\llllllllll 'L' -, i} .J _ _’ .. ' ELI @533 St: ‘ ~13 llzévfisfiiqy-~ " This is to certify that the dissertation entitled THE HIDDEN DIMENSIONS OF STAFF DEVELOPMENT: A STUDY OF NEGOTIATIONsfilN TEACHER/DEVELOPER“INTERACTIONS presented by Arlene Judith Anang has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for A. Ph. D. degree in Elementary and _Special Education ///‘Q£;aa&zi:%i52§§2¢4 Date 2i%¢ 024/ .1ng MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 RETURNING MATERLHLJ; IVIESI_} Place in book drop to LIBRARIES remove this checkout from w your Y‘GCOl‘d. ELIE Will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. " its ”:1 / W WW3 ,3; «ma TH" HIDDEN DIMENSIONS OF STAFF DEVELOPMENT: A STUDY OF NEGOTIATIONS IN TEACHER/DEVELOPER INTERACTIONS By Arlene Judith Anang A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Elementary and Special Education 1982 1/"79;3(/ (‘ xx ABSTRACT THE HIDDEN DIMENSIONS OF STAFF DEVELOPMENT: A STUDY OF NEGOTIATIONS IN TEACHER/DEVELOPER INTERACTIONS By Arlene Judith Anang Staff development is generally thought of as a process of promot- ing or facilitating positive change in teachers. It takes many forms but usually includes one person with specialized skills, knowledge, or techniques who teaches or otherwise helps school faculty members who need or want to learn these skills and techniques. The purpose of this study was to examine the face-to-face interactions between a staff developer and the teachers with whom she worked in order to gain a better understanding of what actually occurred during the process of staff development and how the participants made sense of the event. The goal was to describe the dynamics of the staff development process and develop a better understanding of the staff developer's role in its entire range of contexts, activities, and topics. The methods used in this study were ethnographic and involved seven months of gathering data on one staff developer as she inter- acted with a variety of school personnel. The data consisted of ex- tensive field notes, videotapes, audiotapes, formal and informal interviews with many informants, questionnaires, and other written documents. Through a microanalysis of selected interactions, some Arlene Judith Anang recurring patterns and regularities emerged which were then cross- checked across the broader body of data. This process led to a theory about the role of staff develOpment which was grounded in data. The study showed not only that staff development is multidimen— sional, ambiguous, inherently face-threatening, and extraordinarily complex, but also that it is highly dependent on the negotiations that take place within the interactions. Teaching and learning in staff development interactions are dependent upon the collaboration, work, and effort of all of the participants throughout the event and if, how, and when a working consensus is achieved and maintained. The skills and knowledge of the staff developer cannot be communicated in a vacuum, but are dependent upon the social relationships of the participants and how they negotiate the purpose of each interaction as well as their relative statuses and roles. Copyright by ARLENE JUDITH ANANG 1982 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 0n magnificent Michigan spring days such as this when I reflect upon my life and career and the sense of compatibility I feel in both, I ask myself yet another ethnographic question--how did it get that way? The answer, of course, is in the network of peOple who have pro- vided guidance and support throughout both. This represents a formal thank you to those who deserve much more: To Susan Florio for giving so much substantive feedback during this seemingly endless process and for leading me in a direction that brought together my anthropological and educational interests; to Perry Lanier for all the time and moral support he provided and for challenging my ideas and giving me new sets of questions to occupy my thoughts; to Don Freeman for the years of friendship and advice and for the close reading of the first draft of this dissertation; to Pete Cooper for his interest in my career and for encouraging me to come to Michigan State University in the first place; to my friends and col- leagues in graduate school, particularly Deborah Orban, who listened to and responded to my ideas during critical moments, and to Barbara Reeves for her knowledge of the intricacies of manuscript preparation and her willingness to be flexible. For making the data possible, I thank Bonnie for allowing me to intrude in her life and work on such a regular basis and my colleagues and friends at J.I.S. for allowing me access to their thoughts and 11° classrooms, in spite of any reservations they may have had about why I wanted that information and how I was going to use it. For helping me to preserve my sanity and sense of humor and re- minding me daily that there was life beyond the dissertation, I thank my neighbors Tom, Patty, T.J. and Katy, Joan, Debbie, and Karen, Dimitris, Angela, Jose,Herta, Helga, Helen, and Gilda, Latiff and Rohani, Melene and Sanda. The dedication, however, goes to my family whose guidance and support made this, as well as my other adventures in life, possible: to my parents, Charles and Freda Balsham, for their lifelong support and encouragement of my curiosity and love of learning; to my sister Dalya, for her continued reassurance; to my children Yani and Maya, as well as Honey and Chari, for always being there and helping me maintain my perspective; and especially to my husband George for living through the highs and lows of graduate school once more and for never doubting that I should, could, and would finish this disser- tation and anything else I ever wanted to do. TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures ........................ v11 CHAPTER I: THE BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM ........... 1 Introduction ....................... 1 Titles and Trends .................... 3 Supervision ..................... 3 Teacher Centers ................... 4 Teacher Development ................. 5 The State of the Art ................... 6 The Cynicism .................... 6 The Reasons ..................... 7 The Complexity ................... 8 The Threat to Teachers ............... 10 The Research on Staff Development ............ ll Overview ...................... ll Effective and Preferred Programs .......... l2 Supervisory Conferences ............... l4 Limitations of the Current Research ........... 18 What the Research Provides ............. 18 What the Research Doesn't Provide .......... l9 CHAPTER II: THE STUDY .................... 22 Introduction to the Study ................ 22 The Questions ...................... 23 The Broad Questions ................. 23 The Middle-Range Questions ............. 25 The Lower-Level Questions .............. 26 Conclusion ..................... 26 Ethnographic Research: Methods and Rationale ...... 27 The Importance of Context .............. 30 Summary ....................... 33 The Research Process ................... 35 Introduction .................... 35 Data Gathering ................... 36 Sources of Data ................ 38 Data Analysis .................... 4O Discourse Analysis ............... 43 Kinesic and Paralinguistic Analysis ...... 45 Cross-Checking ................. 45 The Generation of Theory .............. 46 Summary of the Process ............... 49 iv The Theoretical Framework ................ Status and Role ................... Defining the Situation ............... Culture-Shared Knowledge .............. Dynamic Dimensions ................. A Working Consensus ................. An Analytical Model ................. Summary of the Study ................... CHAPTER III: THREE CASE STUDIES ............... Introduction ....................... The Setting ....................... The Staff Developer ................. The Research Site .................. The Student Body .................. The Faculty ..................... The School Community ................ The Formal Network ............... The Informal Network .............. The Staff Developer's Relationship to the School . . The IGE Workshop .................. The Staff Developer's Schedule ........... The Case Studies ..................... Case Study 1: Betty, Anita, and Jack .......... Case Case Searching for the Problem with the Principal . . . Negotiating the Agenda ............... Searching for the Problem with the Teacher ..... Carrying out the Problem Discussion with the Teacher ....................... Reaching Consensus with the Teacher ......... Carrying out the Problem Discussion with the Principal ...................... Reaching Consensus with Principal .......... Summary of Case Study I ............... Study II: Betty and Pete .............. The Context ..................... Searching for the Problem .............. Negotiating the Agenda ............... Carrying out the Problem Discussion ......... Reaching Consensus ................. Summary of Case Study II .............. Study III: Betty, Lydia, and Joanne ........ The Context . . .g .................. Searching for the Problem .............. Negotiating the Agenda ............... Carrying out the Problem Discussion ......... Reaching Consensus ................. Summary of Case Study III .............. 156 CHAPTER IV : STEPPING BACK: THE CASE STUDIES IN PERSPECTIVE Introduction ....................... Summa Simil ry ......................... Case Study I .................... Case Study II .................... Case Study III ................... The Effect of Consensus ............... arities and Differences ............... The Complexities and Ambiguities ............. Multiple Realities ................. Multiple Roles ................... The N Reach The Q CHAPTER V: Impli Impli Impli Multiple Dimensions of the Role ......... . . egotiations ..................... Status and Roles .................. Issues of Face ................... ing Consensus .................... uestions and Conclusions .............. IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY ............. cations for Practice ................ cations for Staff Developers ............ cations for Further Study .............. Theory Building in Staff Development ........... Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F References OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO vi 159 159 160 161 164 168 171 172 175 175 176 178 180 181 183 186 188 191 191 194 197 201 205 223 232 234 236 237 242 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Time sequence of role and postural shifts--case study II . . 165 2. Time sequence of role and postural shifts--case study III . . l69 vii CHAPTER I THE BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM Introduction Staff development is generally defined as all deliberate efforts to improve the practices of classroom teachers. In spite of what is known about effective classroom practices, it has been very difficult to convey this knowledge to teachers, either directly or systematically. Staff development has become the subject of much discussion, theorizing, research, and practice over the years; but the problem remains the same: how can teachers learn how to teach better? Many answers have been attempted, but none have answered that very basic question. In this study staff development has been looked at as it occurs in order to gain a better understanding of why it is so difficult to enact successfully. The complexities and dynamics of the interactions be- tween a staff developer and a group of teachers and administrators have been described and analyzed in order to gain more insight into the prob- lems of staff development, how the process is enacted, and under what conditions or circumstances it is successful. Over the years staff development has been simultaneously condemned and extolled, viewed as a potential panacea by some and with hostility and contempt by others. It is abhorred if authoritarian, praised if democratic, and viewed with suspicion if scientific. It attempts to solve all the cognitive, behavioral, and social-emotional problems that teachers may have by way of a single methodology.* It has been called instructional supervision/clinical supervision/organizational development/staff development, and it has been carried out by advi~ sors/teacher facilitators/program facilitators/helping teachers/ supervisors/clinical supervisors/organizational developers/staff de- velopers/consultants in places such as teachers' classrooms, school buildings, district offices, college campuses, and teacher centers. In spite of the problems with "whatever-it-is," it continues to exist to some extent in nearly every school district in this and other countries and, in fact, may be experiencing a resurgence of current in- terest, both in spite of and because of budget difficulties. Districts have had to lay off newer and untenured teachers, so tenured teachers find they can no longer depend on "new blood" to keep the schools abreast of new ideas, techniques, or trends or to maintain high levels of enthusiasm for the profession in general. Instead, districts must consider the needs of the existing staff members for what is widely called "inservice education" or "professional development." The 1981 Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) Yearbook has called "staff development" one of the most important and compell- ing issues in education today, especially as it affects educational leadership. The president of this organization, Barbara Day, stated: Change and growth are endemic in our complex modern society; the school or staff which does not change and grow is des- tined to atrophy, to become obsolete, and to be a burden *The descriptive terminology was borrowed from R. H. Weller, 1971, pp. 1,6. I couldn't improve upon it. rather than a bulwark to us and to the communities we serve. This is particularly true in view of the increasing pres- sure put on our institutions by the upward expansion of the whole learning cycle (Dillon-Peterson, 1981, p. vii). Bruce Joyce (1981), in a review of the history of school change and motivations, reiterated and added to this statement about the impor- tance of staff development. He said: ...substantial, continuous staff development is essential to the improvement of schooling and, equally important, to the development of the capability for the continuous renewal of education. A static school is a dying school. Staff de- velopment is one essential ingredient of a lively, dynamic school that improves itself through the release of a self- feeding energy born of the quest for understanding about how creative teaching and learning can best take place (p. 117). Titles and Trends Finding a title for the practice of staff development and the peo- ple who do it is an example of its difficulty and contraditions. The changing preferences for what to call the act of improving practicing inservice teachers' performance through planned interventions provides some insight into what has been learned over the years. Supervision The most common term over an extended period of time has been "super- vision." It is still in use, but usually connotes an evaluative function It implies that one person, the supervisor, has the power to pass judg- ment upon the other and, therefore, has more status as well as knowledge or skills. Within the field of supervision, there have been several variations and interpretations which have been tied to general historical trends. The earliest trend was known as "supervision as inspection" which involved assessing teachers in order to maintain common standards of instruction and to make decisions about retaining or promoting teach- ers (Mosher & Purpel, 1972). From about 1920 to 1950, there were two major theories of supervision. One was known as "scientific supervi- sion" which emphasized careful empirical research to discover educa- tional laws and then applying these laws through the labors of the teachers (Lucio & McNeil, 1962). Another, called "democratic super- vision£'grew out of the progressive education tradition and emphasized the dignity of the individual teacher and full staff involvement in educational planning and policy formulation (Lucio & McNeil, 1962). In the 19605 a commonly used term was ”clinical supervision." It differed from the older concept of supervision both in how it was prac- ticed and in its goals. In practice it means "supervision up close” and "supervision of actual practice" (Goldhammer, 1969, p. 54), and it al- ways implied some sort of face-to-face relationship between a supervisor and a teacher. Its goal was to develop in teachers "a conviction and a value that teaching, as an intellectual and social act, is subject to intellectual analysis" (Mosher & Purpel, 1972, p. 79). Teacher Centers Another type of inservice grew out of teachers' reactions to being supervised or "judged" as well as their own needs to get answers to specific questions or have certain issues addressed. This was provided by people called "advisors" or "resource teachers" who responded to specific teachers' requests in places called "teacher centers." Teacher centers became popular during the late sixties and early seventies and still continue to exist. But what went on in these centers and what their advocates mean differed widely. According to Feiman (1977), some advocates used ...the language and logic of behavioral psychology, systems analysis and management planning. They [spoke] of cost/ effective settings for retooling teachers. Others [used] the lexicon of humanistic psychology; still others, develop- mental learning theory. These latter advocates [talked] of supportive environments where teachers learn on their own and from each other, and integrate this learning into their personal and professional lives (pp. 85-86). These conceptual differences paralleled those of scientific and demo- cratic supervision but also reflected the amount of opinion and knowl- edge that was surfacing about how supervision, or the act of one per- son's attempting to improve the practice of another, was or could be coercive and threatening to the teacher. Teacher Development More recently inservice education has been described in terms of "development" such as developmental supervision, organizational develop- ment, and staff or professional development. Concepts of teacher de- velopment have enjoyed increasing popularity in recent years (Feiman & Floden, 1980), partly because it resolved the controversy of whether teacher educators are "training” or "educating" teachers by presenting another, more ambiguous term, and partly because it presented another way of looking at teacher growth. The term "development" means growth, expansion, and evolution; and as in biological development, it connotes that there are specific stages through which all teachers pass even- tually until they reach "maturity." The use of this term resolved the issue of whether inservice education for teachers should be considered remedial, as many felt was implied by the term "supervision," or developmental. It means that questions of "teacher deficiencies” could be reconsidered in terms of their stages of growth or skill development. Specifically, the term "developmental supervision" as discussed by Glickman (1981) assumed that there were methods or orientations through which all teachers would learn to teach, some of which were more appro- priate than others for meeting specific purposes for teachers at varying stages along the developmental continuum. In practice, it meant that teachers' specific needs could best be met through individualized ses- sions rather than through large group sessionscn~university courses. The term "staff development" will be used throughout this study because it is the term most commonly used at this point in history. It must be recognized, however, that this term, as with "supervision" or "teacher centers, means different things to different people. Its definition, as currently used by the National Institute of Education and others, avoids the theoretical controversies and refers only to all deliberative efforts and planned interventions upon the natural development and socialization processes of school faculty members. The State of the Art This section reflects that the ambiguity about what to name the practice of helping teachers to improve as well as the theoretical differences about how teachers improve also pervades how staff de- velopment has been enacted over the years. The Cynicism In spite of the fact that staff development not only exists, but also way be going through a resurgence of interest, it is generally agreed that ...what we have now in the way of staff development isn't very good. Teachers, administrators, researchers, and bureaucrats agree that current staff development or in- service programs are irrelevant, ineffective, and generally a waste of time and money (McLaughlin, 1977, p. 76). In the same article, it was written that staff development as it is commonly enacted "appears to be a hodgepodge of incompatible workshops and courses" which were based on no conceptual model. In another, less kind, article by Rubin (1971), the three-faceted conclusion was: (1) teacher professional growth has not been taken seri- ously, (2) it lacks systematic methodology, and (3) has been managed with astonishing clumsiness (p. 245). Goldhammer (1969) questioned both the lack of content and process in staff development, stating that "both its stuff and its methods tend to be random, residual, frequently archaic, and eclectic in the worst sense” (viii). The Reasons Such expressionscyfcynicism about the state of the art of staff de- velopment are extremely common in the literature and frequently precede recommendations for new programs, systems, or "revolutionary" techniques to improve this unfortunate state of affairs. Some, however, have begun to suggest that the reasons for this unfortunate situation are, in fact, complex and pervasive. Wefller (1971) suggested that ...both supervisor and supervisee face formidable obstacles [because they lack a] specifically identifiable "product" in an area where changes are difficult to justify, produce, or even measure, and where prompt feedback is practically non- existent (p. 1). B. M. Harris (1965) focused on some of the elements of the complexity of the supervisor or staff developer's role: The work of supervisors is characterized by very diverse hu- man relationships, a multiplicity of kinds of tasks, and no fixed locus of operation. The supervisor works in many or- ganziational climates, deals extensively with subordinates, peers, and superordinates, ranges over a wide variety of sub- stantive and procedural problems, produces no readily visible product, is held only vaguely accountable for certain on- going events in the school, and is almost immune to systematic evaluation (p. 87). Anderson and Krajewski (1980) in their recent revision of Goldham- mer's work have spoken of the problem of dealing with the numerous goals and definitions of staff development. What they term "clinical supervision" has nine different but interrelated perspectives, prere- quisites, or goals: (a) a technology for improving instruction; (b) a deliberate intervention into instructional processes; (c) goal-oriented, combining social and personal growth needs; (d) a working relationship between teachers and supervisors; (e) requiring mutual trust; (f) a systematic process that requires flexible methodology; (9) an approach that generates a productive tension; (h) assuming that the supervisor knows more about instruction and learning than teachers; and (i) a sys- tem that requires training. The Complexity This role of staff developer is necessarily enormously complex be- cause of the various definitions of teacher growth, the multitude of opinions about how to foster positive change, and the differing defini- tions of what positive change in teachers looks like. Understanding this role becomes even more complex when one considers the multidimen- sional aspects of the pggplgf-the staff developer and the teachers or administrators with whom he/she works and the kinds of relationships that exist and develop between these people; the context--the timing and place, the personal knowledge about each others' background, history of previous interactions, etc.; and the kinds of problems that are faced in staff development--the infinite range of practical and substantive issues that teachers and staff developers confront. Another source of complexity deals with the diversity of roles played by a staff developer. These roles are related to the various expectations and responsibilities of staff development. Each may re- quire different approaches or emphases and certainly different theore- tical perspectives and backgrounds of knowledge ranging from counsel- ing to cognitive psychology to behaviorism. Finally, each requires much practical knowledge about curriculum, sources of information, classroom organization, and district policies. Gwynn (1961) summa- rized these multiple roles and expectations: Some authorities would make the supervisor a strictly pro- fessional official, highly trained to do a major adminis- trative job. Another group would go far in the opposite direction, divorcing the supervisor from administrative duties and responsibilities; this action would result in a supervisor whose main responsibility is to help teachers meet their problems. A third group of educators would make the supervisor's position mainly that of a teacher of teachers, improving instruction through programs of in- service education. A fourth group, active and vocal, would center the emphasis around human relations; they would in- terpret the supervisor's responsibility as the effective use of group processes with teachers, pupils, and other school personnel. A fifth group regards supervision as a task including supervision and curriculum revision or cur- riculum rebuilding; in this dual role the supervisor has to add to the responsibility of helping teachers the allied responsibility of stimulating curriculum development (pp. 27-28 . Unfortunately, it is often the case that these multiple roles and duties of the staff developer are neither clarified nor specified at the time a staff developer is hired. This leaves the individual, the hiring agency and the teachers with whom this staff developer works in a position of 10 constantly having to negotiate and prioritize what he/she is doing-- administrating, helping teachers, teaching teachers, improving curricu- lum, etc. The greatest frustration to staff developers, according to McDaniel (1981) is the contradictory expectations of teachers. This grows out of both the lack of clarification of a staff developer's priorities, the unrelenting demands upon the individual's use of time, and conflicting ideas about how he/she should carry out this role. McDaniel felt that this put the staff developer in a "no win" situa- tion of dealing with these conflicting dilemmas because any decision could be challenged or questioned. The Threat to Teachers One common explanation of the cause of the problems of staff de- velopment relates to the face-threatening quality of any situation in which one person is expected to "help" or "change" another. The most commonly mentioned source of threat is in the evaluative function of staff developers. In some situations, this function is explicit be- cause the staff developer makes recommendations about rating, promotion, tenure, and salary increases (Goldhammer, 1969). In other cases, this function is more implicit. Another source of anxiety deals with judg- ments' being made unilaterally and the degree to which teachers feel that they are valid (Withall and Wood, 1979). It was suggested that this source of anxiety could be alleviated if the teacher participated in identifying aims, procedures, and assessment processes (Weiner, 1974) Social psychologists have spoken of the problem of resistance to change. Change is, of course, the intent of staff 11 development (Lewin, 1948). Change suggests a "better way" of doing things which puts questions on the "old way" and with it the teacher's dignity, professional standing, and self-confidence. Another problem is the inequality of the relationship between staff developer and teacher. Carl Pickhardt (1981), a psychologist, makes the point that because staff developers are trying to help_teachers, that alone puts them in a position of power. He says that it is a miscon- ception to consider "help" an offering or gift. The staff developer is asked for help by the teacher because it is thought that the individual posses the understanding or knowledge needed. The greater the urgency of the problem, the greater the potency of the staff developer's power. He adds that while the staff developer has the power to give help, the teacher also has power to receive or refuse that help. These problems offer potential explanations for the difficulties inherent in staff development. The next step is to look at the re- search that has been done and how it attempts to deal with these prob- lems. The Research on Staff Development Overview Because the "art" of staff development has generated such cynicism and was found to be both very complex and inherently threatening to teachers, many of the researchers who have focused on staff development, as opposed to supervision, have chosen to look at successful and pre- ferred programs of staff development in order to gain more knowledge of what "good" staff development