The strategy selection‐construction controversy: A coding scheme for analyzing teacher compliance‐gaining message constructions

Abstract

Burleson, Wilson, Waltman, Goering, Ely and Whaley (1988) contend the constructionist approach is superior to and more valid than the strategy checklist (and every other approach, see Beatty, 1987). This study represents an initial attempt to assess the functional equivalence of the two techniques for compliance‐gaining research in the classroom. Specifically, we begin our task by developing a system for coding teachers’ message constructions. Next, we analyze those messages to assess the relative sensitivity of this approach to those results previously obtained with the Behavior Alteration Technique (BAT) checklist. Burleson et al. claim that message constructions provide “better”; data which are more sensitive to the influence of particular variables and more representative of “real world”; effects. Our data do not support such allegations. In fact, results indicate findings comparable to those obtained using the BAT checklist. While we argue for “functional equivalence”; overall, specific differences obtained give us a stronger basis for questioning the constructionist coding methods and results. A more direct test of the two methods is warranted.