By
Andrea M.
LoVasco
VII.
Appendix
A – Data Analysis Sheet for Hypothesis #1 and #2
VIII.
Appendix
B – Data Analysis Sheet for Hypothesis #3
Chapter I
Introduction
The
population of American schools is extremely diverse. Currently, racial and
ethnic minority students represent a third of the K-12 student enrollment
across the United States. It is
stated that by the year 2035, racial and ethnic students will represent over 50
percent of all students. (Montencinos 1999)
Despite this diversity, we
find that most of the values and expectations of American educators in schools
are representative of white middle-class culture. (Yamauchi 1998) While the make-up of the
educators’ cultural values and expectations remain predominately
homogenous, the cultural values and expectations of their students do not.
With the increase of culturally diverse
students, there is often a mismatch between the cultural expectations of the
teacher and the cultural expectations of the students. All students must make some adjustments
when they first arrive at school and learn the classroom routines. In the case
of students whose experiences do not coincide with that of the dominant
culture, the adjustments may be more difficult due to the differences between
values and expectations of home settings and those of the culture of the
school. Difficulty adjusting to
cultural norms result in students seeming disinterested, unmotivated, and
defiant or resistant toward educators and classroom activities. (Yamauchi 1998)
The
Need
One
of the most prominent areas where differing cultural values and expectations
may be observed is in the way teachers and students communicate in the
classroom. Students from different cultures follow differing norms of
communication. The norms that do
not coincide with those of the teacher’s culture may become the basis for
misunderstanding. In order to
reduce this type of confusion and help diverse learners succeed in our
classrooms, we need to observe and change the structure of our classroom
discourse. By doing so, we may
better accommodate for the cultural communication patterns of our students.
Different ethnic groups have
different culturally defined communication patterns. The purpose of this study is to explore how communication
patterns affect the learning process.
This study also looks at whether adjusting teaching techniques to
different communication patterns helps to promote the active involvement of
students.
As a Midwestern, American, white,
female teacher living in Spain, I enjoyed a privileged vantage point to explore
the way in which culturally defined communication patterns affect the classroom
setting. By being immersed in a
culture other than my own, I was more readily able to see differences in the
interaction between the students and myself. I especially saw ways Spanish students communicated their
ideas and understanding of the material differently than American students.
In this setting, as the other in a different cultural setting, just as an ethnic or racial minority may feel in our nations schools, I felt it appropriate to test my hypotheses to see if culturally defined communication patterns do exist.
This study should be of potential interest to all social studies teachers and educators in general if we are committed to understanding the children we teach. By analyzing our own values and expectations about how we communicate in the classroom we may find strategies that positively affect the learning and the relationships that we have with our students. In understanding how students express themselves in classroom discussions, and prefer to participate in conversations with their teachers and peers, we may find successful ways for providing for culturally diverse students.
The
population for this study was a group of Spanish men and women that met on a
weekly basis in an English-speaking discussion group. The discussion topics revolved around current events or
social studies related themes. The
participants varied in age from 14 to 35, most had middle class
backgrounds. All of them lived in the
same neighborhood in Madrid called Barrio del Pilar. They all had a very good command of the English
language. They could not be
members of the discussion group unless they had passed a series of classes and
exams. Their occupations varied, there were business people, housewives and
students.
This chapter contains a review of
literature related to how cultural norms affect communication in the classroom.
The ways in which different cultures present different turn-taking patterns is
one of the main areas discussed in this study. The other area of research looks at how group orientated or
individualist cultural values influences students’ participation in a
whole group conversation with their peers and their teachers.
Culture has an effect on one’s
communication style in many ways.
One way that culture has an effect on our communication styles can be
seen in the way we take turns talking in a classroom discussion. Different turn-taking styles are joint
turn-taking style and organized turn-taking. In joint turn-taking, there is little to no wait time
between one speaker and the next.
Usually people will speak before another speaker finishes or there will
be only brief pauses between speakers.
Organized turn-taking is more structured, people make longer pauses
between statements and wait before each speaker has had their turn before they
speak. (Bowers and Flinders, 1990, p. 86)
Although turn-taking is a expression
of a culture, it may not be recognized by the speaker or the listener, or in
the case of a school setting, the teacher and the student. According to Bowers and Fllinders
(1990), the dynamics of determining speaking turns are dependent, in part, on
unrecognized cultural patterns,
“In
the midst of a conversation, you don’t take time to puzzle this out. You
sense when I am finished, or about
to make a point, or chatting aimlessly, based on your years of experience
talking to people. When our habits
are similar, there’s no problem...but if our habits are different, you
may start to talk before I’m finished....or fail to take your turn when I
am finished- leading me to observe that you’re not paying
attention.” (p. 88)
Although concern for
students’ cultural turn-taking patterns goes unnoticed, it may be a
source for misunderstanding. For
example, a student who comes from a cultural background where the overlapping
of talk- where listeners begin to talk before the speaker finishes – may
be perceived by the teacher as impolite and aggressive. Similarly, a student who speaks softly
and utilizes longer pauses between utterances may be viewed by the teacher as a
poor or unmotivated student. (p.
87)
Besides
turn-taking patterns, the other norm that affects one’s style of
communication is whether or not they come from an individualistic or group
orientated culture. According to
Gudykunst (1996), low-context communication involves the use of explicit and
direct messages. Low-context
communication can be found in cultures that value individualism where the focus
is on self and a unique identity.
Students from individualistic cultures seek personal recognition and
want to stand out from the crowd.
High-context communication, however, is
predominantly used in collectivist or group centered societies. High-context communication, in
contrast, “involves the use of implicit or indirect messages embedded in
the socio-cultural context.” (p. 511) Students from collectivist cultures
may not want to talk directly about themselves or personal experiences. To others it may seem they are shy or
may be so indirect they seem to be always beating around the bush.
Pamela
McCollum is a researcher who presents an analysis of turn-taking in
classrooms. In her study, McCollum
(1989) video-taped whole group conversations in two classrooms. One classroom
was located in Chicago and the other Puerto Rico. She wanted to analyze turn-taking procedures between an
English-speaking Anglo-American teacher and students and a Spanish-speaking
Puerto Rican teacher and her students.
Transcripts were made of all the talk on the tapes and those nonverbal
behaviors that were relevant to turn-taking and turn-allocation were recorded.
McCollum’s findings show that, in Chicago, lessons were fast paced and the teacher maintained strict control of student talk in order to keep it tightly focused on the topic of the lesson. By calling on individual students for their input, 62% of the time during class discussion, the teacher established control over both the pace and course of the lesson and reduced the opportunity for turn-taking among her students.
On the other hand, the Puerto Rican
teacher called on students individually only half the amount of time as the
teacher in Chicago. She invited all students to reply during the conversation
time. She acted more as a
facilitator than a director.
Turn-taking among teacher and students resembled more of everyday conversation
than in the English-speaking class.
Students spoke out in any sequence, sometimes waiting for the other
students to finish their thoughts, other times jumping into the conversation
when they wanted.
Students own initiation to take a
turn or participate during class discussion varied as well. In the Puerto Rican classroom students
initiated talk with the teacher more than four times the amount than students
did in Chicago. In class
conversations, the Puerto Rican students initiated turn-taking 38% of the time
as opposed to the classroom in Chicago where students initiated talk and
turn-taking allocations only 9% of the time. In addition, thirty-three percent of the student initiations
were incorporated in class discussion by the Puerto Rican teacher as compared
to only 7% by the teacher in Chicago.
With these facts, McCollun was able
to prove that the dynamics of determining speaking turns were dependent on the
cultural patterns that were in play in both these American and Puerto Rican
classrooms. In summary, turn-taking was brought about by cues initiated by the
teacher in the English-speaking classroom and by informal procedures in the
Spanish-speaking classroom.
A different body of research focuses
on communication patterns that exist in a classroom setting that are
characterized as being influenced by the students individualistic or
collectivist cultural values.
While individualism and collectivism exist in all cultures, one set of
values tends to be predominant.
Cultures in which individualism is predominant will promote expression
of individual opinions, whereas
group orientated cultures will promote expression of collective
experiences.