looked like. These will be summarized briefly as will those studies which have focused on supervisory 12 conferences which have been found to be the most frequently used and most effective practice with both preservice and inservice teachers (Nichlas, 1960; Bennis, 1964; Wilkinson, 1958; Bradley, 1966). Effective and Preferred Staff Development Programs Probably the most extensive study of staff development was the four-year, two-phased study done by the Rand Corporation beginning in 1975 which included extensive surveys of teachers and administrators as well as some observational field studies. The researchers initially looked at successful educational innovations in general, but also found that effective staff development had basic similarities to educational innovations in that (a) they both presented a variety of options, (b) had flexible program formats, (c) stressed individual and small group learning, and (d) were "concrete, ongoing, and teacher specific" (Berman & McLaughlin, 1978). The Rand study found that effective staff development programs sup- ported some precepts of learning theory such as (a) learners have dif- ferent needs at different times, (b) the learners themselves must iden- tify their own learning needs, (c) the learners must be willing to learn and needed incentives. It was found, however, that money had either insignificant or even negative effects as an incentive, but that staff support activities such as regular problem-solving project meetings in which teachers were actively involved in decision making or classroom acceptance by resource personnel were extremely important in enabling teachers to carry on successful programs (McLaughlin & Marsh, 1978). The Rand study also found that the most important concept behind effective staff development was the administrative and district 13 recognition of teachers as professionals and learners. This was found to be even more important than any of the specifics of the staff de- velopment program (McLaughlin, 1977). Another study which generalized about successful programs was based on a comparison of 97 other studies or evaluation reports of in- service education (Lawrence, 1974). Findings similar to those of the Rand study were discovered. Lawrence found that programs with indi- vidualized activities were more likely to meet the objectives of teach- ers and staff developers than were programs involving large groups. Programs which emphasized demonstrations, trials, and feedback were found to be more effective than lettures. School-based programs in which teachers participated in planning, influenced complex kinds of behavior changes, such as attitudes and beliefs, more than did programs which were run by outsiders. Some other studies based on interviews with teachers, administra- tors, and college faculty reported on the kinds of programs which were preferred by teachers and administrators. Over 1000 interviews were conducted by Joyce (1976) and his colleagues, and the resulting opinions and concerns again confirmed that teachers preferred to have more re- sponsibility for program content and saw "timeliness" as the crucial determinant for content. Johnston and Yeakey (1977) found in another survey that administra- tors and teachers differed in their ideas about preferred content and who should plan and conduct workshops. There were common themes across all of these studies on both effective and preferred programs of staff development that again emphasized the need for more teacher participa- tion in staff development programs, more active participation in program 14 activities, and programs based on individualized needs. In a later study of trends in inservice teacher education programs (Cruickshank, Lorish, & Thompson, 1979), it was found that, indeed, the preferences and findings of effectiveness as determined by the Rand study, Lawrence, Joyce, and Johnston and Yeakey had been utilized in determining content, planning, and structure of inservice education. Supervisory Conferences Much of the research on the general area of staff development has been limited to studies of effective and preferred programs. Some of these deal with unique needs of special programs or local contexts, but almost all are based on survey research and reflect the primary findings stated previously: the need to give teachers the opportunity, support, and resources to make instructional innovations of their own (Esposito, 1981). There has, however, been a great deal of research on supervision which deals specifically with student teachers and college-based super- visory staff. The difference, of course, is that experienced teachers have different needs and want to be treated as professionals, whereas student teachers still have the primary status of students and have a variety of expectations. The similarity is that supervisory work with preservice or inservice teachers has the basic goal of improving the quality of instruction primarily in the format of conferences and con- sultations. Some of the relevant work will be cited in order to show what is known about the work of supervisors and supervisory conferences that has implications for experienced teachers as well as beginners. 15 Most of the studies about what supervisors do typically use data acquired from questionnaires or direct observations (Mosher & Purpel, 1972). One of the most sophisticated studies in this area has been re- ported by Blumberg and Amidon (1965) who studied how teachers perceive the conference, the supervisor's behavior, and the apparent consequences They asked 166 teachers to classify the frequency of‘ their' supervi- sors' direct or indirect behavior. They spoke of "direct" behavior as giving information or opinion, directions, and criticism, and of "in- direct” behavior as accepting feelings and ideas, giving praise or en- couragement, and asking questions to the teacher. The teachers were also asked to evaluate their supervisors on standards of "communicative freedom" and supportiveness, learning outcome, amount of supervisory talk, and general productivity in the conference. The Blumberg and Amidon study concluded that (a) teachers tend to regard supervision conferences as more productive when they are primar- ily indirect (i.e., characterized by the eliciting and acceptance of the teacher's ideas and feelings and by positive reinforcement of the teacher); (b) when the supervisor uses a combination of both high direct and high indirect behavior, teachers learn more about themselves as teachers and as people; (c) if the supervisor is highly directive, free- dom of communication is curtailed; and (d) teachers were most dissatis- fied with supervisors who minimize or deemphasized indirect behavior (Blumberg, 1974). Procedures for describing and analyzing conferences between super- visors and student teachers, interns, and experienced teachers have been developed by Blumberg and Amidon, Brown and Hoffman (1966), Heidelback (1967), and Weller (1969). The latter instrument is called 16 Multidimensional Observational System for the Analysis of Interactions in Clinical Supervision (M.O.S.A.I.C.S.) and is based on some of the earlier systems and is one of the most comprehensive. It provides ob- jective data about the patterns of communications, the content of the conference, the logic of the discussion (e.g., definition, explanation, evaluation, justification, opinion, etc.), and procedural aspects of the conference. Data were gathered from tape recordings of conferences between clinical supervisors and interns in the Harvard-Newton Summer School. The goal of the clinical supervision program was to improve "instruction through systematic and continuing cycles of planning, ob- servation, and intensive intellectual analysis and evaluation" (Weller, 1971, p. 135). A preliminary study was done in the science department of the sum- mer school to show the use and potentialities of the research instru- ment. Weller found through the use of this instrument that 93% of con- ference time involved the analysis of instruction and almost 100% fo- cused on instruction, supervision, or subject matter with very little time spent in nonpertinent areas of discussion. The focus of the in- struction was divided between methods and materials (37.3%), instruc- tional interactions (35.9%), and objectives and content (20%). Two- thirds of the discussions in clinical supervision concentrated on the cognitive domain, and one-third was on the affective and social- disciplinary domain. These results tell more about the specific clini- cal supervision program used than they do about conferences in general, but these provide a basis of comparison. Weller concluded generally that 17 ...clinical supervision in the science department of the Harvard-Newton Summer School is definitely not a one-sided affair in which the supervisor transmits information and advice to novice teachers. Rather it is an intense intel- lectual analysis and evaluation of complex instructional issues in which all participants are actively engaged (p. 186). Blumberg and Cusick (1970) also used tape recordings of conferences between supervisors and teachers to study the nature of the interaction. They coded the interactions in 15 behavioral categories (support- inducing communications behavior; praise; accepts or uses teacher's ideas; asks for information; gives information; asks for opinions; asks for suggestions; gives opinions; gives suggestions; criticism; asks for information, opinions, or suggestions; gives information, opinions, or suggestions; positive social emotional behavior; negative social emo- tional behavior; and silence or confusion). In the analysis of 50 recordings, they found that 45% of the con- ference time was used in supervisor—talk, 53% was teacher-talk, and 2% was silence or confusion. Supervisors gave information more than five times as often as they asked for it, and their behavior was direct one- third more often that it was indirect. They also found that supervisors asked opinions of teachers about one and one-half times more often than they gave them and that supervisors told teachers what to do seven times more often than they asked for the teachers' ideas. Blumberg and Cusick concluded that there were questions to be raised about the inadequate interpersonal skills and insights possessed by many supervisors, the level of training they received, and how selection of supervisory per- sonnel was carried out. These two examples about the content of supervisory conferences are part of a large body of research, but are among the few that investigate 18 actual conference behavior rather than participants' perceptions. While these two examples have been directed toward developing concep- tual tools for analyzing verbal behavior, they tend to focus on treat- ment effects of different supervisory programs or approaches. They provide more substantive data on supervisory conferences than most other studies, but they still add little to our knowledge about the process of supervision or staff development as it is actually enacted in face-to-face interactions. Limitations of the Current Research What the Research Provides Most of the studies reviewed concentrate on programs of inservice education and the techniques and strategies, etc., which have been found effective and are preferred by teachers. This knowledge has been par- ticularly valuable for those people at the district or state level who are responsible for staff development. The knowledge that teachers want to be involved in planning inservice and prefer and learn more from in- dividualized programs has indicated that staff development really has to occur at the building level rather than at the district or state level. It has also indicated that a good portion of staff development should occur in conferences between one staff developer and one or two teachers who have similar concerns or needs. As a result of the research and the political, social, and economic trends in this country, teachers are not only asking for more direct control over their professional lives; they are demanding it. Fewer and fewer teachers are willing to allow administrators to uni- laterally determine their needs, their salaries, or their working 19 conditions. Likewise, teachers are not willing to accept deficit models of inservice which make assumptions that they are deficient in certain skills or have inadequate knowledge, as determined by other people, but insist upon developmental models. Instead, they are asking for and demanding recognition of themselves as professionals who are willing and capable of determining their own needs and cooperating with administrators in fulfilling their needs. The idea that teachers want efficacy in their careers implies that developmental models of inservice, based on assumptions that teachers can and will identify their own professional needs, will be the most effective in creating positive change. If such is the case, a great deal of inservice will likely take place in small group conferences. Then, it is thought that the outcome of the conference is dependent upon the effectiveness of the staff developer. It is commonly thought that the success of a conference depends upon the social-emotional climate created by the staff developer and that the ability to create this cli- mate is made up of techniques and strategies of using praise, ques- tioning, timing, etc., which a successful staff developer possesses (Kindsvatter & Wilen, 1981). The research has quantified different types of verbal behavior and has implied that some combinations are preferred or more effective, but has only stated which are most fre- quently used. What the Research Doesn't Provide At this point, there is very little research to guide the indivi- dual staff developer. He/She is left to depend upon intuition or very generalized statements about the importance of developing a "trust 20 relationship" or using praise especially if it is specific and is per- ceived as authentic (Kindsvatter & Wilen, 1981) or of letting the teach- ers give their own opinions and ideas (Blumberg & Cusick, 1970). The problem with these statements is that judgments might differ on such things as the patience of the staff developer as a listener or whether his/her questions encourage the teacher to reflect and analyze or whether a trust relationship has been established. What the field of staff development doesn't know at this point in history is what actually happens when a staff developer and a teacher meet to solve problems. How did or didn't the staff developer create a comfortable, productive climate? How or when did he/she use praise or different questioning strategies, and how did they affect the working relationship between the teacher and the staff developer? The most sensitive and unanswerable questions deal with the face-threatening quality of staff development which is so prevalent in the literature. Did the teacher appear to be defensive? Did he/she become more or less defensive during the course of the interaction with the staff de- veloper? What happened to affect this change? How did the teacher ex- press or show defensive behavior? What did the staff developer do about it? How, in fact, did he/she recognize it? These and many more questions may lead to an understanding of the dynamics of staff development. They focus on the process of interven- tion and, hopefully, will provide understanding of how or why staff developers affect the performance of teachers and influence the impact of the intervention. Answers to these questions may be able to lead to a better understanding of the complexity of staff development and why, in fact, it is so hard to accomplish effectively. Knowing what works in 21 general terms does not give specific information about why it works or how it works. Simple answers are not forthcoming. They will not tell us how to do it because staff development is not simple and neither are the processes that it involves. It is exceedingly complex; but until we have a better understanding of these complexities--what they are and how they function--we cannot really understand the function of staff development and its consequences. As stated by Fox (1981): Without a comparative increase in our empirically-based knowledge about the staff developer's role in the develop- ment of teachers, our understanding of how effective staff development is performed and why certain interventions are or are not effective will be incomplete, faulty, and unrealistic (p. 1). CHAPTER II THE STUDY Introduction to the Study Staff development, as a field designed to improve teaching prac- tices, has proven to be an enigma for practitioners and researchers alike. The more that is learned about effective practices and pre- ferred programs, the more elusive it has become to replicate those pro- grams and practices in small group conferences, showing that the theory does not determine the practice in and of itself. Even when "effec- tiveness" can be recognized and scrutinized for common patterns, it still isn't understood how it pggpmg_effective. The "ingredients" of successful staff development interactions such as warm climate, trust- ing atmosphere, active listening, etc., can be specified, but the ”directions” for reproducing this combination is missing. The goal of this study was to look at the process of staff develop- ment in order to understand how some staff development interventions were effective. The purpose was to develop a greater understanding of the working dynamics of the process, specifically that part which was enacted in conferences between teachers and a staff developer. The attempt was to study systematically how the participants in such a con- ference made sense of an outwardly complex and potentially ambiguous phenomenon and to learn when, if, or how the conference became an oppor- tunity for the teachers to learn new skills or attitudes or to otherwise 22 23 change their teaching behavior. In trying to portray what actually hap- pened when a staff developer met with teachers, and to discover how these participants collaborated on making sense of the situation and co- ordinated and synchronized their relative behavior, it was necessary to focus on the whole event of the staff development conference. In order to study how the roles of the participants were enacted and to gain a complete picture of the event, it was necessary to try to unravel the various goals and perspectives of the participants and to describe the events as they saw them and, at the same time, to keep in mind all the goals, demands, and built-in conflicts of the individuals and their relationships to each other and to the overall system. Just as importantly, it was necessary to see how these goals and perspectives, demands, and conflicts interacted within each individual. This meant going beyond defining categories of behavior which were determined by outsiders in the situation or beyond the self-report data of what the various individuals said they were doing, thinking, or ought to be doing or thinking. It involved focusing on the interactional event of the staff development conference in order to describe how it unfolded and how the details or analytic categories functioned together to pro- duce the event. This chapter covers the study's motivating questions, the research methods, the theoretical framework, and analysis of the data. The Questions The Broad Questions The study was based on three sets of questions in descending order of comprehensiveness. The first set included the broadest and most 24 general question which underlies the field of staff development: hpw can positive change in teachers be facilitated? Although it was not directly answerable within the scope of this study, it was maintained in order to preserve the broad perspective for this and other research. It represents the goal for the entire field. The next two questions, also at the broadest and most comprehensive level, focused on the enactment of the role of the staff developer and how the job was accomplished. The second question asked how was the role of the staff developer enacted. Since we know that this or any role does not exist separately from other roles and contexts, it was necessary to frame the inquiry in terms of the negotiation of roles between the expertise, working style, goals, and personality of the staff developer and the needs, goals, and personality of the people with whom she worked. It was also necessary to consider the physical setting of the school and the confines or limitations it imposed. One aspect of the enactment of the staff developer's role dealt with the status and role of the various participants--how each conceptualized and made sense of his/her own status and role within the interaction and how they were negotiated during the course of the interaction. The third broad-level question asked how can culture-sharing oeople make sense of each other in face-to-face interactions? What did various behaviors mean? How did others interpret and react to them? And how did these reactions shape the rest of the interaction? What enabled people, in general, to behave sensibly with others? What information was used in making interpretations about another's behavior and in pre- dicting what was likely to occur next? People of any culture interact continuously with each other and carry out a very complicated series of 25 actions and reactions in very routine ways. How they do this remains a mystery to those both inside and outside the culture. They can do it, but they cannot explain how they do it. The series of behaviors that are repeated daily with infinite variation have been internalized to such an extent that they can't be explained easily or objectively. Outsiders may question the ritualized series of behaviors that they may see, but are not privy to the answers, while insiders may be able to locate the answers if they had the questions. The Middle-Range Questions The middle-range questions related to a specific staff developer in the multiple contexts of her work. The first question asked: how are interactions between the staff develpper and her clients patterned? The second and third questions asked: how are theseppatterns of interac- tions sequenced? and how, when, and why do the patterns change? The primary attempt was to determine the order and logic of the interactions between this staff developer and teachers in order to see how the parti- cipants used this order to organize their behavior. Some of the speci- fic questions in this category dealt with cues and strategies they used to determine the appropriate context and to direct or control it. How were these relationships established? How did these patterns, once es- tablished, affect the teaching and learning goals of the participants? The intent was that by locating and studying these patterns of behavior in a variety of cases involving a single staff developer, generaliza- tions could be made to a broader class of relationships between teachers and those who try to help them. The second set of questions fell in the middle-range of comprehen- siveness. The answers to these questions were not based on directly 26 observable behavior, nor were they representative of grounded theory re- lating to staff development in general. This set of questions provided the conceptual linkage between what was observed and how it made sense. It dealt with the general patterns of interactions between one staff developer and the teachers with whom he/she interacted. In looking for these general patterns of the interactions, hanges became the focus of attention: what changed, when it changed, and what seemed to precipi- tate or follow these changes. Also, identifying and locating a se- quence of patterned behavior became an intermediate goal and a source of working hypotheses. The Lower-Level Questions The third set of questions dealt with the specifics of directly ob- servable behavior. The attempt was systematically to gather informa- tion about how this specific individual Operated with different teach- ers. What did she do and how did she do it? How did she spend her time? How did new teachers learn who she was and what she did in the school? What was her status in the school, both formally and inform- ally? How did she develop her working strategies with different teach- ers? Why did many teachers describe her in similar ways when she ap- peared to work with them differently? Why was she called "effective”? What could we learn from a careful study of her behavior that might ap- ply to staff development in general? Conclusion Although the three sets of questions went from the most comprehen- sive to the most specific, that did not imply that the researcher worked on one set at a time or in one direction only. The questions at the lowest 27 level led to understanding or answers at the middle level, but the broadest issues affected the questions that were asked and what was seen as salient at lower levels. Therefore, it was necessary to keep all three sets in focus and to work up and down the levels of ques- tions in order to fit the answers together and draw conclusions about the general phenomenon of staff develOpment. The multiple data sources provided answers to the lowest level of questions, but the co- hesion of the final product came from weaving the multiple questions and answers together. Ethnographic Research: Method and Rationale The approach used to answer these questions was one that focused on interactional behavior in staff development conferences and its meaning as it occurred in its social context. In order to answer both the gen- eral and specific questions, it was necessary to maintain and consider the complexities of the interactions rather than to try to simplify and measure them. The ultimate aim was understanding of a multidimensional, complex phenomenon. The researcher's intent was to capture and examine the process of staff development in time and space with all of its dyna- mic qualities intact. Questions that generally ask "What is happening here?" or "What do these events mean to the pe0p1e involved in them?” are called ethnographic because they depend on descriptions and analysis of naturally occurring events for answers. An ethnography is an attempt to describe the procedures group mem- bers use to relate to each other in culturally sensible ways (Cicourel, 1974; Frake, 1974; Garfinkel, 1967). People use knowledge to generate and interpret social behavior, and this knowledge is learned and to 28 some extent shared between members of a culture (Spradley and McCurdy, 1972). In order for an ethnographer (or anthropologist) to answer ”What's happening?” questions, he/she must go beyond objective descrip- tion of the pe0ple and their behavior from an observer's viewpoint. He/She must attempt to discover the knowledge that the insiders must have in order to produce this behavior. Ethnographic research can be said to strive to reveal “what every- body knows“ (Davis, 1971) by capturing the participant's actual prac- tice. Mehan (1979) states, ”I see a major purpose of constitutive ethnography to be the presentation of information that the participants themselves already 'know' but may not have been able to articulate." This recognition by participants serves as an affirmation of the re- searcher's description because they are the knowledgeable members of a culture-sharing group. The hoped for results of ethnographic research is a description of events that uncovers and makes explicit the insti- tution of the people being studied. Frake (1969) states: Ethnography...is a description which seeks to account for the behavior of a people by describing the socially ac- quired and shared knowledge of a culture that enables mem— bers of the society to behave in ways deemed appropriate among themselves....Accounting for socially meaningful be- havior within a given society is not the sole aim of eth- nography. By developing methods for the demonstrably suc- cessful description of messages, as manifestations of a code, one is further seeking to build a theory of codes--a theory of culture (p. 123). This is the same whether it is linguistic knowledge being described (Chomsky, 1965; Hymes, 1974), cultural knowledge (Tyler, 1969), or, more simply, ”commonplace" knowledge (Schutz, 1962; Garfinkel, 1967). In each case the goal is to make the implicit explicit and the invis- ible visible. 29 Ethnographic methods assume that people work at interpreting what is occurring and then attempt to respond in ways that they consider to be appropriate to the situation. They give cues to each other in their speech, body movements, and facial expressions and thus inform each other of what is going on and what is going to happen next (McDermott, 1976) This mutuality is another important assumption underlying eth- nography that distinguishes it from other methodologies used to study social situations. Ways of listening and speaking create impressions and reactions of the other person which, in turn, create further impressions and influ- ence future reactions of the first speaker. In this way conversations are reflexive and jointly produced (Erickson & Shultz, in press). Actions, etc., are not seen as unidirectional; that is, one person act- ing on the other. Teachers don't teach by assuming that their students are passive receptacles to their personality, styles of teaching, atti- tudes, and practices. They orient their behavior, plan their lessons, and make predictions of how students might react by considering the needs, attitudes, and attributes of their students (Becker, Geer, & Hughes, 1968). Furthermore, students can mediate teachers' behaviors by how they participate or the degree to which they cooperate in class (Doyle, 1980). Likewise, staff developers do not deliver their skills and knowledge to teachers without considering and reacting to the needs and behavior of the teachers. The context is not a vacuum of activity or meaning, but a dynamic, ever-changing environment. How the context is created affects the learning that takes place, how it takes place, and if it takes place. 30 A final assumption of ethnography, particularly of microethnogra- phy or constitutive ethnography, is that the ways people express them- selves in their talk and their action is not only available to their interactive partners in order to generate further behaviors, but also is available to the researcher. Although the participants in an event do not articulate the structure of their behavior, they must interpret the on-going behaviors of their co-participants in order to determine what is appropriate behavior. These same behaviors are also available to the ethnographer if he/she can gain access to the insider's tacit knowledge and point of view (C00per, 1979). An ethnographer can uncover and explore what the participants are doing and how they are making sense to each other by studying their lin- guistic and nonverbal behavior in the contexts in which they are oc- curring. There are some occasions when this is easier to do, especially if there have been some breaches in the formulated order so that the participants have to struggle to maintain order in their relationship, or if they have reached a transition in what they are doing (McDermott, 1977). Either of these situations are marked by changes in the type of activity going on and the way the participants orient to each other as they try to make unstated norms more explicit. The Importance of Context The importance of considering how the context affects behavior is implicit in the definition of ethnography, its goals, and assumptions. The term "context" is often used as a synonym for "environment," but within the ethnographic framework, it is defined more specifically. In trying to understand how "context" influences behavior, it is important to look at all aspects of a context and how each is revealed 31 in the naturalistic setting. This includes first noting aspects of the immediate environment such as time, physical sense, location, partici— pants who are present, etc. By carefully watching a group of pe0ple as they interact, it is also possible to determine the subject of their conversation, the activity in which they are engaged, the sequence of events. Physical setting, subject, and other aspects of the context are usually directly observable. Some aspects of the context are more dif- ficult to determine since they involve looking for the meaning that the event has for the participants and, therefore, must be sought from their multiple perspectives. Some aspects of the context are brought to the event by the parti- cipants as a result of their own personal histories and culture. This involves prior experiences in this setting or with these people and the learning and knowledge gained by being a member of a culture. Other aspects of the context are constantly evolving and changing in the talk and actions of the participants. According to McDermott (1976), the people in the interaction become environments for each other. Together, they collaborate on their relationship to each other, their status and roles in the social system both outside the immediate environment and within the situation they are creating, and the purpose of their activities (Hall, 1976; Scheflen, 1974; Mehan, et al., 1976). As stated by Erickson and Shultz (1981): These interactionally constituted environments are embedded in time and can change from moment to moment. With each context change, the role relationships among participants are redistributed to produce differing configurations of concerted action....Mutual rights and obligations of inter- actants and redistribution into differing configurations of concerted action...or coherently cooccurring sets. These structures include ways of speaking, listening, getting the floor and holding it, and leading and following (p. 148). 32 A competent communicator can use several sources of information in order to determine the context and the appropriate behaviors within it. The situation itself provides the framework in which the participants interact and limits the scope of choices or decisions that they can make. For example, if a conference between a teacher and a staff de- veloper takes place in an empty classroom and both participants have the expectation that the staff developer has come to help the teacher solve a particular problem, appropriate behavior would be considered to be any that "fit" those expectations and setting and would not con- sist of public or impersonal behavior nor of overly intimate behavior either. Knowing what behavior ”fits" certain situations is learned through previous experiences and becomes part of the shared norms of the group. These become the ''basic rules'l (Cicourel, 1972) which set the minimal conditions for "correct" or "appropriate” behavior. Talk and actions are orderly in one way and improvisational in another, yet they help the participants identify what is taking place (Hall, 1966; Birdwhistell, 1970; Erickson & Shultz, 1982). So while certain aspects of the interaction are influenced by cultural con- ventions and norms, the interaction is still "locally produced” (Erick- son & Shultz, 1981) because the participants are making decisions and taking action in a particular moment (Garfinkel, 1967; Cicourel, 1973; Mehan & Wood, 1975). According to Erickson and Schultz (1981): The production is orderly and institutionalized, yet also creative and spontaneous. We assume here that people ap- ply cultural principles in their social operating face to face, but that the practical application of these normative standards is not done by people in mechanical ways. That is why although we are now able to program computers to talk we are unable to build them to act as engaging conversationalists. People can do that, we argue, because they are able to make sense in the immediate circumstances of the "local” scene from moment to moment in real time. 33 It is necessary to assume that the normative prescriptions for how to act in practical circumstances are inherently incomplete (Garfinkel & Sacks, 1970; McDermott, 1976; Gumperz, 1976). They do not provide conversational pat- terns with the specific knowledge that is necessary to ac- complish conversation successfully. If one thinks of a con- versation as role playing, it is as if the conversationalists must "fill in" what is left unspecified on their role cards. If one thinks of conversation as if it were musical perfor- mance, it is necessary for the conversationalists to play together "by ear” (Meyer, 1956; Sudnow, 1978, 1980) (pp. 8-9 . Summary In order to try to gain a better understanding of how the process of staff development was actually enacted in conference with teachers, ethnographic theory and method were used in this study. The intent was to maintain and consider the complexities and dynamics of this process and to describe, uncover, and make explicit the participants' knowledge and multiple perspectives about what they were doing together. There are two sets of hypotheses and related assumptions underlying the methodology. The first is the naturalistic-ecological hypothesis (Wilson, 1977) based on the theory that human behavior is influenced in complex ways by the context in which it occurs. The context involves the surface aspects of setting, subject, or activity and the less vi- sible aspects such as prior experiences and cultural knowledge. It also involves relationships of the participants and the purpose of the in- teraction that are defined and agreed upon within the interaction. The second hypothesis is called qualitative-phenomonological (Wilson, 1977) and is based on the theory that human behavior has more meaning than its observable "facts” so that the researcher must attempt to uncover the meaning from the insider's and outsider's perspective. This again refers to the complexities of understanding the evolving and dynamic 34 nature of context and how the participants work at interpreting it and at behaving appropriately within it. A related assumption is that the researcher can analyze behavior in much the same way as the partici- pants do, but in articulate and explicit ways, in order to uncover the tacit meaning and knowledge of the people. Sarason (1971) gives three reasons why the ethnographic or ecolo- gical approach is not used more often in educational research. The first reason is that the roots of educational psychology lie in and have been dominated by the field of psychology with its focus on the indivi- dual and individual differences rather than on the interactions that take place between individuals in educational settings. The second rea- son that the ethnographic approach has been neglected is that “it ap- pears to be dreary stuff," laborious and time-consuming, and that it ”lacks the glamor that is ordinarily attributed to scientific investi— gation." The third reason for the neglect of this methodology is that it is extraordinarily difficult ”to suspend one's values, one's concep- tion of right and wrong, good and bad, and instead to describe what's 'out there'" (pp. 103-104). In spite of the difficulties, the lllack of glamor," and the "la- borious and time-consuming" aspects of doing ethnographic research, it was chosen for this study because of the nature of the questions and their focus on understand what is happening and/or why things happen the way they do in staff development. Because the attempt was to learn to understand and relate to staff development interventions as the ac- tual participants did, it was necessary to try to gain their insiders' perspective with all of its dimensions and dynamics intact. More tra- ditional educational research methods would not have allowed for either 35 the exploratory nature of either the questions or the focus of this study. The aim was to produce new understanding and knowledge about a very ambiguous and complex phenomenon, so it was necessary to withstand the "dreary stuff," withhold and suspend values and judgments, and sim- ply describe the events, carefully and systematically, in order to reach these goals. The Research Process Introduction The process of gathering and analyzing data in ethnographic re- search could have been described in this section in general terms-- how it is usually done or, in specific terms, how this researcher did it, depending upon the purpose of the description. In this case it was decided to be specific about how data were gathered and analyzed in this study in order to illustrate more clearly how the processes re- flected the general methodological assumptions and affected the building of theory and also to show how the data presented in the next chapter were gathered and what decisions were made along the way. The choice of methodology used in this study as with other ethno- graphic studies was guided by the questions being asked and the underly- ing goal of trying to gain a better understanding of how participants in a specific kind of environment made sense of it and knew how to behave appropriately. The researcher's primary interests were to describe events as they were witnessed, record the participants' understandings as stated by them, and analyze and reveal their underlying meanings. The major tool for data collection and analysis in this process was the researcher herself. She began the research process by entering the previously determined field, being sensitive to the way she established 36 her role so that it facilitated the collection of information and the open sharing of thoughts, information, and reactionstn/the participants. General approaches and suggestions for doing this have been outlined in the literature (Wilson, 1977; Schatzman & Strauss, 1973; Agar, 1980), but they are usually accompanied by the statement that there is no one right method to prescribe; instead the method must be matched to the particular study (Wilson, 1977). According to Schatzman and Strauss (1973), "method is seen by the field researcher as emerging from opera- tions--from strategic decisions, instrumental actions, and analytic processes--which go on throughout the entire research enterprise." The field researcher is a methodological pragmatist. He sees any method of inquiry as a system of strategies and operations designed--at any time--for getting answers to certain questions about events which interest him. He understands that every method has built-in capabilities and limitations that are revealed in practice (through the techniques used, for giving purpose and with various re- sults), evaluated in part against what could have been gained or learned by any other method or set of techniques. Also, he understands that a method of inquiry is adequate when its operations are logically consistent with the ques- tions being asked; when it adapts to the special character- istic of the thing or event being examined; and when its operations provide information, evidence, and even simply perspective that bear upon the question being posed. As a methodological pragmatist, the field researcher concerns himself less with whether his techniques are "scientific" than with what specific operations might yield the most meaningful information (Schatzman & Strauss, 1973, pp. 7-8). Data Gatheripg One staff developer was studied in the interactions she normally had with the teachers and administrators of two schools. The decision to work with only one key informant was made for two reasons: the first reason was purely practical; i.e., limited resources; and the second reason was methodological. 37 Since the goal of the study was to develop a better understanding of how staff development was enacted in conferences with teachers, breadth was sacrificed for depth. This is true in many ethnographic studies where the purpose is to study and understand certain processes of interaction. The whole category of people in particular positions such as staff development are not studied because the questions did not make it necessary. What wp§_necessary was to look closely at how the position was enacted in its entire rapge of contexts. Thus, the scope of this or any ethnographic study must be increased to include all the details that account for differences which may turn out to be salient, and decreased to focus on a single case. Data were collected from multiple sources in multiple ways over an extended period of tiem. In this case they were gathered over a seven month period. The data came from six sources and covered the five cate- gories of relevant data to which Wilson (1977) referred: 1. Form and content of verbal interaction between parti- cipants Form and content of verbal interaction with the re- searcher Nonverbal behavior Patterns of action and nonaction Traces, archival records, artifacts, documents (p. 255) 01-be N Multiple sources of data were used to gather new kinds of information and also to cross-check results and tentative hypotheses. This process is called "triangulation " (Denzin, 1978) and is accomplished when two or more distinct methods were found to be congruent and yield comparable data (Jick, 1980). Triangulation enables the researcher to turn multi- ple sources of data into evidence when drawing inferences. The essential task was learning what data would be necessary to answer both the original questions and those that emerged from the data 38 analysis, and then getting access to those data. The latter task con- sisted of making constant decisions about where to be at any particular time, what kinds of data to collect there, and with whom to talk. "Unlike prestructured research designs, the information that is gathered and the theories that emerge must be used to direct subsequent data collection" (Wilson, p. 256). So while the initial phase of this and other kinds of fieldwork consisted primarily of general observations, latter phases consisted of continually testing "either implicitly or explicitly--the relevance of a large number of hypotheses, hunches, guesses" (Strauss, et al., 1964) through more careful focus on specific events and through asking particular questions to key informants. Ac- cording to Wilson (1977): Ethnographic inquiry is a systematic research process, just as are the quantitative approaches more familiar to educa- tional researchers....Ethnographic researchers methodically plan the forms of data they will collect, the settings in which they will gather the data, the participants with whom they will interact, and the questions they will ask. They also try to be open to new information, but they do so in a calculated fashion, for example, by seeking out places that are likely to present this new information (p. 257). Sources of data. The six sources of data used in this study in- cluded field notes (Appendix A); formal and informal interviews (Appen- dix A); videotapes of staff development conferences; audiotapes taken from the videotapes, from interviews, and from other kinds of interac- tions; questionnaires filled out by teachers (Appendix B); and written documents (Appendices C, D, E, F) Such a combination of sources is not unusual for an ethnographic study. However, videotaping is somewhat less commonly used than the others, but it made possible a more careful microanalysis of face-to-face interactions at the end of the 39 data-gathering phase. Each data source played a different function in the analysis, but all were included to some extent. Field notes were taken throughout the seven months of data gather- ing as the researcher observed and participated in interactions between the staff developer and faculty members at two schools. The attempt was to provide a detailed chronicle of what she said, with whom she spoke, where and when interactions occurred, and how this particular individual spent her day. Since the individual who was "shadowed" led a very active day during which almost all activities involved other people, data collection became a relatively selective task. It was not physically possible to provide all the details, so a priority was given to conversational transcript. Other details were filled in later when the field notes were retyped. Formal and information interviews occurred at times when the re- searcher was not shadowing the staff developer. Sometimes questions were asked to clear up ambiguities; other times perspectives and Opin- ions were solicited; and other times interviews were open-ended where the staff developer, administrator, or teacher spoke of his/her pro- fessional life and development in more general, abstract ways. Videotapes were made of various conferences between teachers and the staff developer. They were all made by a school technician, and the researcher was not always present. In each case, the teachers agreed ahead of time to be videotaped and were aware of the camera's presence. Teachers who might feel threatened by the presence of the recording equipment were not asked to participate; so, as a result, the video- tapes are representative only of those teachers who felt confident about 4O themselves as teachers and did not necessarily feel that the admission of teaching concerns or problems was a personal reflection. Audiotapes were made during various interactions and in most cases represented an attempt to cover different sorts of activities in which the staff developer participated. They were also made off the sound tracks of the videotapes for more careful analysis and transcriptions. Interactions which were taped and transcribed were available for analy- sis of what was being said as well as how it was being said, including aspects of speech style, voice pitch, tone and volume, speed of talking, and how and when these elements changed. Questionnaires were sent to all teachers in the two schools. They asked for teachers to rate the effectiveness of the staff developer, in what categories she had been most helpful, frequency of interactionthey had with her, and an explanation of why. There was also room left for more open-ended responses to these and other questions (Appendix B). Written documents were gathered systematically. Many of these in- cluded bulletins which were available to all faculty members. These in- cluded copies of the staff developer's schedule, maps of the schools, lists of personnel, and forms to request meetings with this individual, etc. Others were of a more restricted nature and were copies of such things as the staff developer's summary and evaluation of her visit written for administrators, notes she sent to specific individuals, or notes received by the staff developer. Data Analysis The preliminary analysis began early in the data gathering phase as the researcher developed hunches or working hypotheses or new questions and problems, sought further evidence to support these hunches, 41 cross-checked them with other sources of data, and looked for discon- firming as well as confirming evidence before deciding to further de- velop that hunch or idea or to put it aside. For these reasons, it can be said that the analysis process in qualitative research is both simul- taneous and continuous as well as self-corrective and cumulative in character (Schatzman & Strauss, 1973). A more intense analysis occurred after leaving the field when the researcher could develop a more generalized perspective of the events and activities that were witnessed in the field. The researcher could now try to make comparisons of what was gained from the outsider's or “etic” perspective as well as the insider's or "emic" perspective (Sapir, 1925; Pike, 1967; Pelto, 1970) and further reflect on the staff developer's relationship to the scene and to the various participants and the teachers' relationships to the staff developer, the administra- tors, and also to each other, the students, and the parents of the students. One of the more difficult steps in the ethnographic process for all researchers is knowing where to begin the more systematic, objective data analysis when there are so many data to consider. There are many options which range from going from the generalized perspective and trying to break it down into relevant categories, to beginning with one interaction, locating changes in behavior within that interaction, look- ing at the functions of each class of behavior, and then seeing if and how patterns located in specific cases hold up across the broad range of data. Theorists have used the ternl"frames" (Goffman, 1974; Frake, 1974; Erickson, 1971; Labov & Fanshel, 1977) ix) refer to the principles by which situations and experiences are organized from moment to moment. 42 Frame analysis is a way of defining figure-ground relationships by high- lighting the salient features of an interaction. Frames may vary in their degree of organization, some of which ...are neatly presentable as a system of entities, postu- lates, and rules; others--indeed most others--appear to have no apparent articulated shape, providing only a lore of understanding, an approach, a perspective. Whatever the degree of organization, however, each primary framework allows its user to locate, perceive, identify, and label a seemingly infinite number of concrete occurrences defined in its terms. [She] is likely to be unaware of such or- ganized features as the framework has and unable to de- scribe the framework with any completeness if asked, yet these handicaps are no bar to [her] easily and fully apply- it (Goffman, 1974, p. 21). Labov and Fanshel (1977) have used the concept of ”frames" to lo- cate distinct linguistic forms that occurred within these segments dur- ing a psychotherapeutic session. Once the frames are defined and lo- cated within one interaction, they can be checked in other interactions of the same nature (e.g., psychotherapeutic, counseling, or staff de- velopment) to see if or how these frames vary. Erickson and Shultz (1981) located an invariable sequence of three conversational topics which occurred in a particular kind of counseling interview, then within each sequence they were able to locate variations which indicated par- ticularistic influences on what outwardly appeared to be the same thing. The present study was approached in a similar manner. Two video- tapes showing one staff developer with different teachers reflected dif- ferences which were discernible, but not easy to explain. These two tapes became the central focus of the early analysis and were used in the final analysis to explain how these differences were enacted during the process of staff development and how they impacted upon the outcome of the two conferences. Later, these patterns of behavior or frames 43 were cross-checked with the other data sources to see if and to what degree they were reflected across cases. More importantly, it was de- cided that careful analysis of a few case studies of the staff develop- er's interactions accurately and adequately portrayed the complexities, ambiguities, and multiple dimensions of the staff developer's role. Discourse analysis. The first analysis to be completed was of the discourse among the various participants. This was begun by making a transcription of the initial several minutes of the two interactions as they were recorded on video/audiotapes to see what differences would emerge. Care was taken to make these transcriptions as accurately as possible in order to show not only wppt_was said, but also to show ppp. it was said. Therefore, the transcriptions depicted hpw_these people actually talked, including their pauses, false starts, hedges, inter- ruptions, and overlapping speech. This distinction is also referred to as the difference between the referential meaning (literal meaning) and the social meaning (the manner in which the information is communicated) (Erickson, 1976; Erickson & Shultz, 1981; Hymes, 1964; Austin, 1962; Blom & Gumperz, 1972). So, while it is possible to say things differently and for them to have the same referential meaning, they may have different social meanings. An excellent example used by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) shows this. Can you shut the door Would you mind shutting the door I wonder if you could shut the door The door is still open The door (p. 28) Each choice functions as a request to have the door shut whether it is made as a question or as a statement of fact, so the referential meaning .L-I. 44 is the same. But the social meaning of each of the above choices is quite different and reflects different degrees of status and politeness. Cazden (1974) refers to two basic dimensions of any interaction that further elucidate the discussion of different kinds of meanings existing in any statement or sequence of utterances. These are called ”syntagmatic“ which refers to the speakers' intentions within the events in which the participants are engaged as contrasted by “para- digmatic" which refers to the options selected by these participants to express their intents. Erickson and Shultz (1981) spoke of the great significance of how social meanings and social identities are manifested in communication through behavioral means of the speaker and through the inferential means by which they are interpreted by the listener. These interpretations may vary greatly so that it is possible that two people can come away from an interview with a very different notion of the other person, his/her intentions, and what really happened. The initial discourse analysis of two staff development interac- tions raised many questions about what was going on and why. On the surface they both portrayed the event of a staff developer's trying to help classroom teachers with specific problems, but beneath the surface they had very different social meaning. Certain linguistic structures occurred more frequently in one interaction than the othergone involved almost equal numbers of turns while the other involved one person's do- ing most of the talking, questions were asked differently in each case, different pronouns were used, one involved more direct speech while the other showed a lot of indirect sentence structures, and turns were al- lotted differently. Within each interaction, there were also differ- ences. When changes occurred, it became useful to look at the 45 interaction as a whole to see what was changing and how the changes re- flected transitions from one frame to another. Kinesic and paralinguistic analysis. Questions and hypotheses about what was going on, when changes were occurring within an interaction, and what the various frames signified were then analyzed at two other levels or channels of communication. These included the nonverbal accompani- ments to speech such as movements, gaze direction, gestures and their rhythm and timing, and some paralinguistic features of the speech such as volume, pitch, speed, and some variations in voice quality or regis- ters. Interpretations of these changes and their meanings were based on how they functioned and affected coparticipants. Cross-checking. As it became more obvious that some very compli- cated maneuvering was occurring at the microanalytic level, the re- searcher began to look across other forms of data, notably the field notes, in order to do a more mgprganalysis of why the participants in some of the interactions had to work so hard in some segments of the interaction but not others and why some interactions seemed to go so smoothly while others were asymmetrical and characterized by elaborate forms of politeness. At that point the larger context of the school, the teachers' stated goals, and their knowledge and experience with the staff developer were explored more deeply in a search for explanations of the differences. The larger body of literature on staff development, sociolinguistics, and dyadic interactions were also searched for pos- sible explanations. 46 The Generation of Theory This section of the report of methodology deals with a more gener- al explanation of how theory is usually generated in ethnographic re- search. The theory that emerged from this particular study of a staff developer will be explicated in the next two chapters. Theory, in ethnographic research, is not preconceived as it is in many other forms of educational research, nor is it generated by logical deduction based on a priori assumptions (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) Ethno- graphic researchersdo not.attempt to develop any broad-based conceptions of what they think will happen and why and then set out to design a way of testing the theory and underlying hypotheses. Instead of using that type of "top down” theory, ethnographic research depends on what is known as "grounded theory” (Glaser & Stauss) which begins at the bottom and works up and is grounded or based in the actual data. This type of "bottom up" theory begins with the data or evidence and works up through the discovery of conceptual categories. "The evidence is used to illus- trate the concept that has been described" (Janesick, 1981, p. 21). Mitzel (1977) has lamented over some of the unproductive findings of educational research over the last several decades and attributes this problem to an inadequate conception of causative factors. He suggested that a way of solving the problem and developing a "deep running viable theory" would be to "establish one that was consistent with the observ- able phenomena" (p. 16). Grounded theory as described by Glaser and Struass (1971) is a method for discovering theory from data. According to Yinger (1978), ”it allows one to begin the task of theory construction without the 47 flash of insight, the vivid imagery, or the inventive conceptualization needed for other methods" (p. 10). The basic position of Glaser and Strauss is "that generating grounded theory is a way of arriving at theory suited to its supposed uses.“ They see "theory" as serving several interrelated purposes: (1) to enable prediction and explanation of behavior; (2) to be useful in theoretical advance in sociology; (3) to be usable in practical applications--prediction and ex- planation should be able to give the practitioner under- standing and some control of the situations; (4) to pro- vide a perspective on behavior--a stance to be taken toward data; and (5) to guide and provide a style for research on particular areas of behavior (p. 3). They further state that theory should "fit the situation being re- searched, and work when put to use." By this they mean that the cate- gories which have been discovered should be the basis of the theory, so it is known that they are both relevant and explain the behavior which has been studied. Wilson (1977) added that ”the development of grounded theory is not haphazard" since "the researcher constantly tests his emerging hypothe- ses against the reality he is observing daily" (p. 260). Since emerging theory is constantly being tested with the real data, and negative or disconfirming evidence (Becker, 1961) is constantly being sought in order to test and refine theory, Glaser and Strauss (1971) refer to the method of generating grounded theory as a constant comparative method. "Hypotheses and constructs not only arise from the data but are syste- matically elaborated and refined in relation to the data as the research progresses" (Yinger, 1978, p. 11). Glaser and Strauss argue that the traditional criteria for judging the usefulness of theory such as logical consistency, clarity, 48 parsimony, density, scope, and integration are not sufficient if no concern has been shown as to ppw_the theory has been generated. They suggest that the quality of the theory cannot be judged independently from how it has been generated but that it is likely to be a better theory if it has been inductively developed consistently and systema- tically. Yinger (1978), in his work on theory building, said that the theor- ies which initially emerge from fieldwork will be rather limited in scope. They are not of a broad, general nature and will not give an- swers about teaching, staff development, or social interaction as broad categories. Instead, fieldwork will produce something like what Merton (1967) called "special theories," or Snow (1977) called “local theories" which are applicable to limited conceptual ranges. It is, however, through the integration and summarization of smaller, grounded theories that more general theories may emerge which are both descriptive and prescriptive. According to Diesing (1971), the researcher's purpose is to develop more complex and detailed patterns of events which he calls "general theory" which are intended to apply to all types of interactions and do more than "simply classify them into types" (p. 203). He outlines four common characteristics of theories which emerge from case studies: (1) they are holistic; (2) they are concatenated rather than hierarchical (Kaplan, 1964, p. 298) and therefore involve little deduction and no mathematical or symbolic logic; (3) their concepts are empirical--close to ordinary experiences, and frequently include emotive and subjective elements; and (3;)their concepts are frequently related dialectically (p. Diesing also suggests that general theory performs three functions: (a) it explains individual types and "how and why the various elements that 49 have been continually found together in actual cases belong together"; (b) it specifies causal, logical, structural-functional, etc., connec- tions which makes the type a more reliable guide to classification and observation; and (c) "it explains a typology by ordering it in some fashion" (p. 226). Summary of the Process This section of the chapter on the study dealt with both ethno- graphic studies as a whole and this study as a specific example. The first and last subsections, data gathering and the generation of theory, were of a more general nature, while the middle subsection, data analy- sis, used the data gathered for this study as an example of how one re- searcher went about reducing and comparing data at both the micro- and the macroanalytic levels. The data gathering process was both eclectic and pragmatic because many sources of data were used, some of which were rather structured (questionnaires and some of the interviews) and others of which were open-ended. It was pragmatic because any source of data which was po- tentially useful was collected. Some of the observation periods were very focused such as when Specific questions or preliminary hypotheses were being cross-checked, and others were very open-ended and un- structured. The data analysis process involved the description of key incidents in functionally relevant terms and then the placement of these key inci- dents into the wider social context of staff development. The key inci- dents were derived from what Malinowski (1922) called "imponderabilia" or the taken-for-granted parts of everyday life. In this case they were the two videotaped conferences which 50 were perplexing or imponderable, yet intuitively seemed important. It was felt that if these differences could be unraveled and systematically described, it would lend insight into some of the complexities of staff development. These key incidents were felt to be "of working theoreti- cal salience" (Ogby, 1974) which potentially could "tie together the whole qualitative account" (Erickson, 1977). These descriptions began by identifying and analyzing those aspects of language or behavior which served "to control or regulate the beha- vior of the participants in relation to the currently established pat- terns" of behavior (McDermott, et al., 1976). So it was necessary to locate regularities in behavior as well as changes. This approach was based on the assumption that there was an initimate relationship between ngp§_of language that were used in discourse, the functions they serve in the interaction, and the social context in which they took place (Gumperz, 1971; Hymes, 1974; Philips, 1974; Erickson, 1975; Florio, 1976). It was also assumed that communicative behavior is learned as a part of a culture (Hall, 1959, 1966), is orderly, and yet is open to a great deal of variation (Byers & Byers, 1972; Scheflen, 1974). The specific variation chosen reveals the speaker's social meaning and is a performance of his/her social identity at any point in time (Gumperz, 1971). ngppy is generated through ethnographic descriptions and is an in- tegral part of gppp stage of the research process. The theory is grounded in the data and serves to predict and explain behavior in ways which are both recognizable to the insiders yet which lead to an under- standing of events, categories, and processes from which generalizable statements about certain aspects of human behavior can be made. 51 The Theoretical Framework The theoretical framework for this study involves several models and concepts from the literature. Their relevancy and applicability were apparent in the early stages of analysis and, in turn, helped the final stages and the generation of theory. One way of looking at staff development and its inherent difficul- ties is systematically to study how the roles of staff developer and the teachers with whom he/she works are negotiated in face-to-face in- teraction. The focus is the actual process--where, when, how staff de- velopment conferences are enacted. Who asks the questions; how are they asked; and who gives the answers and how? What is said and how is it said? How does all of this make up the context of the interaction and how then does the context affect the staff development conference? What do the members of this interactional event need to do in order to de- fine a problem and then find a solution to it? Status and Role The process of defining a situation and making sense of it involves the negotiation of relationships of the participants. They have to know who the other person is and his/her status in order to know how to interact. Some social positions (such as that of judge, teacher, physician, etc.) are institutionalized. These are known as statuses because they carry meaning about certain norms and expectations for behavior as well as some formal properties, such as rights, duties, privileges, powers, liabilities, and immunities (Goodenough, 1969). How the person actually performs and carries out these requirements of status are known as roles (Davis, 1949). So while "status" is institutionalized, "roles" are 52 continually negotiated during the course of any interaction and are open to change. For example, the status of "teacher" carries with it the rights to give directives, the power to give or withhold rewards, the duty to provide instruction, and the privilege of determining or chang- ing the order of events. These rights and obligations would, of course, change if the teacher were interacting with a colleague, parents, or superordinates such as principal, supervisor, or superintendent. The 391g of teacher, on the other hand, is open to individual negotiation and is, in part, created differently across interactions. According to Cicourel (1972): The term "status" suggests stable meanings about "position” vis-a-vis others in some network of social relationships. There is an implied consensus about the rights and obliga- tions of actors occupying some commonly known and accepted "status” (p. 246). Statuses are relatively static because they are governed by strict so- cial and/or organizational rules in which rights and obligations of each of the participants remain exactly the same throughout the encounter and from one encounter to another (Shultz, 1975). These governing "rules" have been developed over time and through the consensus of a group of culture-sharing people. These usually involve non-reciprocal amounts of power. For example, when a "teacher" interacts with a "student," there are non-reciprocal amounts of power. Students learn as a part of their early socialization experiences (Mead, 1934) how to interact with people who are in the formal status of "teacher." The pglg_of teacher, on the other hand, can be carried out in a broad variety of ways. Not only do individual teachers have preferred and stylistic ways of carrying out their roles, but also these roles are negotiated on the basis of their moods at the time, who they are 53 interacting with, what is being done, and many other features of the context. As situations change, so does the way roles are enacted (Goff- man, 1961), and these changes are realized in various linguistic and kinesic features such as when a teacher decides to give orders in an authoritative way ("Close the door!") or as a request ("Would you mind closing the door?"). This role-making process is open to individual interpretation within thesocialsituation and is socially produced and jointly negotiated, implying that people have options available to them and can determine consciously how these relationships are to be carried Out (Cicourel, 1972). According to Goffman, as related in Cicourel (1972),”The critical feature of the concept of role lies in its con— struction by the actors over the course of an interaction" 03.243). Ne- gotiations over time cause the relationship to be in a constant state of flux so that rights and obligations are also continually shifting (Goffman, 1959) So, although the teacher is still the teacher and the student is still the student in their formal characteristics, the lati- tude of their relationship and the ways they are able to interact varies. Gumperz (1976) hypothesizes that the way this is done in moment-to- moment decisions made by participants. Each participant makes judgments about what is being said and how it is being said, based on verbal and kinesic behaviors that function as "cues" to context. He states: ...at the start of any one verbal encounter, a speaker, building on his background knowledge, makes a semantic judgment about what activities can normally be enacted. Once talk begins, this judgment is then either confirmed and sharpened or altered by assessing discourse t0pic and nonverbal cues... (p. 281). Gumperz calls these "contextualization cues“ which are learned as a re- sult of experience in a particular culture. 54 Defining the Situation People decide which status is appropriate for themselves at any given time by making judgments about the setting, the situation, or the occasion. According to Shultz (1976), it is the primary task to be un- dertaken at the beginning of an encounter in which two or more indivi- duals are going to be engaged in face-to-face interaction. Basically, this involves determining who the other person is and what his/her re- lationship is to those present. Since people have more than one status, the one they choose to enact is dependent on their perceptions of the situation. According to Goffman (1959), ...an individual communicates which status from his total repetoire of statuses will be relevant to the given situa- tion by overcommunicating those statuses, and undercom- municating those statuses which are not relevant (p. 141). For example, if a single individual holds the multiple statuses of par- ent, history teacher, community leader, and coach and meets another in- dividual downtown who also holds some of the same statuses, they must cooperatively determine if they are going to exchange friendly greet- ings, hold a parent conference, discuss game strategy. or some other item of business. Barth (1972) describes this process of defining the situation as follows: When we come into each other's presence we do so in a physi- cal environment--one which we perceive selectively and clas- sify culturally as a potential scene for certain, and only certain, kinds of activities. We add to these constraints, or modify them, by communicating with each other as to who we are and what we intend to do, and thereby we arrive at an agreed definition of the situation, which implies which status out of our total repetoire we shall regard as relevant and to what use we shall put it. The agreement will be workable only if all participants have a status in their repetoire which articulates with those of the others and are willing to act in this capacity. A definition of the situation thus implies 55 the mobilization, as relevant and acceptable, of a set of articulating statuses. Through such understandings:_§ocial statuses are mobilized and activity ordered in the manner we can describe as social organization (p. 209). Culture-Shared Knowledge Fortunately for all of us, our culture defines certain roles and interrelationships that are appropriate in a particular setting and thus limits the universe of possible relationships. Our social norms prescribe relationships and competent or appropriate behavior. For example, a chance meeting between two individuals on the streets of downtown may not be the appropriate setting for the teacher to tell the parent that his child is having difficulty in history class. Any par- ticular social order is achieved interactionally and involves an effort on everyone's partanything 10 to help new teachers on parent conferences and report cards. 11 It's not a good situation. 12 J: We realize that. 13 8: Asking me what I'd do...I think the first encounter...She has 14 a need about parent conferences. Fulfill that need. Move 15 that kid. You want her to observe (Fieldnotes, 6:8-7z3). There is a clear contrast shown in the way Betty spoke to Anita about her Observations and the way she related them to Jack. While she was restrained, indirect, and very polite with Anita, she became unre- strained and direct with Jack because she no longer had to concern her- self with providing a face-saving Option for Anita. First, she spoke directly of "negative feelings” (6:19), then she told Jack what Anita was doing that was wrong (”She's teaching three things at once which don't relate“), then what she didn't do ("she doesn't go on the 'show me' method of teaching”), and, finally, her strongest and most directly stated Opinion ("Every kid should be moved out Of there if you want my Opinion"). Betty used the direct sentence forms ("she's teaching...“ and "she doesn't") and directly stated her feelings and opinion in the most highly rational, maximally efficient mode of communication. Although, by her own admission, Betty was very negative about Anita's teaching, few of her comments related to Anita's personality, ability or intelligence, or other personal characteristics. Most statements Betty made about Anita ("she screams on the playground," "she puts down kids," "ninety-eight percent talk," "boring, boring, boring" (Field- notes, lO/23 and 10/24) were related to behaviors which, through train- ing and learning, could be improved. 95 Reaching Consensus with the Principal There is another contrast between the way Betty spoke to Anita and the way she spoke to Jack that indicated which one of the conflicting staff-developer roles and concerns was primary. With Anita, Betty focused on her model of effective teaching and presented herself as an advocate of good teaching (by talking about grouping students according to learning style) and to some extent as an advocate of this teacher and her concern about filling out report cards. With Jack, she took the position that the more general problem must be dealt with by him ("an administrative bullet") while she would concentrate on being an advocate of the teacher and address herself only to those things for which the teacher asked for help. She seemed tO have made this deci- sion while she was talking. After Jack asked her to recommend strate- gies (6:29-30), Betty switched her use of pronouns from "1" (6:19, 20, 23, 24, 26) and sounding as if she intended to address the major problem (”I need some data on if she's ever taught first grade”) to using the pronoun "you" (7:1, 2) and telling Jack what he had to do ("ask her," "figure out“). She appeared to become firmer in her idea of which Of them should play which role. First, Betty used the passive, indirect sentence form ("She needs to know who needs what") in which she didn't indicate EOE was to tell Anita this message. Second, she used "you" to tell Jack that pg needed to "ask her," but she softened it by adding "almost." This was followed by an unsoftened directive ("you have to...”) and instructions on what to say to the teacher. Finally, Betty was most explicit in telling Jack who needed to solve the problem ("The bullet 96 has to be bitten and it's an administrative bullet"). She still, how- ever, left Jack with one other option by saying "administrative" rather than "your" bullet, implying that the administrative team of three principals and a superintendent shared the responsibility. Jack re- sponded by using the plural pronoun "we" to mean the administrative team ("We realize that,” 7:12). Betty's decision was later reiterated to the researcher when she said, “I'm being supportive of the teacher. The principal has the responsibility." She added, "I would expect de- fenses. Accept what you can. Suggest what changes have to be made" (Informal Interview, 10/24, 24:4). There were two other things of interest in this section of tran- script. One was the very strong statement Betty made about the teacher and the classroom ("Every kid should be moved out of there if you want my opinion"). For one thing, her opinion had not been solicited, and, secondly, it was the only time in months of observation and years of having worked with Betty that the researcher heard her make such a negative, judgmental statement about a teacher. It may have been an expression Of frustration and/or it may have been a way Of telling Jack that the problem was very serious and could not be ignored. This statement was followed by her prescriptions Of what Jack could and should do to help Anita. Second, when Betty was telling Jack that he should address the major teaching problem and she would address herself to those things for which the teacher asked for help--art projects, parent conferences, and report cards (7:8-10), she altered the topics on which the teacher actually did ask for help. Anita's original written request for help was the studentS' lack of motivation to take their time to produce 97 worthwhile results. Betty was now referring to this as wanting help with art projects. Then Anita asked for help in filling out report cards, and Betty referred to this as wanting help with parent confer- ences. When Betty wrote a note to Anita the next day, she gave sugges- tions on art ideas and lessons (drawing to music, class mural, class bulletin board), techniques (cut and paste, designs, arts and crafts), and sources Of further ideas (a specific book and other teachers) and did not refer to the problem of motivation. Summany of Case Study I During the course of these two sets of interactions (Betty and Jack, Betty and Anita), there was a contrast in the working consensus which was negotiated and achieved in each. With Jack, a common defini- tion of the problem was negotiated. He originally referred to his concern with a potential parental problem, and Betty saw it as an ex- ample of a much larger problem--a generally weak teacher. Then Jack asked Betty to look at general classroom functioning, indicating that he, too, realized that the problem was not only one between a parent and a teacher. In giving the solution, Betty suggested that the stu- dent should be moved, showing recognition that the problems were con- nected and that one was part of the other. There was also evidence of agreement between Betty and Jack on the purpose of the interaction and the relative roles they would play. The purpose was for Jack to get suggestions for dealing with the problem, and it was Betty's job to give this help. At one point when Betty appeared to be getting off task and giving strong Opinions rather than solutions or help (6:27-28), Jack reminded her of this purpose by 98 asking a question about what strategies she would recommend (6 29-30). He was working to keep her in the role of "problem solver,” and she complied by going back to that role and telling Jack what should be done and who should do it. In contrast, there was less evidence of shared understandings or a working consensus between Betty and Anita. Betty was aware of a range of problems with the teacher, some of which the teacher had been told about or initiated, and some of which she hadn't been told (her generally weak or inappropriate performance). There were different understandings of the purpose of Betty's visit, also. Anita had asked for help Of a specific nature on one thing and had been told that Betty was coming to observe two students in the context Of parental concerns. Betty was, in fact, observing the two students, but in the context Of a much larger problem. There were also different understandings about Betty's status and role. Anita acted as if Betty were an advocate of teachers and asked for help on a specific issue and solicited understanding or support on her problems wfitdlorganization and the mixed messages she was getting from different consultants. Betty was, in part, trying to act as an advocate of the teacher and did respond to Anita's request for help with report cards, but didn't respond to her comments on organization and mixed messages. Anita had been told by Jack that Betty was also playing the role of advocate of the school and looking into a parental concern. In addition, Betty was playing the role of an advocate of an ideal of effective teaching, something to which Anita did not appear to respond. 99 According to one of Anita's friends and colleagues, Anita as well as some other teachers questioned Betty's formal status in the school (J.R., Interview, 11/8/78). She reportedly felt obligated to use Betty's expertise, but was concerned about Betty's power to affect administrative decisions about hiring and firing as well as placement of teachers. The fact that Betty came into Anita's classroom, observed herteaching, took notes, and then gave suggestions which were not re- quested may have led Anita to question Betty's status role and relative power even more. It was also possible that Anita didn't fully believe Jack when he told her that Betty was going to Observe some students. Anita asked for help on specific, non-threatening, impersonal issues in an effort to exert control onthe parameters of this interaction; but Betty, with the help of Jack, extended these boundaries well beyond that. Part of the ambituity in this interaction dealt with pggl agendas and implied agendas. Betty's pppl_agenda was to gather data on a generally weak teacher, but the implied agenda was to observe students. Both Betty and Anita acted as if the implied agenda were the real one. Anita's actions may be interpreted as defensive or deferential, both in the way she apologized for her curiosity about Betty's obser- vational notes ("you don't have to go over this if...,” lO/23, 5:9) and in the way the teacher implied that if Betty saw any signs of disorganization, it was because of the recently completed swimming program or the mixed messages she was receiving from different consultants. This defensiveness may have been a reaction to the status 100 and control Betty reflected and the fact that Anita had lost any con- trol she thought she had. There were differences in the nature of Betty's interactions with Jack and Anita that were related in important ways to social context. In the former there were common understandings about the problem, the purpose Of the interaction, and the roles of the participants; and in the latter, there were not. Both Betty and Jack had achieved a work- ing consensus and understanding with each other and were working to- gether to handle a sensitive problem, evidenced linguistically in the ways Betty used direct sentence structure and active verb forms. In contrast, Bettyappearedto be working pn_Anita without her consent or agreement as evidenced by their lack Of reciprocality on topics and the real and implied agendas. In the example of Betty and Anita, the kind of conflict that can occur in staff development was described. There was a lack of clarity over which role Betty should play and how to enact that role. There was no consensus between the participants on the structure or function of the interaction, and it is questionable what was achieved. In con- trast, there gg§_a consensus between Betty and Jack on the structure and function of their interaction, and they were able to reach a de- cision on the problem and a course of action to be followed. Some of the complexities and ambiguities Of staff development were seen in the differences in parallel processes Of identifying the prob- 1em, setting the agenda, enacting the discussion, and reaching consen- sus or solving the problem. Many of the ambiguities were clarified within the two interactions by the linguistic negotiations Of the 101 participants. Afll_of the participants pgpkgd at being polite and try- ing to negotiate working agreements of the purpose of the interactions and the relative social positions of the three people within the larger context of the school. In one case they were more successful at syn- chronizing and meshing the working definitions of the situation than the other, and the result was a difference in the degreeldr amount Of working consensus achieved. Case Study II: Betty and Pete The Context In the previous study, the lack of common definitions and under- standings of the problem and the situation between Betty and the teach- er led to an interaction in which a difficult message was given to the teacher. In the current analysis, it was possible to see how two in- dividuals went through the process of negotiating their relationship and defining the situation. This interaction was longer than the pre- vious one and was also videotaped and recorded so that a more detailed linguistic and kinesic analysis was possible. Therefore, ppg_things were said and what the informants said as they talked were included in the analysis. The teacher, Pete, wasaman in his mid-thirties and was new to the school the year Of the study, although he had had considerable experi- ence in overseas schools in Latin America. Both he and his wife were teaching at the school and were categorized as "overseas-hired," mean- ing that they were recruited from the United States by the superinten- dent, received a broad range of benefits in addition to their salaries, and were dependent on the school for transportation, housing, and many other resources. 