COLLABORATIVE WRITING TASKS
2. OBJECTIVES
The overall objective of our investigation was to study the evolution of the processes of co-construction of writing knowledge through interaction strategies used by a teacher and her pupils in-group learning situations. The specific objective of this
chapter is to describe how the interactive strategies of the teacher evolve during a process in which the pupils acquire a greater autonomy in resolving group-writing tasks. We describe both the quantitative and the qualitative evolution of the con- structivist teaching style in the literacy process. Quantitatively, by means of varia- tions in the percentage of teacher participation compared with that of the pupils.
Qualitatively, the evolution of directivity, understanding this to be the level of in- formation offered by the teacher which allows the pupil a greater or lesser degree of freedom in managing his own learning process.
3. METHOD
3.1 Procedure
This investigation took place in a Spanish infant school over the two consecutive school years that integrate the children’s evolution as they learn to read and write, i.e., between the ages of three and five. We selected a class whose the teacher has a constructivist theory of written language and who also has experience in peer col- laboration. During these two years, the research team formed part of the class dy- namics, taping and video recording the pupils working in groups of three with the help of the teacher. We recorded 12 sessions each term over the two years of the investigation, gathering a total of 72 sessions which meant transcribing and register- ing 10,297 conversation utterances related to instructions, decisions about the text to write, the code, the child who was going to write, etc. In this publication we are go- ing to concentrate on those related to the code – the graphic system of the Spanish written language – which represents 6,567 conversational utterances.
As can be seen in figures 1 and 2, our activities not only cover writing but writ- ten language as a whole. Children do not write a given text but they discuss what they want to write in different types of texts, e.g., their names, the comic, the calen- dar, the recipes, etc. The activities videotaped were the most representative of the daily work in each term and were proposed by the teacher and the researchers. These constructivist activities were characterized by introducing the children to significant reading and writing activities right from the beginning of their schooling, the teacher adopting a non-directive role and encouraging peer conversation about the task. To analyze the data we began by transcribing the recordings, writing down word for word the dialogue held between the children, and describing the behavior which indicated what was going on at that moment (e.g., excerpts 1, 2 and 3).
Activities are similar in the corresponding terms of each year as we can observe in the comic of figures 1 and 2: the children have to decide what to write and they write it in collaboration. Both activities correspond to the third term of 3/4 and 4/5 years old respectively, but the resolution corresponds to the children’s level of writ- ing: the pupils in their first year write pseudo letters without any conventional value, while in the second year they write in the conventional way, but phonetically (they do not write the letter “h” for the verb “haciendo” – making – which is silent). Other examples of activities can be seen in excerpts 2 and 3, which shows children writing with mobile letters in the corresponding first terms.
Figure 1. Activity resolved by 3/4 years-old children in the third term of the school year.
Figure 2. Activity resolved by 4/5 years-old children in the third term of the school year.
During the day, the teacher forms peer groups of three children and every one works on a different activity such as literacy, mathematics, construction games, puzzles, etc. Researchers register the literacy group, without interfering in the work, in order to respect the natural situation. Every term we have balanced the sample of situa- tions so that in half of the seventy-two sessions analyzed the teacher’s presence was constant in the literacy group, whereas in the other half she attended these children only when they needed her or when she felt it was necessary. The different results of these situations are presented in table 3.
3.2 The Analysis System
For the unit of analysis we decided on conversational utterance. We have defined this conversational utterance as the communicative contribution inserted by one par- ticipant between two others. To study our transcriptions of the 72 sessions we devel- oped inductively five dimensions of analysis (Díez et al., 1999), revised and ex- tended in Díez (2002). Each dimension has different categories and they are mutu- ally exclusive within each dimension, whereas the categories of the different dimen- sions are not. The socio-semiotics basis of a discourse multidimensional analytical system are explored and discussed in Anula (in preparation).
We have called the first dimension of analysis “Phase of the task”. This perspec- tive registers different stages of the activity such as the instructions to resolve it, the negotiation of the text to write, the writing of this agreed text, the sharing out of who’s going to write a letter or a word, etc. Every analytical category determines the type of discourse operations, which we analyze in other dimensions. In this study we centre on the writing of the agreed text and it is analyzed through the dimension discourse regulation.
The following two dimensions analyze the writing co-generation and are called
“Discourse Regulation” and “Content Management”. They cover the dichotomy of communicative functions versus intellectual speech proposed by Vygotsky (1934/1962). The Discourse Regulation is the object of analysis in this article. It is formed to study the ways in which the participants encourage the development of ideas during the interaction: asking the participants some questions, giving them cues to facilitate the answer or giving the solution to the task. The Content Man- agement dimension covers the discourse strategies and solutions with which the par- ticipants perform the task of learning to write.
The last two dimensions cover the argumentative activity registered in the par- ticipants’ discourse. The dimensions of “Evaluation” and “Justification” are grouped under this criterion, the aim of which is to generate an objective knowledge so long as it is agreed and shared. In this negotiation process the evaluation dimension makes it possible to register, in the discourse, the gathering or separating of perspec- tives through agreements, total and partial disagreements, doubting and invitations to debate. The justification dimension registers the evidence offered by the partici- pant to explain their point of view.
4. RESULTS
According to the objectives and the space available in this publication, we will cen- tre our analysis in the discourse regulation dimension. It analyses the educational style of the teacher, characterized by a low directivity which shows more interest in the process of resolving the task than in finding the right solution. We want to de- scribe both the qualitative and the quantitative evolution of the constructivist teach- ing style in the literacy process. Qualitatively, the evolution of directivity, under- standing this to be the level of information offered by the teacher which allows the pupil a greater or lesser degree of freedom in managing his own learning process.
Quantitatively, by means of variations in the percentage of teacher participation compared with that of the pupils.
4.1 Levels of Teacher Directivity
In order to analyze the teaching style from a qualitative point of view, we used as our starting point the discourse regulation dimension shown in table 1. In this di- mension, we show how the participants’ interventions are connected to encourage the building of a shared knowledge, making requests, offering clues or giving solu- tions to the task. This dimension, applied to the teacher, allows us to analyze her educational style in a directivity scale. Taking directivity to mean the margin of freedom the pupil is given to manage his own activity and learning, we can observe that the teacher moves at three different levels.
LEVEL 0
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
The absence of direction shows the lowest intervention level where the teacher refrains from intervening. The absence of direction is precisely the quantitative measure we are using in the teaching style, which we will see evolve over the two years.
Non-directive strategies are also fundamentally centered in the process. How- ever, in contrast to Level zero, there is only one question, which guides the children’s performance, but no clue giving information to help solve the task (e.g., “Which letter comes now?”).
Semi-directive strategies are those interventions leading the child so that he can find the answer by himself. At this level of directivity, a clue with infor- mation is offered to help resolve the activity (e.g., “Which letter comes now?.
Say it slowly, Feeeee”).
Directive strategies are those which directly give the solution to a precise problem in the task (e.g., “The letter E”).
Table 1 presents the evolution of the teaching style in our study and we can see some relevant results. Analyzing the two years together we observe how the teacher basically uses semi-directive (42.7%) and non-directive (53.6%) strategies, whereas directive strategies are scarce (3.7%). These results demonstrate that the teacher’s regulation strategies give a clear primacy to the process (non directive and semi di- rective strategies: 96,3%) with regard to the result (directive discourse mechanisms:
3,7%). We could see that the teacher’s interest in both years is centered on helping
the children to solve the task on their own without giving them the solution (as we can observe in excerpt 1 below), even though the initial answers they gave were incorrect (see the pseudo letters written in figure 1 presented above). This implies that the teacher was able to accept that the pupils’ mistakes were also an important learning source if submitted to debate.
Comparing the evolution of the teacher’s strategies in each year, we noticed how the non-directive strategies, which ask the question without offering any informative clue on how to solve the activity, increase from 44.3% to 58.7% in the second year.
These strategies are the less directive ones. In contrast, the semi-directive strategies, characterized by the clues offered to help in finding the answer, show a marked de- crease in the second year (from 47.90% in the first year to 39.8% in the second).
Likewise, the directive strategies, which offer answers to the task, drop significantly in the second year (from 7.8% in the first to 1.5% in the second). It shows that each year the teacher offers fewer answers – solutions – and guides the resolution of the activity offering less information than the previous year.
From these results, we can conclude that in our study the teacher’s help is paral- lel to the pupils’ needs and that the scaffolding (Bruner, 1984) decreases as the con- trol is progressively handed over to the children.
In excerpt 1 we give an example of the interaction which took place between the teacher and her pupils who, on this occasion are in the first term of the second year at infant school (4-5 year olds). This protocol shows how the teacher concentrates on the process and not on the conventionally correct answer. From this conception of any mistake being a “constructive mistake”, we accept that the answer is wrong ac- cording to conventional rules, but valid within the child’s process of reconstructing knowledge. The group is making up the word “felicidades” with moveable letters, and has as far written “Fel”. On arriving at the i, Samuel does not accept that this letter corresponds to its real sound value since his mother taught him the letter “i” as a small letter but not as a capital. So Samuel only accepts letters with a dot on top as representing this sound. (Utterance 4749: “No, because it’s got a, a dot here”). In the face of the teacher’s mirroring (Lumbelli, 1985; 1988), that is to say, the repetition
of the previous statement to dig deeper into it, this participant reaffirmed his position by giving an argument based on maternal authority: “Yes. My mum taught me. Yes”
(utterance 4751). The teacher tried to offer him a clue to contrast his position on the letter “i” – the name of his classmate Iván –: “Isn’t this the I for liiván?” (utterance 4756); this information, familiar to him because of the time spent in the classroom working with the Christian names, conflicted with the information coming from his family, and allowed him to begin to understand the apparent contradiction: on the one hand, he recognized perfectly well the phoneme of the capital “i”, but now he cannot understand why “Iván” is written with this letter, something he had never questioned up till then. For this reason he is thoughtful in utterances 4761 and 4763.
