| TEACHING
SKILLS THROUGH LEARNING CONVERSATIONS IN WHOLE LANGUAGE
CLASSROOMS Dr. Laura R. Roehler and Danise J. Cantlon The sense of completeness and closure nurtured by whole language has generated widespread discussion within the educational community. In some quarters it summons the deep devotion typically reserved for works of art, motherhood, and apple pie. Whole language makes so much intuitive sense that its rightful place in the contemporary philosophy of literacy teaching and learning is seldom questioned; as such, the structures upon which effective whole language instruction are built frequently go unexamined. Yet, just as a fine painting is best appreciated by understanding the impact of individual brush strokes, the image of effective language is brought into clearer focus through analysis of its component patterns and strategies. Distinct features stand out for a moment; but they remain connected to a larger, gr6wing, evolving image. The wholeness of language is not ruptured; rather, its components are simply better understood and valued as parts of whole. Effective literacy educators help the students to become strategic language users who not only understand the elements of language, but also appreciate its larger image. These students are aware of connections, patterns, and integrations within and across literacy events. They know when, how, and why to use specific words and word groups. The patterns and sequences of their language allow seamless communication and clarification to occur. On the other hand, when misunderstandings and miscues occur, effective language users know how, why, and when to repair the damage. In so doing, students increase their language expertise (Duffy, Roehler, Sivan, et al, 1987). Language users do not necessarily acquire this expertise "naturally." With the help of strategies, learners can move toward whole language outcomes. Learners can develop positive attitudes and dispositions about language and its uses. They can learn how to reason and think their way through challenges. They can learn about important information that is relevant and useful. Strategies support the development of expertise within the whole language approach. The whole language image is empty without strategy usage. Likewise, isolated strategies and application of strategies are useless without connections to a larger language image. For students to develop expertise in language1 they need both the whole language image and its component literacy strategies. It is the interweaving of these two that creates optimum literacy conditions. Using Learning Conversations One set of teachers decided to create such optimum learning conditions for their students who were in English as Second Language (ESL) classes. All students were in first year classes that met for an hour at a time four or five times a week. The teachers wanted to help their students develop the dispositions of valuing, respecting and being responsible for self and others while using language. They also wanted to help students understand why language is important and how to use it orally and in written form. Finally, they wanted to help students generate and gain knowledge about important concepts as language was shared. Because these teachers believe that knowledge is internalized through the use of language in social situations (Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1985), conversations were selected as a primary means to gain and generate knowledge. These conversations were designed so that all participants could learn. They created situations where students felt that their ideas mattered, where information could come from any participant and where the task was to learn and share. All participants played two roles. Sometimes a participant was a learner and sometimes the participant was one who had important information to share with others. The classroom teachers moved out of the information-giver role only and became learners and sharers, too. These conversations were called learning conversations because all participants had opportunities to learn. Learning conversations are very similar to instructional conversations which are "discussion-based lessons geared toward creating opportunities for students' conceptual and linguistic development" (Goldenberg, 1992, pg. 6). During instructional conversations, teachers focus on concepts that are relevant for students and have educational value. Background information on a topic is activated, teachers build on the students' ideas and guide the students to new levels of understanding. Learning conversations incorporate the important features of instructional conversations and go one step further. The teachers not only teach, they also learn. They co-construct knowledge with the students. They join conversations where all ideas, comments, and questions matter. All participants value and respect their own ideas and the ideas of others. They also feel responsible for themselves and others (Roehler, McLellan and Svoboda, 1993). As a result, students increase their analysis ability, their critical thinking ability, the quality of their reflections, and their abilities to interact and work together. Teachers learn to create learning opportunities in which they can participate as learners and sharers of information. These conversations are embedded within activities such as the generation of questions, brainstorming, the generation of comments that activated background knowledge and the creation of maps that connect information. These learning conversations then lead to written drafts that are shared in subsequent conversations. Conversations become the prime vehicle of learning. After three years of using these strategies in their whole language classrooms, the teachers became curious about the successes of their learning opportunities. They discovered that their students had gained from one to five years on the Metropolitan Reading Test. Their students took leadership in small group and whole group discussions in the ESL classroom and back in their grade level classroom. Their writing was high quality, often winning awards in local authorship contests. In order for the teachers to strengthen their inquiry, they asked three other educators to join the team. The new members had the responsibilities of analyzing lesson transcripts, observing lessons, interviewing the teachers and interacting with students in order to determine why the learning conversations were so successful. The guiding question was, "What constitutes successful learning conversations in our ESL classroom?" They wanted to know why students had such high gain levels in language expertise and why they were so eager to participate as members of a group. A Description of Whole Language Teaching The teaching and learning experience was designed to focus on learning conversations within the literacy cycle (Duffy & Roehler, 1993). Within this literacy cycle, conversations played a major role as expertise in reading and writing grew. Because knowledge is acquired in social situations and the students already talked to their families, friends, and acquaintances on an ongoing, comfortable basis, the pattern of learning during conversations was used. The literacy cycle was initiated with guided reading and writing where the teachers created opportunities to read, talk and then write around selected topics. Reading and writing included formats such as books, journals, poems, magazines, and newspaper articles. Films were observed and discussed. These literacy events were stimulated by learning conversations and provided the basis for future learning conversations. These conversations led to the creation of rough drafts of stories, articles, poems, and books that occurred both individually or in groups. Specific, explicit, and adaptive instruction in reading and writing occurred within learning conversations as needed. If students wanted to share their beginning ideas, seek additional ideas or had difficulty in creating Tough drafts, they joined a group at the sharing table where students and/or teachers met to discuss the emerging rough drafts. Some reading and writing and many learning conversations occurred at this time. Students returned to the sharing table and revised as often as needed. Eventually, students took their latest drafts to the editing table where the collaborative team and/or the students provided assessment of content, mechanics, and form. Once again, reading, writing, and conversations occurred. After written products were assessed, the final drafts were shared at the author's chair (Craves & Hansen, 1983) and the literacy cycle began again. Ongoing authentic reading, writing, and learning conversations occurred continuously throughout the literacy cycle. Within this literacy cycle, the ESL students progressed through a variety of units. Background knowledge was activated by student-generated and teacher-generated questions and comments. This type of activity was followed by brain storming where the students generated lists and cognitive maps about what they had learned. The lists and maps became the basis for writing and additional reading. Students' interest was maintained as they generated additional questions and comments as knowledge within the various units were developed. Learning was completed as written products were read in author's chair and shared in other classrooms. The teaching and learning experiences occurred within the literacy cycle reflecting a whole language image that incorporated strategy instruction. A Variety of Strategies Four oral discourse strategies were used by the teachers. The strategies usually occurred in varying combinations as conversations progressed; rarely was one strategy used alone. All strategies were initially modeled during interactions in learning conversations by the teachers with students subsequently using the strategies as they participated. One group centered around connections in language usage where teachers modeled several strategies to show how they co-constructed knowledge with their students. These strategies helped students make connections to what they know, an essential component of whole language instruction (Goodman, 19--). Teachers also modeled how to monitor the development of co-constructed knowledge during learning conversations. The teachers also modeled the use of language that showed how to make thinking visible for others to hear and understand. Finally, the teachers modeled the use of language that signaled ownership by all for the ideas shared and developed. The learning conversations are presented in the sequence in which they occurred within the lesson. Several oral language skills are included in each learning conversation. Not all of the skills in each conversation are noted. Learning Conversation One The first learning conversation occurred at the beginning of a lesson where science content was being reviewed. One of the teachers asked what had been learned. A student responded and the teacher prefaced her next statement by signaling what she was going to ask of the students. She then provided an opportunity for students to activate their background knowledge. Learning Conversation #1 S We did. ..we learned to read book and then we talked about what we read and we wrote about roots--that almost all the water that root takes has been taken by the roots, and they have hair and they have veins and they take water. Water goes up in the plant and the food goes down. T Okay. Well, I'm really interested in seeing if we can put together our knowledge about plants. Remember what a concept map looks like. Or what webbing is like. Do you remember talking about webbing or a concept map? It's sort of an organization about information. First you take the big idea and put it in the middle. What was the big idea so far in science? What was the main thing the chapter was about? The great big chapter. S About plants. About green plants. Note that the teacher told them what she was interested in as a preface to her subsequent statements . She then made a series of questions and comments to activate what the students knew about concept maps and plants. In the next sequence within the first learning conversation, the teacher modeled the strategy of ownership by asking for consensus and using personal plural pronouns. Learning Conversation #1 continued T Green plants? Okay, would everyone agree that that was what we talked about? So if we were to put up on the board "green plants," then that would be the middle of our map---that would be the center of it. So we could put up "green plants," then, in the middle. Now Tina, you just talked to me about the roots, right? S Yeah. they have hair, and their hair is. ..every plant has to have millions of those hairs. And almost all the water that root has taken has been taken by the root hair. T So in your remembering and thinking about the chapter, do you think that roots are an important piece of information about green plants? S Umm, yeah. In the next sequence within the first learning conversation, the teacher modeled a third strategy, how to make her thinking viable by offering an invitation to the students. Learning Conversation #1 continued T So we want to put that on the map, then, as an important piece of information. And now with roots, you've given us some information that's important about roots. Now Out of what you've said, what do you think would be important about these roots---the hairs? S Yeah. Their hair and... T Okay. So we want to put that hair off of the roots. And now what did she say was the purpose of the hair? Why is hair on the roots so important to us? Do you remember Saram? S She said that hair was important because it picks up the water. T Because that's the way the water gets in. So it's very important to have water in the plant. Now why is that? S So the plant won't dry or anything. T Yeah. Because we need what? The plant is how much water? S The water goes up to the leaves. S I think the root is important because it stores food T Okay, so that would be another reason off of root. So that would go off of roots, wouldn't it? "Stores food." T Do you remember the name of the part of the root? What they called the root that stores food? S Tap root? T That was right---the tap root. T Okay, so off of the root, then, we want a line that says "tap root." And then under that, it's important because...What did Saram say? S That it takes the food...makes the food... T Stores the food. Okay. In the next segment of the conversation, a student made connections by providing a definition of tap roots and the conversation continued. Learning Conversation #1 continued S You know.. .Can I say something about tap root? It say in here "A tap root is one of thick main roots that store food for the plant." T So they store food for the plant. That's good. Now, in what you've read so far, and thinking about your notes or looking at your notes, is there anything else about roots that's important in terms of what you've read, or even what you've wondered about? You know, we can have questions, too. We can put our questions off to the side if a questions occurs. Sina? S Umm. ..maybe roots hold the plant? T Okay. So roots hold the plant what? Up? S Yeah. In the last segment of the first learning conversation, the teacher used another ownership strategy. She asked the participants to help her clarify the thinking of the group. Learning Conversation #1 continued T Okay, so the roots have a function of...how would we put that? Who can help me? T Can we use the word anchor? Do you know that word, anchor? T To hold it steady, hold it up, hold it in one place? Would that make sense? In summary, the first learning conversation contained the oral language strategy of making connections where developing ownership and making thinking visible were used. The second strategy of making connections included prefacing, activating background knowledge and providing definitions. The third strategy of developing ownership included finding consensus, using personal plural pronouns, and seeking clarification. The fourth strategy of making thinking visible included providing invitations. Learning Conversation Two The second learning conversation occurred immediately after the first one. In this conversation, students and teachers talked about tap roots as they continued to co-construct the concept map about plants. The participants developed their notions about tap roots until a teacher used the strategy of monitoring the flow of conversation when she highlighted the differences between the edible parts of carrots and corn. Learning Conversation #2 S And a carrot is a tap root that we can eat. T Oh. Well, that's interesting. So some tap roots are edible. S And we are talking about tap roots---remember what you say at the lunch table? Beets... T Well, then we ought to put that.. Do you want to put that off of tap root? S Well, actually it doesn't have anything to do with green plants or not green plants. It wouldn't have anything to do on the board. S I know something that could go with green plants. Carrots. T Carrots or potatoes... S Carrots are not green plants. S I don't know---maybe it has something to do with it... S Does it? S You know, this chapter is not---. I think... T These are good questions... T Good questions---very good questions. S But how come if this is a chapter on green plants, how come they put all the things that are not green plants? S It might be because maybe it's important for us to know that we eat something like that. T Well, how did we know that we could eat the tap root? Where did that information come from: What does it say there? From your notes of from looking back---what does the book say about...? S I think the tap roots you can sometimes eat because they're growing like under the ground. Some food like carrots that grow under the ground, but the leaves are up. T And they' re green. S Yeah, but some has.. underground they have roots, and up is the food area. T So corn, for instance, has roots under the ground and we eat the part that's above the ground. But, with a carrot, we eat what's under the ground. The conversation continued until a teacher used the strategy of developing ownership. She asked permission of the students to add edible to the concept map. Learning Conversation #2 continued T And sometimes we use what's on top of the ground just as a plant---a pretty green plant. S Can I put something else on this side? T Okay, let's finish up with tap root, then we'll come back and add that in. What I'm wondering, is can we put up there that the tap root is edible? Is that something that... S ...The green plant needs. T Yeah, the green plant needs it, but in addition to that, we can eat it. T Can I add that? "Edible?" S Yeah. In summary, the teachers used the strategy of monitoring the flow of conversation by highlighting the line of conversation and the strategy of developing ownership by asking permission. Learning Conversation Three The third learning conversation occurred immediately after the second one. In this conversation three oral language strategies were used. The conversation opens with a teacher asking the students to help her remember what happened on the previous day. Learning Conversation #3 T Now we did have a discussion yesterday and I need my memory refreshed. We learned about the tap root of the carrot and the beet. We thought about other things that we can eat. And then we got to thinking about onions and potatoes and some of the other vegetables. And somewhere in the back of my mind I remember calling those kinds of plants tubers. We talked about it a while---is the tuber or those big bulb kinds of growths the same as a tap root of different? The teacher used the strategy of developing ownership by asking students to help her refresh her memory. Another teacher then reinforced the question that was raised and asked the group if her wording of the correction was accurate. Learning conversation #3 continued T Well, I think that's a good question to put up there. We'll see if we can't find the answer to it. So one question would be "Are tap roots and plants that have tubers the same?" Is that right? Would that be a way to put the question? S A tuber is a plant? I mean, a vegetable? T Yes. A tuber is a vegetable. S And they have tap roots? T Well, that's the question. A tuber would be a kind of vegetable, but what we don't... S I don't hear it. T Well, I don't hear it very often either, and I grew up on a farm. You'd think I would have known. The teacher used the strategy of making thinking visible by reinforcing what had been asked. The learning conversation continued as a teacher asked for help. She assumed the students were competent participants. Learning Conversation #3 continued T I'm not sure that says what I want it to say. Help me. "Are plants that have tap roots and tubers the same?" That's not really what I mean. S The tubers have tap roots! S Are tubers and tap roots the same? T Okay. That sounds right. The teacher used the strategy of developing ownership by assuming the students were competent. This learning conversation ended as a teacher moved the conversation forward by using the strategy of monitoring the flow of conversation. Learning Conversation #3 continued T And then we'll have to see if we can find some books that answer that question. Okay, Saram, you said you wanted to add something else to our map? In summary, the teachers used the strategy of developing ownership by asking to have her memory refreshed and assuming the students were competent. They also used the strategy of making their thinking visible by reinforcing the quality of a question. Finally, they used the strategy of monitoring the flow of conversation by statements which moved the conversation forward. Learning Conversation Four The fourth learning conversation occurred later in the lesson as the participants focused on co-constructing information about the stem and continued to create the concept map. A student provided information about the stem and the conversation continued. A teacher used the strategy of developing ownership when she asked the students if anything else needed to be added and again the conversation continued. Learning Conversation #4 S Yeah. The stem to transport the water. And the food goes down.... T Okay, so would stems be the same as the roots? Is that important? Would we draw a line off of green plants and put stems in there? Okay, let's do that. And then the purpose of the stem is to what? S Transport food and water. T O.K.., transport food and water T So I would put that off of stem. T Anyone want to add anything else about the stem? We'll get back to your roots in just a minute. Tina or Tiajun? Do you want to add something about stems: If you remember something, looking at