Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Requests by a mainstreamed student who is hearing impaired when interacting with peers Ruddick, Lana B. 1989

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1989_A8 R82.pdf [ 5.05MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097890.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097890-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097890-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097890-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097890-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097890-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097890-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097890-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097890.ris

Full Text

REQUESTS BY A MAINSTREAMED STUDENT WHO  I S HEARING IMPAIRED  WHEN INTERACTING WITH PEERS By LANA B. RUDDICK Dip.  B.Ed., The U n i v e r s i t y o f V i c t o r i a , 1978 E d . o f D e a f , The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a ,  1979  A THESIS SUBMITTED I N PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department  o f E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y and S p e c i a l  We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s a s c o n f o r m i n g to  the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF B R I T I S H COLUMBIA October (c)  1989  L a n a B. R u d d i c k , 1989  Education)  In presenting  this  degree at the  thesis  in  University of  freely available for reference copying  of  department  this or  publication of  partial fulfilment  of  British Columbia,  I agree  and study.  thesis for scholarly by  this  his  or  her  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  requirements that the  I further agree  purposes  representatives.  may be It  thesis for financial gain shall not  permission.  DE-6 (2/88)  the  is  that  an  advanced  Library shall make it  permission for extensive  granted  by the  understood be  for  allowed  that without  head  of  my  copying  or  my written  ABSTRACT  The p u r p o s e of  t h e Effective  1982)  study  Speaker  Model  i n assessing the nature  10-year-old with peers  student  aspect  who  Requests  appropriate  The  t o requests  both  strategies.  adapted  system  (1982)  as b e i n g  designated  on-task,  requested,  field  describe The  notes  istics were  receiving socially.  coding  by W i l k i n s o n and C a l c u l a t o r direct,  directed  when i n i t i a l l y  The f r e q u e n c y  percentage  and p a r t i c i p a n t  Specific  and d e s c r i p t i o n  and responses  found  were  found  t o peers.  i n t h e model,  t o be an a d d i t i o n a l  Along  requests  impaired.  In this  appropriate responses  after  an i n i t i a l  were  designated  found  request  were n o t s i n c e r e , from  study,  h i s peers.  t o be i n c l u d e d  of a student  the student  t o h i s requests  However,  64% o f t h e  a revision.  t o be g e n e r a l l y o n - t a s k ,  to a listener.  student's  for clarification  characteristic  or after  useful  with the character-  case  hearing  responses  information  of a  is  requests  were  to yield  and responses  requests  f o r each  i n t e r v i e w s were u s e d t o  when c o n s i d e r i n g t h e r e q u e s t s  time  unsuccessful,  and a p p r o p r i a t e responses created.  to a  or not appropriate  regarding the characterisitics  outlined  received  ethnographic  and s u b s t a n t i a t e t h e c o n f i g u r a t i o n .  information requests  as  important  were coded u s i n g an  and whether  and a p r o f i l e  interacting  h a s b e e n shown t o  sincere,  revised  of a  during student-directed  were o b t a i n e d u s i n g  t o that developed  the characteristics  from  and responses  a c a d e m i c a l l y and  were r e c e i v e d .  calculated,  Calculator,  i m p a i r e d when  The r e q u e s t s  listener,  clarification responses  of requests  i s hearing  observational data  research  (Wilkinson &  i n the classroom  responses  a student  the applicability  a r e c o n s i d e r e d t o be an  of interaction  influence  was t o t e s t  i n the regular classroom  activities.  of  of this  direct,  His and  when t h e s t u d e n t ' s  he d i d n o t r e c e i v e a p p r o p r i a t e He r e v i s e d  h i s requests i n  who  various  ways when  they  were i n i t i a l l y  he d i d n o t a l w a y s p e r s i s t student  was  found t o request  ways when p e r s i s t i n g The i n f o r m a t i o n direct  with  with  revisions.  responses  that  understanding  provided  to requests.  implications impaired  the student This  f o r teachers  will  although the  i n a number  a peer  lead to  f o r increasing the  receive  research settings.  appropriate  would who  seem t o h a v e are  of  response.  by t h e model would  and students  i n a l l educational  Finally,  clarification  i n t e r v e n t i o n and i n s t r u c t i o n  likelihood  unsuccessful  hearing  iv T A B L E OF  CONTENTS Page  Abstract List  i  i  of Figures  v i  Acknowledgement  v i i  CHAPTER  I;  INTRODUCTION  Introduction Purpose Operational CHAPTER  II:  1 4 Definitions  R E V I E W OF THE  4  LITERATURE  C o m m u n i c a t i o n : The c o n v e r s a t i o n d y a d F a c t o r s t h a t m i g h t i n f l u e n c e c o n v e r s a t i o n when one p e r s o n i s h e a r i n g i m p a i r e d P r a g m a t i c s : An a s p e c t o f c o n v e r s a t i o n Classroom conversation The E f f e c t i v e S p e a k e r M o d e l : R e q u e s t i n g a n d responding t o peers C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f e f f e c t i v e requests and responses Importance o f e f f e c t i v e requests and responses C o n v e r s a t i o n s k i l l s o f s t u d e n t s who a r e hearing impaired Pragmatic assessment C o l l e c t i n g observational data Analysis of observational data Ethnographic approaches i n education Evaluation of conversation s k i l l s of students who a r e h e a r i n g i m p a i r e d Assessing speech i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y Pragmatic assessment C H A P T E R I I I ; C A S E STUDY Purpose Research question Method Participant Site Data C o l l e c t i o n Observing and r e c o r d i n g events I n d i v i d u a l assessment Reading Speech i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y T r i a n g u l a t i o n : Student interviews  6 8 11 13 14 15 17 20 23 24 26 28 31 32 34 39 39 40 41 42 44 44 45  V  Data  CHAPTER  IV:  Analysis Coding Description  R E S U L T S AND  46 47  DISCUSSION  I n d i v i d u a l assessment Coding and d e s c r i p t i o n Summary A p p l i c a b i l i t y i n a s s e s s m e n t o f s t u d e n t s who are h e a r i n g i m p a i r e d Inclusion of requests f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n .... C H A P T E R V:  49 51 60 62 62  CONCLUSIONS  Implications Limitations Future Research  64 67 69  References  73  Appendix  A:  -  82  Appendix  B:  85  Appendix  C:  88  Appendix  D:  91  vi L I S T OF  FIGURES Page  Figure  1  The  Communication Dyad  Figure  2  The  Integrative  Figure  3  O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Framework Pragmatic A b i l i t i e s  Figure  4  Model  6 o f Language  7  f o r Assessing  C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Student's and A p p r o p r i a t e Responses  24 Requests 52  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would contribution  like  t o thank t h e f o l l o w i n g  to this  study  people  for their  -  To D r . K e n P u d l a s , my A d v i s o r a n d C h a i r p e r s o n o f t h e Thesis Committee, f o ryour always g e n t l e y e t c o n s t r u c t i v e input a t a l l stages o f t h e study; To D r . R a n d y C r a n s t o n , f o r i n t r o d u c i n g me t o e t h n o g r a p h i c a p p r o a c h e s i n e d u c a t i o n a n d , a s a m e m b e r o f my Thesis Committee, f o ryour a s s i s t a n c e and a d v i c e ; To D r . P e r r y L e s l i e , a s a m e m b e r o f my T h e s i s Committee, f o r your i n v a l u a b l e feedback a t c r i t i c a l in the writing; To M e r r i l y M c K e w a n , a p a r t o f your classroom  stages  f o r s o w i l l i n g l y a l l o w i n g me t o b e as a p a r t i c i p a n t observer; and  To C h r i s t i a n , f o r y o u r l o v i n g s u p p o r t , endless e n c o u r a g e m e n t , a n d g e n u i n e i n t e r e s t i n my e f f o r t s . pour t o u t . Thank y o u .  Merci  1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION "A p o s i t i v e  approach t o the conversational  f a c e d by t h e h e a r i n g combination  o f new r e s e a r c h  conversation the  part  1985,  as i t occurs  techniques  p r o v i d i n g support impaired  conversation competent his/her An  so t h a t  the classroom  (Keenan,  peers  Calculator, classroom  may b e p e r c e i v e d interacting  One  t o secure  This  such  (Webb, 1 9 8 2 a ,  requests  describes the  focus  and Ayers-Lopez  children  who  (1982)  who  information are l i k e l y  l e a r n are those  has been  (Wilkinson &  t o students  found that  important  t o b e t h e o n e s who  impaired  should  collaborate classrooms  from peers  during (Johnson,  This  receive  be a b l e t o and  i n order  information-gathering a b i l i t i e s  as s t u d e n t s  Johnson,  to  but  seems i n c r e a s i n g l y  a r e r e q u i r e d more and more t o  cooperative  school  can ask, and t h e c h i l d r e n  appropriately t o requests as w e l l .  requests  elementary  respond  skills  students  of the lesson or  i n f o r m a t i o n and a c t i o n from h i s / h e r peers  interpersonal  i n the  benefit the  request  enhance n o t o n l y  on  I n a d d i t i o n , Cooper,  who  i s hearing  1985a;  responses t o t h e i r  1982b).  Marquis,  who  with  a c t i o n and i n f o r m a t i o n  i s important  i fthe appropriate  A student  as a  classroom.  them l e a r n more about t h e c o n t e n t  give  of  who a r e  1974/ R i p i c h & S p i n e l l i ,  because e f f e c t i v e  assignment  Dastoli,  concern  i n student-directed activities  1982).  academically  it.  when  1982).  use of requests  from t h e i r  &  on  r e q u i r e d o f c h i l d r e n t o be s u c c e s s f u l  1985; W i l k i n s o n ,  students'  planning  students  e v e r - i n c r e a s i n g amount o f l i t e r a t u r e skills  the  and i n s t r u c t i o n f o r  a student  i n the regular  communication Simon,  analyze  Johnson,  t o mainstreamed  and d e s i r a b l e p a r t n e r  peers  that  on a g r o w i n g  - t h e assessment  skills  seems t o l i e i n a  and i n v o l v e s t r a t e g i c  p. 1 7 4 ) . These words focus  hearing  help  populations  of professionals" (Griffith,  teachers  in  impaired  difficulties  learning activities & Holubec,  1986).  i n  2 Students skills their  that  who  closely  normally  function These  best  i n a regular class  must be a b l e t o u n d e r s t a n d  lessons  and t o p a r t i c i p a t e  they  must be a b l e  intelligible  must be a b l e classroom,  & Maxon,  classroom  discourse  indicates  that these  of the rules student  conversations, passive 1985a).  how and in  the student  interaction  of h i s peers  situation,  mentally  The number United  Education  into  students  who  a  disinterested  &  Spinelli,  i s hearing  support  impaired i s classroom.  this,  stating  w h e t h e r he t o stay  i f not p h y s i c a l l y , factor  Because  i s not a h i g h l y  (Ripich  that  asks  i n the  dark  from t h e  when a s s e s s i n g a  who  are hearing has been  since the implementation  40 percent  (Ross,  r e s p o n d s p o o r l y t o some  o r seems w i l l i n g  of students  (Baker,  they  student  setting.  mandating that c h i l d r e n than  impaired  be e d u c a t e d  1980).  of the  educated  i n centralized  today  c o m p a r e d t o more  than  who  Law  94-142,  i n the least are hearing  schools  60 p e r c e n t  being  federal restrictive  I t has been e s t i m a t e d  of a l l students  being  impaired  increasing i n the  of the Handicapped A c t , P u b l i c  environment  and  i n and out o f t h e children  with h i s peers,  i n regular classrooms  States  questions  i n the regular  (1982)  i s an i m p o r t a n t  a mainstreamed  educated  impaired  for interaction  interacts  withdraw,  content  (Brackett, 1983).  and consequently  B r a c k e t t , and Maxon  questions  1986).  classroom  s/he i s p e r c e i v e d as p e r h a p s  o u t on p e e r  will  d o n o t a l w a y s h a v e a command  involved  i s hearing  partner  the child  and other  of  to follow the  t o understand  of hearing  students  As a r e s u l t ,  missing  the  Unfortunately, research  skills  communicator  desirable  Ross,  1982) .  and s k i l l s who  skills  and w e l l - f o r m u l a t e d responses;  with teachers  Brackett,  the  i n  language  (Weiss,  i n order  t o communicate e f f e c t i v e l y ,  both  have  t h e o n e s who  environment  i n the classroom  discussions;  a n d who  are probably  presented  teacher's produce  impaired  approximate the communication  hearing peers  students  material  are hearing  that  less  impaired are  i n the United  States  d u r i n g t h e 1960's  3  (Israelite  & Hammermeister,  similar  change  who  hearing  are  British school  impaired  adopted  i n the  number o f  students  to provide  itinerant  services  school  districts  Impaired: hearing  students skilled  i n order  techniques  As  the  are  aspects  with peers.  the  hearing  nature  The  teachers  to plan  students  to  need  of  impaired i n the  specific  develop  and  necessary  providing Minto, B.C.  are  forty-one  students  in  Hearing who  are  teachers  skills  of  students  i n the  use  using  their become  a tool  of  ethnographic  participant  interaction  provide  there  partners.  as  i t  1985b;  classroom aspects  Wilson,  of  use  and  conversations the  instruction  conversation  of  to  assessing  would enable  purposeful  occurs  that teachers  could readily  information gained specific  1977  these  appropriate  conversation  of  hence,  to  students  Ripich & Spinelli,  become t e a c h e r / r e s e a r c h e r s describing  of the  t o p l a n programs t o help  These t e c h n i q u e s who  and,  to  increase,  students  classroom  1981;  an  Henry  there  numbers of  in educational settings,  (Green & W a l l a t ,  In  support  Teachers  mainstream  to these  study  local  been  province  i n 1989  In  with  Speech Programs,  i s increasing interest to  has  students  i n the  confident conversation  observation  students  and  whereas  i n the  assess  and  there  providing itinerant  support  There  1977).  Impaired  ( D i r e c t o r y of  impaired  measures t o  students  Education  for children  mainstream.  districts  1988/1989).  providing  a result,  i n the  of Education),  mainstream  of  (Personal communication,  Manager of H e a r i n g  the  Ministry  programs  a  i n Canada.  programs p r o v i d i n g support  educated  five  school  also occurred the  that  p o p u l a t i o n of  number o f m a i n s t r e a m e d  were o n l y  Ministry  As  itinerant  being  of the  f o r example,  impairments.  increase  has  It is likely  a m a n d a t e i n 197 9 t h a t e n c o u r a g e d  districts  hearing the  in distribution  Columbia,  formally  1986).  skills.  for  4 Purpose The  purpose  assessing  of t h i s  students  information  and  who  study  are  action  i s to test  hearing  from  their  an  impaired peers  approach  for  requesting  i n the  regular  classroom. This teachers hearing  i n f o r m a t i o n would who  are p r o v i d i n g support  impaired  teachers  i n : a)  skilled  realizing skills,  and the  c)  students  purposeful  awareness  and  of  responses  and  social  purpose  who  has  degree  Language  or  i n the  but  specific  students of  skills and  to  these  of d)  direct  need b)  their  qualitatively  classroom,  study,  be  through  gaining intervention.  means o f - refers  the  following  termin-  used:  impaired - refers loss,  to a student  whether the  - refers  to  a student  regular classroom  a l s o be  on  loss  who  i s mild,  students  setting.  who  use  who  i s being  The  present  s p e e c h as  their  communication. to  an  mutually  experience  (Kretschmer  some  assist  profound.  student  relationships, represent  will  of hearing  severe  will  preferred  of t h i s  i s hearing  Mainstreamed educated  i t could  importance  communication  only quantitatively  definitions  moderate,  are  Definitions  the  and  as  who  cooperative conversation partners, academic  Student  focus  requests  itinerant  students  i n f o r m a t i o n f o r p u r p o s e f u l and  For  any  an  observation i n the  Operational ology  of  to  regular classroom  assessing the  not  -specific  i n the  developing  characteristics be  seem r e l e v a n t t o  and  & Kretschmer,  organized agreed  set of  upon by  facilitate  symbolic  a speech community  communication  1978; p . l ) .  to  5 Speech  - refers  result  of manipulation of the vocal  musculature  (Kretschmer  Communication language  Pragmatics  refers  syntactic, sentences.  forms, and  intended uses  semantic,  language  &  and  pragmatic  t h e use  findings.  observer  system,  involves  The  record  types  participation, Sevigny,  data  data,  four possible  1983;  the  (Kretschmer  observer-as-participant,  (Borg & G a l l ,  concerned  to a combination of  o b s e r v a t i o n are: complete  participant-as-observer,  and  particular  pragmatics  techniques to systematically report  of  components  semantics  i n various contexts  observation - refers  and  sound  word c h o i c e ,  v o c a b u l a r y , and  of language  interactions, of  through the  i n t e n d e d by  Participant  complete  (Kretschmer  P h o n o l o g i c a l aspects are  1978) .  participant  which  are capable of producing  Kretschmer,  classify,  oral  1978; p . l ) .  information  of the  t o word o r d e r and  the meanings  collecting  and  framework through  t o exchange  the production of  syntactic  to the  individuals  understanding  concerns  & Kretschmer,  - Through mastery  language,  syntax  tract  the  1978; p . l ) .  phonological,  with  - refers  is utilized  Kretschmer,  of  to the audible p r o d u c t i o n of language,  or  1981) .  of  &  6 CHAPTER I I R E V I E W OF THE Communication:  The c o n v e r s a t i o n  Communication Hoskins  LITERATURE  (1989)  dyad  i s a vehicle forsocial  defines  interaction,  mutual  focus  refers  t o an a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n  listener  have  appropriate that at the  of a speaker  conversation  least  such t h a t  conversation.  respond t o the speaker and  speaker and  She s t a t e s  operative  further  unit involving  a speaker t r i g g e r s something i n  the listener  The l i s t e n e r  and a c t i v e -  f o r knowing and u s i n g t h e  moves o r r u l e s .  whereby  As  - refers to the  where b o t h  i s the smallest  two people,  listener  and a l i s t e n e r ;  responsibilities  conversation  inter  interaction.  desires t o continue  the  i n t u r n has a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o  sharing  that  t h e m e s s a g e was  accepted  understood. When d e s c r i b i n g t h e c o m m u n i c a t i v e e v e n t ,  (1982) d i v i d e s t h e p r o c e s s together  i n the flow  knowledge,  linguistic  into  the three  of discourse: rules,  social  Prutting  areas that  operate  and c o g n i t i v e  and pragmatic  rules.  (Figure  1) .  THE DYAD  Figure  1: T h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n d y a d 1982) .  Prutting listener  dyad  measurement  and K i r c h n e r should  (Adapted  (1983)  feel  be c o n s i d e r e d  f o r discourse.  They  from P r u t t i n g ,  that  the speaker/  the smallest  feel  that  unit of  a conversation i s  7 a  sequence  is  neither  o f exchanges  interactive  model  units  internalizes  refers  propose  a  code,  (Figure  detailed  which has four cognitive  of language performance,  environment  code  morphology,  (1982)  df communication  content, unit  linguistic  units  and Lynch  of the l i n g u i s t i c  communication  b u t on what  them.  Carrow-Woolfoik  language  two p e o p l e where t h e f o c u s  on t h e s p e a k e r n o r on t h e l i s t e n e r  happens between  sions;  between  2). Units  to the rules  dimen-  units  and u n i t s  of language  when  content refers  III.  of  of the  of phonology,  syntax, semantics, and pragmatics that and then uses  of  communicating.  The  a  child  cognitive  to the process of  Units  of  language performance  Units  II.  o f the  linguistic  of  code  4 i—  Figure  Cognitive units language  content  IV. U n i t s  of  communication environment  2: T h e i n t e g r a t i v e m o d e l o f l a n g u a g e C a r r o w - W o o l f o i k & L y n c h , 1982).  (Adapted  from  8 internalizing  those  through  perception,  tation,  and  perception,  as  utterance  the  i n the  refers to  affect  model the  people  this as  linguistic, successful  The  sensation  from  i s r e c e i v e d by message  speech  the  when t h e  listener,  message  speaker.  communication and  of  i s understood,  becomes t h e  i s the  represen-  performance  events  speaking,  internal  last  the  decade,  to  is The  final  environment  external factors that  influence Factors  one  process  using  The to  detail  of  knowledge  f a c t o r s which  person  of  achieve  i n Carrow-Woolfoik  recognize  when one  of  a minimum  their  rules to  i s hearing  influence conversation  of the  there  situation.  involving  model  and  might  impaired.  when one  partner  impaired  When o n e impaired,  as  pragmatic  communication.  t h a t might  hearing  interactive  operational unit,  c o g n i t i v e , and  this  the  conversation  Lynch's model enables  are  In order  communication,  t h a t must be  must be  present;  must be  people  2)  f o r one  the  consider  to  1)  is  hearing  unique to  experience  (1985) has  met:  a minimal  l a n g u a g e must be  i n a conversation  factors to  Sanders  factors there  of  when t h e  listener  communication views  is  initial  communication.  Within two  sequence  f o r m u l a t i o n and  dimension which  the  when an  responded to  of  symbolization.  comprehension,  language  from t h a t  memory, c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n ,  finally,  language describes through  rules,  ease  the  of  o u t l i n e d a number  a l l the  s o u n d must be  i n g r e d i e n t s of comfortably  and  5)  the  content  speech  loud;  amount o f b a c k g r o u n d n o i s e ;  familiar;  of  must  4)  3) the  be  understandable. For factors  a  of  fully  met,  loudness  speech  acoustic  who  i s hearing  o u t l i n e d above r e g a r d i n g  c a n n o t be overall  listener  of  for hearing s p e e c h and  (Boothroyd, cues  can  be  1978;  partly  impaired,  the  perception  impairment  presents  Sanders,  the  of  reduces  a distorted  1985).  o v e r c o m e by  first  This  increasing  three  speech the pattern loss the  of  9 speech  intensity  distance cation, using  between the and,  i n the  has  people, case  or  distorted  accessible  i n the  (sarcasm  message  clarification  are  hearing  of  the  The  to to  defined  irrelevant speech  tolerate speech a  activities  1978).  In  1986). as  and  noise  to the  as  for  subtle  listener  who  comprehension  with the and  i s hearing & Giolas,  addition to  will  of  when t h e y noise  in  are  p o s s i b l e so  their  trying  to  environment  that  limited  is  that  useful  by  same r o o m ,  definitely to  and  acoustic  communication of affect  may  a person the  who  ability  comprehend the  of  spoken  1978).  amplification, vary  vary  Competing noises  impaired  complemented through will  speech  sound generated  room s u r f a c e s .  normal hearing  speechreading  the  room o r w i t h i n t h e  interfere  be  creating  easily distinguishable.  minimally  may  be  in  This  good a c o u s t i c  f a r as  of the  In  change  people  i n which the  clearly  defines  A  treatment  (Ross  a  everyone's  fact,  r e v e r b e r a t i o n because  message  not  i n a request  1980).  affect  competing noise  situation  adjacent  a p e r s o n who  hearing  impaired,  information  & Walter,  excessive  has  the  another  V a r i a t i o n i n meaning  a room a f f e c t  i s suppressed  (1978)  of  spoken message o f  h e n c e may  (Berg,  sounds are  Borrild  extent  a  received.  (Borrild,  as  the  listener  receive  readily, a v a i l a b l e to the  and  acoustics of  reception listen  impaired  s t i l l  i s hearing  specific  be  the  I n t o n a t i o n a l c u e s may  received. or  and  often conveyed through  not  message  loss will  by  1978).  i s available,  s e v e r i t y of  who  (Oleksiuk-Velez  i n f o r m a t i o n , may is  .  listener  o r humour)  intonation  1985)  the amplifi-  (Boothroyd,  the  with the  (Sanders, to the  appropriate  acoustic signal  increase  impairment  ability  equipment  i n understanding  person w i l l  reducing  c h i l d r e n i n a classroom,  sensorineural hearing  difficulties  a gap  of  using  e v e n when a m p l i f i c a t i o n a  limited  is  speaker through  auditory training  However, who  of the  as  the  auditory  speechreading. the  information  However,  rate, intensity,  and  ease  of  clarity  10 of  speech v a r i e s from person  1985).  In order  speechreading face  of the  the  speaker  the  speaker's  be  distance 1978;  facing  being  f o r the  and  the  out  listener  Referring  speaker the  and  ideal who  adequate  light  be  speechreader's  who  i s hearing  face  listener  listening  so one  and  code and  of  the  information cognitive  or  and  distorted,  hending  reflected  linguistic  i n the  and  be  speechreading (Borrild,  Lynch's model  the and  who  is  who  rules  by  content  of the  Sanders,  this,  linguistic that  impairment.  i s u s e d when effect  on  impaired, that  of  conceptual-  As  these  areas  This  the  may  not  language,  the  be  is  means  fourth  l a n g u a g e must  understandable,  this  compre-  language performance.  i s hearing  hearing  Further to  hearing the  (1982)  cognitive units  o r g a n i z a t i o n of  language,  outlined the  the  knowledge  person's  person  factors  familiar  internalizing  producing  for the  aren't  forty-five  impaired  affected.  i s a l s o a f f e c t e d by  and  eyes,  metre  a u d i t o r y memory, p e r c e p t i o n ,  classification  and  on  impaired,  lips  with  i s hearing  i z a t i o n , and - s y m b o l i z a t i o n a r e  fifth  good  more t h a n  to Carrow-Woolfoik  language content,  that  cues,  1972) .  is limited  process  Lesner,  of v i s u a l  since auditory sensation f o r a person  impaired  the  (Kricos &  of the  away f r o m t h e  person  Northcott,  then,  most out  a d i s t a n c e of not  between  centimeters  the  speaker  h a n d s be  and  maintained  get  conditions require that  the  obscured,  to  to person  and  be  readily  met. With  regards  to production  of  of the  speech of the  speaker  ligibility impaired  would  munication. intonation the  hearing cues  The cues  message.  difficulty  f u r t h e r i n f l u e n c e the hearing  listener  from the  Often  speaker  naive  in receiving  hearing  messages  impaired because the  familiar  the  hearing  listener  is  process  expects to help  to in  listeners from the  message  (Oleksiuk-Velez & Walter,  who  1980).  intel-  hearing  of  com-  receive understanding experience  speaker  who  l a c k s some o f Hence, t h e  i s with the  speech  great is  these more  and  11 language p a t t e r n s easier  the  research find  of the  different  Lesner,  who  i s hearing  communication process.  shows t h a t  depending  person  on  a person  talkers  the  who  more o r  talker's  On  the  other  i s hearing  less  speech  impaired hand,  impaired  difficult  the  to  will  understand  intelligibility  (Kricos &  1985).  In  summary, when c o n s i d e r i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n as  framework w i t h i n which the c o m m u n i c a t i o n m i g h t be account  those  factors  conversation,  v a r i o u s components  considered,  one  t h a t m i g h t be  especially  i f one  the  of  must a l s o t a k e  influencing  of the  into  the  partners  is  hearing  impaired. One  aspect  of  a conversation, pragmatics,  will  now  be  discussed. Pragmatics:  An  aspect  Prutting  (1982)  of  conversation  recounts  the  s t o r y of  a group  s p e e c h - l a n g u a g e p a t h o l o g i s t s who  were asked  pragmatics.  some d e l i b e r a t i o n  I t seems t h a t a f t e r  responded that pragmatics out  when t h e y  that of  the  analyzed  theoretical  l a n g u a g e has  1960's,  the  was of  theoretical  social  cognitive factors  acquisition has  the  focus  During of the  rules  been d u r i n g the  been d e f i n e d and component  several define  specific pragmatics  execution the  of  form  and and  understood  1980's, occurs.  continues  was  aspects  years.  on  the  the  aspects. as  concerning  content  outside the  of  of  the  can  context  and  role  sentences,  language of  the of the  child's important.  of pragmatics  different  Kretschmer  elements  During  the  area  Pragmatics  and  1970's, both  influencing  as  throw  stating  acquisition  decade of the  that the  they  by  contexts be  context  emphasizing  c a n n o t be  has  in  (1978) in  the that  properly  communication.  as  are  Kretschmer of  It  considered  communication w i t h i n which there  comprehension the  the  define used to  o f grammar were most  addressed  which communication one  next  She  important  changed through  language. and  everything they  language.  focus  to  of  12 Within have been  (1978)  (1982) might  outline five and  states that focus  cognitive context;  on four  and  outline three  including: way  and  the  functions  functions  will  social  Lund and  use  into  situational  four  linguistic  The  setting;  interaction end  of  including  the  event;  perspective  of  perspective,  the  their  listener.  ability  The  to produce  With Prutting  regards (1982)  considered  sequences,  (1983)  and  communicative  goal;  conversation.  can be  including: listener  refers to of  the  what  t o p i c of  the  speaker's The  i n t e n t i o n or  listener  i n c l u d i n g : the  linguistic  context  appropriate the  The  a s p e a k e r must c o n s i d e r  background knowledge,  size  of  the  t o mark o f f d i s c o u r s e conversation  as  or  context  the  the  status o f the  person's  forms.  u n i t of  depending  interchanges,  and  onthe  the  physical  refers to  language  middle,  interaction,  s t a y i n g ont o p i c .  listener,  context,  a clear explanation o f  context  utterance.  and  Similarly,  pragmatics  context,  the  speak;  language  the  states that  view  people  the  that  exchanges,  language  about the  of pragmatics  refers to  to  of  Spekman  and  a particular account  why  and  a beginning,  function  Duchan  or  use  in and  awareness of  context  into  Roth  the  They p r e s e n t  one  language  the  t o p i c change, of  Prutting  contexts;  p a r t i c i p a n t ' s sense  intentional  units  of  that  situational  i s about; the  their  intentional  context.  each context.  their  suggest  areas  context,  of  variations. language,  reach  (1983)  Duchan  physical  to  o r g a n i z a t i o n of  organized  the  of  utilization,  prerequisite  rules in different major aspects  and  of pragmatics  i n w h i c h p e o p l e make d e c i s i o n s  form they  takes  concept  use  speech  constraints.  context;  stylistic  language  components:  contexts:  conversation  (1984)  and  of  Kretschmer  different  social  context  and  major  conversational  w i t h i n the  social  the  categories  i n f o r m a t i o n a l organization, sentence  presuppositions,  the  various  o u t l i n e d by several authors.  Kretschmer acts,  pragmatics,  discourse, topic,  the  could be turns, episodes.  progressing  Lund from  and  13 preverbal to  three-turn  various of  turns,  to single  exchanges.  categories  discourse  importance context  and aspects  f o rt h e i sthe  and t h e  occurs.  conversation  considered  the last  decade,  a communicative  examine c o n v e r s a t i o n 1981).  interaction:  discourse, 1985).  finally  or the length  t h e common e m p h a s i s  i n which the conversation  Gumperz,  and  what t h e l a b e l s  of pragmatics,  units considered,  During  talks  No m a t t e r  of c o n s i d e r i n g t h e use o f language  Classroom  of  conversational turns,  context  Classroom  conversation discourse,  and student-student  discourse  interaction  with  discourse  class,  a single  interaction  1981;  i n v o l v e s many  kinds  teacher-student (Bloome &  when t h e  Knott,  teacher  discourse  student,  student-student  while  between  talk  discourse together  most o f t e n  instructional  & Wallat,  individual  involves  students  often  during  occurs  involves  seatwork.  conversations This  peer  i n student-directed  groups of mathematics  and reading.  However,  opportunity  f o r interaction  can occur  if  use cooperative  learning strategies i nthe  teachers  classroom  (Johnson  & Holubec, require  1986) .  students  encouraging the  & Johnson, Planned  material  agree that  happens  i n small  i s little  1982b; W i l k i n s o n ,  Johnson, groups,  efforts  to learn  Several on what  i s not  present  1984).  c h i l d r e n communicating with  have  and respones  i n small  information  g r o u p s when t h e t e a c h e r  some a u t h o r s  requests  each others'  areas  lessons  (Johnson e t a l . , 1986).  there  When c o n s i d e r i n g peers,  learning  t o work c o l l a b o r a t i v e l y  authors  (Webb, 1 9 8 2 a ,  i n a l l content  1985, 1986; Johnson,  cooperative  and f a c i l i t a t i n g  assigned  or  and t h e c l a s s .  Student-student when s t u d e n t s  occurs  one m i g h t  teacher-student  refers to discourse  between a student  been  w i t h i n which  teacher-class  t o t h e whole  have  ( E r i c k s o n , 1982; Green  Teacher-class  discourse  classrooms  specifically  their  examined t h e nature  (Brinton & Fujiki,  of  1982; E r v i n - T r i p p ,  14 1977;  Prinz  Wilkinson, Milosky,  & Ferrier, Calculator,  -  (1977)  linguistic  pragmatic of usage  knowledge  looking  at the  response (1983)  and  involving  kinds  kinds  student-student  children  and  of  responses  Wilkinson  1986).  form  and  different  further of  purposes of on  and  (1982)  Prinz  study  requests  of the  r e c e i v e an  (1982),  her  rules  examined  children, appropriate  and  Ferrier  requests  in  requesting with  c o l l e a g u e s have reviewed  examined requests  studies involving  and  reading  and  These a u t h o r s  f u n c t i o n of and  Wilkinson  Lund  and  context  social  specific  elementary  specific  a  result  contexts  students.  as  these  focused  in  Wilkinson  regards  a  by  specific  context  within  - during student-directed activities;  context  - student-student  context  - requests  research, they  to  Prutting  studies on  et  linguistic  by  a specific  among  1982;  With  outlined  (1983),  classroom;  intentional  of t h e i r  of  c o l l e a g u e s have  context  1984;  the  school  activities  have examined both  Duchan  - the  listener  a  Speaker  her  Wilkinson,  requests  and  responses  (Wilkinson & Calculator,  1983;  various pragmatic  interaction;  and  have o u t l i n e d  responses. the  a and As  Effective  Model.  Effective  Speaker  Effective language  goals  Fujiki  given.  discourse i n their  & Spinelli,  al.,  of  to  that  request,  in student-directed instructional  mathematics  that  of the  understanding  of requests  nine  in a series  social  an  aspects  children.  literature  the  form  1983) .  production of  B r i n t o n and  However, W i l k i n s o n and peers  important and  1982;  Wilkinson,  sequences between k i n d e r g a r t e n  identified  thirty  of the  for requesting.  request-response  two  comprehension  knowledge  1982;  Wilkinson & Spinelli,  outlines  a student's  Wilkinson & Calculator,  & Dollaghan,  & G e n i s h i , 1986;  Ervin-Tripp affect  1983;  Model:  speakers  forms,  Requesting are  persons  f u n c t i o n s , and  in interaction,  such  as  and  responding  who  use  their  contexts to  to  knowledge  achieve  obtaining materials  peers  and  their  15 securing  informative  information to  the  by  Prutting  responses to  (Wilkinson  conversation (1982)  between the there  is a  desired  are  successful  her of  people and  the  a request  appropriate  that  that  will  response  Characteristics C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , of  as  they  there be  are the  revised i f there  action  expressing  or  another  to  one  be  the  face-to-face their  to  conditions is  a need  to  fulfill  the  do  so,  d)  or  information.  and  request the  f o r the  met  the  listener  request  Finally,  persisting  and  (1977) listener  listener an  or procedures  initially in  their and  The be  demands sincere  has an  an  a)  the  of in  four  sincere:  there  ability  obligation to  request  on-task and  for  non-verbally,  the  obligation to  i n i t i a l request  providing  has  to  t h e n has  m u s t a l s o be  an  listener,  state that  t o be  a right  peers  specifically  speakers to  the  s p e a k e r has  the  seatwork.  responses.  clearly  i s given.  f o r a request c)  an  particular  through  Fanshel b)  and  responses to  i s an  must  request  s p e a k e r has  content  that  and  e i t h e r v e r b a l l y or  request,  The  Wilkinson  making d i r e c t requests  student  whom t h e  request, the  The  academic  A  Labov and  c l e a r and  respond.  themselves;  student,  must be  one  ensure t h i s  interaction require  requests.  listeners  I f s p e a k e r s want c l a r i t y  information.  designate  to  and  on-task,  directly  obtaining  obtained.  e f f e c t i v e requests  can  that  E f f e c t i v e speakers  likelihood  sincere,  they  effort  certaincharacteristics  designated  communication,  speaker  intentions.  d i r e c t form, request.  outlined  request-response  have t h e i r  include:  unsuccessful  the  request.  e f f e c t i v e requests and  u n i t as  each r e c o g n i z i n g  increase  of  reference  listener  their  will  With  a cooperative  his/her  comply w i t h feel  (1989),  for  reflects  communicators  colleagues  operative  r e s u l t i n g i n the  response to  and  basic  Hoskins  common g o a l  the  recognize  the  and  speaker  requests  & C a l c u l a t o r , 1982).  as  s e q u e n c e b e t w e e n two  their  action  make  the  obligation to and  related  materials  of  i s revised  additional information  to  to  the  by the  same  16 listener a  request  feel to  who h a d n o t r e s p o n d e d i f a desired  that  a student  response  studies  Both Garvey forms  (1975)  i s not given,  Ferrier  support  some o f t h e s e  and E r v i n - T r i p p  Spinelli  (1983) b o t h  indirect  request  dyads  guard  requests  exchange  (1985a)  there  and Kernan  direct  between  and P r i n z and  i s an i n c r e a s e d  (1977)  report  a r e not always honored, However, t h e y  compliance  against  able  use o f  forms w i t h age.  revise requests.  revision,  be  characteristics.  (1976) n o t e t h a t  and R i p i c h  state that  Mitchell-Kernan child  the authors  requests.  a r e common i n a r e q u e s t - r e s p o n s e  young c h i l d r e n .  When r e v i s i n g  who i s a n e f f e c t i v e s p e a k e r w i l l  successfully revise his/her Other  to  appropriately.  to their  i n child-  f o r c i n g peers  state that  i s not guaranteed  challenges  that even  with  as c h i l d r e n a r e on  status  and t o t h e i r  rights. Regarding p e r s i s t i n g with response t o a request, s p e a k e r must be a b l e another  obligation  t o request  must  Webber,  of requests  a request  request  f o rr e p e t i t i o n  requests  learning  an i n t e r a c t i v e t a s k ,  at  requesting  (1950?),  a  (1972)  and provide  that and use  specific  or a  In their  specific studies  c h i l d r e n who h a d a (1980)  note  t o understand the conversation  requiring listeners  and p r o v i d i n g  listener  with  outline  f o r repetition  Donahue, P e a r l , a n d B r y a n  as  and F l a v e l l  request  that  t h e n has an  as a speaker  ( T h a t man w h a t ? ) .  some c h i l d r e n may f a i l  active  a  question  state  These a u t h o r s  (What d i d h e d o ? ) ,  f o rc l a r i f i c a t i o n  disability,  (1988)  the listener  recognize  f o rc o n f i r m a t i o n  f o rs p e c i f i c a t i o n  Danner,  state that  f o r clarification  including: a neutral  request  that  (1983)  and Disher  clarification.  learn t o both  a listener,  (what?),  of  appropriate  and paraphrase t h e i r  i s not understood,  d i f f e r e n t kinds  students as  t o modify  Warr-Leeper,  t h e response  four  Fey and Leonard  an  way i f n e e d e d .  Fey, if  obtaining  verbal  to actively  feedback.  state that  i n order  the necessary  Peterson, t o be an  revision of a  work  17 request,  the  speaker  listener  requesting  Although  must r e c o g n i z e t h e  o t h e r s have  requests  colleagues  seem t o be  and  investigated  responses,  the  studies,  they  or  not  the  appropriate  responses, in  the  responses  one  and can  Effective  examined  responses  the  with  in their  numerous  for determining  speaker  whether  in obtaining  requests.  other  studies of  outline  why  of e f f e c t i v e  requests  process  and  such  children's requests interaction  crucial  requests  responses  o f t e a c h i n g and  context because t h i s two  a model  effective to  her  is  and  important  classroom.  Importance the  information gained  i s an  From t h e s e  and  of  in peer-directed instructional  have o u t l i n e d  a student  W i l k i n s o n and  requests  school children  Using  the  various aspects  o n l y group t h a t has  spontaneous production of groups.  from  clarification.  children's  elementary  feedback  h a v e an  learning  k i n d of  and  responses. important  i n the  interaction  functions for learning:  role  in  classroom  with peers  serves  i n t e r p e r s o n a l and  informational. LaGreca  and  communication  Mesibov's  skills  needed by  interaction  with peers.  behaviours;  extending  on-going  peer  questions others' by and  taking turns to  and  child  responding  invitations  interests, the  nonverbal  social  greeting  to  m a i n t a i n i n g an  some  for successful  conversation s k i l l s  comment on  v e r b a l and  outlines  include:  other people's  questions,  giving  and  (1979)  any  These  activities;  about  study  such  as  responding  extended  topic  to  of the  compliments  and  join asking  to  conversation conversation; positive  feedback. Bedrosian action,  repetition  conversation maintaining initiate  (1985) v i e w s  and  and the  or  the topic  requests  clarification revision  of the  for information, as  a means o f  request  in a conversation.  maintain the  topic  as  initiating  a means  In order  i n a conversation,  to  of  both  students  18 n e e d t o know and  follow  Ripich,  I f a person  1985b).  discourse, partner  s/he  i s no  r u l e s of d i s c o u r s e  t h a t an  child's  appropriate  B r i n t o n and  inability  request-response  use  d o u b t p e r c e i v e d as  for conversation.  maintain  can  communication  be  s y s t e m as  as  &  r u l e s of  a more d e s i r a b l e  Fujiki  to interract  s e q u e n c e may  (Spinelli  (1982)  appropriately in a  serious a d e f i c i t  inadequacies  to  i n syntax  the  or  phonology. Further to t h i s , s t a t e t h a t how makes an others  often a c h i l d  unsolicited  shows how  (1989) s u p p o r t s request  Wood, G r i f f i t h ,  this  positive  an  may  again,  reflect  the  student  active participant, obligations Ladd skills, students  to  affect  engage i n s o c i a l school,  and  i n the  asking  i s an  and  accepting  teaching  questions,  these  three  as n o t  skills  favourable  effects  addition  social  i f the  is positive  accepted  self-esteem  1986). There are p o t e n t i a l interaction  being  b e n e f i t s from t h i s  on  nature  and  by  willingness  a t t i t u d e s toward other  development  three  generalized to  of being  higher  social  t o grade  teachers  Perceptions  student-student  and  his/her  i n many ways i n c l u d i n g :  positive  Once  desirable  assertive  (Johnson,  to the  student  conversation.  their  interaction,  skill  Leonard  for  to achieve  social  of  for  motivation  student's  and  Fey  a cooperative  student  t h e i r peers,  a student  i s a sign  or requests  r e c o g n i z i n g and  peer acceptance.  self-acceptance, and  i f the  were j u d g e d by by  Hoskins  assertiveness of a  i s considered  o f w h i c h was  who  of  a symptom o f n o n a s s e r t i v e n e s s .  to p a r t i c i p a t e  well-accepted classroom  the  (1981) r e p o r t s t h a t a f t e r  one  has.  of a request  of queries  c o u l d be  conversation partner  peers  a child  self-esteem.  initiation  i n f r e q u e n t use  clarification  when a s k e d ,  view s t a t i n g t h a t a w i l l i n g n e s s t o  (1983) a g r e e t h a t t h e clarification  (1980)  c o n t r i b u t i o n , or asks q u e s t i o n s  much " i n i t i a t i v e "  and  Howarth  answers a q u e s t i o n  a r e p a i r or to r e v i s e a request  assertiveness  and  and  and  students et a l . the of  the  accepting.  mutual h e l p  In and  19 exchange  of information  sequences, The direct  there  a r e academic  ability  appropriate  benefits.  on t h e c h i l d ' s l e a r n i n g .  (1985)  state that  at a very  have s t r a t e g i e s f o ri n t e r a c t i n g w i t h attention,  initiate  and d i r e c t others'  saying  those  peer-group from peer (1982)  Further  conclude  information also  feel  to this,  from t h e i r  be informed As  students  will  study  received  achievement requests highest Webb  directly  1984).  scores.  1982b)  Webb f u r t h e r r e p o r t s  not  i n that  situation,  responses  or indirectly to think  help  as t h e  about t h e  and C a l c u l a t o r  information  (1982)  and receive i t  of such i n t e r a c t i o ni n  They n o t e t h a t  students  who  used  were a l s o t h e s t u d e n t s  who o b t a i n e d t h e  i n the class i n reading  and mathematics.  also  reports  positively  that  that  g i v i n g and r e c e i v i n g  r e l a t e s t o achievement.  the interaction variable  s t r o n g l y t o a c h i e v e m e n t was a s k i n g no r e s p o n s e .  be e n t i r e l y  but also  knowing c h i l d r e n .  i nthe learning  Wilkinson  the benefits  t e s t scores  receiving  They  i n t e r a c t i o n i n v o l v i n g g i v i n g and  from peers  responses t o questions most  c h i l d r e n who  t o be asked q u e s t i o n s  cause t h e student  effectively  (1982a,  that  i t .  c h i l d r e n who g i v e  seem t o r e f l e c t  & Ayers-Lopez  t o b e t h e o n e s who r e c e i v e  not only  information  that  other  children i n  o f new l e a r n i n g b y o t h e r  (Wilkinson,  report  with  to learn  knowledge w i t h  classrooms,  them l e a r n more about t h e c o n t e n t topic  be l e s s a b l e Marquis,  by  adequate  give  seem t o b e n e f i t  responses  They c o n t i n u e  a n d t h e c h i l d r e n who  a result of this  receiving  obtain  c h i l d r e n who a r e k n o w n t o b e c o m p e t e n t a r e  approached by others to  peers t o secure  c h i l d r e n without  Cooper,  who c a n a s k ,  are likely  that  young age c h i l d r e n  behaviour.  skills  and second-grade  are those  Creaghead and  their  i n t e r a c t i o n or t o share t h e i r  kindergarten learn  school-aged  communication  children.  seems t o h a v e a  and respond t o t o p i c s ,  information that  request-response  t o make e f f e c t i v e r e q u e s t s  influence  Tattershall  through  a question  Although the higher  as a r e s u l t o f t h e student  relating and  achievement being  an  may  20 effective  speaker,  possibility  these  authors  academic  educated  Conversation The cation  and s o c i a l  i n the regular  skills  classroom  setting  involve  both  discussion, that  for.the student  or with  lecture  respond  the student  comfortable partner.  who  uncommon  impaired depending  are  teachers (Antia, their  who  impaired  communication  i s hearing  grasp  impaired  the intent.  often  (Brackett, 1983).  with peers  peers  and f u l l y  i n the  As  classroom  integrated students  show t h a t t h e s t u d e n t s forsocially  1982; McCauley,  survey  i t i s not  easy nor frequent. of partially  than  most  o n h i s / h e r own i n c o n v e r s a t i o n s  successful interaction  hearing  conversations  on t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n  to fully  communication d i f f i c u l t i e s  Studies  volunteer  t h e known a n d unknown  experiences  not always  noticeable i n  can f i n d  with the teacher,  a student  is  noted  the child's  on o r when t h e y  piecing together  either  are required to  with peers, result,  from  (1983) h a s  impaired,  t h e one-to-one  i s hearing  when l e f t  situations  Brackett  of information i n order  Unfortunately,  interaction  i n a teacher-directed class  f o r t h e a d u l t t o i n t e r v e n e when  fragments  impaired  to a lecture  are usually less  o r most demanding,  breakdown occurs,  a  of  listening  are called  When c o n v e r s i n g  are hearing  The k i n d s  i s hearing  I t i s , however,  enhanced.  communi-  since the children  o n l y when t h e y  answer.  that  format  who  a peer.  who  who  communication  communication d e f i c i e n c i e s  an  l e a r n i n g c a n be  a new a n d d i f f e r e n t  or participating  the teacher  appropriate  impaired  situations,  with  i n an  i n the  are hearing  f o rthe child.  and one-to-one  peers  classroom.  of students provides  group  teacher,  the  to their  has i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r students  being  the  talk  r e q u e s t i n g and responding  manner, b o t h This  this  f o r consideration.  T h u s , when c h i l d r e n classroom,  have p r e s e n t e d  rewarding  rely  who  more on  experiences  B r u i n i n k s , & Kennedy,  1976).  In  of communication p r a c t i c e s of adolescents i n  21 the mainstream, Libbey  and Pronovost  major problems f o r students  (1980)  report  that  were r e l a t e d t o f e e l i n g  u n c o m f o r t a b l e t a l k i n g w i t h h e a r i n g p e e r s and n o t b e i n g t o u n d e r s t a n d what was b e i n g G r i f f i t h e t a l . (1985)  said i n a conversation.  state that students  misunderstood or misunderstanding they  with a hearing  may f e a r  use  that  peers.  R o s s e t a l . (1982) n o t e t h a t c h i l d r e n  impairment i n t h e r e g u l a r classroom  a p p e a r t o p l a y a n a c t i v e r o l e when r e s p o n d i n g from peers.  being  t o such an e x t e n t  avoid interaction with t h e i r Further to t h i s ,  able  However, on c l o s e r o b s e r v a t i o n ,  many v e r b a l a n d n o n - v e r b a l  initially  t o requests these  children  cues t o i n d i c a t e t o t h e  s p e a k e r t h a t t h e message i s b e i n g u n d e r s t o o d when i n f a c t i t may r e a l l y n e e d c l a r i f i c a t i o n . not  The s t u d e n t s ,  h o w e v e r , do  ask f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n b u t i n s t e a d use back  communication s t r a t e g i e s and, a c c o r d i n g f e i g n comprehension. "backchanneling"  describes  to Brackett  (1983)  L u n d a n d Duchan  channel (1983),  state that  a l i s t e n e r who i s d i s e n g a g e d a n d  i s p l a c i n g t h e burden o f c o n v e r s a t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y on the  conversational partner.  Fey and Leonard  report  an  abundance o f t h e s e  as  "uh-huh", " o k a y " , a n d " y e a h " , i n t h e l a n g u a g e o f c h i l d r e n  who h a v e a s p e c i f i c  back channel  (1983)  language impairment and s t a t e t h a t  c h i l d r e n who a r e h e a r i n g to permit the  i m p a i r e d may u s e t h i s  ongoing conversation,  f e e l i n g of being  communication s t r a t e g i e s  accepted  same s t r a t e g y  t o allow students the  as a c o n v e r s a t i o n p a r t n e r and n o t  one c o n s t a n t l y i n t e r r u p t i n g t o r e q u e s t  They s t a t e f u r t h e r t h a t w h i l e b a c k c h a n n e l i n g  clarification. may p r o v e t o b e  an e f f i c i e n t means o f m a i n t a i n i n g t h e f l o w o f t h e conversation  i t a l s o allows the student  t o a v o i d b e i n g an  initiator of interaction. A way o f i n i t i a t i n g  interaction  i s through requests f o r  clarification.  Also, asking f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n  necessary  f o r sustaining dialogue  as  skill  i tisn't  a constant  that students  with others  i n t e r r u p t i o n . Weiss  with a hearing  i sa  (1986)  as long reports  impairment responding t o  22 requests  from peers  revision,  giving their  necessary. students of  rarely  She  who  listener  request  p e e r s no  clarification  clue that  states further that  are  hearing  skills  most a p p r o p r i a t e  and  form  impaired  as of  a revision  s t u d i e s have  have a  a result  or  do  shown  that  limited repertoire  not  f e e d b a c k when  is  always use  the  requesting  clarification.  the  Ripich  and  Spinelli  student  who  i s hearing  conversations, and  consequently  interaction. are  hearing  partners tennis  They  teachers than are  keep the  must  inform,  the  hearing and  react,  Johnson  who  frustrated  who  playing  p l a y e r has and  to  f o r most  work  peers  i f c h i l d r e n are  They  to  speakers  who  discussions,  then  and feel  acknowledge that  rather  students  who  In  their  learning activities  in  a  (1985)  state that the  impaired and  that  active participants. who  were  hearing  state that  students  were a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a n t s i n  with problems  activity,  that  students  Johnson  impaired  were h e a r i n g  from the  and  They  students  required.  listen,  cooperative  impaired,  task.  for  conversational  stronger i n play  some  need o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r i n t e r a c t i o n  with mainstreamed  were h e a r i n g  that  responsive  r e q u i r e s them t o be using  to  communicator  i t is like  contribute to  classroom  be  and  conversation.  impaired  investigation  learning  because ball  spontaneous, and  a passive  s e l e c t e d as  extra effort  questions  direct  allows  not  a l . (1986) m a i n t a i n  become a c t i v e , ask  are  students  worth the  Wood e t talk,  to  because  responds poorly  i t c o u l d be  a weak o p p o n e n t : t h e hard  as  that perhaps  a highly desirable partner  state that  hearing  with  i s not  i s not  feel  impaired  i s perceived  impaired  by  especially it  s/he  (1985a)  students  the  tended not  i n communication,  the  took  be  students  d i d n ' t w i t h d r a w o r become  more i n t e r a c t i o n  who  place  excluded among  the  students. A  thorough  indicate the  that  review  students  conversation  skills  of the who  are  literature hearing  to  date  impaired  comparable to t h e i r  seems do  hearing  not  to have  peers  23 and  this  l a c k of  skills  adversely  with peers.  Before  planning  appropriate  skills  to  able  to  assess  development  the  a given  student's  in this are  area.  students  who  means o f  assessing the  conversations  Pragmatic  two  major  communicator, intervention  single  and  b)  (Roth  & Spekman,  i n the  stages  as  area  & Duchan,  1984).  d e p e n d s on  the  that  With  1983;  i s wanted, and to  the  organization or  skills  an  can  intentions, of  discourse  clinician  can  communication  the  any  is the  Roth  &  employs  level  of  available  examined,  at three  framework.  i s examined at  1983;  m e t h o d one  framework  any  the  Weinrich,  They aspect They  of these  Roth  and  where  levels:  p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s , and  analyze  in  assessment.  t o be  (Figure 3).  language using t h i s  &  personnel  of the  analyzed 2)  is still  & Kirchner,  assessment  be  however,  i s appropriate for  and  behaviours  appropriate  agree t h a t there  examined,  time  are:  a  I t seems,  Johnston,  Prutting  purpose  as  information for  1984).  t o be  assessment  a child  of pragmatics  the  the  (1984) p r o p o s e  communicative  of  with  mainstream.  They a l l agree t h a t t h e  regards  conversation  use  be  skill familiar  a pragmatic  (Johnson,  behaviours  assessment,  teacher  must  for successful  i n the  method of measurement w h i c h  Lund  Spekman  of  n e e d t o be  several authors  1984;  for  teacher  teach  mainstreamed  necessary  to provide  of pragmatics  analysis  of  e f f e c t i v e n e s s of  assessment Spekman,  impaired  the  level  Educators  o b j e c t i v e s of  the  assessment  experimental no  student, current  skills  interaction  i n t e r v e n t i o n program to  with hearing peers  to determine  that  hearing  their  assessment  The a)  an  affects  3)  suggest of the feel  levels,  1) that  the  child's  that the  when  24  d iscourse  Figure  3: O r g a n i z a t i o n a l f r a m e w o r k f o r a s s e s s i n g p r a g m a t i c abilities ( A d a p t e d f r o m R o t h & Spekman; 1984, p.2).  context  i n which  considered a need a  the communication  and v a r i e d .  to include both  l a r g e enough number  the  Various  child's  speaker assess  variety  of settings, with  variety  of conversation  al.,  observation  communication Miller,  agree  some f o r m forms  that  the child  comments,  interacting  a variety of partners,  topics  there i s  to sufficiently  (Bedrosian,  observational data. i s fundamental  skills  obtain  sample in a  and w i t h  1985; Johnson  & Spekman, that  of recording  videotaping,  t o t h e assessment  a et  1984; Simon,  1985).  need  checklists,  rating  of  Spinelli, These  authors  t o be p r e s e r v e d  to perform the analysis. the information  agreed  1985; D o l l a g h a n &  e t a l . , 1984; R i p i c h &  the observations  i n order  I t i s generally  (Calvert & Murray,  1986; Johnson  1985b; R o t h also  and l i s t e n e r  readily  1984).  Collecting that  c a n be  authors agree  of utterances  language,  occurs  include  The  i n  various  audiotaping,  scales, writing field  notes,  25 or having m u l t i p l e collection sample is  observers.  o f t h e sample  i s elicited  collected  as  i s whether  the  language  from the student,  or whether  the  sample  i t naturally  literature,  including:  interaction  with  occurs.  clinician  Duchan,  1983;  collect and,  procedures are mentioned  interview,  the c l i n i c i a n ,  without  intervention  Roth  require  i n the  of language  A number o f e l i c i t a t i o n  procedures  What d i f f e r s  & Spekman, sample  and  play,  1984).  outside  situations  1985;  Lund  &  A l l of these  or c l i n i c i a n  i n the case of the school  structured  structured  (Bedrosian,  the teacher  the language  role  i n the  to observe  of the natural  setting,  outside  and  setting  the  child's  classroom. Several learn  about  authors agree that children's  them p a r t i c i p a t i n g spontaneous 1984;  Lund  clinician  sense of communication  i n a natural  language & Duchan,  sample 1983;  sample  or  s h o u l d be  i n the h a l l  a sample  collected  as t h e i n t e r a c t i o n  s u g g e s t some l i m i t a t i o n s  sample  i n natural  an  by  settings.  what t h e c h i l d  adequate  assessment.  supplement elicited  language  However,  i f the teacher  sample  sample  of language that  child's  conversation  Johnson  i n that  feel  Roth and  that  language  sample  i s collected,  Spekman  language  analysis  as t h e c h i l d  may  i s not  use  frequency to enable  i t may with  outside  in a particular collected  context,  on t h e p l a y g r o u n d ,  be  a more  structured  of the classroom.  wishes to obtain context,  i n that  t h e sample  an  necessary to  i s most r e p r e s e n t a t i v e  must be  i s most  language  or c l i n i c i a n  sample  or  the spontaneous  observations  language  eta l . ,  context.  sufficient  obtained  a  i n that  I t seems t h a t  naturalistic  observe  I f the teacher  occurs.  produces  aspect of language with  i s to  of a spontaneous  They  to  of language that  i n the class,  (1984) limited  1983;  collected  setting,  way  thereby obtaining  communication  must be  In the case of the school sample  (Gallagher  of the child's  then the language  context  Nelson, 1985).  wishes to obtain  representative  t h e most n a t u r a l  a  of the then  context. c a n be  the Once  analyzed.  the  26 Analysis  of observational  (1986) p r e s e n t observational the  steps  taxonomy,  select  a data  observational here  3) w r i t e  system,  context.  The k i n d  that  assessing one  state that  t h e range  can use an e x i s t i n g reader  over  may c o n s u l t  a r e made d e p e n d s o n w h a t i s being  analyzed.  Several  For  i f one i s  o f communicative  years  Simon  observing.  suggest that  taxonomy.  recent  t h e language  whether o r not categories  (1984)  and forms  an  outlined  f o ra n a l y z i n g  observations  a n d Spekman  been developed the  of observation  established before  authors  Roth  1) s p e c i f y  a n d 5) s t r u c t u r e t h e  o f t h e c h i l d ' s communication  example,  include:  i n an  r e c o g n i t i o n r u l e s , 4)  categories  established before  aspect  and M i l l e r  t o be important  steps  adequate  recording  sample a r e c l e a r l y are  These  Dollaghan  o b j e c t i v e s , 2) s e l e c t o r c o n s t r u c t  necessitates Several  consider  assessment.  observational  event  they  data.  intentions,  taxonomies  have  a n d f o r a summary o f t h e s e  (1985)  o r Lund and Duchan  (1983). If a  however,  global  a p p r a i s a l o f t h e c h i l d ' s communicative  coding  will  molar  level.  coding  the objective of the analysis i st o obtain  be on what P r u t t i n g a n d K i r c h n e r When c o n d u c t i n g  t h e spontaneous  a molar  language  system, t h e  (1983)  call  a n a l y s i s , t h e means o f  sample might  include:  checklists  t o judge whether behaviours  are present  (Creaghead  & Tattersall,  1985; Bedrosian,  1985), set  tallies  within a given  i n t e r v a l s (Calvert & Murray,  whether  a behaviour  (Prutting state  that  by using  procedure  categories  will  efficient  have t o be v e r y  limit  already  or a record of  relatively  i n terms skilled  (1983)  established,  checklist,  making t h e judgements necessary  and a t  or inappropriate  an e x t e n s i v e  a pre-established  time  ornot  P r u t t i n g and Kirchner  c a n be a c c o m p l i s h e d  m e a n s may p r o v e  observer  1983).  does n o t r e q u i r e  When u s i n g  1985),  i s appropriate  & Kirchner,  observations  the  1985; Nelson,  of behaviour  a  q u i c k l y as t h e  amount o f t i m e . i t seems t h a t o f time,  while  the  at observing  and  t o complete t h e c h e c k l i s t o r  27 observation a  general  the  form.  idea  context  content that  of  such  In the  of the  a  yet  form  couldn't  planned,  extensive  observations.  serve  In  an  behaviour  as  effort  appropriate  Kirchner  to  yield  molecular problems  observation Johnson et language s t i l l  by  the  not  Whether the grained,  tional  fine  the  setting  a molecular the  occur  authors  a preset  are  That  the  the  a general  question  observation  utterances  be  to  focus  In t h i s  m i s s w h a t may  prove  very  interaction.  S u c h an  way,  and  and  the  observa-  communication Other  setting Only  observer observer  relevant aspects  d e s c r i p t i o n of the  or  authors  analyze  communication the  a  molecular,  observations. of  yet  or  assessment would employ  for observation  1985;  child  natural  does the  the  analyze  looking for.  communication breakdown.  methods  to  classroom.  enters  of the  for patterns  t o be  the  the  general,  notion  i s complete,  recorded  child's  i s , the  outside  clinician  and  A  Damico,  between the  made i n t h e  observations  is  sample  upon p r i o r here  a  proposed  between v a r i o u s p a r t n e r s  clinician or  have  1985;  cited  a n a l y s i s i s molar, teacher  often  behaviour  sample,  decided  (Bedrosian,  analyze  the  how  language  language  propose that after  forms  analysis.  are  only  than  f o r more  g r a i n a n a l y s i s of the  natural setting.  and  with  child's  communication breakdown they with  say  s o r t i s what P r u t t i n g  i n areas  The  which they  child  the  to  the  some a u t h o r s  of t h i s  clinician  w i t h i n the  the  analyzing the  as  described  samples which  or the  fine  to  a l . , 1984).  conversations peer  refer  be  in  manner  framework  at present,  situation,  After collecting  can  has  used  i s not  in a different  or whether or not  analysis is a  behaviour.  skills  more i n f o r m a t i o n t h a n  assessment  (1983)  used  However,  a more d e s c r i p t i v e means o f An  However, t h i s  be  clinician  checklist.  i n a given  collected.  or  information regarding  perhaps p r o v i d i n g a  a  occurs  teacher  conversation  little  interaction.  initially usually  the  student's  observed, that  end,  of  and  will  not  the  ethnographic interaction.  28 Ethnographic approach  approaches  i s a research  anthropology  i n education.  method u s u a l l y  and sociology  (Smith,  An  ethnographic  associated  with  1978; Wilson,  1977) .  However,  t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f e t h n o g r a p h i c methods t o examine  schools,  classrooms,  1982;  Green  Spinelli, support  & Wallat,  1985b;  communication  a)  i n order  1981; LeCompte & Goetz,  Smith,  classroom,  and  study  context, setting  skills  to learn  the  1978).  The two b a s i c  a b o u t how a c h i l d  there  that  information  and techniques.  to generalize  must be g a t h e r e d  generalize  findings t o the classroom  The and the  (1981)  states  that  p a r t i c i p a n t observer: observer.  about.  there  s e t t i n g , then the setting.  techniques, physical  Corsaro  i s  accept  and  and o b s e r v e r - a s - p a r t i c i p a n t .  When u s i n g  audio-  (1981) n o t e d t h a t  the adult  reduced over  time.  and  Often,  videotapes.  i spreserved f o r  participant  observation  the adult  observer's  power o f t h e a d u l t  problem t o be overcome.  students  roles f o r  3) o b s e r v e r - a s - p a r t i c i p a n t ,  s i z e and t h e perceived  potential  possible  1) c o m p l e t e p a r t i c i p a t i o n , 2)  may b e r e c o r d e d u s i n g  repeated viewing.  teachers  into the classroom.  are four  i s advantageous because t h e data  problem  I f one wants t o  T h e m o s t common t y p e s u s e d a r e  participant-as-observer observations  more  Wilson  r o l e o f t h e o b s e r v e r must be c l e a r t o t h e  4)complete  the  are taken,  gathered within the classroom  participant-as-observer,  This  within the natural  When d e s c r i b i n g t h e  s t u d e n t s when e s t a b l i s h i n g e n t r y  Sevigny  environment  i n settings similar to  one hopes t o g e n e r a l i z e i s best  include:  findings t o t h e everyday  those that information  setting  not available using  from which these premises  states  that  i s communicating i n  observation  information  measures  base  premises  demands o f t h a t p a r t i c u l a r  through  c a n one g a i n  research  1982; R i p i c h &  i s a n e e d t o go i n t o t h a t  a n d b) o n l y  (Genishi,  f o r t h e asssessment  i n an e d u c a t i o n a l  t h e communicative  quantitative  world,  i s increasing  t h e u s e o f e t h n o g r a p h i c methods  of  (1977)  and curriculums  was a  However, he f e e l s t h a t  i n the role established,  as  this  29 Gaining collecting (Corsaro,  access  1981;  amounts o f full  Ripich  support  control  support  over  and  Physical  access  refers  truly thus the  the  classroom.  to  a l l o w i n g the  classroom.  input  The  observer  students  teacher.  teacher who  t o be  i s welcomed  i n the  that  observed  varying activities.  includes to the  to  participant so  can  classroom  refers  that  in  attitude  the  student  that the  and  of events  to the  i t i s the and  observer  t h a t s/he  a usual part  and  both  classroom.  observer  i n the  assessment  observer  have  I t i s important  understand  i s being  The  classroom  teacher  P s y c h o l o g i c a l access  classroom  teacher  to the  to  classroom  1985b).  a r e g u l a r observation time  appear t o the  classroom  key  a d u l t s who  classroom  become a p a r t i c i p a n t  of the  i s the  p s y c h o l o g i c a l access  enter the  establish  a l l the access  of the  access  physically  & Spinelli, of  physical  can  classroom  observational information i n the  needs t o g a i n The  to the  and  not  teacher's  intervention  process. The during  participant  observation periods  information ask.  The  to  r e c o r d , who  used to d i r e c t  (Wilson,  1977) .  observer  to  possible  of the  These  accumulate  ideas  perceptions, hypotheses While notes  a b o u t where t o be,  what  to talk  questions  to  subsequent  strategies as  and  from but  (Borg  a previous s/he  observing, the and  the  nature  recording  conventions  to  accurate  r e c o r d i n g of the  Corsaro,  1983;  an  patterns  understanding Thus, focus  have any  that  participant  study  to  to  collection  the  the  as  observer  collection  of  data  his/her  preconceived  1983). participant  c o n t a i n i n g i n f o r m a t i o n on  activity,  data  the  to guide  does not  & Gall,  and  observed.  questions  the  help the  complete  interaction  only tentative  o r has  m u s t c o n s t a n t l y make d e c i s i o n s  information that i s gathered  emerge a r e  has  observer  of  the  observer  participants,  interaction  a i d i n the  employing  quick,  observations  G e n i s h i , 1982;  makes  Sevigny,  field  the various  detailed,  (Borg  & Gall,  1981;  Smith,  and 1983; 1978;  30 Wilson, for  1977) .  Each observer among d i f f e r e n t  recorded  by  of  notes,  field  labelling  theoretical recording Evidence  notes.  of the of t h i s  questions  with people In  both  conversations. of  the  validity asked  i s an  important  to  to  observer.  is referred  1977).  ideas  observed  and  The  i n the about  to  as  participants  or  After  be  can  through  and  at  a later  perceptions  Sevigny,  1981;  estimate  the  questions  occurred  from  process  the  events  (1978)  need not be  the  the  of  of the  Smith  be  be  gathered This  data  from  detailed to  be  time.  and  system  recorded.  Knowledge of p r e v i o u s  notes, to  the  observer  analyze  the  r e s e a r c h and  others' coding  develops  notes methods  systems whenever  helpful  f o r a n a l y z i n g and  explaining interaction  1977).  The  for interpreting  system  can  compared t o those  comprises  categories  a coding  as i t  t h a t has  i n f o r m a t i o n can  thus  observer  Participants  1981).  field  coding  talking  this  informal conversations.  interaction  t o use  1981;  understanding  studying the  observer  insights,  triangulation  specific  (Corsaro,  that useful  analyzed  during  informal  interaction  triangulation  through  of the  coded and  ideas,  r e a c t i o n s and  process.  a clearer  recorded but  or  the  participant  observer  the  general  emphasizes t h a t t h i s  the  the  (Corsaro,  T h e i r r e a c t i o n s can leading to  record  recorded  notes,  interactioon  observer  one  analysis.  s t r u c t u r e d i n t e r v i e w s and  to both  structured,  notes,  of both  on-going  i s the  recorded  others  offer  he  setting.  Wilson, of  response  (1981)  information  aspect  of his/her i n t e r - p r e t a t i o n s  involvement  Corsaro  states that thinking  obtaining participants*'  1978;  system  methodological  (1978)  reflection  of  own  o b s e r v a t i o n s as b e i n g  Smith  This  observed  Smith,  in  their  t h a t come t o m i n d w h i l e o b s e r v i n g  addition  involves  comments and  i n f o r m a t i o n and  i n the  conduct  types  personal notes,  observation periods  may  develop  most a c c u r a t e l y r e c o r d i n g o b s e r v a t i o n s .  differentiated  and  will  allows  i t is  (Wilson,  observed  31 behaviour  i s developed  observations The refers  step  as  the  i n data  observer's  information  and  the  of p a t t e r n s examples  interviews, under  one  the of  seems t h a t observation will  be  for  the  are  hearing  hearing  kept  an  literature, skills  and  locating and  the  provide  methods, should  i t can  i s only  assessment the  and  case  be  one  component of  However, i t  participant  reviewing  conversation  that  comprehensive  capabilities. using  seen  a combination  most  have a p l a c e  i n mind w h i l e  of  conversation effect  of  of  attempt  skills  skills  of  in  assessment.  current of  approaches  students  students  & Kretschmer,  to  who  being one  d i v i d e the a part  i s able  s p e e c h and  intervention.  skills  a  who  are  1978;  Ross et of  educators process  describe  and  these  i n order  who  In  is  field  comprehension. specific  targeted  measures are  an  hearing  discrete parts  give  to  1981;  a l . , 1982).  i n the or  speech  (Brackett,  student  into  of production to  a  the  comprehensive  i s needed  l a n g u a g e e r r o r s t o be While  l o s s i s on  children,  ability  communicate,  traditionally  a hearing  e d u c a t i o n a l program  t o measure the  impaired  of  communication  appropriate  Kretschmer  result,  notes  impaired.  a direct  assessment  either  the  student's  language development  plan  traced retrospectively  impaired  As  of  a tool,  evaluation of  Evaluation  and  as  The  1978).  conversation  ethnographic  within.  story' of  of the  a  the  coded  tell  (Smith,  regarding  of the  observations  A  (1978)  involves  recorded  to  undoutedly  This  re-reading  communication  will  information  In  from the  review  overall  procedures  This  1982).  the  way.  for patterns  emerge a r e  attempts  evaluation of any  same  interpret  a n a l y s i s i s what S m i t h  searching  investigation From t h i s  the  can  interpretation  that  (LeCompte & G o e t z , specific  others  descriptive narrative.  participant origin  that  i n approximately  next  to  so  as As  a  examples  for  perhaps  important  32 for  identifying  they  do n o t a d d r e s s  purposes  Spekman, An is  might  of a student's  intelligibility.  as an i n d i c a t i o n  speech  to  produce  to  producing  student  speech  Recalling  the factors  i t would  intelligibility.  seem  intelligibility they  understand  Rotunno  r e c e i v e t h e speech message.  i s hearing  With  would r e f e r  (1980)  With  regards  aspect  major  this  literature this  study,  will  would  of this  study,  some m e a s u r e s  assessment because peers  1981),  tests:  tasks requiring  (Markides,  1970),  this  i s hearing  review  i snot  of the  out, but f o r t h e purposes  approach  will  of  be d i s c u s s e d  suggested.  of a student  who  dimension  and teachers  i s hearing i n the overall  must be a b l e t o  ( B r a c k e t t , 1981; Ross e t a l . , 1982).  There a r e s e v e r a l methods intelligibility  who  a thorough  t o be an i m p o r t a n t  the student  understand  t h e speech message,  and procedures  Speech i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y  understand  refer  who i s  of conversation s k i l l s  n o t be c a r r i e d  i s said  a  t h e speech p r o d u c t i o n of t h e peer.  a p o s s i b l e assessment  impaired  to  of the student  o f assessment  focus  ability  to receiving  to the ability  regards  i n a c o n v e r s a t i o n between  impaired and a peer,  and t h e peer's  impaired t o understand the  of  as a measure o f t h e a b i l i t y  t h e speech message,  impaired  this  &  communicator  a s s e s s i n g t h e speech p r o d u c t i o n o f t h e student  him/her.  and  as a  o f how w e l l  intelligibility  and/or  who  hearing  (Roth  speech.  ' Assessing  As  effectivess  t o o b t a i n a measure o f speech  talkers  defines  are to  e f f e c t i v e n e s s as a communicator and  impaired discussed earlier,  each other's  to  f o r any s t u d e n t  i n f l u e n c e c o n v e r s a t i o n when one p a r t n e r i s  appropriate both  As s t a t e d e a r l i e r , t h e  1984) . aspect  hearing  intervention,  information f o r appropriate intervention  h i s / h e r speech  that  and p l a n n i n g  assessment  the student's  provide  problems  performance.  of a pragmatic  determine to  specific  foreliciting  word  speech f o r  identification  the student  tasks requiring  to talk  tests  (Monsen,  about  pictures  the student  t o read  33  prepared  sentences  (Rotunno,  ( R o s s e t a l . , 1982), sample feel  the spontaneous c a n be tape  speaking shows,  The word  case,  using  Speech  Test  test  1977).  Rating  using  these  developed  teachers  of students  give  higher  who  ratings of their  a reliable  require  up t o s i x l i s t e n e r s  are hearing  report high  intelligibility  may  (Subtelny, speech Bradley  linguistically at  lower report  impaired  tend  to  speech I n an e f f o r t  1980).  some  to  tests  However,  interjudge  t h e NTID s c a l e a n d t h e SPINE a n d t h u s  a student's  three  (1985)  i sthe  (1978)  measure o f i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y ,  and B r a d l e y  using both  and Gaffney  (Rotunno,  Evaluation  P o r t e r and  students  students'  word  at the  absolute  an o u t s i d e r would.  provide  1980/  (NTID)  two measures,  and t h e SPINE w i t h  that  reliability recommend  be judged by o n l y  one  listeners. summary, t h e r e  assessing hearing  Scale  Freeman,  they  procedure  recommend t h e NTID s c a l e f o r u s e w i t h  than  In the  Intelligibility  students'  intelligibility  through  An example o f a  comparing  Levitt,  In  1981).  1981) , a n d a s c a l i n g  Geffner,  to  1980).  (Rotunno,  In a study  levels.  that  scale  f o r t h e Deaf  language  are  intelligibility  Institute  students  T.V.  i s calculated, while  Technical  advanced  Porter  rate the  i s t h e Speech  (Monsen,  intelligibility (1985)  (Rotunno,  of accuracy  & Sitler,  Intelligibility  National  t o p i c s as s p o r t s ,  i n d i c a t e what word o r words  t o a predetermined Metz,  (1985)  face-to-face,  intelligibility  and s c a l i n g  a scale, listeners  identification (SPINE).  or can t a l k  of rating  listeners  Schiavetti,  speech  i s d e s i r a b l e as t h e  on f a m i l i a r  and a percentage  according  sentences  hobbies.  two methods  understood in  and  cloze  P o r t e r and Bradley  sample  recorded,  identification  first  1985).  speech  spontaneously  school,  reading  or o b t a i n i n g a spontaneous  (Porter & Bradley,  student  1980),  t h e speech  impaired.  are tests  currently being  intelligibility  However,  of students  several authors  used f o r who a r e  conclude  that  no  34 adequate t e s t s a r e c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e , and t h e r e  i s a  for  (Porter &  t h e development  Bradley,  o f a more s t a n d a r d i z e d  1985; Rotunno,  1980; S c h i a v e t t i ,  scale Metz,  &  need  Sitler,  1981) . Pragmatic review  expressive,  students  who  are hearing  to  15+ y e a r s  they  concern  regarding  standardized his  problem.  the  authors then  language child's  recent  sample  pragmatics.  subtopics times  skills i t i s  setting,  no  t h e scope o f  almost  a decade ago, (1978) f o r  the spontaneous  a syntactical  analysis of a  state that the  sample c o u l d be u s e d  They p r e s e n t  analysis  system,  on a s p e c t s  syntax,  competence which  as: kinds  semantics, spontaneous  consists of s i xtopics f o r  or w r i t i n g of students.  initiates  pursues the topic,  for describing a l l  the Kretschmer  which  i s communication  the child  (1978)  of language: phonology,  analyzing utterances focus  although  and Kretschmer  and Kretschmer  language  dimensions  language  to  skills.  lack of f u n c t i o n a l use of  toward using  f o r more t h a n  test  language.  spontaneous and  steps  5  o f t u r n - t a k i n g and  completed  commend K r e t s c h m e r  from  communication  They s t a t e t h a t  review,  that  some  no known  him t o the c l i n i c a l  In this  o f age  of students  t e s t s are a v a i l a b l e t o determine  Kretschmer four  moves  the child's  brings  note  communication  interactive  skills  years  f o r determining  interactive  define  five  authors  finding  a conversation.  language that  their  report,  report  involving the conversation  maintaining  from  skills  f o r measuring  (1980)  communication  language  o f age, they  In t h e r e p o r t ,  a  In this  and expressive  instruments as  impaired  assessment measures e x i s t  receptive  and Walter  f o r t h e assessment of  and i n t e r a c t i v e  through t o adulthood. while  Oleksiuk-Velez  and recommend measures  receptive, of  assessment.  o f speech  conversation,  One  asks t h e  a number o f c o n v e r s a t i o n  of  conversation  devices,  acts;  teacher  a c t s ; t h e number o f changes t h e t o p i c ,  o r f o r m a l l y ends c o n v e r s a t i o n ;  of  of the  and i n s t a n c e s  instances  o f a number  from t h e use of determiners  t o cue  35 given/new  information, t o t h euse of adverbial constructions  to  a t o p i c change. U n f o r t u n a t e l y ,  signal  only  a semantic  and s y n t a c t i c a n a l y s i s o f a  written  language  stating  only  rather  than  assessment battery  a l a r g e r sample,  writing,  a test  o f speech and language  addresses  five  areas  with t h e procedure.  battery  skills.  o f assessment,  mode f o r  o f speech,  comprehension o f o r a l l y  material,  production  o f spoken  and comprehension  language,  and production  intelligibility  of  of written of a  student's  skills.  Ross, B r a c k e t t , not  only  how  thechild  assess  a n d Maxon  vocabulary,  i s able  elicited  or through  develop  Instead,  observing  would y i e l d this  their  information  participation  this  aspect  focus  and syntax,  t o use language.  sample o f t h e c h i l d ' s  settings,  (1982) s u g g e s t t h e n e e d t o  morphology,  language  general  presented  i t does n o t address t h e assessment  pragmatic  not  language,  for the  Although t h e  reception speech,  analysis,  a n d one o f d i a l o g u e  c o u l d be a n a l y z e d  (1981) p r e s e n t s  present  student's  a n d do n o t i n c l u d e a p r a g m a t i c  that  Brackett  t h e authors  They s u g g e s t  spontaneous thechild  of classroom  test  a  either  However, t h e y  do  battery further.  observation  i n a number o f a r e a s  of thechild  language,  that  i n naturalistic  information.  of their  but also  i n classroom  i st o glean  including: activities  and i n  group d i s c u s s i o n s , t h e i n t e r a c t i o n s between t h e c h i l d and his  teacher,  classmates, processing that  they  t h e i n t e r a c t i o n s between t h e c h i l d and t h e c h i l d ' s  content don't  complete unless they carry  give  only  out these  classroom this  s t r a t e g i e s f o r learning and  material.  consider  These authors  any comprehensive observations  four  valuable  year-olds,  evaluation  are included, yet might  observations.  (1987) h a v e c o m p i l e d  age groups  close by s t a t i n g  v a g u e g u i d e l i n e o f how a t e a c h e r  More r e c e n t l y , Thompson, B i r o , Hatfield  and h i s  V e t h i v e l u , Pious, and  sample t e s t  o f c h i l d r e n who a r e h e a r i n g  3 t o 5-year-olds,  batteries for impaired:  6 t o 10-year-olds,  3-  and ll+-year  36 olds.  F o r t h e two c a t e g o r i e s o f elementary  years  o f a g e a n d 11+ y e a r s  several  measures  including: (ILSA), informal  of social  As  and language  I n t e r p e r s o n a l Language  analysis  pragmatics, Skills  Assessment  samples  recorded  observing  Skills  Assessment  language behaviours After collecting  3-4 s t u d e n t s  language  i s coded  (ILSA)  f o rhearing a language  sample  s i x t e e n language f u n c t i o n s .  indicate i n their  review,  are  s e v e r a l advantages t o i n c l u d i n g ILSA i n a t e s t  for  assessing  communication  impaired:  skills  few other  language  skills  of language w i t h i n t h e t e s t  hearing  After must  However,  coding a half  the test  hour  they  student  interactive information The their  this  often not  t o teach  transcribing  who a r e  to select to a  a  given  out the disadvantage  or intentions of the  of observation,  the teacher  and coding  which  does n o t y i e l d process,  or  clinician  yields  very  o f comments  nor the social  context  which would provide  second measure t h a t battery  that The  d e s c r i p t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e  from which t o p l a n meaningful  test  of  speaker.  d o e s o r d o e s n o t u s e i n a game s i t u a t i o n .  speech a c t occurred,  Kendall  acts  t o measure  be i n s t u d e n t s  teachers  do n o t p o i n t  battery  manner; t h e s o c i a l  i n f o r m a t i o n beyond a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  assessment  in  allows  there  who a r e  attempt  are those  should  from t h e t e s t  speech  spend time  little the  b u t a r e ones t h a t  behaviour  student. simply  i n such an o r g a n i z e d  impaired;  specific  of students  assessments  social  identified  children  p l a y i n g a t a b l e game, t h e  into  Thompson e t a l . , (1987)  hearing  within  f o rt h e s t r u c t u r e d o b s e r v a t i o n and  8 t o 14 y e a r s .  child's  include  contexts.  a system  while  6-10  Communicative P r o f i c i e n c y Scale; and  observations  provides ages  of  t h e I n t e r p e r s o n a l Language  meaningful The  o f age, t h e authors  f o rt h e assessment  the Kendall  students,  i n which the  more u s e f u l intervention.  Thompson e t a l . , (1987)  f o rpragmatic  assessment  Communicative P r o f i c i e n c y Scale.  measure c a n be a d m i n i s t e r e d  They  i n a question  include  i s the state  that  and answer  37 format, The  scales  levels, the to  through  observation,  a r e s a i d t o be d e v e l o p m e n t a l ,  Level  0+ t h r o u g h  scales provide others  age,  their  Level  a g e , how  skills  gained  will  Prutting  from  provide  (1982),  divided  into  eight  These a u t h o r s  feel  that  their  observing a molar  i n d i c a t e whether  as t o t h e nature  The  will third  means o f p r a g m a t i c  language  samples  that  student's  recorded  educators  suggestied  f o rproviding  form,  suggest  that  and use.  teachers  communicating with circumstances, days,  fora total  authors  suggest  antecedent utterance third  grammatical  teachers  necessary t o  of language: the authors  when t h e y a r e  i ndifferent  include  o f framework that  the  and t h e use o f t h e  of the interaction.  b u t i t i s up t o t h e t e a c h e r  These  the context,  t h e response,  conclude by r e c o g n i z i n g  for five  utterances.  more d e s c r i p t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n  t o some k i n d  samples a r e  t o ten utterances  or f i f t y  They  communicative  language  students  eight  of forty  that  contexts.  t h e sample,  d i f f e r e n t people  i n the recording  information they  To o b t a i n  event/stimulus,  approach,  obtained,  using  and  allows the  f o r a l l aspects  observe  obtaining  included i n  a l l of the information  intervention plans  content,  or not t h i s  observation  within meaningful  Spontaneous  I t  f o r elementary  as t h e framework w i t h i n which i s analyzed.  not  clinician.  assessment  need an a p p r o a c h t h a t  competency develop  or  i s informal  l a n g u a g e t o be a s s e s s e d  interaction  but i tw i l l  of the interaction.  (1987) t e s t b a t t e r y  i n the public school  by  or not the  wanted as t o whether  students feel  (yes/no),  be u s e f u l t o t h e t e a c h e r  Thompson e t a l . ' s  the  a n a l y s i s , as d e f i n e d  provide  checklist  given  however, t h e  and completing  was p r e s e n t  depends on t h e i n f o r m a t i o n  are at a  Once a g a i n ,  pragmatic behaviour information  skills  children are  a r e s p l i n t e r e d and s c a t t e r e d  age.  as i t w i l l  of approaches.  a b o u t how c l o s e  solid  below and above t h e t a r g e t information  7.  information  or whether t h e i r  checklist  or a combination  With  this  c a n be  to relate  recorded  o f assessment, f o r  analysis will  be  difficult  38 because taxonomies have not of  language This  of  review  of the  literature  assessment procedures from  students  the  i n the  indicates  in this  literature classroom  i s the  as  they  Although  literature  regarding naturalistic  either  v a g u e t o be  information There and of  for direct  assessment language  skills  and of  chapter  hearing  literature i m p a i r e d as  regular  classroom.  i s a lack  assess  or too and  normal  t o use who the  effective  various the  to  study  and  hearing  to  the  assess  speaker  yield  studies  proposed  methodology from  are  planning.  language  those  are  procedures attempt  the  general to  program  of  point  observations, they  description  outlines  are  important  need t o  used  and  who  h a v e b e e n made i n  students  i n an an  The  intervention  using ethnographic  language the  easily  literature,  sampling  following  study  area  assessment  communicate w i t h  i s a need t o draw from  conversation The  suggestions  students  that there  area.  partners. too  regarding the  of mainstreamed  impaired clearly  gleaned  i n the  use.  conversation s k i l l s  hearing  yet been completed  methods  assess  the  impaired. for a  normal  case child  a student  who  with h i s peers  is in  39 CHAPTER I I I CASE  STUDY  Purpose The  present  observation  The  a quantitative  and responses  impairment study  Effective  participant  to collect  and q u a l i t a t i v e  o f a student  data t o  analysis  was c o n d u c t e d Speaker  Model  student  to test  ofthe  with a hearing  the applicability  (Wilkinson & Calculator, who i s h e a r i n g  activities. ofthe 1982)  with  impaired.  question  The  general  research q u e s t i o n f o rt h i s  Can the E f f e c t i v e Speaker Model requests and responses of mainstreamed hearing impaired in student-directed In an attempt general  using  during student-directed instructional  a mainstreamed Research  was c o n d u c t e d  i n a regular classroom  provide both requests  study  t o answer t h i s  question t o guide  s t u d y was:  be  used to assess the students who are a c t i v i t i e s with peers?  research question, the  the participant  o b s e r v a t i o n was a s  follows: What responses The responses  i s the nature to peers? following were  of the  specific  student's  requests  characteristics  and  o f requests and  addressed:  1 - Are t h e student's requests on-task? 2 - Are the student's requests sincere? 3 - Are the student's requests designated t o a listener? 4 - Are the student's requests direct? 5 - Are the student's requests revised i f there i s an i n i t i a l l y u n s u c c e s s f u l r e q u e s t ? 6 - Does t h e s t u d e n t r e q u e s t c l a r i f i c a t i o n ? 7 - Does t h e s t u d e n t o b t a i n a p p r o p r i a t e r e s p o n s e s to requests f o ra c t i o n and information?  40 Method Participant. five  i n a split  students is  G. i s a n e l e v e n  grade  y e a r - o l d boy i n grade  4/5 c l a s s r o o m  and twenty-three  grade  o f seven grade  five  students.  four  The  school  l o c a t e d i n a n e i g h b o u r h o o d c o n t a i n i n g a n u m b e r o f new  Canadian class  families,  members.  students  b u t composed  G. w o r k e d w i t h n i n e  during  the observation  speech and language chronological with  largely  abilities  ages.  a hearing  different  been  from  appropriate  and t h e only  i n t e g r a t e d since grade  an i t i n e r a n t  students  teacher  i n the school  student  i n h i sclass  school,  Prior  G. a t t e n d e d  who a r e h e a r i n g  since kindergarten and one, r e c e i v i n g  of the hearing  t o the school.  neighbourhood  to their  impaired.  fully  introduction  five  p e r i o d a l l o f whom h a d  G. h a s b e e n a t t e n d i n g t h e s c h o o l has  middle-  grade  G. i s o n e o f t w o s t u d e n t s  impairment,  who i s h e a r i n g  of white  impaired  impaired  support  since h i s  t o attending h i s a private school f o r that uses t h e a u r a l / o r a l  method o f e d u c a t i o n . He h a s a b i l a t e r a l impairment 1000  at was  respectively. fitted  hearing  i n v o l v e d i n a home t r a i n i n g Speaking  input  educational  a t home a n d a t s c h o o l .  G. c o m e s f r o m  a i d user,  wearing  two  aids with  a  To m a x i m i z e t h e s p e e c h  setting,  he wears a P h o n i c at a l l times.  the teacher  the  a  language.  S i e m e n s 24 P P A G C I h e a r i n g  aids  h i s family  i n language  option.  h i spersonal  instruction  At that time,  i s G.'s p r e f e r r e d m e a n s o f  G. i s a c o n s i s t e n t h e a r i n g audio  from b i r t h and  program emphasizing  f o r whom E n g l i s h i s a s e c o n d  behind-the-ear  (ANSI  following diagnosis  o f a u d i t i o n and speechreading  communication both family  impaired  aids  t h e age o f t w e n t y - f i v e months.  acquisition.  hearing  o f 8 8 . 3 d B a n d 40 d B  G. w a s h e a r i n g  with h i sf i r s t  development  to  t o profound  and a i d e d b e t t e r e a r average (500,  a n d 2000 Hz) t h r e s h o l d s  1969) was  with unaided  severe  signal  i n the  E a r FM s y s t e m  During  large  direct coupled  group  w e a r s t h e FM t r a n s m i t t e r w h i l e  41 during  s m a l l group  the  transmitter.  FM G.  of  has  further  skills, lists  no  additional  describing  a measure of (Brackett,  speechreading,  68%  listening  benefits  from  information;  the and  the  and and  teacher  satisfied  favourable located  well  potentially  1:00  of up  to  the music of the  of tables adjacent  A:  adversely II,  can  and  of  h i s peer  eye  which  affect  were r e d u c e d  ease  Test-  sounds,  work a t each.  the very  the  the  ceiling  and  classroom  including i n the  The  usually  listening,  as much as p o s s i b l e  and  I t i s completely  recorded  windows  the  Seven  the  rumble tables,  room so  that  seating plan  in  groups  immediately  d i s t a n c e between  optimum.  In fact,  the  for partner knee  In general, the of  library  s h e l v e s between the  t o be  every  gymnasium,  (Note  interaction. was  The  evident.  arranged The  library  room i s w e l l - l i t  both  included sitting  t o eye.  is  that create a  school.  usually  notes  i n the  room and  teacher provided guidelines  communication speaking  not  shelves, are  allowed f i e l d  student  classroom  was  site  he  visual  e s t a b l i s h e d by  Although  Observations).  to the  that  G.'s  p.m..  The  lining  environmental  four students  Appendix  the  low  with  Vocabulary  taught  criteria  above t h e b o o k s h e l v e s .  s e p a r a t e d by  84%  word  only  receptive vocabulary  environment.  