In a study discussed in the article,
“Individual vs. Culture-Level Dimensions of Individualism and Collectivism:
Effects on Preferred Conversational Styles” (Kim, 1996) done by a group
of researchers from several world-wide universities, data indicated that
culture influences some of the ways people constrain themselves from entering
into a conversation. The
researchers created a questionare for 972 undergraduate students in Korea,
Japan, Hawaii and the continental United States. The questionare asked its participants whether they would
always, almost always, sometimes, almost never, or never participate in a
conversation depending on a given variable. The variables revolved around concern for avoiding hurting
the hearer’s feelings, concern for avoiding negative evaluation by the
hearer, concern for clarity and a concern for effectiveness.
The data indicated that American mainland participants were not concerned in constraining themselves and almost always engaged in conversation when the topic showed concern for clarity, whereas participants from Korea and Hawaii almost always constrained themselves. Data also indicated that Americans constrained themselves the least when considering participating in a discussion that could potentially hurt another’s feelings. Korean participants indicated they would never participate and Hawaiians almost never would partake in these types of conversations. The researchers attributed these findings to the idea that Korean culture is predominantly collectivistic, whereas the mainland American culture tends to be individualistic, with Hawaii in between. Although the research stressed the fact that individuals vary within a culture, it did show that culture is one of the many factors that determine ones decision to enter into whole group and individual discussions.
In both
communication pattern studies, implications were given on how their findings
may affect education for students.
In terms of turn-taking allocations, McCollum pointed out that different
social relationships and participation structures were upheld in both the
English-speaking and Spanish-speaking classrooms. McCollum notes that depending on the learning environment,
students will display their abilities in different ways. Because of this, McCollum suggests that
teachers who are unfamiliar with non-mainstream interaction patterns should
reflect upon the way they employ their lessons. She goes on to suggest with the help of the existing
literature, that teachers should try to modify the structure in their
classrooms to coincide with cultural communication patterns of their students. (McCollum 1989)
Researchers
that have found data to support that individualism and collectivism have a
direct effect on communication styles also have suggestions for educators. Since the American school system
reflects the nations individualistic culture, most researchers have focused
their suggestions on integrating students from collectivist cultures into the
American school system.
One suggestion has
been for teachers to analyze the goals and reward systems in their
classroom. They suggest to create
goals and reward systems that are more group orientated and will support the
cultural values of collectivistic students. They emphasize working in small groups during discussion
periods, using small groups for in-class problem solving, and making classroom
discourse include conversations that build group consensus. (Yamarchi
1998)
Other researchers
suggest that teachers not completely abandon whole group or individualistic
activities or those that require direct verbal communication. They state that all students require
skills that will allow them to work independently or communicate directly.
Instead, they suggest that educators can help students to succeed in these
situations by being more explicit about what they want from the students during
class discussions. They suggest
that teachers need to tell students even their most ordinary expectations – as they expect students
participation in a certain class discussion - so that students know and understand what goals and reward
systems exists in their classroom.
Summary
From the review of literature and research studies, it is clear that cultural norms exist and can affect communication in the classroom. Depending on the culture of the students and teacher, turn-allocation may vary during conversation. Students from different cultures may also represent their collectivist or individualistic cultural values in conversation, by deciding when and when not to participate in a whole group discussion. Researchers, therefore, suggest, that educators analyze the system of discourse that is carried out in their classroom and make adjustments so that students from diverse cultures can participate in a more optimized learning experience.
`
The goal of this study is to
determine whether ethnic groups have culturally defined communication
patterns. Conversations among
Spanish students at an English Language School in Madrid, Spain were observed
and recorded on tape during a weekly Current Events class. After eight class sessions of
observations and recordings a series of patterns in the communication styles
among the Spanish students began to become apparent.
The normal Spanish discourse
patterns that were observed presented the following characteristics:
-
Preference
for discussion of collective over individual experience. Spanish students had
the tendency to participate more when the conversation centered on something
they had in common and less when the conversation centered on individual
experiences. When asked a
personalized question, Spanish students took a long time to respond or their
answers were short.
-
Predominance of overlapping turn-taking
style. Spanish students preferred a turn-taking style where there was a lot of
overlapping talk. If the students
were enthused about the topic, many interruptions would occur and they would
talk for longer intervals of time.
To determine if these were culturally defined communication
patterns, three hypotheses were tested and observed that aimed on altering the
way the Spanish students normally conversed.
1.