your notes, we can go back and add it. S And there are some veins. S But that's not in the stem. T So veins would be off from stems, also. And what are the veins for? S Some of the veins carry water for the ]eaves. Some veins carry food... T We have stems, and under that we have transports food and water, and then we have veins. Is it the veins in the stems that's transporting the food and water? S Yeah. T So we want to just erase that one line from stems and connect it to veins, right? Because that's the part of the stem that transports food and water. S Yeah. the stem to the vein and then vein to the stem. T So does that capture what you're saying? Good. Sina? A teacher used the strategy of developing ownership by allowing an idea to develop. In the next segment a teacher made her thinking visible as she clarified the role of the stem in a plant. Learning Conversation #4 continued S Stem is a part of the plant between the roots and the leaves. T O.K., the stem in the part between the roots and the leaves. Now where would we put this on the map? Where would that piece of information go? In the final segment of this learning conversation the participants completed their talk about stems and a teacher used the strategy of making connections by summarizing. Learning Conversation #4 continued T We have two major parts already in this map. We have the roots... S Maybe put it in the middle. T The stems connect the roots and the leaves. Is that what you said? So could we draw a line off of stems that says, "Connect roots and leaves?" S Maybe we could have that stuff, and this is leaves and this is roots T What would be in the middle? S So it comes between stems and leaves. T So could we take that piece of information, draw a line of stems, and put "connects the roots and the leaves?" Does that make sense, Tiajun? Saram? S Yeah. I'm not sure. T Let's put it up there, and then we can take it off if we don't like it there. We know that the stem is the part in the plant that comes between the roots and the leaves. That's good because we know that with the roots, that holds the plant up. The stem is the part that connects the roots and the leaves. So that seems to be important information. Saram? In summary, the teachers used three oral discourse strategies. They developed ownership by encouraging idea development by the students. They made their thinking visible by clarifying the role of the stem and they made connections by summarizing the information that had been co-constructed. Learning Conversation Five The fifth learning conversation occurred later in the lesson as the participants began to discuss how the plants make food. One student asked the question about how the plants get materials for food making. Other students responded using the strategy of making connection by showing relationships. Learning Conversation #5 S I think on the leaf because, see, sun come on the leaf, air come on the leaf, and then water come when. Water going this way and going on the leaf the same as air. S That's the same thing. S I think because it messes up, the water goes up the leaf so sunlight goes there and the air goes there, so it gets all the things that it needs. It messes up and that makes its food. So the food goes down so food comes back here because it doesn't mix well itself. It goes down to the roots so the roots can grow longer. T So in some cases, then, the food would go underneath to like where the carrot is. That would become the food? But sometimes the food would go to make like corn---that's on top. S Yeah. It can go maybe on top, too. The conversation continued as a teacher used the strategy of developing ownership by giving ownership of the question to Saram. After Saram responded, the teacher then modeled the strategy of monitoring the flow of conversation by checking and verifying student understanding. Learning Conversation #5 continued T Let's see. The question, Saram, say your question again S What part of the plant makes food? T Now we had two answers that said it was in the leaf, and that's what you said, too, Tina. right? That it was in the leaves. Does everybody agree that we think the food is made in the leaves? We don't know for certain where it goes, but it's made there. The participants continued the conversation until a teacher monitored the flow of conversation by paraphrasing what happens when water falls on leaves. Learning Conversation #5 continued S That's where plants store stuff. T That's right, because we have it right there, don't we. Sure. So you found it in your book and it was up there, too. That stores the food. Saram. S I think when the sun shines, it make food right here. T Then it goes back down in here and stored, right? S Yeah. I think water goes from the roots to the stem, stem to the leaf. But when food come in on the leaf, the leaf to the stem, stem to the root. T So the other way around. Saram? S On this spot, right here, it says that. I think I agree with Sina. S When the sun come, they make food. T So the roots couldn't make food unless they were in the sun. But they're not in the sun. Where are they? S On the ground. S They can't get air either. It's the air that goes over here. Everything goes, the sun goes on the leaf, and the air goes on the leaf, and the water goes on the leaf. The water goes, that's the place that on the picture they showed. Sun goes here, air goes here, and the water goes here. So that's when it messes up and it goes down. S Where the sun is,. ..The air can be anywhere. S I think we should read this part. S I have a question. There is the food, it's made in the leave, then and the sun and the air is going to the leave, then why does the water go down the root and up the leave? Why don't the water just go the leaf? T O.K. Does someone think they have an answer for that? Sina? S Sometimes there's water down here, down on the ground, and sometimes rain coming. It can't drop---I mean, all this from this rain some waters on the leaf, it can't fly out. It rain drop down. So there's a lot of water down there than going up. T So when it rains, the water would fall on the leaves. But because of gravity, it would just keep rolling right off and going down, wouldn't it? Into the ground, and the ground absorbs it. Then, what would if the roots do? S Brings it up. I think I know why because when you give water to the plant, you don't really give it to the leaf, you give it to the soil. S Because of the roots that can take it up. I think the leaves are getting down, so it slips down. That's why we're putting all the water on the ground. So then the water can go in, under where the roots are so the roots can pick it up and the water goes up. Under the picture, under this picture, it shows how plants get materials for the food making. So these are the only materials that it makes food from. That's under here, so it's definitely that they make food in the leaves because everything goes on this place. Learning Conversation Six The last learning conversation occurred as the participants were discussing whether plants need water, how often plants need water and the best places for plants to get water. A teacher summarized the conversation and the students contributed information about the length of the roots and how often plants should be watered. A student used the strategy of making thinking visible by asking a challenging question. A student responded and another student made her thinking visible by stating a conjecture, "If you don't believe that there's no water underground, you could prove it in many ways." The students responded to the conjecture and another student concluded this learning conversation by using the strategy of making her thinking visible by elaborating on the question"...how can it get the water?" Learning Conversation #6 S How do grass get water? We don't water grass. Do they get it from underground S How would it grow if you don't water it? S If you don't believe that there's no water underground, you could prove it in many ways. S There's kind of soil that is in the beach. That soil there's none water in there. S That's sand. S But this soil., what you talking about, that's---there is water. I know that. But in the desert, if the water's really deep, when the plant is really small, how can it get the water? It doesn't have that big the roots. It doesn't have that big to grow that big and take the water. S Some roots just suck it up like a vacuum cleaner. DISCUSSION The described strategies in these conversations seem to increase the learning opportunities. As strategies were modeled by the teachers within the conversation, they became an expected component that provide support and challenge for the students. The students had more opportunities to learn and were given help as they learned how to talk to each other and teachers. When oral discourse strategies were compared to reading and writing strategies, many similarities were found. Pearson, Roehler, Dole and Duffy (1990) identified ma5or reading comprehension strategies shown by research to be effective. All seven of the comprehension strategies overlapped the oral discourse strategies. Their first comprehension strategy, searching for connections between what is known and what is encountered while reading text, is similar to the Making Connections Croup. This group includes the oral discourse strategies of providing definitions, showing relationships, activating background knowledge and using prefacing. Their second comprehension strategy, monitoring the adequacy of the models of text meaning that are being built, is similar to the Monitoring the Flow of Conversation group. This group includes the oral discourse strategies of paraphrasing, checking for and verifying understanding and moving the conversation consciously forward. Their third comprehension strategy, determining what's important in the text, is similar to offering conjectures, an oral discourse strategy in the Making Thinking Visible group and highlighting a line of conversation, an oral discourse strategy in the Monitoring Flow of Conversation group. Their fourth comprehension strategy, repairing faulty comprehension when sense-making breaks down, is similar to clarifying, an oral discourse strategy in the Making Thinking Visible group. Their fifth comprehension strategy, drawing inferences during and after reading, is similar to the oral discourse strategy of elaborating found in the Making Thinking Visible group. Their sixth comprehension strategy, synthesizing information is similar to the oral discourse strategy of summarizing found in the Making Connections group. Their last comprehension strategy, asking questions, is similar to the oral discourse strategies of issuing invitations and generating challenging questions and/or comments found in the Making Thinking Visible group. It is not surprising that many of the oral discourse strategies were similar to the strategies found in reading and writing. See Tierney and Shanahan, (1991), for an excellent comparison of the research on reading and writing relationships. What was surprising was the use of a number of oral discourse strategies that signaled ownership by all for the contents of the learning conversations and greater equity among all participants, especially between students and teachers. The teachers modeled the use of all the strategies in this category. They asked permission of the students before using their ideas. They