noisy areas  outside t r a f f i c ,  when  a u d i t o r y and  t o 3:00  many o f t h e  away f r o m  were o f t e n open,  and  w e r e made d u r i n g  carpeted with acoustic t i l e s walls  way  PBK-50  indicating  of communication  listening  By  1981) .  from  rules  wear  communication  accuracy  of both  Studies class  Thursday the  i n 24%  Peabody P i c t u r e  Observations  Composition/Social Tuesday  o f G.'s  speechreading,  combination on  peers  conditions.  when o n l y l i s t e n i n g , and  G.'s  reception using the  results  (Dunn & Dunn,  Site.  itself  speech  h i s approximate  years based  Revised  handicapping  some a s p e c t s  1981)  combined  7.10  or partner a c t i v i t i e s ,  to  factors  as  knee  and  that  might  discussed i n  thus  maximizing  Chapter the  42 speech  signal  a hearing  f o r the  to  and  recording events.  o b s e r v e r - a s - p a r t i c i p a n t i n the  establish  the  teacher  and  researcher participated  students  i n the  observations  participation  included responding  w i t h an  By  January,  of  comfort  and  as  initiating the  and  evidenced requests  Tuesday the  frequently area  by  Thursday,  i n G.'s  January,  April,  activities  at  a peer  and  p a r t n e r about..., decided  teacher  on  before  seventeen  placing  to  complete  learning  students Thursday;  this  as  well  as  Be  sure  answer. the  schedule.  times  i n the  worked w i t h a d i f f e r e n t students  in  the  were  months  of  learning to  complete  cooperatively  Come t o and  was  the  end  and  During  a consensus  your  write...,  activity  activity  follow-up d i s c u s s i o n as:  you  At  the  Observations  working  and  with a partner.  in April,  and  herself  t o work t o g e t h e r  answers you  the  with  classroom  observed  l e a d a d i s c u s s i o n r e g a r d i n g how  together about  and  p a r t n e r , t u r n t o page..., the  for  sense  teacher  researcher  were s e a t e d .  directions  your both  a definite  i n the the  This  studies task.  classroom  p.m.  students  your  understand  requests  social  June d u r i n g c o o p e r a t i v e  With and  without  the observer-as-participant  Typically,  encouraged through  the  conversation  t h e r e was  from  2:00  classroom  requiring  activities.  student  or  the  already i n progress and  with  teacher.  classroom  w h e r e G.  to  students  for help  rapport  activities  initiating  from  However,  1981),  observation followed a routine  and  recorded  all  or  researcher  and  (Corsaro,  composition  confidence  Participant entered  with  September t o December.  perhaps before,  regular classroom  Every  from  activity  regarding the  students  student  classroom.  classroom  making formal assistance  The  a regular observation schedule  classroom  students  the  collection Observing  an  especially  impairment.  Data was  listeners,  p a r t n e r agree  and of  the  Tell  an  the  how  with  why  the  partner every  the  worked  students  month of  worked w i t h the  you  activity,  students  on  felt  January,  Tuesday  and  same p a r t n e r  to  43  complete again  s t a t i o n s o n F o r e s t r y ; and. i n J u n e ,  worked w i t h  government  a variety  and communication.  different  behind, standing  pair.  Frequently  throughout  t h e room w i t h  conspicuous  as both  making notes  This  adults  to  student  initiating requests  a t t h e end o f t h e  made t h e r e s e a r c h e r i n t h e room c o u l d  moving  field  information: activity,  with  students,  D e p e n d i n g on t h e l e v e l  seen  second one t a b l e responding with the  of participation  the length of observation  notes  date,  f r e q u e n t l y from  interaction  from t e n minutes t o t h i r t y  used during  less  o f t e n be  f o rassistance, or conversing  teacher.  of t h e researcher,  the  t o guide  on a c l i p b o a r d .  i n t h e classroom,  another,  tothe  circulated  o b s e r v e r - a s - p a r t i c i p a n t f u n c t i o n e d as a  to  The  teacher  peer,  a c l i p b o a r d making notes  the students  activity.  classroom  nine  stationed  G. a n d h i s  or shelf adjacent  the classroom  cooperative  teacher  about  G. w o r k e d w i t h  had begun, t h e r e s e a r c h e r  at t h e counter  discussion with  The  on a c t i v i t i e s  In total,  i n front of, or beside  either  the  once  peers.  Once t h e a c t i v i t y herself  of partners  students  time  varied  minutes.  included the following consistent  subject,  seating plan,  including teacher  the activity  and d e s c r i p t i o n o f  d i r e c t i o n s and any handouts  (Appendix A ) .  Some b a s i c g u i d e l i n e s f o r t r a n s c r i b i n g  the conversation  were employed, i n c l u d i n g : (1) E a c h s p e a k e r w a s i d e n t i f i e d b y name i n i t i a l w r i t t e n i n f r o n t o f e v e r y new t u r n t a k e n b y t h a t speaker; (2) A c t i o n s o r n o n v e r b a l i n f o r m a t i o n w e r e r e c o r d e d in parentheses; (3) S t a t e m e n t s n o t u n d e r s t o o d b y t h e r e s e a r c h e r were r e c o r d e d i n p a r e n t h e s e s as i n a u d i b l e ; and (4) I n t h e r i g h t m a r g i n o f t h e f i e l d n o t e s , two k i n d s o f i n f o r m a t i o n w e r e n o t e d : - TN ( T h e o r e t i c a l N o t e s ) : T h e s e n o t e s f o c u s e d o n f a c t o r s t h a t might i n f l u e n c e t h e conversation: student a m p l i f i c a t i o n , d i s t a n c e between student who i s hearing impaired and peer, l i g h t i n g , noise outside t h e classroom, noise w i t h i n t h e classroom,  44 a c o u s t i c treatment o f classroom, and peer speech. I n f o r m a t i o n was n o t e d when a n y o f t h e s e f a c t o r s w e r e u n u s u a l o r when o t h e r t h a n o p t i m a l c o n d i t i o n s w e r e present; and - PN ( P e r s o n a l N o t e s ) : T h e s e n o t e s i n c l u d e d questions, ideas, or feelings that occurred t o the o b s e r v e r d u r i n g t h e o b s e r v a t i o n . These were to be l o o k e d i n t o a t a l a t e r t i m e . At t h e end o f t h e o b s e r v a t i o n p e r i o d , i n f o r m a t i o n was a d d e d t o make t h e n o t e s c l e a r e r . Individual II,  the student's  language a  assessment.  ability  comprehension  comprehensive  purposes  and production  study,  however,  a s s e s s m e n t was c o m p l e t e d : and  o f G.'s  h i s peer's  G.'s  were o b t a i n e d administered  understanding  June.  This  reasons: the in  was t h o u g h t  researcher  involved social  reading  influence  class  G.'s  I I , speech  measure e s p e c i a l l y hearing of  impaired  reading  communication. peers  both peers  i s being  how w e l l  i f one p a r t n e r  a n d how w e l l  Test teacher i n  f o r two  scores  class,  on t h i s  test  of the activities together  reading  from t h e  ability  could  As d i s c u s s e d i n  of talkers  i s a relevant  i n the conversation i s  s p e e c h a s h i s / h e r p r e f e r r e d means  For the purposes who  of this  study,  i s hearing  understands  h i s peers  because  impaired and  i n v e s t i g a t e d , i t i s important  the student  scores  i n the activity.  communication between a student his  Reading data  questions  intelligibility  and uses  an  to the entire  Speech i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y . Chapter  individual  by t h e classroom  the student's  hisparticipation  For the  and comprehension  a n d a s many  and answering  studies textbook,  i n  o f h i s speech.  was a d m i n i s t e r e d  t o h i s peers,  of  o f t h e speech o f h i s peers  t o be i m p o r t a n t  c o u l d note  areas  skills.  ability,  using the Gates-MacGinitie  as t h e t e s t  relation  reading  Vocabulary  t o t h e whole  Chapter  c o u l d be d e t e r m i n e d  the following  understanding  Reading.  i n  i n a number o f d i f f e r e n t  e v a l u a t i o n of communication  of this  indication  As d i s c u s s e d  t o measure  t h e speech of h i s / h e r  understand  h i s speech.  45 The  two  w e r e two for  of  peers the  nine  The  determining speech of his  peers.  T.V.  and  G.'s  The  shows, In  the  p e e r were s e a t e d given told  a copy  number o f  they  understood  take  turns G.  peer  verbatim a  was  the  repeat  response  speech  the  p r o p o s e d by  the the  by  by  and  both  Monsen  on  (1981)  some o f t h e conclusions  requests  this,  triangulation.  The  and  two  Student of  order  they  After  responded the  until  peer  to  to  a l l six  peer  and  G.  A  built-in two  students  responses.  The  students.  determined  by  calcu-  understood  from  the  scale  B).  interviews. G.'s  some g e n e r a l  researcher  well  described using the  (Appendix  interpretations regarding  G.  t a b l e between the  was  were  repeat  asked the  of words c o r r e c t l y  based  to  after  continued  side of the  Triangulation: and  was  intelligibility  percentage  words spoken,  of  and  researcher  were asked  sat to the  i n any  G.  This  no  a  k n o w how  asked  the  a  were  for  researcher  peer,  and  both  question.  TC-96L c a s s e t t e r e c o r d e r w i t h a  researcher  G.  B).  They were d i r e c t e d t o  questions  peer,  sports,  They  together  wanted t o  of  (Appendix  first  of the  used to tape-record  lating  ask  the  a d i s t a n c e of  well  speech. the  for  t o p i c s as  the  m i c r o p h o n e p o s i t i o n e d on  The  with  nine  speech  between them and  researcher  the  open-ended q u e s t i o n s  was  the  summer p l a n s  been working  response.  Sony Model  familiar  each other  directed to  from the  G.'s  and  each other  responded,  question  w e r e on  each others'  asking  These  to understand  s i x open-ended q u e s t i o n s .  had  working  were u s e d  to understand  centimetres  c l a s s e s , the  they  chose.  facing  of the  as  been  room f r e e o f b a c k g r o u n d n o i s e ,  forty-five  that  ability  school, hobbies,  had  r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the  ability  questions  a well-lit  more t h a n  t o be  peers'  assessment  studies classes.  same o p e n - e n d e d q u e s t i o n s  both  G.,  individual  w i t h whom G.  social  were c o n s i d e r e d  partners.  for this  students  several consecutive  students  the  chosen  used  The  responses  validity to  peers  p a t t e r n s were open-ended  and  checked  46 comparison the  questions to individually  nine peers  participated  with  interview  whom h e w o r k e d .  i n t h e measure o f speech  directed  completion The  peers  t o b o t h G.  of the units  intelligibility  t h e measurement  Data  these questions  The a n a l y s i s  following:  1) r e q u e s t f r o m 4) p e e r ' s  clarification, attempts  a n d 6) p e e r ' s  a request from to obtain  an  appropriate response response  requests coded  G.  t o G.'s  t o peer  5) G.'s response.  1. 2.  response,  3)  G.'s  request f o r The s e q u e n c e  begins  a n d e n d s w h e n G. n o l o n g e r either  because  o r he does n o t r e c e i v e  y e t abandons h i s attempt.  Responses  and r e q u e s t s f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n request i s unclear,  when a  a n d do n o t i n c l u d e  r e q u e s t s , h e n c e t h e r e f e r e n c e t o G.'s  and responses.  The r e q u e s t s a n d r e s p o n s e s  according to the following  Wilkinson  a combination of the  2) p e e r ' s  an a p p r o p r i a t e response  to the revisions  responses  individually  intelligibility.  the appropriate response,  receives  peer  G.,  response,  he  refer  D.  of the request-response  s e q u e n c e was c o n s i d e r e d t o i n c l u d e  then with  following the  analysis Coding.  revision,  The k i n d s o f  and h i s peers  o f speech  who  also  of study are given i n Appendix  a n d G. w e r e a s k e d  following  and two o f  T h e same t w o p e e r s  answered t h e q u e s t i o n s i n t h e i n t e r v i e w . questions  G.  and C a l c u l a t o r  (1982):  categories  were  as d e f i n e d  by  (Appendix C ) .  U t t e r a n c e : A s t r i n g o f words c o m m u n i c a t i n g one i d e a Requests: a) Requests for action: Attempts by t h e speaker t o o b t a i n a c t i o n performed by t h e l i s t e n e r , o r b) Requests for information : Attempts by speaker to o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n from l i s t e n e r . A l l r e q u e s t s were coded as h a v i n g o r n o t having the following characteristics: a) b)  O n - t a s k : The r e q u e s t i s r e l a t e d t o t h e academic content and/or procedures and materials of the assignment. S i n c e r e : A r e q u e s t i s p e r c e i v e d as s i n c e r e i f a) t h e l i s t e n e r b e l i e v e s t h e s p e a k e r r e a l l y  47 wants t h e i n f o r m a t i o n and does n o t a l r e a d y k n o w t h e i n f o r m a t i o n , b) t h e l i s t e n e r i s a b l e t o r e s p o n d , c) t h e l i s t e n e r h a s an o b l i g a t i o n t o r e s p o n d , a n d d) t h e s p e a k e r h a s a r i g h t t o make t h e r e q u e s t . c) D e s i g n a t e d t o a l i s t e n e r : The r e q u e s t i s d i r e c t e d v e r b a l l y and/or n o n v e r b a l l y and unambiguously t o a student. d) D i r e c t : F o r r e q u e s t s f o r a c t i o n : i m p e r a t i v e form; F o r r e q u e s t s f o r i n f o r m a t i o n : wh-, yes-no, or t a g q u e s t i o n . e) R e v i s e d i f i n i t i a l l y u n s u c c e s s f u l : A r e s t a t e m e n t o f a r e q u e s t p r e v i o u s l y made b y t h e same s p e a k e r t o t h e same l i s t e n e r who h a d not responded a p p r o p r i a t e l y . B a s e d on a p i l o t added: f)  3.  study,  was  R e s p o n d e d t o a p p r o p r i a t e l y : The r e q u e s t e d a c t i o n o r i n f o r m a t i o n was g i v e n o r e l s e a r e a s o n w a s g i v e n why t h e a c t i o n o r i n f o r m a t i o n c o u l d n o t be g i v e n .  coded and summarized  After  this  profile  the observational data  (Appendix  each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c  Given  characteristic  Request f o r C l a r i f i c a t i o n : An attempt by t h e l i s t e n e r t o r e p a i r communicative breakdowns using a n e u t r a l request f o r repetition, request f o r confirmation, s p e c i f i c request for s p e c i f i c a t i o n , or s p e c i f i c request f o r repetition.  Description. of  the following  C), the frequency  was c a l c u l a t e d ,  of characteristics  were  percentage  and a p r o f i l e  drawn.  of the students's  requests  and responses,  the researcher then  excerpts  from  notes  describe  the configuration.  was s a i d  and t h e m u l t i p l e examples o f excerpts s u b s t a n t i a t e  the  and student The v e r b a t i m  interviews to accounts  o f what  coding. Although  pattern,  identify  characteristics,  yielding and then  of a  o b s e r v a t i o n s and  t o interview questions  a p o s s i b l e cause.  quantified,  p r e c i s e causes  back t o t h e recorded  responses  delineating  first  one c a n ' t  referring  participant in  the field  searched f o r  was  effective  I n summary, t h e d a t a  were  measures o f each o f t h e qualified  with specific  examples  48 from the recorded through  student  Thus, Model, These  notes  and i n f o r m a t i o n  characteristics  to peers  results  gleaned  interviews.  w i t h i n the framework  various  responses  field  were  of the E f f e c t i v e of the student's  identified  are discussed  and p a t t e r n s  i n the following  Speaker requests  and  described.  chapter.  49 CHAPTER R E S U L T S AND  The answer  IV  DISCUSSION  g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n t h e r e s e a r c h e r was  in this  study  attempting to  was:  Can the Effective Speaker Model be used to assess the requests and responses of mainstreamed students who are hearing impaired in student-directed activities with peers? During question  data collection  Individual  the purpose  those  grade  on  to  2.8  on  9.0.  and  G.'s  subtest  observed,  and  i t would  o f G.  and  Index).  Regarding with  and  80%  his  speech  85%  the  intelligibility u n d e r s t o o d one  social  below that  On  of h i s peers'  peer  with  80%  the  and  measured.  scored at 2.6  on  the  from grades  the he  studies  a c c u r a c y and  some  score equivalent  ranged  intelligibility,  accuracy.  grade  grade  a  possible  T e s t , G.  e x t e n d i n g from grade  speech  with  i s well  anticipated  i n reading the  Readability speech  level  only  h i s p e e r s , were  for a total  be  range  skills,  out  reading ability  scores f o r h i s peers  skill  not t o carry  were c o n s i d e r e d t o be  activity  readability  he  requests  of communication  the vocabulary subtest  total  difficulty  G.'s  s t u d y was  the Gates-MacGinitie Reading  The  peers  that  the  comprehension 2.7.  of t h i s  intelligibility  On  following  observation:  of the student's  assessment  skills  influences speech  the  assessment  comprehensive of  analysis,  guided the participant  What is the nature responses to peers?  As  and  level  would  one  second  rating speech,  experience  to nine peer  G.'s  has  a  (Fry  understood  peer  understood  perception  i t was  a c c u r a c y and  3.7  of h i s  textbook that  five  of  found  another  of  that  peer  50 with  78% a c c u r a c y .  scores will  indicate  miss  A c c o r d i n g t o Monsen's s c a l e  good speech  (1981),  i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y where  both  listeners  o n l y o c c a s i o n a l words i n s e n t e n c e s , b u t w i l l  understand  most,  so t h a t  t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n p r o c e s s on t h e  whole i s smooth. The  speech  relatively than  i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y m e a s u r e s were t a k e n  quiet  setting using familiar  i n t h e c l a s s r o o m where l i s t e n i n g  difficult  due t o c o m p e t i n g  and u n f a m i l i a r i t y  utterances.  Also,  noise of classmates'  o f spontaneous  him/her thus p o s s i b l y  intelligibility.  peer  i n t h e c l a s s r o o m G.'s p e e r  w i t h h i s / h e r h e a d down s o G. was n o t a l w a y s speechread  As a r e s u l t ,  affecting  often  his  relying  peers'  on l i s t e n i n g  inability  When t h i s  the peer's  interviews,  speech  t h e communication p r o c e s s i n by G. a t  o n l y , and t o a l e s s e r  t o understand  interpretation  spoke  able t o e a s i l y  t h e c l a s s r o o m c o u l d be a f f e c t e d t o some d e g r e e times  rather  w o u l d be more  background  conversation  questions  ina  his  speech.  was i n v e s t i g a t e d  t h e students agreed t h a t  degree, by  through  t h e r e were some  difficulties  s p e a k i n g w i t h G. i n t h e c l a s s r o o m , b u t t h a t  they u s u a l l y  understood  did that  when t h e y d i d n ' t they  usually  h i s speech.  understand  sometimes a s k e d  understood  When a s k e d what  G., b o t h  students  stated  G. t o r e p e a t what he s a i d  t h e second  time.  they and t h e y  G. t o o s t a t e d t h a t he  sometimes h a d t o a s k s t u d e n t s t o r e p e a t b u t n o t o f t e n . further  stated that  made i t d i f f i c u l t Although that  enough so t h a t  t o understand. found  each  o t h e r s ' speech  intelligible  t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n p r o c e s s on t h e whole i s  individual  a more c o n t r o l l e d tional  sometimes t h e n o i s e i n t h e c l a s s r o o m  i t i s e v i d e n t from t h e r e c o r d e d o b s e r v a t i o n s  G. a n d a p e e r  smooth, t h i s  They  measurement q u a n t i f i e d t h e s e d a t a i n  setting.  While  examining  data t h e r e s e a r c h e r kept t h i s  the observa-  i n f o r m a t i o n i n mind.  51 Coding  and d e s c r i p t i o n  The and  data  base  h i s peers,  hearing  with  information.  15 r e q u e s t s With  (1982,  f o raction  regards  degree  of requests f o r  1983, 1984, 1986) a l s o f o u n d  of initiative  indicating  a certain  data,  h i s peers  thus  degree  of the characteristics  are displayed i n Figure  to a listener,  requests  (1982,  as w e l l  language.  being  students  as w i t h students  Ripich  and S p i n e l l i  d i d n o t p r o v i d e more s p e c i f i c  direct  and i n d i r e c t  whether  requests  t o be  one, two, and was a  (1985a) m a i n t a i n e d  Spinelli  t o determine  this  f o r whom e n g l i s h  i n c r e a s e d w i t h age.  As R i p i c h and  information, i t i s  or not this  frequency  more i n d i r e c t  In  g e n e r a l , G. s e e m s t o b e c o m p e t e n t  i n the aspects  requests.  and designated  However,  the  time  resulting  his  requests  lack  to a listener  G.'s r e q u e s t s  when  are sincere only  i n noncompliance sincerity.  of  i s a p p r o p r i a t e f o r G. i n g r a d e  o r w h e t h e r he s h o u l d be p r o d u c i n g direct,  second  that  5,  on-task,  With  Wilkinson and  i n grades  request  The  and a r e d i r e c t .  direct,  indirect difficult  forms  4.  are generally  1983, 1984, 1986) f o u n d  common i n s t u d i e s i n v o l v i n g  f o ra  f o r the characteristics  4 s h o w s t h a t G.'s r e q u e s t s  are designated  ofthe  provided the data  percentage  appropriate responses  three  from  G.  o f a s s e r t i v e n e s s on h i s p a r t .  and responses  to effective  have  From t h i s  The f r e q u e n c y  colleagues  (1989)  and a s s e r t i v e n e s s .  profile.  regards  requests f o r shows a  count  i n Figure  requests  of others  requests  on-task,  asks  that  questions  student's  profile  and Hoskins  i n f o r m a t i o n and a c t i o n  A frequency  86 w e r e  f o ri n f o r m a t i o n , W i l k i n s o n and h e r  how o f t e n a c h i l d  does request  who i s  a n d 71 r e q u e s t s f o r  t o t h e frequency  A s Wood e t a l . ( 1 9 8 0 )  stated,  her  192 u t t e r a n c e s ,  i n f o r m a t i o n were u s e d more f r e q u e n t l y t h a n  action.  and  w e r e made b y t h e s t u d e n t  Of t h e s t u d e n t ' s  and requests  colleagues for  192 o f w h i c h  impaired.  requests, action  i n c l u d e d 331 u t t e r a n c e s b y t h e s t u d e n t  from  peers  requests. of being producing 83% o f  every  time  52 Two o f t h e c o n d i t i o n s o u t l i n e d (1977) G.:  a) t h e s p e a k e r  already to  regarding sincere requests really  a r e f r e q u e n t l y n o t met b y  wants t h e i n f o r m a t i o n and does n o t  know t h e i n f o r m a t i o n , a n d b) t h e s p e a k e r  make t h e r e q u e s t .  seems t o t a k e or  by Labov and F a n s h e l l  Peer  one o f t h r e e  blatant refusal  to  response forms:  t o G.'s  has a  right  insincerity  impatience,  indifference,  respond.  100  90 80 70 60 hi O  50  z o  40 -  hi  30 20 10 -  RQCL CHARACTERISTIC OT - On  Task  - R e v i s e d when i n i t i a l l y unsuccessful S - Sincere RQCL - R e q u e s t e d DL - D e s i g n a t e d Clarification t o a L i s t e n e r AR - A p p r o p r i a t e D - Direct Response r e c e i v e d  Figure  4: C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e s t u d e n t ' s appropriate responses.  Peer the  R  impatience  following  to insincere  examples:  requests  requests and  i s illustrated i n  53  G J G J G J G  -  J G J G J -  Do we have t o w r i t e t h a t down? (continues r e a d i n g t e x t out loud) Oh- you read t h i s one and I ' l l do the next (continues reading) Could you read j u s t a l i t t l e f a s t e r . (continues reading) I t says we have t o do 1 and 2. Where do we w r i t e i t down? (Looks at G) How do we know t h i s s t u f f ? Are we both supposed t o do i t ? Yeah. What do we w r i t e ? ( i m p a t i e n t l y ) Read i t . Here. W r i t e : The f o r e s t company...  G. doesn't s a t i s f y the f i r s t the  one.  c o n d i t i o n of s i n c e r i t y -  speaker r e a l l y wants the i n f o r m a t i o n and does not  a l r e a d y know i t .  