What Is Content Analysis.docx

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: