Observations: Eye contact with Dr. Sample by table

Tuesday March 31

Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8
1:45 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1
1:50 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0
1:55 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 2
2:00 0 2 2 1 1 0 0 0
2:05 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 0
2:10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
2:20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2:25 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
2:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2:40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2:50 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 5 5 5 6 3 1 2 4

 

Thursday April 1

Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8
1:45 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
1:50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1:55 2 0 3 0 3 1 0 0
2:00 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 0
2:05 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
2:10 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 1
2:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
2:20 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
2:25 3 2 2 1 1 2 3 4
2:30 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 0
2:40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2:45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2:50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 8 7 8 3 7 4 7 6

For my observations I separated the tables into groups and measured how many students at each table were making eye contact with Dr. Sample at 5 minute intervals. TheĀ Table Guide shows what number correlates to each table in the classroom. The purpose of these observations was to measure attentiveness to Dr. Sample and the lecture. I should have recorded more intervals if I wanted to get a true reading on which table pays the most attention to Dr. Sample because recording every five minutes does not provide enough data. In addition this is a flawed methodology because I am measuring attentiveness based on eye contact, so this method assumes that if you aren’t making eye contact than you are not paying attention to the lecture, which isn’t necessarily true. From the observations, I can’t reach any substantial conclusions on which table focused the most and least on the lectures of March 31 and April 1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply