20
Ttwchinji & Teacher Educarion. Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 199-218, 1992 Printed in Great Britain 0742-0351X/92 $5.00+0.00 0 1992 Pergamon Press Ltd INSTRUCTIONAL CONVERSATIONS BEGET INSTRUCTIONAL CONVERSATIONS WILLIAM SAUNDERS, CLAUDE GOLDENBERG, and JANET HAMANN University of California, Los Angeles, U.S.A. Abstract-Calls for changes in teaching are as old as public education. Currently, we are in the midst of another cycle of attempted reforms, this one based upon the view that learning should be an active and constructive process. Reformers face, however, two formidable challenges: (1) conceptualizing appropriate instructional practices and (2) assisting teachers to develop the skills needed to implement them. Working with a small group of teachers, our work has sought to address both challenges. First, we have attempted to conceptualize and articulate a mode of in- struction (“instructional conversation”) that emphasizes active student involvement in goal- and meaning-oriented discussions. Second, in carrying out this work, we have found that the prin- ciples underlying instructional conversations might also point to fruitful strategies for helping teachers master the professional knowledge and skills required to conduct this type of instruction. “Instructional conversation, ” in other words, might constitute a valid meant of staff development as well as one of its goals. To demonstrate the potential of instructional conversations as vehicle for staff development, this paper uses Conversational Analysis (CA) to analyze segments of two meetings between a consultant and a small group of teachers learning to conceptualize and imple- ment instructional conversations in their classrooms. Calls for changes in teaching are as old as public education. From the time of the Enlightenment, reformers have sought to break out of traditional patterns of teaching and replace them with teaching founded upon different, presumably more modern and enlightened principles (Butts, 1955; Cohen, 1988). We are currently in the midst of another cycle of attempts to reform teaching. Around the U S., researchers and policy-makers are calling for new curriculum and instruction based upon the view “that learning is an active, construc- tive, and goal-oriented process” (Shuell, 1986; see also Putnam, Lampert, & Peterson, 1990; Resnick, 1987). The California Language Arts Framework (Barr, 1988; California State Department of Education, 1987) is part of this movement. Building upon recent developments in cognitive psychology and linguistics, the Framework proposes an approach that, rather than focusing on reducible bits of knowledge and skills, builds on language and larger units of meaning. But to achieve the goals set forth by the framework, many problems must be solved. One of the most formidable is identifying, and assisting teachers to develop, the skills needed to implement such a revolutionary approach to literacy education. Typically, this has fallen within the scope of “staff development.” Yet, how likely is it that staff development can carry Revised version of a paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 3, 1991, Chicago, IL. Our thanks to the administrators, teachers, and children of the Lennox School District who made this work possible and most especially to the teachers who were a part of the research team - Betty Brandenburg, Flor Calderon, Barbara Paulsen, and Gail Williams. Thanks also to Carol Benson and Jana Ratleff for their assistance during the project; special thanks to Ronald Gallimore, Co-Principal Investigator, for his very valuable suggestions on earlier versions of this paper. The research reported here was made possible by grants from the Presidential Grants for School Improvement Program and the Linguistic Minority Research Project, both of the University of California. Additional funds were provided by the National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning, funded by the Office of Educa- tional Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. No endorsement from any source should be inferred. 199

Instructional conversations beget instructional conversations

  • Upload
    janet

  • View
    226

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Instructional conversations beget instructional conversations

Ttwchinji & Teacher Educarion. Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 199-218, 1992 Printed in Great Britain

0742-0351X/92 $5.00+0.00

0 1992 Pergamon Press Ltd

INSTRUCTIONAL CONVERSATIONS BEGET INSTRUCTIONAL CONVERSATIONS

WILLIAM SAUNDERS, CLAUDE GOLDENBERG, and JANET HAMANN

University of California, Los Angeles, U.S.A.

Abstract-Calls for changes in teaching are as old as public education. Currently, we are in the midst of another cycle of attempted reforms, this one based upon the view that learning should be an active and constructive process. Reformers face, however, two formidable challenges: (1) conceptualizing appropriate instructional practices and (2) assisting teachers to develop the skills needed to implement them. Working with a small group of teachers, our work has sought to address both challenges. First, we have attempted to conceptualize and articulate a mode of in- struction (“instructional conversation”) that emphasizes active student involvement in goal- and meaning-oriented discussions. Second, in carrying out this work, we have found that the prin- ciples underlying instructional conversations might also point to fruitful strategies for helping teachers master the professional knowledge and skills required to conduct this type of instruction. “Instructional conversation, ” in other words, might constitute a valid meant of staff development as well as one of its goals. To demonstrate the potential of instructional conversations as vehicle for staff development, this paper uses Conversational Analysis (CA) to analyze segments of two meetings between a consultant and a small group of teachers learning to conceptualize and imple- ment instructional conversations in their classrooms.

Calls for changes in teaching are as old as public education. From the time of the Enlightenment, reformers have sought to break out of traditional patterns of teaching and replace them with teaching founded upon different, presumably more modern and enlightened principles (Butts, 1955; Cohen, 1988).

We are currently in the midst of another cycle of attempts to reform teaching. Around the U S., researchers and policy-makers are calling for new curriculum and instruction based upon the view “that learning is an active, construc- tive, and goal-oriented process” (Shuell, 1986; see also Putnam, Lampert, & Peterson, 1990; Resnick, 1987). The California Language Arts

Framework (Barr, 1988; California State Department of Education, 1987) is part of this movement. Building upon recent developments in cognitive psychology and linguistics, the Framework proposes an approach that, rather than focusing on reducible bits of knowledge and skills, builds on language and larger units of meaning.

But to achieve the goals set forth by the framework, many problems must be solved. One of the most formidable is identifying, and assisting teachers to develop, the skills needed to implement such a revolutionary approach to literacy education. Typically, this has fallen within the scope of “staff development.” Yet, how likely is it that staff development can carry

Revised version of a paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 3, 1991, Chicago, IL. Our thanks to the administrators, teachers, and children of the Lennox School District who made this work possible and most especially to the teachers who were a part of the research team - Betty Brandenburg, Flor Calderon, Barbara Paulsen, and Gail Williams. Thanks also to Carol Benson and Jana Ratleff for their assistance during the project; special thanks to Ronald Gallimore, Co-Principal Investigator, for his very valuable suggestions on earlier versions of this paper.

The research reported here was made possible by grants from the Presidential Grants for School Improvement Program and the Linguistic Minority Research Project, both of the University of California. Additional funds were provided by the National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning, funded by the Office of Educa- tional Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. No endorsement from any source should be inferred.

199

Page 2: Instructional conversations beget instructional conversations

200 WILLIAM SAUNDERS et al

the burden of transforming teaching so that it becomes consistent with emergent movements in curriculum and instruction? As currently con- stituted, staff development is unlikely to con- tribute to the sort of changes school reformers envision. Quite the contrary:

Staff development . consists of a lengthy menu of discrete offerings available on a sign-up basis to individual teachers who “receive” information or materials from paid presenters. The training “in- dustry” has dominated local district conceptions of staff development, and most professional develop- ment opportunities take the form of skill-oriented or materials-oriented workshops . . On the whole .

staff development resources are deployed in ways that generally reinforce existing patterns of teaching, conventional structures of schools, and long-standing traditions of the teaching occupation. (Little, Gerritz, Stern, Guthrie, Kirst, & Marsh, 1987, p. 7; emphasis added)

Thus, we face two sets of challenges in the current efforts to reform teaching in general and literacy education in particular: First, new forms of teaching must emerge that are consis- tent with the views of learning exemplified in recent initiatives such as California’s new cur- riculum frameworks; second, we must discover how to assist teachers to identify, learn, and master a set of professional teaching skills, skills that are not now, and never have been, part of the profession in the U.S. (Cohen, 1988; Goodlad, 1984; Hoetker & Ahlbrand, 1969; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988).

Our work has sought to address both of these challenges. Working with a small group of teachers in a California school district, we have sought to conceptualize and articulate a mode of instruction consistent with the California framework (Goldenberg & Gallimore, 1990). This mode of instruction, which we have called “instructional conversation” (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988, 1989), has the same emphases as the framework: active student involvement and goal- and meaning-oriented language-based instruction.

In carrying out this work, we have also found that the principles underlying this mode of in- struction - what we call “instructional conver- sation” - might point to fruitful strategies for addressing the second challenge, that of helping teachers master the professional knowledge and skills required to conduct this type of instruc-

tion. “Instructional conversation,” in other words, might constitute a valid means of staff development as well as one of its goals.

Background and Context

The almost exclusively Latin0 school where the study was conducted is in an extremely low- income area in metropolitan Los Angeles. The area has been profoundly affected by the influx of Latin-American immigrants into the United States, particularly into Southern California, over the past 2 decades (Vemez & Rondfeldt, 1991). Approximately 90% of the students in the school district are Latino, and nearly 80% are limited-English proficient (LEP). Due to their low-income status, over 90% receive free or reduced-priced meals at school. The com- munity has regularly experienced problems with crime, drugs, gangs (Russell, 1991), and a very low level of student academic achievement (Goldenberg, 1984).

The school district uses a transitional bi- lingual education model wherein Spanish- speaking children study academic subjects in their native language until they learn sufficient English to “transition” into English instruc- tion. Approximately 80% of the district’s students begin their academic instruction in Spanish. They then transition into English in- struction sometime between the third and fifth grades, depending upon when they begin school and how they progress in both English oral language and Spanish literacy.

The four teachers in the project reported here (1 kindergarten, 1 first-grade, and 2 second- grade) had taught between 5 and 20 years. They all worked with low-socioeconomic students, most of whom came from homes where primarily Spanish is spoken. These students are at high risk for poor school achievement in the U.S. (e.g., De La Rosa & Maw, 1990; Haycock & Navarro, 1988), making it particularly im- portant that effective instructional strategies be found and implemented in schools serving these populations. Although the issues addressed in this article go beyond those pertaining to specific social or cultural groups, the persis- tent underachievement among low-income, language-minority students was the primary

Page 3: Instructional conversations beget instructional conversations

Instructional Conversations 201

reason for locating the project at this particular of learning (see also Simon, 1973; Spiro & site. Myers, 1984).

The seeds of this project were laid in 1988 when the second author began working with a small group of early elementary teachers at the same school where he conducted dissertation research, then taught first grade (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 1989; Goldenberg, 1984, 1989a). The participating teachers received professional education credit from a local state university, and later, after the group had already been working together, funds were acquired to pay teachers stipends for their involvement in the project. The goal of this work was to develop curriculum and instruction that was consistent with the state’s new Language Arts Framework (California State Department of Education, 1987) and that would improve literacy attain- ment among the largely Hispanic populace at the school. Our ongoing evaluations of student achievement demonstrated continued improve- ment in early literacy attainment at the school, in relation to the rest of the district (see Goldenberg, 1989b; Goldenberg & Gallimore, in press-a).

Although we did not explicitly begin with the intention of implementing a specific model of instruction, the model that eventually evolved came to be called “instructional conversation” (following Tharp & Gallimore, 1988, 1989). Many features of the instructional conversation (IC) have long been recognized as valid in- structional components. To our knowledge, however, this was the first attempt to put many of these elements together in a coherent and explicit model that would assist teachers in conceptualizing and instantiating this kind of instruction. (For more detailed treatment of our current understanding of IC, see Goldenberg, 1991; Goldenberg & Gallimore, 1991. Also see Wilen, 1990, on the “Discussion Method,” which shares several characteristics with in- structional conversations.)

In 1989-90, after a year of developing materials and activities, the group decided to confront directly the problem that has stalled so many other innovations (see, e.g., Sarason, Davidson, & Blatt, 1986). In order to instantiate California’s new language arts approach, we had to move beyond developing curriculum and materials and turn our attention to teaching itself. In particular, we were interested in ex- ploring alternatives to “recitation” and “direct instruction, ” the most prevalent instructional approaches found in schools (Gage, 1978; Sirotnik, 1983). Direct, or explicit, teaching has a very large research base and is known to be effective for learning in well-structured domains (Rosenshine, 1986; Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986). However, its utility appears to be more limited in less structured domains, which include aspects of reading comprehen- sion, literary analysis, or analysis of complex themes and ideas (Rosenshine, 1986). Since these domains are at the very heart of the literacy instruction the California framework envisions, we set for ourselves the task of developing approaches and strategies more suited to these complex, “ill-structured” areas

Briefly, a good instructional conversation appears, on the surface, as an excellent discus- sion conducted by a teacher (or someone relatively more knowledgeable or skilled) and a group of students (or individuals relatively less knowledgeable or skilled). The discussion is in- teresting and engaging. It is about an idea or a concept that appears to matter to the participants. It has a coherent focus which, while it might shift as the discussion evolves, remains discernible throughout. There is a high level of participation, without undue domina- tion by any one individual, particularly the teacher. Students engage in extended discus- sions with the teacher and among themselves, exploring ideas and thoughts in depth. At the end of an IC, students (and, ideally, the teacher) have reached a new level of understanding about whatever topics were under discussion.

Table 1 shows the set of IC elements our group developed during our work in 1989-90. The list is the result of successive drafts that emerged over the year, as we read previous research, attempted and videotaped lessons, and viewed and analyzed the videotapes. Despite the considerable time and effort devoted to develop- ing it, the list cannot be considered definitive. Indeed, it has already undergone considerable revision since 1990. Many questions still re- main: Is the list sufficiently inclusive, or, alter- natively, is it too reductionistic? Is there a

Page 4: Instructional conversations beget instructional conversations

202 WILLIAM SAUNDERS et al

Table 1

Elements of the Instructional Conversion (as of May I I, 1990)

1.

2.

3.

4. 5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Theme or idea as initial focus. Based on a thorough understanding of the text being used, the teacher selects a theme or idea to serve as a starting point for focusing the discussion. The theme or idea is selected because it seems especially appropriate for the text, it is worthwhile, and the teacher feels it will be meaningful for the students. The teacher has a general plan for how the theme will unfold and has decided on a strategy for “chunking” the reading of the text to permit optimal exploration of the theme. Responsivity to student contributions. While having an initial plan and maintaining the focus and coherence of the discussion, the teacher is also responsive to unanticipated opportunities provided by students. The teacher furthermore promotes multiple, interactive, connected turns, where succeeding utterances by teachers and students build upon and extend previous ones. Student contributions are used to extend the discussion or to explore new - but relevant - themes. The teacher must understand the story well and listen to students carefully to decide how best to take advantage of unanticipated opportunities they provide. Prior knowledge, background, and “schemata”. The teacher investigates and tries to “hook into” student background knowledge that is pertinent to the development of story theme(s). The teacher activates relevant schemata in the students’ minds to assist them in the comprehension of texts. The teacher also assesses whether students have requisite background knowledge to comprehend the text. Relevant background knowledge and pertinent schemata are then woven into the text-based discussion that follows. Direct teaching. When necessary, the teacher provides direct teaching of a skill or concept. Thinking, language, and complete expression. The teacher stretches students’ zone of performance by promoting and eliciting from students more extended language and expression. The teacher uses a variety of elicitation techniques, such as questions, restatements, pauses (increased “wait time”), and invitations to expand (e.g., “tell me more about that”). Questions and other elicitation techniques are also used to model, correct, check student comprehension, and help students arrive at conclusions. The teacher is eficient and strategic in his/her talk, saying enough to move the discussion along, but not so much as to inhibit student talk. The teacher does not dominate the discussion verbally; rather, he or she guides it along, subtly. Challenging, hut non-threatening. The teacher creates a positive afective atmosphere, where risky, speculative answers are acceptable. Bases for statements or positions. The teacher promotes students’ use of text, pictures, and reasoning to support an argument or position. While speculative answers are acceptable, the teacher moves students toward basing answers, arguments, and positions on evidence, reasoning, and careful consideration of alternatives. General participation, hut opportunities for self-selection. All students are encouraged to participate, and the teaeher uses a variety of strategies to arrange for participation by all. At the same time, the teacher does not hold exclusive right to determine who talks, and students are encouraged to volunteer or otherwise influence the selection of speaking turns. Fewer “know-answer” questions. While the teacher might pose some factual questions to establish a basic, literal comprehension of key elements of the text, much of the discussion will center on questions and answers that are less “black and white, ” that is, for which there might be more than one correct answer. The teacher avoids playing “Guess what I’m thinking” with students. In the “Zone of proximal development.” Much of the discussion takes place in the region between what the student knows and what the student can understand only with the assistance of a more competent individual. It is the region between what students express independently and what they can express only if someone assists them in “putting it together.” The teacher and perhaps other students provide that assistance. In helping the student move though the “Zone,” the teacher works with student utterances that might be vague, imprecise, and inconsistent, helping the student become more clear, precise, and consistent. The teacher’s goal is to help students move from incomplete and inarticulate thought and expression to complete and articulate thought and exp&ssion.

hierarchy among elements, or are they of roughly equivalent importance? No doubt other questions will surface as we pursue this line of work.

Despite the inherent limitations, Table 1 represents considerable progress in concep- tualizing the sort of instructional interactions we think, and considerable research and theory suggest, should be more prevalent in school

today. These are interactions that seem likely to promote the levels of language and thinking the participating teachers saw as important. They are, moreover, interactions that might be par- ticularly suited to assisting learning in complex, ill-structured domains for which direct instruc- tion offers little guidance. Promoting this kind of teaching/learning interaction, is surely at the heart of the new approach to language arts in-

Page 5: Instructional conversations beget instructional conversations

Instructional Conversations 203

Table 2

Major Project Components

I. Weekly Thursday meetings (total of 30 during year) where we

l discussed issues pertinent to language arts instruction l discussed readings and other handouts l viewed, analyzed, and discussed videotapes of lessons l worked continually to achieve stated objectives

2. Weekly or semi-weekly videotaping of lessons (approximately 45 lessons were taped in total, ranging from 9 to 15 per teacher)

3. Observations by and interviews with fieldworkers (interviews and observations ranged from 5 to 17 per teacher throughout the year)

4. Opportunity to attend one conference or workshop, paid by the project (only two of the four teachers were able to take advantage of this component)

struction. It is also at the heart of what many consider to be “true teaching.”

Over the course of the year, therefore, we made progress in our first challenge - identify- ing and specifying an instructional approach (that is, the IC) consistent with current cur- riculum reform efforts. But we also made pro- gress in the second challenge: All four teachers became more adept at using elements of ICs in their regular reading lessons with children (Goldenberg & Gallimore, 1990; Rueda, Goldenberg, & Gallimore, 1991). The question that concerns us in this paper deals with this se- cond challenge - How did these teachers come to conceptualize and implement an instructional mode that diverges so significantly from mainstream classroom practices? How did the project assist the teachers in achieving this?

