” students
find algebraic word problems very difficult to solve. Presumably, such problems are
difficult because they require students to combine natural language and mathemati-
cal symbols for their solution. Computer scientists, interested in designing programs
which will “converse” with students in a step-by-step solution of algebraic word
problems, have found that the translation from natural language into symbolic
formulation is indeed a complicated process. Their efforts to design such dialog
programs, however, have yielded information about the formulation process which
can be helpful to teachers and students alike.
One overriding implication to be drawn from these efforts at computer simula-
tion is that the translation from natural language into symbolic formulation is a
most important first step in the successful solution of word problems. In this study,
attention is focused upon the formulation processes used by students who are asked
to solve two sets of algebra problems
:
the first set being
word problem
with informa-
tion presented in English, the second set being
number problems
with information
presented strictly in terms of mathematical symbols. The purposes of this study
were
(a)
to determine
if
students differ with respect to their solution patterns for
algebraic word problems; and
(b)
to determine how students use the information
given to them in problem statements.