102 Their transition into the school was facilitated by a sponsoring family, another overseas-hired couple, who, in the case Of Pete and his wife, were the principal of one of the schools, Bob, and his wife. Pete continued to socialize with Bob throughout the year, going on weekend trips together, exploring parts of the city, and having dinner together. Pete and his wife also developed a social rela- tionship with Jack, the principal at his wife's school, as well as with several other overseas-hired teachers. Pete had recently completed a year of graduate school in which he had earned a certificate in school administration. He originally had sought an administrative position in an international school in Asia, but accepted a position as a third grade teacher because the school, geographic location, and working conditions and benefits for both him and his wife represented the best Options available. It was his hope, however, that this job would lead to an administrative posi- tion in this school or another one in Southeast Asia. Pete had met Betty in the city where she lived during the work- shop. His wife was a participant, but he was not since he had been in a similar workshop a few years earlier in South America. He came to the site for the purpose of meeting Betty and finding out more about the program. He said that he had heard so much about Betty that he wanted to meet her, and he also had some educational and administrative questions about the workshop's structure, organization, and how it dif- fered from the one he had attended. After Pete's first meeting with Betty, he commented that he found her "stimulating" but also "over- whelming, adding that she "has so many ideas at once:” (Interview, 8/17/78). He added, "I don't think she's aware Of how she provides 103 more information than the average person can absorb. She goes so quickly from one idea to another." He characterized Betty, after this initial meeting, as "very perceptive" and "very goal-oriented." Searching for the Problem When the sheets to request an appointment with Betty were circu- lated at Pete's school before her second visit of the year, Pete signed up for an appointment and wrote down that he wanted to talk to her about planning. He reported to the researcher that he had two other reasons for wanting to talk to her: (a) because he liked her and wanted to get to know her better; and (b) since he was looking for an administrative position, he hoped that Betty, through her contacts and knowledge of the school system in Southeast Asia, could help him. He reported to the researcher that he wanted to ask her if she thought it would be useful or advisable for him to attend an administrator's conference which was going to be taking place the following month in another Asian capital. He was willing to spend the considerable amount of money necessary for transportation, etc., if Betty believed or sug- gested that it would be helpful for his career goals. If Betty knew about Pete's goals or this agenda ahead of time, she did not acknowl- edge it. Betty and Pete began the interaction with different and multiple understandings of its purpose and what was to take place. Pete's "real" goals were different than his "implied" goals, but, in fact, he had more than one goal. Betty's goal for this interaction was not stated ahead of time. 104 Betty arrived in Pete's classroom at the agreed upon time, shortly after the students had left for the day. After she entered, they both sat down at a circular table upon which the videotape recorder was focusing and where the microphone had been placed. Betty sat with her back to the camera, and Pete was directly facing it. Pete initi- ated the Opening Of this part of the conversation, which was rather characteristic Of him in most of his interactions; but it was, at the same time, unusual for Betty not to take this initiative: 1:1 P: Well, I have a couple of things. Some of them don't relate 2 to school. Shall I start with those? 3 8: Sure. 4 P: I have minimal problems with school. Really. 5 B: I'm glad to hear that. 6 P: Why? Everybody else not saying that? 7 B: Oh, no (inaudible). 8 P: Just in the last a:::two or three days I guess, I really 9 started to feel better about the kids. But I've just got 10 to be tough as nails with them. Y'know? 11 B: (inaudible) 12 P: What? 13 B: Consistent. 14 P: Just tough, period. Just there're certain kids I've got to 15 watch every minute. And as soon as they mo:::ve--it's NO! 16 Like that. But...it's taken care... This one kid...I've been 17 able to pat him on the back twice this week, y'know? 18 B: Good. 19 P: See, tomorrow's the last day. "Just do it one more day. I 20 can write ya' a great note home" and all this, y'know? 21 B: That's good. 22 P: SO, it's real good. I think he's getting his first...uuh... 23 positive notes probably in his career (VTR, 10/27/79). Another thing that was unusual about this interaction as compared to others that Betty was observed to have with teachers was her rela- tive lack of activity. Her body and her voice were subdued. Her el- bows were bent on the table, and her left hand was propping up her head. Her upper body was leaning forward, her weight resting on her elbow, and her eyes on Pete. Her comments were made in a very soft voice, with no emphasis or expression. Pete, in contrast, not only 105 initiated the conversation and did most Of the talking, but he was also physically active. Although he maintained eye contact with Betty dur- ing most of this segment, there were seven times when he looked down at the table or toward his right which was rather pronounced compared to his relatively constant gaze in later segments. At one point ("And as soon as they mo:::ve--it's 591 Like that," 1:15-16), Pete's ges- tures and voice became quite exaggerated and continued in this way un- til the end of the sentence ("Y'know?” 1:17) when he leaned forward, stretched his arm across the table, and touched Betty on the shoulder. Negotiating the Agenda Pete's exaggerated movements and talk made him appear as a soli- citous host whose purpose was to "entertain" Betty. This interpreta- tion is congruent with one Of Pete's stated reasons for scheduling this meeting--that he liked Betty and wanted to get toluwwvher better (Informal Interview, 10/22/79). The solicitious quality was inter- preted from the way Pete tried to engage Betty in the conversation by asking certain kinds of questions and leaving openings for her to gain entry. His first question, "Shall I start with these?" (1:2). functioned as a request for her support in how to set the agenda for this meeting. The second question, "Why? Everybody else not saying that?" (1:6), may have functioned as an expression Of his interest or curiosity in the problems other teachers were having, but also as a way of getting Betty to talk. This type Of question has been called "Other-directed allocators" in the literature (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974) which are used to request a turn from the speech part- ner. This is the Opposite of "self-directed allocators" which are used to attract the other's attention to indicate one's readiness to begin 106 a turn. Questions are only one type of turn-allocator, but have been found to be more effective than a more direct approach such as an im- perative (Volk, 1981). Pete also asked the rhetorical question (”Y'know?") three times (1:10, 17, 20) which is not a question of in- formation and does not require an answer, but is a way of seeking agreement (Goody, 1978). Betty complied and gave Pete agreement by saying "Good" (1:10, 21). In addition to being solicitious, Pete also tried to sound like a "good teacher," according to Betty's definition of "consistent”; i.e., "good teachers are consistent." He described how he was being consistent by watching kids "every minute” and re- sponding "as soon as they mo:::ve" (1:15). He described a success rather than a pattern. Betty's relative lack of activity or lack of responsiveness to Pete and her willingness to let him do so much of the talking at this point may have been due to her lack of clarity about the situation, its purpose, and her role vis-a-vis Pete; or, more simply, perhaps she was just tired. Her only clue about the purpose of this meeting (from his form) was that he wanted to discuss "planning," but she already knew (from the workshop) that his primary interest in this job was as a stepping stone toward an administrative position. If "planning" were the real agenda, he probably should have been asking questions or seek- ing advice or at least defining what he meant. Carrying out the Problem Discussion Because the real purpose wasn't clear, neither were their relative roles. If Pete had really wanted advice or information on planning, then Betty's role would be that of information-giver or authority on 107 planning. If he had another purpose or "hidden agenda," then her role would vary to either personal friend or advocate Of the teacher or, perhaps, as a promoter of good teaching. But Pete's Opening remark ("Well, I have a couple Of things. Some of them don't relate to school") put into question both who was running the meeting and what he really wanted to discuss if it wasn't school. The topic would indicate which of her multiple roles she should play at the moment. The following segment looked the same as the previous one conver- sationally, with Pete's doing most Of the talking and Betty's being minimally responsive; but the kinesics of the interaction signalled some changes. 1:24 8: Well, if he only got this far and he's getting them... 25 P: Yah. And he's more or less staying in the place. We do a lot 26 of remedial things y'see...with families...Third grade's a 27 little bit...but... 2:1 8: That's good 2 P: We're doing it. Then...Maybe you can tell me about this. I 3 should ask you about this. Well. I put down on your sheet 4 that I wanted to discuss planning. 5 8: Right. The first change that occurred was Betty's change from a constant gaze direction (looking at Pete), tO making broad sweeps Of her head. As Pete was continuing to talk about how his being consistent was helping a student (1:25), Betty turned her head to the left as far as possible. Then Pete abruptly changed topics and began talking about the bulletin board she appeared to be looking at--on "word families" (phonetically similar words) and the remedial nature Of some of the work he had been doing with his third grade students. As Betty replied, saying "That's gppd" (2:1), this time with emphasis on "good," she turned her head as far as possible toward the right. Pete stopped what he was saying, paused, and began talking about planning (2:2-4). The new topic was 108 related to school and the preactive phase of teaching, something one might usually talk to a staff developer about; but to this point, no question had been asked and Pete had not yet stated what he meant or wanted to know about planning. He was still doing most of the talk- ing, was still physically active, and had initiated the topical change. The purpose of the interaction, a definition of the situation in which they were involved, and the relative roles they should take were still unclarified and ambiguous. During the following segment, Betty's physical and linguistic participation level gradually changed. 'UW'UUJ'UW 'UCD 'U W'Uw cw : We talked about natural. : Well, that's motivation, right? Yeah! : All right, now... 'UW'UW SO I'll tell you something about planning. I can plan...for a substitute. I mean I just put plans in the book. "Here's what we're gonna do. This page, this page, this page." But I cannot plan, so far, for...how. In other words, my plans are what we're gonna do, Well, right, not ppp_we're gonna do it. : Well, that's true. Is that...is that unusual? No. See'cause See this lesson here was great. It was completely unplanned. Y'know? I wanted to discuss the topic of...ah... we were gonna...I was introducing the idea that we were gonna do a science unit that involves nature. Well, all right (very low voice) : SO I said, "What's nature?" OK. So we started to do thing. ”Well, that's natural,“ and so forth. So I started drawing this island and these birds and all this stuff, see. (both talking at the same time) But ya oughta, but ya oughta be able to think of those things, shouldn't you?...ahead of time? What you're gonna how you're gonna do it? : Well yes. Ypp_should. But not for a substitute, right? : No, yeh, but I don't even...See, I can't sit at my desk and say, "how am I gonna introduce..." Ohhh (voice rising) this. It.all comes out, just... : Well, now, let me share with you. OK 109 First, Betty's sitting position changed. She put both hands and forearms down on the table and picked up her pen from the table with her right hand and held it in a writing position. At the same time, Pete pulled back from the table. Betty appeared to be looking directly at Pete, but he continued to look away periodically. Her responses were still primarily one or two words long and were literally suppor- tive ("that's good," "well right," and "that's true"), but tended to interrupt Pete rather than to come during his pauses (2:11, 20, 24; 3:4, 6). This is what was earlier referred to as a "self-directed allocator" which is used to indicate one's readiness to begin a turn (Volk, 1981). Pete, on the other hand, stopped leaving pauses. Even after he asked his first "real" question (indicating that he wanted information, 2:14), and Betty began her answer ("No. See 'cause,” 2:15), Pete interrupted her, pointed to a bulletin board on nature, and told Betty how his best lessons are unplanned. Even though his question indicated that he wanted to know if it were unusual not to be able to plan strategies of presentation ("ppp_we're gonna do it“), he was not implying that he questioned the need to plan (2:16-17). Betty's interruptions became more and more obvious. By the fifth time ("Well now, let me share with you," 3:6), she was speaking louder, her voice had greater expression, she began to emphasize certain words ("Ypp_should," 3:1; and "Ohhh," 3:4), and she continued to speak even though Pete hadn't relinquished his turn or completed his sentence (2:24). The phrase "Well, now, let me share with you,‘l was stated as a request to which Pete agreed ("OK”), but acted as an imperative. 110 Betty was, in fact, using these word choices to communicate that she now wanted her turn to talk. Betty's participation level increased with the use Of what is sometimes called a tag-question (Lakoff, 1975) or the rhetorical mode (Goody, 1978) which, in this case, functioned to seek consensus or agreement, so that the "correct" response was agreement. Betty's use of this questioning mode occurred three times in relative quick suc- cession ("Well, that's motivation, right?" 2:24; "but not for a sub- stitute, right?" 3:1; "You have to get your plan down first of all, right?" 3:8-9). In each case, Pete did give the agreement that this form of quesitioning sought. The first time Betty used it, Pete's re- sponse was "yeah," even though he was speaking at the same time that she was saying "Well, that's motivation" (2:24). The second time ("But not for a substitute, right?”), Pete began to say "no," but quickly changed his response to "yeh," indicating his consensus, but then he went on to qualify his answer (but, I don't even," 3:2). The third time, Betty didn't pause for a response, nor did Pete interject one. Betty continued to use this mode of rhetorical questioning four more times in the next few minutes (on the next section of transcript), and Pete responded affirmatively twice ("right," "uum") and gave no audible verbal response the other two times. According to Goody (1978), rhetorical questions are questions ...for whose answers the information channel is effectively empty, i.e., it carries "noise” in the sense of non-signifi- cant information. The command channel, On the other hand, is employed to achieve a blanaced relationship between ques- tioner and respondent (p. 28). 111 The purpose of this form of questioning, therefore, was for Betty to achieve a more balanced relationship with Pete. This, of course, was not the only technique she used (she also changed her body posture, looked around the room with broad sweeps of her head, began to interrupt his turns indicating that she wanted her own turns, began to speak louder and with greater expression and by putting emphasis on certain words), but the effect of this series of techniques gg§_a more balanced relationship between these two parti- cipants. The last segment of transcript (2.6-3z9) indicated the transition from when Betty was only minimally responsive to Pete who was controlling most of the talk and the topical changes, to a point where Betty was participating more fully and actively. Pete had originally said that he "wanted to discuss planning" (2:4) and "maybe you can tell me about this” (2:2), but went on to say "So I'll tell you something about planning” (2:6). He didn't ask a question, but implied by saying "you can tell me" that he wanted Betty to give him some kind of input. At that point he didn't give her a chance to respond, but wenton to "tell her" about his perception of planning and what was difficult for him. Even though he was still do- ing most of the talking, he was indicating that he was going to change the topic from one in which he was telling of his successes (to which she had been only minimally responsive) to a topic of potentially greater mutual interest. Betty's resulting changes in participation communicated to him that the topic pg; of interest to her and one in which she wanted to be involved. Pete responded by asking ”real" questions (Goody, 1978) ("Is this unusual?" 2:14; and "Ya oughta be 112 able to think Of those things, shouldn't you?” 2:27-28), indicating that he did, in fact, want information from her. In this way Betty and Pete cooperated and collaborated in negoti- ating the purpose of the interaction or the problem (where she would give him information) and what was to occur, the agenda. Pete had tried a variety Of techniques in order to elicit reactions from Betty. Originally, he was talkative and active, and she barely responded; he asked questions to get her involved, but she declined by answering only minimally; then he told her stories of his successes and how he was being consistent, and she was still inactive. He had tried being soli- citious and entertaining and then by playing the role Of a consistent and effective classroom manager. Her minimal responsiveness may have indicated to Pete that none of these techniques or identities were "working" to get Betty more actively involved in the interaction. Her looking around the room acted as a less subtle hint that she needed or wanted to switch to some other tOpic to which she could/would better relate. It functioned in this way because Pete complied by switching to the topic of planning in mid-sentence, and she responded with her increased participation and gradual change in assertiveness. Even though there was still a "hidden agenda" (his interest in getting an administrative position in the region), Betty and Pete had negotiated a purpose Of this interaction--an agenda, even if it were only temporary. They were beginning to establish and jointly construct some clarity of what the situation was, but still had to clarify which set of role-relationships would be most appropriate. By reading a partial or temporary definition of what they were doing together, they 113 limited the possibilities of who they were in relationship to each other, but still had not worked out issues of status and role. In the following section of transcript, there were further changes in the interaction and in the participants' relationship to each other. 'UW'U “OW (17130013 W'U Those are strategies, but you have to get your plan down... first of all, right? You get down, y'know, maybe your Objective or whatever your purpose; what you hope to accomplish. Strategy is the most important part...1ike in the kinda role I work with. Say, for instance, if I Observe a classroom. I have the data...and I've done this Observation...and I may have an instrument. But the most important thing I do...is deciding how...in what environment... and how do I present that data. : I see : Y'know, so it...y'know : Except what seems to happen to me is that...I get surprised... at what the kids don't know. Like they catch me Off guard, now maybe that's just because I'm new, this year, to third grade, here. See, maybe I would throw that plan in and say, "Oh yeh, they don't know anything about nature, natural." : Yeh...you're building vocabulary too and plan that way. But I wasn't planning on it and that's what I feel guilty about. I have some real good lessons that are OK spontaneous. At this 1evel...or like anything, I guess...is readiness... and what you're doing is preparing them... umhmm motivating...but it's actually making them ready for the...when it hit's them, right? Right. But that wasn't the plan (hehehe) I know, but you should plan that in. I guess I should, but I didn't. : Well, you're coming along fine. I mean but ya know, ya should.. the readiness and pp! it's presented. I mean, y'know, if not, y'know...here it is...and we're gonna do this, and so forth. It becomes sorta dry. In this segment, Betty talked about the importance Of the two- stage process of planning, first planning what to teach and then plan- ning pgg_to present the lesson. Pete said that his problem was that he didn't know his students well enough to be able to predict their pre- vious knowledge which sometimes made it necessary for him to 114 restructure the lesson as he was working. Her suggestion was that he needed to begin his planning by thinking of strategies for preparing and motivating students and getting them ready for the main thrust of the lesson. He admitted that he wasn't doing that and then agreed that he should. The most obvious changes that occurred in this segment dealt with the length Of the turns and the type of turns for each participant. In earlier segments, Betty never spoke more than ten words or one line Of typed transcript at a time. In this segment she took turns Of close to 90 words or nine lines Of transcript. Pete cooperated by listening more and letting her take these longer turns. It became easier for her to signal when she wanted a turn and then to maintain it because he was actively listening by nodding his head in agreement and saying "I see" (3:17). His listening posture also communicated that he was ready to hear what she had tO say. He leaned forward with both forearms on the table and his hands tightly clasped in front of him. His shoulders were up and his head was cocked slightly, his eyes directly on her. The only movement he made, in fact, as she took her longest turn (3 8- 16) was his head nodding. Betty's turns went from ones where she was passively agreeing, trying to get a turn, and asking rhetorical questions as she did in earlier segments to turns when she was givng advice, information, and examples. Both her posture and language communicated directness. She leaned forward and gesticulated with her hands and fingers as she talked, Often using enumerating behaviors such as using one hand to count Off fingers on the other hand or holding out her fingers one at a time to emphasize the serial nature of the points she was making. 115 For example, as Betty was saying ”But the most important thing I do... is deciding how...in what environment...and how do I present that data” (3:14-16), her pauses coordinated with her counting Off one more fin- ger. Her style of speaking was directive in that she used the impera- tive form such as in "you have to" (3:8) and “you gpppldf (4:8), told him what he pp; doing as in "you're building vocabulary too" (3:24) and "what you're doing is preparing them..." (4:2-3), and consistently used the pronoun "you" to indicate his role and what pg_wou1d do as a teach- er (3:8, 9, 10, 24; 4:2, 8, and 10) and "I" to describe your own role. Her directness can also be seen in her choice of voice. She said, for example, that "strategy i§_the most important part..." rather than "strategy mgy_pg,.." which would soften the effect of her knowledge, belief, and assurance about strategy. Pete, on the other hand, went from turns where he was trying to get her engaged in conversation, describing his successes, and telling Betty what he thought about planning in earlier segments to turns where he explained why strategy planning presented difficulties for him and agreed that he should do it. When Pete was talking he also gestured broadly and emphasized certain points with his hands. For example, right after Betty used the enumerating technique described above, Pete used a similar one when he attributed his problem to being "new, this year, to third grade, here" (3:21-22). He emphasized the rhythm of the four phrases with his voice and hand, tapping the table once each as he said "new," "year," "grade," and "here." When Pete agreed that he gppgld_plan strategy but didn't (4:9), Betty made the evaluative and supportive comment "Well, you're coming 116 along fine” (4:10) and then reiterated her point that he should think about ppp_material was being presented (4:10-13). Instead of using the carefully controlled, directive language that she had earlier, the sec- tion that began with the evaluative comment is full of stumbles ("I mean, y'know, if not, y'know," 4:10-12); has false starts (”But, y'know, ymnlshould ...," 4:10); her sentences were disconnected; and her pronominal usage switched from you to I (4:10-12). It was difficult to determine what Betty was trying to say from the transcript and how that related to her ideas about planning, but further analysis revealed that this piece Of rather confused language functioned in two ways. First, it marked a transition from her giving the advice and his careful listening, to a section where they both talked of their successes and were mutually supportive (4:14-5:18). Second, a video analysis revealed that Pete had been ready to end that topic, and Betty was able to hold him a little longer by continuing to talk and through her posture. As Pete was saying "But that wasn't the plan" and laughing, he was pulling back from the table. Before that he was in his "careful listening" position with his hands clasped in front of him, his head drawn down between his shoulders, and his whole upper body over the table. As he was talking, he sat up straight, straightened his arms and slid them off the table, and smiled before he laughed. Instead of Betty's doing something similar which might have completed the transition and ended the topic, she continued in her previous position--learning forward and pointing while she was saying "I know, but you gppgld_plan that in" (4:8). At that point, Pete came partially back over the table, with his head and neck over the table and one hand and forearm back on the table. His other hand and arm 117 were down at his side and obscured by the table. Shortly afterward, Betty also leaned back and the coversation took a different turn (to be described in the following analysis). In the earlier segment of transcript, it was shown how Betty and Pete had begun to establish and jointly construct some consequences about the situation in which they were mutually involved. The topic to be discussed was planning and the purpose of the interaction was for her to give him some information about planning. In that earlier seg- ment, however, Pete was still doing most of the talking and was de- scribing his difficulty with planning strategies. Toward the end, it appeared that Betty had understood the problem and was ready to give him some advice. First, she said "Ohhh" with a rising voice, indicat- ing her understanding of Pete's problems, followed by "Well now, let me share with you" (3:6) to which Pete responded "OK.” Both the linguistic and the kinesic data in the last segment (3:8-4213) indicate that there has been clarification of status and role of the participants which had not been evident in the earlier negotia- tions. Although Betty had begun trying to gain some control of the situation earlier with her interruptions, use of rhetorical questions, and greater verbal and physical expression, it wasn't until she had said "Well now, let me share with you“ and he had agreed ("OK") that the change of status and roles became evident. In the beginning Of the interaction, Pete had control of topical changes and was doing most of the talking and was physically active. Through the negotiations in the past two segments, the situation gradually changed until in this segment it was Betty who was doing most Of the talking, was most physically active, and was giving information 118 and advice in a directive manner that portrayed both confidence in her- self and certainly in her knowledge and beliefs about the necessity of thinking about strategies of presentation as well as about what is to be presented. Betty's status was that of an advice-giver or teacher while Pete, through his physical listening posture, active listening behaviors, and agreement was in the status of an advice-seeker or stu- dent. Through his expressions about feeling guilty (3:36) and admis- sion of his errors ("I guess I should, but I didn't," 4:9), Pete low- ered his own status to a point where further mediation Of their rela- tive status was necessary. This occurred, in part, when Betty said, "Well, you're coming along fine" (4:10). Further mediation occurred in the following segment. 