Our project included a number of components (see Table 2), all of which we assume played some role in the teachers’ progress (see Goldenberg & Gallimore, in press-b, for an analysis of factors contributing to changes in teachers’ lessons). In addition, we had a videotape of a demonstration ‘ ‘ETR” lesson (Au, 1979) taught to native Hawaiian-American students (Center for the Study of Reading, n.d.) However, our weekly after school meetings served as the focal point for the participants’ in- volvement in the project. Virtually all of the other components - the readings, the videotap- ings, planning, viewing, and analyzing lessons - came together at our meetings. We will therefore investigate the questions posed above

by presenting and analyzing data from illustra- tive meeting segments.

What we found - and the proposition we will put forward - is that the teachers themselves experienced a series of instructional conversa- tions, as learners, during our weekly meetings. The researcher/consultant (the second author) engaged the four participating teachers in in- teractions consistent with the conceptualization outlined above (see Table 1) and in Goldenberg (1991). The regular, systematic use of this interactional mode led to a set of shared understandings among project participants.

Moreover, precisely because one of the salient features of instructional conversation is responsivity to participants, the weekly meet- ings permitted the group to address potential obstacles to IC implementation. It is inevitable that real or hypothetical problems will arise when teachers attempt to move from their usual mode of instruction, with which they feel com- fortable and adept, to a very different mode requiring a different conceptual apparatus and set of skills. These obstacles actually became fruitful entry points for addressing important issues in language arts instruction.

Methods

Tapes from all 28 recorded meetings (the first two meetings were not audiorecorded) were in- itially transcribed to capture the basic content of the discussions (transtypes). These initial

Page 6: Instructional conversations beget instructional conversations

204 WILLIAM SAUNDERS et al

transcripts were then reviewed by all three authors to select candidate segments for more detailed analysis.

Selection of candidate segments was based on three criteria. First, the segment should illustrate the IC character of the meeting ex- plicitly, such that specific IC elements could be readily identified. Second, the segment should illustrate the teachers explicitly engaging in a process of constructing the meaning of instruc- tional conversations - the elements, issues, and obstacles they were dealing with could be easily recognized. Third, the segment should be suffi- ciently circumscribed and short to allow for appropriate presentation in an article of moderate length.

Our initial selection process did not require an extensive search. Having reviewed the transcripts from only a small number of meetings, we were quickly able to identify a pool of eight segments meeting all criteria. In fact, due to the length and complexity of the discussions at the meetings, the third criterion proved the most difficult to satisfy.

The first author then re-transcribed the segments according to Conversation Analytic conventions (Atkinson & Heritage, 1984; Heritage, 1984; Schegloff, 1987) and prepared a thorough written analysis based on the focus of this paper (see Appendix for transcript nota- tions) . These “work-ups’ ’ constituted initial drafts of what appears in the results section. The work-ups were then reviewed by the other authors, who supplied revisions to the analysis. We then selected from the pool of eight segments two segments that seemed most representative and that illustrated the widest array of characteristics pertinent to the paper’s focus.

Results

Results of our analysis are in the form of “case write-ups,” where we present small por- tions of meeting transcripts, integrated into a narrative and analysis of the ongoing interaction.

The segments from the two meetings, one from early in the year and one from the last third, illustrate the twin themes of this paper:

First, the teachers themselves experienced a series of instructional conversations, led by the

second author (see elements in Table 1). For ex- ample, discussions during the meetings were focused on specific ideas or themes - element #l (e.g., IC, or specific elements of the IC; the role of language in learning); CG, as discussion leader, attempted to explore and “hook into” teachers’ prior knowledge, background, and schemata - element #3 (e.g., teachers’ knowledge or beliefs about direct instruction). Responsivity (#2) was also a prominent feature, particularly as CG attempted to be responsive to problems or obstacles the teachers raised. Potential problems or obstacles to IC implemen- tation were, in fact, used as opportunities to discuss specific and concrete IC-related issues.

Second, through this teaching/learning pro- cess the teachers had the opportunity to concep- tualize IC as a mode of teaching. Teachers were not “trained” or “taught” how to conduct ICs (which, in any event, would have been impossi- ble, since an IC implementation model did not exist). Instead, the strategy used in the meetings was one of “joint productive activity” (see, e.g., Tharp & Gallimore 1988). The act of working toward our common objective - con- ceptualizing and instantiating ICs - prompted interactions and discussions that contributed to teachers’ conceptualization of this alternative instructional model. At first, teachers acquired a more general, intuitive understanding, based upon their own implicit understandings and assumptions about ideal (or idealized) instruc- tional interactions. Gradually, more analytical understandings evolved, in terms of IC’s consti- tuent elements and subtle discriminations among them.

Meeting 4 (9/28/89): From Controlling the Discourse to Sustaining Interaction Early Emergence of IC Elements

In the first five meetings, the group discussed specific issues and problems the teachers faced in their own classroom language arts instruc- tion. During these meetings, CG provided readings related to various instructional issues, including theories and strategies for improving reading comprehension (Au, 1979; Delpit, 1986; Gersten & Carnine, 1986; Goldenberg, 1989b; Goldenberg & Gallimore, 1989; Hacker, 1980; Haggard, 1988; Rosenshine,

Page 7: Instructional conversations beget instructional conversations

Instructional Conversations 205

1986; Tharp & Gallimore, 1989). He also en- couraged the teachers to identify areas of their language arts program that they wanted to ad- dress as part of their project work.

In these first few weeks, the group coalesced around a common focus, which emphasized the development of students’ oral language skills, combined with promoting higher levels of thinking and reading comprehension. This focus incorporated each teacher’s particular interests but also provided the group with a unified direction. All of the teachers agreed that these goals were extraordinarily important for their students, whether they were native English or Spanish speakers.

The segment we present from meeting 4 illustrates the workings of these early meetings. As a focus for this meeting, CG had asked the teachers to read two articles describing interac- tive, responsive approaches to reading instruc- tion (Au, 1979, and Haggard, 1988; the latter had been brought in by one of the teachers in the group). In discussing the articles, two of the teachers in particular voiced strong support for the concept of responsive teaching to promote discussion with and among students. One teacher spoke of her frustrations with directed teaching, which she felt was very limited and, moreover, interfered with teaching genuine thinking:

it’s not thinking, it’s programmed, it’s a pro- gram, pattern . But do [the students] have any idea what happened? No. Because they know the process and I use seven step and I modeled it and everything and everybody got [it] and everybody felt happy and I was happy cause they could do it. But they don’t know anything more [than they did before].

Teachers then recounted specific lessons they had conducted where they had tried to promote discussion among students, rather than provide direct teaching. They also revealed problems they had confronted in these instances. At one point, one of the teachers raised a specific pro- blem, which became a focal point in this and subsequent meetings: What do you do when children are off-topic? The discussion concern- ing this issue is the first segment we present, and it illustrates our two principal themes:

First, many of the IC elements in Table 1 are

‘Lines arc numbered as in the original transcripts.

evident in the teachers’ di.scussion with CG. For example, a guiding theme or idea (responding to student contributions while maintaining a coherent topical focus) focussed the discussion at the meeting. Also, the discussion drew upon teachers’ knowledge and experience (prior instances where teachers had tried to engage students in discussions and strategies for managing such interactions). Perhaps most important, CG responded to teachers’ contribu- tions while guiding the conversation to promote new understandings: A potential problem iden- tified by a teacher (off-topic statements by students) became an opportunity to discuss a specific IC-related issue - being responsive to students in order to promote interactive, con- nected speaking turns, an idea that eventually was reflected in element #2.

Second, teachers engage in a process of con- structing the meaning of ICs for themselves. At this point in the year (September), there is no list of IC elements. In fact, the term “instruc- tional conversation” has not yet been used in our meetings, although it is discussed in one of the articles teachers have been given (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989). However, drawing from the overarching focus the group adopted (oral language, reading comprehension, and higher level thinking), the discussion raised conceptual issues and obstacles directly related to IC. In fact, the content of this discussion and other discussions from the early meetings foreshadow the actual elements later identified and ar- ticulated by the teachers.

As the segment reveals, through this guided, but collective, process of interaction (i.e., joint productive activity), the issue of “off-topic talk” is reconceptualized from a generic pro- blem of “controlling the discourse” to a more discriminating matter of “sustaining interac- tion.” We will highlight specifically CG’s efforts to extend the discussion and the teachers’ successive advancement of the discussion. (All names are pseudonyms. See Appendix for transcript notations.)

OOl’Alice: . How do you-How do you respond to a child who you’re talking about one topic and he raises his hand and you think he’s going to (hh) (hh) share something // about-] =

004 Mary: Oh nn (hh) (hh)]

Page 8: Instructional conversations beget instructional conversations

WILLIAM SAUNDERS et al. 206

005 Alice:

006 Mary: 007 Alice: 008 Mary:

010 Sue: 011 Alice:

012 Mary: 013 Alice:

=What do you respond to him. I would like to hear your ideas. Oh gosh:. I- Do I/ you say::] Sometimes I will say-] We:1 that’s fine, but-. ..we’re talking about so and so? 11 (hh) (hh)l That’s what I do....Exactly. I mean:: I’m saying = il I don’t know] =Yeah::] BUT right now we’re talk- ing about the animals // in the] zoo.

Alice raises a significant classroom issue. How does a teacher control the discourse? There are many children who might talk, and how do you maintain your instructional agenda when some children appear to lose sight of the topic? Mary’s response treats this as a troublesome, but generic, issue: “Oh gosh:. I- Sometimes I will say- Well that’s fine, but- . . . we’re talking about so and so?” In other words, Mary is saying, you mildly sanction the utterance, while signalling to the child that the contribution is off-topic. The strategy is familiar to Alice. As she suggests, it’s exactly what she is accustomed to doing. Mary then follows with a slightly different, but similarly generic, approach.

014 Mary: And it-] And sometimes I’ll say, Do you have something to say about an animal- you know about whatever it is.. /I Can you think of something to say about-]

As Mary points out with this second strategy, sometimes she will reintroduce the topic, to re- mind the student and extend an invitation to contribute appropriately by addressing the topic: “Do you have something to say about an animal- you know about whatever it is. ” The issue is still framed in terms handling “off-topic talk. ”

Jane then introduces another consideration:

017 Jane: To make sure they’re ready. (hh)] The kid who always comes out with something off // the wall].

019 Sue: Yeah:.] 020 Mary: Yeah. 021 CG: Yeah, it depends // on the kid right?] 022 Mary: Yeah:. ] 023 Jane ( fin em)1 // (hh) (hh)) I 1 024 Sue Yeah. II Yeah:.]

Elaborating upon Mary’s suggestion, Jane suggests that reintroducing the topic insures that students will be “ready” to respond ap- propriately. She also characterizes this strategy as necessary for certain students: “The kid who always comes out with something off the wall. ’ ’

At this point, CG tries to take advantage of a distinction Jane’s statement only suggests: the distinction between an off-topic statement by any child and an off-topic statement by a par- ficulur child. Up to now, Alice’s original issue has been treated generically - that is, what to do with off-topic utterances? Now, using the opening provided by Jane’s statement, CG at- tempts to reshape Alice’s original question into a question involving at least one more con- sideration, one that is not amenable to generic treatment - who is the student? “It depends on the kid right?” (1. 21). As Mary and Sue war- rant the inclusion of this factor (11. 22 & 24)) CG expands:

025 CC: I mean like some-] the kid that you’ve never heard from?...for the whole year?..and he says something? You might respond differently.. .from // the kid who is continually barging] =

028 Mary: Yeah I/ :::] 029 Jane: That’s true] 030 CG = in.. . .with an inappropriate response.

But li parrly it depends on: ]

With his expansion, CG introduces an added dimension - the need for discriminating strategies. The child who rarely participates might require a strategy different from “the kid who is continually barging in with an inap- propriate response.” At this point, the question has not been raised as to whether the hypothetical child’s statement is, indeed, off- topic; the discussion proceeds with the assump- tion that it is still intact. Yet the articulation of the “off-topic” problem has been elaborated from a generic problem (as first posed by Alice and responded to by the others) to one requiring some degree of differentiation by the teacher: She must be responsive to the particular stu- dent(s) involved, and an appropriate response in one case might not be apropriate in another. Both Mary and Jane acknowledge the cir- cumstances and the distinction CG makes (11. 28 & 29), and Jane introduces a strategy she uses to address the needs of the students who

Page 9: Instructional conversations beget instructional conversations

Instructional Conversations 207

rarely participate. The other teachers pick up and elaborate the theme, until CG again steers the discussion in a slightly different direction at line 43:

031 Jane:

035 Sue: 036 Mary: 037 Jane:

I Sue:

0’ I Jane: L I Alice: A I Jane: P f Mary:

043 1CG:

What I did-. ] Sometimes.. .If the kids comes up with something like you’re talking about family and its not related to- Oh: yeah:: That’s really interesting. Why don’t you tell me about that at recess. I’d // like to hear what you have to say. ] Mmhmm. ] Mmhmm. ] *h Bu- Re:MEMber tha: : t /I Remember that...to tell me: Yeah. But-...It’s like: He doesn’t even tell me: ( ) They’re (on a cloud) No:: (hh) he don’t remember (hh) what he said But maybe- do you think-. ] Do you ever get the Do you ever get the im- pression that sometimes it sounds like it’s off the wall:: but the kid has made a connection that’s not immediately li apparent to you. ]

In line 43, CG is trying to take the concept of responsivity to a different plane - responsivity to what a child actually said and alternative in- terpretations of it. He is apparently aware of the shift he is attempting to effect, judging from his inflections, pauses (“But maybe- do you think- . . .), and re-starts (“Do you ever get the Do you ever get the impression”). Twelve lines earlier, at line 31, Jane’s strategy had involved attemp- ting to honor what the child said, but never- theless forestalling the contribution to relocate it in a time and place that is not instructional (“Why don’t you tell me about that at recess. I’d like to hear what you have to say”). The teachers’ utterances (11. 35 -42) then follow suit, and they suggest they have all employed this practice of forestalling. (But they also recognize that although the practice rectifies the problem of “off-topic talk” for the moment, it rarely results in resumed interaction later. As Alice notes in the overlapping statements following line 37, “He doesn’t even tell me.” And Mary says sarcastically, “No:: (chuckle), he don’t remember (chuckle) what he said”)

Thus far, off-topic talk has been treated as a straightforward matter: Children are either on or

off topic, and the issue is how to manage who speaks in order to maintain the relevant topic. The consensus within the group, to this point, is that you might manage different off-topic ut- terances differently, depending upon who the speaker is. Treating different students’ off-topic utterances differently constitutes responsiveness to individual children. But now at line 43, CG introduces a new, although related, considera- tion. He asks them to consider how a teacher determines whether the statement itself is in fact ‘ ‘off-topic, ’ ’ and, therefore, how the teacher should respond to it.

043 CG: But maybe- do you think-. ] Do you ever get the impression that sometimes it sounds like it’s off the wall:: but the kid has made a connection that’s not immediately i/ apparent to you. ]

046 Alice: I haven’t at all-] // I haven’t thought of that. ]

047 Jane: Yeah. That happened.] That happened in my written language....Where you go through and you check, you know check check check have you *hh writ- ten about this and this? You know ‘the kid says yea yea yea: she starts reading and I’m *hhh what is: this: I had to read it three times before I figured out, yeah she did do what 1 said. But it was so completely around the corner:: way // that I] didn’t recognize it.

053 CG: Right. ] 054 Jane: You know?

Both Alice and Jane provide their recognition of CG’s point with a sense of urgency. As CG approaches completion of his final utterance, Alice enters into overlap to display her understanding. Perhaps in response to the first part of CG’s utterance - “Do you ever get the impression.. . ” - Alice provides, “I haven’t at all.” But she also continues to provide an ac- count for why she’s never had that impression: “I haven’t thought of that.” As soon as Alice completes her first utterance, Jane provides an anecdotal account, one that seems to exemplify the exact point CG has introduced. In- terestingly, her anecdote calls upon a different medium of discourse, writing. But as Jane’s ac- count reveals, the premise still applies: “I had to read it three times before I figured it out.. .I didn’t recognize it. ’ ’

Page 10: Instructional conversations beget instructional conversations

208 WILLIAM SAUNDERS et al

Over the course of the year, this issue became translated into a fundamental element of instruc- tional conversation: The teacher must listen to the students carefully in order to decide best how to take advantage of the unanticipated opportunities they provide (element #2: respon- sive to student contributions). At this point, however, this is a new realization for the teachers. As is clear in Jane’s follow-up (11. 47 -52) and remaining portions of the segment, it is not out of the realm of their experience; but it certainly is not an explicit component of their repertoire of teaching skills and strategies. CG has attempted to assist the teachers in, first, elaborating the issue of what to do with off- topic utterances and, second, applying strategies and experiences that were not necessarily new to them, but that they perhaps would not have applied on their own. The seg- ment continues with further elaboration, as CG tries to highlight the implication of Jane’s anec- dote.

055 CG:

057 Alice:

058 Jane: 059 Sue: 060 CG:

062 All: 063 CG:

065 Sue: 066 CC:

068 Alice: 069 CC:

070 Sue:

071 Alice:

072 Sue: 073 CG:

I mean it’s sometimes in their oral- And that- What makes it difficult is that il you have to think so fast. ] Yeah we have to make them be aware of that. ] il Uh huh.] Mmhmm. ] You have to think] on your feet or on your seat...Or where you happen to be.] (laughter)] They’re saying something.. .and you think it’s off:: the topic?...But maybe they’ve seen a connection an-... Mmm. I think they said it here ((signalling one of the articles)) ii or maybe] in one of the other things= Yeah. ] = that., what you have to do is really try to figure out.. Mmhmm. Ask: :. .Produce some prompt to get more: Yeah. // That’s what I- Yeah:. A prompt. ] To elicit more from the] child. Yeah:.

Although CG has to maneuver a bit,* he does in fact provide a reconceptualization of the pro- blem: “you think it’s off:: the topic?.. .But maybe they’ve seen a connection.” At line 66, he also attempts to connect the issue to an article which initially gave rise to the discussion. CG’s reference is not simply an attempt to substan- tiate his point; it is an attempt to draw a connec- tion between the issue that has emerged and a frame of reference the group already shares. Both Alice and Jane - in response to the Au ar- ticle - had earlier in the meeting expressed their support for ‘ ‘responsive teaching. ” Alice had said, “This is what we should be doing,” and Jane had agreed: “I think it would be beneficial. ”

After CG references the articles, he begins to articulate explicitly a general principle: “what you have to do is really try to figure out.. .” As he pauses, Sue provides (1. 70) an extension: ‘ ‘Mmhmm. Ask: : . .Produce some prompt to get more. To elicit more from the child.” In effect, Sue proposes something quite different from the strategies introduced some minutes before. Previous strategies had treated off-topic talk in terms of managing speaker selection. The earlier concensus had been that the teacher should find an effective, but non-punitive, way to shut down the off-topic speaker, or at least get the off-topic speaker to address the topic more explicitly.

Sue’s suggestion, however, is of a different order: Stay with the speaker who might be off- topic, and do something that might elicit more from the child - that might in fact assist the child in extending his or her contribution. Sue’s suggestion eventually becomes the anchoring concept for element #5: Teacher stretches students’ zone of performance by promoting and eliciting from students more extended language and expression. As is clear in the re- mainder of this segment, Sue’s suggestion and the developed premise (sometimes the off-topic talk is not as off-topic as it seemed) resonates with the experience of the other teachers:

‘CG in fact demonstrates precisely the point he makes: “you have to think so fast.” In 11. 55 and 56, he abandons his first utterance - “I mean it’s sometimes in their oral” - in favor of a second utterance - “What makes it so difficult is that you have to think so fast.” He has changed his focus from the child (“their oral”) to the teacher (“you have to think so fast”). He continues to pursue this second course in his subsequent utterances, avoiding tangential discussion of children’s sometimes incomplete discourse (the point Alice picks up on at line 57) for the sake of the topic at hand: What teachers can do to assist the child.

Page 11: Instructional conversations beget instructional conversations

Instructional Conversations 209

074 Mary:

076 Jane: 077 Sue: 078 Alice: 079 CG: 080 Mary:

085 ? 086 Sue: 087 Mary: 088 Alice: 089 Mary:

Or maybe you could even ask him.. ] You know What made you think of tha: t? Yeah::. // Mmhmm. Mmhmm. ] Mmhmm. ] That’s an interesting: : : . .// approach. ] And some1 time- Uh I think it seems like I asked some kid that one time. I- cause I was...and I was being real sar- castic I said Now WHAT: in the world would’ve made you think of something like that?. We were talking about blah, blah.. And.. .The kid told (hh) me what made him think of about it. .// You know?]

(hh) (hh)) (hh) (hh) (hh)l An // an I thought to my- an an I] You made em think of them (hh) ] May- It dawned on me that.. .well there wa:s a connection made:. You know and so here I was Miss Smart-Aleck but the kid really ha:d made a connec- tion.

Mary’s account exemplifies the premise that has been developed. Having pursued it further; she found that in fact “the kid really ha:d made a connection. ” Moreover, she incorporates into her own account the actual language CG had used to describe the phenomenon at line 64: “maybe they’ve seen a connection.” In fact the term “connection” became part of the jargon of the meetings, and it was written into the IC elements as “putting it together” (element #lO).

In sum, these segments illustrate the instruc- tional conversation experienced by the teachers. CG is responsive, drawing upon contributions of the teachers but also tailoring his contribu- tions in order to sustain interaction and build multiple interactive turns which moved toward successively refined analyses of the issue. Paralleling the characteristics of the discussion itself, the segments reveal the origins of various of the 10 IC elements. Perhaps the most impor- tant of these is the basic concept of responsivity. Inherent in the concept of responsivity is a fun- damental reconceptualization of teaching, the same reconceptualization evident in these ex- cerpts: from controlling the discourse to sus- taining interaction. In the months that follow, the group comes to realize that sustaining the in- teraction is, in and of itself, insufficient. The in- teraction must be for a larger purpose -

promoting intellectual and academic growth of students.

Meeting 21(3/22/90): From Sustaining Interaction to Achieving Instructional Aims: Refinement, Complexity, and Listening

By the tenth meeting (November) the group had moved far beyond defining IC in the abstract. They had now adopted the explicit goal of instantiating Instructional Conversa- tions. As this work progressed across the year, the meetings typically involved various com- binations of the following: (a) discussing stories (texts) in preparation for lessons; (b) analyzing taped lessons; (c) refining the list of IC “elements”; and (d) continued discussion of ar- ticles provided by CG. By meeting 2 1 (March), the teachers had taped and analyzed a number of lessons. They had also generated several drafts of the list of IC “elements.”

The focus for meeting 21 was fairly specific. The group viewed three lessons, and CG asked the teachers to concentrate on a particular IC element - activating background knowledge and schemata. By this time, the teachers were routinely beginning their lessons with discus- sions designed to activate schemata and build on students’ background knowledge. However, there was usually something missing: the background knowledge and schemata that were elicited before students started to read were not necessarily consistent with the theme the teacher had selected to promote understanding of the story.

The teachers were also wrestling with a significant conceptual matter - the overall complexity of conducting ICs. Having developed a list of (at this time) eight elements, they confronted the challenge of building the skills they needed to instantiate each element, while maintining their sense of the importance of all of them. Underlying the challenge were the relationships among the elements and the fundamental concept of balancing their sometimes competing demands. As we observed over the course of the year, each teacher seemed to find an anchoring principle to help her handle the complexity and to achieve this balance.

Page 12: Instructional conversations beget instructional conversations

210 WILLIAM SAUNDERS et al.

In the segments below, we use a single case. Jane seemed to arrive at her anchoring principle by reintroducing the importance of “listening. ’ ’ In contrast to meeting 4, where “listening” became important in order to see whether an ut- terance is off-topic, here in meeting 2 1, “listen- ing” became a way to link the larger network of IC elements. It become, in fact, a central con- cept for Jane, as she realized the importance of maintaining conversational interactions while moving the discussion toward a concrete in- structional goal or objective.

During the viewing of Jane’s lesson, the discussion focuses specifically on the relation- ship between the schemata Jane had activated and the theme or idea she had targeted. As the group noted, the scheme Jane activated was not exactly the right one for the theme she wanted to develop with the children. The story was about a new boy in the neighborhood who hires another boy to be his friend for the day. By the end of the day, the boys become friends, and the “hired friend” refuses payment. Prior to reading the story with her students, Jane had elicited talk about friendship, drawing out the children’s experiences with friends. However, the critical idea that friends do things because they like each other - not because one is paying the other - had not been addressed. Jane ac- tivated the scheme of what friends do together, but not why they do them. The absence of the “why” aspect of the scheme made it difficult for the children to comprehend the change in the boys’ relationship, which was precisely what Jane had intended to focus on.

001 Jane: When I started the story I figured if we could just define what a friend was:...that the children would be able to read the text two pages at a time. And in one place just one page at a time.... And see what was happen- ing.... And match it up with what they said friends were: and di:d.. And decide if they were still friends.... So as we went through each page 1 tried to ask: Well are they friends yet’?...Or are they still- Are they friends?...So that e:ventually at one page they would say Oh:: look. No they- they’re not friends yet. Oh? Now they’re friends.... That’s what 1 thought we could do...If- If we could define friends that they could...make the ii second] step.

011 CG:

013 Jane: 014 CG:

017 Jane:

Right.] Well? The definition that they: were- locked into was...uh: a definition that looked at activities. = Yeah. = =What they did. *hh An- And the definition I guess y- you hadn’t realized that you were rhinking of: even though it wasn’t explicit,...was the definition of Well what’s underneath all that. Mmhmm.

Jane’s account (II. 1 - 10) reveals her attention to various IC elements. Having previewed the text, she adopted an initial focus - friendship, and based on that focus she decided to chunk the text in manageable segments over which the children could trace the changes in the boys’ relationship (element #l : theme or idea). Her intent was to activate a scheme with which the children could distinguish between different phases in the boys’ relationship: “If we could define friends.. .they could make the second step. ”

But, as Jane noted, the children did not suc- cessfully “make the second step,“and CG pro- vides an important and responsive explanation (ll.ll- 16). Earlier, Jane had said, “I wasn’t clear in my own mind what really made a per- son a friend, how you really define friendship.” In lines 14- 16, CG connects what transpired in the lesson to Jane’s realization. Jane had a sense of what she wanted to address, but she had not made it explicit enough to herself to be able to feature it in her discussion with the children. Her efforts with the children were based on one definition (what friends do together), and her goal - what she did not get at - was based on another (why friends do things together).

This excerpt highlights the role CG played in assisting teachers to make constructive analyses of their lessons, eliciting the teachers’ accounts and then helping them elaborate their assess- ments. Jane is confronting a common dilemma: Themes are often more complex and subtle than they at first appear. In this particular excerpt, CG is helping Jane assess her lesson by (a) reconceptualizing the theme she tried to focus on, and (b) establishing the relationship bet- ween the theme, the activation of schemata, and the students’ efforts to draw conclusions about the meaning of the story.

But the discussions in these meetings did not

Page 13: Instructional conversations beget instructional conversations

Instructional Conversations

unfold simply on the basis of what CG was try- ing to do. As is evident in the next segment, Jane shifts the course of the discussion as she continues to analyze her own lesson. In so doing, she raises other issues and advances the discussion and the analysis.

018 CG:

019 Jane:

023 CG: 024 Sue: 025 Jane: 026 CG: 027 Jane:

028 CG: 029

I mean you were aware of it ii at some level but not-] And I wasn’t-] aware e:ither that they were saying things that you could do. (I .4) Because I wasn’t retaining what each child was saying in my head. (1.0) I was trying to move on to MY: point ((slaps hand on desk)). And uhm...and get them to talk. (1.0) Cause that was one of my goals. = Right. Yeah. l/That was ( )] To reach that goal] of getting:= =Right. = children to converse not just answer ii teacher] question. Right. ((very soft))

(1.4)

In line 19, Jane acknowledges, then provides an account for, the observations offered by CG and the group: “I wasn’t aware either that they were saying things that you could do. ” She was not aware, in other words, of the focus that ac- tually emerged during the discussion leading up to the reading of the story: the friendship-as- activities scheme. She then goes on (following line 19) to offer a series of explanations which speak to four IC elements: “I wasn’t retaining - that is, actively listening to and remembering what students say”; “I was trying to move on to MY point” - keeping in mind the theme or the focus (element #I); “getting children to converse” - promoting general participation by the children (element #8); and “not just answer teacher questions” - the teacher avoids playing “Guess what I am thinking” (element #9). Indeed, these elements are interdependent, so it is no coincidence that her account invokes them as a set. But the focus for the discussion at the meeting - relevant schemata - has, for the time being, been displaced.

While CG could have redirected the flow of discussion to return to the topic of relevant schemata, he instead responds to the set of issues Jane has introduced:

030 CG:

036 Jane: 037 038 CG:

040 Jane: 041 CG:

044

211

*hh ((long inbreath)) Yeah. Well, that’s what- I think- To my- In my ex- perience what makes that so hard-is you- you’re thinking of several things simultaneously....1 mean you know the talk was there:. The objective and the focus was there:. *h And you gotta think along four or five different lines at the same time at least I know when I’m doing it I- (1.2) Thn:t’s what makes it so complex. Mmhmm ((softly))

(1.6) And sometimes you feel like you’re- you’re doing ONE:: *hh Uhm: (1.2) And you kind of forget you kinda forget the others. Mmhmm ((softly)) Or something. An- And it’s not clear that all twelve or however many we have: have to be there all the rime: Uhm: But you can focus on one and then all the others kinda: (1.2) fall by the wayside.

(2.8)

CG begins by addressing the fact that all these IC elements are, indeed, interrelated. He’s “hooked into” the way Jane has grouped everything together, and then he acknowledges it as legitimate and complex. He has not diminished the problem; he has attempted to clarify it by describing it. But his comments also speak to a broader conceptual dilemma the teachers were facing at this point in the year. In order to develop proficiency with regard to each element CG encouraged the teachers to concen- trate on two or three elements during a specific lesson. However, it would be erroneous and misguided to assess and conceptualize an In- structional Conversation without recognizing how multifaceted and complex it is.

In fact, that the group is entertaining the notion of complexity is an indication of an advanced stage of their progress - an ad- vanced stage involving some element of ten- sion. We interpret the lengthy periods of silence unique to this segment (11. 34, 37, 38, 43, 44, and below, 11. 48 and 65) as indicative of ten- sion resulting from the challenges the teachers face at this point in the year. As the group pro- gressed in conceptualizing ICs, they also had to confront the reality that it really was not a very easy thing to do well. And yet, from that tension there emerges the understanding that IC is not just novel and worthy because the teacher talks

Page 14: Instructional conversations beget instructional conversations

212 WILLIAM SAUNDERS et al.

less and the students talk more. Rather, it is a complex and challenging undertaking that re- quires the teacher to master a number of skills and instantiate them in a cohesive and balanced manner.

The discussion continues with Alice picking up on the issue of complexity, followed by Jane’s introduction of a new realization.

045 CC: 046 Alice:

048 049 Alice:

051 CG: 052 Alice: 053 CG: 054 Jane:

056 Alice:

058 Jane:

060 CG: 061 Jane: 062 Alice: 063 Jane:

064 Sue: 065

*hh But some of these even if you didn’t

have them plann::ed.. .they happen anyway. (2.2) You know and after you see it you say: Oh:: I’m doing number what whatever and I hadn’t planned for it. so:= =Yeah... That happens too:. Oh Yeah. So actually on the- the elements sheet- the one that talks about using: *h uhm responses from children. Elicit thinking, language, and more complete expression by stretching students’ zones?. .Zones? // That one? 1 Mm:: ] Not that one. *h The one where you take uhm a thought or idea the child has said and move on with it? Bui1:d // on::. .unexpected] Which you both build on: ] Unanticipated // opportunities. ] Yeah. It re:ally] means more than it says. ((clears throat)) (1.4)

With Alice’s initial remarks (11. 46-52) another slightly different focus emerges as she draws from her experiences in trying out lessons and then making analysis of the tapes. Apparently, she is introducing the way she has learned to handle the complexity: Though she will plan to concentrate on specific elements, she often finds in watching the tapes that there are some elements that occur without her con- scious attention to them. As Alice completes her point, however, Jane enters the conversation

(starting at line 54) not with a follow-up to Alice’s comments, nor to CG’s previous com- ments. Instead, she appears to announce a realization: “So actually.. ” and then with the help of Alice and CG she cites a specific ele- ment , “It really means more than it says. ” 3

The discussion proceeds:

066 CG:

067 Jane:

068 Sue: 069 Jane:

071 CG: 072 Jane:

074 CG: 075 Jane:

Well? I/ I think all of these mean more-] Cause in- in that case you need to: ] ii (bbZ))=

=You need to- maintain an awareness of what has been said.. .And /I not just] build and keep moving and do your own thing. = li Right.] =You have ta:...really LISTEN as you tell the children to really listen. (1 .O) If you do this. ((<--softly)) That’s right. And remember. (hh) (hh)

Having raised some anticipation of what she is about to announce, Jane provides a clarifica- tion and elaboration of why the element means more than it says. This goes back to a point she made earlier: “I wasn’t retaining” As she says, “You need to- maintain an awareness of what has been said. ” She then goes on to provide the key issue that apparently she thinks the element description ignores: “You have ta: . . .really LISTEN as.. .and remember” (11. 72 & 75). In fact, she has provided an account based on an IC element for the problem with her lesson. Apparently, this is the salient thing she picked up from viewing her tape and from engaging in an analysis of it.

CG and the group had previously noted that the scheme Jane had activated focused on “what friends do, ’ ’ rather than featuring “why they do it.” Their analysis suggested a reconsideration of the specific scheme Jane chose to activate. Jane, however, provided an additional assess- ment of what had gone wrong, and it was con- sistent with her own goal “of getting children to

‘As a side note, this particular excerpt illustrates the role the list of IC elements played throughout the year. Regardless of the fact that the list was consistently undergoing revision (introducing new elements, grouping them, elaborating the descriptions for each element), it always served as a touchstone for thought and discussion. In fact, as is evident here, it is the point of reference for continuing conceptualization of ICs, both in terms of specific elements, and also in totality. The list was a more concrete manifestation of the concept, and in those instances when through discussion and analysis the concept was undergoing conceptual change, typically someone would pull out, point to, and make reference to the working document.

Page 15: Instructional conversations beget instructional conversations

Instructional Conversations 213

converse, not just answer teacher questions” (1. 27). Jane’s analysis was that she had not actually listened to the contributions the students were making. She was just getting them talking, and this had interfered with her ability to understand what scheme, precisely, she had indeed activated. If she had been paying attention, she seems to be saying, she would have been more likely to realize what was oc- curring : “You need to- maintain an awareness of what has been said.. . And not just build and keep moving and do your own thing” (11. 69-70)

076 CG:

077 Jane: 078 CG:

079 Alice:

081 Jane: 082 083 Jane:

085 Alice:

086 Sue: 087 CG:

I mean (hh) I hadn’t thought of it in those terms but I think you’re right. Yeah. Cause what you have to do is be ac- tively processing what they’re saying. Many times we just go Uh hu::h and we’re not even listening to what they’re saying. Yeah.

(2.2) And when somebody says something you want to hear: then you: . ..light up and. ./I bells ring. ] Mmm. Oh:: what] was that again. (hh)

(hh) (hh) (hh) That’s right. *h

Picking up on Jane’s realization, CG in- troduces a slightly different term, something with which to label the kind of LISTENING Jane is characterizing: “Cause what you have to do is be actively processing what they’re saying. ” And then first Alice and subsequently Jane com- bine to describe those instances when teachers can convey the appearance of listening without actually “actively processing.” Jane makes the point (11. 83 & 84)) that in fact it is more often the case that teachers simply listen for certain things: “something you want to hear.” She then goes on to place this realization into the larger context, the group’s project.

088 Jane: And then you think the kids are following.... But you- We want the children ((slaps papers on desk)) to do

all these things:. Listen and think and process and- retain.. And I suppose the teacher’11 have to do the same // thing as we] go through. Right?

092 CC: (hh) (hh) (hh) (WI 093 Jane: To make it work. 094 Alice: That’s the goal: : 095 CG: /l(hh)(hh)(hh)(hh) 1 096 Mary: Uh:: now that’s not okay:] 097 CG: That’s (hh) not (hh) okay:: (hh) 098 All: ((loud laughter)) 099 CG: That was a controversial statement,

Jane. 100 All: ((loud laughter))

Notice that Jane identifies the very things the teachers have adopted as their overarching goal: “We want the children to do all these things. Listen and process and retain.” And then she explicitly makes the leap that the same things are required of the teacher in order to bring this about: “And I suppose the teacher’11 have to do the same thing” (11. 91 & 92). Having an- nounced this, she then invites agreement with her add-on, “Right? To make it work.” Alice provides the desired agreement, but also marks its importance. As Alice characterizes it, Jane’s realization is not just correct: It is “the goooooal . ” 4

The laughter and joking (11. 95 - 100) are particularly revealing. There is nothing in- herently funny about what Jane has put forward, but what is being made light of, however, is the irony. We laugh at things that are so baldly true that they are rarely said. Sometimes, too, we laugh at things that are disturbing in their truth. Mary has treated this ironically: “Uh now that’s not okay.” Teachers having to listen, think, and remember what children have said from one moment to the next? Then, with humor, CG refers to the point as controversial. It is a way to handle something too sensitive to deal with explicitly. But at the heart of an inten- sive discussion about instantiating ICs comes a stark realization about practices teachers have honored more in principle than in practice - the importance of actively listening to what children are actually saying.

