UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The role of oral language in the practicum classroom Derksen, Harold Kenneth 1998

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1998-271307.pdf [ 9.37MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054882.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054882-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054882-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054882-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054882-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054882-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054882-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054882-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054882.ris

Full Text

THE ROLE OF ORAL LANGUAGE IN THE PRACTICUM CLASSROOM by H A R O L D KENNETH DERKSEN B . A . , Geography, Simon Fraser University, 1969 B . A . , Sociology, Simon Fraser University, 1 9 7 1 M.Ed., Language Arts, University of Victoria, 1990 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS F O R THE DEGREE OF D O C T O R OF PHILOSOPHY THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Curriculum and Instruction)  W e accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA March, 1998 ©Harold Kenneth Derksen  In  presenting this  degree at the  thesis  in  University of  partial  fulfilment  of  of  department  this thesis for or  by  his  or  requirements  British Columbia, I agree that the  freely available for reference and study. I further copying  the  representatives.  an advanced  Library shall make it  agree that permission for extensive  scholarly purposes may be her  for  It  is  granted  by the  understood  that  head of copying  my or  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  Department The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  DE-6 (2/88)  11  Abstract  The purpose of this study was to investigate the praxis (theory and practice) of oral language by student teachers during their practicum. Specifically, this study identified and described the factors which 13 British Columbia student teachers perceived of as affecting the establishment of an orally interactive environment within their practicum classroom. Through the analysis of dialogue journals, interviews, and questionnaires, 24 factors in 5 categories were identified and described that affect the development of orally interactive teaching. The factors were grouped into categories of knowledge, position, expectations, structures, and assumptions. This study concludes that the identification of factors affecting orality in the practicum can assist teacher education programs and teachers to m o r e effectively address the potential of orality as a m e d i u m for negotiation and meaning making in the classroom.  iii  TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract  Table of Contents List of Tables List of Figures Acknowledgments Chapter I . Introduction 1 . 1 Orality in the Classroom 1 . 2 Purposes of the Study 1 . 3 Definitions 1 . 4 Research Questions 1 . 5 Importance of this Study 1 . 6 Rationale 1 . 7 Conventions 1 . 8 Methodological Perspective 1 . 9 Limitations Chapter II. Literature Review  1  1  iii v vi vii 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 1 4 1 6  2 . 1 Social Construction of Knowledge 1 7 2.2 Orality as the Social Construction of Knowledge in the Classroom 20 2 . 3 Historical Beginnings of Talking to Learn 22 2 . 4 Necessary Conditions for the Promotion of Orality 23 2.5 Orality as a Means to Learn 33 2.6 Perception as an avenue of Investigation 36 2.7 Modifying Student Teacher Perceptions 40 2.8 Conditions Affecting the Implementation of Orality 44 2 . 9 Special Conditions Affecting Orality in the Practicum 52 2 . 1 0 Investigating Orality 55 2 . 1 1 Setting the Stage 5 6 Chapter III. Methodology 3 . 1 Research Questions 3 . 2 Characteristics of this Investigation 3 . 3 Participants 3 . 4 Ethical Considerations 3.5 Data Types 3 . 6 Data Analysis 3 . 7 Validity and Reliability  58 58 59 65 67 67 .69 73  Chapter IV. Results 4 . 1 Interview Analysis Results 4.2 Dialogue Journal Analysis Results 4.3 Factors, Categories, and Descriptors 4.4 C o m m e n t Distribution 4.5 Questionnaire Results 4.6 Follow-up Interview Results Chapter V. Analysis and Interpretation 5 . 1 Knowledge 5 . 2 Student Teacher Position/Role 5 . 3 School C o m m u n i t y Expectations 5 . 4 Structural Features 5 . 5 Assumptions 5 . 6 Validity and Reliability 5 . 7 Data Perspectives Chapter VI. Conclusions 6 . 1 The Data Sources 6 . 2 The Findings 6.3 Implications for Teacher Education 6 . 4 Implications for Future Research References  76 76 87 90 93 95 1 0 4 1 0 6 1 0 7 1 2 2 1 2 9 1 3 3 1 3 9 1 4 8 1 4 9 1 5 2 1 5 2 1 5 5 1 5 8 1 6 2 1 6 4  Appendix A  Focus Questions  1 7 7  Appendix B  Questionnaire  Appendix C  East Kootenay Teacher Education Program Consent Form .. 179  Appendix D  School District Consent F o r m  Appendix E  Student Teacher Study Participation Consent  Appendix F  Student Teacher Questionnaire Consent F o r mO n e  182  Appendix G  Student Teacher Questionnaire Consent F o r mT w o  183  Appendix H  Ethics Approval Certificate  1 7 8  1 8 0 1 8 1  1 8 4  List of Tables  Table 4 . 1  Tentative Clusters of Interview C o m m e n t s  79  Table 4.2  Interview O ' utliers'  Table 4.3  Interview Responses grouped by Category and Factor  84  Table 4.4  Dialogue Journal C o m m e n t s per Factor and Category  87  Table 4.5  Factors, Categories, and Descriptors  Table 4.6  Follow-up Interview C o m m e n t s per Category  8 1  92  105  vi  List of Figures  Figure 3 . 1  Triangulation Schema  Figure 4 . 1  The Factors and Categories  Figure 4.2  Percentage of Interview C o m m e n t s per Category  Figure 4.3  Percentage of Dialogue Journal C o m m e n t s per Category . . . . 95  Figure 4.4  Pupils learn a great deal w h e n speaking with each other  Figure 4.5  Collaborative tasks are not efficient  Figure 4.6  Teacher instruction is m o r e effective than pupil collaboration  Figure 4.7  Figure 4.8  Figure 4.9  7 4  9 1  94  96  97  98  Collaboration is an effective communication skill that pupils should learn in school 98 Pupils in collaborative groups need continuous monitoring . . . 99  Talk or speech is a child's most effective communication tool  1 0 0  Figure 4.10  Group w o r k requires m u c h prior preparation and teaching . . .100  Figure 4 . 1 1  Childrens ' speech informs their writing  Figure 4.12  Potential group problems m u s t be solved before hand  Figure 4.13  Collaborative tasks are effective  1 0 3  Figure 4.14  Compilation of questionnaire responses  1 0 4  1 0 1  102  vu  Acknowledgments  I wish to pay special recognition to m y Supervisor, Dr. V. Froese. Throughout the planning and preparation of this research his courteous, diligent, yet gentle m a n n e r were often a source of encouragement and inspiration. The m a n y e-mail conversations and meetings reflect positively on his sincerity and academic rigour. I also extend m y thanks to the school district of Cranbrook Southeast (#5),  the supervising committee m e m b e r s of Dr. M. C h a p m a n and Dr. R . Carlisle, and the Education Department of College of the Rockies, an extension program of the University of Victoria. Without their support this research would not have been possible. The final word of thanks I offer to the students w h o were involved in this study. They participated voluntarily and have directly contributed to the promotion of oral language in the classroom.  1  Chapter 1 Introduction The Role of Oral Language in the Practicum Classroom School should be the place where w e hear the full sound of the conversation of humankind (Booth, 1994, p. 248). A word is dead w h e n it is said, s o m e say. I say it just begins to live that day (Dickinson, 1961). In o ' rally interactive' classrooms where orality is validated and fostered for negotiation and meaning-making, c ' onversations of humankind' are often initiated by pupils and are directed at achieving s o m e personal or group learning goals. Teacher talk in orally interactive classrooms tends to be encouraging, facilitating, and resourceful rather than presentational or authoritative. Teachers w h o employ o ' rally interactive' teaching strategies encourage pupils to explore ideas through conversations thereby making words 'live.' From a Bakhtinian perspective a word is a t 'wo-sided act' determined  equally by the speaker and listener (Nystrand, Green, et al., 1993). Words live no in the speaker or listener but in the interaction, acting as an ideological bridge between conversants. In orally interactive classrooms spoken words are a shared territory and this underscores the importance of dialogue in knowledge construction (Cook-Gumperz & Gumperz, 1992). From a dialogical perspective, the discourse community of the classroom is an inter-subjective social  p h e n o m e n o n where meaning is neither in the utterance nor in the user, but in the interaction (Fernandez-Balboa & Marshall, 1994). For Vygotsky the value of oral interaction in the classroom lies in knowledge construction through discourse  2 (Berk, 1994), and for Bakhtin this is where context and cognition inter-penetrate each other (Nystrand, Green, et al.). Orality in the Classroom  Orality is crucial in the classroom as all children, with few exceptions, speak a language w h e n they c o m e to school. The fact that children m a n a g e to acquire  any one of m o r e than 15,000 languages spoken around the world with ease and  at a very young age should persuade us of the latent productivity of oral language (Buckley, 1992). Historically and individually oral language develops first and the  long history of any h u m a n culture is in m a n y ways defined as a history of its ora language (Olson, 1994).  Orality in the classroom is crucial in that it is the one m e a n sb y which m o s children have access to knowledge construction and meaning making. By utilizing orality for discovery, children are given a 'voice' in learning and for m a n y children, this is their m o s t effective language m e d i u m (Barnes, 1976; Halliday, 1973; Tough, 1976; Wells, 1986). Without oral interaction the discovery and accommodation of n e w ideas becomes artificial and transitory (Barnes, 1993; Booth, 1994; Vygotsky, 1962). Without student dialogue, teachers rather than learners shape and reshape ideas, construct patterns, and offer alternative explanations. Conversational involvement engages students in the kind of talk which requires inquiry and exploration. Access to dialogue enables students to express their o w n views, challenge those of others, and m o s t significantly, define for themselves w h a t they think and understand. Orally interactive classrooms provide pupils with time to verbalize ideas, to 'see' w h a t their ideas s ' ound' like. Socio-linguists suggest that conversation provides participants with r ' ehearsal' time, a time to perfect or reshape ideas.  3 Simultaneously, knowledge construction in social environments allows for time to accommodate n e w ideas into inner thought (Berk, 1994; Cook-Gumperz & Gumperz, 1993; Nystrand, Green, et al, 1993; Vygotsky, 1962; Yaden, 1984). Orality is important in school because of its relationship to inner thought  and its provision of a view for teachers, a w ' indow' as it were, into student learni and understanding (Wells & Chang-Wells, 1992). Socrates' c o m m e n t that, t ' hinking is the mind talking to itself suggests that oral language is not only a  useful to describe the external manifestation of mental activity but also useful as a metaphor describing internal mental activity (Postman, 1995). In other words, talk dramatizes learning through dialogue and thus provides teachers with a more tangible and authentic view of student learning (Strachan, 1990). Orality is crucial in that its recognition in the classroom underscores the fundamentally oral nature of humanity, for it is through speech that h u m a n beings  are truly h u m a n (Cayley, 1987). Although m a n y surrogate forms of language such as ideographs, phonetic writing, printing, telegraphy, photography, radio, movies, television, and computers have each transformed the world in their o w n way, in one w a y or another they have all utilized the visual symbols which are distanced from their origin as sounds (Postman, 1995). Speech reaffirms the essentially empathetic and participatory nature of h u m a n communication. Dialogue engages the emotions and encourages the mutual identification of speaker and listener. Spoken language engages us in an immediate, concrete, participatory, and emotionally charged experience. E ' xploratory talk' which is evident in such orally interactive classrooms is re-  constructive, allows for the rehearsal of ideas, and is characterized by its tentative, transitory nature (Barnes, 1993). E ' xploratory talk' which can be shared talk by  4 teachers and students, is characterized by hesitations, struggles to m a k e sense, changes of direction, and uncertainty. This contrasts sharply with p ' resentational talk' which is characterized b y its logical, sequential, and planned delivery. E ' xploratory talk' increases students' opportunities to express thoughts and understandings. It is m o r e concerned with conjecture and possibilities than reproductive understandings of information or correct answers. In such an exploratory environment evaluation focuses m o r e on problem posing than problem solving, on the variety rather than the uniformity of understandings. Orally interactive classrooms are characterized by a c ' ollaborative learning' atmosphere which traces its origin to social constructivist m o v e m e n t s where students are viewed as active, participatory agents w h o collectively, along with their teachers, construct knowledge in holistic, meaning-centred ways (Brody, 1995). This is differentiated from cooperative learning where students remain individually accountable and group experiences are teacher designed. The content and strategies are chosen b y teachers w h o also evaluate students' performance on given tasks. In c ' ollaborative learning' environments students m a y challenge not only the content but also the pedagogical practice, resulting in direct consequences for the teacher. Thus the teacher in a c ' ollaborative learning' classroom becomes a co-participant in the learning and this m a y entail personal and collective struggles to create n e w knowledge and negotiate n e w meanings. Purpose of the Study This study intends to identify and describe factors which student teachers perceive as affecting the development of an orally interactive environment within the practicum classroom. Student teacher interviews, dialogue journals, questionnaires, and follow-up interviews will be analyzed to identify and describe  5 such factors with the intent that this identification and description will increase the validity and efficacy of oral interaction in the classroom and ultimately promote orality as a vital m e d i u m for constructing knowledge within the classroom (Berk, 1994). The identification and description of factors affecting pupil oral interactions in the classroom will provide strategic knowledge to guide teachers and teacher educators to m o r e effectively promote oral language for the intellectual growth of pupils (Lazar, 1995; Shor, 1987). Student teacher perceptions are fundamental to  such an investigation and m a y benefit most in that they are strategically positioned at the beginning of their careers. Definitions The term orality was initially used in connection with 'black' identity studies  (Murray, 1970). In 1 9 7 1 O n g and others employed the term orality to describe th characteristics of a society from which literate cultures emerge (Egan, 1986; Farrell, 1974, 1978, 1979). Later, orality was utilized to describe communication styles (James, 1980; Kochman, 1974; Masling, 1980), as a particular component of education (Ong, 1974), and also as a therapeutic drama technique for hyperactive children (Allan, 1977). In 1987, in a Canadian conference, orality was promoted as a vital component of h u m a n communication (Olson, 1987). At the conference, the effectiveness of orality, i.e., speaking and listening for knowledge construction was equated with literacy, i.e., reading and writing. As a m e d i u m of negotiation and meaning-making, orality is widely acknowledged to be the m o s t fundamental, yet often overshadowed, language art (Teale, 1996). That oral language has and continues to occupy a fundamental  position as a m e d i u m of communication in society gives increased impetus for the  need and utility of the term orality (Buckley, 1992: Lakoff, 1982; Olson, 1994; On 1992). Another earlier term, oracy (Wilkinson, 1965), intended to represent oral language facility equivalent to literacy has since 1983 been superseded b y the use of orality. In published educational journals before 1983 orality appears in a  ratio of one reference to orality for every t w o to oracy. Since 1983 orality appears in a ratio of almost four references to every one of oracy (pre 1982 orality/oracy ratio of titles-word use was 25/37; since 1983 that ratio is 140/40; ERIC 1966-82 1983-96). In this study orality is a positive term in its o w n right, without reference to literacy and refers to the use of speech for purpose of meaning making and knowledge construction. Although orality and literacy are autonomous and complementary, orality is particularly exemplary as a socio-linguistic m e a n s of knowledge construction (Bugarski, 1993; Vygotsky, 1962). Orality as a knowledge construction m e d i u m functions in a multiplicity of ways and is fundamental to h u m a n competence (Olson, 1994). Research Questions Questions are often an initial entry into academic inquiry and act as a m e a n s to narrow the investigation into an achievable format. The question this study began with was, "Can orality be utilized more within the classroom?" Because of the researchers ' involvement in teacher education a subsequent question became, "Is the utilization of orality in the classroom a result of teacher education?" Considering the significance often attributed to the practicum within teacher education, a m o r e specific question then became, " H o w does the practicum experience affect the utilization of orality within the classroom?" Recognizing that participant perspectives are very important w h e n investigating  7 pedagogical practices, the data sources chosen for this study were those which would m o s t clearly reveal student teacher perspectives. A most important step in  modifying perspectives is to identify them and, therefore, the focal question for this study is, "What factors do student teachers perceive affect their ability to develop an orally interactive environment in the practicum classroom?" Importance of this Study The value of oral communication as a vehicle for learning is increasingly being recognized (Buckley, 1992; Hiebert, 1990; Barnes, 1993; Pierce & Gilles, 1993). Since the early 1990s ' m a n y theoretical and practical studies, not to mention technological changes, have confirmed the increasing use and value of students verbalizing their understandings. As student teachers enter classrooms they recognize that the didactic, presentational instruction paradigms of the past are increasingly being replaced with interactive strategies. This studys ' importance results from its attempt to induce factors from successive and recursive examinations of student teacher data which affect oral interaction in their practicum classrooms. Student teachers' experience as pupils was and often continues to be dominated b y teacher talk and individualized learning (Johnston, 1994; Lazar,  1995; Phelan & McLaughlin, 1995). The resulting belief systems with which they then enter teacher education programs are often not addressed and if they are, are often unsuccessfully modified (Craig, 1994; Kagan, 1992). This study is important in identifying and describing factors which student teachers themselves believe affects the initiation, development, and maintenance of orally interactive approaches within the classroom. The data collected here is chosen to potentially illuminate factors that influence student teacher behaviours in regards  8 to the praxis of orality. Professional development literature is replete with evidence extolling the virtues of such participant involvement within the change  process (Craig, et al, 1994; Fullan, 1982; Joyce, et al., 1983). The data collectio process used here recognizes the importance of such participant involvement in the change process and, therefore, the solicitation of student teacher perspectives on oral language praxis forms a primary focus for this inquiry. This study is important in that it identifies factors affecting oral interactions early in a teachers' career so that the potential effectiveness of oral interaction becomes part of a teachers' pedagogical repertoire during the formative stage. Intervention during teaching apprenticeships is appropriate and in addition, specific factors that emerge regarding oral interactions can become prescriptive for a m o r e effective practicum curriculum (Zeichner, 1990). By revealing present student teacher perspectives of factors affecting oral interactions, this study identifies some essential components to be included in a curriculum for teacher education. O n e component is the promotion of oral  language in the classroom as a potent knowledge construction medium. Once the perspectives of student teachers are identified, modification of preparatory and practicum curricula can occur. Identifying these factors also allows for base line documentation of classroom oral interactivity from which subsequent changes in student teacher perspectives toward increased classroom oral interaction can be ascertained. Rationale If the student teacher practicum is a m o s t important component of teacher apprenticeship and if interactive teaching approaches are effective for classroom negotiation and meaning-making, then data generated from student teachers  9 during their practicum should provide sufficient evidence of the praxis of orality (theory and practice). Using an inductive-constructive approach it should be possible to generate and verify constructs which emerge from such student teacher data. If the factors which affect the facilitation of an orally interactive learning environment are identified and described, they can then become the catalyst for promoting orality within teacher education programs and subsequently within the regular classroom. Conventions The p ' racticum' referred to in this study is composed of two six w e e k periods of classroom practice which occur in the second year of a Teacher Education Program. During the practicum the student teacher p ' ractices' in a sponsor teachers' classroom and is supervised by a university faculty advisor. Typically the student teacher visits the classroom before the practicum begins to become familiar with the pupils and classroom m a n a g e m e n t procedures. The  practicum begins with a 50% to 60% weekly teaching load and ends with an 80% to 100% teaching load. The r ' esearcher' in this study served in the capacity of Language Arts instructor for all students in the program and supervisor for s o m e of the student teachers in this study.  W h e n the word 'pupil' is used in this study it refers to the children in stude teachers' classrooms; the word s ' tudent' refers to the student teachers in the Teacher Education Program, the primary subjects and data sources for this study. Methodological Perspective The qualitative nature of this study suggests that an ethnographic model of  investigation is m o s t appropriate (Bogden & Biklen, 1982; Ely, et al., 1991; Goetz  10  & LeCompte, 1984). Goetz and LeCompte (1984) suggest that qualitative studies are characterized b y their location on four assumptive continua. This perspective allows for a range of qualitative study types on inductive-deductive, generativeverificative, constructive-enumerative, and subjective-objective continua. Research design rationale. The model of four assumptive continua as developed by Goetz and LeCompte (1984) which locate inductive, generative, constructive and subjective investigations at opposite ends on respective continua from deductive, verificative, enumerative, and objective investigations provides a m o s t useful paradigm for this study. First, this study is m o s t appropriately described as an inductive investigation. Rather than matching data to predetermined theoretical constructs  this study explains h u m a n behaviour based on an examination of the data already collected. As the investigation proceeded, data will be recursively examined to refine any emerging tentative clusters. From these tentative clusters, theoretical factors and categories can be determined. Secondly, b y using m o r e than one data source, this study locates itself predominantly at the generative rather than at the verificative end of the generative-verificative continua. Chunks of data are to be sorted and classified until factors and categories emerge. Theserfactors and categories are expected to have the potential to explain or subsume the data generated from individual student teachers. Thirdly, this study employs a m o r e constructive rather than enumerative process as this investigation is aimed at developing categories that become apparent in the course of analyzing data (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984). The questionnaires, although m o r e typical of an enumerative strategy, are  1 1 complementary but not fundamental to this investigation. The questionnaires were constructed and will be analyzed for the purpose of support or modification of the factors and categories which are expected to emerge from the interviews and dialogue journals. The questionnaire along with the dialogue journals and follow-up interviews are expected to validate the expected results through triangulation. Fourthly, this study m a y also be characterized as taking a subjective rather than objective stance (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984). The factors and categories  which are expected to emerge from the participants' conceptualization of their o w n experiences and perspectives will form the basis of these constructs. Perspectives and experiences are the subjective reservoir from which these factors and categories are to be constructed and in addition, these constructs will be familiar to the student teachers due to their generative origin. In summary, this qualitative study is most clearly associated with an ethnographic position on the assumptive continua rather than experimental  m o d e s of inquiry (Bogden & Biklen, 1982; Ely, et al., 1991; Goetz & LeCompte, 1984). Furthermore, this study emulates ethnographic approaches in that it accommodates data as they occur rather than manipulating data to fit predetermined categories. Data source rationale. The single m o s t important factor influencing the choice of data sources for this study was the researchers' desire to have student teachers reveal factors that they perceived to be influential in affecting the utilization of orally interactive strategies in their practicum classrooms. If student teachers' o w n beliefs and perspectives are elicited, the findings m o r e authentically reflect student teacher  12 perspectives. This study deliberately utilized an approach which was participatory and discovery-oriented thus potentially promoting change in pedagogical practice. If the use of m o r e orally interactive strategies in the classroom by student  teachers is the goal of this inquiry, then it would be counterproductive to have no student sources of data provide evidence for the promotion of such practices. Data sources such as the researchers ' o w n journal, the sponsor teachers '  comments or reports, video tapes, and evaluations of teaching performance do not reflect student teachers' o w n perceptions and, therefore, they were not utilized. The second m o s t important factor influencing the data sources used for this study was a concern with validity. Foremost in this concern was the attempt to collect data which through triangulation would verify constructs revealed. It was hoped in this w a y to enhance the scope, density, and clarity of factors and categories to be developed during this investigation. This concern with validity is the basis for the decision to use four different data sources, namely: the focused interview, the non-directed dialogue journal, the researcher-designed questionnaire, and the follow-up interview. Practicum rationale. This study was predicated on the perspective that although pre-practicum experiences influence student teachers' practice (Craig, et  al., 1994; Zeichner, 1990) it is the practicum experience of teachers that continues to be regarded as the single m o s t important feature of teacher education, especially b y students (B.C.C.T., 1997; Johnston, 1994; McDermott, et al., 1995; Sellars, 1987). Although the value of the practicum is questioned by s o m e (Sellars, 1987; Johnston, 1994; Zeichner, 1990), in the minds of most teacher education students, "the only real learning is in the practicum, the m o r e experience the better, and the m o r e experience the m o r e learning" (Johnston,  13  1994, p. 199). Whether in fact the practicum is so effective or not, it appears tha the experience of student teachers during their practicum has a significant influence on their subsequent teaching practice (Johnston, 1994; McDermott, et  al., 1995; Watson, 1995; Zeichner, 1990). In light of the influence of the practicum  on subsequent practice and the belief of student teachers that it performs such an important learning experience, a study of factors influencing the development of particular teacher behaviours would seem to be m o s t appropriate. The methodological perspective developed here functions as a lens through which students view orality as tool for learning and communication. Because students act in ways which are indicative of their beliefs their perspectives are an important site for investigation and analysis. Finally, the  approach taken here attempts to underscore the importance of oral language as a m e d i u m for study. Although m a n y studies have been conducted on student teaching, relatively few have examined w h a t actually takes place during the practicum experience (Tabachnick & Zeichner, 1984). By identifying and describing factors which student teachers perceive as affecting their ability to develop, implement, and sustain m o r e orally interactive teaching during their practicum, this study provides a benchmark for future teacher practice. From this base line of factors affecting orally interactive classroom practices an appropriate preparatory and practicum curriculum can be modeled, structured, and practiced. It is also expected that the identification of these factors will provide curriculum planners with sufficient data to develop an integrated, consistent, and comprehensive oral language curriculum within preparatory programs as well as within the practicum itself.  1 4 Limitations  The limitations ot a qualitative study of this nature are various. One of these limitations is that the 1 3 volunteer subjects from a class of 24 is a small sample from which to extrapolate implications for the broader scope of teacher education. Another limitation is the researchers' eight m o n t h involvement in this specific teacher education program resulting in a partial awareness of the origins and development of the program. Program changes which occurred during its  brief six year history m a y have had an affect on this study of which the researche would not be aware. Such effects might include sponsor teacher attitudes to the program, past practicum experiences, direction and orientation of the program, and in particular, participant dispositions during the studys ' time frame. Although the validation of the findings with participants through follow-up interviews occurred, the researcher recognizes that as a researcher-supervisorinstructor the views expressed will be coloured by the researchers' personal  perspectives. These views are also affected by the skill with which the researcher proceeded to conduct effective interviews, transcribe dialogue journals, and construct an effective questionnaire. Finally, it is recognized that although attempts were m a d e to validate the findings through triangulation, ethnographic research is a theoretical approach designed to explain h u m a n behaviour and as such remains open to continued recursive analysis and interpretation. In summary, this study proposes that the effectiveness of knowledge construction is increased in a classroom where oral participation, collaboration, and negotiation of meaning are valued and fostered. Teaching and learning processes in such classrooms are not isolated from each other but are interactive and the vital m e d i u m linking teaching and learning is talk (Hiebert, 1990; Cook-  15 Gumperz & Gumperz, 1993). The identification and description of factors which affect the participation, collaboration, and dialogical meaning construction in the classroom becomes a necessary first step in promoting an orally interactive teaching and learning environment.  1 6 Chapter 2 Literature Review The literature cited here is reviewed to support an investigation into factors which affect the development of orally interactive classroom environments. If the social construction of knowledge through dialogue is a viable m o d e of teaching and learning, then the promotion and use of orality in the classroom is an appropriate endeavor (Berk, 1994). A review of literature pertinent to orality includes addressing the beliefs and knowledge which student teachers hold, including an investigation into the intellectual construct of perception. Such a review is essential to provide evidence that the modification of perception, and therefore, practice is possible. A review of literature which proposes a model of teacher development allows for such appropriate expectations of practice and modifications of practice to be determined. Subsequently, specific factors affecting the development of an orally interactive practice can be identified. The literature examined here addresses the significance of oral interaction as a m e d i u m for the social construction of knowledge and the veracity of oral interactions as sites of knowledge construction. Following this, studies which address the nature of perception and modification of student teacher perceptions are reviewed. The final section considers literature which identifies factors that  affect the promotion of oral interactivity in the classroom and specifically within the practicum classroom. In conclusion, a study of orality is reviewed to set the stage for the present investigation.  17 Social Construction of Knowledge The social construction of knowledge is increasingly recognized as a valid m e a n s of learning, yet Wells and Chang-Wells (1992) indicate that talk has received little attention and is most often treated as something teachers need to control. The social construction of knowledge is so important that Postman (1995) endorses it as the narrative which describes h o ww e m a k e the world k n o w n to ourselves, h o ww e m a k e ourselves k n o w n to the world, and h o ww e clarify to others our knowledge about the world. Wells and Chang-Wells contend that the activities of individuals involved in the c ' ultural apprenticeship' of h u m a n development and learning are essentially social and interactive. The study of language in schools, especially spoken language, cannot be ignored any longer and Wells and Chang-Wells (1992) contend that because m a n y activities are essentially internal, talk becomes the crucial means to externalize thinking. However, it is one thing to rationalize the importance of talk and quite another to k n o w h o w to operationalize talk in the classroom.  Nystrand, Green, et al., (1993) contend that the w a y by which w e k n o w the  world and the world knows us, points toward the importance of a collaborative or dialogical effort in learning as proposed by Vygotsky (1962). Nystrand, Green, et al., suggest that content and form co-mingle in the process of communication while the acoustical, symbolic, and lexical features of language simultaneously interact to form a b ' ridge' of c o m m o n understandings. Bruner (1978), Britton (1970), and Strachan (1990) promote the view that  the social nature of learning is intrinsic to h u m a n development. Berk (1994) states  18 that a basic premise of Vygotskys ' theory is that all h u m a n knowledge is jointly constructed through dialogue while h u m a n development and learning are intrinsically social and interactive, suggest Wells and Chang-Wells (1992). Golub and Reid (1989) expand this notion to suggest that learning occurs best w h e n interaction is encouraged and in a text based on the metaphor of conversation, Ward (1997) supports the idea that h u m a n s are predisposed to learn in an interactive environment. According to Halliday (1973) this interaction is accomplished for seven different purposes or functions. These include language functioning for instrumental, regulatory, interactional, heuristic, personal, imaginative, and representational purposes. A competent communicator, according to Halliday, is one w h o has the ability to use the full range of language functions, in either medium, spoken or written. Although interactional language functions are identified, each of these functions are not discrete but act in concert with each other. A m o r e complete explanation for the intrinsically social nature of h u m a n development is offered b y a socio-linguistic perspective. Socio-linguists support the view that language and thought are interactive, that learning is conversational involvement, and that learning involves the social construction of meaning. From a socio-linguistic perspective, whether collaboration depends on spoken or written language, the h u m a n desire for representing thought becomes a most powerful catalyst for the social construction of meaning.  19  Egan (1987), Olson (1987), and Teale (1996) have suggested that orality is the foundation of literacy. Others have emphasized biological (Havelock, 1987), acoustical (Ong, 1992), historical (Havelock, 1976), or dialogical (de Castell, 1988) dimensions of oralitys ' foundation of literacy. Hiebert (1990) asserts that in becoming literate, oral language is the beginning, middle and end. Whether or not these foundational perspectives can be verified, Olson (1994) suggests that neither literacy nor orality supersede each other. A more appropriate view is suggested by Bugarski (1993), in which orality and literacy are t w o complementary yet autonomous media that interact and overlap, with neither subservient to the other. It is this complementarity that enhances the utility of orality and literacy to benefit each other. While analysis and synthesis are exhibited b y both literacy and orality, December (1993) and Olson (1994) suggest that speech is exemplary for its expressive, emotive, and participatory dimensions while writing is distinct in its lexical-linguistic and diaretic dimensions. S o m e suggest that the merit of literacy lies in decontextualization (Chisholm & Buettner, 1995), and the merit of orality lies in contextualization (Olson, 1994). Tannen (1985) disagrees and proposes that context is essential for both writers and speakers each utilizing techniques necessary to communicate effectively. However, the universality of speech and the facility with which people communicate through speech makes orality especially fruitful as an avenue for knowledge construction. Although characteristics of expression, emotion, and participation are c o m m o n features of orality, O n g (1992) differentiates primary orality from  20 secondary orality, that is, orality resulting from the technological advances such radio and television. December (1993) makes a further distinction by observing that the invention of computers via the Internet promotes a third type of orality, tertiary orality, through computer-mediated communication. H e suggests that tertiary orality re-creates the immediacy of pre-literate cultures with the augmentation of space and time independence. It is the contention here that the dialogical nature of h u m a n communication through literacy and orality rely heavily on the collaborative nature of h u m a n interaction. This dialogical imperative operates in spite of theoretical divisions of primary, secondary, or tertiary orality. This collaborative characteristic of h u m a n s is essential to communication and is foundational to the construction of knowledge. Recognition of the social nature of teaching and learning is a  prerequisite to the promotion of orality as a knowledge construction m e d i u m in the classroom. Orality as the Social Construction of Knowledge in the Classroom  In 1964, Pinnell and Jaggar (1991) report that a joint statement from severa professional organizations in the United States, including the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), voiced concern about the minimal emphasis on speaking and listening in classrooms compared to reading and writing. In his editorial, Gambell (1997) voiced similar concerns of orality being neglected in Canadian elementary schools. Between 1 9 6 4 and 1997, a variety of initiatives have occurred which affected oral language practice in the classroom. During the 1960s, reform  21 m o v e m e n t s created child-centred curricula, resulting in numerous unique approaches to literacy learning, including oral language programs. However, according to Pinnell and Jaggar (1991), the back-to-the-basics m o v e m e n t s of the 1970s and 1980s questioned this child-centred emphasis and focused instead on competency-based-instruction directed towards the identification of basic literacy skills. Although this included speaking and listening and although governmental and professional support was evident, Simmons (1996) suggests that the actual effect on orality in the classroom was minimal. The concern expressed b y the NCTE in United States and Gambell (1997)  in Canada is even m o r e appropriate today. With the advent of computer-mediated communication, December (1993) maintains that the importance of orality will increase and that a recognition of its emotive, expressive, and participatory nature in current classrooms is imperative. W a r d (1997), in her book on classroom  conversations, refers to the present attempts to introduce talk and learning into the classroom as m e r e l 'ip-service.' She contends that at the root of the problem are issues of control. Although having children talk in classrooms is advocated b y  Condon and Clyde (1996) they maintain that very little dialogue occurs and w h e n it does occur, its effectiveness is not guaranteed. This view is also reiterated by Nystrand, Green, et al. (1993). Oral language is the m o s t fundamental of the language arts and the basis from which literacy springs (Egan, 1987; Teale, 1996). Booth (1994), Olson (1987), and W a r d (1997) concur that oral language is central to growth, development, and self-expression. By listening to children talk w e get s o m e idea  22 of h o w they are thinking, comments W a r d (1997). Oral language is the primary m e d i u m through which the process of learning is carried out (Pinnell & Jaggar, 1991). Talk is the fundamental process for active learning (Hart & Smith, 1990)  and talk is seen to be the central and constitutive part of every activity in teaching and learning (Wells & Chang-Wells, 1992). Childrens ' resource for thinking is primarily their speech (Olson, 1987) and Gumperz and Cook-Gumperz (1992) suggest that learning is an interactive process that depends on the learner and teacher to create conversational involvement. Hiebert (1990) reviewed research that suggests social interaction has increased considerably in m a n y classrooms as teachers recognize its effectiveness for literacy learning. The result, Hiebert maintains, is that the teachers ' role becomes m o r e incisive. In her study, Hiebert found that content knowledge or sequential accuracy did not vary as m u c h in socially interactive classrooms as the quality of conversations. The most pronounced differences were childrens ' social and affective perceptions. She concluded her study by suggesting that children w h o participate in classes that foster interaction as a m e a n s of learning appear to be acquiring a variety of important literacy and oral language proficiencies. Historical Beginnings of Talking to Learn  Wilkinson (1965) coined the word o ' racy' in an attempt to lend emphasis to the importance of speaking and listening as a learning media. In contrast to literacy, o ' racy' was neglected in schools, Wilkinson maintained, and occupied a negative position in the classroom. Wilkinsons ' involvement with the N ' ational  23 Oracy Project' (Norman, 1992) was an attempt to reform the United Kingdom s ' schools to harness the potential of spoken language for learning. Another early advocate of talking to learn was Britton (1970), w h o suggested that uninterrupted student talk in small groups helps develop wellarticulated understandings. According to Britton, students w h o become involved in speech both as a spectators and participants are m o r e proficient communicators. In 1975 Britton, Burgess, Martin, McLeod, and Rosen suggested that the relationship of talk to writing is central, being the m o s tc o m m o n and productive factor stimulating students' writing. Necessary Conditions for the Promotion of Orality The literature suggests that several conditions enhance the promotion of orality. The eight conditions referred to here are recursive and integral to the development of orally interactive classrooms. Orality is valued. O n e of the conditions for the success of orality in the classroom is the recognition of its value. Hart and Smith (1990) suggest that talk is the 'vital link' needed by individuals to discover their c ' ollective voices' for learning. Talk is the fundamental m e d i u m utilized by pupils for active learning and teachers are encouraged to form instructional environments that foster t ' alking to learn' (Hart & Smith). This position is extended by Galley (1996) and Keithley (1992) w h o suggest that oral interactions give teachers a chance to return to the students' o w n voice. Within the classroom, Cook-Gumperz and Gumperz (1992) maintain that the construction of c o m m o n understandings becomes productive w h e n orally  24 interactive learning procedures are valued. Wells and Chang-Wells (1992)  indicate that the value of oral interactions in the classroom are to be seen as the very e ' ssence of education.' W h e n Barnes (1993) and Ward (1997) noted the contrasting quality and quantity of childrens ' conversations in and out of school they pointed to the need for an investigation into developing m o r e authentic oral experiences within the classroom. Fernandez-Balboa and Marshall (1994) suggest that childrens ' conversations are not valued because m o s t teachers still hold on to a d ' epository' conception of education, where teachers are content-full and students are contentdeficient. In the United Kingdom, Martin, Williams, Wilding, Hemmings, and M e d w a y (1974) found similar conceptions of students' conversations prevailing and wondered h o w those o ' ut-of-school' conversations could become a model for 'inschool' classroom dialogue. Gallas, Anton-Oldenburg, Ballenger, Beseler, Griffin, Papenheimer, and Swaim (1996) suggest that peer interactions in the classroom be promoted to allow for the simultaneous development of cooperation, competition, and independence evident in o ' ut-of-school' conversations. Beyond demonstrating the delight of listening to language performed, W a r d (1997) indicates that teachers need to become conversational partners with their students. In this m a n n e r the responsibility for learning is placed on students and, Barnes (1993) maintains, that they experience talk as valuable for accommodating and discovering n e w ideas.  25 Conversations o ' ut-of-school' are typically modeled in the home. W a r d (1997) characterizes these h o m e environments as those where children take an active role, where codes for oral interactions are explicit, where collaboration and negotiation are c o m m o n , and where contributions from all family members, including children, are valued. Heath (1986) discovered that the type of interactivity in homes contrasts sharply with w h a t occurs in m a n y classrooms and w h e n schools attempt to parallel h o m e environments improved achievement is the result. Hart and Smith (1990) c o m m e n t that in classrooms talk is often replaced b y reading, in contrast to m a n yh o m e s where both are valued. Orality is unique. Another condition for the success of orality in the classroom is a recognition of its uniqueness. Egan (1987) proposes that orality is an energetic, not pre-literate or illiterate, yet distinctive w a y of learning and communicating. Teale (1996) maintains that oral language is unique in that it forms the i 'ndispensable foundation' upon which reading and writing are built. Egan believes that our failure to recognize the uniqueness of orality has negatively affected our achievement in literacy. The development of a readers' ear is a unique oral trait that readers can acquire to appreciate the power and beauty of words on the page (Lenz, 1992). Orality as an alternative teaching paradigm. The impetus for valuing the uniqueness of orality in the classroom resides with teachers. Gallas et al. (1996) suggest that the extent to which teachers structure and manipulate the pattern of speech events in classrooms directly influences the effectiveness of oral interactions. Britton (1970) indicates that teachers are the m o s t influential agents  26 in promoting or discouraging exploratory talk through their m a n a g e m e n t of speech events in the classroom. Similarly, Cook-Gumperz and Gumperz (1992) and Thomas-MacKinnon (1992) insist that the facilitation of conversational involvement within the classroom depends primarily on teachers. Although Condon and Clyde (1996) do not venture to suggest why, they c o m m e n t that teachers rarely tap into such collaborative strategies. Although they do not promote orally interactive classrooms, Easthope, Maclean, and Easthope (1990) suggest that talk in the classroom is controlled by the teacher. They state that talk occurs in three conventional forms: informing, directing, and eliciting responses. It is only in the third category where pupil participation is invited. Easthope et al. (1990) suggest that this is the m o s t c o m m o n paradigm, maintaining that it is used to keep control firmly in the t ' eachers ' mouth.' The verbal skills of inquiry, description, or debate are neglected in favour of control. The uniqueness of orality for teaching and learning remains largely unavailable to students because its utility hinges on teacher concerns with control. N e w skills of intervention and restraint are required to promote a m o r e dialogical approach to teaching, and according to Shor (1987), need to be practiced diligently. Orality as exploratory talk. In m a n y classrooms knowledge construction through e ' xploratory talk' is not evident. Barnes (1993) identifies talk for negotiation and meaning-making as exploratory talk, which he contrasts with presentational talk, characteristic of teachers in m a n y classrooms. Shor (1987) indicates that curriculum is a cooperative venture which should be characterized  27 b y dialogical strategies that involve teachers and students. The participatory  nature of learning for Shor means that students are responsive to and responsible for others within the learning environment. Lazar (1995), w h o characterizes pupil activities in presentational classrooms as primarily individualistic, speaks positively in favour of collaborative classrooms where pupils are engaged in exploratory or negotiated activities. Pupil talk in presentational classrooms lacks engagement, motivation, and authenticity. Interactions in such classrooms are characterized as marketcommodity exchanges by Strachan (1990) or as educational p ' ing-pong' activities, i.e., teacher questions, pupil responds, teacher evaluates response. Exploratory talk, as proposed b y Barnes (1993), engages participants through problem posing rather than just problem solving. This requires genuine collaboration for problem setting, pursuing alternatives, formulating possibilities, and negotiating resolution rather than solution. Students involved in exploratory talk are able to utilize mental strategies not apparent nor developed in teacher dominated classrooms, suggests Egan (1987). By talking things through, Vygotsky (1962) suggests, pupils r ' ehearse' knowledge. Through the interaction of outer and inner speech, cognitive thought processes shape and reshape thinking. Talking becomes the equivalent of t 'hinking aloud.' C ' onstructing knowledge together,' the title of a publication by Wells and Chang-Wells (1992), becomes the essence of education while dialogue becomes the means. Exploratory talk is m o s t apparent w h e n competent peers or teachers support pupils' tentative endeavors through appropriate intervention, modeling,  28 and restraint within a z ' one of proximal development' (Vygotsky, 1962). According to Vygotsky (1978) this support is integral to the development of m ' astering the social m e a n s of thought' which then becomes inner speech. The learning of  intervention and restraint strategies on the part of teachers is imperative, yet Craig, Bright and Smith (1994) suggest that the need to model, demonstrate, and practice within teacher preparatory programs is significantly lacking. The extent to which exploratory talk is utilized in the classroom is directly influenced by the environment in which oral language occurs. Speech events in classrooms occur in patterned, rule-governed ways. To be successful in developing conversations, these patterns or rules m u s t be monitored, signaled, and interpreted b y all classroom members. Pupils can become effective participants in exploratory speech events, depending on their knowledge of the rules of conversation and teacher recognition of their value. In a pluralistic society, Cazden (1988) suggests that discourse a m o n g peers benefits them b y developing relationships with an audience, scaffolding knowledge with others, developing logical reasoning skills, and encouraging exploratory talk. These benefits also include reducing the gap between h o m e and school language and creating relationships across cultural groups thereby increasing pupils' potential for learning. Education as oral dialogue. The perspective that education is dialogue, as  suggested by de Castell (1987), is not widely held and it would appear that there is little evidence for this view in the classrooms that Goodlad (1984) describes in his study. In his meta-analysis Hillocks (1986) found that the predominant form of  29 teaching, even though less effective in improving writing, continued to be presentational. Simmons (1996) found in his study of 66 student writers from Kindergarten to Grade 8 that none had spoken with each other about their o w n writing. W h e n questioning a student about the purpose of the conferences, the student replied T ' hats ' w h e n the teacher shows us our mistakes. ' Mutual construction of writing knowledge through oral interaction appeared not to be on the classroom agenda. If ones' current understanding of education includes the perspective that  education is a dialogue, then Wells and Chang-Wells (1992) suggest that students and teachers require the construction of meaning through the m e d i u m of talk. Learners cannot just absorb information but m u s t actively construct their o w n understandings of the world. Both Condon and Clyde (1996) and Ward (1997)  suggest that conversation is one w a y to do this for talk is an inherently social act and instead of trying to minimize talk, Gallas et al. (1996) suggest that w e o ' rchestrate' it for knowledge construction purposes. Bianchi and Cullere (1996) advocate orality as a principal means of composition in schools alongside orality where the composing processes of reading and writing dominate. Educators need to welcome the variety of w ' ays with words' that children bring to classrooms in order to legitimize their experiences and themselves as constructors of knowledge. Although Simmons (1996) cites numerous authors w h o advocate that children talk about their writing, he indicates that orally interactive classrooms are not sufficiently evident to alleviate existing concerns.  30 Teacher use of orality. Emery (1996) suggests that teachers as well as students benefit from dialogical means of knowledge construction. As a m e a n s of critical reflection, oral dialogue is suggested as an alternative to traditional means of eliciting teachers' personal knowledge through journals. The potential for selfreflection and learning through oral dialogue is great due to teachers' awareness of personal knowledge, the promotion of exploration, and the extension of their knowledge and self-confidence. Orality as education in democracy. Fernandez-Balboa and Marshall (1994) contend that dialogue is integral to the development of democracy and, therefore, classrooms m u s t become places where dialogue is fostered and practiced. They state that the characteristics of dialogue contrast sharply with the predominantly monological and unilateral forms of pedagogy observed in m o s t classrooms. Fernandez-Balboa and Marshall hold that dialogue is a free act, which includes social, participatory, normative, propositional, ongoing, and transformative characteristics. They r e c o m m e n d that the benefits, the rights of the participants, and themes of conversation are worthwhile w h e n implementing d ' ialogical teaching' in the classroom. O f particular importance to this present study are the barriers to dialogue that Fernandez-Balboa and Marshall (1994) raise. These include traditional views (beliefs) of teaching and learning as top-down, individualistic, and competitive endeavors. Another barrier is the depiction of education as an exchange where teachers 'fill' pupils with information, where pupils are treated as objects rather than subjects. Fernandez-Balboa and Marshall also suggest that there are  31 psychological barriers to dialogue such as safety and stability, structural barriers of tradition, standardization, and accountability. The authors conclude that large enrollments and institutional resistance from administrators and peers be also considered as barriers to dialogue. As teachers play a significant role in the determining the parameters of dialogue in the classrooms, they m u s t be prepared to overcome such barriers. According to Fernandez-Balboa and Marshall (1994), teacher education programs need to be designed to promote and model dialogical pedagogies. As teachers gain appropriate knowledge, vocabulary, and conceptual frameworks they become m o r e able to articulate their professional experiences, exercise discretionary judgment, and participate in reconstructive action. For it is through dialogue that exploration and inquiry occur, says Strachan (1990). The multi-layered and multi-textured nature of dialogue allows teachers and students to define to themselves and others what they think and understand. A curriculum of orality. Oral language ability has and continues to be of interest to educators. Through longitudinal studies (Wells, 1986; Wells & Chang-  Wells, 1992), journal articles (Buckley, 1992; Condon & Clyde, 1996; Gallas et a 1996; Teale, 1996), and educational texts (Booth, 1994; Pierce & Gilles, 1993; Ward, 1997), renewed interest is expressed in the importance of oral language. Specific recommendations for the development, implementation, and maintenance of an oral language curriculum are often included. In Manitoba a Middle Years Language Arts Curriculum was introduced in 1985 which included small group and oral skills (Lee & Bryant, 1991). In British  32 Columbia the Ministry of Education has shown specific interest in oral language by publishing a series of oral language e ' nhancement' booklets (1988) followed m o s t recently by a booklet entitled E ' valuating group communication across the curriculum' in 1995. Oral language also features significantly in the recent Language Arts Integrated Resource Package (IRP) where 5 out of 1 1 Prescribed Learning Outcomes directly address various aspects of orality (B.C.Ministry of Education, 1996). As recently as 1987, Olson convened a conference at the University of Toronto, titled "Literacy: The m e d i u m and the message." The purpose of the conference, according to Sinclair (1987) was to advance our understanding of both oral and written language, including their psychological and sociological effects. At the conference Olson (1987) m o s t emphatically stated that orality 'is the core of all h u m a n competence.' In a longitudinal study under the auspices of the Toronto Board of Education, Wells and Chang-Wells (1992) conclude that it is through talk that  tasks are negotiated, defined and evaluated, suggesting that the spoken word acts  as the m e d i u m of exchange, i.e., currency, in classrooms. Talk is both the m e d i u m and the message and as Barnes (1993) says the means and goal of education.  Wells and Chang-Wells (1992) propose that talk is the very e ' ssence of education' rather than a w i n d o w through which one views other, seemingly more significant issues of teaching and learning. The cognitive benefits of orality have been promoted b y Loban since the 1950s (Buckley, 1992). In a longitudinal study involving the measurement of 2 1 1  33 students, Loban suggests that oral language ability in primary grades is a significant predictor of success or failure in reading and writing in later grades. Students w h o scored highest in reading and writing in Grade 6 were similar to those w h o were notably powerful in their oral language in the primary grades. Orality as a Means to Learn Sorenson (1993) suggests that students are able to teach each other through talk. In an eighth grade literature course Sorenson set u p three conditions as ground rules for discussion: courtesy, dont ' look at the teacher, and tolerate silence. To assist students in speaking and listening she provided a cue sheet and a self-evaluation form to be used during discussions. Sorenson m a d e a connection for students between talking and writing b y having t h e m prepare for discussion through the use of 5 7 minutes of silent journal writing. These writings were in response to open-ended questions dealt with last day, teacher questions, and questions they would like answered. These function as potential entry points into the discussion. Finally, her students write a response to one or m o r e of the ideas raised during the discussion. In an article addressing the issue of class discussions, Schaffer (1989) suggests that discussion questions m u s t be of s o m e interest to students; she labels these as i'nterpretive questions.' Schaffer advocates significant w ' ait time' for reflection before asking for student response. She also suggests that teachers keep records of w h o has spoken. Teachers m u s t acknowledge children w h o speak, plan for closure, and recognize that students w h o speak least might need this activity most.  34 Keithley (1992) identified six activities that over 80% of his college composition classes found distinctively helpful to their development as writers. In all six instances speaking or listening were the key characteristics. Keithley  concluded that the students' o w n voice, the acceptance of their o w n voice, and th connection between speaking and writing were the m o s t significant factors influencing the improvement of their writing. In an attempt to integrate talk and writing, questioning and discussion, Bowser (1993) followed her o w n conviction that conversation is an essential component of learning and that talk for learning should be used m o r e effectively. Bowser concludes that re-structuring middle school classrooms for oral language is important and that she is still exploring the inclusion of talk in the classroom. Using her remedial students' writing class as subjects, Abbott (1989) discovered a t ' alk-it-out' process was an effective pre-writing tool. Her discovery resulted from the awareness that her students all told better stories than they wrote. Believing that a connection existed between the writing process and talking, Abbott conjectured that given m o r e opportunities to talk, remedial students' writing would also improve. She used audio-tapes to record students  t ' alking their essays' to prove her thesis and found that the students then used the tapes on their o w n to re-listen to their constructions. In addition, Abbott became convinced that silence in the remedial writing classroom was counter productive to composition. Dykstra (1994) suggests that students w h o have difficulty writing need to be m a d e aware of a compositional framework they already have based on oral  35  language. Speaking and writing are t w o different ways of communicating but both have structure. Both have a centre of interest, use chaining of ideas, announce topics, and use a variety of genres. Dykstra concludes that the m o s t significant difference between writing and speaking is that in writing one has time to reflect, choose the m o s t appropriate word, to condense, and to revise. In an article reviewing activities for the interactive classroom, Golub and Reid (1989) contend that three conditions are necessary for communication  (writing or speaking) to occur; having something to say, having an audience, and getting feedback. Through the design of various communication activities, Golub  and Reid structured talk as an integral part of classroom activities. They state that  talk is needed to give order and meaning to events in our lives: through talk w e reshape and develop our thoughts, and thought undergoes m a n y changes as it turns into speech. Golub and Reid believe that it is through speech that thought finds its reality and form. Another approach which demonstrates pupil-teacher collaboration for knowledge construction is a model of dialogical teaching developed by Paulo Freire (Fernandez-Balboa & Marshall, 1994). This model recognizes all voices in the classroom to form the collaborative direction of inquiry. Teachers facilitate pupil inquiry rather than pupils following a predominantly teacher-directed:inquiry. Dialogicai pedagogy replaces monological pedagogy and is defined as a "free  act, is sociaj, is inclusive, is participatory, is normative, is prepositional, is ongoing, is transformative, is anticipatory, is political" ( p. 174).  36 The problem for teachers is h o w to create a classroom environment where inner thought is m a d e 'visible' through talk. Being able to talk does not guarantee that one is permitted to nor that one will be able to use spoken language effectively. It becomes incumbent on teachers to develop environments where talk is valued for both its social and cognitive contributions to learning. Potentially Tsujumoto (1993) maintains, the classroom can become a place where making knowledge rather than studying existing knowledge occurs. It becomes imperative that teachers facilitate the development of classrooms where the best features of talk are evident. Fernandez-Balboa and Marshall (1994) contend that collaborative environments moderate pupil-teacher power relations, allow for less influence of the h ' idden' curriculum, and decrease the influence of the hierarchical power structures within schools. Through collaboration, the benefits of peer interactions can be effectively incorporated into the classroom curriculum. In order for m o r e peer interactions to be incorporated into the classroom, the beliefs of student teachers require examination. However, the conception and  study of beliefs is not as straight-forward as one would hope. O n e avenue through which to address student teacher beliefs is via perception. Perception as an Avenue of Investigation F e w would argue that the beliefs teachers hold influence their behaviour in the classroom. Kagan (1992) maintains that teacher preparation programs cannot afford to ignore the beliefs of entering student teacher candidates. Yet studies  37 aimed at teacher beliefs have been scarce due m o s t certainly to the difficulty of defining w h a t beliefs are. Defining perception. Defining beliefs is a daunting task, as Pajares (1992) illustrates. After reading numerous studies of beliefs, Pajares observed that they m o s t often overlap with definitions of knowledge. Beliefs are usually understood to include cognitive, affective, and behavioral components so that w h a t teachers intend, say, and do, are based on their educational beliefs. To incorporate both knowledge and belief characteristics, Tabachnick and Zeichner (1984) contend that the term p ' erception' is operationally defensible as a  research platform from which to investigate teachers' motivations to act. This does not include all beliefs or values because perception is defined specifically to a situation. Phelan and McLaughlin (1995) suggest that the idea of perception broadens the meaning of belief b y including the aspect of action which is observable. Research findings reviewed by Pajares (1992), suggest that there is a strong relationship between teachers' perceptions (i.e., combination of knowledge and belief) and their planning, instructional decisions, and classroom practices. Like Kagan (1992), Pajares concludes that perception can be the single most important factor affecting teachers' decisions in the classroom. Rationale for a perceptual investigation. The rationale for using student teachers' perceptions of their o w n practice stems from a n u m b e r of studies. Keithley (1992) questions the rarity of research that bases its conclusions on evidence of the learners ' o w n observations. The strength of findings derived from students themselves as intimate observers of their o w n learning is logically  38 apparent. Craig et al. (1994) maintain that without participant involvement in their o w n professional development, student teacher learning is transitory. Tabachnick and Zeichner (1984) utilize this approach w h e n they developed 13 individual student profiles based on the students' o w n perceptions of teaching. This  approach is also followed b y Phelan and McLaughlin (1995) w h o indicate that the intent of their investigation was to examine patterns of teacher talk and practice from the teachers' o w n perspective rather than from a researchers' point of view. It becomes academically sound, therefore, to investigate factors which student teachers perceive (believe and k n o w ) affect their ability to facilitate oral strategies in the classroom. This study proposes that utilizing student teacher perceptions of practice is a worthy avenue of investigation, for it is their perceptions which motivate their intentions and subsequent actions.  In  anticipation of revealing w h a t factors affect orality in the classroom, this study accepts perception as an operationally useful research platform. Investigating student teacher beliefs. Examinations of beliefs are often neglected, Pajares (1992) claims and there is a need for more studies of student teacher perceptions of teaching through an investigation of their educational beliefs. H e refers to the a ' pprenticeship of observation' as being an entrenched collection of ideas about effective teaching and student behavior that are acquired during the m a n y years of schooling prior to admission to teacher education programs. While m a n y professional fields of inquiry such as medicine or law invite students into foreign arenas of practice, Pajares finds that student teachers, w h o are entering the familiar arenas of school often bring with t h e m ideas which  39 are incompatible with successful teaching. Pajares also suggests that any study of teacher beliefs include an account of fundamental assumptions.  O n e approach of identifying beliefs is through the use of metaphor. Mahlios and Maxson (1995) use the concept of metaphor to capture student teacher beliefs about schooling. By administering a six-part questionnaire titled "What was school like?" to 1 3 4 participants registered in their initial professional elementary education course, preferred metaphors were identified. The most preferred metaphors describing their elementary and secondary school experiences were those of f ' amily' (63%) or t ' eam' (27%) and although their m e m o r y of those experiences included f ' amily' (52%) and t ' eam' (24%) they also included metaphors of c ' rowd' (18%) and 'prison' (12%). In addition the most  c o m m o n metaphor chosen to describe life was a 'tree' (31%) while childhood was m o s t often described as a f 'lower blossoming' (64%) or a b ' ubbling spring' (14%). Important for this study are the preferred metaphors of school that strongly support an interactive approach to knowledge construction. The preferred metaphors of school identified as f ' amily' or t ' eam' imply preference for an interactive approach to learning. The aspect of nurturance implied in the metaphor of life as a 'tree' and the image of childhood as a b ' lossoming flower' also support a major thesis of constructivist theory, that of guided interaction and the social construction of knowledge. Social interaction through talk provides an expedient vehicle to promote the development of classrooms where metaphors of f ' amily' and/or t ' eam' can become actual realities rather than just preferred ones.  40 Modifying Student Teacher Perceptions Although the identification of beliefs is a necessary step w h e n examining classroom practice, the modification of beliefs is also required if they are incompatible with present teaching practices. Present teaching practices can be promoted through the modification of beliefs b y utilizing constructivist methods of teaching, the modeling of teaching practices, and the use of interactive approaches in teacher education programs. Social-constructivist approach. Because beliefs are acquired through m a n y years of a ' pprenticeship of observation,' as Pajares (1992) suggests, they are difficult to modify or alter. Although teacher educators are aware of the influence of these acquired beliefs' over subsequent practice, Pajares contends  they have failed to explore avenues to lessen that influence. This task is not easily accomplished: these beliefs are difficult to change, are formed early, and are well entrenched b y entrance to college. It seems that teacher education courses sometimes utilize behaviourist rather than social-constructivist approaches to modify such student teacher beliefs. Only one of forty-four studies that Brookhart and Freeman (1992) reviewed regarding perceptions investigated the knowledge of teacher candidates regarding their theoretical positions of teaching and learning. Only two out of forty-four studies attempted to identify misconceptions about teaching and learning based on constructivist theory. Brookhart and Freeman suggest that there is a need for m u c h m o r e research contrasting student teacher  41 predispositions toward behaviorist or constructivist theories of teaching and learning. Believing that the increased study of teacher beliefs is evidence of a research paradigm shift, R a y m o n d and Santos (1995) used a contructivist methodology to study prospective teacher beliefs in a large university.  