Teacher-Student Interaction Chart
For the duration of this project (approx. 26 school days), I made a purposeful attempt to engage each of my focus students at least once every class. Every time there was a teacher-student interaction I made note of the type of interaction on this chart, as well as the type of lesson being taught each day and other notes such as student absences. The five categories of interactions are listed in the key at the bottom of the chart, but I will elaborate a bit on these descriptions here:
a = Approach: This signifies an instance in which the student initiated an academically relevant interaction with me. This could be asking for help, talking about grades, showing off their work, or finding out what work they missed or will miss due to an absence.
c = Check-in: This occurs when I initiate an academic conversation with the student. This could be checking their work, asking them questions, making suggestions to push their thinking further, or arranging times to meet for conferences or interviews.
p = Participation: This signifies an instance in which the student interacted with me in front of the whole class in a way useful to the whole class. This could be asking or answering a question, reading an excerpt aloud, or sharing work done during class-time.
r = Redirection: This occurs when I see a student engaged in an off-task behavior and I make an effort to get them back on task. Behaviors might include talking at inappropriate times, having a cell phone out, doing work for another class, or not doing any work. Redirection might include (depending on frequency and severity of behavior) subtle suggestions, polite requests, firm commands, or more in-depth conversations about why the behavior is harmful and what alternatives the student might consider.
s = Socialization: These interactions are purely conversational and can be initiated by student or teacher. They might concern after school activities, weekend plans, or how someone's day is going.
a = Approach: This signifies an instance in which the student initiated an academically relevant interaction with me. This could be asking for help, talking about grades, showing off their work, or finding out what work they missed or will miss due to an absence.
c = Check-in: This occurs when I initiate an academic conversation with the student. This could be checking their work, asking them questions, making suggestions to push their thinking further, or arranging times to meet for conferences or interviews.
p = Participation: This signifies an instance in which the student interacted with me in front of the whole class in a way useful to the whole class. This could be asking or answering a question, reading an excerpt aloud, or sharing work done during class-time.
r = Redirection: This occurs when I see a student engaged in an off-task behavior and I make an effort to get them back on task. Behaviors might include talking at inappropriate times, having a cell phone out, doing work for another class, or not doing any work. Redirection might include (depending on frequency and severity of behavior) subtle suggestions, polite requests, firm commands, or more in-depth conversations about why the behavior is harmful and what alternatives the student might consider.
s = Socialization: These interactions are purely conversational and can be initiated by student or teacher. They might concern after school activities, weekend plans, or how someone's day is going.
Looking at the interaction chart, one can make note of some interesting trends. As would be expected, the first several days of data tracking consist mostly of check-ins, which is to say moments in which the teacher initiates an interaction with the student. Around March 13th, two weeks in to the data tracking process, there is a noticeable increase not in the total number of interactions but in the variety of interactions taking place. I continue to check in with students, particularly Phillip and Candice who are very reserved, but there are more instances of student voluntary participation, social exchanges, redirections, and approaches (student initiated personal interactions). Derek and Harriet show a particular increase in approaches and participation. Jessica and Phillip show a smaller increase. Candice continues to remain aloof. These changes indicate a possible increase in student engagement during this time period.
Notice that there is also an increase in redirections, particularly in the cases of Jessica and Phillip. This might indicate a failure of this project to improve the engagement and buy-in of these two students, and this finding would go along with the lack of improvement in these students’ grades. On the other hand, one might suggest that an increase in redirections simply indicates an increase in the comfort level of these students as well as in me, their teacher. They may feel they can get away with more now that they have a closer bond with me. Likewise I felt more comfortable redirecting them now that I am more familiar with who they are as people.
This chart also illustrates the inherent difficulties that come with trying to maintain these personal interactions. Despite the fact that I was intentionally seeking these students out, there are still four days (March 11, 14, 18, and April 4) during which I have zero personal interactions with any of them. These lacking days suggest that the factors necessary for personal interactions will not always be present. Perhaps I wasn't feeling well, perhaps the lesson didn't lend itself well to one-on-ones, or perhaps there were other students that required more attention than the focus students. Whatever the case was, the very human nature of this project lends itself to imperfection. This imperfection suggests to me that a learning can be enhanced by personal interactions, but if it depends on personal interaction then results may prove inconsistent.
On the other end of the spectrum, let's look at the days in which many interactions took place (February 27; March 5, 19, 24, 26; and April 1). The thing that all of these days have in common is that the lessons were highly student centered. This suggests that student centered lessons lend themselves more easily to one-on-one teacher-student interactions. Consequently, if it is ultimately determined that targeted one-on-ones are both possible and beneficial to sustain in the classroom, then it would seem that a teacher interested in doing so should structure regular student-centered lessons in order to facilitate this.
Notice that there is also an increase in redirections, particularly in the cases of Jessica and Phillip. This might indicate a failure of this project to improve the engagement and buy-in of these two students, and this finding would go along with the lack of improvement in these students’ grades. On the other hand, one might suggest that an increase in redirections simply indicates an increase in the comfort level of these students as well as in me, their teacher. They may feel they can get away with more now that they have a closer bond with me. Likewise I felt more comfortable redirecting them now that I am more familiar with who they are as people.
This chart also illustrates the inherent difficulties that come with trying to maintain these personal interactions. Despite the fact that I was intentionally seeking these students out, there are still four days (March 11, 14, 18, and April 4) during which I have zero personal interactions with any of them. These lacking days suggest that the factors necessary for personal interactions will not always be present. Perhaps I wasn't feeling well, perhaps the lesson didn't lend itself well to one-on-ones, or perhaps there were other students that required more attention than the focus students. Whatever the case was, the very human nature of this project lends itself to imperfection. This imperfection suggests to me that a learning can be enhanced by personal interactions, but if it depends on personal interaction then results may prove inconsistent.
On the other end of the spectrum, let's look at the days in which many interactions took place (February 27; March 5, 19, 24, 26; and April 1). The thing that all of these days have in common is that the lessons were highly student centered. This suggests that student centered lessons lend themselves more easily to one-on-one teacher-student interactions. Consequently, if it is ultimately determined that targeted one-on-ones are both possible and beneficial to sustain in the classroom, then it would seem that a teacher interested in doing so should structure regular student-centered lessons in order to facilitate this.