4:14 P: OK...SO this is what I was wondering. I guess...now do people 15 actually sit down and say..? Now I do it with math. I 16 say "how am I gonna do it?" with math. 17 8: Right! 18 P: I do that. 19 8: Sure. In fact you can alter an environment. 20 P: Um...yeh 21 B: You can turn out all the lights. Y'know 22 P: yeh 23 B: Ahh...one of the most interesting things I ever had, incidentlm 24 on this kind Of a walk...w-was in an ecology walk...put out by 25 the national parks. And to illustrate how man has affected 26 nature, 27 P: um 28 B: we walked from the camp site deep into the woods... 29 and every ten feet we had to write what we saw. 5:1 P: So every ten feet...Oh, no kidding (hehe). 2 B: And so, y'know, and describe y'know, how green it was or 3 what.what was there. What evidence of man was there. What 4 evidence of nature. 5 P: Um 6 8: Well, the deeper you get in, 7 P: interesting 8 B: there's no 9 evidence of man outside of your footprints. 10 P: Right 11 8: But the closer you 12 get to civilization, 13 P: the more 119 14 8: bottle caps, paper. 15 P: That's real interesting...Yeh, but see I was introducing (voice 16 slowing down) outside...uh, what d'ya call it, nature unit. 17 That's what it's gonna be. SO that's because they have this 18 unit here on crayfish, but nobody can get any crayfish. This segment, which immediately followed the former one in which their relativestatuses were quite differentiatedshowed the successful negotiation of the repair effort. It began with Pete's asking the in- complete question "now do people actually sit down and say...?" (4:15) and then turning the sentence into an example of his success "now I do it with math..." (4:16. What began as a request for information, show- ing that Pete was still playing the role of an advice and information- seeker, ended in an expression of understanding Of how he plans stra- tegy and an equalization Of the gap that had occurred. Their rela- tive physical positions also showed an equalization Of status. As he was talking, he leaned forward and took his pen out of his breast poc- ket, and she leaned back at the same time into a slouching position, resting against the back Of the chair. Her head was cocked slightly, and her arms were resting against her stomach. Her response to Pete's example of successful planning was an en- thusiastic "right!" (4:17, this time using the word to express agree- ment rather than as a rhetorical question as she had done earlier. They repeated the pattern of Pete's telling of a success and Betty's agreeing in the next two lines. When Betty went on and told of her own success, an ecology walk "to illustrate how man has affected nature" (4:25-26), Pete reinforced her several times with frequent active- listening comments such as "um-yeh" (4:20L ”yeh" (4:22L "um" (4:27), and, more enthusiastically, "so every ten feet. Oh, no kidding (hehe)” (5:1). The pattern continued with Betty's further description of the 120 ecology walk andPete's further active listening comments, "um" (5:5), "interesting" (5:7), and "right" (5:10). The final sentence of the example showed both participants jointly completing it (5:11-14). The symmetry in the pattern of success story and supportive com- ments, plus the joint completion of the example, were evidence that some form of a working consensus or agreement had been reached be- tween Betty and Pete. They had earlier agreed upon the purpose of the interaction and now upon their relative status and roles within it. Pete was the advice-seeker and Betty was the advice-giver. But because a relationship is not negotiated once and then continues to remain static, Betty and Pete continually worked on their relationship. Betty tried to equalize their relative statuses and maintain Pete's face as a person, a teacher, and an aspiring administrator by modifying her advice with notes of agreement and other supportive comments. Pete was also an active and supportive listener and contributor but still main- tained his lower status and role of advice-seeker. Similar examples of mutual supportiveness and agreement occurred throughout the next few minutes of interaction. Betty continued doing most of the talking and soliciting Pete's agreement and adding emphasis with the use ofiflwerhetorical questions "right?" (5:25, 6:4, 11) and "isn't it?“ (6:25). She also continued to use directive language and frequent use of the pronoun "you" and quotations to be explicit about what Pete should do and say to himself with the implied explanation that he would do these things. "And so as you build a unit say, 'all right, why was that other one good?‘ Right?" (6:10-11). At that point, Pete wrote down "what made it good" in his notes which was the first writ- ten entry that he had made. "You have to. That's why you're improving 121 each day and why you feel good about your teaching, isn't it? You're critiquing and saying, “ah hah'" (6:23-25). Pete also worked at maintaining his lower status with speech that included stumbles and false starts and by asking a question and qualifying his difficulties with planning ("Anyway, I was wondering...see if my...the ppgpg of doing it are just because I'm new or I don't know my group or if I'm just not giving...it enough thought?" (5:26-30). The total effect of this question was to act deferential to Betty and solicit both her support and additional information. The segment ended with Pete's agreement to Betty's suggestion. 6:26 P: NO, I'm saying in terms Of planning 27 B: I know 28 P: units, I don't look back 7:1 8: But you should 2 P: But I should...yeh 3 B: Sure. What made it good? What made it, y'know... 4 P: Right (pause). OK. 5 B: What would I want to scrap? And then you have to remember 6 sometimes things don't work with the same...a different group, 7 it may work. 8 P: Yeh. You're right. If I teach third grade next year... 9 Obviously when I plan, I will plan that right in. In the following segment, there was a topical transition, this time begun by Betty when she noticed that Pete had used colored chalk on one of his blackboards, a technique Betty had suggested on a previous visit. 7:10 B: Colored chalk 11 P: Y'know...colored chalk. Oh yeh, colored chalk! See I think 12 of you every time I use colored chalk (hehe). 13 B: Right! P: 1 use it all the time now. And the kids were.were, y'know 15 ggptivated, by this, y'know, and I just went over and started 16 drawing this island and this volcano and all this stuff and 17 they loved it. The fact that Betty started a new topic with nO explanation or warning, and then said only the two words "colored chalk" to indicate 122 what she had noticed, is eviderce that a working consensus and common understanding had been reached. It turned out to be a topic that gave Pete a chance to tell of a success because he had tried the technique successfully and also for Betty because she had suggested that he use it. During this time, their behavior was again symmetrical. They both smiled in the same manner as they looked at the board, and their re— spective body postures mirrored that of each other: he leaned forward while she leaned back; he had his right hand up near his ear with his right elbow next to his left arm which was resting on the table; she had her left arm in front of her body and her right arm up near her ear. The symmetrical behavior and the pattern of telling of successes while being mutually supportive continued as Betty gggjn_emphasized the importance of thinking about strategy while planning lessons. The two participants had worked out and negotiated this set of reciprocal behaviors to allow Betty to give advice and suggestions in a variety of ways and to emphasize her main points. This allowed Betty tO do her job of staff developer effectively and, at the same time, allowed Pete to maintain his own face as a successful teacher. The interaction continued with Pete's telling of a successful les- son which had been spontaneous, Betty's telling of a similar success- ful spontaneous lesson she had seen in another classroom, then Pete's telling of how another suggestion she had made on a previous visit had helped him. Then he Opened up another topic dealing with curriculum. Reaching Consensus The two participants had actively worked at and collaborated upon reaching a working consensus of both the problem and their relative 123 statuses and roles in this interaction. It was achieved over an ex- tended period of time and was now well enough established that it could be utilized. At that point, Pete finally initiated a discussion about the originally intended, yet unstated, agenda: 11:3 P: OK. Let me ask you this. I want to get Off Of school for a moment. 8: OK. Fine. P: Uh...l have..an..interest and a need to do something in administration in the near future... \lO‘U‘l-h Pete then went on to tell Betty about the pressure he was feeling about using his recently acquired administration certificate within the next year or so. He began this topical change in a way similar to the way he began the topic on p1anning--with a promise of something to be asked, but no question forthcoming. He said, "OK, let me ask you this” Pete chose to formulate this as a polite request rather than a direct question. During the time Pete was telling of this concern, Betty wrote "40” on the top corner of his paper, indicating that age was a factor to consider, to which Pete respondedsomewhatlaughingly "Oh no! That too!" They then went through a brief dialoguechwjng which they each forcefully competed to get turns. They interrupted each other; and when Betty got a turn, she talked incredibly fast, leaving no time for Pete to cut in. When he was able to start talking, she became louder and continued her sentence. The topic was about the rules Of thumb about how age relates to career changes. She wanted to tell Pete that the rule of thumb for a doctorate was age 45, and he was trying to tell her that that's not what he's worried about since he already had his Master's. It is not clear why Betty worked so hard to tell him this, but it appeared that it was important for Pete to keep her on 124 this topic about using his administrative training and, therefore, to exert himself sufficiently. In the next segment, Betty exerted herself again to get a turn by changing her tone of voice and lessening her degree of loudness, saying "OK, let's talk a little bit...whether it be this environment or another environment. I notice that you're doing something with in- service, right?" (12:7-9). This was in reference to the day scheduled for inservice education which was to occur later that week. There were two such days scheduled for the academic year in which students were not present, and teachers and administrators planned the activities which were to occur. Several of the activities involved one or two teachers' presenting a session for other interested teachers in some area of their expertise. For this inservice, Pete and Bob, the other elementary school principal and Pete's original sponsor, had volunteered to give a ses- sion on the use of chip-trading activities to teach the concept of place value to lower elementary students. There had been several times during the week, in Betty's conversations with administrators, in which she showed that she was unhappy with the lack of planning and organi- zation that had occurred for this week's session. In the next segment, Betty told Pete that he should get himself into a leadership role in this school by volunteering to plan the next scheduled day of inservice education. She also told him how she thought it should be done. 11:11 8: awright. I'd get myself into a leadership role for the 12 next inservice to where you're chairman of the committee. 13 P: OK. Right now it's a...it's just Bob and me. 14 B: OK, well...working with other teachers is what you want 15 your exposure in. 13: UW'U W'OCIJ'UUD CD'UUJU 125 Um I mean you're working with an administrator. Um But,..what you'd be working with would be other teachers. SO, I'd volunteer to be chairman of the next..thing. First of all, I talked with him (Bob). There needs to be more interaction among the staff...OK..on the development of this. Umhmm I don't care how many purple sheets go out. I see. You mean development of..what we're gonna do Right in the workshop? ° One of my suggestions um with it is that...(slowing down her pace) first of all...teachers self-evaluate themselves and say this area. I'd like to see something Offered here...first, second, third choice. um You know what I mean. So I say, has any self-evaluation device ever been used? Although this wasn't quite the "real agenda" that Pete had in mind, he listened carefully and actively. Because he was willing to listen, and didn't interrupt or try to, Betty was able to slow down her pace and speak slowly and deliberately and use pauses to emphasize her points. She switched her pronouns from "I" to "you" to tell and show Pete how he should organize the next inservice session (11:12, 14, 17, 19). She began her suggestion with what she would do if she were Pete ("I'd get myself into a leadership role.." 11:11), then used "you" to show Pete how it would help him ("working with other teachers is what you want your exposure in" 11:14, 15; "you're working with an adminis- trator," 11:17; "what YOU'd be working with would be other teachers," 11:19). After Betty became more specific on suggestions for written in- struments to question teachers on their inservice session preferences, Pete asked his first "real" questions of the day. 126 P: Awright..Have you suggested this already? 21 B: I didn't suggest x92; I suggested that P: that png does it. That it 23 jg done? 24 8: Right. And that it would be facilitated by someone...What 25 I'm trying to get you to do is to get yourself into a 26 leadership role here...and exposed to teachers. Awright? 27 P: UK. How does that help you get an administrative job 28 elsewhere, other than...? 14:1 B: well, it might help you get here because 2 you can always say designed, developed, and implemented an 3 inservice for teachers, right? Well, what do you think 4 educational leadership is? Basically that (slower pace). Both of the questions Pete asked (13:20 and 27-28) were direct informa- tion questions, unlike the requests for support, information, or clari- fication he had asked for earlier (1:2, 6, 12; 2:14, 27-29; 4:14; 5:26-27), or his promised, but not real, questions (2:2 and 11:2). Both the tone and the wording of the questions were far more directive and compelling than any of the earlier ones which were deferential. They were preceded by the words ”awright” or ”OK,“ setting them Off from other dialog and calling special attention to them. At this point it appeared as if Pete wanted to make very sure that he understood how Betty's suggestions could help him in his search for an administrative position. This still isn't the agenda Pete had in mind, but it was a transition. By completing Betty's statement (13:21-23), Pete was testing his own understanding of how her sugges- tions would help him. During this segment of the interaction, Pete was directly facing Betty and was leaning forward. He was moving his pen around, though not actually writing, nodding his head, and had his left hand on his beard with his elbow on the table. He was gesturing more frequently than she was and using larger motions with his entire forearm. In contrast, Betty was leaning back from the table with her elbows close to her body and only moving her fingers. 127 Then Pete clarified hisnosition to Betty by telling her that he wasn't really thinking of an administrative position in this school be- cause he already knew that it was unlikely that one would be Opened. Betty interrupted his explanation and said, "But one of the things... you see many places they're hiring ('sweet' voice)..uh..princi..I mean they expect the principals to do that" (14:7-8). The false start in Betty's sentence was probably because she was interrupting Pete in or- der to get her turn and keep it. Once the turn was secured, she was able to slow down and think more carefully about what she wanted to say In the next segment of transcript, Pete told Betty what he had already been doing at this school to get some leadership experience. No questions were asked, and Betty agreed that these were good ideas. Pete did most of the talking. Then Betty made some suggestions about his contacting and interviewing with the organization which did most of the recruiting and hiring for teachers and administrators in interna- tional schools. Pete asked some indirect questions, “OK, This is one of the things I was gonna ask you about" (16:5) and ”I was gonna ask you about them" (16:9). Now they were at the originally intended agenda which Pete had told the researcher beforehand was one Of his purposes for scheduling this meeting. He wanted to ask Betty if she thought it would be useful or advisable for him to attend an administrator's conference which was going to be taking place the following month in another Asian capital. Pete said that he knew that representatives Of this organization were going to be available for interviewing in that city, and Betty told him that they would also be coming through a much closer city, the one where Betty spent most of her time. Pete responded, "OK That:t's what 128 I want to know. DO you know when, 'cause I would fly up there and go interview?" (16:11-12). This information was new to Pete and apparently Of great interest. Summary of Case Study II During the course of this total interaction between Betty and Pete there was continual negotiation on the part Of the participants about this event and how to carry it out. In some sections it appeared as if the negotiation effort was of equal importance to the content of the interaction and what was being said was subordinate to how it was being said. Issues of control, status, roles, and purpose were being nego- tiated through linguistic and kinesic messages at the same time the topics were being discussed and were discovered through the microanaly- sis of the interaction. The situation between Betty and Pete went from one in which he was controlling much of the conversation to one in which she took over most of the controlling function. How and why these changes occurred were revealed in a careful analysis of the complete data. Initially, Pete was acting out his expectations of what should happen when the staff developer came to his room. He had an Official agenda (planning) and a hidden one (upward mobility in the school system). He Opened the con- versation, did most of the talking, and was active physically, exag- gerating both his voice and his body movements, while he actively tried to get Betty engaged in the conversation. He talked about school in general, but addressed neither his Official nor his hidden agenda im- mediately. Betty was moving and saying very little at that point, and there was a sense that this was a social event or friendly chat. 129 Gradually, Betty began using a series of techniques which even- tually led to a clarification of the purpose of the interaction and the relative role relationships of the participants. First, she looked around the room with broad sweeps of her head which then lead to a shift in topic. Second, Betty began interrupting and trying to get a turn. Then she began using the tag or rhetorical question "right?” for which she was soliciting agreement rather thanirnknhmtion. Eventually Betty began taking longer turns, giving advice, and using stronger and more directive language. Pete generally listened actively, agreed, and became deferential. Both of them moved into a pattern of telling Of their successes in their relative roles Of teacher or staff develop- er and being mutually supportive. Eventually, Pete agreed with her on the importance of planning strategies as well as content into lessons, but recognized why and when that might be difficult to accomplsh. What Betty called taking advantage of a teachable moment, Pete referred to as being spontaneous. When the originally intended agenda and the issues which were of great importance to Pete were addressed, there were further negotia- tions of topic, status, and role. At first, Betty suggested that Pete try to gain some experience in educational leadership by organizing the next inservice session for teachers, something she had strong ideas about as well as a series Of steps that should be used in its organiza- tion and planning. Pete asked directly how it would help him, clari- fied his position, and then told her what he had been doing already. At the beginning of their interaction, the relationship between Betty and Pete might be described as that of host and guest. He tried to engage her in conversation and "entertain" her, but also controlled 130 the topical changes and did most of the talking. As Betty exerted more effort and used some controlling techniques, Pete stated his problem and began listening more. At this point the relationship looked more like that between a teacher and student or a problem solver and problem holder. Repair efforts were necessary so that Pete wasn't too deferen- tial or self-defacing and that Betty wasn't too overbearing or control- ling. While it appeared as if Betty had a need to be asked questions or be given problems to solve, it also appeared that Pete had a need to be seen as likable, sincere, witty, and a good teacher and potential ad- ministrator. In the final phase of the interaction, when the original- 1y intended agenda was addressed, there was more Of a relationship of equals. They forcefully competed for turns, Pete asked direct ques- tions, and turn-sharing became more equitable. The analysis Of the questions asked by both participants further supports this interpretation. While Betty wasn't as explicit and di- rective in giving suggestions with Pete as she was with other teachers, she used some other techniques throughout the interaction when she wanted to get across her point and gain agreement. She spoke slowly and deliberately, paused for added emphasis, and used rhetorical or tag questions such as "right?" to seek agreement or make suggestions. She used this form in the last segment more for making suggestions than for seeking agreement. When she said "Well, what do you think educa- tional leadership is? Basically that" (14:2), she was saying that edu- cational leadership meant working with teachers. But the question im- plied that Pete already knew this, and, therefore, it was a less di- rective way of making her point. l3l Pete's questions were asked indirectly and functioned as markers of tOpical shifts ("maybe you can tell me about this. 1 should ask you about this," 2:2-3; "OK, let me ask you this," ll:3; or "OK, This is one of the things I was gonna ask you about," l6:5) or as deferential requests for support, information, or clarification until they reached the originally intended agenda. At that point, the information she had was important to him. He began acting much more like an administrator, asking direct, "real" information questions and questions of clarifica- tion. When he wanted a suggestion on a particular issue (”Now should I mail that stuff to them first--his resume, etc.--or can you just take it with you?"), he also asked a direct question. Goody (l978) talked about the conditions under which it was pos- sible to ask genuine, pure information questions. She said that there were really two different problems involved--the kinds of messages that questions carry and the constraints which exist on asking questions. (I have tried to show that) questioning not only involves asking for information, but also carries a command function. Questions are speech acts which place two people in direct, immediate interaction. In doing so, they carry messages about relationships--about relative status, assertions of status, and challenges to status (p. 39). She also recognized that the different modes of questioning were not equally available to everyone and that status played an important role in determining what kind of questions could or should be asked. For example, if a person in a clearly defined authority role asked a pure information question, it could be perceived as being just about facts, but also about fixing responsibility or event threatening control. It would be equally difficult, she asserted, for a person in a junior or 132 subordinate status to ask a pure information question, because he/she must always attend to the fact that it could be taken as a challenge. In the interaction between Betty and Pete, questions played a variety of functions. Betty used rhetorical questions to make sugges- tions and solicit agreement. Pete asked deferential questions at one point in the interaction, and real informational questions toward the end. It was first necessary for him to redefine his role or status in relationship to Betty before he could appropriately ask the questions that were of greatest importance to him from the inception of this in- teraction. Similarly, Betty had to have different ways of answering these questions. Some of her answers were to provide information and others were to help him save face. Through time, active negotiations, and a great deal of effort on the part of both participants, they both accomplished what they wanted. Betty gave advice, and Pete gained some useful information about things that were of differing degrees of importance to him. At the same time, he was able to show Betty his positive face, that he was a witty, likable, sincere person, and a good teacher and potential administra- tor. This combination of efforts, topics, suggestions, etc., consti- tuted one example of the instructional event of staff development. Neither participant was able to plan and carry out an agenda without the help and collaboration of the other, and the degree to which this col- laboration played a part in the interaction gave greater insight into what staff development meant in this case specifically and why, in fact, it was such a difficult activity to accomplish. 