They  investigated beliefs by challenging students about themselves as mathematics learners and to reflect on their knowing, doing, learning and teaching mathematics. Beliefs about self as a m a t h student, about knowing, teaching, and doing mathematics became the categories for comparative analysis. R a y m o n d and Santos conclude their study by suggesting that a descriptive analysis of perception can be used to answer descriptive questions. Secondly, and m o r e importantly, they conclude that beliefs are m o r e directly challenged and modified w h e n student teachers experience innovative pedagogy first hand. Having students construct their o w n beliefs through experience enables students to confront and challenge their beliefs. Such constructivist processes, they believe, should be an integral part of teacher education. Craig et al. (1994) used constructivist processes in a reading methods course to challenge student beliefs for the possibility of modifying their beliefs. They used student journals as a data source to track 1 0 6 students in 3 universities. For one semester students were asked to reflect on and record their  thoughts, questions, and concerns related to language arts course work. Students wrote in their journals either once a w e e k for 1 6 weeks or intermittently on eight different occasions. The instructors also wrote in journals and responded to  42 student journals after each entry. As Craig et al. suggest, journals were used to explore students' abilities to reflect, to explore beliefs and assumptions, to record reactions to modeling, and to evaluate the content reading of other related courses. Craig et al. conclude that only through participation in and practicing of activities related to reading methodology were student beliefs identified, questioned, and modified. Another constructivist approach was designed by Phelan and McLaughlin (1995). Their analysis included reading and re-reading individual student transcripts, identifying educational discourses, and noting teacher tendencies to question or accept pupil discourses. After analyzing each teachers ' transcripts, they collated, compared, and contrasted the findings. Phelan and McLaughlin then returned to their respective data sets to examine h o w these discourses played out in the classroom. They identified t w o dominant discourses: self control and developmentally appropriate practice. Their recommendations for teacher education include the need for baring of beliefs, discussion of the polyphony of discourses in education, and abandonment of discourses of certainty. Through modeling. Collaborative practices such as dialogical teaching that promote the use of peer interactions and exploratory talk in classrooms require demonstration or modeling before student teachers can implement t h e m effectively. Dippo et al. (1991) suggest that student teacher pedagogical strategies reflect a lack of exposure because the w a y teaching and learning are talked about are seldom the w a y they are done in preparatory classrooms.  43  often choose dialogical metaphors of 'family' or 'team' when describing their preferred learning environment, they often choose teaching strategies that are much more didactic when designing lessons for their own pupils. In fact, Watson (1995) suggests that teachers are quite reluctant to move themselves from centre stage because that is what they predominantly see demonstrated. Lambdin and Preston (1995) maintain that the models and demonstrations student teachers observe in their teacher education programs contrasts sharply with the requirements of a more collaborative classroom. Interactive and dialogical teaching styles are effectively promoted when the modeling of such practices occurs in teacher education programs. Through interaction. In order to promote more interactive teaching within classrooms, student teachers require experiences that call to question assumptions and beliefs that they hold about teaching. Hiebert (1990) maintains that not many teachers have had the training to create classroom contexts that foster talk. Lambdin and Preston (1995) suggest that the best course to follow in modifying teaching practices is to experience new practices in a manner consistent with the new practices. Phelan and McLaughlin (1995) conducted a study with the purpose of examining the role of discourse practices in modifying teacher beliefs. They suggest that this be done through the sharing of stories, reading professional journals, and reading about teachers' lives.  Mahlios and Maxson (1995)  recommend that we modify student teacher practices by providing students with  44 feedback on their present beliefs through programs designed with an interactional component. R a y m o n d and Santos (1995) maintain that students need to experience situations to develop the confidence they need to respond constructively w h e n they teach. Student teachers' exposure to various interactive teaching models and personal experiences with interactive learning during their pre-practicum program is important. Johnston (1994) suggests that student teachers be involved in frequent  discussions where the process of learning to teach is rich with interactions through talk and writing. With exposure to m o r e interactive models and experiences within preparatory classrooms, Craig et al. (1994) insist that student teachers would be m o r e confident and effective w h e n implementing interactive strategies in their practicum classrooms. It is recognized that the m a n y years of pre-practicum school experiences as well as teacher education programs dominated by presentational pedagogies have established beliefs that are resistant to change. The suggestion here is that  if orality is to be valued as a learning approach in the classroom, perceptions of i effectiveness will need to be modified. Altering these perceptions is most effectively realized if social constructivist approaches are modeled and experienced within teacher education programs. Conditions Affecting the Implementation of Orality Effective implementation of orally interactive strategies in the classroom is  influenced by a n u m b e r of conditions. O n e of these conditions is the creation of a  45 teacher development model which enables the determination of an optimum entry point for introducing changes in pedagogical practice. A teacher development model would allow for the systematic, appropriate introduction of orally interactive procedures into practicum classrooms. Other conditions affecting the implementation of orality include using small groups, issues of ownership, viewing teachers as partners, the use of transmissive or transformative pedagogy, and the development of assessment procedures. A teacher development model. Most research in the 1960s and 1970s was concerned with the evolution of teacher skill examined through empirical studies, using large samples and quantitative, generalizable results. In the 1980s researchers began to generate m o r e naturalistic studies of teacher development. These l 'earning to teach' studies were qualitative in methodology and focused on small samples. Kagan (1992) criticizes these studies for not revealing a c o m m o n sequence or model of teacher development. Brookhart and Freeman (1992) support Kagan (1992) in their call for a l 'earning-to-teach' model of teacher development. They believe that such a model would provide some direction for answering m a n y questions. Their questions concerned h o w beliefs and orientations influence student teacher interpretations of teacher education and h o w these beliefs could be modified. Using Fullers ' (1969) and Berliners ' (1988) models of teacher development as a guide, Kagan (1992) inferred a n e w model of teacher development. Kagan maintained that during the initial stage of development, teacher concerns focus primarily on self; in the second stage, teachers focus mostly on  46 management; and in the third stage, teachers' focus m o r e on pupil learning. McDermott, Gormley, Rothenberg, and H a m m e r (1995) elaborated on this model  by embracing the idea that the initial focus of novices on self is a necessary and valuable stage, that knowledge of self and of pupils evolves simultaneously, that effective routines which integrate class m a n a g e m e n t and instruction occur subsequently to a focus on self. In the final stages, student teachers begin to focus on pupil learning while continuing to maintain self-knowledge and m a n a g e m e n t procedures. Kagan(1992) expands his notion of stages of teacher development by commenting that there is a need for m o r e procedural and less theoretical knowledge with an increase in self-reflection and pupil interaction. H e concludes his study with a contentious claim that questions the need for theory at any point teacher development. The implications of a such l 'earning-to-teach' model are significant for the implementation of an orally interactive curriculum. The introduction of such a curriculum is determined in large part b y the d ' evelopmental readiness' of a student teacher. W h e n student teacher concerns for self and classroom m a n a g e m e n t predominate, the introduction of orally interactive strategies in the practicum would be premature. However, the identification of student teacher perceptions of factors affecting oral interactions would provide an indication of student teacher r ' eadiness.' With a developmental model to guide teacher education the introduction of orally interactive strategies could be expected to be m o r e appropriate during the later stages. The appropriateness of introducing  47 such interactive strategies would also depend on the extent of modeling and demonstrations in pre-practicum preparation courses. Using small groups. A second condition affecting orality in the classroom is that its effectiveness is often determined by the organization of pupils into small groups. Although small groups are fundamentally organized around the principle of orality, they do not necessarily result in academic achievement. McLaughlin (1989) wondered w h y classrooms that professed to emphasize orality were so unsuccessful. Being z ' ealous' about classrooms where speaking, listening, reading, and writing are integrated, McLaughlin elaborated on s o m e frustrations and possible suggestions for dealing with them. Chief a m o n g his recommendations were for teachers to be patient, tolerant, and to handle communication apprehension carefully. Convincing administrators and parents  that listening and speaking are as important as reading and writing seemed to be a continuing challenge. Not all talking is necessarily productive, Nystrand, Gamoran, and Heck (1993) found. Using eighth grade classrooms they found negative results for achievement in small group literature discussions. Not willing to accept this  finding, Nystrand et al. in a subsequent study observed small group activities in 54 ninth grade classrooms and discovered that in only 29 out of 216 class sessions were small group strategies actually used. Validation of students as thinkers, not just as group responders to teacher determined activities requires m o r e than m e r e organization of pupils into small groups. Nystrand et al. conclude that w h e n small groups achieved less it was because they were used ineffectively.  48 Ownership. Another condition affecting orality in the classroom is ownership. Using a continuum model to s h o w levels of teacher control compared  to student autonomy, Nystrand, Gamoran, and Heck (1993) found that only 11% o  the small groups promoted pupil ownership. They conclude that for group w o r k to succeed teachers must design collaborative tasks that are engaging and cultivate student ownership. Using her o w n grade ten classrooms, Cintorino (1993) found that getting started, deciding w h o begins, exploring variations, keeping discussion moving, supporting each other, and dealing with conflict all emerged as indicators of quality of talk within a large group. W h a t also seemed to occur as quality  improved was a shift in focus from w h o was talking, to a focus on w h a t the talk was about. Cintorino concluded that if pupils are allowed to m a k e meaning for themselves, the opportunities for learning increases dramatically. Learning through talk became a major m e a n s of constructing knowledge and Cintorino says  she will never again hold a monopoly on talk in the classroom. Her voice will be one a m o n g m a n y thereby encouraging pupil e m p o w e r m e n t and ownership of the tasks of teaching and learning. Teachers as partners. Another condition affecting orality in the classroom is the adoption of teacher-as-partner in learning. Exploratory conversations and dialogical teaching become a possibility w h e n teachers become conversational partners w h o listen, allow time to speak, and talk about things they dont ' already k n o w (Ward, 1997). Conversations in the classroom have enormous potential for stimulating learning as teachers m ' ove the big desk,' says Fawcett (1992) and  49 g ' ive u p the lectern,' says Watson (1995). To reduce the dominance of teacher talk and establish routines of negotiation and meaning making becomes the challenge in establishing a collaborative classroom (Shor, 1987; Ward, 1997). As conversational partners, teachers need to develop strategies that promote restraint and listening on their part while the n ' ovice' i.e., pupil, speaks. Transformative versus transmissive pedagogy. Another condition affecting orality in the classroom is the pedagogical perspective adopted by educators. Beliefs about curriculum are poignantly illustrated w h e n responding to pedagogical dilemmas developed by Berlak and Berlak (1981). Description of transmissive orientations as described b y Miller and Sellar (1986) are particularly antithetical to orally interactive pedagogical practices. Lauritzen and Jaeger (1997) contrast the transmissive approaches with constructive pedagogy which they characterize as the inclusion of student voices from planning to assessment. The predominance of natural, authentic organizers, and facilitative teachers assisting students to construct their o w n knowledge are m u c h m o r e conducive to oral interaction. Lauritzen and Jaeger suggest that oral interactions are enhanced b y an emphasis on learning through social interaction, recognizing students' prior knowledge, and the creation of meaningful contexts for  learning. The tenets of constructivism highlighted by Lauritzen and Jaeger such as student-directed learning and open-ended instruction, lend support to oral interactivity. W h e n teachers stand in front of the class and deliver their version of knowledge, Strachan (1990) suggests they do w h a t learners need to do.  50  Teachers need to allow children to say w h a t has m a d e sense to them, they need  to construct patterns, and reshape material to explain it in their o w n way. Through  talking w e enact w h a tw e are thinking, says Strachan. W h e n teachers lecture they share w h a t they have learned, not h o w they learned or w h a t it means to learn. this w a y they reinforce the commodity metaphor of learning, i.e., knowledge is something which can be given, taken, and contained. Encouragement for transformative pedagogies to permeate all discourses is apparent in n e w directions prescribed by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Science, and English-Language Arts (Lambdin & Preston, 1995; R a y m o n d & Santos, 1995). Teachers are instructed to relinquish their authoritative stance and encourage students to formulate and verify conjectures for themselves rather than rely on teachers or texts. Assessment. Another condition affecting the development of orality in the classroom is credibility. O n e avenue to increase credibility is through authentic assessment, yet in making oral language m o r e prevalent in the classroom,  assessment is often cited as the m o s t difficult. This concern was echoed by Loban in the 1950s w h e n he said that as long as oral language isflot evaluated it will remain unimportant (Buckley, 1992). Ward (1997) addresses this concern by suggesting four reasons for our incompetence in evaluating oral language: the lack of importance given to oral language, that no formal tests are available, that informal assessment is ignored because of its subjectivity, and that t ' alking to learn' is not recognized. Addressing these concerns becomes necessary to raise the importance of orality in the classroom.  51 Although Ward (1997) includes a chapter in her book on issues in oral language evaluation, she does not address the very issues she raises. M u c h m o r e specific methods to gather information such as holistic scoring paradigms and observational checklists require development. Hallidays' (1975) functions of language, which W a r d (1997) mentions, could be utilized as organizers around which such efforts could be developed. Tests such as those developed by Underhill (1987), could be used to formalize results. In his text of spoken language tests, Underhill makes the point that oral testing is significantly different than other types of testing. In oral testing the marker and speaker are the m o s t important components. The subjectivity of the participant actions is precisely w h a t Underhill values and finds worth measuring. The aims of oral assessment, according to Underhill are proficiency,  placement, diagnosis, and achievement. Included in his text are 12 test types and 20 elicitation techniques which assess oral language ability. The Ministry of Education in British Columbia has taken s o m e initiative in this regard by developing rating scales to evaluate group communication skills (B.C. Ministry of Education, 1995). Using 5 categories of context, pupil performance is described in areas of physical, language, social, ideas, and awareness. These descriptors are intended as a broad framework for viewing listening and speaking development and provide a context for reporting, for support, and for developing a c o m m o n language.  52 Special Conditions Affecting Orality in the Practicum Several conditions have a special influence during the practicum and, therefore, affect the development of an orally interactive environment in the classroom in a unique manner. They include conditions such as the influence of sponsor teachers, the communicative ability of the participants, the duration and quality of the practicum, and the prevailing public perceptions of student teaching. O n e of the most important conditions affecting the practicum experience is the sponsor teacher. N o r m a n and Shapson (1989) suggest that the sponsor teacher is at the centre of factors influencing the development of a student teachers ' classroom environment. They believe that the role of sponsor teacher should be m o r e formalized to allow for the development and identification of master teachers w h o are m o s t effective in the development of student teachers. N o r m a n and Shapson believe the sponsor teacher is the key factor influencing a student teacher in developing an environment where n e w skills, attitudes, and a willingness to take risks are learned. These n e w skills, attitudes, and risk-taking are necessary if orally interactive learning environments are to be developed. Another condition influencing the practicum is the communicative ability of student teachers, pupils, and the sponsor teachers. Dippo et al. (1991) suggest that issues such as authority, methods of evaluation, and the use of texts all require skillful negotiations between the student teacher, sponsor, supervisor, and pupils. These negotiations often occur orally and are dependent on the ability of the participants to communicate effectively with each other. A recommendation  Ludwig (1994) offers for practicum success is for sponsors and student teachers to  53 remain open to alternatives. Effective communication between those involved in the classroom is a necessary pre-condition for a successful orally interactive classroom. Improving the quality of the practicum is another condition affecting the practicum classroom. Although Zeichner (1990) contends that students and teachers at times link quality of experience with quantity, Johnston (1994) asserts that there is an urgent need to examine h o w practicum experiences contribute to l 'earning h o w to teach.' Using interviews and observations of eight students in their last year of teacher education, Johnston questions the assumption that a simple relationship exists between the quantity of school experience and the quality of learning of student teachers. Rather than using a survey, she examines this assumption by acknowledging the perceptions of the student teachers themselves. Johnston concludes that learning to teach must be rich with interaction through talking and writing. Experience is not enough: practicum duration and practicum quality are not simply linked; it is the thought and subsequent action which determines its value. Zeichner (1990) suggests that the practicum learning process be improved by developing a specific curriculum. The beliefs of student teachers are another condition affecting the nature of the practicum experience. Johnston (1994) found that there was a dilemma between teaching the w a y students wanted to and w h a t was required by the sponsor or class program. Johnston found that m a n y student teachers' beliefs conflicted with practice. In order to benefit m o r e adequately from the practicum these beliefs, which are resistant to change (Pajares, 1992), m u s t be examined.  54 An additional condition which shapes student teacher praxis includes the publics' view of teachers. The portrayal of teachers as requiring charismatic personas to be successful is critiqued by Bailey (1988). Ungerlieder (1995) suggests that teachers and students are often portrayed in newspapers as f ' ailing  the grade' and McQuade (1995) exhorts teachers to 'right' the story (pun intended) of w h a t goes on in classrooms. Media portrayals such as these led the British Columbia Teachers Federation to launch a series of articles in the newspaper  titled, I'nventing Crisis' (1996), to dispel s o m e of the myths commonly held by the public about education. Additional conditions that influence the classroom environment during the practicum include the professional qualities of sponsors, the planning abilities of student teachers, their instructional techniques, and their classroom m a n a g e m e n t skills. Inclusion of specific attention to planning, teaching strategies, and m a n a g e m e n t in student handbooks for the practicum underscores their importance (College of the Rockies, 1995-96; Okanagan University College, 1996-97; University of British Columbia, 1993-94). Numerous conditions influence the teaching and learning environments student teachers develop during their practicum. W h a t works and why, knowledge of pupil interactions, and a realistic view of teaching in its full classroom/school context becomes readily apparent in the practicum classroom. In addition, duration and quality of the practicum, latent beliefs of the student teacher, and communicative ability of those involved influence the success of the practicum.  55 Finally, the quality of the practicum is particularly influenced b y the sponsor teacher. Conditions affecting the implementation of orality in the classroom are most substantially influenced by a l 'earning to teach' model developed by Kagan (1992). Student teacher readiness evident in concern for pupil learning can be a guide for introducing orally interactive strategies into the practicum curriculum. Until then, the model would suggest that student teacher attention and practicum supervision focus remain appropriately on the development of self-as-teacher and secondly, on m a n a g e m e n t of pupils and routines. In addition, to effectively implement orally interactive teaching strategies the following issues need to be addressed: ownership, quality of small group teaching, collaborative teaching, transformative pedagogy, and oral assessment procedures. Investigating Orality  As a result of an inquiry into small group skills required of the Middle Years Language Arts Curriculum in Manitoba, Bryant and Lee (1991) designed an instrument to assess the extent to which oral language occurred in the Winnipeg School Division. This n e w curriculum emphasized oral interaction in the classroom which Bryant and Lee operationalized b y examining performance in a group, oral skills, and articulation of ideas. Using teams of observers they sought  to find out w h a t was valuable about student w o r k in groups and w h a t could be t object of evaluation. Three categories of skills emerged as numerous lists and categories were devised to accommodate the various perspectives. Following several pilot runs, a  56 procedure and checklist were developed to measure the implementation effectiveness of the oral language component of this curriculum. The most  valuable aspect of this project was that it provided a highly visible, concrete image of h o w interactive classrooms might function. It also underscored the importance of teaching individual and group oral response skills in the classroom and provided a useful, large-scale authentic assessment instrument. Setting the Stage This study intends to identify and describe factors which student teachers  perceive of as having an affect on their ability to develop, implement, and maintai an orally interactive practicum classroom. In focusing on the perceptions of student teachers directly, this study purports to counter prescriptive views of teacher education. Kagan (1992) suggests teacher education programs accept  student teachers where they are in their development. To ensure a m o r e effective pre-service education Brookman and Freeman (1992), Craig et al. (1994), and Kagan (1992) suggest that w e ask student teachers what their perceptions are and design our programs in developmentally appropriate ways. It is imperative in promoting orally interactive strategies that the student teachers' developmental readiness be taken into account. The recursive nature of talk where each encounter rebounds and reverberates into other talk 'spaces' suggests that orality in the classroom is a viable avenue for research. This necessitates an investigation into the ways that children use talk in a variety of contexts within classrooms, where talk can be explored as an instructional device, an assessment tool, as a path to  57 understanding, or as a point of contact. Mahlios and Maxson (1995) suggest that an investigation into orality begins with the creation and promotion of teaching practices which foster exploratory conversations and promote dialogical teaching. Gallas, et al. (1996) suggest that to promote talk as a central part of classroom discourse w e learn to o ' rchestrate' talk by investigating h o w children use talk.  To promote orality as a m e d i u m of learning in the classroom the researcher  intends to heed the exhortations of Mahlios and Maxson (1995) and Gallas, et al. (1996) b y investigating the perceptions of student teachers regarding factors affecting oral interactions in the practicum classroom. To promote orality effectively, this study adheres to Berks ' (1994) suggestion that an investigation into factors affecting orality is most appropriate. Specifically, the purpose of this study is to investigate factors which apprentice teachers perceive of as affecting oral interaction. Such an investigation has the potential to influence both classroom practice and teacher education.  58 Chapter 3 Methodology The purpose of this study is to identify and describe factors which student teachers perceive as affecting the development of an orally interactive environment within their practicum classroom. Through the qualitative analysis of student teacher interviews, dialogue journals, questionnaires, and follow-up interviews, factors affecting orality are expected to emerge. Identifying and describing these factors is an initial step in promoting oral interactions within the classroom as a valid m e d i u m for constructing knowledge (Berk, 1994; Strachan, 1990). A secondary result of this identification and description is the provision of strategic knowledge enabling student teacher education programs to design programs where dialogue for intellectual growth is m o r e effectively addressed as a valuable instructional strategy (Lazar, 1995; Shor, 1987). Research Questions Research questions are a crucial technique necessary for entry into an academic inquiry and act as a mechanism to narrow this investigation into an achievable enterprise. The initial question this study revolved around was, "Can orality be utilized m o r e within the classroom?" Because of the researchers ' involvement in teacher education a subsequent question, "Is the utilization of orality in the classroom a result of teacher education?" emerged. Considering the importance attributed to the practicum within teacher education a m o r e specific question became, " H o w does the practicum experience influence the utilization of orality in the classroom?" Recognizing that participant perspectives are important  59 w h e n investigating teaching practices, the data sources chosen for this study were selected to most clearly reveal student teacher perspectives. The identification of  beliefs is an important step in changing t h e m and, therefore, the focal question for this study is, "What factors do student teachers perceive affect their ability to develop an orally interactive environment in the practicum classroom?" Characteristics of this Investigation Paralleling the recursive refinement of questions designed to elicit data regarding orality in the classroom was the gradual emergence of an appropriate research design. Being persuaded that enumerative, verificative data counts are not to be taken at face value, this study sought out an alternative approach (Bogden & Biklen, 1982). The involvement of the researcher-instructor and the  collection of data prior to formalizing a design format also suggests that a research design m o r e congruent with the intentions of this investigation was required. That congruency was most evident in the research designs suggested b y Bogden and Biklen, (1982), Ely et al. (1991), and Goetz and LeCompte (1991). These qualitative, ethnographic researchers suggested a variety of characteristics  that are essential to this type of research and were congruent with the intentions o this investigation. Using the three approaches as a scaffold a n u m b e r of c o m m o n , fundamental characteristics appeared which describe the placement of this investigation more on the qualitative end of the four assumptive continua postulated b y Goetz and LeCompte. Description. O n e characteristic of ethnographic research is the extensive a m o u n t of description included in reporting (Bogden & Biklen, 1982; Ely, et al.,  60 1991; Goetz & LeCompte, 1984). This is sometimes referred to as 'thick' description (Bogden & Biklen, 1982) or as a c ' ollection of data' or p ' henomenon' (Goetz & LeCompte, 1991). Descriptions include details of data collection procedures, explanations of the role of the researcher, and a full portrayal of the setting. This particular investigation provides examples of comments m a d e during the interviews and the dialogue journals, as well as an analysis of responses to the questionnaires. Examples of responses to data-analysis are also given. In ethnographic research the researcher is the key instrument in collecting, analyzing, and reporting the findings. As such this design recognizes and includes the biases and perceptions of the researcher (Bogden & Biklen, 1982;  Ely, et al. 1991; Goetz & LeCompte, 1984). Acting both externally as researcher and internally as instructor required the investigator to operate within that i 'nterface,' a role recognized and legitimized through ethnographic description (Goetz & LeCompte). Description of the setting is also integral to ethnographic research and includes descriptions which are naturalistic (Bogden & Biklen, 1982), subjective rather than objective (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984), and not artificial. Within ethnographic inquiry, meaning is not contrived or pre-defined (Ely, et al., 1991). Rather, the settings are taken as given and described as appropriately as possible, for example, classrooms, h o m e s or restaurants (Ely, et al., 1991). Likewise the interviews occurred in a variety of settings at the students' convenience. The dialogue journals were written by students in non-contrived settings such as their classrooms, or offices, and h o m e s whereas the rationale  61 and distribution of questionnaires occurred within a college classroom. However, the questionnaires were completed on students' o w n time (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984). Follow-up interviews involved volunteers w h o m e t at the students ' and researchers' convenience approximately one year later. Inclusion of participant perspectives. A concern of this ethnographic research was to elicit the participants' perspectives as accurately and extensively as possible. This particular aspect of ethnographic design exerted m u c h influence in guiding the data collection process and analysis. Concern with eliciting participant perspectives is supported by research into perspective modification  (Kagan, 1992; Pajares, 1992). Although other data had been collected, it was the characteristic of participant perspectives which determined the inclusion or  exclusion of data (Bogden & Biklen, 1982; Ely, et al., 1991; Goetz & Lecompte, 1984). In addition, the researcher deemed the perspectives of student teachers to  be potentially the m o s t influential in determining some aspects of the curriculum in teacher education. Use of an inductive process. Utilization of an inductive approach to research analysis is another typically ethnographic characteristic where the formation of theory occurs after successive examinations of the data. In this investigation the recording of student teacher perspectives evident in the interviews, isolation of comments in the dialogue journals, and recording of questionnaire responses preceded their analysis. This process exemplifies  inductive inquiry (Bogden & Biklen, 1982) and places it on the inductive end of t inductive-deductive assumptive continuum (Goetz & LeCdrtlpte, 1991). The  62 inductive nature of ethnographic research encourages the collection of the data before analysis occurs and the discovery of constructs after the data had been collected and analysis had begun (Ely, et al., 1991). Use of a constructive process. A further characteristic of ethnographic research is the construction of theoretical frameworks arising or emerging from the data. This investigation focused on constructing theoretical factors which emerged from an analysis of the interviews, dialogue journals, and questionnaires affecting oral interactivity in the classroom. These frameworks arose from constructive rather than enumerative activities (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984) and were collected in particular settings, namely, the practicum (Ely, et al. 1991). The intention of including an enumerative questionnaire was to support, elaborate, or modify the interpretation of factors which would result from the analysis of the interviews. It was the intention of the researcher that such an enumerative component would lend additional validity and reliability to the findings (Bogden & Biklen, 1982). Use of a generative process. Another characteristic of ethnographic research is the generative rather than verificative process directing data collection (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984). In this investigation the discovery of factors originated from an analysis of the data rather than an attempt to verify an hypothesis developed elsewhere. Ely et al. (1991) suggest that this process is holistic in design, not focused on narrow and specific items determined beforehand.  The  research question for this investigation proposes to identify factors affecting oral activity and participant perspectives are expected to generate these.  63  Use of a subjective process. A final essential characteristic of this ethnographic investigation is its subjectivity. The goal was to reconstruct factors and categories the participants themselves used to conceptualize their experiences (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984). Through recursive analysis of students' interviews, dialogue journals, and questionnaire responses, this investigation utilized a subjective rather than objective approach to construct conceptual categories and to explain data relationships (Ely, et al., 1991). As 'circles within circles,' conceptualizations formed here remain subjective, always re-constructing, always spiraling (Ely, et al.). Using the practicum. Choosing the practicum as the site for this investigation stems from the dearth of existent knowledge about the evolution of the l 'earning-to-teach' process despite over four decades of empirical research  (Kagan, 1992). There is very little understanding of h o w the practicum experience contributes to this process (Johnston, 1994). Perhaps this is because so little research has been done on w h a t occurs during the practicum (Tabachnick & Zeichner, 1984). Since the practicum is a cardinal feature of most teacher education programs, it would seem to be a particularly appropriate vantage point from which to examine student teacher perspectives regarding oral interactivity.  The practicum is also a critical venue from which to observe the success of student teachers integrating their pedagogical studies with the practical realities of  the classroom (McDermott, et al., 1995). It is here where student teachers behave in ways which reflect w h a t they believe and know. Students indicate that the practicum is the m o s t crucial aspect of their teacher education (B.C.C.T., 1997;  64  Johnston, 1994; Tabachnick & Zeichner, 1984) and as such this study intends to explore this event to reveal those specific perceptions of factors which affect oral interactivity. Since improved practica experiences seem to be the goal of reform in teacher education (Goodlad, J. 1991; McDermott, et al., 1991), this investigation expects to provide a better understanding of the l 'earning-to-teach' process and thereby, m a k e the practicum m o r e effective. The development of a specific curriculum for the practicum (Zeichner, 1990) through the implementation of orally interactive strategies m a y be such a fruitful and practical result. Using perception. Perceptions of student teachers are chosen as an entry point into this investigation of oral interaction due to their influence in controlling  teacher behaviour (Kagan, 1992; Pajares, 1992). The rarity of using perception as  a basis for research into the effects of a teaching strategy is surprising considering the extent of their influence (Keithley, 1992). The strength of the connection between teachers' perceptions and their planning, instructional decisions, and classroom practices makes perception a pertinent entry point for pedagogical modification (Pajares, 1992). In addition, the use of students as observers of their o w n practice has significant potential for teacher development which this investigation intends to exploit (Johnston, 1994; Tabachnick & Zeichner, 1984). From a phenomenological perspective, the use of student teacher perceptions develops introspection as a potent strategy for revealing students' o w n understandings of factors affecting oral interactions (Bogden & Biklen, 1982). In anticipation of  65 revealing w h a t those factors are, this study posits student teacher perceptions as an operationally useful construct to investigate factors which affect oral interactions in the classroom. Participants The data for this qualitative study were collected from a core group of 24  (20 female; 4 male) student teachers in their final year of a t w o year East Kooten Teacher Education Program (EKTEP) sponsored b y the University of Victoria and  located in the city of Cranbrook. Students ranged in age from 22 to 36 years of age and all except one were from English speaking backgrounds. Most had completed a t w o year college preparatory program prior to entering the teacher education program. Only t w o of the sample had completed degrees in another discipline prior to entering teacher education. The teacher education program consisted of a two-year program interspersed with classroom visitations, especially in the first year. Practicum  components consists of 3 weeks at the end of the first year, followed by 4 week November to early December and 6 weeks in April to M a y of their second year. Students completing the program qualify for a four year Certificate of Education degree from the University of Victoria. Those wishing to complete their fifth year  and qualify for a Bachelor of Education degree m u s t do so at another centre in th province. Approximately one-third of the students do so; however, most register with local school districts as substitutes with the prospect of full-time w o r k in the future.  66  Sampling. The student sample for this investigation included 13 student volunteers from a core group of 24 student teachers in their second year of elementary teacher education. They included 1 0 out of a possible 12 students w h o were supervised by the researcher-instructor in t w o separate practica and three additional students not supervised by the researcher w h o were interested in participating. In the first practicum all six of the students being supervised by the researcher-instructor participated, were interviewed and submitted their dialogue journals. In the second term only four students out of a possible six offered to participate as t w o students withdrew from the teacher education program. Interestingly, three additional male students not being supervised by the researcher volunteered to participate in the study, participated in the interviews, and submitted their dialogue journals. Increasing the student numbers was difficult because of the distance of their  practicum placements from the college. In addition, suspicions as to the value and purpose of research resulted in fewer participants than anticipated even though ethical research procedures had been followed (See Appendix C). In the follow-up interviews the two students w h o had participated in the initial study agreed to discuss the findings and have their responses recorded. Their selection occurred for three reasons: they had participated in the original study, because of their geographical proximity to the researcher in another city, and their interest in the results of the investigation.  67 Ethical Considerations Ethical considerations for this investigation centred around four principles: protection of subject identities, respect of subjects, clarification and maintenance of contract obligations, and accurate reporting of data (Bogden & Biklen, 1982). Ethnographic research is an ethical endeavour and, as such, this investigation clearly indicated h o w conclusions were checked, h o w participants were involved,  h o w data was collected, h o w results will be communicated, and for w h a t purpose the data will be used (Ely, et al., 1991). Further ethical considerations are addressed through formal organizational, participant, questionnaire, and departmental consent forms (Appendix D). Data Types Although data such as observation reports, video-tapes, and final reports were collected, the focus of data collection narrowed during the later stages to reflect specifically the students' o w n perceptions. These data included interviews, student teacher dialogue journals, a questionnaire, and a follow-up interview. The materials were collected and organized into fall and spring terms to allow for the possibility of identifying differences from one term to another. The first source of data collected for this study was the post-practicum interviews of 40-50 minutes which were audio-taped, transcribed, and analyzed to identify factors that the student teachers perceive as affecting the development of orally interactive classrooms. Focus questions were constructed to provide student teachers with a variety of entry points into the c ' onversation' concerning oral interactions in the classroom (See Appendix A). The interviews were held in  68 student homes, in offices, at the college, in m y home, and in restaurants, and m a d e use of a portable tape-recorder. In all there were 1 3 interviews, 6 with  students (female) after their initial practicum and 7 with students (3 male; 4 female after their final practicum; 3 students participated in both terms. Dialogue journals, r e c o m m e n d e d as a method of maintaining or developing a dialogue between the sponsor and student teacher during the practicum provided a second source of data for investigating oral interactions. The dialogue journals were unique in that the data represented b y them records the perceptions of student teachers during their practica. Although these dialogue journals were read b y both the sponsor teacher and the researcher, the researcher-instructors' purpose was to identify comments m a d e which might reflect student teacher concerns regarding oral interactions in the classroom. It was expected that comments m a d e in these journals would provide additional evidence to support, challenge, or modify perceptions revealed in the interviews. In addition to the interviews and dialogue journals, an anonymous questionnaire was administered twice in the school year, once after each practicum. The 10 questionnaire statements were constructed to allow for responses on a Likert-type scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree (See Appendix B). This questionnaire was expected to yield information on student teacher perspectives regarding the value, concerns, and effectiveness of orally interactive classrooms as well as any changes in perceptions that might occur from one practicum to another. Responses to these questionnaires, displayed in  69 graph form were expected to support, challenge, or modify findings generated from the analysis of interviews transcripts. A fourth data source, the follow-up interview, was utilized to revisit the participants in order to c ' heck' the findings (Ely, et al. ,1991). These follow-up  interviews were expected to confirm, refine, or perhaps adjust the findings from the analysis of the interviews. Along with their modification of findings these follow-up interviews lend credibility to the factors this study intends to identify. Data Collection Table 1 Subject Data Collection Characteristics ( N = 2 4 ) Interviews T e r m 1 Students T e r m2 Students O n e year later  6 7  Dialogue journals Questionnaires Follow-up Interviews 6 16 7  6  -  -  -  2  Thirteen interviews were conducted, 13 dialogue journals were collected, and a total of 22 questionnaires completed (See Table 1). The student teachers ranged in age from 22-35 years of age and were placed in classrooms that included Kindergarten to Grade 7 in 3 public and one private elementary school. Data Analysis In ethnographic research the analytic processes differs from other research  models in that the types of data collected, the collection of data, and the analysis  of data are often linked and overlap (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984). Recognizing the  70 difficulty of separating collection and analysis procedures in ethnographic research, this investigation viewed the three-stage schema suggested b y Goetz & LeCompte (1984) as an effective paradigm to analyze data separately and still account for this interdependence.  Stage one. In the first part of stage one the researcher theorized that during the interviews students would reveal explanations for the difficulties encountered w h e n implementing m o r e orally interactive strategies in the classroom. By asking focus questions the researcher expected that analytic categories would emerge in the interviews. This was accomplished b y perceiving divisions that guided subsequent data collection and also provided a means to reduce data to manageable proportions. The interview responses will then be categorized after  they are compared, contrasted, aggregated, and ordered. This will be followed by establishing linkage or relationships between interview data and that from the dialogue journals and questionnaires. If the divisions perceived from the interview data appeared congruent or applicable to the other data, these speculations were accepted as valid. These divisions will then be explored as factors which affect oral interaction and they will be applied to the other data collected. In the second part of this first analytic stage, strategies for sequential selection which are open-ended and explore alternative explanations will be investigated. For example, negative-case selection, discrepant-case selection, theoretical sampling, and testing of theoretical implications will be utilized to reveal alternative explanations for factors affecting orality (Ely, et al., 1991; Goetz & LeCompte, 1984). In this study, negative-cases and discrepant-cases are  71  expected to become evident as student responses refer to differences in literacy and orality processes resulting in alternative explanations for factors affecting orality in the classroom. Also, as a result of the researchers involvement in preliminary sampling during the collection phase, some data not pertinent will be eliminated. Finally, the theoretical implications of using the interview data as a  primary data source are expected to be verified using comments from the dialogue journals and questionnaire results. The 'fit' of divisions used for the interview data w h e n analyzing the dialogue journal comments is expected to legitimize their definition. In the third part of this first stage, induction, constant comparison, typological analysis, enumeration, and standardized observational protocols provide useful ways to examine naturalistic data (Ely, et al., 1991; Goetz & LeCompte, 1984). Using analytic induction the researcher will scan the transcripts of the interview and the dialogue journal comments to develop categories, or relationships a m o n g categories and developed working typologies. Interview and dialogue journal comments, as well as questionnaire responses will be compared to develop explanatory constructs of oral interactivity. It is expected that these explanations will fit into s o m e typological framework, reflecting participantdesignated constructs. Frequency enumeration of factors affecting orality are expected to provide some quality control and supplement the descriptive data after factors or categories are developed. Standardized observational protocols will not be utilized in this investigation because the factors and categories  72 generated will be the result of data analysis, not pre-determined frameworks which were used to guide subsequent observation. Stage two. In the second stage of analysis the focus is on handling, processing, and manipulating the data to generate constructs and discover patterns. This involves revisiting the initial proposal, reviewing the questions that shape the initial inquiry, and examining the varied audiences for w h o m this study is intended. This will be followed by re-reading the data for the purpose of checking for completeness and for re-acquaintance with the data. Simultaneously, the researcher notes taken from the interviews are the beginnings of an outline of classifications that emerged. It is expected that a broad framework, with continuous modification, will emerge into which specific responses of oral interactivity will be added until all the data is accounted for. Stage three. Utilizing Goetz and LeComptes' (1984) third stage of analysis,  the intention is to interpret and integrate the findings to facilitate understandings of data analysis beyond the immediate circumstances of the study. This involves m o r e than mere description and includes consolidation or application of theory, including the use of metaphors or analogies, and the synthesis of results. The application of theory to constructs discovered in this investigation include those developed by Wells and Chang-Wells (1992) w h o regard orality as a viable means of knowledge construction. Application of theoretical concepts includes those developed b y Bianchi and Culleres ' (1996) perspective of different  ways with words as well as Olsons ' (1994) and Berks ' (1994) notion that dialogue is a viable avenue of teaching and learning. Finally, Vygotskys ' (1962) idea that  73 all mental activity is jointly constructed through dialogue and Bakhtins ' (Nystrand, Green, et al., 1992) notion that words are shared territory are also supported. As the aim of this study is to create a n e w structure for the explanation of  factors affecting orality in the classroom, the use of a metaphor will be explored to create linkages between practice and theory. As an analytic tool, metaphors based on conversational, orchestral, foundational, organic or biological processes will be explored to describe the interaction of pupils with each other and their teachers. Validity and Reliability Important to any investigation of h u m a n endeavour are concerns with validity and reliability, also referred to as, credibility, trustworthiness, transferability, dependability, confirmability or authenticity (Bogden & Biklen, 1982;  Ely, et al., 1991; Goetz & LeCompte, 1984). Concerns with reliability and validity in this investigation will be addressed through the collection of a variety of data sources, triangulating data sources, clarification of the researchers ' role, and the use of follow-up interviews. Validity. In choosing a variety of data sources this investigation seeks to increase external validity. Data sources such as interviews, dialogue journals, questionnaires, and follow-up interviews are collected for the purpose of providing alternative perspectives from which to view the theoretical constructs to be developed. The high priority placed on student perceptions in all data sources provides a c o m m o n denominator for these alternative perspectives and provides external validity.  74 Internal validity in this investigation is addressed through the use of multiple data sources in a triangulatory relationship. Data from four different vantage points are utilized in this investigation: interviews recorded by the researcher, dialogue journals written by the students during the practicum, questionnaires, and the follow-up interviews added during analysis. The tentatively primary role  given to the interview data and the secondary role given to dialogue journals, and questionnaire responses was determined on the basis of the direct or indirect role of the researcher. As such the primary interview data constructs are to be validated through triangulation with the dialogue journal, questionnaire data, and the follow-up interviews (See Figure 3.1).  Dialogue Journals  Questionnaires  Figure 3 . 1 Triangulation schema The value of having three alternative perspectives to compare with the primary interview data is that they provide for a larger, multi-layered explanation for the agreement, disagreement or modification of factors to be identified. Reliability. O n e of the major tasks for naturalistic researchers to attain is external reliability, i.e., replication (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984). The involvement of the researcher and the relationship of researcher with participants complicates  75 this type of investigation. To increase external reliability, this investigation carefully describes the researchers ' role and status, including the description of people w h o served as participants, and the context within which the data are gathered. Methods of data collection and analysis are also clearly identified and discussed to increase external reliability. Several strategies are suggested to increase internal reliability, three of which are utilized in this investigation: low-inference descriptors such as direct quotes, participant research assistance in the form of follow-up interviews, and mechanically recorded data (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984). This investigation views reliability as a 'fit' between data collected and w h a t actually occurs (Bogden & Biklen, 1982). The t ' rustworthiness' of this data is enhanced through triangulation, use of multiple data sources, and the inclusion of follow-up measures (Ely, et al., 1991). The goal of identifying and describing the factors perceived by student teachers to be affecting the development of orally interactive classrooms is best served by using an ethnographic design. Identification and description requires a  descriptive investigation (Raymond & Santos, 1995), and the data generated from the interviews, dialogue journals, questionnaires, and follow-up interviews are the descriptive foundation of this ethnographic study. The interdependence of data sources and analysis are also inextricably bound to concerns with ethics, reliability, and validity.  76 Chapter 4 Results The results reported here originate from stages one and t w o of the threestage analytic process described in Chapter 3 (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984). The results of the third stage, interpretation and integration, are presented in Chapter 5. The results of the first analytic stage were determined b y theorizing and sequencing responses. The results of the second analytic stage were derived from the application of general analytic procedures which occurred simultaneously with the handling, processing, and manipulation of data. This generated the constructs utilized and resulted in the discovery of particular patterns. By using such an approach links between data decisions, collection procedures, and analysis could be maintained. The two analytic stages were utilized initially on the interview data. Results of this analysis motivated the researcher to subsequently analyze the dialogue journals, questionnaires and follow-up interviews using a similar framework. Therefore, the interview results are reported here first, followed by results of the analysis of the dialogue journals, questionnaires and follow-up interviews. Interview Analysis Results Typical of ethnographic research, constructs of factors which would affect oral interactions in the practicum arose only after data had been collected and analysis had begun. However, during the process of collection it appeared that certain themes were repeatedly raised. These constructs were especially apparent during the interviews which involved the subjects and researcher in  77 direct contact. This direct involvement led the researcher to view, at least tentatively, the interviews as a primary source of data. Emergence of factors. Theorizing that categories and relationships would emerge through manipulation of the data during the collection phase, analysis proceeded with stage one of this investigation. During the interview process student teacher responses to specific focus questions (See Appendix A) were notably m o r e prolific and pertinent, that is, m o r e directly concerned with oral interactivity in the classroom than the other questions. O f the eleven focus questions, t w o were identified as most pertinent to the central purpose of this investigation. They were: #3. "What are s o m e difficulties in doing this?" i.e., changing the evaluation focus to include m o r e orality. #7. "What are s o m e concerns you have in attempting to initiate m o r e student talk?" e.g., loss of control, use of time, lack of efficiency, etc. Although responses to all eleven focus questions were recorded, through comparison and contrast responses to t w o questions were perceived to be m o s t pertinent to this investigation. Speculating that responses to these t w o focus questions (#3 and #7) would result in sufficient explanatory constructs allowed for the elimination of responses to the other less applicable focus questions. In addition, the m o r e prolific and pertinent responses to these t w o questions prompted the researcher to treat t h e m as the primary data source for this investigation.  78  As collection proceeded, the data confirmed the choice of questions # 3 and  # 7 as key reservoirs from which constructs would m o s t probably emerge. Through negative-case selection, the proposition of emerging factors permitted the elimination of responses to the other nine focus questions. Sampling of other data sources such as supervisor reports, video-tapes, and sponsor teacher reports were also rejected because student perception of factors was viewed as a key focus for this investigation. Using inductive procedures the resulting distillation of categories was possible while at the s a m e time the larger picture was maintained (Ely, et al., 1991). This inductive procedure was sufficiently persuasive to allow for the clustering of student responses into m ' eaning' units. Through sorting and matching, along with occasional re-structuring, the m ' eaning' units of student responses emerged. These tentative typological groupings were continually revisited and b y removing, replacing, and re-inserting comments, enabled m o s t interview responses to be accommodated. This tentative typology was then refined b y using labels to describe the content of the groupings. Through discrepant-case analysis responses not accommodated were left to stand on their o w n to await for further re-examination. M u c h like manipulating simple toys, the mixing, matching, linking, comparing, and building of categories began to reveal typological constructs which seemed to affect oral interactions in the classroom. Repetitive themes of knowing how, gaining personal confidence, lack of experience, need for justification, and  79  concerns about time were utilized as labels around which responses were clustered. Once these labeled groupings accommodated m a n y of the responses, a m o r e detailed examination of each response occurred. This allowed for  the  refinement, elaboration, or modification of the clusters to m o r e adequately account for m o r e of the responses. The  result was  14 groupings with tentative labels  which accommodated most of the student responses (See  Table 4.1).  Table 4.1. Tentative Clusters of Interview C o m m e n t s TERM 1 That learning through oral language o c c u r s - a whole new way to learn -I hadn't thought about it  TERM 2 -they haven't ever s e e n it work or s e e n the virtue -I haven't seen the tape recorder I've mostly experienced a class where we write and the teacher talks I've never even heard of the tape recorder thing  Justifying-accounting for -even kids are motivated by letter grades -you would have to know why you're doing what you're doing and justify it -society values that and we can't change that easily Taking risks-losing control - I don't know maybe control -I g u e s s our fear is that they will get off topic -maybe its a fear of losing control -an upper level class who's never done this before will take advantage  -our society also values the concrete -we have to be accountable for what were doing -we have to justify what we're doing  Sponsor  teacher  concerns  -when you think about it and let the reins go the fear of letting go blinds you far too much that holds most of us back -fear is a big one -grades need to be produced so why go out of the norm (risk) - we're covering our butts and the kids are going to be traditional teachers -some activities were risky - my sponsor said there was a large amount of noise you tolerate -I asked her a couple of days before and s h e said -my sponsor a s k e d me how I was going group the kids -its very important to find out what the ideals of the sponsor teacher are because if they want talk it will be much easier for you to foster  80  Observation  anxieties  How to proceed with oral interactions -1 d o n t know how 1 would measure it -how to set up your marking scheme -to evaluate e a c h other, their groups, use checklists, objectives would have to be laid out ahead of time - you would have to look at what's important -you would have to look at evaluation -rules of working together would be important. -1 would pick the groups and set up who does what - when they're in groups who knows what they're talking about -the dynamics of the class -the class chemistry -its hard to get kids to discover information all the time -you can't have kids talking all the time - the hardest to match up the right groups -if we c a n get them to stay on topic that would be great -they can't just talk -the group size -management of classroom problems - management is a big item because its a very verbal thing  - someone has to try it first to s e e if it works  -if you stick a mike in front of a child's face 1 noticed that a few kids are used to it but the majority of the class wasn't -you can't also insist that they always talk in front of a mike -as you need to perform at a specific level 1 always act differently under pressure of performance even in journals if you compare their marked class writing and their journals they're different. -1 think we all perform differently under pressure -maybe they go hand in hand (verbal & written) -1 don't know how we do that - to try and remember who talks -how would you mark participation in calendar? -so what do you do with all the tapes? it would take all day - turning it on the machines buttons, that would be learning too - the difficulty is in trying to evaluate communication -set the standards for group talk, set criteria, choices, -more responsibility on the students -teach them to get eye contact - to respect other people speaking not fool around -classroom rules - class size -behaviour -we have to have s o m e structure -if 1 had the checklist there 1 would use it - when they are talking to one another its important that they don't just hang out talk about their lives but be on task - monitoring that is a key idea -1 think their interaction improves over time but 1 can only get to certain groups -you only have so much time -certain groups went well others had to change -made mental notes of what worked and what didn't.  Personal ego needs -make sure that I'm getting responses -its easier to control Reading & Writing than its is talking -tolerate noise, enthusiasm , loud talking  -for me the major thing would be not to feel it necessary to be in charge 100% of the time -older teacher s e e m s to enjoy that power 'I'm in charge and they do what I say.' I s a w that happen and I've seen it happen and I've felt that way myself  Student  -its pretty hard to do especially for me right now I'm not sure how to do it right now whereas summative is easier and formative is more difficult  teacher  confidence  Lack of experience - its hard for us a s students we don't know what they can do -1 haven't had much experience yet  - even when I look at their writing I didn't know what to look for whether neat or punctuation or spelling  81  Not enough time -time too is a problem -you would take more time, -as a teacher I don't think you have time for I  -but I s e e it a s time -you'd have to limit their time, grade one would talk an hour -as a classroom teacher, fairs, concerts, your own life, its tough -I don't have time, I was teaching 100%  What about others? - what about the parents too -kids and parents are still looking for the product versus the process -I could s e e a parent coming in and seeing talk, talk, talk, and wonder if anything is being done -or the principal  -you would have to consider the parents  Concerned with classroom arrangements -physical things don't matter.  - actually getting of the clip board or using anecdotal comments to pick it up and write -as a new teacher I'd rather just be a rover and move around and helping and getting my hands dirty and stopping - its always been this way  Its not traditional -if it was the whole school it would be accepted - b e c a u s e that's what I'm used to -its not the way we're used to Concern with organization -but I had no time for one on one which I wanted - trying to watch many kids at once - how to manage the time and watching kids  - my object was to observe but difficult to do in 6 weeks -recording is possible but that takes more time -its time management mostly just ignore it and continue on with the day  Discrepant responses that were not accommodated in the 14 clusters were labeled as 'outliers' and would require further analysis to verify their applicability in this investigation (See  Table 4.2).  Table 4.2. Interview O ' utliers' TERM 1 writing is easier to evaluate - b e c a u s e it would be harder to evaluate -written assignment/ its easier b e c a u s e you c a n mark it at your own pace writing is concrete  TERM 2 -its very easy to mark a piece of paper  -our society also values the concrete  evaluating speaking more time-consuming than evaluating writing. -takes a lot of time -do I have time for checklists? oral interpretations vary -one persons oral interpretation would be different from another -differences from teacher to teacher speaking is difficult to evaluate  -we can't really set criteria for it b e c a u s e everyone has a different idea so it wouldn't work  -to evaluate enunciation is even harder  82  age differences  -primary different than intermediate  speech not recoverable  -a public speaking assignment you have to mark it on the spot -you can't correct and you can't go back over what you said like in a written test  teacher position 'on stage'  -make sure that I'm getting responses  recording unnatural/inauthentic  -definitely shared ideas are important and the only thing I'm concerned about is that they would have to sooner or later write it down-studies show that something written down they remember better and how are you going to study it later if you don't have it written - when its oral its instant you missed it. its gone -1 don't have the time 1 was teaching 100% -I've felt that way (I'm in charge) myself -a video tape was stiff with many mistakes. They wanted it perfect not natural. You get what is real as when they practiced they just worked one idea into another without worrying about appearances  These o ' utlier' interview comments appeared to reflect the latent beliefs of student teachers and acted as a rationale for why increased oral interactions in the classroom might be difficult. Although stated as facts, the statements contained value judgments comparing attributes of orality and literacy. Speculating that the 'outliers' were contributory factors affecting orality, restrained the researcher from deleting t h e m from the investigation altogether. At this juncture the researcher reasoned that a follow-up interview was  an  option which would clarify the nature of these 'outliers' and verify the constructs derived from the study. As an example of the evolving process of ethnographic research, this recognition provided yet another perspective from which to examine the interdependence of data collection and analysis. This post-analysis interview was also recognized as a means to verify other findings resulting from this investigation. Emergence of categories. The clusters reported in Table 4.1 and 4.2 were derived from student responses and it seemed on further analysis that they could be subsumed into m o r e generic labels. With the identification of clusters a pattern  83 indicative of m o r e generic concerns was discovered. M u c h like solving a jigsaw puzzle, through a process of manipulation, mixing, and matching, major categories of responses became apparent. S o m e factors addressed issues such as knowing h o w to proceed or knowing that oral language was valuable for learning. These types of knowledge, representative of cognitive processing models of development, have categorized knowing that and knowing about something as declarative knowledge (Pintrich, 1990). Knowing h o w to d o something was labeled as procedural knowledge (Pintrich). Thus declarative and procedural knowledge categories were constructed to subsume student teacher responses of knowing. Conditional  knowledge, knowing w h e n and w h y to use certain strategies, although not evident from interview responses was also included here, speculating that it might be discovered in other data (Pintrich). S o m e factors were concerned with personal responses w h e n implementing orally interactive strategies. These were subsumed into a s 'tudent teacher position or role' category. Similarly s ' chool community expectations, ' and s ' tructural features' categories were constructed. This process was analogous to a distillation process of continuous re-alignment and re-invention into which responses could be subsumed. Subsequent to the d ' iscovery' of these categories it became evident that the 'outliers' were perhaps assumptions which students held about orality. These assumptions were not revealed directly from student comments and were only apparent after repeated examination and tentative labeling of this particular  84 m ' eaning' unit. Since assumptions are m o r e easily recognized from a distant perspective, the researcher, not the student was able to identify t h e m within student teachers' responses. In the follow-up interviews students affirmed the categorization of these outliers as assumptions which they held regarding the affect of increased oral interactivity in the classroom (See  Table 4.6).  At the completion of interview c o m m e n t s analysis, labels for 24 factors and five categories were chosen and student responses were grouped according to their 'fit.' These 24 factors were organized into five categories, namely: knowledge, student teacher position/role, school community expectations, structural features, and assumptions (See  Table 4.3).  Table 4.3. Interview Responses Grouped bv Category and Factor  A. 1.  TERM 1 KNOWLEDGE declarative  TERM 2  -they haven't ever seen it work or seen the virtue -I haven't seen the tape recorder I've mostly experienced a class where we write and the teacher talks I've never even heard of the tape recorder thing 2. procedural -maybe they go hand in hand(verbal & written) -1 don't know how I would measure it -1 dont know how we do that -how to set up your marking scheme - to try and remember who talks -to evaluate each other, their groups, use -how would you mark participation in calendar? checklists, objectives would have to be laid out -so what do you do with all the tapes? it would take all ahead of time day - you would have to look at what's important - turning it on the machines buttons, that would be -you would have to look at evaluation learning too -rules of working together would be important. - the difficulty is in trying to evaluate communication -I would pick the groups and set up who does -set the standards for group talk, set criteria, choices, what -more responsibility on the students - when they're in groups who knows what they're -teach them to get eye contact talking about - to respect other people speaking not fool around -the dynamics of the class -classroom rules -the class chemistry - class size -its hard to get kids to discover information all -behaviour the time -we have to have some structure -you can't have kids talking all the time -if I had the checklist there I would use it - the hardest to match up the right groups - when they are talking to one another its important that -if we can get them to stay on topic that would they don't just hang out talk about their lives but be on be great task - a whole new way to learn -I hadn't thought about it  85 -they can't just talk -the group size -management of classroom problems - management is a big item because its a very verbal thing - someone has to try it first to see if it works  3 . conditional B. STUDENT TEACHER POSITION 4. confidence 5. risk -control - 1 don't know maybe control -1 guess our fear is that they will get off topic -maybe its a fear of losing control -an upper level class who's never done this before will take advantage  6. experience - its hard for us as students we don't know what they can do -1 haven't had much experience yet  7.  personal ego-power  - sure that I'm getting responses -its easier to control Reading & Writing than it is talking -tolerate noise, enthusiasm , loud talking  - monitoring that is a key idea -I think their interaction improves over time but I can only get to certain groups -you only have so much time -certain groups went well others had to change -made mental notes of what worked and what didn't.  -its pretty hard to do especially for me right now I'm not sure how to do it right now whereas summative is easier and formative is more difficult -when you think about it and let the reins go the fear of letting go blinds you far too much that holds most of us back -fear is a big one -grades need to be produced so why go out of the norm ( risk) - we're covering our butts and the kids are going to be traditional teachers -some activities were risky - even when I look at their writing I didn't know what to look for whether neat or punctuation or spelling  -for me the major thing would be not to feel it necessary to be in charge 100% of the time -older teacher seems to enjoy that power Tm in charge and they do what I say.' I saw that happen and I've seen it happen and I've felt that way myself  8.  comfort under observation  -if you stick a mike in front of a child's face I noticed that a few kids are used to it but the majority of the class wasn't -you can't also insist that they always talk in front of a mike -as you need to perform at a specific level I always act differently under pressure of performance even in journals if you compare their marked class writing and their journals they're different. -I think we all perform differently under pressure  9.  sponsor teacher expectations  - my sponsor said there was a large amount of noise you tolerate -I asked her a couple of days before and she said -my sponsor asked me how I was going group the kids -its very important to find out what the ideals of the sponsor teacher are because if they want talk it will be much easier for you to foster  C SCHOOL COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS 10. justification -even kids are motivated by letter grades -you would have to know why you're doing what you're doing and justify it -society values that and we can't change that easily  -our society also values the concrete -we have to be accountable for what were doing -we have to justify what we're doing  86  11.  parent/principal/pupil  concerns  -you would have to consider the parents  - what about the parents too -kids and parents are still looking for the product versus the process -I could see a parent coming in and seeing talk, talk, talk, and wonder if anything is being done -or the principal - its always been this way  12. t r a d i t i o n  -if it was the whole school it would be accepted - because that's what I'm used to -its not the way we're used to D. S T R U C T U R A L 13. p h y s i c a l  FEATURES  - actually getting of the clip board or using anecdotal comments to pick it up and write -as a new teacher I'd rather just be a rover and move around and helping and getting my hands dirty and stopping 1 4 . organizational - my object was to observe but difficult to do in 6 weeks -but I had no time for one on one which I wanted -recording is possible but that takes more time - trying to watch many kids at once -its time management mostly just ignore it and continue - how to manage the time and watching kids on with the day 15. time -but I see it as time -you'd have to limit their time, grade -time too is a problem one would talk an hour -you would take more time, -as a classroom teacher fairs, concerts, your own life, -as a teacher I don't think you have time for I its tough -I don't have time, I was teaching 100%  -physical things don't matter.  E. A S S U M P T I O N S 1 6. writing is concrete 1 7. writing is easier to evaluate  -our society also values the concrete -its very easy to mark a piece of paper  -because it would be harder to evaluate -written assignment/ its easier because you can mark it at your own pace 18. evaluating speaking more timeconsuming than evaluating writing.  -takes a lot of time -do I have time for checklists? 19. speaking is difficult to evaluate 20. s p e e c h not recoverable  -to evaluate enunciation is even harder -definitely shared ideas are important and the only thing -a public speaking assignment you have to mark I'm concerned about is that they would have to sooner it on the spot or later write it down-studies show that something -you can't correct and you can't go back over written down they remember better and how are you what you said like in a written test going to study it later if you don't have it written - when its oral its instant you missed it. its qone 21. oral interpretations vary -we can't really set criteria for it because everyone has -one persons oral interpretation would be a different idea so it wouldn't work different from another -differences from teacher to teacher 22. recording u n n a t u r a l / i n a u t h e n t i c -a video tape was stiff with many mistakes. They wanted it perfect not natural. You get what is real as when they practiced they just worked one idea into another without worrying about appearances 23.  age differences  -primary different than intermediate 24. teacher position 'on stage'  -make sure that I'm getting responses  -I don't have the time I was teaching 100% -I've felt that way (I'm in charge) myself  87  Dialogue Journal Analysis Results C o m m e n t s in the dialogue journals relevant to oral interaction in the classroom were highlighted and clustered using the format of factors and categories developed from the analysis of the interview data (See  Table 4.4).  It  appeared that all dialogue journal comments relating to oral interactivity could be subsumed into the 24 factors. No o ' utlier' comments were found and similar to the interviews, most responses focused on knowledge concerns. The speculative inclusion of conditional knowledge was confirmed after analysis of the dialogue journals. Table 4.4. Dialogue Journal C o m m e n t s per Factor and Category  A.  TERM 1 KNOWLEDGE  declarative  1.  -I should have stopped the lessons and tried to do something a little more active -I definitely see why things are done as centres in kindergarten -choral reading went better than I thought -I talked too much -I should have allowed them to talk more -the students knew lots and had good ideas -1 went with them and they figured out the experiment before I did -sharing with a partner was good - their ideas are valid and important 2.  procedural  -I think I'm going to check each couple to see if they know how to . . . -I'm going to sing with the children by . . . -next practicum I will have clear checklists with marking criteria and reasons -they can help kids who aren't getting it -another way would be to have grade 7 buddies -I think they worked really effectively when they chose their own partners -I'm a bit nervous about group work -later on we'll also do group publications  TERM 2  -just feel that they're doing too much listening to me -many students weren't with me due to my lengthy explanations -I feel that if I had taken the student suggestions for editing and actually written them the students would have been more involved -I was actually shocked by student demonstrations -I find myself talking, giving directions way too much -I really felt the balance of hands on activity and teacher talk working well -I was also shocked by how well they responded to the demonstrations and clapping for each group -thanks for reading the test to . . -having other students re-word my instructions makes perfect sense -I started the class off by asking for suggestions from the students -I noticed that by giving them a task and walking through it with them really helps in keeping on task -I told them they could work alone or in partners if the noise level rose they would have to work alone -I did whisper in their ear -keeping the disciplinary talk only between us -I should have started the lesson with individual practice  88  -1 should have had 3 people in a group -they seem to work better in small groups -1 like to have them work in groups -the groups worked better than 1 had expected perhaps because 1 specifically said what 1 was looking for. -1 wanted them to work together as a team that was not competing against anyone else -a talk had to be given about how we treat others -try small group activities during centres -1 had to talk to them about 'booing' -class tended to talk too much because they were excited try to tell everyone about their experiences -1 asked a couple to peer edit -students help develop criteria  3. conditional -the students will enjoy sharing with a partner -it seems its easier to take -it also clarifies what they're doing -it seems to be more important to make sense to a peer than a teacher -makes them more aware of what's expected -they seem to enjoy it and 1 like to listen B. STUDENT TEACHER POSITION 4. confidence -what did you think of my self assessment? -1 wasn't so nervous today and the students are beginning to come around and treat me as their teacher -thank you for giving me the chance to monitor centres by myself -I'd like to continue taking more responsibility for the class and possibly try doing the majority of one day on my own and see how it goes -thank you this was getting to me and it will work well for art -it was just like you were there when 1 had the class -they were good and definitely looked at me as their teacher - this area (math) terrifies me 5. risk-control -it was a good test and 1 appreciate your confidence in me -where do 1 find you if 1 lose it? -1 demanded and expected more of them today -they love to talk about themselves  and moved into partner practice -if they had any questions to ask a peer -1 need to be careful with the grouping of certain students some work better when not around others -1 sometimes tell him he will have to try or work by himself -one mistake 1 made was pairing 2 students together again after they didn't work well with each other the other day -next time 1 will take more time to introduce a stations like this one -I'll also model -the student were working in their groups doing little experiments very cooperatively -yes we did a jigsaw -feedback from student groups -students said they preferred group work to individual work -they did a wonderful job of asking the presenting group questions -maybe it may have been the partners bad pairings -they had the opportunity to do it themselves -1 will use pair share to boost student involvement -groups who have problems can learn from other groups  -after realizing that fear of failure is real -1 feel very comfortable and confident with them -1 thought the class was easy to handle today probably due to myself feeling more comfortable -the math lesson went well -tomorrow 1 wouldn't mind if you left so 1 and the students get a sense of what its like without another teacher in the room -I'm so worried that I'm going to forget something -when P(supervisor) is here 1 tend to increase my use of improper terms -1 would like to be in charge of the speech arts festival -my speech was slower today probably because 1 wasn't nervous-not being formally evaluated  -1 just have to take control and relax -changes in behaviour were rambunctious at first, then about 2 minutes into reading the students sat quietly and read really well -1 was terrible 1 was mainly trying to control the class  89  6. experience -its one thing to walk in teach a lesson then leave but its another to move from subject to subject -1 think the transition is coming -the kids seem to be moving with me fairly well -1 need consequences for individual behaviour 7. personal ego-power -it is nice to have times where 1 am left in charge alone because 1 really like to feel like 1 am in charge -1 think it also has an impact on the kids because if they need something or have a question they know that 1 am the one that is here to help them -it gets me excited and dreamy about having my own class -also it helps the kids to respect me as another teacher just like transitions do -since 1 have been doing more of those transitions 1 can notice a positive difference 8. observation -its awful to see yourself on VCR  9 . sponsor teacher expectations -can we go over the math for next week? -is this okay to get bright students who are finished to help out students who are behind? -thanks for all the freedom in your class -1 am going to expect the same classroom behaviour as Y does and get it -1 see what you mean about the group not working well together C SCHOOL COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS 10. justification -I should not assume as much as I do 11. parent/principal/pupil concerns  -I feel like I'm asking for far too much help -it was good to see the success because I didn't have to be there to show them step by step  -I really enjoy the feeling of having them alone -the more I have them the better -trust me, if I feel that I am being abandoned I'll let you know -but I really like having them alone -I really enjoy having the class alone -It feels more like they are mine  -I think the team teaching approach is going to be a very positive experience for me and I hope for you -I find it very helpful when you just come in during my lesson or add to it -I need you to observe too because you give great feedback -maybe you could peek in at the start, middle, and closure? -was assigning the project for homework appropriate? -T. suggested that I model -I keep forgetting to ask what you do with the math marks -thanks for the freedom to rearrange the room  -yesterday a parent and I came up with a consequence for her son  12. tradition D. STRUCTURAL FEATURES 13. physical -this group is a bit too active to try and keep everyone quiet while all spread out 14. organizational -I forgot about buddies -I like the way the afternoon went allowing them to have some free time -learn to read the class -be flexible  -I gave the groups 2 0 minutes -something at each centre may have been too much -centres are tiring and take a lot of work to set up -the PE lesson was fun and I was able to do a checklist of two skills -I agree about the pairing next time I will try  90 -1 discussed how to work cooperatively -1 enjoyed seeing the small groups alone and it really gave me an opportunity to see personalities -tomorrow 1 will use groups to do manipulatives that will help for problem solving -next time 1 would eliminate the outside station and extend some others -could have shortened the time use by using partners to brainstorm 15. time -best of all I got through everything on time -I didn't think I was going to have this much time -should have set up enough time for all of them to read their poems -there was not enough time -I wanted to spend time on things the kids brought up -I ran out of time for them to finish their poems E. ASSUMPTIONS 16.  writing is concrete  17.  writing is easier to evaluate  -I will try your suggestion about waiting to explain -setting clear expectations for them -when do you assess their progress when they are constantly lining up? -how do you find time to work with your progress evaluations?  -but I didn't get to record observations of the kids -we were only able to go through each station once -I felt myself being very rushed because of time -lesson was rushed due to time -but that is not a big deal we will have plenty of time -it seems like there is so much to do and not time -I am not going to get through all the topics I have to -I'm scared we won't get through everything -how fast the day goes and there is not enough time  18. evaluating speaking more time consuming than evaluating writing speaking is difficult to evaluate 20.  speech not recoverable  21. oral interpretations more subjective 22. recording unnatural/inauthentic 23. age  differences  24. teacher position 'on stage' -I want them to know that I am not a teacher god  -1 was shocked by student demonstrations -I didn't have to be there to show them step by step -they did a wonderful job of asking questions  School community expectations and  assumptions revealed in the dialogue journal  comments were minimal. Factors, Categories and Descriptors The  purpose of this investigation was  to identify and describe factors which  student teachers perceived of as affecting oral interactivity within the classroom. Through analysis of the interview comments, factors and  categories emerged  which were subsequently used to cluster the dialogue journal comments. With confirmation of the organizational format from the analysis of interview and  91 dialogue journal comments it became possible to identify and describe each factor (See  Figure 4.1).  ROLE Confidence Risk/Control Experience Personal power Observations Sponsor expectations  KNOWLEDGE Declarative Procedural Conditional  Categories & Factors STRUCTURES Physical Organizational Temporal SCHOOL COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS Justification Stakeholder concerns Tradition  Figure 4.1.  ASSUMPTIONS Intangibility Assessment difficulty (S) Time constraints Subjectivity Age variables Threatens status quo Assessment ease (W) Recoverability Authenticity  The factors and categories  The labels were constructed to reflect the defining characteristics of each factor as they emerged from the refinement process of student teacher comments in the interviews and dialogue journals. They are not a static label but remain a flexible indication of the essence of the factors and categories which emerged (Ely, et al. ,1991). Each description is a paraphrased statement which gives the factor a core rationale (See  Table 4.5).  These descriptors which reflect student  teacher perceptions, were formulated after the factors and categories were  92 constructed, and  as such are a unique feature of ethnographic research. The  stage analytic procedure resulted in the identification and  description of 24 factors  clustered into five categories. Table 4.5. Factors. Categories and Descriptors CATEGORIES & FACTORS A. KNOWLEDGE 1. declarative - knowing that -aware  2. procedural -knowing how -marking criteria -how to record -technological know how -management of tapes, machines -knowledge of group processes -pupil experience  3. conditional -knowing why certain conditions are conducive to oral interactions and others are not  B. STUDENT TEACHER POSITION 4. confidence 5.  risk-control  6.  experience  7.  personal ego-power  8.  observation (students/pupils)  9.  sponsor teacher expectations  C. SCHOOL COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS 10. justification 11.  parent/principal/children concerns  12. tradition  two-  DESCRIPTORS -having been made aware of or having oral work demonstrated or modeled or experienced -having experienced setting up marking criteria for speaking. Physically recording anecdotal formative data . Aware/experienced in recording group processes, editing, selecting, evaluating, managing tape portfolios, -experience in setting up groups, criteria, choices, roles, a structure, monitoring efficiently/effectively, understanding social nature of learning -aware of the conditions necessary for effective orally interactive strategies -aware of conditions for positive oral response student teachers use the practicum experience to move through stages of ego needs, management needs and finally learner needs. -the practicum experience reveals much concern about 'how am I doing?'. Once personal needs are met management and learner needs become the more dominant focus. -referral to novice status, questioning personal strengths, decisions, -personal power/control/management, questions -being observed, self-conscious, focus on self initially, acting out, -tone, noise, productivity, evaluation, physical arrangement of desks, displays, student movement,  -much of what a student does is motivated by a desire to please forces outside of self. -societal expectations as portrayed in the media, as expressed by parents, their own experience as students, and historical paradigms that influence their actions. -the status quo  93  D. STRUCTURAL FEATURES 13. physical  14.  organizational  15. time E. ASSUMPTIONS 16. writing is concrete 17.  writing is easier to evaluate  18. evaluating speaking more time consuming than evaluating writing 19.  speaking is difficult to evaluate  20.  speech not recoverable  21.  oral interpretation  22.  recording  more subjective  unnatural/inauthentic  23.  age differences  24.  teacher position 'on stage'  -the arrangements of the desks, displays, location of classroom affect the possibility of oral interaction. -the organization of time, subjects, integration, platooning, outside of the classroom -set approaches to curriculum within the classroom i.e. individual/group/partner strategies -the 6 week practicum, the 5 hour, 5 days per week, to cover perceived curriculum -not recognizing the interpretive characteristics of all communication spoken or written -inconsistent comparison of spoken and written evaluation criteria - recording/evaluating observations more time consuming than recording/marking written assignments -inability/inexperience of setting criteria/processes to evaluate spoken communication -technology not accessible, inexperience with audio/video within classroom contexts -assuming that what occurs in speech is more subject to interpretation than writing -spoken records of thought not equated with written records of thought -performance on tape contrasted with performance on paper -assuming that speech is more acceptable for younger children and writing more indicative of mature pupils -that pupils' talk valued if monitored -evaluation mandated teacher as focal point -teacher to ensure talk was 'on task'  C o m m e n t Distribution An examination of the frequency of comments distributed between the five categories provided additional investigative data for analysis. Interview c o m m e n t distribution. The percentage of responses per category reflected in student teacher comments m a d e during the interview are s h o w n in Figure 4 . 1 . Knowledge responses  (37%),  m o s t of which were procedural, dominate student teacher  94 perceptions of factors affecting oral interactions within the classroom. These are followed in order by responses which suggest that their position or role as student teachers (23%), assumptions about orality as opposed to literacy based instruction (16%), structural concerns (12%), and school community concerns (12%).  Structure  12%  Position/Role  2 3 %  Figure 4.2.  Percentage of interview responses per category  Dialogue journal c o m m e n t distribution. The percentage of comments per category that student teachers m a d e in their dialogue journals referring to oral interactivity in the classroom are shown in Figure 4.3.  The largest n u m b e r of comments student teacher m a d e were related  to knowledge issues (40%)  followed by a large n u m b e r of c o m m e n t s related to  their position as apprentices (35%). Structural comments (21%), especially those related to time, were followed by a few comments regarding assumptions (3%) and school community concerns (1%).  95  Assumptions 3% Str uctur e 21%  Community  1%  Knowledge 40%  Position/Role 35%  Figure 4.3.  Percentage of dialogue journal responses per category  Questionnaire Results The  limited value of the questionnaire, addressed previously, is largely due  to the numbers of responses in the second term. However, although lesser in value, the results reveal another m o r e quantitative perspective from the interview and  dialogue journal comments. The  results of the questionnaire are reported in  graph form by order of question from #1 to #10  and  are recorded for each of  two  terms by the n u m b e r of students selecting degrees of agreement or disagreement on a five-point scale. This is followed by a summative graph where the compiled results of all ten questions are displayed. Figure 4.4 illustrates the range of responses student teachers m a d e to  the  statement that, P ' upils learn a great deal speaking with each other.' Between the end  of term 1 and  term 2, students responded m o r e strongly in favour of  student speaking to each other. The  the  change is represented by equal numbers for  agreement or strong agreement after the first term ( 6 / 1 6 ) compared to larger numbers strongly agreeing (4/6)  and  less numbers agreeing (2/6)  after the second  96  i3  I  6.00 5.00  • Term 1 • Term 2  tn 4.00 °  3.00  v  2.00  i  i.oo  fc* * ;  •a 1  Strongly  2  3  Agree  —  4 Strongly  5 Disagree  Figure 4.4. #1 Pupils learn a great deal w h e n speaking with each other, term. This change to agreement or strong agreement is also s h o w n by no ambivalent responses after term 2 in comparison to s o m e agreement and disagreement after the first term. Figure 4.5 illustrates the range of responses student teachers m a d e to the statement that, C ' ollaborative tasks are not efficient.' Over the course of two terms  7.00 c T3 3  +J  00  6.00  • Term 1 • Term 2  5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00  J Q  E  1.00  Z  1  Strongly  2  3  Agree  —  4 Strongly  5 Disagree  Figure 4.5. #2 Collaborative tasks are not efficient. students changed from s o m e in disagreement ( 2 / 1 6 ) or ambivalence ( 3 / 1 6 ) after the first term to most disagreeing (4/6)  and s o m e strongly disagreeing (2/6) after  97 the second term. Increasingly students saw  collaborative tasks as m o r e efficient  and after the second term none thought of collaboration as inefficient for the tasks at hand. Figure 4.6 illustrates the range of student teacher responses to the statement that, Teacher instruction is m o r e effective than pupil collaboration.' A large n u m b e r of students replied ambivalently after the first term ( 1 2 / 1 6 ) whereas only half (3/6)  were similarly ambivalent after the second practicum.  Increasingly students teachers recognized pupil collaboration as an effective m e a n s of school achievement. This is evident in the numbers of students in disagreement after the first term (3/16) compared with students in disagreement after the second term (3/6)  12.00 c •D  10.00  n Term 1  3  4-1  8.00  o </)  6.00  k_  0 Term 2  4.00  E 3  '  mm*  <D  2.00  m 1  2  3  Strongly  Agree  •—-  4 Strongly  I  , -,eJI ; 5 Disagree  Figure 4.6. #3 Teacher instruction is m o r e effective than pupil collaboration. Figure 4.7 illustrates the range of student responses to the statement that, C ' ollaboration is an effective communication skill that pupils should learn in school.' Results after term 1 ( 1 5 / 1 6 ) and term 2 (6/6)  indicate that students saw  and continued to see collaboration as a skill to be taught in school. Very few  98 students were ambivalent about collaboration being taught as an effective skill in school after the first term ( 1 / 1 6 ) but none were ambivalent after completing the second term.  w c  V "D  3  4-1  10.00 8.00  V)  6.00  o <> /  4.00  .£)  2.00  0)  E  • Term 1 E Term 2  _n  3  1  2  3  Strongly  Agree  —  4  5  Strongly  Disagree  Figure 4.7. #4 Collaboration is an effective communication skill that pupils should learn in school. Figure 4.8 illustrates the range of student responses to the statement that, P ' upils in collaborative groups need continuous monitoring.' Student responses indicate that approximately half (8/15) agreed strongly with this statement after  c 73 3 10  V XI  E 3  7.00  r  6.00  --  5.00  -  4.00  • Term 1 '•Term 2  -  3.00  -  2.00  -  1.00  -  n 1  Strongly  3  Agree  •—  4  Strongly  5  Disagree  Figure 4.8. #5 Pupils in collaborative groups need continuous monitoring.  99 term 1 and one-third (2/6)  did so after term 2. This small decrease in agreement is  countered with an increased disagreement after term 2 (1/15  to 2/6).  Continuous  monitoring of groups seemed to be viewed as less necessary after term 2. Figure 4.9 illustrates the range of student responses to the statement that, Talk or speech is a child's most effective communication tool.' Although some students disagreed ( 3 / 1 5 ) with this statement after the first term, after term 2 m o s t agreed or agreed strongly (4/6). Furthermore, none disagreed after the second term, however, ambivalence increased s o m e w h a t (4/15  <> /  5.00  •S  4.00  • Term 1 I  3.00  • Term 2)_  c 3  «  2.00  -°  1.00  to  2/6).  2  1 Strongly  Figure 4.9.  2  3  Agree  —  4 Strongly  5 Disagree  #6 Talk or speech is a childs ' most effective communication tool.  Figure 4.10  illustrates the range of student responses to the statement that,  G ' roup w o r k requires m u c h prior preparation and  teaching.' Student responses  indicate m o r e agreement after term 1 (7/15) than after term 2 (2/6), however, more students disagreed with this statement after the second term (3/6  compared to  1 / 1 5 ) . Ambivalence, regarding the effort required for preparing and teaching group w o r k decreased significantly after the second term (8/15  compared to  1/6).  100  8.00 c 7.00 Ta> 3 3 6.00 (/) 5.00  -,  u-  | j-  V)  O 4.00 in t_ 3.00 a) ja 2.00  j-  • Term 1  -  • Term 2  +  |  E i.oo -; 3  z  -t-  Figure 4.10.  1  2  3  Strongly  Agree  —  4 Strongly  5 Disagree  #7 Group w o r k requires m u c h prior preparation and teaching.  Figure 4.11  illustrates the range of student responses to the statement that,  C ' hildrens ' speech informs their writing.' A large n u m b e r of students were ambivalent in their responses after the first term (12/16) but none were so after their second term. Increasingly, students agreed with this statement. After the second term, all students responded positively to this statement (6/6). Interestingly, none disagreed with this statement after either term.  <> /  12.00  |  10.00 • Term 1  3  oo  *->  8.00  o  6.00  </>  <u  4.00  E  2.00  BTerm 2 i  3  Figure 4.11.  1  2  Strongly  Agree  4 Strongly  5 Disagree  #8 Childrens ' speech informs their writing.  101 Figure 4.12  illustrates the range of student responses to the statement that,  P ' otential group problems m u s t be solved beforehand.' N o n e disagreed with this statement after either term. The change after term 1 to after term 2 shows an inconclusive response indicated by an increase in strong agreement (2/6 compared to 3/16)  and a decrease in agreement (8/16  to 2/6). Ambivalence  remained essentially similar after each of the two terms (5/16  8.00 c 7.00 -o 6.00 3 *-> 5.00 4.00 3.00 CD X! 2.00 E 1.00  compared to  2/6).  • Term 1 HTetm 2  -4-  1  2  Strongly  Figure 4.12.  3  Agree  4 Strongly  5 Disagree  #9 Potential group problems m u s t be solved beforehand.  Figure 4.13  illustrates the range of student responses to the statement that,  C ' ollaborative tasks are effective.' Decrease occurred both in ambivalence (2/16 compared to 0/6) and agreement ( 1 0 / 1 6 compared to 2/6) after the second term. However, strong agreement (3/16  compared to 4/6) increased significantly while  the total numbers of agreement increased s o m e w h a t ( 1 3 / 1 6 compared to 6/6) after the second term. Notably, only one student disagreed with this statement after the first term and none did so after the second term. Ambivalence decreased after the second term (2/16  to  0/6).  102  <* c T3 3  10.00 8.00  • Term 1  4-1  Q Term 2  6.00 o Vt  cu E  4.00  •  2.00  Figure 4.13.  1  2  Strongly  Agree  #10  n  4 Strongly  5 Disagree  Collaborative tasks are effective.  Bearing in mind the limitations of sample size and the use of percentages, w h e n questionnaire responses favouring oral interactions are aligned and negative ones reversed, the compiled responses indicate an increasing agreement with oral interactions (Figure 4.14). The  percentages represent a  comparison of frequency of responses compared to the total frequency of responses for all 10 questions in that term. First term responses indicate m o r e ambivalence (35%  S  compared to 17%)  and disagreement (46%  5 0  Vt  o  CL  40 • Term 1 ,  Vt  22  30 20  I  a Term 2  Sri  10  w-  n  J  IV  Q_  1 Strongly  Figure 4.14.  2 Agree  3 —  4 Strongly  5 Disagree  Compilation of questionnaire responses.  compared to  8%)  103 whereas the second term responses indicate m o r e strong agreement (16% compared to 29%) and agreement (26% compared to 39%). Follow-up Interview Results The follow-up interviews took place approximately one year later with t w o volunteer students, one male and one female w h o had participated in the initial phases of the study. The process of analysis and the resulting 24 factors in 5 categories were identified and described to the participants and comments were invited. In general, both participants commented that the process and resulting research findings were confirming. Neither student found factors, categories or descriptors to be disagreeable or contentious. C o m m e n t s recorded here reflect  the elaboration of specific aspects of the analysis or results m a d e by the students on audio-tape (See Table 4.6). The m o s tc o m m o n response was assent in the form of o ' kay' or a ' h ha.' Knowledge concerns generated the largest n u m b e r of responses. For  example, student A c o m m e n t e d that 'It is not surprising that orality is not treated a a valid w a y of learning,' adding that W ' e havent ' been taught to use talk as a vehicle to learn so w h y would w e do it w h e nw e teach?' This same student reflected a lack of declarative knowledge b y saying, 'It didnt ' occur to m e to use talk.' Student B c o m m e n t e d that, I 'nstructors think theyv ' e given us all this information, so n o ww e should be ready,' implying a transmission approach to teaching. More specifically, procedural knowledge was addressed w h e n  student B commented, T ' hey give you lots of ideas but you dont ' really get to try t h e m out until the practicum.'  104 Table 4.6. Follow-up Interview Comments bv Category CATEGORIES KNOWLEDGE  STUDENT A COMMENTS -knowledge factors are least surprising  STUDENT B COMMENTS -I t h i n k t h e y g i v e y o u l o t s of i d e a s b u t  - n o n e of u s h a v e b e e n t a u g h t t h a t orality i s  y o u d o n ' t r e a l l y g e t to try t h e m o u t  a v a l i d w a y of l e a r n i n g  - y o u k n o w the p r o c e d u r e s but y o u  - w e h a v e n ' t b e e n t a u g h t to u s e talk a s a  d o n ' t k n o w if t h e y w o r k  v e h i c l e to l e a r n  -I a g r e e that s e e m s to b e t h e b i g g e s t  - w e h a v e n ' t d o n e it in o u r l i v e s s o w h y w o u l d  area  (procedural)  w e d o it w h e n w e t e a c h ? - c o u l d h a v e d o n e it b u t it d i d n ' t o c c u r to m e - k n o w l e d g e s e e m s b i g g e r t h a n it s h o u l d c o n s i d e r i n g that w e just g r a d u a t e d  STUDENT TEACHER POSITION  - d e p e n d s o n the s p o n s o r  - d u r i n g m e n t o r s h i p w e c o u l d j u s t sit at  - c o u l d n ' t d o it in s o m e s i t u a t i o n s  the b a c k  t r y i n g to b l e n d y o u r v i e w s with y o u r s p o n s o r  - m e n t o r s h i p d a y s w e r e too undirected  is i m p o r t a n t  SCHOOL COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS  - s u r p r i s e d at t h e c o m m u n i t y c o n c e r n s  - w e n t in o n o u r o w n (4th  - a s long a s kids are learning why would y o u  - w e r e n ' t a c c o u n t a b l e f o r o u r visit  be concerned?  - a c h e c k m a r k w o u l d h a v e m a d e it  year)  m o r e valid  STRUCTURAL FEATURES ASSUMPTIONS  N o c o m m e n t s - a s s e n t i.e. o k a y  N o c o m m e n t s - a s s e n t i.e. o k a y  -I'm n o t s u r p r i s e d at t h e s e  - y o u h a v e a lot of a s s u m p t i o n s  - w e ' v e g o t a l o n g w a y to g o a n d a lot to l e a r n  b e c a u s e y o u h a v e n ' t tried t h e m o u t  - i g n o r a n c e of w h a t ' s out t h e r e  - y o u a s s u m e t e a c h e r s k n o w that  - n o t s u r p r i s e d b e c a u s e o f w h o it c a m e f r o m  certain p r o c e d u r e s work  i.e. s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s  Role comments are evident in comments such as Trying to blend your views with your sponsor is important for both to be happy' (Student A). In some sponsors' classrooms, student A commented, 'You couldn't have done it,' i.e., promoted oral interactions. School community concerns surprised student A who said, 'As far as I'm concerned a s long as the kids are learning that should be the main concern.' Neither student made comments regarding structural features even though the factors of time, physical layout, and organizational features were presented to  105 t h e m as issues raised in the interview and dialogue journals. Both students indicated their agreement with the identification of structural factors with o ' kay.' Assumptions were c o m m e n t e d on by both students and most specifically b y student A w h o suggested that student teachers without experience have m a n y  such assumptions about ways of teaching and learning. This was stressed by the  use of the word I 'gnorance' w h e n describing student teachers w h o D ' ont ' have the experience.' Student B c o m m e n t e d that because of their lack of practical experience approaches to the practicum are filled with L ' ots of assumptions.'  In summary, the results reported here are the outcome of stage one and t w of a three-stage analytic procedure as suggested b y Goetz and LeCompte (1984). In addressing stages one and t w o in this manner, links between data decisions, collection procedures, and analysis are maintained. Comments m a d e in the interviews, dialogue journals, and follow-up interviews are reported in a format derived from the analysis of interview responses. The results reported here are identified and described as the factors affecting oral interactivity in the practicum classroom.  