Samuel understands that this situation means he must justify his contradiction but he cannot form an argument in utterance 4765 (“I think that less than no it’s more than...”) nor in utterance 4767 (“Yes, but...”). To break out of this situation, the teacher, in- stead of offering a solution, uses his classmates as a source of information and mu- tual help. So she asks Alberto, thus giving an interactive model whereby the children build up their knowledge together.
Excerpt 1. Teacher’s strategies are centred in the process but not in the product of the activ-
4746 4747 4748 4749 4750 4751 4752 4753 4754 4755 4756 4757 4758 4759 4760 4761 4762 4763 4764 4765 4766 4767 4768 4769
Teacher Alba Teacher Samuel Teacher Samuel Teacher Alba Alberto Samuel Teacher Samuel Teacher Samuel Teacher Samuel Teacher Samuel Teacher Samuel Teacher Samuel Teacher Alberto
Come on. Feelii. Samuel says that it isn’t an I Is this an I o not? (showing a capital letter I)
(nods)
Samuel says it isn’t
No, because it’s got a, a dot here (pointing to the top of the I) It’s got a dot here?
Yes. My mum taught me. Yes.
So this isn’t an I?
(Can’t find an answer) (Can’t find an answer) No
Isn’t this the I of Iiiván?
(Makes a movement of having realised something and nods) Iiiván What is the first letter? Iiii
The I
So it isn’t written with this?
(Thoughtful)
Yes or no? What do you think? Is it written with this or not?
I’m going to see, (thoughtful)
Let me see. Bring the cards please (to someone in the classroom) I think that less than no it’s more than...
No? Isn’t Iván written with this one?
Yes, but...
Hasn’t Iiiván got an I? Alberto, what do you think? Let me see. Is this an I or not?
(Nods)
ity. school year, 4/5 year-olds. Infant school, term. Continuous presence of the teacher.
4.2 Decrease in the Teacher’s Intervention
While table 1 lets us analyse the qualitative evolution of directivity (levels 1, 2 and 3), Level 0 – the absence of teacher intervention – allows us to quantitatively ana- lyze the teaching style, and so highlight the autonomous activity in the pupils. In table 2, we compare the percentage of interventions of both the teacher and the pu- pils in both years.
By making a global analysis of the information in the table above, we can appreciate that the average teacher participation is 35.6%, greater in the first year (41,3%) than in the second (33,1%). Nevertheless, it is necessary to distinguish between the two types of videotaped situations in which the teacher participates: in half of the ses- sions recorded each term, the teacher’s presence is constant (36 sessions) and in the other 36 sessions her presence is partial, helping a group only when the participants ask her to or the teacher considers it necessary, e.g., when teacher observes that children do not know how to continue.
By differentiating the teacher’s participation according to the work situation, we can see in table 3, as is logical, that it is far greater in the constant presence than in the partial presence situation in both school years. On the other hand, while both situations show a decrease in the importance of the teacher’s role from one year to the next, this decrease is much sharper in the partial presence situation. This reveals that the children are more autonomous in this second year and now find it easier to accept the possibility of working alone in groups than they did the year before, and they do not demand the teacher’s attention so often. In consequence, and based on the data obtained, we can observe how, in the second year, the children have im- proved their autonomy as a group and have assumed both a greater level of partici- pation and a greater independence from the teacher.
In a traditional teaching model, the teacher presents the information, the pupil receives it and the teacher then checks if learning has taken place. In such a system, according to Flanders (1962), the teachers speak 70% of the time in the classroom and the pupil is regarded as a knowledge receiver. Other studies contrasting with this teaching model such as those carried out by Cazden (1986) and Pontecorvo, Cas- tiglia and Zucchermaglio (1989) who, working in innovative teaching contexts, demonstrated that conversation in the classroom can forget evaluation as its prime
objective and centre on the discussion itself. The above-mentioned authors arrived at an operational definition, which allows discussion to be characterized as the situa- tion in which the teacher intervenes in around 30% of the total discussion. Neverthe- less, these writers recognize that it is fundamental to make a qualitative analysis of the teacher’s interventions and of their repercussion in the children’s behavior. We have done this through our analysis system.
We consider that although it does not exactly fit into the 30% of teacher’s interven- tions, which was our initial criteria to discover a discussion according to Pontecorvo, Castiglia and Zucchermaglio (1989), the percentages fell to 39,3% in the constant presence situation and fell as far as 20% in the partial presence situation. On the other hand, it is important to bear in mind the limitations inherent to groups of three/four year olds when it comes to resolving tasks in a group, which means it is possible to suppose that this percentage will continue to fall in a third school year when the children – five/six year olds –, despite their still early age, will continue learning to collaborate in peers.
In order to exemplify the decrease in teacher participation we present two se- quences in which we can observe the difference in child autonomy when resolving the tasks. Excerpt 2 below shows a conversational segment recorded during the first term in the first Infant school year (3/4 year olds). On this occasion, the teacher is working with the children throughout the whole session. Here we can see how the teacher tries to create a debate among the students and also the difficulty they have in paying attention to the group resolution. In this session the pupils have chosen which of the Three Wise Men’s names they want to write in moveable letters (Mel- chor, Caspar or Baltasar, who bring presents to Spanish children at Christmas). For this task and bearing in mind that we are in the first stages of literacy, the pupils