encouraged and allowed idea development. They assumed the students were competent and verified that competency as it appeared. They signaled specific student ownership appropriately. They admitted difficulty in making sense of discussed topics and ideas or remembering important pieces of information while seeking clarification when the participants seemed to need it. They also requested opportunities to refresh their own memories. The teachers used personal plural pronouns and sought consensus often. Again, students emulated these strategies as the learning conversations progressed. The use of these oral discourse strategies as used by teachers and students appear to move the learning of students beyond the normal subject matter curriculum and more into the hidden curriculum or implicit curriculum often discussed in educational literature. Valued components of the hidden curriculum were made explicit through the use of oral discourse strategies and gradually became interwoven, usable elements for the students as the learning conversations progressed. The addition of oral discourse strategies did not seem to decrease subject matter learning, it seemed to increase subject matter learning as noted by the scores on the Metropolitan Reading Test. The students' scores ranged from non-readers to primary grade readers at the beginning of the school year to scores that ranged from grade level to sixth and seventh grade levels at the end of the school year. The students' writing improved in quality and quantity and their leadership in group discussions increased. Talking in ways that reflects connections in the ideas being shared, that monitors the flow of conversation, that makes thinking visible and supports the development of ownership and equity does seem to help learning. CONCLUSIONS The study answered the question of what constitutes successful learning opportunities in an BSL classroom. The inquiry showed that certain oral discourse strategies seemed to play a role in developing expertise in the subject matter curriculum and in the hidden curriculum. Apparently once again what teachers say and do affects what students learn (Duffy, Roehler, Sivan, et al, 1987). Of particular interest was the role of modeling of the teachers in the development of the oral discourse strategies. Students were able to see and hear the teachers using oral discourse strategies during the social exchanges within the learning conversations. They were not just told about these strategies, they were immersed in conversations where they were used. If we want certain dispositions, strategies and ways of thinking to be second nature and habits for our children, we need to help them form these important patterns of thinking, feeling and doing by living those patterns in ways that are clearly understandable. Modeling is one of the ways. Plato summed up this need centuries ago when he asked: For have you not perceived that imitations, whether of bodily gestures, tones of voice or modes of thought, if they be persevered in from an early age, are apt to grow into habits and second natures? Plato BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Bussis, A. M., Chittenden, E. A., Amarel, M., & Kalusner, E. (1985). Inquiry into meaning: An investigation of learning to read. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. 2. Duffy, C. & Roehler, L. (1993). Improving reading instruction: A decision-making approach. New York: McGraw-Hill. 3. Duffy, G., Roehler, L., Sivan, E., Rackliffe, C., Book, C., Meloth, M., Vavrus, L., Wesselman, R., Putnam, J., & Bassiri, D. (1987). Effects of explaining the reasoning associated with using reading strategies. Reading research quarterly. 22 347-368. 4. Goldberg, C. (1992). Instructional conversations: Promoting comprehension through discussion. The Reading Teacher. 46, 316-326. 5. Glaser & Strauss. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing. 6. Graves, D. H., & Hansen, J. (1983). The Author's Chair. Language arts, 60, 176-183. 7. Kirby, K. (1986). Reading and writing processes of selected high-risk college freshmen. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Georgia. 8. Langer, J. A. (1986a). Children reading and writing: Structures and strategies. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. 9. Martin, S. (1987, December). The meaning-making strategies reported by provident readers and writers. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Reading Conference, St. Petersburg, Fl. 10. Pearson, P. D., Roehler, L., Dole, J., & Duffy, C. (1992). Developing Expertise in Reading Comprehension. In S. Samuels & A. Farstrup (Eds.). What research has to say about reading instruction. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. 11. Ryan, S. M. (1985). An examination of reading and writing strategies of selected fifth grade students. In J. Niles & R. Lalik (Eds.)., Issues in literacy: A research perspective. (pp.306-390). Thirty-fourth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Rochester, N. Y.: National Reading Conference. 12. Roehler, L., Mclellan, M., & Svoboda, N. (1993). University professors and public school teachers: A case for mutuality in classroom-based collaboration. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Education Research Association, Atlanta. 13. Tierney, R. I., & Shanahan, T. (1991). Research on the reading-writing relationship: Interactions, transactions, and outcomes. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson. (Eds.). Handbook of reading research volume II. (pp.246-280). New York: Longman Publishing Group. 14. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 15. Wertsch, J. V. (Ed.). (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
|