The peer seems t o t h i n k t h a t G. a l r e a d y  knows the answers t o h i s q u e s t i o n s of what they are t o do and thus responds t o t h i s p e r c e i v e d i n s i n c e r i t y . In the f o l l o w i n g example, G. does not seem t o s a t i s f y the  second c o n d i t i o n of s i n c e r i t y - the speaker has a r i g h t  to make the r e q u e s t : G - What e l s e d i d you w r i t e ? (looks at R's paper & reads answer) a h o t e l , s t o r e s , a d i r t road... R - (continues t o w r i t e h i s answer t o the question) G - a d i r t road? Is t h a t a d i r t road? R - (no response) G - (continues t o read R's answer) ...mountains. Yeah, mountains. . . . l o t s of people? Lots of people i n a ghost town? R - (reads) What shows t h a t t h i s i s a town? (writes answer) G - (reads R's answer) a man, a s t o r e , a road, a house... T h i s looks l i k e a busy town. R - No, a town, a town, not a busy town, G., j u s t a town, ( i m p a t i e n t l y ) . It would seem t h a t G. doesn't have the r i g h t t o q u e s t i o n the answer of h i s peer when he hasn't o f f e r e d answers h i m s e l f .  His peer doesn't d i s c u s s any of the  any  54 a n s w e r s w i t h G. he  thinks  R.  prefers  o f G.'s I n any  have the  right  responds  to  G J G J G  -  J  -  G J G J  -  G J G  -  J  -  have of  what  i t may  s i m p l y be  that  does not  work w e l l  with  or  seems t o  to question the  feel  a n s w e r s he  that has  G.  the  indifference by  the  t o G.'s  does not  contribute h i s peer  with these to the  and  insincere  to the  answers  of h i s  activity.  i s indifferent  insincere  d u r i n g s i x of the  pulling  G.  c o u l d be  h i s weight  Through t r i a n g u l a t i o n , the  activities,  but  In f a c t ,  seventeen  activities  this  unequal  completion of  the  students agreed  an  end  instead copying  observed. partner,  activities.  researcher found  with the  does  response. not  answers.  i n the  at the  has  p e r c e i v e d as  peer  When h e  to the  r e q u e s t s , G.  completion of the  copies h i s peer's  a result,  generally  not  following:  once a g a i n q u e s t i o n s t h e  sequence,  merely  does  written  some a p p r o p r i a t e i n f o r m a t i o n t o c o n t r i b u t e  occurred not  R.  of  W h a t ' s n u m b e r 6? lumbermen and f o r e s t w o r k e r s What? lumbermen and f o r e s t w o r k e r s . A r e you s u r e ? ( f l i p s b a c k a few pages and f i n d s answer) Oh y e a h . (reads out loud) How c a n C a n a d i a n s h e l p s a v e o u r r e s o u r c e s ? . . . ...by recycling.. H o w d o y o u know? B e c a u s e i t s a y s so h e r e . Oh. ( w r i t e s answer) (reads out loud) D e s c r i b e some o f t h e m a i n d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n f o r e s t use i n t h e p a s t and t o d a y . ...there are machines now. T h e r e a r e m a c h i n e s now? T h a t ' s i t . We're f i n i s h e d . How a b o u t , t h e y p l a n t m o r e t r e e s n o w ? A n d how a b o u t , t h e y ' r e c l e a r c u t t i n g ? ( p a c k s up h i s p a p e r s a n d p e n c i l s )  contributed  As  event,  is illustrated  Along he  so,  a reflection  this.  H e r e G. he  i s perhaps  i n d e p e n d e n t l y and  example of peer  requests  while  which  a b i l i t y t o do  working  a partner.  An  either  that  participant  55 observer's share give  interpretations that  o f t h e work. specific  of l o y a l t y  The p e e r s ,  G. d i d n o t a l w a y s do h i s however, were r e t i c e n t t o  examples, p e r h a p s s t o p p e d by a s t r o n g e r  t o a p e e r t h a n t o an a d u l t .  When  questioned  a b o u t who w r o t e more answers, G. o r h i s p a r t n e r , that  he was n o t v e r y  lessons  a n d h i s c o n t r i b u t i o n , b u t was more c o n c e r n e d G.'s l a c k o f i n p u t  his  finding  the task  him  t o read  a n d answer q u e s t i o n s  written materials.  too d i f f i c u l t  explanation. is  result,  ability  c o u l d be a p l a u s i b l e  t h e p a c e o f a more c a p a b l e  and o f t e n n o n - c o n t r i b u t i n g  partner,  partner.  As a  t o answer an i n s i n c e r e r e q u e s t i s  i n the following  excerpt:  G - (pointing to station folder) J . a r e y o u s u r e we h a v e n ' t d i d t h i s J - ( l o o k s a t G - no r e s p o n s e ) G - Those a r e v e r y n i c e t r e e s . In t h i s  excerpt,  t h e peer doesn't  one?  respond  impatiently  i n d i f f e r e n c e , b u t r a t h e r makes eye c o n t a c t  response.  G.'s r e s p o n s e t o t h e s e  and g i v e s  blatant refusals i s to  change t h e t o p i c r a t h e r t h a n r e v i s e as i n t h e above Wilkinson not  and h e r c o l l e a g u e s  (1986) f e e l  t o keep t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n  going  that this  example. i s an  when a r e q u e s t h a s  been a n s w e r e d as e x p e c t e d . Further  1983, in  G.  partner.  illustrated  attempt  is far  I n p u t t i n g so much e n e r g y a n d a t t e n t i o n i n t o  A blatant refusal  no  require  he i s p e r h a p s v i e w e d by h i s p e e r s as n o t t h e most  desirable  or w i t h  about  from t h e textbook o r o t h e r  Knowing t h a t h i s r e a d i n g  k e e p i n g up w i t h  a passive  of the  c o u l d be due t o  as a l l a c t i v i t i e s  b e l o w t h e demands o f t h e m a t e r i a l , t h i s just  G. showed  c o n c e r n e d about t h e i n f o r m a t i o n  g e t t i n g t h e work done.  sense  to revising  requests,  1984, 1986) s t a t e t h a t  revising  their  initial  to eventually obtain  effective  request,  were when he d e s i g n a t e d  e t a l . (1982,  speakers are f l e x i b l e  using  an a p p r o p r i a t e  When G. d i d r e v i s e h i s r e q u e s t s , revisions  Wilkinson  various  response  h i s most  from  techniques listeners.  successful  a previously  undesignated  56 listener  o r when he r e w o r d e d h i s r e q u e s t .  designating  a previously  illustrated  i n the following  G J G J  through  listener i s  example:  - Can I u s e y o u r g l u e ? - (no r e s p o n s e ; g l u i n g w o r d s i n b o o k ) - Hey, c a n I u s e y o u r g l u e , Jason? - You c a n ' t b o r r o w o t h e r p e o p l e ' s m a t e r i a l s .  A succussful the  undesignated  Revision  r e v i s i o n through  rewording  i s illustrated  by  following: G N G N  -  C a n we u s e y o u r l e t t e r thing? what? C a n we u s e y o u r t h i n g t o m a k e l e t t e r s ? yeah.  Referring his  t o Figure  4, G.  t h i r t y - e i g h t requests that  resulting fourteen are  i n revisions  only  o f t h e twenty-one  insincere.  including  blatantly refusing  and  i n d i f f e r e n t , a n d G.  insincere  request.  removed  h i s peers  whether  unsuccessful,  that  request,  question  were  requests  The p a t t e r n  One m i g h t  twenty-one of  initally  71%.  Hence,  that  emerges  respond  G. d o e s n o t i s that  doesn't  I f the fourteen  revise  G. m a k e s  an  i n a number o f ways, revise  or not a speaker  unsuccessful,  However,  t o comply, becoming  f r o m t h e number o f r e q u e s t s  when  initially  45% o f t h e t i m e .  insincere being  does n o t r e v i s e  h i s request. can r e v i s e  insincere that  the value  impatient, an  requests are  are not  revised  for revisions h i s requests  i s then  G.  successfully  revises  when  Both kinds  of analysis,  q u a n t i f i c a t i o n and q u a l i -  he  can. fication, of  G.'s  proved  depending as  i n providing  revision of requests.  difference the  important  i n the value on w h e t h e r  a useful  Although there  f o r the revision of  or not insincere  description  i s a  requests  requests  are  included,  c a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e f r e q u e n c y p e r c e n t a g e was n o t c h a n g e d a result of t h i s r e f l e c t i o n during  Instead,  i t was  felt  that  the i n i t i a l  data  analysis.  frequency  percentage  57 of  55% f o r nonrevision of requests  cause the  one t o s e a r c h  configuration.  coding and  There yet  f o r a p o s s i b l e cause However,  summary i n A p p e n d i x  without  J  -  G J G J  -  -  G J  -  G J -  C to considering revisions  c o u l d be r e v i s e d  Such an example o f n o t r e v i s i n g unsuccessful i sillustrated  i s a n e x a m p l e o f G. n o t p e r s i s t i n g  f o r i n f o r m a t i o n , What does  that  n o t answered h i s q u e s t i o n as he e x p e c t e d .  has  a l l thecharacteristics  all  appropriate response  will  Fanshell  (1977)  be g i v e n ,  i ft h e l i s t e n e r  and  so has t h e o b l i g a t i o n  assistance perhaps  and right  t o G., i t w a s a r i s k  just  t o ogreat  satisfying  t h e request  t o respond.  F o r some  t o respond.  perhaps t o ask a peer f o r  p l a c e , and t o ask a second a  risk.  that  or question  accepts  does n o t meet h i s o b l i g a t i o n  i nthefirst  request  t o Labov and  does n o t deny  o f t h e c o n d i t i o n s , s/he i m p l i c i t l y  Referring  This  including  According  one  t h epeer  with h i s  t o increase thelikelihood  theconditions f o r sincerity.  reason,  i n the  mean?, w h e n t h e p e e r  has an  with  excerpt:  This request  i s drawn i n t h e  (reads next question) Who e m p l o y s t h e l a r g e s t n u m b e r o f p e o p l e ? . . . . What d o e s t h a t mean? (reads g r a p h ) . . . t h ep u l p m i l l s ( w r i t e s t h e answer) ( l o o k s a t J . ' s answer & w r i t e s t h e answer) (reads next question) How many p e o p l e a r e e m p l o y e d ? ( r e a d s g r a p h ) ... 1 9 5 0 950? ( l o o k s a t J . ' s answer a n d w r i t e s t h e answer) (continues with next question) What y e a r h a d t h e g r e a t e s t n u m b e r o f f o r e s t f i r e s ? ( r e a d s g r a p h ) ... 1 9 7 5 1979? (looks a t J . ' s w r i t t e n answer) (continues w i t h next question) What's t h e major cause o f f o r e s t f i r e s ? W h a t ' s t h a t mean? (reads g r a p h ) . . . l i g h t n i n g  G J  and explanation f o r  a r e i n s t a n c e s w h e n G.'s r e q u e s t s  when i n i t i a l l y  following  attention  enough t o  sincere requests.  he does n o t do s o .  requests  i sstriking  t i m e was  58 Also  evident  persisting  i n the  preceding  i n h i s requests  request  for confirmation,  Another  example  unanswered G R G R G R G  of  from  c o u l d be request  excerpts,  the  f o r G.'s  i s as  not  in this  a peer's  for confirmation  reasons  for confirmation, a  l a c k of  case  get  information  l o o k i n g at request  utterance.  that  goes  with  wishing  to  exercising  or  G.  his  However,  right  from  to  does In  they  just  someone's he  could  f o r he  a l l cases, i n so  G.  does  perhaps  G C J  ends  doing,  to  not  not  not  clarification  from  his  at  other  times,  G.  does p e r s i s t  with  a  several times  f o l l o w i n g exerpt another  as  classmate,  in a  sequence.  G.  and  C,  to  This  his partner, help  request is J.,  them answer  question: -  the  obtaining a response  for confirmation,  request  with  felt  that,  G.'s  partner.  clarification  shown i n t h e  to  needed There  non-response  that  answer thus  his requests  the  acknowledging  simply  himself.  his peer's  provide  for confirmation.  with  i n t e r r u p t f u r t h e r , yet  conversation  help  d i d not  including a preoccupation  for clarification.  persist  G C G C  a  follows:  for their  experience  for confirmation,  the  peers  requests  request  get  i n response to  a request  a number o f  activity,  for  for clarification,  another peer  acknowledgement  his  i s G.'s  - How do y o u s p e l l m o u n t a i n s ? - ( s p e l l s aloud) m-o-u-n-t- -n? - -a-i-n. - y o u p u t an "n", r i g h t ? - (no r e s p o n s e ; c o n t i n u e s w r i t i n g h i s a n s w e r ) - ( l o o k s a t R.'s p a p e r t o g e t c o r r e c t s p e l l i n g )  In both  up  excerpt  W h a t do we t e l l ? T e l l how a c o n e t e l l s t h e w e a t h e r . T e l l how a c o n e t e l l s t h e w e a t h e r ? Yeah, look at t h a t . ( p o i n t i n g t o p a r a g r a p h i n r e f e r e n c e book) - Look at what? - T h i s p a r a g r a p h , G. (pointing to paragraph) - ( r e a d i n g p a r a g r a p h i n r e s p o n s e t o C.'s help)  a  59 Yeah, you have t o t h i n k . G - What? ( l o o k s i n t e n t l y w i t h p u z z l e d l o o k J - (begins t o w r i t e answer) G - (reads J . ' s answer) Oh, t h e c o n e i s o p e n w h e n i t ' s d r y a n d c l o s e d when i t ' s w e t . In his  this  initial  excerpt, request,  clarification.  G.  r e c e i v e s an a p p r o p r i a t e  however,  Although  he n e e d e d t o  r e c e i v e an a p p r o p r i a t e  again  t h e answer t o h i s i n i t i a l  looking  at the peer's  indicate  that  receives  appropriate  he r e q u e s t s  G. what?) is  he  as another  G N G N  -  G.  uses  requests,  he  ways o f o b t a i n i n g t h e  for repetition  of requesting  a third  specific  What do You u s e another a paper all,  G.  twenty-one  indicate  (huh? o r  clarification.  This  workers. workers.  type  requests  of request f o r  for repetition,  (put a  that  we d o h e r e , N.? another piece of paper. what? f o r the bar graph. received fifteen  requests G.  conversationalist his  and  as shown i n t h e f o l l o w i n g :  In his  seems t o  i n the following excerpt:  clarification, what?),  means  What's number s i x ? Lumbermen a n d f o r e s t What? lumbermen and f o r e s t ( w r i t e s answer)  Finally,  through  clarification  other  a l s o uses n e u t r a l requests  -  request  G.  needs.  illustrated G J G J G  seek  i n t h e end,  This  responses t o those  sometimes has t o and does information  request  answer,  w r i t t e n response.  although  response t o  a l l of h i s requests f o r  clarification obtains  a t J.)  partner  accepts  appropriate  for clarification. his social  to signal  responses t o This  seems t o  responsibility  instances  as a  of miscomprehension t o  a n d he knows t h e a p p r o p r i a t e  form t o use  (Fey e t  60 al.,  1988).  Leonard  A l s o , as noted  (1983) t h i s  clarification, once a g a i n as of  initiation  and frequent  reflects  the classroom  acoustically, requests  by Hoskins  (1989)  and Fey and  of a request f o r  p e r s i s t e n c e w i t h such  a degree o f a s s e r t i v e n e s s .  provided  perhaps  a very  one w o u l d  forclarification  good find  requests,  In addition,  listening  environment  an i n c r e a s e d  i n less  ideal  frequency  listening  conditions. In  four other  clarification,  G.  instances requiring fails  t o respond  w i t h an u t t e r a n c e t o a  showing  an e x p r e s s i o n o f  communication breakdown, puzzlement indicate  or smiling.  excerpt  illustrates  only  F e y e t a l . (1988)  that the student  breakdown b u t doesn't  a request f o r  i s aware o f a  feel  might  communication  k n o w how t o r e s p o n d .  an example o f t h i s  this  type  The  following  of request f o r  clarification: G J G J G  ( g i v i n g p a p e r t o J) You w r i t e J . W e l l , i t says both p a r t n e r s . (looks and leans toward J . puzzled) We b o t h n e e d t o w r i t e a l e t t e r . Oh.  -  Fey exhibit  e t a l . (1988) these  comprehension informs already  the  difficulty  and s i g n a l  noted,  clarification another  subtle indications  them o f t h e i r  assertive  go on t o s u g g e s t  G.  may  conversational obligation  effort  forms  nonverbal  i n h i s repertoire,  least  require intervention  knows o t h e r  who  o f awareness o f  misunderstanding  so t h i s  that students that  t o be more  t o the speaker.  As  of requests f o r  response  i s perhaps  just  yet i t i s the choice that  when r e q u e s t i n g more i n f o r m a t i o n  demands  from  peers. Summary As of  the purpose  the Effective  of this  Speaker  study  Model  was t o a s c e r t a i n  t h e use  with a mainstreamed  student  61 who  i s hearing  impaired,  the  q u e s t i o n t o be  addressed  here  was: Can the requests hearing  Effective Speaker Model be used and responses of a mainstreamed impaired in student-directed  Wilkinson speaker  as  directed  one  to  initially  and  Calculator  who  makes r e q u e s t s  a listener,  unsuccessful.  study,  a number o f  nature  o f G.'s  requests and  are  conditions his  peers.  his  requests  does not  and  until  several  persistence  of  Fifty-five appropriate after  secure the 1986)  not  listener,  always  satisfy are  response,  not  of rewording  with  for clarification. requests  he  his When  uses  Both  for  the  from  and  persist  his  clarification  responses  requests  from  peers  This  indicates  that students  and her  after  the  received initial  t h a t G.  colleagues  i n grades  one,  two,  time,  effective  i n o b t a i n i n g compliance  64%  of the  speakers  67%  speakers,  successful  time.  or to  able  to  of the  64%  of  1984,  three  were  requests time.  were t h o s e of  to  1983, and  requests  Examples g i v e n  request  peers  (1982,  two-thirds of the of  was  i n f o r m a t i o n from  more t h a n  ineffective  listener,  appropriate response.  eighty-six  W i l k i n s o n and  80%  a  always  i n o b t a i n i n g appropriate responses  to  G.'s  of a s s e r t i v e n e s s .  o f G.'s  examples  the  u s i n g a number  a peer  and  this  made a b o u t  effective Specific  in  appropriate response  does not  appropriate action found  data  sincere,  when  to peers.  do  designating the  r e c e i v e s an  a revision.  time.  revised  to the  requests  with revisions  a degree  on-task,  designated to  r e c e i v e an  requests  effective  When h i s r e q u e s t s  with understanding  types  indicate  he  and  responses  sincere.  does r e v i s e  including  persisting  or  According  r e q u e s t s , h o w e v e r he  revisions  direct,  However, h i s r e q u e s t s  He  strategies  t h a t are  o b s e r v a t i o n s m i g h t be  for being  he  (1982) d e f i n e an  g e n e r a l l y on-task,  direct.  sincere,  and  to assess the student who is activities?  who  ranging  students  were s u c c e s s f u l i n o b t a i n i n g  who  were from were  compliance  62 to  requests  m i g h t be  said  there  are  order  to  to  his  ranging t o be  aspects  This  developing peers.  The  only  i n assessment system  of the  o f why  peaks and  and  valleys  attempt  to  will  Inclusion Effective  a  be  not  G.  discussed,  change  in  responses  Speaker  the  refer  However,  this  as a  requests  student  response  from In  when c o d i n g  number o f  r e c e i v e s , but  i s an  i n understanding  clarification  are  appropriate  aspect the  u s e d by  communicative breakdown  et  do a  a in  in  peer the  clarification a  student's  given.  a l l listeners  as  emerged  responses  of the  response (Fey  (1982)  effective  turn  for  in  peers.  for clarification  request  of  their  Calculator  another  The  from  student's  request,  change the  behaviour  the  for clarification  hence as  and  response  to understand  and  only  for instruction  that  and  -  data,  a means o f p e r s i s t i n g  request-response.sequence. does not  Why  characteristics  identified  consider  one  description  for clarification.  to  direct  between these  in-depth  specific  requests  to  observational data  appropriate  Wilkinson to  responses  back to the  f o r an  appropriate  Model,  requests. response to  going  be  and  and  these  requests?,  likelihood  requests  characteristic  study  By  hearing  i t provides  such a p r o f i l e  from the  found  r e c e i v e an of  requests  of  information,  increase  are  presents  relationship  can  who  observational data  r e c e i v e an  requests  specifically  separate  can  do  From t h i s  students's  repair  might  students  responses to  Is there  examples  requests  for  as  i s u s e f u l because  seek p a t t e r n s  requests  peers.  of  student's  % sincere requests?.  not  Thus,  appropriate  that graphically  % appropriate  specific  an  time. yet,  t h a t he  number o f  f o r c a t e g o r i z i n g the  revisions?,  the  of the  speaker,  h i s requests  a profile  question  the  40%  effective  coding  characteristics  %  to  requests.  framework  Why  30%  receive a greater  impaired.  to  an  of  Applicability a  from  as  As  requests  attempts  to  a l . , 1988), i t w o u l d  63  seem t o be a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c  t o consider  dyad.  However, as noted  aspect  of t h e request-response  especially  i f one p a r t n e r  greater potential requests  using  impaired  one p a r t n e r  Speaker  should  Model  i na  response  conversation  be i n c l u d e d  t o assess  i sa  Hence,  as a response t o a peer  and perhaps  summary,  t h e Effective  framework w i t h i n which  when  students  of requests  Speaker  Model  one c a n c l a s s i f y  who a r e  and responses  of a student  when  patterns  t h a t may e m e r g e i n a d d i t i o n t o t h o s e  established. student  interacting Not only  with peers,  i sa  who i s h e a r i n g  remaining  c a n one d e t e r m i n e  usable  and describe t h e  impaired  the  as t h e r e  impaired.  In nature  impaired  f o rcommunication breakdown.  t h e Effective  hearing  sequence t o c o n s i d e r  more f r e q u e n t l y when  hearing  I I , i ti s perhaps an  i s hearing  f o rc l a r i f i c a t i o n  may o c c u r is  i n Chapter  i n any c o n v e r s a t i o n  open t o already  t h e degree t o which  i s successful i n obtaining appropriate  to  requests  in  which t h i s  responses  f o ra c t i o n and i n f o r m a t i o n , b u t a l s o t h e manner i s carried  success  a student  his/her  requests  out.  experiences has both  As s t a t e d i n Chapter  II,the  i n r e c e i v i n g responses t o  academic  and s o c i a l i m p l i c a t i o n s .  64 CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS  Implications Although for  data  ethnographic  collection  demand b o t h  between t h e i t i n e r a n t information these  obtained  teachers  hearing  Green  teacher  with  who  the itinerant  methodology conducting (Burton, cians, to  student  the classroom  i n their  teacher  teacher  might  initiate  teachers research  1986).  could gain  and p u r p o s e f u l  ethnographic  of that  tician,  an a p p r o a c h  Spinelli  the dual similar  suggested  of  an i t i n e r a n t  comprehensive  here  One: Two:  roles.  Smith  research  study  The  classrooms  and a l s o  directly gain  regarding  are hearing  impaired  (1978)  and  outlines  a  leading to revision  would  role  of  to that  c o u l d become  teacher  communication  an a p p r o a c h m i g h t  Step Step  collaboration  i n their  seem t o be v e r y  of  much  researcher/diagnosas o u t l i n e d  (1985b) m i g h t be e s t a b l i s h e d .  approach tests  This  et a l . ,  process.  To a c c o m p l i s h  such  who  i n the regular classroom.  a part  and  students  practice.  (Ross  the tools f o r  intervention,  between  educational  who i s  f o r teachers  information leading  interaction  showing  both  As r e s e a r c h e r s / d i a g n o s t i -  t o add t o c u r r e n t knowledge  process  of  the  manager f o r a  impaired  information peers  teacher,  as  i n assuming these  offers  1986/ McConaghy,  immediate  classrooms  As t h e case  and important  the teacher  cooperation  student  d i s c u s s t h e need  i s hearing  of the study valid  classroom  peers.  (1981)  researcher/diagnosticians. 1982),  and g r e a t e r  as t h e mainstreamed  participants  mainstreamed  time  and t h e classroom  and h i s / h e r  and W a l l a t  t o be a c t i v e  t h a t use t h e  has i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e r o l e s  as w e l l  impaired  techniques  a part  currently  assessment.  