“Most likely, Alice’s utterance (That’s the goal::) with the prolonged stretch of the word ‘goal’ also conveys a certain stance towards Jane’s realization. In fact, Jane had missed a series of meetings in the middle of the year. Alice’s utterance might be interpreted as, “Now you got the picture.”

Page 16: Instructional conversations beget instructional conversations

214 WILLIAM SAUNDERS et al.

From the laughter, Alice emerges with an ex- planation that seems to speak to this stark irony, while simultaneously returning to the theme of complexity.

101 Alice:

105 CC:

106 Alice: 107 CG:

110 Alice: 111 CG:

But reulisfically speaking: .it’s dif- ficult to try listen to every single one attentively. You know:? You’re busy with other thoughts in your head....An:: what somebody might be saying is not that-...relevant. And so you kinda of Uh huh:: *h Well, I know that’s why I ta- have to be listening acrively= = Right. = =To sort of process out what’s rele- vant and what isn’t. What to build on and what to. ..basically ignore, I mean you don’t want to shut any kid down- Uh sometimes you do:: but *h I did. = =What to build ii on and what-]

Alice’s comments hail back to the comments CG had made earlier about trying to think on various levels simultaneously: “You’re busy with other thoughts in your head.” But she also reinvokes the specific theme or focus that CG has introduced for the meeting: relevancy. She’s providing an alternative explanation for those instances where she had acknowledged student contributions with “Uh huh, yeah” and moved on. It appears that CG tries to pick up on that, once again invoking the terminology: “listening actively to process out what’s rele- vant and what isn’t. What to build on and what to basically ignore.” CG himself is being responsive and trying to hook into this issue that is so necessary for the responsive element of ICs and which constituted the focus for the meeting. As CG had mentioned in the beginning of the meeting, “what criteria do you use for determining what belongs.. .and what you can dispense with because it is taking you off the path that you want.”

112 Jane: If-This-] You know there’s a space in between too when you’re teaching.. Cause you’re not always:. .just right on top of what they’re saying. Or on the other hand totally ignoring::

I15 Alice: Right. I16 Jane: But there’s a:: a il middlelpoint. 117 Sue: Mmmm] 118 Jane: Yeah::. Where you’re hearing what

they’re sa:ying and you re:cognize it

when they sa:y it.... And you think Hey that’s really coo:l.... But then as you move on:...then you don’t deal with it anymore.. And it’s not-. .filed away up here. I do that. ..a lot... I probably do that a lot just in talking to people.. You know? (hh) (hh) Out- side ii the classroom. ]

Jane’s statement speaks to the real cut and fabric of the paradox of instructional conversa- tion. It requires reconciling what seem like op- posites and thus achieving in some cases a synthesis, in others a balance. Her comments about a middle point resonate to this notion of balance: “There’s a middle point:: not right on top, and not totally ignoring either.” It seems that she’s picked up on Alice’s and CG’s point that you have to listen so as to move forward. She then reintroduces her point about retaining what the children say: “filed away up here.” It is clear, that for Jane, this notion of listening and retaining is an especially important realiza- tion.

In fact, Jane’s consistent emphasis on the im- portance of listening and the conceptualization of listening as a matter of actively processing was critical. Her comment at the end of the seg- ment about not retaining what people say out- side the classroom is particularly illuminating. Throughout the year, the teachers wrestled with the fact that instructional conversation is not simply conversation. The goal of ordinary con- versation is not necessarily bringing one’s in- terlocutor to a state of increased understanding. But this is precisely the goal of instructional conversation. It is from this emerging perspec- tive that Jane reformulates the role of listening. It is not simply making sure that you listen to every child, so that every child has a turn at talk. It is listening so as to keep things moving, so as to achieve worthwhile instructional goals. Consistent with this conceptualization, listening became a prominent feature of various elements. Listening is not only the tool for in- suring that everyone has a chance to participate (#8); it is also the tool for capitalizing on unan- ticipated opportunities (#2), assessing back- ground knowledge (#3), and also checking whether the students are functioning in their zones of proximal development (#lo). Follow- ing the discussion of Jane’s lesson, CG makes the transition to view Mary and Sue’s tapes,

Page 17: Instructional conversations beget instructional conversations

Instructional Conversations 21.5

which had also been scheduled for that day. It is important to note that the transition to the next tapes did not mean that topics raised regarding Jane’s lesson were left behind. To the contrary, the focus and discussion regarding Jane’s lesson became the backdrop, the shared experience for talking about and making an analysis of Mary’s and Sue’s lessons. CG in- itiated the viewing of Mary’s lesson by once again renewing the focus for the meeting: activating relevant and pertinent schemata and background knowledge.

In this regard, we will finally note that although Mary did not play a prominent role in the segment analyzing Jane’s lesson, she ap- parently was actively processing, and that ex- perience then informed her assessment of her own lesson. After the group viewed and analyzed Mary’s videotape, she noted that the key issue in her lesson (where the children read a story about detectives) and in Jane’s friend- ship lesson was identical. She and the children had talked about detectives, but they had not specifically focused on what detectives actually do to solve cases, which was critical for understanding the story. This was her assess- ment of why the children had not comprehended the story as she had hoped they would: “Cause I didn’t get what [detectives’] job, what their real job was. They [the children] were like tell- ing me about detectives, but not what, the job was. Just like [JaneI’s thing...”

The segments from meeting 21 reveal the teachers at an advanced period in their progress. At this meeting, teachers touched upon the same issue that arose in meeting 4 - listening and sustaining interactions. But in meeting 2 1, the issue was informed and made more complex by the group’s increasingly sophisticated under- standing of instructional conversation. Whereas earlier, listening was seen as important for sus- taining interaction among children and teacher, by meeting 21, listening came to play an even more important role: It was critical for deter- mining the direction and the destination of the instruction.

In addition, the dynamics of the group’s discussions had changed. The teachers themselves began to shape and direct the con- versation with the kinds of questions, challenges, and issues CG had provided in earlier meetings. In comparison to the segments

from meeting 4, for example, the segments from meeting 21 show Jane constructing assessments of her lesson. In the process, she provides for the group important understand- ings and reconceptualizations, which then in- form the analysis of subsequent lessons.

Conclusion

In the absence of viable instructional models, there is no reason to think that current calls to reform teaching will be any more successful than previous ones. Furthermore, even if such models do evolve, it is difficult to see how teachers will conceptualize them and put them into practice without adequate opportunities for learning, discussing, analyzing, and applying. While effective staff development strategies do exist (Showers, Joyce, & Bennett, 1987) either they are rarely used (Little et al., 1987) or they are used for relatively simple teaching skills such as questioning and providing feedback (Showers et al., 1987). Such skills undoubtedly constitute an important part of a professional knowledge base. Nonetheless, much more is re- quired if we are to take up the challenge posed by current instructional and curricular reform efforts.

If we are right in assuming that what we have labeled “instructional conversation” has a role to play in schools, it follows from this that strategies must be developed to help teachers acquire this complex body of knowledge and skills (in addition, of course, to acquiring the substantive knowledge required to teach content areas). From the meeting excerpts discussed above we can observe a possible set of such strategies. They are founded upon the very prin- ciples contained in what the teachers themselves were attempting to conceptualize and put into practice in their classrooms. In this sense, in- structional conversations not only represent a potentially important goal of professional development efforts; they can also be seen as the means whereby the goal is achieved. Gallimore (1990) has made much the same point:

If teaching practices are to be broadened and enriched, teachers must be engaged in active self- development in ways that make their intellectual

Page 18: Instructional conversations beget instructional conversations

216 WILLIAM SAUNDERS et al.

lives more stimulating than in the past.... The m- tellectual life of teachers must be supported by their daily routine, which must include not only engaging students in ICs, but teachers engaging in ICs among themselves. (p. 14)

We are offering here a view of staff develop- ment that is somewhat different from the one normally put forth. In addition to “staff development as training, ” we suggest that a place must also be found for “staff development as intellectual engagement.” This engagement can, or perhaps even should, center on identify- ing and addressing problems and issues teachers face in classrooms. In such “joint productive activities,” teachers and staff developers are not engaged in training per se. Instead, they are driven by attempts to address and resolve tangi- ble issues. In the course of addressing them, a great deal of teaching and learning (“training”) can take place. Tharp and Gallimore (1988) offer this vision:

The most powerful model of assistance [for teachers] is that of the Project collaboration (Vogt, 1985). .when program developers or researchers and consultants form a project team with the teacher [or teachers], and the entire group operates in joint productive activity for the purpose of solving a par- ticular problem, powerful assistance is offered to the teacher, but it’s less formal “teaching” than [it is] collegial work. (p. 127)

The IC achieved by CG and the teachers was a joint productive activity. Consider these features: CG did not begin with a fully ar- ticulated IC model, which he then attempted to “train” teachers to implement. To the contrary: Developing such a model, conceptualizing and implementing it, defined the work - the project - of the group itself. This was their common goal, to which they had agreed in the fall, and it was in pursuit of this goal that the IC model shown in Table 1 emerged. But it was also in pursuit of this goal that the teachers developed new conceptualizations and skills. In other words, in the course of jointly working to ad- dress the challenges teachers posed for themselves - articulating and implementing a certain mode of instruction - a great deal of staff development occurred.