In a class of Spanish
students, normal communication will be hindered by the American style of
individuating questions as measured by the negative responses of students in
taped and transcribed conversation.
2.
In a class of Spanish
students, normal communication will be promoted by asking open style questions
as measured by the positive responses of students in taped and transcribed
conversation.
3.
In a class of Spanish
students, normal communication will be hindered by manipulating the existing
joint turn-taking style pattern, as measured by taped and analyzed transcripts
of students discourse.
The
study was conducted in an English Language School in Madrid, Spain. The school had over 600 students
enrolled. The students English
level at the school ranged from Level 1 to Level 15. The English level of the students in the study ranged from level
9 to 15. The majority of the
students were from Madrid, although some students were from other cities in
Spain. Students participating in
the study were enrolled in a class called Current Events in English that met
once a week. Since the sessions did
not require attendance, the number of students would vary from session to
session. There was always a core
group of students, however, who continued to attend throughout the length of
the project Most of the
students had a middle class background.
The majority were high school and college aged students, others were
professionals in their 30’s and 40’s, and three retired persons.
From
August 2001 until May 2002, 25 Current Events in English classes were
taped. Each Current Events session
lasted one hour. Before each
class, I devised a set of questions that would test a hypothesis. To test hypothesis #1, (communication
will be hindered by using American style of individuating questions) I designed
a series of questions that would go along with the days current affairs topics. At least two of the questions aimed at
eliciting an individualized response.
With these types of questions I probed students to speak about a
personal experience or talk directly about themselves. To test hypothesis #2,
(communication will promoted by asking open questions) I created another set of
questions aimed at eliciting an open or a group consensus response. With these open type of questions, I
directed students to partake in conversations based on culturally shared
knowledge.
To
test hypothesis Number #3, (communication will be hindered by manipulating the
existing joint turn taking style pattern) I created a third set of questions
that went along with topics of the day.
With at least two of the questions, I would choose one to three students
by name to respond to my inquiry and see how the turn-taking style was
affected. With the other two
questions, I did not structure participation so that the natural turn-taking
process could be observed.
After
each session I would transcribe the tape, listing the questions and the
responses from students. In the
transcription, I counted and indicated the wait time it took for the initial
question to be answered and I indicated with the symbol “...int...”
each time there was an overlapping of two persons speaking at once. The names of the participants were
listed at the beginning of the transcript and then their initials every time
thereafter. The majority of the
time English was spoken except for the occasional word or expression that the
students did not know how to translate from Spanish. These Spanish words and
the student’s English grammar mistakes were not changed. All student talk was transcribed in its
original form.
For hypothesis #1 and #2, I designed a data collection
spread-sheet. I compared the percentages of negative and positive responses to
individuating and group orientated questions. The negative responses included
the measurement of: 1) the
amount of wait time or silence that occurred after every question. If the
question was not culturally appropriate more wait time or silence was expected
to occur. 2) the amount of
additional remarks or explanations needed to understand a question. If students were not comfortable with the question, I would
have to further develop my line of inquiry until students felt comfortable
enough to participate. 3) the
amount of few-word-answers. If the question was not culturally appropriate a
larger amount of few-word-answers (less than four) were expected.
The positive responses were
indicated by: 1) the percentage of students that participated. The more
comfortable a student felt with a question, the more he or she would
participate. 2) the amount of
overlap talking occurrences. If
the students were more comfortable with a question the more active involvement
and multiple turn-taking there would be.
3) the amount of total talk time.
The more the question was culturally appropriate, the more the students
would talk.
For
hypothesis #3, I designed a data tally sheet. I compared the responses between turn-taking in discussions
where the conversation was controlled by the teacher and turn-taking where the
process was allowed to flow naturally.
I included the measurements of: 1) the amount of turn-taking in total. The purpose being to determine in which
setting most students take an active turn in participating in class discussion.
2) the total talk time. In a
setting more culturally appropriate to their turn-taking style, Spanish
students would be expected to participate and talk longer. 3) the amount of overlapping talking
occurrences. In a setting more conducive to the students natural turn taking
process there would be more active involvement and a greater tendency to have
more turn taking at the same time.
4) the average number of students that participated per
question. In a setting where
turn-taking was culturally appropriate more students on average would
participate.
Over a period of 10 months, Spanish
students in an English speaking Current Events class participated in
conversations that were taped and transcribed. In each class session, questions were asked that were based
on my observations of Spanish students normal discourse patterns. These
observations were:
-
Spanish
people had the tendency to participate more when the conversation centered on
something they had in common and less when the conversation centered on
individual experiences.
-
Spanish students also preferred a
turn-taking style where there was a lot of overlapping talk. If the students were enthused about the
topic, students would interrupt one another and speak for longer periods of
time.
To test these observations,
percentages of negative and positive responses to individuated and group
centered questions and the level of participation of students when responses to
questions were manipulated by a teacher’s directive or when students were
allowed to participate in conversation using their natural turn-taking style,
were recorded. A complete discussion
of the findings is provided.
In a class of Spanish students, normal communication will be hindered by the American style of individuating questions as measured by the negative responses of students in taped and transcribed conversation sessions.
|
NEGATIVE RESPONSES |
50 OPEN QUESTIONS
|
50 INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS |
|
Total
wait time before response to question was given. |
Total :
230 seconds
Average: 4.6 seconds |
Total:
465 seconds
Average: 9.3 seconds |
|
Total
additional questions needed to prompt students to initiate dialogue. |
13 |
45 |
|
Total of
responses where answers were four words or less. |
2 |
9 |
The results of Table 1 support hypothesis #1. The amount of wait time before responding to individuating questions was almost double than the wait time before responding to group or consensus forming questions. It also indicates that individual questions evoked more than three times the amount of additional questions or explanations needed than group or consensus forming questions. Finally, Table 1 indicates that there were more than double few word answers when individuating questions were asked than when there were group or consensus forming questions asked.
Hypothesis 2
In a class of Spanish students, normal communication will be promoted by asking open questions as measured by the positive responses of students in taped and transcribed conversation sessions.
|
POSITIVE RESPONSES |
50 OPEN QUESTIONS |
50 INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS |
|
Total
percentage of students participating. |
62.92% |
48.58% |
|
Total
amount of overlap talking occurrences. |
71 |
27 |
|
Total amount of talk time. |
1 hr 48 min 16 sec |
0 hr 57 min 52 sec |
The
results of Table 2 support hypothesis #2.
There was a higher total percentage of students that participated
in group orientated questions than
in individual questions. It also
shows that overlapping talk occurred more than double when group orientated
questions were asked. Finally, the
total talk time for group orientated questions was almost double than that of
individual orientated questions. (See Appendix A for the data collection sheet
regarding the information pertaining to individuating and group orientated
questions. )
In a class of Spanish
students, normal communication will be hindered by manipulating the existing
joint turn taking style pattern, as measured by taped and analyzed transcripts
of students discourse.
Table 3
|
|
42 FREE RESPONSE QUESTIONS |
42 CONTROLLED RESPONSE QUESTIONS |
|
Total
number of turn-taking |
242 |
161 |
|
Total talk time |
1 hr 57 min 10 sec |
1 hr 08 min 32 sec |
|
Total overlap
talking occurrences. |
45 |
21 |
|
Average
number of students that participated per question |
6 |
3 |
The results of Table 3 support hypothesis #3. When turn-taking was controlled the amount of turn-taking in general and total talk time decreased by half. The total overlapping taking occurrences decreased by almost half and the average number of participants per question decreased by half. (see Appendix B for the data collection sheet that logged the information pertaining to controlled and uncontrolled turn-taking.)
The purpose of this study was to
explore how culturally defined communication patterns affect the learning
process. In order to do this,
standard communication patters of Spanish students were observed and defined. Then classroom interaction was measured
when these patterns were altered.
This study indicated that there is a direct correlation between
culturally defined communication patterns and classroom interaction.
In regards to my Spanish students,
data indicated that they preferred a joint-turn taking structure and when this
structure was manipulated students were less likely to participate. Data also indicated that my Spanish
students preferred to talk about group-orientated issues. They were less likely to talk when the
conversation revolved around personal issues and experiences.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The purpose of this study is to
explore how communication patterns affect classroom interaction. Conversations were taped, transcribed
and analyzed to see if certain patterns existed during discussions among
Spanish students.