The  by R i p i c h five-step  of the battery  uses t o complete The f i v e  a  steps i n  include:  Gaining access t o the classroom Observing i n t e r a c t i o n i n the classroom  65 Step Step Step  Three: Four: Five:  Step  Coding and d e s c r i p t i o n o f o b s e r v a t i o n s I n d i v i d u a l assessment and i n t e r v i e w s Summary a n d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r t h e s t u d e n t ' s program  one w o u l d  involve clearly  respective  roles  This  include setting  would  going the  of the itinerant  participant  school  year,  and classroom  up r e g u l a r l y  observation clarifying  observer-as-participant,  establishing the teachers.  scheduled  i n the classroom  the itinerant  and a r r a n g i n g  and on-  throughout  teachers's  role  as  a timeline f o r the  assessment. Steps the  two and t h r e e  observational data  A p e n d i c e s A a n d C. and  using  render  Step a  specific  usable  t h e methods  perhaps both  the syntactical  and t h e students  interaction  observed.  options  The  as w e l l  f o r a plan  Effective  t o determine  targets  c o u l d be d e t e r m i n e d  and  descriptive  direct,  and  on-task,  requesting addition,  as i n d i v i d u a l  of  specific  i s detailed  from t h e assessment,  and  enough f o r a These  from t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c  sincere, designated  t h e same d a t a  of the  classroom  target behaviours.  information t o focus  clarification  clarity  instruction.  Speaker Model  teacher  including  i n describing the  involve the itinerant  observations  as  s t r u c t u r e d and  discussing the information obtained  possible  coding  further i n  through  i n t e r v i e w s would a s s i s t  classroom  with  gaining the viewpoints  unstructured  teachers  and  simple  a  s t r u c t u r e and semantic  classroom  would  observing  As  and p r o d u c t i o n  In addition,  five  should provide  from which t o probe  of t h e requests.  Step  the relatively  usable.  o f comprehension  teacher  coding  presented i n  f o rteachers.  i n both  and  involve using the observational data  sample base  areas  tool  practice  four would  language  using t h e formats  classifications  and r e a d i l y  a n y new t o o l ,  should  involve collecting  As s t a t e d e a r l i e r ,  objective coding  practical  would  on such to a  aspects as:  listener,  a n d r e v i s e d when n e e d e d . c o u l d be u s e d  profile  f o r other  In  types  of  66 analysis  - syntax,  interaction. these  areas  The e x a m p l e s c a n be t a k e n  conversations Hutson  so w i l l  (1981) p o i n t s  ethnographer, that  the  o u t , by t e a c h i n g  focus  child's  i s given  into  a teacher  for instruction.  i n conversation  observational participant  data,  the student  i n conversation  become  skills  a more s k i l l e d  knowledge  The i n t e r v e n t i o n  everyday  life  chance  because  from t h e  Through t h i s  purposeful  derived directly  c a n become a more  with peers.  Not only  participant  As  t o be an  seem t o h a v e o p t i m a l  communication environment.  student  f o r the student.  methods t o g a i n  the student's  of  recorded  o f i n t e r v e n t i o n i s coming d i r e c t l y  instruction  aspects  and p r a c t i c e i n  from t h e  relevant  assessment would  c a r r y i n g over  pragmatic  for instruction  be v e r y  the teacher  on t h i s  and other  directly  can be u s e d d i r e c t l y  based of  semantics,  from t h e skilled  can the  i n interaction,  but  s/he c a n a l s o become a more c o n t r i b u t i n g p a r t i c i p a n t i n  the  interaction. More a p p r o p r i a t e  up-coming  activity  pre-teaching  c o u l d be p r o v i d e d  collaboration  between t h e i t i n e r a n t  Consequently,  the student  active others be  as a b l e  t h e o n e who  benefit  to give  children.  answers  academically  partner, are  his/her  by  to  peers will  a r e known t o be  t o be a s k e d not only  interaction,  questions  and  knowing benefit b u t he  could  f e e l i n g s o f s e l f - w o r t h and  A s J o h n s o n e t a l . (1986)  views him/herself  improved.  the student  f o r c h i l d r e n who  i n improved  percieved  i n f o r m a t i o n from  may  t o be an  s/he i s more l i k e l y  As a r e s u l t ,  improved  teachers.  becomes a more  being  and i n f o r m a t i o n by other  from t h i s  socially  importance. student  information,  However, t h e s t u d e n t  of greater  be b e t t e r p r e p a r e d  a r e approached by others  be g i v e n  f o rthe  and classroom  As t h e student  a l s o r e c e i v e s new  academically,  competent  benefit  as a r e s u l t  contributor i n the interaction,  (Cooper e t a l . , 1982).  to  should  contributing partner.  confident  or preparation  emphasize,  as a c o n t r i b u t i n g and  feelings of self-esteem  and  I n a d d i t i o n , as t h e student  when t h e cooperative  self-acceptance  i s viewed  by  67 peers  as  a c o n t r i b u t i n g and  expectation  of  interaction  with the  f u r t h e r rewarding  greater motivation enhanced  Furthermore,  of  f o r the as  access  have a number o f setting  student.  l e a r n i n g of  have gained  cooperative partner,  task  content.  the  itinerant  options  for this  teacher  student's  would  the  most  might  through  the  planning  through  incidental  regular  classroom  activities  as  in traditional  one-to-one  sessions with the  removed from the With  regards  activities could  i n the  assist  partners  the  educational Speaker to a  be  who  and  classroom, teachers  implications, warrant  of  the  teacher,  cooperative  activities; in  the  an o b s e r v e r - a s - p a r t i c i p a n t ; student  the  observational information  i n choosing  for this  the  there  cooperative  the  most  appropriate  activities. setting  study,  has  the  been  use  other  study  impaired  here would  interacting  with  seem  assess  both  peers.  positive has  Effective  educational settings to  impaired are  the  of the  i m p l i c a t i o n s suggested  i s hearing  the  classroom  small-group  mainstreamed  hearing  Although that  to planning  applicable to  student  hearing  and  method  classroom.  setting  Model as  the  The  teaching while participating  for various  Although  small-group  would  i n c l u d e any  in collaboration  or  s/he  appropriate  following:  of  with the  to  already  instruction.  interaction  an  presumably,  classrooom,  regarding the  is  future  i n turn, leads  a t hand and,  the  to the  enjoyable  This,  w i t h i n which to provide  instruction  and  there  and  interesting  a number o f  definite  limitations  discussion.  Limitations The the  role  methods during  researcher's  l a c k of  of p a r t i c i p a n t is a  the  limiting  triangulation  observer  factor.  r e c o r d i n g of procedure  knowledge and  The  the  use  efficacy  observations are  and  and  of p a r t i c u l a r  the  experience of of  in  ethnographic reflection  subsequent  concern.  These  68 are  both  important  interpretations.  procedures  f o renhancing  The more e x p e r i e n c e d  the participant  observer,  t h e more c a p a b l e  questions  t o complement t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s  refute  interpretations.  alleviated through  methods and g a i n s  this  applicability secondary  caution  the  study  importance.  observer  continues  confidence  t o use  and e x p e r t i s e  only  the results  However,  may b e c o n s i d e r e d  s m a l l sample s i z e  overgeneralization of the results  one s t u d e n t  impaired  as  does  t o other  a l a r g e group", b u t  i n one s i t u a t i o n a l c o n t e x t ,  of external validity,  However, i t i s v e r y hearing  with testing the  A s t h e m o d e l was n o t u s e d w i t h  question  and  or  l i m i t a t i o n can o n l y be  was c o n c e r n e d  o f t h e model,  against  settings. with  This  and support  practice.  Since of  one i s a t a s k i n g t h e r i g h t  as t h e p a r t i c i p a n t  ethnographic  the validity of  there i s  or generalizability.  common t o f i n d o n l y  one s t u d e n t  i n a given mainstream educational  h e n c e t h e n a t u r a l s i t u a t i o n t h a t was p r e s e n t  who i s setting  f o r the  researcher. Gaining participant  access  i sthe first  observation  However, t h i s poses an  observer  this  study,  access in  important  1981; Wilson,  step i n  1977).  a t h r e a t t o v a l i d i t y as t h e presence  may a f f e c t  the nature  i t was f e l t  t o the classroom  the classroom  (Corsaro,  a n d most  that both  of the data  collected.  was o b t a i n e d .  from t h e beginning  As t h e r e s e a r c h e r  of the school  this  seem t o b e a s u f f i c i e n t l e n g t h o f t i m e t o  possible observer  Flexer the  hearing  results the  a n d Wood  i n less  personal  (1984) m a i n t a i n  natural interaction  influenced interaction  and d i f f e r e n t ear-level  until  January,  effects.  a i d , t h e more t h e v i s u a l  FM s y s t e m  peers,  t o record data  was  year,  and didn't begin  decrease  In  p h y s i c a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l  September, would  of  t h a t t h e more v i s i b l e stigma, with  and t h i s  others.  Perhaps  b e t w e e n G. a n d h i s  p a t t e r n s may e m e r g e i f G. w o r e o n l y h i s  hearing  aids.  H o w e v e r , t h e FM s y s t e m i s  69 the  current  part  of  the  In  summary,  (1978) t o to  amplification  natural setting of the  increase  some d e g r e e :  access,  qualitative  data  the  and  has  met  on-site observations,  a  such  is  a  and  both  Smith  a l l criteria  freedom  quantitative  of and  analysis, triangulation  sample of  data  representative of  and the  event.  observational reliability researcher outlined problem  not  and  internal  the  type  of  revision  from  a maximum o f  or  study  study  five  (1982), the  the  coding  to  to  researcher  defined  little  of  the  substantiate The  would not  and the  f o r i t i s the (Smith,  f i n d i n g s of t h i s  future  research.  Future  Research the  m o d e l was  one  educational  are  hearing  are  clearly  a decision This  in decisions If  frequency  verbatim of  of  there  of  the accounts  excerpts  of  that  suggest p o s s i b l e aspects  only  i t s applicability  c o u l d be  reliability  1978).  t e s t e d here with  setting,  impaired  study  the  when d e s c r i b i n g  greatly affect  m u l t i p l e examples  coding  coded  decisions.  this  said  observations  codes  discrepancy  characteristics,  model  as  this  choices.  discrepancies regarding  the  the  However,  reduce  for clarification,  objective nature  of  only  recorded  were a number o f  w h a t was  as  lacks inter-judge  clearly  would expect  Interobserver  observations.  However, t h e  request  any  1982).  a yes/no d e c i s i o n or,  researcher  usefulness  of  as p o s s i b l e .  only  process.  r e q u i r i n g only  the  Goetz  as  defined  due  in this  coded the  detailed  data,  coding  credibility  reliability  to this,  observational during the  achieved  LeCompte and  p r e c i s e and  the  (LeCompte & G o e t z ,  observed  by of  threatens  study  was  Related  As  as  o u t l i n e d by  study  observation,  and  Reliability  as  six criteria  collection  multimethod use,  are  of  f o r G.  examined.  validity,  direct  intensity  natural  choice  one with  further tested in  student  for  in  students different  who  70 educational of  settings.  educational settings,  number o f  students,  hearing  loss.  not  model  the  responses hearing  of  In  school  with  or  Every  than  over  from  one  effort  on  the  characteristics the  listening speech  the  students may  conditions listening  as  not  end  the  a  of  one  in As  teacher,  setting.  a  more  particular  classroom  Future  requests that  this  learning activity  of the  and  responses  emphasize  classroom  activities  determining  students's  that  whether or  requests  assessment  understood  are  do  not  different  In  each others'  carried  conditions w i t h i n the usual  of the  due  an  out  speech, assessment  within  approximate the  of  the  listening  In addition,  classroom  of  classroom  future research,  c o u l d be  speech  q u i e t room gave a measure  natural setting.  perhaps b e t t e r than  of  generalize to varied  t o more c l o s e l y  of the  characteristics  in  interaction.  in this  in a relatively  conditions. so  part  individual  intelligibility  classroom  are  learning tasks.  intelligibility however these  and  settings.  teacher  a cooperative  thus  who  or  both purposefully  classroom  during  requests  changes  to the  was  activities  of the  of  another.  i n another  cooperation,  Completing the  to  the  the  l e a r n i n g and  emphasize  well  larger  a  documented through  to note  beginning  occurred  i n classroom  on  on  students  m i g h t be  year  was  of  compare a s t u d e n t ' s  not  depending  gathered  educational  for interaction  perhaps  cooperative  of  either  might have o c c u r r e d  with peers  variety  c o u l d a s c e r t a i n whether  o b j e c t i v e s f o r student  research might  in  time  from the  activity  of t h i s  interaction  one  in a  with v a r y i n g degrees  populations  e n c o u r a g e d by  specific  result  ages,  doing,  profile,  ability  and  c o u l d be  in a variety  Opportunity study.  so  changes  year,  provided  across  different  characteristic student's  data  research  i s a p p l i c a b l e f o r assessing the  impaired  Also,  how  Through r e l a t e d  the  in this  study  were  to the p h y s i c a l  room and  the  efforts  p r o v i d i n g g u i d e l i n e s f o r communication  by  - eye  the to  teacher eye  and  71 knee t o knee. G.  and  As  h i s peers  classroom  with  same s t u d e n t m i g h t be  c o u l d be  another  teacher.  was  the  felt  of h i s a b i l i t y Future  t o be  another  Research to  include  to  as  verification  of  the  might  i n the  Regarding  (Corsaro,  examine whether t h e r e  characteristics likelihood  of  of these  receiving  investigate  the  student  his/her  and  Finally, responses to student's firstly,  an  requests  requests  has  from peers.  request  impaired  and  secondly,  peer  requests.  Webb  1982b) have b o t h  In  and  impaired.  directly  clarification future  specific  will  increase  response  the  and  f o r both  the  on  the  not  on  characteristics his/her  In examining  the  one  could  from the nature  Cooper et  shown t h i s  the determine, student  of  his/her  a l . (1982)  t o be  who  of  and  importance  socially.  summary, t h i s  information  and  information  these  academically  sequences  impaired,  requests  requests,  responses to (1982a,  that  focused  to peers,  responses to peer  hearing  and  peers. study  i f peers  measure  the  replay  for  are  appropriate of these  for  1981).  i s hearing  requests  frequency  this  student's  who  a  addition,  process  requests  research  might  student  of  reading  activities.  In  to  triangulation  a  is  the  textbook  viewing  utterances.  inclusion  G.'s  videotaping  when a s s e s s i n g  a  between  conditions  a more r e a l i s t i c  researcher  sequence  the  subject  would allow repeated  and  a given  the  consider  allow the  to  using  questionable  questions  measure of  m a t e r i a l i n the  videotaping would  of  listening  i n future research  could yield  read  this  test  adequate,  assessment  research  interaction  related  observed  in  with various  standardized  i n f o r m a l assessment  ask  interaction  a consideration.  curriculum-based an  the  quite different  i n classrooms  Although ability  a result,  to the Studies  study  field have  of  has  attempted to  education  shown t h a t  of  the  students  add  new  hearing who  are  hearing  72 impaired  do  them t o be  not both  conversation. teachers  of  participant gaining  information, and  academically  have communication  competent The  and  results  students observers  specific  between the planned  always  who  skills  that  confident partners  in a  of t h i s  are  study  hearing  in their  students'  and  their  peers.  appropriate instruction implemented, and  i m p a i r e d can  i n f o r m a t i o n about the  students  thus  socially.  indicate  With may  benefitting  that become  classrooms  nature  of  enable  thereby  interaction  this  be p u r p o s e f u l l y the  students  both  REFERENCES A n t i a , S. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . S o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n o f p a r t i a l l y mainstreamed hearing impaired c h i l d r e n . American A n n a l s o f t h e Deaf, 127, 18-25. A n t i a , S. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . S o c i a l i n t e g r a t i o n o f h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d children: Fact or f i c t i o n ? V o l t a R e v i e w , 87, 2 7 9 289. B a k e r , R.M. (1980). A d e s c r i p t i o n o f a r e s i d e n t i a l deaf s c h o o l p o p u l a t i o n : F o u r y e a r s a f t e r P.L. 94-142. A m e r i c a n A n n a l s o f t h e Deaf, 125, 1049-1052. B e d r o s i a n , A. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . An a p p r o a c h t o d e v e l o p i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n a l c o m p e t e n c e . I n D. R i p i c h a n d F . Spinelli, ( E d s . ) , S c h o o l D i s c o u r s e P r o b l e m s . San D i e g o College-Hill Press. B e r g , F . (1986). Classroom a c o u s t i c s and s i g n a l . transmission. I n F . B e r g , J . B l a i r , S. V i e h w e g , a n d A Wilson-Vlotman, (Eds.), Educational audiology f o rt h e hard of hearing c h i l d . F l o r i d a : Grune and S t r a t t o n . B l o o m e , D., & K n o t t , G. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . T e a c h e r - s t u d e n t d i s c o u r s e . I n D. R i p i c h a n d F . S p i n e l l i , (Eds.), School Discourse P r o b l e m s . San D i e g o : C o l l e g e - H i l l P r e s s . B o o t h r o y d , A. (1978) . S p e e c h p e r c e p t i o n a n d s e n s o r i n e u r a l hearing loss. I n M a r k R o s s & T. G i o l a s ( E d s . ) , A u d i t o r y management o f h e a r i n g i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n : P r i n c i p l e s and p r e r e q u i s i t e s f o ri n t e r v e n t i o n . Baltimore: U n i v e r s i t y Park Press. Borg,  W., & G a l l , M. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . i n t r o d u c t i o n . New Y o r k :  Educational Research: Longman, I n c .  An  B o r r i l d , K. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . C l a s s r o o m a c o u s t i c s . I n M. R o s s & T. G i o l a s ( E d s . ) , A u d i t o r y management o f h e a r i n g impaired c h i l d r e n : P r i n c i p l e s and p r e r e q u i s i t e s f o r i n t e r v e n t i o n . Baltimore: U n i v e r s i t y Park Press. B r a c k e t t , D. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . Assessment: Adaptations, i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , a n d i m p l i c a t i o n s . I n M. R o s s a n d L.W Nober (Eds.), S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n i n t r a n s i t i o n : Educating hard of hearing c h i l d r e n . Washington, D.C.: A.G. B e l l A s s o c i a t i o n f o r t h e D e a f . B r a c k e t t , D. hearing  (1983). Group communication s t r a t e g i e s f o rt h e impaired. V o l t a R e v i e w , 85., 1 1 6 - 1 2 8 .  74 B r i n t o n , B. & F u j i k i , M. (1982). A comparison of r e q u e s t response sequences i n t h e d i s c o u r s e o f normal and l a n g u a g e - d i s o r d e r e d c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l o f Speech and H e a r i n g D i s o r d e r s , 47, 5 7 - 6 2 . B u r t o n , F.R. (1986). Research c u r r e n t s : A teacher's conception of the a c t i o n research process. Language A r t s , 3., 7. C a l v e r t , M., & M u r r a y , S. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . Environmental c o m m u n i c a t i o n p r o f i l e : An a s s e s s m e n t p r o c e d u r e . In Simon ( E d . ) , C o m m u n i c a t i o n s k i l l s and classroom success: Assessment of language-learning d i s a b l e d s t u d e n t s . San D i e g o : C o l l e g e - H i l l P r e s s .  C.  Carrow-Woolfoik, C, & Lynch, J . (1982). An integrative a p p r o a c h t o l a n g u a g e d i s o r d e r s i n c h i l d r e n . New York: Grune & S t r a t t o n . Cooper, C , M a r q u i s , A., & A y e r s - L o p e z , S. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . Peer learning i n the classroom: Tracing developmental p a t t e r n s and consequences o f c h i l d r e n ' s spontaneous interactions. I n L. W i l k i n s o n ( E d . ) , C o m m u n i c a t i n g i n the classroom. New Y o r k : Academic Press. C o r s a r o , W.A. (1981). E n t e r i n g the c h i l d ' s w o r l d - Research s t r a t e g i e s f o r f i e l d e n t r y and d a t a c o l l e c t i o n i n a p r e s c h o o l s e t t i n g . I n J . G r e e n & C. W a l l a t , ( E d s . ) , E t h n o g r a p h y and l a n g u a g e i n e d u c a t i o n a l s e t t i n g s . Norwood, NJ: A b l e x . C r e a g h e a d , N.A., & T a t t e r s h a l l , S.S. (1985). Observation and A s s e s s m e n t o f C l a s s r o o m P r a g m a t i c S k i l l s . In CS. Simon ( E d . ) , C o m m u n i c a t i o n s k i l l s and classroom success. San D i e g o : College-Hill Press. D i r e c t o r y of teachers of the hearing impaired: M i n i s t r y of Education, S p e c i a l Education, B r i t i s h Columbia.  1988/1989. Province of  D o l l a g h a n , C. & M i l l e r , J . ( 1 9 8 6 ) . O b s e r v a t i o n a l m e t h o d s i n the study of communicative competence. I n R. S c h i e f e l b u s c h , (Ed.), Language Competence: Assessment and i n t e r v e n t i o n . San D i e g o : C o l l e g e - H i l l P r e s s . D o n a h u e , M., P e a r l , R., & B r y a n , T. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . Learning d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n ' s c o n v e r s a t i o n a l competence: Responses t o inadequate messages. Applied P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c s , 1_, 3 8 7 - 4 0 3 . Dore,  J . ( 1 9 7 7 ) . "Oh t h e m s h e r i f f " : A p r a g m a t i c a n a l y s i s o f c h i l d r e n ' s responses to questions. I n S. E r v i n - T r i p p & C. M i t c h e l l - K e r n a n ( E d s . ) , C h i l d d i s c o u r s e . NY: Academic P r e s s .  75  D u n n , L. & D u n n , L. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . Revised. C i r c l e Pines,  Peabody P i c t u r e V o c a b u l a r y TestMN: A m e r i c a n G u i d a n c e S e r v i c e .  E r i c k s o n , F. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . C l a s s r o o m d i s c o u r s e a s i m p r o v i s a t i o n : R e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n a c a d e m i c t a s k s t r u c t u r e and s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n s t r u c t u r e i n l e s s o n s . I n L. Wilkinson (Ed.), Communicating i n the classroom. N.Y.: Academic Press. E r v i n - T r i p p . S. ( 1 9 7 7 ) . " W a i t f o r me, r o l l e r skate." M i t c h e l l - K e r n a n & S. E r v i n - T r i p p ( E d s . ) , C h i l d d i s c o u r s e . New Y o r k : A c a d e m i c P r e s s . Fey,  In  C.  M. & L e o n a r d , L. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . Pragmatic s k i l l s of c h i l d r e n with s p e c i f i c language impairment. I n T. G a l l a g h e r & C. P r u t t i n g ( E d s . ) , P r a g m a t i c a s s e s s m e n t a n d intervention issues. San D i e g o : College-Hill Press.  Fey,  M., W a r r - L e e p e r , G., W e b b e r , S., & D i s h e r , L. (1988). Repairing children's repairs: Evaluation and . . f a c i l i t a t i o n of c h i l d r e n ' s c l a r i f i c a t i o n requests and responses. T o p i c s i n Language D i s o r d e r s , 8 ( 2 ) , 63-84.  F l e x e r , C a r o l , & Wood, L. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . The h e a r i n g a i d : F a c i l i t a t o r or i n h i b i t o r of a u d i t o r y i n t e r a c t i o n ? V o l t a R e v i e w , 86 ( 7 ) , 3 5 4 - 3 6 1 .  