106 Chapter 5 Analysis, Interpretation and Integration Links between data decisions, collection procedures, and analysis are intentionally maintained throughout this chapter which addresses the third and final stage of the three-stage ethnographic model introduced earlier (Goetz &  LeCompte, 1984). This third stage of analysis includes further analysis of the data and its interpretation as well as the integration of oral interactions into a unified pedagogical perspective. This unified perspective views knowledge construction through oral interaction as a conversation. The metaphor of conversation provides a exclusive perspective from which to describe knowledge construction in the classroom. Successful conversations in the classroom require participants to share some c o m m o n understandings, s o m e of which have been identified by student teachers. This investigation views these understandings as key issues requiring attention if the potential of classroom conversations are to be effective for teaching and learning. If conversations for knowledge construction are the goal, then the identification of factors student teacher perceive as affecting such oral interactions becomes worthwhile. Student teachers perceived the conditions necessary to promote conversations in the classroom to include the 24 factors identified in the five categories of knowledge, role or position, community expectations, structural features, and assumptions. This chapter utilizes the five categories of factors identified previously as the organizational framework for this third stage of analysis, interpretation and  107 integration. While analysis and interpretation of interviews, dialogue journals, questionnaires, and follow-up interviews constitutes the major portion of this  chapter, the results of the four data sets are w o v e n into a fabric which views oral interaction in the classroom as a conversation. Knowledge O n e category of factors that student teachers perceive affects the implementation of more orally interactive classrooms concerned knowledge. Most remarkable was the nature and n u m b e r of knowledge c o m m e n t s raised. Indeed, the largest n u m b e r of comments in the interviews and dialogue journals were m a d e in regards to knowledge (Figures 4.3 and 4.4). S o m e knowledge interview comments contained notes of surprise that oral interaction was effective and valued b y pupils, yet students were not sure why. Although student responses indicated that they lacked some knowledge, it was also readily apparent during the interviews, especially after the second practicum, that m a n y had become m o r e aware of the effectiveness of interactive pupil talk (declarative) and h o w this talk could be m a n a g e d m o r e effectively (procedural). W h a t is apparent from both sets of interviews, the dialogue journals, and questionnaires is that student teachers possess varying degrees of declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge of pupil talk as a means for constructing knowledge in the classroom. W h a t also seems apparent is an increased predisposition to oral interactions w h e n total responses to the questionnaire are compiled (Figure 4.14). However, even after the second  108 practicum, students expressed the need for m o r e knowledge to be effective in establishing m o r e orally interactive classrooms. The analysis, interpretation, and integration of knowledge factors into a conversational metaphor follows and constitutes one of the major categories of factors affecting the implementation of strategies which would incorporate m o r e pupil talk in classrooms for knowledge construction. Declarative knowledge. Student teachers' interview comments indicated that they were not aware of the potential of oral interactions for knowledge construction. This lack of declarative knowledge (Pintrich, 1990) was evident w h e n students indicated that they had never experienced or observed classrooms where talk was valued, deliberately encouraged, or evaluated, e.g., "Iv ' e never seen it w o r k or seen the value in it" (Table 4.3, Factor 1). Yet students' recognition of the value of orality is reflected in their dialogue  journal comments which regard active learning as a key to pupil involvement, e.g., "Do something a little m o r e active" (Table 4.4, Factor 1). This recognition occurred alongside the realization that too m u c h teacher  talk, not enough pupil talk, e.g., " I should have allowed them to talk more" and, talked too much" would be less effective for oral interaction (Table 4.4, Factor 1). This perspective is further supported by questionnaire responses that view childrens ' speech as informative of their writing. After two terms of practice teaching students responded in agreement that, "Childrens ' speech informs their writing" (Figure 4.11). Student teachers were not ambivalent about the value of  109 speech after the second practicum. This view concurs with Keithley (1992), w h o suggests that speaking figures significantly w h e n pupils seek to improve their writing. Increasing agreement with pupils speaking to each other was indicated in questionnaire responses to the statement that, "Pupils learn a great deal from speaking to each other" (Figure 4.4). This gain in declarative knowledge is likely the most influential feature increasing student teacher agreement with the efficiency of collaboration (Figure 4.5). Student teacher interview responses indicated that their most c o m m o n  experience was one of the teacher talking and pupils listening because pupils are expected to receive and reproduce content. To consider pupils capable of learning through deliberately encouraged conversations appeared as, "A whole  n e ww a y to learn" (Table 4.3, Factor 1). In their pre-practicum preparation course most teaching was done through teacher talk, implicitly modeling a strategy to be replicated w h e n students entered their practicum classroom. Yet after their second term, students agreed that, "Talk or speech is a childs ' most effective communication tool" (Figure 4.9). However, this increased agreement was countered b y an increase in ambivalence to children speaking which m a y have arisen from a change in student teacher perspectives of m a n a g e m e n t occurring during the practicum experience. The possibility that an orally interactive model was an option had not  occurred to s o m e students, e.g., " I hadnt ' even thought about it" (Table 4.3, Facto  1). In the interviews they c o m m e n t e d that they had not seen such a classroom no  110 had they experienced such a learning environment, a claim also m a d e b y Craig, et al., (1994). In their dialogue journals students indicated surprise at pupil knowledge, e.g., " I was shocked b y student demonstrations" and "They k n e w lots  and had good ideas" or, "They figured out the experiment before I did" (Table 4 Factor 1). This awareness in itself signals an increase in declarative knowledge. O n e students ' journal expressed pleasant surprise at h o w pupils, "Clapped for each group demonstration" (Table 4.4, Factor 1) perhaps in unconscious recognition of each others ' oral contribution to knowledge construction. Such comments indicate that students were becoming aware of the value of talk, pupils' increased sense of ownership, and pupils taking responsibility w h e n they were permitted to participate actively. Witnessing these explorations of ideas through talk contributed to the student teachers' desire to acquire m o r e declarative knowledge regarding classroom conversations. In their questionnaire responses, student teachers indicated an increasing awareness that oral interaction of pupils was an effective and efficient means of knowledge construction (Figures 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.13). Their dialogue journals, written during the practicum, revealed an increasing awareness of the value of oral interaction as the practicum progressed. Yet some interview comments indicate an unawareness of talk as valuable for knowledge construction and that this approach was a n ' ovel' teaching method. That as student teachers they had  not experienced nor been exposed to such an approach was also confirmed in th follow-up interviews (Table 4.6, Category A). They m a y have thought that increased oral interaction would conflict with the accepted models of pedagogy.  111 It seems that there was insufficient knowledge that oral interactivity was effective prior to the practicum and that student teachers discovered this declarative knowledge as the practicum progressed. This lack of experience was  m o s t directly addressed in the interviews where a lack of confidence and the need for control were indicators of a defensive stance taken by student teachers. This was confirmed in the post-analysis interview c o m m e n t that, " W e havent ' been  taught to use talk as a vehicle to learn" (Table 4.6, Category A). Although students as learners preferred working in orally interactive groups, as teachers designing  lessons for others, they, initially at least, relied on lessons with a predominance of didactic strategies where control and confidence would be assured (Mahlios & Maxson, 1995). This student teacher insecurity and the all-consuming concern with themselves (personal ego-power needs) is echoed in other studies (McDermott et  al., 1995). It seems to be a required step through which student teachers need t pass and before they proceed to the m a n a g e m e n t of pupils and then attend to pupils' learning needs. To design an efficient and effective environment of oral interactions, declarative knowledge is necessary. Without the knowledge that conversational involvement is a potent means of teaching and learning, student teachers will continue to view talk as a neutral, if not negative activity. During the two terms students increasingly recognized pupil conversational involvement as a means to harness pupil interest for knowledge construction.  112 Procedural knowledge. Conversational involvement requires not only the knowledge that (declarative) oral interaction is effective for teaching and learning but also knowledge of h o w (procedural) to implement such conversations (Pintrich, 1990).  O n e of the m o r e interesting findings of this investigation was the prolific n u m b e r of knowledge comments m a d e concerning students' lack of such procedural expertise. Another interesting finding was that m o s t concerns with procedural knowledge involved grouping processes. For m a n y student teachers the oral interactions of pupils produced unexpected positive discoveries; for some, they produced concerns. Student interview comments spoke of not having experienced or observed such a classroom or of the lack of resources for  evaluation, e.g., " I dont ' k n o wh o w I would measure it [talk]" (Table 4.3, Factor Most knowledge comments in the interviews (40/44) and dialogue journals ( 4 0 / 6 5 ) were concerned with procedural issues (Table 4.3, Factor 2; Table 4.4, Factor 2). In the follow-up interviews comments concerning procedural knowledge were also the m o s t prolific (Table 4. 6). Procedural comments in the interviews addressed concerns with the technological difficulties of recording speech, relying on m e m o r y for recording speakers and content, and not having the evaluative criteria for assessing spoken events. The logistical m a n a g e m e n t of equipment and tapes (both audio and video) for storage, seemed to be a  challenge, e.g., "So w h a t do you do with all the tapes" or, "It would take all day (Table 4.3, Factor 2).  113 The major aspect of procedural knowledge raised by students was their concern with creating, monitoring, and evaluating groups. As the practicum proceeded, students' dialogue journals indicated that the teaching strategies chosen influenced the involvement or lack of involvement of their pupils. As they became aware of the value of oral interaction they began to recognize the need for procedural planning which encouraged m o r e pupil interaction. With their increased knowledge, confidence, and experience, students became more able to capitalize on the pupils' sense of ownership and responsibility (Table 4.4, Factor 2). Grouping pupils, structuring varieties of tasks, making physical arrangements, and monitoring pupil progress were s o m e of the aspects of procedural knowledge concerns that the practicum brought into sharp focus. Student teachers modified t ' raditional' strategies by allowing pupils to take a test orally instead of relying on deficient written skills, having pupils rephrase teacher instructions for their peers, requesting suggestions from pupils for learning procedures, and encouraging pupils to consult with peers. Collectively, these strategies revealed a developing recognition by student teachers of the value of pupil interactions in the classroom and procedures to m a k et h e m effective. Student questionnaire responses disagreed m o r e with, "Group w o r k requires m u c h prior preparation" (Figure 4.10), after the second term ( 3 / 6 compared to 3 / 1 6 ) than in the first term. One might presume that with m o r e procedural experience the student teachers' knowledge of h o w groups function, adapt, and vary in their approaches to task completion increased from the first  114 term to the second. More consequential is the m o v e m e n t a w a y from ambivalency toward disagreement after the second term ( 8 / 1 5 compared to 1 / 6 ) . It could be surmised that with experience students k n e ww h a t to prepare ahead of time and w h a t could be worked out within the classroom. Furthermore, their change in response is indicative of the confidence they had gained to deal with procedural issues as they appeared within the classroom. The questionnaire responses to, "Potential group problems m u s t be solved beforehand" (Figure 4.12), indicate increasing procedural knowledge gained from classroom experience and subsequent teacher preparation. The use of the word p ' otential' implies knowing and solving beforehand, yet experience allowed students to wait and see w h a t would develop. This increased confidence acquired through experience is certainly an explanation for the results of the second term. Although the ambivalent responses after both terms remained essentially the same (ambivalence, 5 / 1 6 compared to 2 / 6 ) this was countered by decrease in agreement ( 8 / 1 6 compared to 2/6). This suggests that students' increasing procedural knowledge allowed t h e m to view some issues as being m o r e effectively solved within the classroom rather than planning for them ahead of time. Comments in dialogue journals raised procedural concerns regarding types of groupings and sizes of pupil groups, e.g., " I had to be careful w h e n pairing students" and, " I should have had three people in a group" (Table 4.4, Factor 2). Observations of procedures that seemed to be effective were also made, e.g., "They w o r k effectively w h e n they choose their o w n partners." It  115 became apparent that expectations of task completion and setting of criteria required modeling, demonstrations, and class discussion before groups could be expected to w o r k on their own. Questionnaire responses indicated that most student teachers were ambivalent about, "Teacher instruction is m o r e effective than pupil collaboration" after the first practicum (Figure 4.6). However, with increased experience some student teachers (4 out of 6) became m o r e able to exploit the potential of pupil collaboration for constructing knowledge. These gains imply that increased experience resulted in gains in procedural competence w h e n managing groups. Responses to the statement, "Collaborative tasks are effective" seemed to reflect the procedural knowledge gains m a d e from term one to term t w o (Figure 4.13). Although agreement decreased somewhat, total agreement increased and ambivalence and disagreement disappeared completely after the second term indicating that increased experience seemed to increase procedural knowledge. Procedural knowledge gains are also indicated in students' dialogue  journal comments that addressed the need to teach pupils group social skills such  as maintaining eye contact, h o w to treat others, and to value other points of view. Students' journal comments indicate that they had expected groups to be  cooperative yet they often turned out to be rather competitive (Table 4.4, Factor 2) Students recorded procedural directives for groups in their journals that they had d ' iscovered,' for example, to introduce group activities b y taking m o r e time, doing fewer activities in one class, using smaller groups, and developing criteria for evaluation with the whole class (See Table 4.4, Factor 2). However, these gains  116 in procedural competence with groups did not allay student teachers' procedural concerns evident in their interview comments and questionnaire responses. Although student teachers had regularly participated in groups, they had seldom participated in actually organizing and sorting pupils. It seems that discussion about groups in non-practicum settings had not given t h e m as m u c h procedural knowledge as they required to confidently m a n a g e them. They felt they were often l 'earning on their feet' w h e n making group m a n a g e m e n t decisions. It seems that the actual implementation of group processes appeared in stark contrast to the theoretical discussions of grouping procedures in student teachers' preparatory courses. The frequently applauded strategy of grouping pupils had apparently not addressed the practical realities student teachers n o w faced in classrooms with live pupils. This continuing concern with procedural knowledge for managing oral interactions was also confirmed by students in the follow-up interviews. Student B supported Zeichner (1990) in a call for a practicum curriculum (Table 4.6). The development of procedures for managing orally interactive classrooms was supported by this student as one such practicum curriculum focus. Post-analysis interview comments also indicated that the lack of accountability during mentorship days could be alleviated by m o r e direction, i.e., a practicum curriculum. The d ' iscovery' that teaching required a c o m m i t m e n t to teaching interpersonal skills was another important finding. S o m e students expressed surprise  117 at having to teach pupils h o w to operate in groups rather than just h o w to manipulate information. Perhaps by design, teacher education programs seem destined to p ' lay school' as it were and students regarded role plays, dramatizations, and the creation of 'realistic' challenges as apparently frivolous until faced with the reality of 25 or m o r e 'live' pupils. These grouping concerns were intriguing considering the a m o u n t of time student teachers had been in groups themselves during pre-practicum courses, that they preferred this approach to learning themselves, and that most  classrooms they had observed had s o m e form of grouping in place. Perhaps they had not 'seen' the methods teachers used as pedagogically practical until they themselves were confronted with the task of managing classroom interactions. It seems that students conceived of their role as teacher to be teaching 'things' m u c h m o r e important than group process skills. This echoes the statement by Wells and Chang-Wells (1992) that talk is 'like a window' which teachers look through to address content, supposedly the real issues of teaching and learning. Although students saw value in group processes they felt they lacked sufficient procedural knowledge to implement them effectively. In summary, that conversational involvement in the classroom is an effective means to teach and learn is only part of the knowledge necessary to create orally interactive classrooms. Declarative knowledge requires procedural expertise to be effective. With increased experience student teachers gained s o m e procedural knowledge, yet they continued to express m o s t concern with their ability to do so in the interviews. In their dialogue journals students  118 recounted the procedural strategies used and d ' iscovered.' The questionnaire responses indicated increasing recognition of collaboration as an effective and efficient teaching procedure. Establishing classrooms which support such collaborative conversations requires sufficient procedural knowledge to m a n a g e pupil interactions efficiently and effectively. Conditional knowledge. To view conversational involvement as an effective m e a n s of knowledge construction requires declarative and procedural knowledge to be effective. However, conversational involvement for knowledge construction is further influenced by participant knowledge of w h e n and under w h a t conditions oral interactions most effectively occur (Pintrich, 1990). Declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge represent potent factors indicated by student teachers as necessary requirements for the successful implementation of orally interactive strategies. Although conditional knowledge issues were not raised in the interview, nor directly elicited from the questionnaires, they were included in the format expecting that they might appear. C o m m e n t s in support of conditional knowledge did appear in the dialogue journals and, therefore, the format for analysis derived from the interview data included a conditional knowledge factor. Inferences to conditional knowledge became evident in the assumptions where student teachers rationalized the omission of spoken dialogue, e.g., subjectivity of speech events, difficulty of capturing speech, interpretive variation (Table 4.3, Factors 16-24). The absence of comments regarding conditional  119 knowledge in the interviews is perhaps due to a lack of preconditions necessary for oral interactions, i.e., declarative and procedural knowledge are precursors to conditional knowledge. The dialogue journals indicated quite clearly that student teachers recognized conditions under which oral interactions were effective or not. This was perhaps due to the m o r e intimate view of the developing conditional knowledge perspectives of student teachers evident in the journals as each practicum proceeded. C o m m e n t s such as, "Students enjoy sharing with a partner" and, "Peer-editing seems easier to take for them," indicate the development of a rationale that oral interaction is a viable strategy under certain conditions for pupils to construct knowledge (Table 4.4, Factor 3). Student teachers increasingly recognized that their o w n wisdom was not  the definitive one. This reflects an increase in conditional knowledge, namely, that student involvement increases effectiveness and is confirmed b y comments such as, "Peer editing seems to clarify their thinking" and, "Its m o r e important to m a k e sense to a peer than a teacher." This view is corroborated by students' questionnaire responses that increasingly viewed pupils speaking to each other as an effective and efficient teaching and learning strategy (Figures 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.9, and 4.13). The inclusion of pupils when developing criteria was recognized, i.e., "Making t h e m [pupils] m o r e aware of whats ' expected" and showed an increasing c o m m i t m e n t of student teachers to developing strategies which involved pupils in structuring their o w n learning, a condition increasing the effectiveness of oral  120 interactions. Involvement of pupils in their o w n learning through oral interaction was also supported by positive student teacher questionnaire responses to conditions for collaboration and group formation (Figures 4.8 and 4.10). The identification of conditions conducive to oral knowledge construction became the reservoir of knowledge from which student teachers could rationalize the learning situations in their classrooms. In their journals student teachers seemed to recognize the increasing awareness of conditions under which knowledge construction would be more effective. C o m m e n t s such as, " I should have started the class with individual practice and then with partner practice" or, "Next time I'll take m o r e time to introduce the station," convey such an increase in conditional knowledge. Students also c o m m e n t e d that, "They [pupils] find it [correction] easier to take" or, "It [talk] clarifies w h a t theyr 'e doing," indicative of an increased knowledge of conditions under which oral interactions are effective (Table 4.4, Factor 2). Interestingly, interview comments often expressed concern with introducing m o r e oral interactions in the classroom, yet comments in the dialogue journals indicated quite clearly that m o r e effective teaching included allowing m o r e oral  interactions. Perhaps the nature of the interview resulted in a defensive stance for current student teacher practice, whereas the dialogue journal was a m o r e reflective medium, allowing students to revisit their teaching in a less threatening manner. In summary, dialogue journal comments revealed an increasing awareness of the need for conditional knowledge to implement orally interactive classroom  121 strategies. This increasing awareness of conditional knowledge was also reflected in the questionnaire responses. Student comments in the interviews were not as indicative of conditional knowledge as necessary for developing orally interactive classrooms. The student teachers' rationale for using talk or seeing value in talk revolved around the conditional knowledge that pupils enjoyed it, that it was easier to take correction from peers, that pupil talk clarified ideas effectively, and that peer comments were valued m o r e than a teachers ' . These conditions, deduced from practicum experiences, are congruent with socio-constructivist paradigms of learning and teaching presented in current foundational courses. In conclusion, it is not surprising that students indicated that their possession of the various forms of knowledge necessary to effectively implement oral interactivity in the classroom was insufficient. After all, these students were t ' eachers-in-training' or novices and their knowledge base was in its infancy. Although student teachers had experienced a variety of opportunities to learn in groups during their o w n education and had indicated a predisposition for oral interaction a m o n g pupils in the questionnaire, they expressed a surprising a m o u n t of concern w h e n attempting to implement orally interactive strategies in their o w n practicum classrooms. W h a t was informative were the n u m b e r and type of knowledge concerns which student teachers revealed, especially the large n u m b e r of concerns student teachers expressed regarding the procedural knowledge necessary to increase oral interactivity. To perceive conversational involvement as an effective means of  122 knowledge construction requires that the participants have the declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge necessary to establish such a learning environment. Student Teacher Position/Role Analysis of interview data suggests that a second category of factors plays an important part in determining the nature of the classroom environment (Table 4.4, Category B). If conversational involvement is regarded as a potentially effective means of knowledge construction in the classroom, the roles of the participants is crucial. Student teacher comments in the data sources indicate that their abilities to implement orally interactive strategies in the classroom are affected by their own confidence, experience, ability to control, meeting expectations, being observed, and meeting personal ego needs. Confidence, control, and experience. In their interview comments student teachers attributed their degree of confidence (Table 4.3; Factor 4), their ability to maintain control (Table 4.3, Factor 5), and their lack of experience (Table 4.3, Factor 6) as factors affecting the use of more orally interactive strategies. In dialogue journals student teachers reveal the perception of their role as a subordinate by thanking their sponsor for this experience, e.g., "Thank you for giving me a chance" and by asking for validation of particular strategies, "What did you think of . . . ." (Table 4.4, Factor 4). Student teachers' lack of experience became more apparent when students began to teach all day, including transitions, e.g., "Its quite another thing to move from subject to subject," and the recognition of their need for more  123 m a n a g e m e n t strategies, such as, " I need consequences for behaviour-any ideas?" However, students' increasing confidence was shown in their journals by  c o m m e n t s that asked for permission to have the w ' hole class' and to, "Try centres b y myself" or "Take m o r e responsibility for the class." After the second practicum student teachers' increasing confidence was indicated in that they were more able  to specify the areas of concern, e.g., term 1, " I guess, I dont ' know, maybe;" te "Fear of letting go blinds you" (Table 4.4). Increasingly these requests became more direct statements of declaration  such as, "I'd like to take charge of the . . ." and also statements of confidence such  as, " I feel very comfortable" or, " I thought the class was easy to handle" and eve " I wouldn t ' mind being left alone for the students' sake." This increased confidence became so apparent that one student identified herself as equal to the teacher, e.g., "Another teacher in the room" (Table 4.4, Factor 4). Although m o r e confident and experienced after the second practicum, student teacher responses to the questionnaire remained quite ambivalent concerning group monitoring, structuring, and preparation (Figure 4.6, 4.10, and 4.12). In their dialogue journals student teachers suggested that their lack of experience was a factor affecting the implementation of more orally interactive classrooms (Table 4.4, Factor 6). Yet they reflected an increasing sense of self-  awareness in their journals w h e n stating that, " I just have to take control and rela  (Table 4.4, Factor 5) or, " I feel I a m asking for too m u c h help" (Table 4.4, Fac  124 The role of the student teacher characterized b y factors of confidence, experience, and control, impinges heavily on any suggestion that pupils learn m o r e effectively (Figure 4.13) or efficiently (Figure 4.5) by speaking to each other (Figure 4.4). Student teachers' questionnaire responses also indicated that pupils learned a great deal from each other and by their second practicum student teachers concluded that collaborative tasks are both m o r e effective and m o r e efficient (Figures 4.5 and 4.7). Although, m o r e disposed to oral interactions after their second practicum (Figure 4.14), student teachers indicated that their lack of confidence, their potential to take risks, and lack of experience were factors affecting their ability to foster orally interactive classrooms. Personal ego-power. As expected, novice teachers' personal ego-power needs were revealed as well in reflections of students' teaching (McDermott, et al., 1995). C o m m e n t s in  their journals such as, "Its nice to be in charge because I like to feel like I a m  charge" or, T ' hen they k n o w that I a m the one that is here to help" or in term really enjoy the feeling of having them alone" and, "It feels m o r e like they are mine" reveal the desire to fulfill their personal needs (Table 4.4, Factor 7). Student teachers also indicated in their interviews that personal ego-power concerns affected their use of m o r e interactive procedures (Table 4.3, Factor 7). Personal ego needs reveal an affective need exemplified by the frequent use of the word 'feel' in their journals. These feelings represent a necessary phase for student teachers to progress through to subsequent stages of development, including m a n a g e m e n t needs and ultimately learner needs  125 (McDermott, et al., 1995). The predominance of ambivalent questionnaire  responses to the suggestion that, "Teacher instruction is not as effective as student collaboration" (Figure 4.6), would seem to indicate the vulnerable position of the student teacher. Yet there was evidence in their journals that these needs were  already decreasing after the second practicum, e.g., " I did not feel it necessary to be in charge 100%" or, "Iv ' e felt that w a y myself," i.e., needing to be in charge (Table 4.3, Factor 7). Increasing self-awareness seemed to lessen the desire for personal power, a factor students felt affected their ability to implement m o r e oral interactions. Observation. Another factor students identified as affecting their ability to implement orally interactive strategies in the classroom focused on concerns with observation of themselves and their students. Interview comments suggest that the effects of audio or video recordings of themselves or their pupils creates difficulties for  encouraging oral interactions, e.g., "A few kids are used to it but the majority of th class isn't" or, " I always act differently under pressure of performance" (Table 4.3, Factor 8). The absence of concerns with observation in the first practicum is perhaps explained by so m u c h focus on self, which by the second practicum became m o r e focused on m a n a g e m e n t (McDermott, et al., 1995). Although video recording was encouraged, few students took advantage of  this process to learn and one student commented in the journal that, "Its awful to see yourself on the VCR" (Table 4.4, Factor 8). In the second term observation comments in the journals were more numerous, perhaps due to the serious  126 consequences of success or failure in this final practicum or recognition of the value of observation on practice. In the second term ambivalence about being observed is apparent in the journal comment, "Maybe you could peek in at the beginning, middle, and closure?" Nonetheless, observation was seen as helpful, "You give great feedback" or even encouraged through team teaching possibilities, "Just come in  during m y lesson and add to it." Interview comments implied that observation was  often a negative feature of the practicum yet dialogue journals such as the above would suggest otherwise. W h e n the researcher suggested that written assignments are also performed under pressure student teachers qualified their response by saying that, " I think w e all perform differently under pressure." It seems that performance varies under pressures but through repetition become m o r e n ' atural.' Nevertheless, the act of being observed constituted for student teachers a factor which the interview suggests affected their ability to introduce a 'novel' approach to learning. By defining their role as s ' tudent' they saw themselves as limited in pursuing m o r e orally interactive strategies. Sponsor teacher expectations. Another factor student teachers perceived as influencing the implementation of orally interactive strategies was the expectations of their sponsor teachers. As student teachers in their subservient role, referred to above,  they could not be expected to implement strategies that differed from their sponsor teachers. '  127 Although student teacher concerns with sponsor teacher expectations were not evident in the interviews after the first practicum they were clearly so after the second practicum interviews (Table 4 . 3 , Factor 9 ) . Satisfying the expectations of their sponsor teachers is also evident in the dialogue journal c o m m e n t s such as, "Is this okay?" or, "Was this appropriate?" (Table 4 . 4 , Factor 9 ) . Students addressed the expectations of their sponsor by expressing gratitude for the freedom to rearrange the existing physical layout of the classroom or the privilege of 'using' someone s ' classroom for their o w n professional development (Table 4 . 4 , Factor 9 ) . It is possible that personal concerns of confidence, control, and ego-power dominated student teacher perspectives so m u c h in the first term that only w h e n those were partially alleviated could they focus on the m a n a g e m e n t issues. Dialogue journals support this developmental explanation as reflections in  the first term were typically egocentric, e.g., "Im ' nervous" or "Where do I find yo I lose it?" or, " I think transitions are coming" whereas in the second term confidence had increased, e.g., " I really feel comfortable" or," The lesson w e n t well" and, " I really enjoy the feeling of having them alone" (Table 4 . 4 , Factor 9 ) . Student teachers also c o m m e n t e d in the interviews that if their sponsor teachers  were in favour of m o r e oral interaction it would be m u c h easier to foster, e.g., "Fi out w h a t the ideas of the sponsor are . . ." (Table 4 . 3 , Factor 9 ) . As confidence and experience increased, students looked beyond themselves and the expectations of the sponsor teacher became evident. This is indicative of student teacher development from personal-ego needs (inner) to  128  m a n a g e m e n t or pupil learning needs (outer) typical of the second stage of teacher development (McDermott, et al., 1995). Interview comments for confidence in term 1 (Table 4.4, Factor 4), as well as comfort under observation (Table 4.4, Factor 8), and sponsor teacher  expectations (Table 4.4, Factor 9) were largely absent. This is in sharp contrast to the numerous dialogue journal comments regarding confidence which, perhaps because of their self reflective nature, promoted self-reflection. Reflective  comments on experience (Table 4.4, Factor 6), risk/control (Table 4.4, Factor 5), or personal ego-power (Table 4.4, Factor 7) are numerous in the dialogue journals and minimal in the interviews perhaps due to the dialogical nature of the journal which allowed for m o r e openness than an audio-taped interview. The questionnaire responses were viewed as minimally relevant to the role perceptions of student teachers and, therefore, are not included. The m o s t important finding in the dialogue journals was the student teachers' increased confidence. This increased confidence was m o s t evident in comments m a d e about controlling the class, understanding of the subject material, and the decreased need for personal-ego satisfaction. Although the reduction in  ego-power needs was apparent during the first practicum it became m u c h m o r e so during the second practicum. Interview comments suggest that increased experience also resulted in m o r e attempts to take risks and awareness that they could control the class in a variety of situations. With increased student teacher confidence, concerns with self were modified to include m a n a g e m e n t and sponsor expectations.  129  It seems that dealing with role concerns was necessary before student teachers would consider utilizing m o r e orally interactive strategies in the classroom. The practicum experience seems integral to the development of confidence so necessary to implement other pupil learning strategies. The analysis of the data indicates that the identification and description of role factors is perceived by student teachers as imperative w h e n considering the implementation of m o r e orally interactive classroom strategies. If conversation is viewed as an integrative metaphor to coalesce the role factor, it seems that in dialogue journals student teachers felt empowered to express their lack of confidence, their concerns with observation, and their consideration of sponsor teacher expectations. Certainly the student teachers'  role in the classroom, as expressed in the interviews, remained a subservient one, affecting their perception of factors affecting oral interactions. Only in the dialogue journals did students seem to feel confident in expressing their feelings of increasing confidence or concern. This lends additional weight to importance of considering role as a factor w h e n orchestrating conversational involvement in the classroom to construct knowledge. School Community Expectations Another group of factors student teachers perceived of as affecting the implementation of orally interactive strategies were school community expectations. From a conversational metaphor perspective, community expectations would be expected to exert s o m e influence on the participants. The  130 analysis of student teachers' interviews, dialogue journals, and questionnaires resulted in three: justification, parent-principal-pupil concerns, and tradition. The interviews generated the most prolific n u m b e r of comments regarding school community expectations which seemed to be treated as a rationale for perpetuating traditional ways of teaching, i.e., "Teachers talk and pupils listen"  (Table 4.3, Factor 1). The dialogue journals, on the other hand, were almost silen in regards to school community expectations. Perhaps the challenges of daily life in the classroom were sufficient to over-ride any larger school community  concerns. However, journal comments such as, " I should not assume as m u c ha  I do" and, "A parent and I . . . " indicate s o m e recognition of issues beyond the classroom (Table 4.4, Factors 10-11). Questionnaire responses to collaboration and group processes provided s o m e insight into expectations of justification and tradition. Justification. School community expectations were perceived b y student teacher interview comments as centering on the issue of justification, e.g., " W e have to justify w h a t wer 'e doing" and, " W e have to k n o ww h yw e are doing what wer 'e doing." This included justifying their performance as practicing teachers in the  classroom in relation to the values of society, e.g., "Society values that," and, "We have to be accountable to society" (Table 4.3, Factor 10). M a n y of the interview comments focused on the issue of justification for present practice as well as justification for not altering future practice (Table 4.3, Factor 10).  1 3 1 Questionnaire responses indicating that efficiency can be obtained in the classroom (Figure 4.5) coupled with the effectiveness of collaboration (Figure 4.13) provided justification for strategies which included m o r e oral interactivity. Yet, these positive questionnaire responses regarding collaboration were countered by interview comments that raised concerns w h e n considering m o r e orally interactive classrooms. Parent, principal, and pupil concerns. It seems that student teachers justified the current use of orally interactive strategies on the basis of the perceived expectations of the pupils, parents and administrators. This included justifying their teaching approaches and curriculum methodology (Table 4.3, Factor 11). This is only natural considering their role as s 'tudent teachers' and their pre-occupation with personal-ego needs and pupil m a n a g e m e n t (McDermott, et al., 1995). Perhaps with m o r e teaching experience and, therefore, increased attention to pupil learning, a disposition to m o r e orally interactive classroom strategies would result. Tradition. Student teachers recognize that societal values change slowly and justified their present teaching practices on the basis of tradition. As a justification for not  using m o r e oral interactions for learning, student teachers c o m m e n t e d that, "Its not the w a y wer 'e used to" and, "Its always been this way" (Table 4.3, Factor 12). Individual student teacher acceptance of the value of talk for learning seemed to be an insufficient motivator for implementation; larger groups like the school or district would have to recommend such an approach before it would be d e e m e d  132 acceptable, e.g., "If it was the whole school it would be accepted" (Table 4.3, Factor 12). School community expectations were a m o r e compelling reason than their o w n preference as students for learning through conversational involvement, their o w n disappointing experience in teacher-dominated classrooms, and the knowledge gained in their teacher education classes. It could also be conjectured that in their role as s 'tudent teacher' it would be unwise to counter present teaching practices. Perhaps with increased experience and, therefore, confidence, student teachers might consider altering present teaching practices. Although tradition was not addressed directly by students in their dialogue journals, by implication, issues of time for curriculum coverage, marking, and h o m e w o r k reflect traditional teacher concerns (Table 4.4, Factor 12). Furthermore, although traditional perceptions of schooling still favour teacher-as-speaker and child-as-listener these perceptions were changing with s o m e student teacher experiences in the classroom (Figures 4.4, 4.6, and 4.11). Most student teachers responded that the non-traditional skills of collaboration should be taught in schools (Figure 4.7). This contradicted the interview comments which suggested that student teachers do not have sufficient time for teaching group process skills (Table 4.3, Factor 15) and also directly confronts b ' ack to the basics' perceptions of schooling which focus on literacy and numeracy skills. In summary, concerns for school community expectations were m o s t evident in the interviews. While the interview format took an interrogative stance  133 and questioned present practice, the dialogue journal format presented a m o r e reflective stance which assumed present school community expectations were being met. The directed interview format seemed m o r e effective in producing comments regarding school community expectations than the indirect reflective dialogue journal format. School community factors of justification, parent-principal-pupil concerns, and tradition were perceived by student teachers to affect the implementation of orally interactive strategies. School community expectations would seem to limit student teachers' development or increase of conversational involvement in the classroom. Structural Features A fourth category of factors evident in the transcriptions of student teacher interviews concerned structural features (See Table 4.3, Category D). Analysis of their comments generated factors which addressed such issues as physical space, organization, and temporal features. Student teacher interview comments elicited s o m e responses to each of the three structural features; however, journal comments concerning structural features focused mostly on the issue of time or lack of time. F e w comments in either m o d e voiced concern with the organizational arrangements of classes and even fewer comments were m a d e regarding the physical features within a particular classroom (Table 4.4, Category D). Questionnaire responses seemed not to impinge on physical or temporal features, yet indirectly referred to organizational features.  134 Physical features. The researchers ' suggestion in the interview that physical features such as  the location or availability of space might affect oral interactions a m o n g pupils was m e t with the response that, "That physical things dont ' matter" (Table 4.3, Factor 13). Student dialogue journals contained n o references to physical limitations restricting their development of interactive learning environments. Yet, comments m a d e b y student teachers w h e n they found themselves teaching pupils h o w to maintain eye contact or physically organizing groups countered the remark "That physical things dont ' matter." Students seemed to perceive that physical factors such as r o o m size, types of furniture, or the layout of the r o o m as factors which little affect on the implementation of oral interactions. Organizational features. Student teachers expressed concern in the interviews that organizing classrooms for more oral interaction would be difficult because, " H o w do you watch so m a n y kids at once?" or, "Recording is possible but it would take m o r e  time" and " I had n o time for one on one" (Table 4.3, Factor 14). These concern are related to the procedural concerns expressed in regards to managing groups (Table 4.3, Factor 2). It seems that their lack of experience in the organization of groups precluded a negative reaction to a suggestion for more oral activity. Specific organizational concerns included the recognition that recording data wasnt ' always convenient or seemingly appropriate, e.g., "I'd rather just be a rover, moving around, helping, getting m y hands dirty" than writing anecdotal comments or completing observational checklists (Table 4.3, Factor 14). Other  135 organizational factors mentioned included the logistics of recording group processes during a teaching/learning event, i.e., knowing h o w or w h e n to use clipboards, anecdotal c o m m e n t sheets, or checklists. Student teachers felt that  oral interactions and evaluation of t h e m took m o r e time, e.g., "Do I have time" a  although they had wished to do so they couldnt ' , "Watch [so] m a n y kids at once" (Table 4.3, Factor 14). Organizational alternatives were not considered as an option to resolve some of the issues of observing and recording pupil interactions. Interview  c o m m e n t s such as, " I dont ' have the time; I was teaching 100%" and, "Just ign it and go on with the day" indicate awareness of the need for observation and recording of pupil interactions yet alternative organizational strategies were not considered. Arrangements such as using group study, group presentations, and group evaluation were not perceived of as organizational alternatives which might resolve the difficulties of observation, record keeping, and lack of time. Student teachers' interview comments also gave no indication of consultation with their sponsor teachers regarding organizational alternatives. It seemed that traditional patterns of teacher activity, e.g., teaching content, marking, being in charge, using similar contexts for all pupils, etc., had a m o r e dominant influence on teacher behavior than organizational alternatives which would result in more oral interactions. Although discussion of alternative teaching models b y instructors occurs in education programs and were suggested by their sponsor teachers, other organizational methods did not seem to appear. To transfer alternative teaching strategies to students m o r e successfully some  136 instructors have implemented t h e m in their education methodology courses, thereby modeling and demonstrating them (Craig, et al., 1994). Interestingly, student teachers in this study did not perceive of reorganization as a means by which to achieve both a m o r e interactive classroom and m o r e observational time. Although few, some journal comments addressed organizational concerns  such as, " H o w do you find time to ..." or, "Use pairings next time to demonstrate  ." or positively, " I was able to do . . . " reflecting organizational success (Table 4.4, Factor 14). Dialogue journal comments indicated that the structure of lessons and  organization of groups seemed to be of m o r e concern than the physical aspects o n u m b e r of pupils, size of space or type of furniture (Table 4.4, Factor 13). As student teachers their experience with collaborative activities was limited, yet questionnaire responses indicated their increasing agreement that collaborative tasks increased classroom efficiency (Figure 4.5) and effectiveness (Figure 4.13). Student teachers increasingly recognized that pupils learn a great deal from each other (Figure 4.4). Their problem, however, was one of h o w to structure someone else's classroom environment, to reflect this. Temporal features. The m o s t frequent response student teachers gave in the interviews for not creating m o r e orally interactive classrooms was the lack of sufficient time (Table 4.3, Factor 15). It seems that the curriculum requirements were a dominant force that necessitated a m o r e transmission-oriented classroom. Allowing m o r e pupil interaction seemed to conflict directly with the perception of efficiency which teacher-directed classrooms appeared to have. There seemed to be a direct  137 relationship between a teacher-directed classroom and efficient use of time, in direct opposition to questionnaire responses favouring collaboration (Table 4.5, 4.13). Dialogue journals also focused on h o w little time there was with comments  that reflected the acceptance of the fact that, " W e were only able to . . " or, " I did get to . . . " or, " I a m not going to get to . . . . " (Table 4.4, Factor 15). Serious concerns were raised in taking even more time for students to talk a m o n g themselves and in teachers taking time to evaluate these interactions.  Statements such as, " I dont ' think you have time for it" or, "It takes m o r e time" w c o m m o n justifications given for ignoring interactive strategies. " I wanted to do one-on-one observations" or, "My object was to observe but..." suggest that there was a desire for such approaches to teaching yet the time available was perceived to be inadequate. Teaching seemed to be perceived as something other than organizing pupil activities, e.g., " I was teaching 100%, I dont ' have time." The implication being that the a m o u n t of time predetermined a particular strategy for teaching. That this c o m m e n t occurred after the second practicum is indicative of a continuing perception of teaching as something quite different than structuring orally interactive pupil activities. Quite possibly this is the result of the increased a m o u n t of time that student teachers were required to teach in the second practicum, and therefore, they had even less time to consider alternate organizational patterns. External structural factors that student teachers might perceive to affect the development of orally interactive classrooms are the effects of platooning, subject  138 distinctions, interruptions and time-tabling. These factors would specifically impinge on preparation for and monitoring of group w o r k (Figures 4.10 and 4.12) yet neither the interviews nor the dialogue journals raised these concerns, the implication being that student teachers do not perceive that these outside factors affect the development of orally interactive classrooms. Interestingly, physical factors of location, a m o u n t of space, arrangements of that space, and design of furniture were not identified in any of the data sources factors affecting the implementation of orally interactive classrooms. Yet one  would surmise that quality of sound, for example, would be a positive or negative attribute of classroom design. However, student teachers did not seem to perceive of these physical features as influential on oral interactions. In summary, the structural factors affecting the implementation of m o r e orally interactive classrooms were perceived by student teachers to be predominantly the lack of time and the organization of time. Concerns over the lack of time, rather than resulting in a modification of organizational patterns to allow for m o r e interaction, resulted in a m o v e m e n t toward m o r e teacher-directed classrooms. While the interviews dealt with time and organization from a m o r e global perspective, the dialogue journals were m o r e reflective of specific instances where time was well spent or not. Interestingly, most of the dialogue journal comments were prefaced by the personal pronoun 'I,' indicative of conscious or unconscious acceptance of responsibility for h o w time was spent in the classroom.  139 Certainly the predominance of a concern with time and a lesser concern with organization limited student teachers' perceptions of conversational involvement as an alternative approach. Without demonstration and modeling of orally interactive strategies students cannot be expected to seek alternative approaches to teaching and learning (Craig, et al., 1994). From a conversational perspective structural features would seem to play a large role in classroom oral interactions yet, these features were of m u c h less concern to student teachers (Figures 4.2 and 4.3). Assumptions Assumptions about teaching and learning held b y student teachers influence all other responses and yet are the most difficult to identify and modify (Pajares, 1992). Interestingly, the assumptions identified here focus mostly on the differences between oral and written discourse and the pedagogical consequences of these differences (Table 4.3, Category E). Although these assumptions are treated as a separate category here, they permeate comments m a d e in the interviews, statements written in the dialogue journals and responses m a d e to the questionnaire. Their isolation here assists us in identifying and describing some of the factors which students perceive as affecting the implementation of orally interactive classroom strategies. The influence of assumptions on pedagogical practice is supported by their  key role in any conversation. If orally interactive classrooms are to be viewed as a conversation, assumptions about oral processes and procedures are critical to the  140  success of such an endeavor. The recognition of the nine assumptions uncovered here are critical if orally interactive classrooms are to be valued and fostered. The interview comments most clearly revealed assumptions regarding the difficulties of establishing m o r e orally interactive classrooms. The dialogue  journals, perhaps due to their indirect nature, contained very few references to any one assumption about teaching and learning, and the questionnaires only referred to a few. The identification and description of these assumptions is especially important since they influence actions of student teachers in the classroom. Often they are unconscious m o d e s of operation which direct questioning makes conscious. S o m e assumptions remain submerged as unquestioned modes of operation yet derivative actions are indicative of their presence. Student teachers' declarative knowledge c o m m e n t s such as, " I hadnt ' even thought about it" or, "Thats ' a whole n e ww a y to learn" illustrate such unconscious assumptions (Table 4.3, Factor 1). Writing is concrete. W h e n asked w h a t obstacles prevented t h e m from using m o r e orally interactive strategies in the classroom, some student teachers in the interviews c o m m e n t e d that, "Writing is m o r e concrete than speaking" (Table 4.3, Factor 16). Further analysis suggests that a faulty comparison is being made. It seems the organizing processes of speaking, i.e., brainstorming, idea consolidation, and selection are being compared to the products of writing, i.e., the written assignment. If the processes of producing a written product such as  1 4 1 brainstorming, drafting, and editing were compared to the processes of speech preparation, the statement that writing is m o r e concrete would need to be reconsidered. Although written texts are deemed more concrete than recorded texts, writing materials such as pen and paper are n o m o r e concrete than audioA/ideo tapes or recording machines (Wells & Chang-Wells, 1992). Both media are tangible, retrievable, and re-examinable, thus the meaning of the word concrete varies with the situation. Perhaps views (assumptions) that hold written text as m o r e concrete are the reason oral interactions are less valued. In spite of our technologically sophisticated classrooms this perceived lack of concreteness m a y be part of the reason that orally interactive strategies continue to be under-valued. Writing is easier to evaluate.  A related c o m m e n t that, "Writing is easier to evaluate" (Table 4.3, Factor 17) was also m a d e in the interviews. If evaluation focused on the transcription features of writing such as spelling, punctuation, and legibility and the transcription features of speaking such as articulation, enunciation, audibility, and dynamics, it would seem that both could be easily evaluated. W h e n students evaluate pupils' spoken or written abilities in the realm of ideas, logic, or argument, neither the spoken or written m e d i u m are 'easier' to evaluate. It seems that different attributes of speaking and writing are being compared. These incompatible comparisons result in illogical and, therefore, incorrect assumptions which affect orally interactive instructional practices.  142 Speaking is difficult to evaluate.  This assumption appears to be a corollary of the previous one yet it centres on the nature of speech itself rather than a comparison to the evaluative ease of writing. Students indicate that, "Speaking is difficult to evaluate" (Table 4.3, Factor 19). This difficulty includes the challenge of developing criteria to evaluate speech from a performance, informative or idea-formation perspective. It would seem that student teachers' inexperience plays a significant role in making speaking difficult to evaluate. This difficulty is also related to the availability of audio and video equipment and students' expertise in using it. A related difficulty involves the logistics of tape storage and retrieval, for collection of data from individuals or groups, and m a n a g e m e n t of the assessment  of these products. C o m m e n t s such as, " I havent ' even heard of the tape recorder thing" or, "Iv ' e never seen it work" exemplify the concerns of student teachers but m o r e significantly reveal their inexperience with such procedures (Table 4.3, Factor 19). Evaluation of speaking is more time consuming. Student teacher interview comments indicated that, "Evaluation of speech takes m o r e time than the evaluation of writing" (Table 4.3, Factor 18). C o m m e n t s such as, "Do I have time for checklists?" and, "It would take m o r e time" seem indicate that an additional a m o u n t of time would be required in an already crowded curriculum. Further, it is inferred that the time taken for evaluation of writing, which usually occurs outside of class time, is taken as normal and reasonable, yet the evaluation of speaking outside of class time is not. It seems  143 illogical to suggest that the evaluation of speaking in class takes m o r e time than the evaluation of writing outside of class. If comparisons of time consumption  were m a d e for the evaluation of recorded text and written text, e.g., products, this would be acceptable. O n the other hand, comparisons of time required to evaluate the process of producing a speech or a written text would also be acceptable (Table 4.3; Factor 18). Yet w h e n asked about factors affecting the establishment of orally interactive classrooms these incompatible comparisons are m a d e without a thorough examination of the assumptions which inform them.  Although the importance of the relationship of speech to writing is evident in student teachers' responses to the statement that, "Childrens ' speech informs their writing" (Figure 4.11) assumptions of time consumption were perceived to mitigate against increased oral interaction. In addition, although students recognized the efficiency (Figure 4.5) and effectiveness (Figure 4.13) of collaboration,  assumptions about time consumption were used to justify not increasing the use of orally interactive strategies. Speech is not recoverable. Another assumption is that speech is not recoverable but rather a one-time event which if m ' issed' is gone (Table 4.3, Factor 20). Interestingly, student teachers did not c o m m e n t on the use of audio or video-tapes even though the interview itself was audio-taped specifically for purpose of recoverability (Table 4.3, Factor 22).  144 Interpretation of speaking is subjective. Another assumption that spoken ideas are m o r e subjective than written ideas was evident in student teacher interview c o m m e n t s (Table 2, Factor 21). Statements such as, "Everyone has a different idea" or, "There are differences from teacher to teacher" were m a d ew h e n asked about concerns regarding evaluation of speech events, yet these same concerns were not raised regarding the evaluation of written events. Student teachers seemed not to question that their interpretations of written ideas were similarly subjective. Recording is unnatural-inauthentic. Another assumption that recording spoken dialogue is unnatural or  inauthentic was evident in student interview comments, e.g., "A video was stiff with m a n y mistakes" (Table 4.3, Factor 22). Students even justified not using video because of pupil assumptions of speech events, e.g., "They [pupils] wanted it perfect." Interestingly, students did not refer to the extensive technological development of technology necessary for writing. Students did not seem to view letters as the artificial representation of sound in our alphabet. Clearly, the lengthy  historical efforts to develop literacy have caused t h e m to be taken as n ' atural' and a ' uthentic' whereas audio or video recordings are still seen as intrusive and constrained, e.g., "Not natural." Furthermore, although repeated experiences had resulted in literacy behaviours being accepted as n ' atural,' the repetition of oral behaviours was not perceived of as similarly necessary to produce n ' aturalness.'  145 In addition, it seems that students m a d e a distinction between the  authenticity of ideas that were written from those that were spoken; an assumption not necessarily correct. It seems format restrictions w h e n recording spoken products were considered unnatural but largely ignored w h e n considering written products. It seems that the e ' ffort' of written performance remained invisible and irrelevant while the e ' ffort' of spoken performance being highly visible was considered relevant. Age differences. A fifth assumption addressed in the interviews was the c o m m e n t of one student w h o perceived age as a factor in valuing speech behaviours (Table 4.3, Factor 23). It seems that w h e n younger pupils use speech to express ideas it is  acceptable, but that the m o r e mature, experienced pupils would m o r e readily and ably rely on the written expression of ideas, e.g., "Primary is different than intermediate." This view seems to support the view that spoken ideas are associated with immaturity and that written ideas with m o r e mature behaviour. W h e n it was suggested that adults frequently construct knowledge through oral interactions, student teachers rationalized this assumption b y adding that,  "Teachers need to talk to each other too." The acceptance of speech as a vehicle of knowledge construction for adults seemed natural, yet conflicts with the teaching practice of paying m o r e attention to the written products of older pupils. Nevertheless, it seems illogical to suggest that the effectiveness of spoken or written m o d e s for knowledge construction is mediated by age.  146 Teacher position o ' n stage.' A sixth and final assumption revealed in the student teacher interviews is their perception that teaching requires their presence or leadership to be effective (Table 4.3, Factor 24). Although students readily acknowledged that s ' age on the stage' approaches to teaching were not always effective, interview comments such as, " W h e n theyr 'e in groups w h o knows w h a t theyr 'e talking about" and, "They cant ' just talk" or, "Making sure I get the responses I want" indicate an opposing perspective (Table 4.3, Factor 24). O n the other hand, students commented in their dialogue journals that they as teachers were not nearly as important as might have been expected, "They [pupils] had the opportunity to do it themselves" or, " I didnt ' have to s h o wt h e m  [pupils] step b y step." O n e student teacher even wrote that she wanted her pupils  to realize that she "Wasnt ' a god" and that, "Pupil ideas were valid and important (Table 4.4, Factor 24). The n u m b e r of ambivalent responses to the questionnaire statements that, "Teacher instruction is m o r e effective than pupil collaboration" (Figure 4.6) and "Speech is a childs ' most effective communication tool" (Figure 4.9) reflect this dilemma. If teachers are teaching, that is, talking, students might wonder h o w \  \  pupils can also be using talk to learn. It seems that the procedural or experiential knowledge that allows student teachers to create a classroom environment where the pupils were more interactive was unavailable (Table 4.3, Factor 2). C o m m e n t s such as, " I dont ' have the time, I was teaching 100%" underscore student teacher perceptions of  147 the need for p ' resence. ' Furthermore, evaluative tasks such as observation which lessen teacher p ' resence' were seen as less important than completing classroom  tasks, e.g., "I'd rather be a rover and m o v e around and get dirty" (Table 4.3, Fac 24). In s u m m a r y , the assumptions identified from the interviews, dialogue journals, and questionnaires are related in that they are a response to the focus questions concerning the difficulties of implementing m o r e orally interactive strategies in the classroom (Appendix A). Although the focus questions highlighted concerns, compiled second term questionnaire responses seem to indicate an increased predisposition toward oral interactions (Figure 4.14). Assumptions that spoken ideas are less authentic, less concrete, less objective, alongside assumptions that writing is concrete, requires less time and effort, were seen as acceptable rationalizations for the lack of more orally interactive strategies being used in student teacher classrooms. It seems that even though s o m e of the assumptions were re-examined during the interview, e.g., " I never thought of the tape recorder thing," most assumptions remained intact. Without further introspection these assumptions will remain submerged and continue to permeate pedagogical decisions in teaching and learning. The beliefs, assumptions, and memories of classrooms that student teachers hold continue to exert a strong influence over their perceptions of current  classroom practice (Brookhart & Freeman, 1992; Craig, et al., 1994; Kagan, 1992 Phelan & McLaughlin, 1995).  148 In conclusion, this investigation identified student teachers' perceptions of factors affecting oral interactions as evident in their responses to four data sets.  The result was the identification of 24 factors in five categories. The analysis and interpretation of the findings was permeated by an integrative metaphor which viewed knowledge construction as involving a conversation. The potential of conversations in the classroom to enhance knowledge construction appears to be inextricably linked to the findings that knowledge, role expectations, school community expectations, structural features, and assumptions are key factors affecting the fostering of oral interactions in the classroom. Validity and Reliability Concerns for validity and reliability in this investigation were addressed b y using a variety of data sources, triangulating the data (Figure 3.1), maintaining a visible researcher profile, and using a post-analysis interview. The variety of data sources increased external validity through refinement, modification, and elaboration of the findings, e.g., the addition of a conditional knowledge factor resulting from dialogue journal analysis. Internal validity of the interview data was enhanced through the triangulation of secondary sources, e.g., dialogue journals reinforced knowledge concerns, questionnaires supported speech as an effective learning tool and post -analysis interviews corroborated the assumptions. The use of direct quotes, participant involvement after analysis and use of audio tapes increased internal reliability. External reliability was enhanced by clear descriptions of the researchers ' role, the participants, and the context of data  149 gathering. External reliability is also furthered by detailed descriptions of the processes of data collection and analysis. Data Perspectives The student teachers were m o r e reflective of 'self as learner' w h e n they wrote in their dialogue journals and responded to questionnaire statements while they were m o r e reflective of 'self as manager' during the interviews. However, w h e n interviewed, student teachers viewed themselves as managers of a learning environment where their knowledge, confidence, and experience were being questioned. Although students were aware that practicum grading had been completed the interview m o d e seemed to present a critical view of w h a t had  occurred in the practicum and, therefore, needed defending. Perhaps the use of a tape recorder or the novelty of being personally involved in educational research created anxieties in the interviews not apparent in the dialogue journals. W h y the interviews seemed to be negatively predisposed to oral interactivity while the questionnaire and dialogue journals both seemed to welcome notions of increased oral interaction is unclear. Perhaps the perceived agenda of increased oral interaction of the researcher was seen as something to be resisted. Student teachers commented in their journals that sufficient group  w o r k had been done, even m o r e than they had expected. Perhaps they perceived  the interview as proposing even m o r e content into an already full curriculum. The interview m o d e seemed to question the strategies used in their particular classroom and practicum, thereby persuading student teachers to take a defensive stance. The interviews produced doubts whereas the dialogue  150 journals presented possibilities. It was also quite apparent in the journals that oral interactions were valued. It would seem that s o m e of the differences apparent in the data sources  stem from the stances student teachers took w h e n completing them. The apparent resistance to m o r e oral interaction evident in the interview seemed to emanate  from a defensive stance. The pro-active attitude towards oral interaction evident in the dialogue journals was m o r e indicative of a reflective stance. A reflective stance was also apparent in the questionnaire responses, although from a m o r e distant, less subjective stance. Interestingly the dialogue journals gave very little indication of student teacher assumptions whereas the interviews gave little indication of conditional knowledge regarding oral interactivity. The questionnaire responses did not generate additional factors which had not already been identified in the interview data or dialogue journals. Knowledge, position/role, and structural factors seemed to be addressed m o r e appropriately in the dialogue journals as indicated by the n u m b e r of comments, whereas assumptions and procedural knowledge factors seemed to be m o r e appropriately addressed in the interviews. The dialogue journal comments are especially noteworthy since they reveal student teacher concerns without any prompting on the part of the researcher,. The data are also important in that they were generated from journals written during the practicum compared to the interviews and questionnaires which were collected after the practicum. As such, these journal comments add a unique dimension to perspectives constructed from the interviews and questionnaires.  151 The enumerative results of the questionnaire provided another unique perspective on the factors generated from the interviews. While both the interview and the questionnaire were directed by the researcher, the questionnaire presented responses in degrees of agreement or disagreement. Additionally, although the questionnaire was constructed and administered before the factors and categories were identified, the evidence from the questionnaire substantiated their subsequent identification and description. In summary, the categories and factors identified from the interview data as an organizational format for the analysis and interpretation of the other three data sources effectively accounted for all comments and responses made. Although evidence from the four sources provided varying perspectives, specific factors identified from analysis of the interview data were not undermined or discounted b y subsequent analysis of the other data. Multiple data sources allowed for the refinement of factor and category labels, including the addition of other factors.  Analysis of the other data sources also confirmed the decision to use the interview data as the primary source for the organizational format.  152 Chapter 6 Conclusions The purpose of this study was to identify and describe those factors which affected student teachers' predisposition to implement more orally interactive learning strategies in the classroom. This study identified factors which resulted from an analysis of student teacher interviews, comments in dialogue journals, and responses to a questionnaire which were then validated through follow-up interviews. To interpret and integrate the findings into a larger theoretical framework oral interactions were viewed from the perspective of a conversation. A successful conversation requires participants to share and be aware of each others' perspectives and understandings. Similarly, in the classroom, productive oral interactions require c o m m o n understandings. This study identified 24 factors grouped into five categories, namely: knowledge, roles, school community expectations, structural constraints, and assumptions which student teachers perceive require attention if the potential of oral interactions in the classroom is to be realized. The data sources, the five categories of factors, implications of their identification and description for practice, and suggestions for future research are addressed here. Just as in a conversation, the inter-dependent and reciprocal nature of the factors that influence orality in the classroom cannot be overlooked, although they were isolated for discussion in this investigation. The Data Sources The directed nature of the interviews provided the initial entry point for this investigation. Focus questions provided guidance for student teacher comments regarding concerns they had w h e n considering the implementation of m o r e orally  153 interactive strategies for pupil knowledge construction (Appendix A). Their interview comments provided the primary data from which the factors perceived to affect the implementation of orally interactive strategies were identified. Throughout this investigation these factors were considered essential elements for the development of orally interactive classrooms. These factors were subsequently utilized as a scaffold to analyze the dialogue journals, questionnaires, and follow-up interviews. The dialogue journal comments, questionnaire responses, and follow-up interviews were utilized to corroborate, modify, or extend the constructs identified in the interview comments. They were treated as secondary sources due to the  indirect and less prolific data emanating from t h e m and as secondary sources they were also useful in validating the interview analysis through triangulation (Figure 3.1). A second source of data resulting in the identification of factors affecting oral interactions in the classroom were the dialogue journals. C o m m e n t s from student teacher dialogue journals were treated as an important source of information as their point of view, that is, they were written during the practicum, provided a unique perspective from which to determine factors affecting oral interactions in the classroom. Since they were written during the practicum they reflect the formation, development, and or modification of student perspectives over time. With increasing knowledge and experience, student teacher journals revealed evolving perspectives. The intensity and extent of growth in knowledge of self and pupils during these practica are evident in the comments from these journals and resulted in m a n y discoveries; however, only those discoveries  154  related to the development of orally interactive classrooms were extracted for analysis. A third source of data which provided a perspective on factors affecting the development of m o r e orally interactive classrooms was the questionnaire (Appendix B). This enumerative measure was constructed to add a third perspective to the identification and description of these factors. The questionnaire, like the interview, was m o r e directed in its focus than the dialogue journals; yet it differs from both in that the data was quantitative rather than anecdotal. The questionnaires' design allowed for degrees of agreement or disagreement and its value lay in recording changes in agreement or disagreement over time. The statements m a d e in the questionnaire were expected to illuminate some attributes of the factors student teachers would perceive as affecting the development of orally interactive classrooms. The limitations of the questionnaire sample size, mentioned previously, substantially reduced its usefulness in confirming, modifying, or extending the interview findings. However, there were some indicators of change to perspectives of orality over time, the questionnaires' initial purpose. In addition,  although the categories and factors generated from the interviews were not k n o w n before constructing the questionnaire, nor before student teacher responses were obtained, congruency of the questionnaire findings with the interview and dialogue journal findings was evident. The follow-up interview comments provided a fourth source of data which provided validation for the findings and analysis of the other three data sources. These interviews were conducted with participants in the study after the analysis had been completed. Although these interviews yielded largely affirmative  155 responses, s o m e comments elaborated or extended factors identified as affecting oral interactivity. The Findings The findings collectively represent five categories of factors student teachers perceived to affect the implementation of m o r e orally interactive strategies into the classroom. Their treatment as necessary elements underpinning successful oral interactions in the classroom stems from perceiving them as foundational to productive conversations. Each factor within the categories were an element student teachers perceived as affecting oral interactions in the classrooms. Knowledge. The first category of factors identified from the research data affecting the implementation of m o r e orally interactive classrooms concerned knowledge. The nature and n u m b e r of knowledge comments raised in this regards was m o s t noteworthy. Student teachers' knowledge comments included m a n y concerns of h o w to implement oral interactions effectively. Less frequently student comments addressed their knowledge of w h e n and w h y oral interactions would be most expedient. Utilizing the three categories of knowledge as determined by Pintrich (1990), these knowledge factors were subsequently identified as declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge. Interestingly, there were far fewer declarative and conditional knowledge comments than procedural knowledge comments necessary for implementing orally interactive strategies. Student Teacher Position/Role. A second category of factors identified as influential in developing orally interactive classrooms was that of the special role of student teacher. Within this category six factors were perceived to affect student  156 teacher performance in the classroom and thereby, directly influence the implementation of orally interactive strategies. They were factors of confidence, risk-control, experience, personal ego-power, comfort under observation, and sponsor teacher expectations. The interrelated nature of these factors is important in that changes in any one substantially affects the others. W h e n questioned regarding their concerns with implementing orally interactive strategies in the classroom these role factors were quite apparent and analysis of the four data sources suggests that each factor played a part in students' perceptions of themselves in the role of t ' eachers-in-training.' School Community Expectations. A third category of factors that the student teacher data revealed as affecting the implementation of orally interactive strategies was that of the school community expectations. S o m e student teachers' role expectations reflected m a n a g e m e n t concerns beyond the classroom and this included comments regarding external expectations of tone, productivity and teaching strategies. These expectations included those of parents, pupils, and administration, and adherence to perceived traditions. Although comments regarding school community expectations were m u c h fewer than in other  categories, the most important factors evident were a concern with justification and following tradition. Justification referred to the immediate classroom p ' layers,' i.e., teacher and pupils, but also to the larger school community of parents and administration. Structural Features. A fourth category of factors, albeit the least dominant category, became evident from the research data and were identified as the structural features of the school. These factors included the physical structure, the organizational timetable, and the availability of time.  157 The m o s t important finding in this category was the student teachers' concerns with time w h e n considering the implementation of orally interactive classroom strategies. Although student teachers expressed strong agreement with the effectiveness and efficiency of collaborative tasks in the questionnaire responses, the interviews and, especially, the dialogue journals were dominated by concerns with time. It seems that the implementation of orally interactive strategies was perceived as another d e m a n d placed on teachers to be accommodated in an already full day. Orally interactive strategies were not seen as a means to help pupils become even m o r e effective and efficient knowledge constructors, with the added potential of alleviating s o m e time concerns. Assumptions. A fifth category of factors that became evident during the analysis were the assumptions student teachers held in regards to factors affecting the implementation of m o r e oral interactions in the classroom. Although these assumptions were only minimally revealed or addressed in the dialogue journals and follow-up interviews, they were apparent in the interview data. The differences between spoken and written m o d e s of knowledge construction seemed to permeate these assumptions. Although literacy has been the agenda of school curriculum for generations, the predominance of spoken discourse in the daily life of the classroom combined with recording innovations  would lead one to expect that current student teachers would view oral knowledge construction m o r e equitably. Assumptions that speech is not recoverable, that oral interpretations are subjective, or that the evaluation of speech is difficult, are indicative of the strength of beliefs and past experiences. This was especially ironic considering that the interviews themselves were being audio-taped.  158 In conclusion, the purpose of this study was to investigate factors which student teachers perceive affects the praxis (theory and practice) of oral language  during the practicum. The identification of 24 factors in 5 categories was the result of an integrative investigation using 4 different data sources and although their identification and description remains flexible and open to further interpretation, they provide an initial position from which to pursue an investigation into the pedagogies of orality. This identification allows for present student teacher education programs to m o r e effectively exploit the potential of oral interactions. Furthermore, this identification m a y assist current teachers in promoting oral interactions as an effective m e d i u m for negotiation and meaning-making in the classroom. Implications for Teacher Education O n e of the most evident implications of this study was the perceived need on the part of student teachers for m o r e procedural experience in organizing, managing and monitoring groups of pupils. It seems surprising that after a t w o year education program these students were still discovering that pupils could learn significantly within groups, that pupils needed to be taught h o w to  communicate effectively, and that they as teachers needed to k n o ww h e n and w h y groups should be encouraged, redirected, or modified.  It seems that student teacher criticisms of the theoretical focus of so m u c h of their education programs is validated by the prolific n u m b e r of procedural concerns voiced in this study. Further, it is imperative and reasonable that students develop standardized routines for m a n a g e m e n t and discipline through practical experience before they focus on pupil learning (Kagan, 1992;  McDermott, et al., 1995). It would seem that m u c h m o r e could be done to prepa  159 student teachers to appreciate the value of oral interactivity before they enter classrooms, i.e., declarative knowledge through demonstration and modeling. This would then enable student teachers to focus in their practicum on the  procedural use of oral interactions as a constructive m e a n s to m a n a g e pupils, and even m o r e importantly, enable pupils to construct n e w knowledge for themselves. If justification and traditions of the larger school community are factors affecting the facilitation of orally interactive classrooms, it is incumbent upon teacher educators to develop programs which address these traditions and provide a rationale and experiential knowledge to support oral interaction in the classroom. Orally interactive strategies require validation through demonstration and practice in teacher education to help students 'see' w h a t grouping strategies are for, h o w they are organized, managed, monitored, and modified. Teacher education programs are encouraged to create situations where student teachers 'see' grouping practices as pedagogically effective and practical. Another aspect of teacher education that this study touches upon is that student teachers need to become aware of the nature of language as a tool for making meaning. Within pre-practicum classrooms assumptions about the objectivity of language need to be addressed and cultural or linguistic filters need to be revealed. The implications of using language as a tool as well as an end itself requires explication and examination. S o m e criticism has been directed at pre-service programs and practices because of the lack of a specific curriculum (Zeichner, 1990). It would seem productive for both the student teacher and preparatory programs that a curriculum focusing on factors affecting oral interactivity in the classroom could be developed. Recommendations of procedural practice, for example, could be  160 specified for the curriculum of a pre-service seminar. A recommendation for  faculty is to t ' each as they preach' in methodology courses by providing models as  well as demonstrated practice for student teachers (Craig, et al., 1994; Lambdin & Preston, 1995; Watson, 1995). This would also establish metacognitive awareness for students in this study indicated they had not seen or heard of a teaching strategy that departed m u c h from students listening and writing while the instructor spoke. Specific assumptions about spoken versus written m o d e s of communication held by student teachers need to be addressed through discussion, but m o r e importantly through practical experiences with recording, monitoring, and evaluating speech events. Apparent contradictions between concreteness of written or spoken texts, time consumption in evaluating written or spoken events, and the efficiency a n d / o r effectiveness of collaboration and teacher directed learning need to be part of the teacher education program. This could be modeled in classrooms so that individual, small or large groups can experientially address some of these assumptions. Declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge regarding strategies and practices of oral interactivity need to be systematically addressed in methods courses because the t ' alk curriculum' should not be left to chance (Booth, 1994). To enhance oral interactions in the classroom the identified categories of knowledge, role, school community expectations, structural features and assumptions need to be addressed in a systematic way. The belief systems or l 'atent culture' of student teachers requires addressing in preparatory education courses to expose and question the dominant m o d e s of pedagogy. Simultaneously, prospective teachers could be provided with experiential  1 6 1 knowledge of strategies that promote oral interactivity (Tabachnick & Zeichner, 1984). In lesson planning, strategies that include the specific inclusion of a t ' alk curriculum' paralleling a reading and writing curriculum could be incorporated to elicit the full range of language functions. M a n y types of talk could be demonstrated, practiced, and assessed. The use of audio/video technology should become as commonplace as literacy equipment such as books, paper, overheads, and computers. Teacher education programs need to cultivate teachers w h o are  responsive to the plurality of ways in which children create texts, both spoken and written (Bianchi & Cullere, 1996; Patterson, 1996). It is the awareness of the multiple avenues of access to the discourse community that w em u s t inform our teachers. Through the diversity of spoken and written dialogue students gain access to learning, gain ability to display learning, and are able to extend their learning into n e w directions (Wells-Chang-Wells, 1992). Organizational alternatives can be developed, experienced, and practiced to allow for m o r e orally interactive classrooms. Through demonstration in teacher education, students can experience and be able to modify classroom procedures to value, encourage, and enhance opportunities for oral interactions. In summary,  it is not the intention of this investigation to replace literacy with orality but rather t redress the balance so as to represent more equitably the whole range of w ' ays with words' that pupils bring to school (Bianchi & Cullere, 1996; Buckley, 1992; Heath, 1986; Patterson, 1996).  162 Implications for Future Research To promote m o r e oral interaction in the classroom, future researchers are encouraged to investigate where and h o w the five categories of factors can be addressed in teacher education. Recommendations of where and to w h a t extent  these factors should be addressed would be useful for s o m e factors m a y be m o r e effectively addressed in foundational courses, others in pre-service education methodology courses, while others are m o r e effectively in classroom practicum settings. Another important direction for research would be to develop, pilot, and m a k e available to the educational community an o ' rality curriculum' which would strive for m u c h more than o ' ral enhancement' as suggested in present curricula (B.C. Ministry of Education, 1988). This o ' rality curriculum' would be integrated with a l 'iteracy curriculum' which would include genres of speaking, strategies for promoting orality as well as practical assessment procedures which enhance the opportunities for oral interactivity in classrooms. The potential of orality to reciprocally enhance literacy could be explored and demonstrated through action research, for example. Another direction of research might include a comparison of factors affecting oral interactions in the elementary classroom compare to those in a secondary classroom. It seems that oral interaction decreases as pupils advance through the grades and perhaps such a study could reveal s o m e of the possible reasons (Pinnell & Jaggar, 1991). Another direction for future research would be to w o r k in collaboration with government educational authorities to continue to refine the development of curriculum materials which assist teachers in group communication skills (B.C.  163 Ministry of Education, 1995). Present group communication assessment guides could be expanded to include strategies for encouraging more interactive oral language activities through the development of speaking reference sets such as those already available for reading and writing (B.C. Ministry of Education, 1995). This study set out to identify and describe factors which student teachers perceived as affecting oral interactions in the practicum classroom. Through the analysis of interviews, dialogue journals, questionnaires, and validation through follow-up interviews, 24 factors in five categories were identified. The  identification and description was intended to promote orality as a valid m e d i u m of knowledge construction in the classroom. The intent was that this identification would provide effective guidance and encouragement to teachers and teacher educators to explore the potential of oral language in promoting the intellectual growth of pupils.  164 References Abbott, S. (1989). Talking it out: A prewriting tool. English Journal. 78(4). 49-50. Allan, J. B . (1977). The use of creative drama with acting-out sixth and seventh grade boys and girls. Canadian Counsellor. 11(3). 135-42. Bailey, G. (1988). H o w does our profession look on film? Teacher. June. Barnes, D . (1976). F r o m communication to curriculum. Hardmonsworth: Penguin.  Barnes, D . (1993). Supporting exploratory talk for learning. In K . M. Pierce,  & C. J. Gilles, (Eds.), Cycles of meaning: Exploring the potential of talk in learnin communities, (pp. 17-37), Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.  Berk, L. E. (1994). Vygotskys ' theory: The importance of make-believe play. Young Children. 50(1). 30-39.  Berlak, A., & Berlak, H. (1981). Dilemmas of schooling. N e w York: Methue Berliner, D . C. (1988). Implications of studies on expertise in pedagogy for teacher education and evaluation. In N e w directions for teacher assessment (Proceedings of the 1988 ETS Invitational Conference, pp. 39-68). Princeton, NJ Educational Testing Service. Bianchi, L. L . & Cullere, B . A. (1996). Research as duet: Teachers with complementary literacies study oralitys ' links to literacy. Language Arts. 73(41 241-247.  Bogden, R . C, & Biklen, S. K . (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Toronto, Canada: Allyn & Bacon.  165  Booth, D . (1994). Classroom voices. Toronto: Harcourt, Brace, & Company Bowser, J. (1993). Structuring the middle-school classroom for spoken language. English Journal. 82(1). 38-41. Britton, J. (1970). Language and learning. England: Penguin Books. Britton, J., Burgess, T., Martin, N., McLeod, A., & Rosen, H. (1975). The development of writing abilities. London: Macmillan. B . C. College of Teachers, (1997) Survey of recent graduates of B . C. Teacher Education programs. Victoria, B . C. B . C. Ministry of Education, (1988). Enhancing oral communication in the primary grades. Victoria, B . C. B . C. Ministry of Education, (1988). Enhancing oral communication in the secondary grades. Victoria, B . C. B . C. Ministry of Education, (1988). Enhancing oral communication in the intermediate grades. Victoria, B . C. B . C. Ministry of Education, (1995). Evaluating group communication across the curriculum. Victoria, B. C. B . C. Ministry of Education, (1996). Language Arts Integrated Resource Package. Victoria, B . C. British Columbia Teachers Federation, (1996). Inventing Crisis: The erosion of confidence in public education in Canada. Brody, C. M. (1995). Collaborative or cooperative learning?  Complementary practices for instructional reform. The Journal of Staff. Program. & Organization Development. 12(3). 133-143.  166 Brookhart, S. M., & Freeman, D . J. (1992). Characteristics of entering teacher candidates. Review of Educational Research. 62(1). 37-60. Bruner, J. (1978). The role of dialogue in language acquisition. In A. Sinclair, R . J. Jarvella, & W . J. M. Levelt, (Eds.), The child's conception of language, (pp. 241-55). N e w York: Springer-Verlag. Bryant C. , & Lee, L . (1991). Group oral response to literature: An experiment in large-scale assessment. English Quarterly. 23(3-4). 15-22. Buckley, M. H. (1992). Focus on Research: W e listen a b o o k a day; w e  speak a b o o k a week; learning from Walter Loban. Language Arts. 69(8). 622-626 Bugarski, R . (1993). Graphic relativity and linguistic constructs. In R . J. Scholes (Ed.), Literacy and language analysis (pp. 5-19). N e w Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum associates. Cayley, D . (1987). Literacy: The m e d i u m and the message. In Canadian Broadcasting Corporation forum, Ideas, (pp. 1-25), (41D8-237). Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Chisholm, D . P., & Buettner, E.G. (1995). Whole language: The d a w n of n e w orality. In L. W . Roberts, & R . A. Clifton, (Eds.), Contemporary Canadian educational issues, (pp. 150-163). Toronto, Canada: Nelson. Cintorino, M. A. (1993). Getting together, getting along, getting to the business of teaching and learning. English Journal. 82(1). 23-32. College of the Rockies, (1995). East Kootenav Teacher Education Program. Cranbrook, B . C.  167  Condon, M. W . F. & Clyde, J. A. (1996). Co-authoring: Composing through conversation. Language Arts. 73(8). 587-595. Cook-Gumperz, J., & Gumperz, J. (1992). Changing views of language in education: The implications for literacy research. In J. Beach, J. Green, M. Kamil, & T. Shanahan, (Eds.), Multidisciplinarv perspectives on literacy research (pp. 151-179). Urbana, IL: NCRE/NCTE. Craig, M. T. , Bright, R . M., & Smith, S. A. (1994). Preservice teachers' reactions to an interactive constructive approach to English language arts coursework. Journal of Teacher Education. 45(2). 96-103.  de Castell, S. (1987). Literacy: The m e d i u m and the message. In Canadian Broadcasting Corporation forum, Ideas, (pp. 1-25), (41D8-237). December, J. (1993). Characteristics of oral culture in discourse on the net. Paper presented at the twelfth annual Penn State Conference on rhetoric and composition, University Park, Pennsylvania. www.december.com/john/papers/pscre93.txt Dickenson, E. (1961). Final Harvest: Emily Dickensons ' Poems. Boston. MA: Little Brown.  Dippo, D . , Gelb, S., Turner, I . , & Turner, T. (1991). Making the political personal: Problems of privilege and poser in post-secondary teaching. Journal of Education. 173(3). 81-95. Dykstra, P. (1994). Say it dont ' write it: Oral structures as a framework for teaching writing. Journal of Basic Writing. 13(1). 41-49.  168  Easthope, C, Maclean, R . , & Easthope, G. (1990). The practice of teachin A sociology of education. London: Allen & Unwin. Egan, K . (1987). Literacy and the oral foundations of education. Harvard Educational Review. 57(4), 445-472.  Ely, M., Anzul, M., Friedman, T., Garner, D . , & Steinmetz, A. (1991). Doin Qulaitative research: Circles within circles. London: Falmer. Emery, W.G. (1996). Teachers' critical reflection through expert talk. Journal of Teacher Education. 47(2). 110-118.  Farrell, T. J. (1974). Open admissions, orality, and literacy. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 3(3). 247-260. Farrell, T. J. (1978). Developing literacy: Walter J. O n g and basic writing. Journal of Basic Writing. 2(1). 30-51. Farrell, T. J. (1979). Scribes and true authors. APE bulletin. 61. 9-16. Fernandez-Balboa, J-M. , & Marshall, J. P. (1994). Dialogical pedagogy in teacher education: Toward an education for democracy. Journal of Teacher Education. 45(3). 172-181. Fawcett, G. (1992). Moving the big desk. Language Arts. 69(3). 183-185. Fullan, M. (1982). The meaning of educational change. Toronto: OISE. Fuller, F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal. 6. 207-226. Gallas, S., Anton-Oldenburg, M., Ballenger, C, Beseler, C. Griffin, S., Papenheimer, R . , & Swaim, J. (1996). Talking the talk and walking the walk: Researching oral language in the classroom. Language Arts. 73(8). 608-617.  169 Galley, S. (1996). Talking their walk: Interviewing 5th graders about their literacy journeys. Language Arts. 73(4). 249-254. Gambell, T. J. (1997). (Ed.). A note to the reader. In A. Ward s ' Classroom conversations: Talking and learning in the elementary school, (pp. xi-xiv), Toronto, Canada: ITP Nelson. Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. R. (1984). Ethnography and Qualitative design in education research. Florida: Academic Press. Golub, J. & Reid, L. (1989). Activities for an "Interactive classroom." English Journal. 78(4). 43-48. Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school. Toronto, Canada: McGraw-Hill. Goodlad, J. (1991). Why we need a complete redesign of teacher education. Educational Leadership. 49(31. 4-6. Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London, UK: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as a semiotic: The social interpretations of language and meaning. Baltimore: University Park. Hansen, J. (1987). W h e n writers read. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Hart, C. & Smith, K. (1989/90) Talk to learn: An action research unfolding. Alberta English. Fall/Winter, 34-38. Havelock, E. (1976). Origins of western literacy. Toronto: OISE. Havelock, E. (1987). Literacy: The m e d i u m and the message. In Canadian Broadcasting Corporation forum, Ideas, (pp. 1-25), (41D8-237).  170 Heath, S. B . (1986). W a v s with words: Language, life, and w o r k in communities and classrooms. N e w York: Cambridge University. Hiebert, E. (1990). Research directions: Starting with oral language. Language Arts. 67(5). 502-506. Hillocks, G., jr. (1986). Research on written composition. University of Chicago: NCRE-NIE. James, L . B . (1980). The influence of black orality on contemporary black poetry and its implications for performance. Southern Speech Communication Journal. 45(3). 249-267.  Johnston, S. (1994). Experience is the best teacher; or is it: An analysis of the role of experience in learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education. 45(3). 199-208.  Joyce, B . R . , Hershe, R . H., & McKibbin, M. (1983). The structure of sch improvement. N e w York: Longman. Kagan, D . M. (1992). Professional growth a m o n g preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research. 62(2). 129-169. Keithley, A. (1992). M yo w n voice: Students say it unlocks the writing process. Journal of Basic Writing. 11(2). 82-102. Kochman, T. (1974). Orality and literacy as factors of 'black' and w ' hite' communicative behaviour. Linguistics. 136. 91-115.  Lakoff, R . M. (1982). S o m e of m y favourite writers are literate: The minglin of oral and literate strategies in written communication. In D . Tannen (Ed.). Spoken & written language, (pp. 239-60), Norwood, NJ: Ablex.  1 7 1  Lambdin, D . V. & Preston, R . V. (1995). Caricatures in innovations: Teach adaptation to an investigation-oriented middle school mathematics curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education. 46(2). 130-140. Lauritzen, C, & Jaeger, M. (1997). Integrating learning through story: The narrative curriculum. Toronto, Canada: Delmar. Lazar, A.M. (1995) W h o is studying in groups and why? College Teaching. 43(2), 61-65. Lenz, L . (1992). Crossroads of literacy and orality: Reading poetry aloud. Language Arts. 69(8). 597-603 Ludwig. S. (1994). Nine secrets to success with your student teacher. Teaching K-8. 25(1). 102-103. Mahlios, M., & Maxson, M. (1995) Capturing preservice teachers' beliefs about schooling, life, and childhood. Journal of Teacher Education. 46(3). 192199.  Martin, M., Williams, P., Wilding, J., Hemmings, S., & M e d w a y , P. (1976). Understanding children talking. Hamondsworth: Penguin. Masling, J. (1980). Client perception of the counselor and orality. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 27(3). 294-298. McDermott, P., Gormley, K . , Rothenberg, J., & H a m m e r , J. (1995). The influence of classroom practica experiences on student teachers' thoughts about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education. 46(3). 184-191. McLaughlin, G. L. (1989). H o w to m a k e the speech connection work. English Journal. 78(4). 51-53.  172 McQuade, A. (1995). Righting the story. Teacher. 8(2). 1 4 . Miller, J. & Seller, W . (1985). Curriculum: Perspectives and practice. London: Longman. Murray, A. (1970). African culture and black identity. Current, 121. 26-27.  Norman, K . (1992). Thinking voices: The w o r k of the National Oracy Project Seven Oaks, England: Edward Arnold. Norman, P., & Shapson, S. (1989). Teacher education: A shared responsibility. Research Forum. 5. 36-40.  Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., & Heck, M. J. (1993). Using small groups for response to and thinking about literature. English Journal, 82(1). 14-22. Nystrand, M., Greene, S., & Wiemelt, J. (1993). Where did composition studies c o m e from? an intellectual study. Written Communication. 10(3). 267-333. Okanagan University College, (1996). Student Teacher handbook. Kelowna, B . C. Olson, D . (1987). Literacy: The m e d i u m and the message. In Canadian Broadcasting Corporation forum, Ideas, (pp. 1-25), (41D8-237). Olson, D . (1994). The world on paper. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge. Ong, W . (1971). Rhetoric, romance, and technology: Studies in the interaction of expression and culture. N e w York: Cornell University Press. Ong, W . (1974). Agonistic structures in academia: Past to present. Interchange. 5(4). 1-12.  173 Ong, W . (1992). Writing is a technology that restructures thought. In P.  Downing, S. D . Lim, & M. Noonan (Eds.), The linguistics of literacy, (pp. 293-3 Amsterdam: John Benjamin. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Researchers" beliefs and educational research: Cleaning u p a messy construct. Review of Education Research. 62(3). 307-332. Patterson, L . (1996). Reliving the learning: Learning from classroom talk  and texts. In Z. Donohue, M. Tassell, & L. Patterson Research in the classroom: Talk, texts, and inquiry, (pp.3-10).Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Phelan, A.M., & McLaughlin, H. J. (1995). Educational discourses, the nature of the child, and the practice of n e w teachers. Journal of Teacher Education. 46(3). 165-174.  Pierce, K . M., & Gilles, C. J. (Eds.). (1993). Cycles of meaning: Exploring the potential of talk in learning communities. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Pinnell G. S., & Jaggar, A.M. (1991). Oral language: Speaking and  listening in the classroom. In J. Flood, J. M. Jensen, Lapp, R . , & Squire, J. (Ed  H a n d b o o k of research on teaching the English language arts, (pp. 691-720), N e w York: MacMillan. Pintrich, P. R . , (1990). Implications of psychological research on student learning and college teaching for teacher education. In W . R . Houston, (Ed.). H a n d b o o k of research on teacher education: A project of the association of teacher educators, (pp. 826-857), N e w York: MacMillan. Postman, N. (1995). The end of education: Redefining the value of school. N e w York; Vintage Books.  174 Raymond, A. M. & Santos, V. (1995). Preservice elementary teachers and self-reflection: H o w innovation in Mathematics teacher preparations challenges mathematics beliefs. Journal of Teacher Education. 46(1). 58-70. Schaffer, J. C. (1989) Improving discussion questions: Is anyone out there listening? English Journal. 78(4). 40-42. Sellars, N. W . (1987). The effect of practice teaching on the concerns of preservice primary teaching. Centre for the study of teaching and Teacher Development. Research Paper # 8 7 0 2 , James Cook University of N. Queensland.  Shor, I . (1987). Educating the educators: A Freirean approach to the crisis  in teacher education. In I . Shor (Ed.), Freire for the classroom. (7-32), Portsmouth NH: Heinemann. Simmons, J. (1996). W h a t writers k n o w with time. Language Arts. 73(8). 602-605. Sinclair, I . (1987). Literacy: The m e d i u m and the message. Moderator of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation forum, Ideas, (pp. 1-25), (41D8-237). Sorenson, M. (1993). Teach each other: Connecting talking and writing. English Journal. 82(1). 42-47. Strachan, W . M., (1990). Toward understanding literacy: Disarming the appeal of atheoretical eclecticism in teaching practice: An analysis of disciplinary perspectives. Doctoral Dissertation, Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser Univ. Tabachnick, B . R . & Zeichner K . M. (1984). The impact of the student teaching experience on the development of teacher perspectives. Journal of Teacher Education. 35(5). 28-36.  175 Tannen, D . (1985). Relative focus on involvement in oral and written discourse. In D . Olson, N. Torrance, and A. Hildyard, (Eds.), Literacy, language and learning, (pp. 124-47), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Teale, W . (1996) Editorial. Language Arts. 73(8). 560-61. Thomas-MacKinnon, P. (1992). Conversations as contests for poems, stories, questions. Language Arts. 69(8). 588-596. Tough, J. (1976). Listening to children talking: A guide to the appraisal of childrens ' use of language. London: Wardlock. Tsujimoto, J. I . (1993). Talk for the mind. English Journal. 82(1). 34-37. Underhill, N. (1987). Testing spoken language. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Ungerlieder, C. (1995). To the B . C. Government: Get an education, Vancouver Sun. October 19. University of British Columbia Student Handbook: Elementary. Vancouver, B . C. 1993/1994. Vygotsky, L . (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: M. I . T. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Ward, A. (1997). Classroom conversations: Talking and learning in elementary school. Toronto: ITP Nelson Canada. Watson, B . (1995). Relinquishing the lectern: Cooperative learning in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education. 46(3). 209-223. Wells, G. & Chang-Wells, F. L. (1992). Constructing knowledge together: Classrooms as centers of inouirv and literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.  176 Wells, Gordon, (1986). The meaning makers: Children learning language and using language to learn. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Wilkinson, A.M. (1965) Spoken English. Birmingham, England: University of Birmingham Press.  Yaden, D . B . (1984). Inner speech, oral language, and reading: H u e y and Vygotsky revisited. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly. 5. 155-166. Zeichner, K . (1990). Changing directions in the practicum: Looking ahead tothe1990s ' . Journal of Education for Teaching. 16(2). 105-125.  177 Appendix A  Focus Questions  1. W h e r e does m o s t of your information for evaluation c o m e from? Students' writing, reading, talking, or listening?  2. Would you change this? W h y ?  3. W h a t are s o m e difficulties in doing this ?  4. Which mode, writing or speaking is m o r e effective for giving instruction? W h y ?  5. H o w m u c h time ( % , fraction) do you estimate that: -you talk in your classroom? -pupils talk in your classroom? 6. Is there too much, too little, just the right a m o u n t of student talk in the classroom?  7. W h a t are some concerns you have in attempting to initiate m o r e student talk? e.g. control, time, efficiency, etc.  8. Is it effective for learning to have pupils talking with each other about tasks, procedures, solutions, etc?  9. Is it efficient?  10. In general society talk surrounds us everywhere. Should this be reflected in the classroom? W h y ?W h y not?  11.Anything else?  178 Appendix B  Teacher Questionnaire (Circle your response)  Age group- (20-30)  (30-40)  (40-50)  (50+) Gender-M/F  1. Pupils learn a great deal w h e n speaking with each other. Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree 2.  Collaborative tasks are not efficient. Strongly Agree 1 2 3  4  5  Strongly Disagree  3. Teacher instruction is m o r e effective than pupil collaboration. Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree 4.  Collaboration is an ability that pupils should learn in school. Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree  5. Pupils in collaborative groups need continuous monitoring. Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree 6. Talk or speech is a child's' most effective communication tool. Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree 7. Group w o r k requires m u c h prior preparation and teaching. Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree 8. Childrens ' speech assists their writing. Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4  5  Strongly Disagree  9. Potential group problems must be solved beforehand. Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree 10. Collaborative tasks are an effective learning strategy. Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree  183 Appendix G Student Teacher Questionnaire Consent Form Two ytprdtyyf Jronv: dlarold QlerAsen/ re-: fftesearcAparticipatiom  @ear- AodiW&lSJ'tncltrtts. • Congratulations om tie/ compdetiom ol^gxHu^piracticuvti/ ffloPffullgjfou/usere/ successfd andqoar summertime' emplqgment or^gurtAer studies' are/ organized inqoar ^favour. ~4s- some ofgow Anour 3?anv conducting/ same- research in tAe< area of oral la/iguage/ in/ fAe classroom?//or my doctoraldissertation. tie- significance ofpupul talA- as* a/ means of learning.  Jtlg/particular- interest is em If ourparticq^atiom is- requested  to-providanie-uHtA in/ormatiom ad)/id/ ilAustrates-j/oarftersfectioeS' om pupil talA and tA^/^factors udicli/ affect' tie use/ ofpapiA fa/Ay in tie/ classroom. {dies co/isent^form ia>Aicli/follows is? tA^qormalpartqfdoing researcA/ autA Aumam s//A-f£cts- in> tAic-^O s. -ffgow wisA. to fartieifate-/dcas sign/ tie* lofj.om,. drot& tAatjyour a/t-origmitg- is- assurred andtAatgou- can/ an'/Adram at a/igtime/ sAould^gou/ decide- to do so. Sfj/:om volunteerfafarticifa/:e<Iduw dialqguefoi/rnal, oAseroatiom reports- interim// orfinalreports/pins- loo A at ang/ videos' orpAotos-g^ou/ mag/ Aa/>€/ taAiem. idle- onA// time- reqe/iresnent is/ to p>ariicip>ate im a/// cnterviear of aAou/>40 minutes' impersom, om om email, or eoen video, or cassette- etc. dZoptefi/AA/- tAis/ could txiAe-place- sometime- during/ ffune-. Hffgou leave me- a telepAx>nemunAer or emadaddress- Idwdlcontactgm// to- arrange die- detads-. -ffgou- Aaoe- a/tgquestions- da not Ae^utat^- to contact/ meidlianAgo/j/for considering tAis- request and IdtooA/framrd to- meeti/tggou/ sAouAA^gou/ cAoose to-participate-. jfood lucA i/i/gourfa^/re/ eruAeavours,  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054882/manifest

Comment

Related Items