133 Case Study III: Betty, Lydia, and Joanne This interaction provided a look at another way in which Betty worked with teachers. In the last two cases, there was a lack of con- sensus about the purpose of the interaction and the relative roles of the participants,and the analysis explicated how these various defini- tions were negotiated. In the present case, many of the definitions of the situation were already understood through previous interactions of the three people, leaving less to be negotiated in face-to-face inter- action. The Context Two teachers, Lydia and Joanne, made up one teaching team and shared the responsibilities for approximately 45 second and third graders. Both had attended the most recently completed Individually Guided Education (IGE) workshop which had been administered and con- ducted by Betty. They were both new to the school and to teaching in international settings, but had previous teaching experience in the United States. They had both been recruited from the USA by the super- intendent along with their respective spouses and were members of that class of teachers referred to as "overseas-hired," meaning that they received an extensive package of fringe benefits, etc. The two teachers met each other and several other teachers from what was to become their school for the first time at the workshop. It had been suggested by the superinentdent that they both attend the workshop since there was a good possibility that they would be team teaching in the new assignments. They had not yet been to their new homes or country, but were currently en route. Lydia, Joanne, and one 134 other future teacher at the same school joined one another at the open- ning session of the workshop to become a teaching team. The teams were determined first by the age level of child preferred by each teacher. At that point the 33 workshop participants divided themselves into three different groups and did an introductory activity, telling others in the group "What's Unique about Me." Then they were told to break into subgroups for the next activity with the imposed rule that a group must be no bigger than three or four. At the workshop, Lydia and Joanne had a series of interactions with Betty as members of both large and small groups and as individuals. They also had many opportunities to observe Betty at work as she ad- dressed and conducted large groups, gave directions, identified prob- lems, gave feedback to teaching teams and individuals, and addressed specific issues in planned sessions or worked with them personally. In interviews held toward the end of the two-week workshop, Lydia de- scribed Betty as very perceptive, addinq that "she can look at some- thing and see the parts quickly." Lydia also said that Betty was "very aware of what's going on" and was able to "give answers without making value judgments." She also felt that Betty was "helpful and open if I felt that I had a problem" and that during the workshop "she made us do things that seemed impossible" (Individual Interview, 8/l7/78). Joanne described Betty as “strongwilled, dynamic, and full of energy, adding that "she isn't domineering, but matter-of-fact and human, too." "She's like a walking computer because she's so organized and really gets things done." Joanne also described Betty's style with teachers: "she earns respect"; "she doesn't try to be a friend as much 135 as trying to help you, yet she's friendly"; and "it's easy to take critiquing from her because she is professional (and) does it in such a positive way" (Individual Interview, 8/l7/78). The interaction to be analyzed here was the third formal session Lydia and Joanne had with Betty at their home school. After the first session, held three months earlier, during which the topics of advisory groups, procedures, and management systems for keeping track of stu- dents' progress were discussed, Lydia reported that "we could have spent a lot more time talking to her." Joanne said that "she helped us validate decisions we had already made" (Group Interview, 9/26/78). During their second session with Betty, held six weeks earlier, they had asked for assistance in lesson planning and doing more individuali- zation and also wanted to do some idea sharing and get further sugges- tions. The present meeting was also requested by the teachers. They had taken advantage of every opportunity to meet with Betty that had been made available to them to date. This one was scheduled for the begin- ning of the school day when the students would be in one of their spec- ial classes (music, art, or physical education), and, as usual, would be held in their classroom. Searching for the Problem The videotape recorder was turned on shortly after Betty entered the room and had joined Lydia and Joanne at one of the circular tables. Betty began shuffling the scheduling forms she had just picked up from the office and read off some of the topics which had been listed. The recorded informal opening was very brief and consisted of a question by Lydia, asking if the topics Betty was reading were ones they had I36 written down. Betty responded, "No, these are ones I've just col- lected” (l:2), and Lydia replied, "Oh, I see" (l:3). From there, they went straight into the request for the issue, preliminary description of the l: OmVO’SU'I-D [_CD N (A) WLW B: L: ..a w I—LI—LI—‘m problem and Betty's interpretation of it. What can I do for you? OK. I...and I think we have a big concern with two students that are causing a lot of problem. : Arright. : And the number one problem is that their parents, I mean their parents are teachers. : Right. 0K. : I mean it's things like..one of them is...mean. I mean mean to other kids. : Rude to the other kids (low voice). : Yeh. Just rude. Like today and teachers he brought, he brought a nest... a bird's nest to share. And so he spent the whole morning going around putting it in girls' faces..y'know, anyone that couldn't fight backs' faces. Y'know. I mean, y'know, and he's, he's done things like with his lunch pail, coming into the line and just..knock..knock everybody down. : Have you..UK, since..Now..is the child's..parents on the staff? : Yes : Awright. So,ya know if you..get the parents too much involved, then you y'know, they feel uneasy. It's very hard..having (ha) worked on a staff and having a child on it. It puts undue pressure on the child. It really does, and I don't think people realize that. Uh...let me just share with you a little bit (ha). I had my daughter on a pilot team, and, uh, and because in Fairfax County you weren't allowed to have your child on a..but because it was a school environment jg_flg§ton, which was a new planned community, and many of the things being done were gff_the traditional path, we did. Uh, and later I went back and asked Jennifer. And ya gotta bear in mind first of all that Jennifer's one of those kids that was, y'know, an outstanding student. Awright, so she didn't have any of those.uh.personal, y'know, she...the first child she wanted to do all of these things. She told me later that.. that it was really hard on her because she felt like...she could never be herself. And that..people expected her to be different because she was mine. And that she could never have tolerated..and this was like...there were 5th, 6th, and 7th graders...that unless, if I had not been a good teacher, she said she never would have been able to survive. But she said the kids liked me and respected me so therefore there was no problem in that age group. But she wouldn't recommend it. And 137 l8 a...it's interesting...later on she said come over and help l9 clean up the hgh school, y'know, like that. But I think it does 20 put a lot of pressure on them. Both the immediacy and the manner in which Betty asked the opening question, ”What can I do for you?" were in sharp contrast to the way the topic of discussion was negotiated in the previous interaction. Yet,irlboth cases, the respective teachers had indicated ahead of time (on their appointment sheets) that they had previously determined top- ics they wished to discuss with Betty. In the previous interaction, Pete had tried to get Betty involved in discussing some other things first, and she resisted through her inactivity. In this interaction neither Lydia or Joanne indicated that they wanted to do or talk about anything else. Lydia's first audible comment, "Is that what we wrote down?" indicated that she was responding to something Betty had said earlier. After Betty responded to Lydia's direct question and ex- plained what she had been doing, Lydia replied, "Oh. I see," and waited for Betty to do or say something else. Lydia gave Betty the floor and indicated that she had the next move in this interaction. Negotiating the Agenda As Betty asked the opening question, she looked briefly at Lydia, then down again as she continued to look at and shuffle her appoint- ment sheets and get ready to write. Lydia and Joanne were both lean- ing forward with their arms on the table and looking directly at Betty. Lydia began her explanation of the problem rather tentatively, pausing, starting over, and using the word "think" (l:5) rather than some very which might have expressed greater conviction before she stated their concern. Betty then looked at Lydia, raised her eyebrows, tilted her 138 head, and said ”Arright," emphasizing the "r," then looked down again. As Lydia continued her explanation of the problem, Betty looked intent- ly at her. Betty began nodding her head, and Lydia completed her sen- tence. Betty continued nodding as she said "Right. OK" (l:lO), then looked at Lydia who then continued her description of the child who was causing the problem. As Joanne inserted a further description of the child's behavior, Betty glanced briefly at her. As Lydia continued her description of what this child had been do- ing (1:16-21), Betty was again watching intently. Lydia accompanied her description of the child's deviant behavior with several gestures which, in part, were representative of what the child had been doing (putting bird's nest in children's faces and knocking others down with his lunch pail), which helped her give a clearer description. Lydia's description contained false starts (1:16, 17), repetitions (l:l7, I9, 21), words such as "y'know" (l:l8, l9), and "I mean" (1"19), and quali- fication of the word ”girls" to "anyone that couldn't fight back" (1:18-19). Carrying out the Problem Discussion A transition from a statement of the problem to its interpretation was signalled when Betty asked "Have you...0K, since...now...is the child's..parents on the staff?" (1:22). During the first part of that question which was full of false starts and pauses, Betty was looking at Lydia. Then she looked at Joanne and asked the question, "Is the child's..parents on the staff?" (1:22). It was a question of clarifi- cation, but Lydia had already stated that the child's parents were teachers which, in that setting, would mean that they necessarily were 139 on the staff. Joanne answered affirmatively, Betty nodded, and then began interpreting and providing insight into the problem. Betty linked herknowledge and familiarity with the problem of children and parents' being in the same school by telling of her own experience of being a teacher in a school which her oldest child had attended. She used a great deal of facial expression and movement, and the two teachers watched and nodded agreement at particular points. Joanne nodded more frequently and whenever Betty looked at her. Lydia nodded three times to Joanne's eight times during this part of the ex- planation. If she were showing agreement through eye movement, it could not be seen in the videotape. As Betty said "It's very hard" (1"25), she glanced from Joanne to Lydia, raised her eyebrows, nodded, and grinned. Both teachers nodded in agreement, and replied "um" very quietly. As she continued to say that she had "worked on a staff and having a child on it” (1:26), she again nodded and raised her eyebrows. She emphasized the fact that "it really does put undue pressure on the child" (1"27) and again nodded, but less obviously. In several of the places where Betty talked about her daughter and herself, she put her chin down but looked up at Lydia, then nodded. This occurred when she said that her daugh- ter was "an outstanding student" (2:7), felt that "she could never be herself" (2:11), and that she was "expected to be different" (2"12). Lydia and Joanne both nodded when Betty described her daughter as "an outstanding student." Betty nodded more and looked at Lydia with her chin down and her eyes up when she talked about herself as "a good teacher" (2:14) and that the other students had ”liked" and "respected" her (2:l6). Lydia and Joanne nodded as Betty said, "But I 140 think it does put a lot of pressure on them" (2:19-20), which was her summary of the problem. Betty then said that the same problem existed at another school in which she worked and that the reason children in this situation "act out" is because they're "under this pressure" (2:24-25). She also suggested that "1 think you need to do more counseling with that child ..in terms of not what his parents expect, but how he's being perceived by the rest of the group" (2:28-30). She added that for these children school is an "extension of the home" (2:35) and that "they don't have the feeling that wg_did as coming to school" (3:1-2). Both teachers nodded in agreement and said "umhmm" as Betty emphasized the word ”we" and pointed to herself and opened her eyes very wide, glancing at both of them. At that point there was a 30 second interruption as a mes- senger brought in a notice which the teachers read and initialed. It was followed by Betty's summarizing the message, "So you may want..to be careful on the home base" (3 6). Reaching Consensus A microanalysis of this segment provided information about the content of the interaction (what was being said), its context (how it was said), and about how both related to the dynamics of the relation- ship between Betty and the two teachers. The content of Betty's mes- sage and interpretation of the problem was essentially that being the child of teachers who work at the same school puts a lot of pressure on the child (1:27; 2:10-12, l9-20), and his mean/rude behavior the teachers described was a reaction to this pressure (2:24-25). Betty also said that Lydia and Joanne would have to solve the problem 141 without the help of the parents because parental involvement might put a strain on the multiple relationships these two teachers had with them as parents and teachers, colleagues and friends (1:24-25; 3:6). The context of this segment of face-to-face interaction analysis involved the length of Betty's turns and the way the three partici- pants collaborated on turn-allocation. Betty did virtually all_of the talking for two minutes and 15 seconds, which was an unusually long turn, certainly the longest in any of the cases described so far. The way turns were allocated provided some insight into why Betty's turn was so long and the nature of the relationship between the staff de- veloper and the two teachers. The seating arrangement was a contributing factor. The two teach- ers were across the circular table from each other, and Betty was be- tween the two of them so that it was not possible for any of them to look at the other two simultaneously. X Betty ““\ \ Joanne Lydia Betty was both given and took the responsibility for turn alloca- tion by looking at either Lydia or Joanne. Before Betty asked, "What can I do for you?" both teachers were looking at her and waiting for her to do or say something. She glanced briefly at Lydia as she asked that question, and Lydia responded by explaining the problem. She looked at Lydia again after she said "Arright" (1:7) and "Right. 0K" (l:lO), and both times Lydia continued talking. When Betty later asked ”(are) the children's parents on the staff?” she looked at Joanne 142 and Joanne anaswered. As Betty took her long turn when she interpreted the problem, Joanne nodded in agreement whenever Betty looked at her, and Lydia nodded when Betty said the problem was "hard" (1 25), wnen she said that her daughter was an "outstanding student" (2:7), when she said "it puts a lot of pressure on them” (2:20), and again when she said "we did” (3:1) which told of the common feeling the three of them had shared as students. In each case where Lydia nodded or said “umhmm," Betty was also nodding, raising her eyebrows, and looking at her. It appeared as if Betty were controlling allocation of turns as well as soliciting the responses she desired from the teachers. Another kind of information dealing with the dynamics of the rela- tionship between staff developer and teachers was available in the way Betty talked and interpreted the problem. First, Betty told them that she was very familiar with the problem because she had been on a staff at a school where her daughterwms a student(1:25-26). She also said that they ran into the same problem at her own school (2:23-25). She thereby gave them the message that this was not an unusual problem in international schools, and it was one that she had addressed in the past. In addition, Betty gave the two teachers information about herself--a previous job (1:26, 29), a place she worked (2:1,3), and her daughter (her name, 2:5; she was an outstanding student, 2:7; was her first child, 2:8; she communicated to her mother how it felt when her mother was on the staff where she attended school, 2:9-I7; and she suggested that her mother work at another school she attended later on, 2:l8-l9). By providing this kind of background information about her- self, Betty was potentially broadening her working relationship with 143 Lydia and Joanne and developing or performing comembership beyond the one in which they were currently engaged. The opening segments of this interaction varied greatly from the opening of the previous interaction in which Pete was doing most of the talking, was physically more active, and initiated topical changes. In that case it was said that the implied purpose of the interaction was ambiguous and the relative status and roles of the two participants were unclear and had not yet been negotiated. There was no evidence of a common understanding of the situation at that point,and a working consensus and definition of what was to occur still needed to be worked out. Even though Pete had an acceptable topic in mind to talk about, he had not defined it, asked a question, or stated a problem for Betty to answer or solve. As a result, the opening segments of the interac- tion involved the process of negotiating a working consensus of the situation in which they were engaged and their relationship to each other. In contrast, the interaction between Betty and these two teachers had a smooth beginning. Lydia and Joanne reflected a clear understand- ing of what was to occur, what kinds of help Betty could give them, and they, in turn, had a clearly defined problem in mind and partici- pated in a very different way than Pete had. They seemed to know how and when to ask questions, define or describe the problem, and when, how, and how much to listen or to talk. There was clarity of purpose on the part of everyone. They all appeared to know that the situation of Betty's coming into this room meant that she was there to help them on any issue or problem they defined. They had also learned through their own past experiences and through hearing others talk about Betty 144 on what kinds of things she was most helpful and her areas of exper- tise. In addition to a clarity of purpose, there was also a clarity of their respective status and roles, and the rights and obligations that went along with them. Betty was in control of turn-allocation and some of the teacher responses. The teachers were deferential to her in the way they talked to her and when they talked, and Betty seemed to know what kinds of strategies she could use with them without threaten- ing them or making them feel defensive. This clarity of understanding was based on former knowledge gained from previous interactions both at the workshop and on Betty's visits earlier in the school year. The former knowledge and experience these three people had of and with each other probably also enabled Betty to ask for the problem to be stated so readily. In this case where a working consensus had been achieved and the two teachers had learned ”how to learn” and Betty had learned "how to teach them," there was a more stable relationship under which a different set of interactions could occur. The interaction continued with a further description of the prob- lem by both Joanne and Lydia. During this time, Betty was primarily looking down, nodding at intervals, and writing or doodling. She glanced up at the speaker occasionally, and Lydia and Joanne negoti- ated their turns with each other for a little over half a minute. This was followed by Betty's restating a solution that she had first men- tioned earlier ("I think you need to do more counseling with that child..in terms of not what his parents expect, but how he's being perceived by the rest of the group," 2:28-30). This time it was stated as follows: "Let me, let me give you a little.. I would, first of all 145 ..uh, n-now in here...counsel, and change his behavior...with what he's doing in here. First of all, that's positive" (3:l7-l9). The difference between this suggestion for a solution and the earlier one related to when and how they were stated. The first time, it was embedded in Betty's long statement of interpretation and agree- ment. There were no changes in her movements or gaze direction during that sentence, but there had been shifts that accompanied both the statement previous to this solution and the following one. Also, there were content shifts in the three sentences. Prior to the solution, she had shifted topics from the pressure on the child to the need for counseling and someone else's help. It was not specified how this other person might be able to help, but then she quickly added, while pointing to each of them, "I think you two can handle it” (2:22-23). Immediately following the solution sentence, she described how the kids felt about school while moving back in her chair and dropping one of her arms off the table. The second time the solution was given, about one minute later, it was distinguished from what came before primarily by change of speaker. Joanne had been describing the child's behavior, Betty sig- nalled that she wanted a turn by saying "0K," and Joanne completed her turn. When Betty began her suggestion, she used the words, "let me... give you a little..," which clarified what was to occur, who was doing the "giving," and to whom it was being given. The term "let me" softened the intent somewhat by indicating that Betty was asking for permission, but it still acted as an imperative and expressed "the will to influence the behavior of another" (Webster, 1980, p. 570). 146 Betty had used a similar linguistic feature and class of verbs when she began the solution-giving phase with Pete (”Well now, let me share with you,“ 3:6). Another linguistic feature she used was “I would..." to precede the suggestion, something which also appeared in the solution she offered to Anita (6zl2). The third feature she used, also seen with Pete, was enumerating: "first of all..." When Betty went through these three features and was finally ready to state her suggestion for solving the problem (which was I'counsel, and change his behavior...with what he's doing in here"), she employed some kinesic strategies to emphasize her message. She looked at Lydia, pointed to her, and then tapped the table three times with four fingers of her right hand as she concluded the sentence. All of these features and strategies occurred one right after the other. Lydia nodded in agreement and said "umhmm" as Betty tapped her fingers, but then disagreed. 3:20 L: We've tried, now 21 8‘ 0K 22 L: we've talked to him. We have spent a lot 23 of time with this kid. 24 B: Awright. You may have talked too much. 25 L: We have, yeh, that's what I'm saying 26 B: OK, in other words 27 L: We're not getting any results. 4:1 B: You need to get into the behavior..aspect of it, 2 L: Umhmm Shortly after Lydia said, "we've tried," her head went back and She dropped her left forearm to the table from the upright position it had been in. As Betty said ”OK," she glanced at Joanne and began scratch- ing her wrist. When Lydia said "We've talkgg_to him," she picked up and dropped her forearm again, using her arm to add power to the voice emphasis. As she continued with "we have spent a lot of time with this kid," she was shaking her head up and down in a rather pronounced 147 way. When Betty said "Awright" (3:24), she was still scratching her wrist, but was shaking her head "n0" as if she realized the problem. As Lydia agreed that they may have talked too much (3:24), she leaned back from the table, lifting her elbows, pushed back her long hair, and came forward again, this time with two elbows on the table and both hands holding up her head, and leaning further over the table than she had been before. Lydia reacted to the word Betty had used in the solution, “coun— sel,” and interpreted it as the kind of talking that hadn't been work- ing. Betty agreed that "talking” was not the answer, but went on to elucidate hgw to talk and what to say. She didn't say they had been doing it wrong, but did go on to say how to do it correctly--the issue of error or mistake was avoided as was any disagreement. Lydia ap- peared ready to agree ("umhmm"), as Betty got "into the behavior as- pect of it” (4:l), and ready to listen to Betty's further explanation. There appeared to be a strong enough working consensus to allow Lydia to give an honest reaction and disagree with Betty and still be ready to listen further. The consensus may have worked toward giving her the freedom to disagree without threatening the relationship. In the next segment, Betty told Lydia and Joanne how to change this child's behavior: 4:3 8: Say, ”awright, now..John...I'm concerned about how other people are gonna think, y'know, think about you. And I'd like you to watch...first of all...or just tell me..how many people act like you do?" And you've got a good number in here, and say, "well now..l've talked with you. We've reached the end of it and you...’I He probably is not a child that can learn by inference. So you tried informally, because he maybe 10 has never had a model. Y'know if I say to you..”Now why don't ll you act like a Iady,Lydia"..you immediately have some sort 12 of a model of appropriate behavior. That may not be this 13 child's forte. He may never had had seen...what the norm is. \CGJVOfiU-b 148 14 L: That might really be true. I5 8: Uh..the home environment may be entirely permissive and there's 16 maybe not much time spent on learning those socializing skills. This was followed by an example of another child who had not had an ap- propriate model, and then some more explicit directions of how to solve this problem. 5:4 8: But first of all ya have to sit down and create this environment. 5 It's gonna take a little time. Ya have to say, "now look... 6 today I want you..to..behave this way and not do” and you have 7 to start with one behavior that you can't tolerate. 8 L: Yeh 9 B: OK, so select one. Eradicate that one first. Now, the plan is 10 ...he will need reminding. So, I've used several ones, and I'm ll not a big behavior mod nut so don't think that 12 L: I think 13 B: (inaudible) 14 L: I think that's I5 what we're gonna have to resort to. 16 B: Awright. You're gonna have to be consistent. 17 L: Umhmm 18 B: Both of you. And say, ”awright now." For instance, if it's 19 speaking out, and you wanna stop that, say "now every time you 20 speak out, I'm gonna put a line on the chalkboard. When it 2| gets to five..." 22 L: then 23 B: he's isolated (pause) 24 L: Like into the center mod? 25 8: Into the center mod. Now if you wanna get, y'know, if you 26 wanna talk it over with your administrator first and get it 27 to where he can come up to the office...but you have to find 28 something and, l..he may value the group, whatever it is, but 29 you have to say "because you are taking away a freedom...from 30 other people. They don't need th..to put up with that." And 6:1 gradually, like the next day he may, he may curb his behavior 2 almost immediately, cause you're only working with one. And 3 then the next day..if you had four marks today before you get 4 out, tomorrow you have three. And you gradually decrease. b L: UK, b..but you wanna..you wanna work on one behavior, and go 6 down to five, four, th 7 8 B: That's right L: and whatever, like that, and when that 9 seems 10 J: Like is there any kind. of like a length of time you wanna go 11 on that? Or does everybody have a different one? l2 L: You just have to 13 kinda feel how th..how they're doin' on it? In that segment there were at least three salient features that emerged from the data and reflected the effective working consensus 149 these participants had negotiated: (a) the explicitness of Betty's language and choice of words, (b) the number and clearness of her gestures, and (c) the evidence the teachers gave that the suggestions Betty was giving were relevant and workable. Betty used very directive language to tell and show Lydia and Joanne what to do. Both her word choice and sentence structure com- municated a Clear set of directions. She told them, then modeled a plan for working with the deviant child. She used the phrase "you have to" or something quite similar six times (5:4, 5, 6-7, 16, 27, 29), of which the first three were in close succession. She didn't choose a softer alternative such as "you could," which would make it seem like a suggestion, but chose instead to use the most forceful form whiCh made the ideas that followed the phrase appear as directives or com- mands. The ideas communicated were equally forceful. Such statements as ”you have to start with one behavior that you can't tolerate" (5:7) and "Eradicate that one first" (5:9) communicated that the teachers should and could change behavior and didn't have to tolerate things that they didn't like may have been surprising to these two teachers who evidently had been tOIerating this child's behavior for several months. It is possible that their earlier attempts at curbing this behavior (“talking") communicated that the teachers didn't like it, but now Betty was telling them that they "had to" communicate that it was unacceptable and would not be tolerated; in fact, it would be "eradi- cated." Betty was very clear in the way she communicated who would be doing these things. She formulated "the plan," but both of them were 150 to expedite it. She used the pronoun ”you" consistently, and added the phrase "both of you" at one point (5:18). The plan was to analyze the problem and break it down into its component behaviors and then to select one of the component behaviors and then to select one of the components at a time and direct their attention to that first. They needed to tell the child what not to do, call his attention to it every time he did it, and then punish him in some way so that he would have to take the consequences of his own behavior. Betty's gestures paralleled the interpretation of how Betty became more and more directive, explicit, and authoritative in telling Lydia and Joanne what to do and how to do it in order to solve this problem. At the beginning of the interaction when Lydia was first describing the problem, Betty looked down a great deal (at the papers she was shuf- fling) and rarely moved or changed positions. In fact, Lydia was the most active participant in the way she used her gestures to help with her description of the problem. When Betty began her long turn in which she was interpreting the problem and agreeing that it was a common problem in international schools, she looked alternately at both teachers and began to move her fingers as she talked. Her wrists and arms remained immobile on the table. As Betty's language became more and more explicit in the most recent segment and as she was giv- ing the set of directions for solving the problem, her gestures became clear and pronounced. At that time she spent most of her time looking at Lydia with only token glances at Joanne. Firstshe began moving her right arm while the left remained on the table. Then she began using two arms more frequently in her gestures when she got to the seg- ment containing "you have to" three times in succession. 