The  G a l l a g h e r , T. (1983). Preassessment: A p r o c e d u r e f o r accomodating language use v a r i a b i l i t y . I n T. Gallagher a n d C. P r u t t i n g ( E d s . ) , P r a g m a t i c a s s e s s m e n t a n d i n t e r v e n t i o n i s s u e s i n l a n g u a g e . San D i e g o : C o l l e g e Hill Press. G a r v e y , C. (1975). R e q u e s t s and r e s p o n s e s i n c h i l d r e n ' s s p e e c h . J o u r n a l o f C h i l d L a n g u a g e , 2, 41-63. G e f f n e r , D, L e v i t t , M., F r e e m a n , L., & G a f f n e y , R. (1978). Speech and l a n g u a g e a s s e s s m e n t s c a l e s o f d e a f c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l o f C o m m u n i c a t i o n D i s o r d e r s , 11, 2 1 5 - 2 2 6 . G e n i s h i , C. (1982). O b s e r v a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h methods f o r e a r l y c h i l d h o o d e d u c a t i o n . I n B. S p o d e k ( E d . ) , H a n d b o o k o f r e s e a r c h i n e a r l y c h i l d h o o d e d u c a t i o n . New Y o r k : F r e e Press. G r e e n , J . & W a l l a t , C. (1981). I n t r o d u c t i o n . In J . Green C. W a l l a t ( E d s . ) , E t h n o g r a p h y and l a n g u a g e i n e d u c a t i o n a l s e t t i n g s . Norwood, NJ: Ablex.  &  76 G r i f f i t h , P.L., J o h n s o n , H.A., & D a s t o l i , S.L., (1985). If t e a c h i n g i s c o n v e r s a t i o n , c a n c o n v e r s a t i o n be t a u g h t ? : Discourse a b i l i t i e s i n hearing impaired children. In D.N. R i p i c h & F.N. S p i n e l l i (Eds.), School discourse problems. San D i e g o : College-Hill Press. Gumperz,J. (1981). C o n v e r s a t i o n a l i n f e r e n c e and classroom learning. I n J . G r e e n & C. W a l l a t ( E d s . ) , E t h n o g r a p h y and l a n g u a g e i n e d u c a t i o n a l s e t t i n g s . Norwood, NJ: Ablex. H o s k i n s , B. ( 1 9 8 9 ) . C o n v e r s a t i o n s i n L e a r n i n g . Workshop presented i n North Vancouver, March, 1989. H u t s o n , B. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . D i s c u s s i o n - N e e d e d d i r e c t i o n s i n f a c e to-face i n t e r a c t i o n i n e d u c a t i o n a l s e t t i n g s . In J . G r e e n & C. W a l l a t ( E d s . ) , E t h n o g r a p h y a n d l a n g u a g e i n e d u c a t i o n a l s e t t i n g s . Norwood, NJ: A b l e x . I s r a e l i t e , N., a n d H a m m e r m e i s t e r , F., (1986). A survey of teacher p r e p a r a t i o n programs i n education of the hearing impaired. A m e r i c a n A n n a l s o f t h e Deaf, 131, 232-237. J o h n s o n , D, (1980). Communication performance e v a l u a t i o n w i t h d e a f s t u d e n t s : A r e v i e w . New Y o r k : N a t i o n a l Technical Information Service. J o h n s o n , D.W. & J o h n s o n , R. (1985). i m p a i r e d s t u d e n t s : The e f f e c t s c o m m u n i c a t i n g on c o o p e r a t i o n . 119, 3 1 - 4 4 .  Mainstreaming hearing of e f f o r t i n Journal of Psychology,  J o h n s o n , D.W. & J o h n s o n , R. (1986). Mainstreaming and cooperative learning strategies. Exceptional Children, 52 ( 6 ) , 5 5 3 - 5 6 1 . J o h n s o n , D.W., J o h n s o n , R., & Holubec, E.J. (1986). C i r c l e s of learning: Cooperation i n the classroom. E d i n a , MN: I n t e r a c t i o n Book Company. J o h n s o n , A., J o h n s t o n , E., & W e i n r i c h , B. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . A s s e s s i n g pragmatic s k i l l s i n c h i l d r e n ' s language. Language, S p e e c h , a n d H e a r i n g i n S c h o o l s , 15, 2-9. K e e n a n , E.O. Journal  (1974). of C h i l d  C o n v e r s a t i o n a l competence L a n g u a g e , 1_, 1 6 3 - 1 8 3 .  in  children.  Kolzak, J. (1983). The i m p a c t o f c h i l d l a n g u a g e s t u d i e s o n mainstreaming d e c i s i o n s . I n R. T r u a x a n d J . S h u l t z (Eds.), L e a r n i n g t o communicate: I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the h e a r i n g i m p a i r e d . The V o l t a R e v i e w , 8 5 ( 5 ) , 1 2 9 - 1 3 7 .  77 Kretschmer, R. & K r e t s c h m e r , L. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . Language d e v e l o p m e n t and i n t e r v e n t i o n w i t h t h e h e a r i n g Baltimore: U n i v e r s i t y Park Press.  impaired.  K r i c o s , P.B., & L e s n e r , S.A. (1985). E f f e c t of t a l k e r d i f f e r e n c e s on t h e s p e e c h r e a d i n g o f h e a r i n g i m p a i r e d t e e n a g e r s . The V o l t a R e v i e w , 8 7 , 1, 5-14. L a b o v , W., York: Ladd,  & F a n s h e l , D. (1977). Academic Press.  Therapeutic  discourse.  New  G.W. (1981) . E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f a s o c i a l l e a r n i n g m e t h o d f o r e n h a n c i n g c h i l d r e n ' s s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n and p e e r acceptance. C h i l d Development, 5 2 ( 1 ) , 171-178.  L e C o m p t e , M.D. & Goetz, J.P. (1982). Ethnographic data collection i n evaluation research. Educational E v a l u a t i o n and P o l i c y A n a l y s i s , 4 ( 3 ) , 387-400. L a G r e c a , A.M. & M e s i b o v , G.B. (1979). Social skills intervention with learning disabled children: Selecting s k i l l s and i m p l e m e n t i n g t r a i n i n g . Journal of C l i n i c a l C h i l d P s y c h o l o g y , 8_, 2 3 4 - 2 4 1 . L i b b e y , S., & P r o n o v o s t , W. (1980). Communication p r a c t i c e s of mainstreamed h e a r i n g impaired adolescents. V o l t a R e v i e w , 82, 1 9 7 - 2 1 3 . Lund, N.J., & Duchan, J.F. (1983). A s s e s s i n g c h i l d r e n ' s language i n n a t u r a l i s t i c s e t t i n g s . Englewood c l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Inc. M c C a u l e y , R.W., B r u i n i n k s , R.H., & K e n n e d y , P. (1976). Behavioural i n t e r a c t i o n s of hearing impaired c h i l d r e n in regular classrooms. Journal of S p e c i a l Education, 10., 2 7 7 - 2 8 4 . M c C o n a g h y , J . ( 1 9 8 6 ) . On b e c o m i n g t e a c h e r e x p e r t s : Research a s a way o f k n o w i n g . L a n g u a g e A r t s , 6 3 , 7 2 4 - 7 2 8 . MacGinitie, Tests.  W.H. (1978, 1 9 8 0 ) . G a t e s - M a c G i n i t i e Canadian E d i t i o n . Toronto: Nelson.  M c G i n n i s , M. (1983). S o c i a l language: flexibility. V o l t a R e v i e w , 85 ( 5 ) . M a r k i d e s , A. (1970). R a t i n g s r e l a t e d and p a r t i a l l y h e a r i n g c h i l d r e n . 68/ 3 2 3 - 3 3 0 .  Reading  Toward f l u e n c y 101-115.  and  to the speech of deaf Teacher of the Deaf,  M i t c h e l l - K e r n a n , C. & K e r n a n , K.T. (1977). Pragmatics of d i r e c t i v e c h o i c e among c h i l d r e n . I n E r v i n - T r i p p , S., C. M i t c h e l l - K e r n a n ( E d s . ) , C h i l d D i s c o u r s e . NY: Academic Press.  &  78  M o n s e n , R.B. (1981). A u s a b l e t e s t f o r speech i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y i n deaf t a l k e r s . American Annals t h e D e a f . 126, 845-852. N o r t h c o t t , W. (1972). A hearing impaired p u p i l i n classroom. The V o l t a R e v i e w , 72 ( 2 ) , 1 0 5 - 1 0 8 .  of  the  O l e k s i u k - V e l e z , A.B. & W a l t e r , G. (1980). A s s e s s i n g the comrehension of a communicated message f o r h e a r i n g and h e a r i n g i m p a i r e d i n d i v i d u a l s . I n D. J o h n s o n ( E d . ) , Communication performance e v a l u a t i o n with deaf s t u d e n t s : A r e v i e w . New Y o r k : N a t i o n a l T e c h n i c a l Information Service. Peterson, C, D a n n e r , F., & F l a v e l l , J . (1972). Developmental changes i n c h i l d r e n ' s responses t o i n d i c a t i o n s of communication f a i l u r e . Child D e v e l o p m e n t , 43, 1 4 6 3 - 1 4 6 8 .  three  P o r t e r , K.F. & B r a d l e y , S. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . A c o m p a r i s o n o f t h r e e speech i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y measures f o r deaf students. A m e r i c a n A n n a l s o f t h e D e a f , 87, 5 1 4 - 5 2 5 . P r i n z , P.M. & F e r r i e r , L . J . ( 1 9 8 3 ) . "Can y o u g i v e me t h a t o n e ? " : The c o m p r e h e n s i o n , p r o d u c t i o n a n d j u d g e m e n t o f d i r e c t i v e s i n language-impaired c h i l d r e n . Journal of S p e e c h and H e a r i n g D i s o r d e r s , 48, 4 4 - 5 4 . Prutting, CA. (1982) . P r a g m a t i c s as s o c i a l competence. J o u r n a l o f S p e e c h a n d H e a r i n g D i s o r d e r s , 47, 1 2 3 - 1 3 3 . Prutting,C. & K i r c h n e r , D. (1983). A p p l i e d p r a g m a t i c s . T. G a l l a g h e r a n d C. P r u t t i n g ( E d s . ) , Pragmatics a s s e s s m e n t and i n t e r v e n t i o n i s s u e s i n l a n g u a g e . San Diego: C o l l e g e - H i l l Press. R i p i c h , D.N. & S p i n e l l i , F.M. (1985a). Some c o n c l u s i o n s about s c h o o l t a l k . I n D.N. R i p i c h & F.M. Spinelli (Eds.), School discourse problems. San D i e g o : College-Hill Press. R i p i c h , D.N. & S p i n e l l i , F.M. (1985b). An ethnographic a p p r o a c h t o a s s e s s m e n t and i n t e r v e n t i o n . I n D.N. R i p i c h & F.M. S p i n e l l i (Eds.), School discourse problems. San D i e g o : College-Hill Press. Ross,  M., B r a c k e t t , D., & M a x o n , A. (1982). Hard of hearing children i n regular schools. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.  In  79 Ross,  M. & G i o l a s , T. (1978). I n t r o d u c t i o n . In M. R o s s & T. G i o l a s ( E d s . ) , A u d i t o r y management o f h e a r i n g impaired c h i l d r e n ; P r i n c i p l e s and p r e r e q u i s i t e s f o r i n t e r v e n t i o n . Baltimore: U n i v e r s i t y Park Press.  Roth,  F. & S p e k m a n , N. (1984). A s s e s s i n g the p r a g m a t i c a b i l i t i e s o f c h i l d r e n : P a r t s I and I I , J o u r n a l of S p e e c h a n d H e a r i n g D i s o r d e r s , 49, 2-11.  R o t u n n o , R. (1980) . T e s t s - o f s p e e c h p r o d u c t i o n and r e c e p t i o n i n deaf c h i l d r e n . I n D. J o h n s o n ( E d . ) , C o m m u n i c a t i o n performance evaluation with deaf students: A review. New Y o r k : N a t i o n a l T e c h n i c a l I n f o r m a t i o n S e r v i c e . S a n d e r s , D. (1985). H e a r i n g i m p a i r m e n t , a m p l i f i c a t i o n , and l e a r n i n g . Paper presented to F l o r i d a A s s o c i a t i o n of Educators of the hearing Impaired. St. Petersburg, Florida. S c h i a v e t t i , N., M e t z , D., & S i t l e r , R. (1981). Construct v a l i d i t y o f d i r e c t m a g n i t u d e e s t i m a t i o n and interval s c a l i n g of speech i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y : Evidence from a s t u d y o f t h e h e a r i n g i m p a i r e d . J o u r n a l o f Speech and H e a r i n g R e s e a r c h , 24, 4 4 1 - 4 4 5 . S e v i g n y , M.J. (1981). T r i a n g u l a t e d i n q u i r y - A methodology for the a n a l y s i s of classroom i n t e r a c t i o n . In J . Green & C. W a l l a t ( E d s . ) , E t h n o g r a p h y a n d l a n g u a g e i n e d u c a t i o n a l s e t t i n g s . New J e r s e y : A b l e x . Simon, C S . (1985). C o m m u n i c a t i o n s k i l l s and classroom success: Assessment of language-learning disabled students. San D i e g o : College-Hill Press. Smith, L o u i s (1978). An e v o l v i n g l o g i c o f p a r t i c i p a n t o b s e r v a t i o n s , e d u c a t i o n a l e t h n o g r a p h y and o t h e r c a s e s t u d i e s . I n L.S. S h u l m a n ( E d . ) . R e v i e w o f r e s e a r c h i n e d u c a t i o n . V o l . 6, I t a s c a , 1 1 1 : F . E . Peacock. S p i n e l l i , F.M. & R i p i c h , D.N. (1985a). A comparison of c l a s s r o o m and c l i n i c a l d i s c o u r s e . I n D.N. Ripich & F.M. S p i n e l l i (Eds.), School discourse problems. San Diego: College-Hill Press. S p i n e l l i , F.M. & R i p i c h , D.N. (1985b). Discourse and education. I n D.N. R i p i c h & F.M. Spinelli (Eds.), School discourse problems. San D i e g o : College-Hill Press. Subtelny, J . (1977). Assessment of speech w i t h i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t r a i n i n g . I n F. B e s s ( E d . ) , C h i l d h o o d d e a f n e s s . NY: Grune & S t r a t t o n .  80 T h o m p s o n , M., B i r o , P., V e t h i v e l u , S., P i o u s , C , & H a t f i e l d , N. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . L a n g u a g e a s s e s s m e n t o f h e a r i n g i m p a i r e d s c h o o l age c h i l d r e n . Seattle: University of Washington Press. Webb, N. ( 1 9 8 2 a ) . G r o u p c o m p o s i t i o n , g r o u p i n t e r a c t i o n , achievement i n cooperative groups. Journal of E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , 74, 475-484.  and  Webb, N. ( 1 9 8 2 b ) . Peer i n t e r a c t i o n and l e a r n i n g i n cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational P s v s c h o l o g y , 74, 642-655. W e i s s , A. (1986). Classroom d i s c o u r s e and t h e h e a r i n g impaired. T o p i c s i n Language D i s o r d e r s , 6 (3), 60-70. W e l l s , G. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . B e c o m i n g a c o m m u n i c a t o r . (Ed.), L e a r n i n g through i n t e r a c t i o n . University Press.  I n G. W e l l s London: Cambridge  W i l k i n s o n , L . C. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . Introduction: A sociolinguistic approach t o communicating i n the classroom. I n L.C. W i l k i n s o n (Ed.), Communicating i n t h e classroom. NY: Academic P r e s s . W i l k i n s o n , L . C. & C a l c u l a t o r , S. (1982). Effective speakers: Students' use o f language t o request and o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n a n d a c t i o n i n t h e c l a s s r o o m . In L.C. W i l k i n s o n ( E d . ) , C o m m u n i c a t i n g i n t h e c l a s s r o o m . NY: Academic Press. W i l k i n s o n , L . , C a l c u l a t o r , S., & D o l l a g h a n , C. (1982). Ya wanna t r a d e - j u s t f o r a w h i l e : C h i l d r e n ' s requests and responses t o peers. D i s c o u r s e P r o c e s s e s , 5., 1 6 1 - 1 7 6 . W i l k i n s o n , L.C. & S p i n e l l i , F. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . U s i n g r e q u e s t s e f f e c t i v e l y i n p e e r - d i r e c t e d i n s t r u c t i o n a l groups. A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h J o u r n a l , 20 ( 4 ) , 4 7 9 - 5 0 1 . W i l k i n s o n , L. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . Research c u r r e n t s : in elementary school. Language A r t s ,  Peer group t a l k 61, 164-169.  W i l k i n s o n , L . C , M i l o s k y , L.M., & G e n i s h i , C , (1986). Second language l e a r n e r s ' use o f r e q u e s t s and responses i n elementary classrooms. In Topics i n Language D i s o r d e r s , 6 ( 2 ) , 57-70. W i l s o n , S. ( 1 9 7 7 ) . T h e u s e o f e t h n o g r a p h i c t e c h n i q u e s i n educational research. Review o f E d u c a t i o n a l Research, 47, 2 4 5 - 2 6 5 .  81 Wolk,  S. & S c h i l d r o t h , A. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . D e a f c h i l d r e n a n d s p e e c h i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y : A n a t i o n a l s t u d y . I n A.N. S c h i l d r o t h a n d M.A. K a r c h m e r ( E d s . ) , D e a f c h i l d r e n i n A m e r i c a . S a n Diego: C o l l e g e - H i l l Press.  Wood, D., Wood, H., G r i f f i t h , A., & H o w a r t h , I . ( 1 9 8 0 ) . Teaching and talking- with deaf c h i l d r e n . Great B r i t a i n : John W i l e y & Sons.  Appendix A:  Observations  83 Appendix  A:  STUDENT: DATE: SEATING  Observations  (Example)  G.  April  4,  1989  SUBJECT:  S.S.  5  PLAN: Office Blackboard  Counter  o Shelf  Windows Xi a M o  o m  Counter  Q  Shelf  ACTIVITY: Students working i n p a i r s at s t a t i o n s r e : forestry. G. a n d J . w o r k i n g o n same s t a t i o n a s l a s t d a y , C o n i f e r o u s Cones. They a r e r e q u i r e d t o r e a d r e f e r e n c e book a n d a n s w e r q u e s t i o n s . P a r t n e r s a r e t o h a n d i n o n l y one s h e e t w i t h t h e a n s w e r s t h a t t h e y h a v e b o t h a g r e e d on a n d have t a k e n t u r n s t o w r i t e . FN:(Field G J G J C  Notes)  TN:(Theoretical  Notes)  light: - Do we n e e d t h i s b o o k ? distance: ( p o i n t i n g t o one o f s e v e r a l ) amplification: - Y e s , we d o . background n o i s e ; (takes book; opens t o c o r r e c t outside: page) inside: - OK, h e r e ' s t h e f i r s t q u e s t i o n , J . peer speech: How c a n c o n e s b e u s e d t o f o r e c a s t the weather? I d o n ' t know. We k n o w . (Classmate next t o G and J o f f e r s help) I t ' s t h i s one r i g h t h e r e . (pointing to paragraph of i n f o r m a t i o n  84  G C G C  -  G C J  -  G -  J G -  i n t h e r e f e r e n c e book) W h a t d o we t e l l ? T e l l how a c o n e t e l l s t h e w e a t h e r . T e l l how a c o n e t e l l s t h e w e a t h e r ? Yeah, l o o k a t t h a t . (pointing t o paragraph i n the r e f e r e n c e book) Look a t what? This paragraph,G. (pointing t o paragraph) ( r e a d i n g p a r a g r a p h i n r e s p o n s e t o C's help) Yeah, you have t o t h i n k . What? (Looking i n t e n t l y with puzzled look at J) (begins t o w r i t e answer) (reads J ' s answer) Oh, t h e c o n e i s o p e n w h e n i t ' s d r y a n d c l o s e d when i t ' s w e t .  PN; ( P e r s o n a l N o t e s ) G. u s e d a n u m b e r o f r e q u e s t s f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n - a r e t h e y s i n c e r e o r c o u l d he be more i n d e p e n d e n t i n t h i n k i n g a n d f i g u r i n g things out f o r himself?  85  Appendix  B:  Student  and  Peer  Speech  a)  Open-ended q u e s t i o n s spontaneous speech  b)  Speech  Intelligibility for  intelligibility  elicitting  rating  86 Appendix  B:  Open-ended q u e s t i o n s f o r e l i c i t t i n g spontaneous speech t o r a t e speech intelligibility  1.  What  i s your  f a v o u r i t e T.V.  2.  What k i n d s weekends?  3.  What h o b b i e s do y o u  4.  Have y o u seen  5.  What s p o r t s  6.  What w i l l  of things  show?  do y o u l i k e  t o do on t h e  have?  any movies  do y o u l i k e  y o u do d u r i n g  or videos  lately?  watching or playing? t h e summer?  87 Appendix  B: S t u d e n t Speech  %  and  Peer  Speech  Intelligibility  Correct  Intelligibility  Rating  (Monsen,  Rating  1981)  Description  90-100  E x c e l l e n t achievement i n speech i n t e l l igibility. Naive l i s t e n e r s can u n d e r s t a n d most o f t h e c h i l d ' s speech at f i r s t introduction. 80-89 Good achievement i n speech i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y . Naive l i s t e n e r s w i l l "miss" o c c a s i o n a l words i n s e n t e n c e s , but w i l l u n d e r s t a n d most, a n d the communication process on the whole i s smooth. 70-79 Listeners experience d i f f i c u l t y in u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e i n t e n d e d message. B u t communication can n e v e r t h e l e s s t a k e p l a c e , though w i t h n o t i c e a b l e d i f f i c u l t y . 60-69 Listeners experience great d i f f i c u l t y in u n d e r s t a n d i n g s i m p l e m a t e r i a l . The communication p r o c e s s i s l a b o r e d and difficult. 59 & b e l o w L i s t e n e r s a r e c o n f r o n t e d w i t h overwhelming difficulty i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g what i s s a i d . Only o c c a s i o n a l words can be p i c k e d out of the f l o w of speech. Even e x p e r i e n c e d l i s t e n e r s w i l l have g r e a t d i f f i c u l t y i n understanding what i s s a i d . Communication begins to center u p o n t h e c o n v e y i n g o f n o u n s , o f t e n b y means o f gesture. Peers understanding responses who i s h e a r i n g i m p a i r e d :  of the Peer Peer  student 1:  % Accuracy  2 :  % Accuracy  S t u d e n t who i s h e a r i n g i m p a i r e d u n d e r s t a n d i n g peer responses: P e e r 1: Peer  2 :  % Accuracy % Accuracy  88  Appendix  C:  Coding  o f Requests and and C o d i n g Summary  Responses t o  Peers  89 Appendix  C:  Coding of Requests  and Responses  t o Peers  Requests RA = R e q u e s t f o r A c t i o n RI = Request f o r I n f o r m a t i o n OT S DL D  NV NRR RC SR.S SRR  Characteristics = On-Task = Sincere = Designated to a = Direct  = = = =  Utterances  NR R RW C  Listener  Revisions = No Revision = Repeated = Reworded = Characteristic indicated  Requests f o r C l a r i f i c a t i o n (RQCL) Nonverbal response N e u t r a l Request f o r R e p e t i t i o n (huh?) Request f o r Confirmation (1979?) S p e c i f i c R e q u e s t f o r S p e c i f i c a t i o n (What d i d h e d o ? ) S p e c i f i c Request f o rR e p e t i t i o n ( T h e man w h a t ? )  Requests  Characteristics . Appropriate  Revisions  Appropriate  RQCL  Response  HA  RI  OT  S  DL  D  Yes  No  Response  Kind  NR  Yes  No  Yes  -•  /• <n  •  •  •  •  3. G >  I  I  —  -  •  >  Z. 5  +. f  /  Appropriate  '/ • * /  , x_  • ,  RI  7.C  1/  I,  t. G\  f. c io.  •  I  4  »  L__ V  //. 3" ,12. Ci  L  '/* 5 V <\  No  90 Appendix  C:  Coding  Utterances: Peers Student  who  Summary  i s hearing  Requests: Rl = Requests RA = R e q u e s t s  impaired  f o r Information f o r Action Total:  C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Requests: OT = O n - T a s k S = Sincere DL = D e s i g n a t e d t o a L i s t e n e r D = Direct AR = A p p r o p r i a t e Revision NR R RW C  Responses  Yes  No  No R e v i s i o n Request repeated Request reworded Characteristic indicated  AR = Appropriate Responses r e c e i v e d T o t a l r e q u e s t s r e v i s e d when i n i t i a l l y unsuccessful: (Note: C o n s i d e r r e q u e s t s t h a t were i n s i n c e r e t h e r e f o r e change i n v a l u e f o r p o s s i b l e r e v i s i o n s )  NV NRR RC SRS SRR  No  of Requests: = = = =  Requests  Yes received  a  for Clarification: = = = = =  Nonverbal response N e u t r a l Request f o r R e p e t i t i o n Request f o r Confirmation S p e c i f i c Request f o r S p e c i f i c a t i o n S p e c i f i c Request f o r R e p e t i t i o n  Appropriate Responses r e c e i v e d AR Total requests f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n  T o t a l number o f r e q u e s t s f o r a c t i o n and i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t r e c e i v e an a p p r o p r i a t e response from peers:  Yes  No  Appendix  D:  Triangulation:  Student  Interviews  92 Appendix  D:  Triangulation:  Questions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.  Student  t o Student  who  2. 3. 4. 5. 6.  i s Hearing  Impaired  Why i s i t h a r d t o u n d e r s t a n d w h a t o t h e r s t u d e n t s s a y when y o u a s k t h e m a q u e s t i o n ? W h a t ' s d i f f e r e n t a b o u t how I a n s w e r y o u r q u e s t i o n s a n d how y o u r p a r t n e r i n c l a s s a n s w e r s y o u ? When y o u a s k e d N. i f y o u c o u l d f i n d a n o t h e r w o r d f o r yuck i n t h e t h e s a u r u s , I n o t i c e d t h a t he became i m p a t i e n t . Why d o y o u t h i n k h e d i d ? What's d i f f e r e n t about w o r k i n g w i t h E. a n d a s k i n g h e r q u e s t i o n s a b o u t S.S. a n d w o r k i n g w i t h J. ? Who w r i t e s m o r e a n s w e r s , y o u o r J . ? / E . ?  Questions 1.  Interviews  t o Peers  W h a t w a s i t l i k e t o b e G.'s p a r t n e r ? Was i t h a r d e r , e a s i e r , o r t h e same a s w o r k i n g w i t h a n o t h e r student? W h a t ' s i t l i k e w h e n G. a s k s y o u a q u e s t i o n ? I f y o u d o n ' t u n d e r s t a n d what he s a y s , what do y o u do? Were t h e r e a n y t i m e s when i t was r e a l l y h a r d t o understand each other? What d i d y o u d o ? W h a t k i n d s o f t h i n g s d o y o u t h i n k h e l p G. a n d y o u t o u n d e r s t a n d e a c h o t h e r when y o u r ' r e t a l k i n g i n S.S. ? D o e s G. d o h i s s h a r e o f t h e w o r k i n S . S . ?  

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.831.1-0097890/manifest

Comment

Related Items