In the context provided by the group’s “joint productive activity, ” CG assisted the teachers

to accomplish their common goals. He instan- tiated, in effect, many of the elements the group eventually identified as critical for achieving its instructional aims. For example, he provided a focus for the meetings, he was responsive to problems, issues, and questions raised by the teachers, he used elicitation techniques to pro- mote analysis and to foster general participa- tion, and he used direct teaching as necessary.

One of the teachers in the project came to an important realization early in the year. In the midst of discussing the concept of “Zone of Proximal Development, ” introduced in one of the articles the group read, Alice said, “Do I understand that he [the student] needs to have the guide? He needs to have the teaching so he can get there [higher levels of understanding] . It’s not going to happen naturally?” This was a critical realization all the teachers came to at some point in the year: What the teacher does matters a great deal. For the teachers, Instruc- tional Conversation came to be the vehicle, the set of teaching practices through which they could provide the guide for their students.

But Alice’s comments also apply to teachers learning to instantiate new and complex prac- tices. If sophisticated teaching is necessary for promoting student achievement, an equally sophisticated approach to staff development is required. It is not uncommon to find expres- sions of befuddlement at how difficult it is for teachers to change, in essence, for teachers to learn (see Richardson, 1990, for various ex- planations; see also Cohen, Peterson, & associates, 1990; Durkin, 1989). We would close, then, by highlighting the promise that might come from paying more attention to the “teaching” provided to teachers, whether it be direct instruction, coaching, or instructional conversation.

References

Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1984). The struc- tures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Au, K. (1979). Using the experience-text-relationship method with minority children. Reading Teacher, 32, 677-679.

Barr, M. (1988, March). Implementing a research-based curriculum in English-language arts, K-12. California State Department of Education Staff Development and Curriculum Conference, Pacific Grove, CA.

Page 19: Instructional conversations beget instructional conversations

Instructional Conversations 217

Butts, R. (1955). A cultural history of Western education: Its social and intellectual foundations. New York: McGraw-Hill.

California State Department of Education. (1987). English- language arts framework for California public schools. Sacramento, CA: California State Department of Educa- tion.

Center for the Study of Reading. (n.d.). Teaching reading comprehension: Experience and text [videotape] . Champaign, IL.

Cohen, D. (1988). Teaching practice: Plus ca change . (Issue paper 88-3). National Center for Research on Teacher Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Cohen. D., Peterson, P., & associates. (1990). Effects of state-level reform of elementary school mathematics cur- riculum on” classroom practice (NCRTE Research Reoort 90- 14). East Lansing. MI: Center for the Learn- .,, ing and Teaching of Elementary Subjects.

De La Rosa, D., & Maw, C. (1990). Hispanic education: A srufisticalportrait. Washington, DC: National Council of La Raza.

Delpit. L. (1986). Skills and other dilemmas of a pro- gressive Black educator. Harvard Educational Review, 56, 379-385.

Durkin, D. (1989). Curriculum reform: Teaching reading in kindergarten. (Technical Report No. 465). Cham- paign, IL_ Center for the Study-of Reading.

Cane. N. L. (1978). The scientific basis of the art of tiaching. New York: Teachers “College Press.

Gallimore, R. (1990, April). Rousing school reforms to life. Invited address to the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.

Galhmore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (1989). Action research to increase Hisuanic students’ exvosure to meaninetid text: A focus on reading and content area instruct&. Final Report to Presidential Grants for School Imnrove- ment Committee, University of California.

Gersten, R., & Carnine, D. (1986). Direct instruction in reading comprehension. Educational Leadershio. 43 (7). 70-78. -

., \

Goldenberg, C. (1984). Roads to reading: Studies of Hispanic first graders at risk for reading failure. Un- published‘ doctoral dissertation, Graduate School of Education, University of California, Los Angeles.

Goldenberg, C. (1989a). Making success a more common occurrence for children at risk for failure: Lessons from Hispanic first graders learning to read. In J. Allen & J. M. Mason (Eds.), Risk makers, risk takers, risk breakers: Reducing the risks for young literacy learners (pp. 48-78). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Gojdenberg, C. (1989b). improving the early reading achievement of language-minority students: Report to the superintendent of research and findings, 1988- 89. (Unpublished report to the Superintendent of Schools).

Goldenberg, C. (1991). Instructional conversations. Working paper prepared for the National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning.

Goldenberg, C., & Gallimore, R. (1989). Meeting the

language arts challenge for language-minority children: Teaching and learning in a new key. Grant proposal sub- mitted to Presidential Grants for School Improvement Committee, University of California.

Goldenberg, C., & Gallimore, R. (1990). Meeting the language arts challenge for language-minority children: Te&hiGg and learning in a new key. Progress-Report for 1989990 to Presidential Grants for School Improvement Committee, University of California Office of the Presi- dent, Sept. 21.

Goldenberg, C., & Gallimore, R. (1991, April). Teaching and learning in a new key: The instructional conversa- tion. Paper- presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Goldenberg, C., & Gallimore, R. (in press-a). Local knowledge, research knowledge, and educational change: A case study of first-grade Spanish reading reading improvement. Educational Researcher.

Goldenberg, C., & Gallimore, R. (in press-b). Changing teaching takes more than a one-shot workshop. Educa- tional Leadership.

Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw Hill.

Hacker, C. (1980). From schema theory to classroom prac- tice. Language Arts, 57, 866-871.

Haggard, M. (1988). Developing critical thinking with the Directed Reading-Thinking Activity. 7’he Reading Teacher, 41, 526-533.

Haycock, K., & Navarro, S. (1988). Unfinished business: Fulfilling our children’s promise. Oakland, CA: The Achievement Council.

Heritage, J. (1984). Gatj?nkel and ethnomethodology. New York: Basil Blackwell.

Hoetker, J., & Ahlbrand, W. (1969). The persistence of recitation. American Educational Research Journal, 6, 145- 167.

Little, J., Gerritz, W., Stern, D., Guthrie, J., Kirst, M., & Marsh, D. (1987). Staff development in California. Far West Laboratory for Educational Research & Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE), San Fran- cisco and Berkeley.

Putnam, R., Lampert, M., & Peterson, P. (1990). Alter- native perspectives on knowing mathematics in elemen- tary schools. Review of Research in Education, 16, 57- 150. Itasca, IL: F. W. Peacock.

Resnick, L. (1987). Constructing knowledge in school. In L. Liben (Ed.), Development%td learn&g: Conflict or congruence? (PP. 19-50). Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum.

Richardson, V. <1990). Significant and ‘worthwhile change in teaching practice. Educational Research, 19(7), lo- 18.

Rosenshine, B. (1986). Synthesis of research on explicit teaching. Educational Leadership, 43, 60-69.

Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 376-391). New York: Mac- millan.

Rucda, R., Goldenberg, C., & Gallimore, R. (1991, April). When is an instructional conversation? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educa- tion Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Page 20: Instructional conversations beget instructional conversations

218 WILLIAM SAUNDERS et al

Russell, R. (1991, May 4). Gun-toting student upsets peace at school. LZX Angeles Times, pp. B3, B8.

Sarason, S. B., Davidson, K. S. & Blatt, B. (1986). The preparation of teachers: An unstudied problem in educa- tion (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

Schegloff, E. (1987). Analyzing single episodes of interac- tion: An exercise in conversation analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 101 - 114.

Showers, B., Joyce, B., & Bennett, (1987). Synthesis of research on staff development: A framework for future study and a state-of-the-art analysis. Educational Leadership, 45(3), 77-87.

Shuell, T. (1986). Cognitive conceptions of learning. Review of Educational Research, 56, 411-436.

Simon, H. (1973). The structure of ill-structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4, 18 l-20 1.

Sirontnik. K. (1983). What YOU see is what vou get: Con- . , - sistency, persistency, and mediocrity in classrooms. Harvard Educational Review, 53, 16-31.

( 1

(1.2) it 1 = 7

.,

wor- ran ACT

Spiro, R., & Myers, A. (1984). Individual differences and underlying cognitive processes in reading. In P. Pearson (Ed.)., Handbook of reading research (pp. 471-501). New York: Longman.

Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1988), Rousing minds to life: Teaching learning, & schooling in social context. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1989). Rousing schools to life. American Educator, 13(2), 20-25, 46-52.

Vernez, G., & Rondfeldt, D. (1991). The current situation in Mexican immigration. Science, 251, 1189 - 1193.

Wilen, W. (Ed.). (1990). Teaching and learning through discussion. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Appendix: Transcript Notations

Received 1 November 1991 0

empty parenthesis or parentheses surrounding word(s) indicates transcriber’s uncertainty about the utterance. ellipses indicate silence of less than one second. parentheses around a number indicates silence of greater than one second, counted in tenths of a second. double slashes indicate the onset of overlap. right bracket indicates the end of overlap. equal sign indicates latched utterances; uninterrupted by silence or other break. question mark indicates upward intonation; period, downward intonation; and comma, continuing intonation colon indicates prolongation of preceding sound. hyphen indicates self-interruption or cut-off of preceding sound.

italics indicate emphasis. upper case indicates marked increase in volume. the letter “h” preceded by an asterisk indicates audible inbreath the letter “h” surrounded by parentheses indicates laughter.