چکیده:
Aim: This study examines the effect of teacher talk and interaction on students’ achievement in Tabriz
high schools. Methods: This research was a descriptive and correlation study. Sixty teachers and
800 students by multistage random sampling are selected for study. For gathering data, the observation
method based on Flanders interaction analysis categories was used. The validity of the instrument
was approved by Flanders and other researchers. The reliability of the Flanders interaction analysis
was measured by inter‑observer agreement ranged from 0.85 to 1.00. Result: The results showed
an independent t‑test revealed no significant difference between male and female talk and teaching
style. A one‑way ANOVA revealed a significant difference in praises or encouragements in teaching
mathematics, empirical sciences, and humanities. Conclusion: Humanities teachers encouraged
students more than those of mathematics and empirical sciences. In addition, the direct teaching is
negatively correlated with students’ achievement
خلاصه ماشینی:
ir Aim: This study examines the effect of teacher talk and interaction on students' achievement in Tabriz high schools.
The study aimed to examine below research questions: International Journal of Educational and Psychological Researches I Yol 2 I Issue 4 / 0ctober-0ecember 20a 6 • Are there d ifferences in teaching style between mathematics, empirical sciences, and humanities in Flanders interaction analysis categ‹ ries (FIAC)?
• Is there any relationship between the student talk and achievements Methods The participants in the present study were 60 classrooms (60 teachers) anti 800 stucients in Tal riz high schools, who were selected by multistage random sampling.
*’ ‘* Teachers in Tal riz sect notary schs t 1s accepted less stucient feeling, praised students less, used fewer students' ideas, / Table 2: Means, variances and SDs of Flanders interaction analysis categories, based to the sex and field (View the image of this page) SDs: Standard devia tions InternalionaI Journal of Educalional and Psychological Researches I YoI 2 I Issue 4 / 0clober-0ecember 2016 and asked fewer questions.
/ Table 3: The means, variances and SDs of Flanders interaction analysis categories are based to the sex and field Fields Teacher Indirect Direct Teacher Students, Silence, Teacher The proportion The proportion The proportion (View the image of this page) SDs: Standard deviations International Journal of Educational and Psychological Researches T Vol 2 T Issue 4 T 0ctober December 2016 (View the image of this page) A NOVA: Analysis of variance Table 5: The results of LSD test (View the image of this page) *The mean difference is significant at the 0.