From the results, the following
conclusions can be made:
·
Different
cultures have different communication patterns. The communication patterns that exist among students in
Spain are different than those that appear among students in the United States.
·
If
cultural patterns are supported in the classroom, students will be comfortable
and participation will increase during classroom discussions.
·
If
cultural patterns are altered, students will be less active participants in
classroom discourse.
The following are recommendations
from the study:
·
Teachers
should recognize that different communication patterns are an expression of
cultural differences. Adjustment
to school entails adjustment to different communication patterns for the
student and the teacher.
·
Classroom
cultural discourse structures need to be analyzed by educators.
·
Teachers
should be willing to initiate culturally sensitive modifications to classroom
discourse structures to better accommodate the needs of their students.
Being immersed in a culture other
than my own was not only beneficial for this project, it was beneficial for me
as a teacher. It not only allowed
me to readily differentiate the communication patterns among my students, and
myself, but it also allowed me to see the many ways in which cultural values
and assumptions influences our lives.
While my opportunity
to do this study in Spain was a unique situation, I do believe the opportunity
to analyze classroom discourse among ethnically diverse students exists in each
and every one of our nation’s classrooms. If we take the time to observe, reflect, and then act to accommodate
the culturally defined communication patterns that we see, we can begin to make
structural changes that improve the dynamics of classroom discourse and enhance
the learning and social environment of our students.
Bowers, C. A.,
Flinders, D. J. (1990). Responsive Teaching: An Ecological Approach to
Classroom Patterns of Language, Culture, and Thought. Teachers College Press.
Gudykunst, William B.,
Matsumoto, Yuko., Ting-Toomey, Stella., Tsukasa, Nishida., Kim, Kwangsu.,
Heyman, Sam. (1996). The Influence of Cultural Individualism-Collectivism, Self
Construals, and Individual Values on Communication Styles Across Cultures. Human
Communication Research. Volume 22. 510-543.
Johnson, Ellen., (1997)
Cultural Norms Affect Oral Communication in the Classroom. New Directions for Teaching and
Learning. Volume
70. 47-52.
Kim, Min-Sun., Hunter, John E.,
Miyahara, Akira., Horvath, Ann-Marie., Bresnahan, Mary., Yoon, Hei-Jin. (1996)
Individual vs. Cultural Level Dimensions of Individualism and Collectivism:
Effects on Preferred Conversational Styles. Communication Monographs. Volume 63. 29-50.
McCollum, Pamela. (1989).
Turn-Allocation in Lessons with North American and Puerto Rican Students: A
Comparative Study. Anthropology and Education Quarterly. Volume 20. 133-153.
Montecinos, Carmen., Rios,
Francisco. (1999) Assessing preservice teachers’ zones of concern and
comfort with multicultural education. Teacher Education Quarterly. Volume 26. 7-24.
Yamauchi, Lois A. (1998).
Individualism, Collectivism, and Cultural Compatibility: Implications for
Counselors and Teachers. Journal of Humanistic Education and Development. Volume 36. 189-197.
Data Analysis Sheet for Hypothesis
#1 & #2
TOPIC:
__________________
#
OF STUDENTS: ______
STUDENTS
_______________________________________________________________
TYPE
____ Q
___________________________________________________________
TOTAL TOT. TOT. CC
Student 5 10 15 20 30 STUDENTS T-T TIME/SEC
_________ __ __ __ __ __ ________ __ ___ ___
_________ __ __ __ __ __ ________ __ ___ ___
_________ __ __ __ __ __ ________ __ ___ ___
_________ __ __ __ __ __ ________ __ ___
_________ __ __ __ __ __ ________ __ ___
_________ __ __ __ __ __ ________ __ ___
_________ __ __ __ __ __ ________ __ ___
_________ __ __ __ __ __ ________ __ ___
_________ __ __ __ __ __ ________ __ ___
_________ __ __ __ __ __ ________ __ ___
TYPE
____ Q
___________________________________________________________
TOTAL TOT. TOT. CC
Student 5 10 15 20 30 STUDENTS T-T TIME/SEC
_________ __ __ __ __ __ ________ __ ___ ___
_________ __ __ __ __ __ ________ __ ___ ___
_________ __ __ __ __ __ ________ __ ___