151 She did not gesture broadly during this past segment, but the rhythm of her gestures followed the patterncfliher speech. When she modeled what the teachers should say to the child, she also demon- strated with both arms. For example, when she said “now lock...today I want you..to..behave this way and not do" (5:5-6), her left arm was outstretched, and her right hand was softly hitting the table in rhythm with the pauses. When said said "eradicate that one first" (5:9), she made a large, sweeping motion with her left arm and then hit the table. When she said "Awright. You're gonna have to be con- sistent“ (5:16), her head was nodding, and both arms were outstretched in front of her. As she added "Both of you," her hands went up and her fingers were outspread. All through this segment the teachers, particularly Lydia, gave Betty feedback about her suggestions as she said "start with one be- havior that you can't tolerate" (5:7). Here Lydia began writing first; Betty looked at her hand and paper, then glanced over at Joanne who then also began writing. lhey also were writing as Betty said "talk it over with your adminstrator first" (5:26). They both continued the active listening behaviors they had used earlier, particularly head nodding and saying "umhmm." This was going on regularly all through this suggestion/direction giving phase. There were also times when they were more outspoken in their agreement. Lydia said, "That might really be true" (4:14) in reference to Betty's explanation that the child may not have any norms or models of appropriate behavior. She also said "I think that's what we're gonna have to resort to,” refer- ring to the behavior modification plan that Betty was suggesting (5:14-15), and Joanne nodded as she and Lydia made eye-contact. Lydia 152 also asked a question to clarify if she understood "the plan." She asked, "OK, b..but you wanna..you wanna work on one behavior, and go down to five, four, th..., and whatever, like that..." (6:5-9). She went on to ask, "Like is there any kind, or like a length of time you wanna go on that? Or does everybody have a different one?" (6:10-11). There was also symmetry of movement which suggested that Lydia, particularly, was in agreement with Betty's plan. At one point (5:10-11), Lydia and Betty leaned toward each other and made what ap- peared to be a rather extended eye-contact. When Betty said, "He's isolated" and paused (5:23), she swept her right arm across the table and behind her, pointing in the direction of the central area of the module (that portion shared by the six teachers who had classrooms in that module). Lydia then asked, ”Like..into the center mod?" (5:24) and swept her arm across the table in a way similar to what Betty had just done, but on a smaller, more restricted scale. At other points, Lydia used a synonym for ”modeling" ("examples") to show understanding (5:2) and helped Betty in the completion of her sentence (5:22). The total effect of Betty's strong and directive lingusitic and kinesic features was mediated by Lydia and Joanne's signs of agree- ments. These indications that the two teachers were finding Betty's plan relevant and workable allowed Betty to continue and to become more direct and explicit to the point that she appeared to be giving com- mands rather than making suggestions. A linguistic analysis alone raised the question of how Betty could be so authoritative and use such strong, directive language. Her voice was emphatic, and she ex- pressed confidence and knowledge that her plan was workable. Through a combination of linguistic and kinesic strategies, Betty showed the 153 teachers how they, too, could act authoritatively and decisively. She modeled the language and behavior that they should use with the child. So, while it appeared that Betty had made the decision on how to solve the problem unilaterally and was now telling them what they "had to do," the working consensus that had been achieved early in the interac- tion plus the continual signs or agreement the teachers gave to Betty about the solution showed how they, too, had a part of that decision- making. Betty was far more direct in her approach with Lydia and Joanne than she had been with either Pete or Anita. With Pete, she had to solicit agreement through the use of rhetorical questions and had to make her suggestions in the form of questions. She had to be indirect in order to preserve his face and need to be seen as a nice person and a good teacher. With Anita, Betty was quite directive, but she never had the signs of agreement that Anita thought she had a problem that Betty could solve. There had been no working consensus about why they were together or what their relationship was to each other. Throughout the remainder of the present interaction, Betty con- tinued to elucidate on "the plan," and the teaChers gave continual signs of agreement and occasionally elaborated on other aspects of the problem. Shortly after the teachers clarified their understanding of the plan, Betty returned to the original source of disagreement--their various definitions of "talking": 8: Ya see most children live up to the expectaton..of the en- Vironment. Awright, 39w, remember it'll take a little while because he's been tolerated, and, he.he knows that he can out-last the talk. He does something wrong..he gets a lecture, right? And he goes right back and does the same thing...So you're goin' to be changing his be- havior. Whenever you change a behavior, ther'll be some dynamics, y'know, he may try to get back at other things (6:14-19). 154 Now that Betty had explained how to change behavior, she went back to show them how it was different than "talking." She switched pronouns from “you" to "he" as in “hefs been tolerated“ or the gets a lecture" rather than a more threatening direct form such as ”you've been tol- erating/lecturing him." Her strategy was to be direct when it would make her solution more explicit, but less direct in placing blame. This was a face-saving strategy since Betty may have felt that there was nothing to be gained by having them accept blame for the problem di- rectly. In Betty's plan, after the student "curbs his behavior" by having been made aware of what he was doing and taking the consequences, the next step was to give positive feedback and show him how his behavior had been changed. She said, “So at the end of the day, you have to say, 'Listen, aren't you pleased? You gee do it'” (6:20-21). She also suggested using "peer recognition" to reinforce the positive change by saying, "if there's a small group, say, 'Aren't you pleased with how he's changed his behavior?'" (7:l-2). Then Betty reflected back to her interpretation of the cause of the problem: "I think, to a certain extent, people have made it an expectation of the school to take care of their children" (7:2l-23). Betty, Lydia, and Joanne reflected on some other aspects of that proo- lem as with teachers who nurse their babies during after-school meet- ings or bring their children into the teachers' lounge. Lydia said, “I can't understand how that's allowed" (9:2), and Betty said, "1 think it needs to come to the administrators. They need to discuss it" (9:4-5). 155 Other phases of "the plan" involved telling the child where to play and what to do after school. Both teachers and Betty agreed that what the child does after school is out of the domain. A short while later, the teachers explained the kind of behavior that had been tolerated from two children last year. Joanne said that they were constantly telling those two not to sit together because the children felt that they could just play around if they had finished their work. Betty's solution was similar: tell them where they eee_sit and with whom rather than telling them what get to do. Part of Betty's model of effective teaching involved teaching be- havior in much the same way that one teaches baSic Skills. She had talked about this theme at inservice sessions, and it had emerged in several of her interactions with teachers as it had with Lydia and Joanne. She talked about the importance of making classroom expecta- tions clear to the Children. If these two problem children needed limitations, then that is what they should be given. From there Betty moved into another theme, one which she had tried to approach with Anita. She suggested that easily distracted students need to be placed within physical proximity to the teacher because they needed more supervision. She showed them how this related to one of her goals for all classrooms which was to help the children move toward the goal of self-discipline by recognizing and reinforcing positive changes and improvement. Throughout the remainder of the interaction, Betty revealed some of her other goals for classrooms and her model of effective classroom management. One of these was to teach and encourage group values by getting kids to feel responsible for others. Another was to establish 156 and create a listening environment and avoid repeating directions by making sure that children were quiet before stating the directions for the first time, writing them on the board if necessary, and then find- ing out "if the message got through” through questioning. Betty told Lydia and Joanne that this was part of teaching the process of good study habits. She also emphasized the need to teach oral and listening activities. At the end of the interaction, Betty stated "two rules” for classroom activities: one was to make sure that children under- stood why they were doing something and why it was valuable, and the second was to make sure that they understood directions. Summary of Case Study 111 Throughout the interaction, there had been an apparent consensus of the purpose of the interaction and the relative status and roles of the participants. The purpose of the interaction was for the teachers to get help on a specific school-related problem. They played the role of problem holders while Betty played that of problem solver which put them in a status relationship similar to that of students and teacher. Betty was always in control of the pace of the conversation, the topi- cal changes, and turn allocations; and she also did most of the talk- ing. The teachers listened actively, agreed with her interpretations and solutions or asked questions of clarifications, and took notes. Betty's language was strong and directive, and her gestures were clear, succinct, and obvious. Lydia's language reflected signs of powerless- ness in her hedges, false starts, and indirective language, and her gestures were smooth and graceful. There was also a smoothness on the part of all the participants in structuring the interaction. The three people collaborated on how 157 these relative SOCla1 roles Should be played out and the extent to which Betty could be authoritative and explicit on how to solve the problem. The teacners were able to ask questions for clarification and express doubts about the workability of a suggestion. Their agreement on the problem, its cause, and the appropriate solutions broadened their relationship to the point where polite disagreement was accep- table. They negotiated w1£h_Betty on interactional dynamics. Betty didn't begin by giving solutions and using a wide variety of techni- ques; they occurred gradually. The teachers' feedback and agreement was necessary before Betty could become more and more explicit and au- thoritative in getting them the solution to their problem. Because the degree of authoritativeness was gradually negotiated, and the teachers actively participated in that negotiation, they re- ported having a sense of discovery or of being helped. One of these teachers had once told the researcher that Betty ”was able to force us into the process without telling us what to do, and we did it" (Workshop, 8/17/78). They continued to refer to her helpfulness ”in giving immediate feedbaCK to questions and problemS“ and to ”dealing with trouble spots in a fair way" (Questionnaire, 2/20/79). In fact, Betty gfig_tell the teachers what to do and modeled exactly how to do it; but because of their part in the collaboration, the solution be- came their own. They were told how to be authoritative with a child, how to focus in on a problem, how to arrive at a solution, and then how to implement the solution conSistently and in a step-by-step pro- cedure. They were told hew_to change behavior and how "to eradicate” behaviors that they couldn't tolerate. 158 In this interaction thele didn't appear to be conflicting con- cerns that were demonstrated in the first interaction or the multiple agendas and identities as in the second one. Together with Lydia and Joanne, Betty was able to meet the needs of the teachers by providing solutions on how to solve their problem, she was able to meet her own needs by presenting her concepts and goals for effective teaching or classroom management, and She was able to meet the needs of the school by providing help wnere it was needed/wanted. All three of these con- cerns and needs were served simultaneously. CHAPTER IV STEPPING BACK: THE CASE STUDIES IN PERSPECTIVE Introduction This study began with an understanding that staff development was a difficult and complex task. Intuitively, it seemed that any role which attempted to create change in teachers, or any other ClaSS of individuals, must be a rather sensitive one. Yet this researcher knew Betty, a staff developer, who had been called "effective"; i.e., people reported that she helped them change in pOSitive ways. When these people who had worked closely with Betty were aSKed about her, the first responses were generally quite broad and evalua- tive, such as "terrific" or "amazing." When these people were asked to describe Betty or her working style or what was ”terrific" or "amazing” about her, they often spoke of her energy level or physical dynamics-- how fast and effiCiently she moved, talked, reacted, etc. When asked why_they thought Betty was ”good” or ”effective," they often described the kinds of help she gave: "direct," "straight-forward," "concrete," etc. (See queStionnaire and interView data in Appendices A and B.) The basic questions of this study came from the researcner's curi- osity about how Betty managed to enact this difficult and complex role and the grounds for her effectiveness as reported by those who knew and and worked With her. The intent was systematically to study and 159 160 describe what she did and how she did it or, more basically, to study the institutions or those who worked with her regularly. It was hoped that sucn a Study would uncover some 0f the skills and knowledge this individual possessed which would provide new understanding and insight into the process of staff development. This chapter will summarize the three case studies and then Show their differences and Similarities in order to refocus on the broader questions or this Study and to develop a larger perspective of staff development as enacted by Betty. Those broad questions aSKed (a) how can positive change in teachers be facilitated? (b) how is the role of the staff developer enacted? and (c) what enables people to behave sen- sibly with others in social encounters. The differences across the three case studies prov1ded insight into the range or knowledge and skills the indiVidual possessed and the various forms and purposes that an interaction between a staff de- veloper and teachers/administrators can take. The similarities across the studies also pointed out potentially new and generalizable informa- tion about staff development that provided greater understanding about the difficulties and complexities of the total role and some commonal- ities in Structure that occurred across all three cases which were used as subheadings for each case study in the preVious chapter. Summary of Each Case Although there are many similarities in reports from teacners and administrators about how Betty worked and how she had helped various individuals, and even though she worked under Similar conditions and constraints of timing, place, and the neceSSity to preserve and bUl1d 161 helpful working relationships, there were significant and characteris- tic differences in the way She carried out her role of staff developer with different teachers. These differences were not always obvious, but revealed themselves in a close and systematic analySiS. This led to new insights about Betty's role and also to Staff development in general. The three case studies presented in this chapter document the differences in how interactions were negotiated and how the negotiations led to different forms and purposes of staff development. Case Study I In the first case study, a set of problems had been identified by JaCK, the principal. He had spoken of a problem between a parent and Anita, a teacner. The parent had requested that her child be moved into another class because She was bored. Anita had asked for help Wlth increasing motivation among her students to produce worthwhile re- sults. Betty was concerned with a generally weak teacher. Anita and Jack talked over the differing conceptions of the problem, then Anita was told by JaCK that Betty was coming into her room "to observe a new child” and "provide feedback on the blond." In that case Betty had intended to gather data on what the teacher said and how children acted and reacted in the classroom and then to work out a Strategy for giving feedback to the teacher. She had gone into the observation session with conflicting concerns about the real and implied purposes of the interaction and which of her many roles or statuses She Should assume. The principal's concern about negative feedback from a parent, the teacher's concern about lack of motivation among her students, and Betty's concern about a generally weak teacher 162 conflicted and did not lend themselves to a Single way of acting or responding in the interaction. Betty was forced to make a decision about which of the concerns was primary and whether She would play the role of advocate of the teacher, advocate of the school, or advocate of her own model of ef- fective teaching. If she were to be an advocate of the teacher, she may have been sympathetic and responSive to the teacher's expressions of conflict between messages she was getting from various sources within the school, difficulty getting organized, or difficulty getting students motivated. Although Betty expressed the desire to help the teacher with one expressed concern (report cards), sne referred to her own model of effective teaching and the need to promote task-orienta- tion among students. Betty expressed that there was a serious problem but, at the same time, provided the teacher with a face-saving way of accepting the problem and attempting to solve it. Betty did this by implying that she and Anita Shared some assumptions about (a) good teaching, (b) that Anita wanted task orientation in her classroom, (c) She wanted to spend more time with those students who needed it, and (d) that the parent's concern had to be dealt with judiciously. Betty also re- ferred to the student as the one with the problem and avoided mention of the teacher as the cause of the problem, and then referred to a pay- off for the teacher if she followed the suggestions. During the next interaction with Jack, the principal, Betty ap- peared to resolve her advocacy position and told Jack that the teach- er's more general problem had to be dealt with by him and that she would play the advocate of the teacher and address herself only to 163 those things for which the teacher asked for help. She did, however, tell Jack how he should handle the general problem and help the teachen The interaction with Anita was full of ambiguity about why Betty was in the teacher's room, taking notes and giving feedback, who she was helping, and what the problem was. There was no consensus reached on the roles each should play relative to the other and what they were doing together. Betty gave advice and suggestions on a problem the the teacher hadn't acknowledged. Even though She repeated her sugges- tion and stated it in different ways, there was no indication that the teacher accepted or understood it. Betty expressed this ambituity and the frustrations it created in her follow-up discussion with Jack. During the course of that discussion, Betty appeared to decide what roles both She and Jack Should play in helping the teacher. In contrast, the understandings, agreements, and working consensus Betty and Jack had negotiated led to a greater understanding of how negOtiations of this nature occurred, how they were collaborated upon, and how the reaching of a working consensus had allowed Betty to give information and adVice to Jack and also provided both partici- pants with information about how to act in this Situation in relation- ship to each other, what would be the parameters of acceptable beha- Vior, so that Betty could give Jacx this kind of directive advice she She felt was needed to improve the teacning Skills of Anita. To sum, when Betty was engaged in the face-to-face interaction with Anita, she first played the role of "consultant" when asked ques- tions by Anita, her "client.“ Then She became more of an "expert” with Anita's being the ”defeCtive teacher." When Betty left that interac- tion and began: talking to JaCK, she determined that the "consultant/ 164 client“ relationship was more appropriate between Anita and her and at- tempted to re-establisn it in a note. With Jack, their relative roles shifted between that of "friends and colleagues" when they discussed the problem and worked out a Strategy for Betty to observe Anita to positions closer to that of an "expert" speaking to a "problem holder.” Case Study II The second case study also began with no common understanding or definition of the purpose of the interaCtion or the relative status and roles of the two participants. The only clue Betty had was that Pete, the teacher, had written down that he wanted to discuss "planning" on his appointment-scheduling sheet. She appeared to have no Other agenda item or concern of her own. On the other hand, Pete had revealed to the researcher that he had two other purposes or "hidden agendas" in mind: (a) he wanted to get to know Betty better because he liked her; and (b) he had heard that Betty, through her contacts with various ad- ministrators in Southeast Asia, might be able to help him in his search for an administrative position somewhere in the region. Through a microanalysis of speech and kinesics of videotapes of a Single interaction between Pete and Betty, it has been possible to re- construct how these two people negOtiated both the topics to be dis- cussed and their relative status to each other over time. Figure 1 illustrates the role and postural shifts across time that occurred dur- ing the interaction and how they co-occurred with the four structural phases that were common across all of the interactions. During the the course of the interaction, there were five shifts in relative Status or definitions of "who we are" and the four common instructional 165 .HH xnnum mmmUllmgwwzm chzumoa ucm mpog to mucmsomm wswh .P mgzmwm UH :owmmzumwc Empnoca mucmmm Empnogq mamcmmcou mg“ mza mg» mcwcummc mcwpumcm mcwpumm mcwcwmmc acmwpu LmuFo: swpnoga acmuzum \ucmppamcou \Lm>mw muw>w< \Lmsummh Acompwmcmguv pmmzo \umo: _ _ _ _ > _ z _ H: _ : _ H 166 and topical Shifts. During the first brief segment (1), Pete initi- ated the conversation, did most of the talking, was physically active and actively tried to engage Betty in the conversation while She re- mained relatively inactive and commented minimally. He was playing the role of a solicitious host and was describing some of his teaching suc- cesses. During the next phase (II) which can best be described as a tran- sition, there was evidence of changing roles and relationships' being negotiated. Betty began participating more fully, and she and Pete were in the position of competing for turns. Pete defined the topic as "planning“ which gave a temporary purpose or definition to what they were doing; and Betty, through her changes in posture, particu- larly the broad sweeps of her head, interruptions, use of the rhetori- cal to achieve agreement, plus using louder, more expressive speech, indicated that she was ready to give him some information. The third phase (III) was also quite short, but one in which Betty became quite direct in what She said, her posture, and her increased use of gestures, and Pete acted as a careful and quiet listener and agreed that he Should plan strategies of presentation, even though he still found it difficult to do. During this segment, Pete set the agenda on planning and Betty played the role of teacher and Pete played the role of student. Although this relationship may be the norm for Staff developers and teachers and certainly one in which Betty was frequently seen in, there appeared to be too great a status-differen- tial or gap between their relative statuses for Pete to feel comfor- table and preserve his face as a Sincere teacher and potential adminis- trator. Pete admitted his error, and Betty made a supportive comment. 167 That signalled the transition into the fourth phase (IV) of the interaction and the enactment of the problem discussion during which both participants were mutually supportive and both talked of their successes. This phase was by far the longest and spanned discussion on two topics, both planning (as in the last two segments) and reading, which Pete identified as another curriculum item. Betty still gave advice and Pete was still deferential, but there was a repair of the status differential or gap from the previous phase,and greater equali- zation was evident through greater symmetry of movement and overlapping speech. They were in the relative statuses or roles of problem holder and advice giver, but through the continual work and negotiation of their relationship, particularly as they took turns telling of succes- ses and being supportive to each other, there was a greater equaliza- tion of their relative statuses. These relative positions allowed Pete to maintain his face as a successful teacher and witty and Sin- cere person and for Betty to do her job as a staff developer. The final phase (V) was marked by a change of topic when Pete told Betty that he didn't want to discuss "school" anymore but had an "in- terest and eeee to do something in administration." As they switched topics to Pete's originally intended or "hidden” agenda, there was another change in their relative statuses. Instead of Betty's giving advice and Pete's being deferential, they forcefully competed for turns until turn-sharing became more equitable; and Pete began asking direct, information-seeking questions. At this point it was said that the two people had reached a consensus on both "who they were" and "what they were doing together." 168 Through these phases both participants worked very hard to achiev- ing a working consensus about topics and relative status and roles. Both topic and roles changed throughout the interaction, but only as a result of a great deal of work and active negotiation on the part of both participants. Betty had to understand Pete's goals within the interaction and in the long run, and Pete had to redefine his role and status relationship to Betty before he could ask the questions that were of greatest importance to him. Betty couldn't use her Skills and knowledge as a staff—developer without the participation, collabora- tion, and agreement of Pete; and Pete couldn't ask the questions he wanted to until they had reached a consensus on the purpose of the in- teraction and their relative statuses within it. Case Study III In the third case study, by contrast, questions of status and role as well as defining the purpose of the interaction did not require a great deal of collaborated effort, but appeared to be mutually under- stood. AS a result, the problem was defined and the agenda set almost immediately so that the participants were able to channel their efforts into solution of a specific teaching problem. In this case, the two teachers, Lydia and Joanne, had worked with and under Betty at a two- week workshop, had interacted with her on earlier visits to their school, and had expressed many positive comments about her working style, knowledge, and ability to the researcher as well as their col- leagues. The smooth beginning of this interaction reflected clear under- standings of what was to occur and how to behave. Figure 2 illustrates 169 HHH XUDHW mmGUIImpn—wcm mezwmoa UCM 0:: ”+0 wucwzcwm wEC. .N mLzmwn— cowmmsumwu smpnoga mzmcmmcou mcwcummg any mcwuumcm mvcmmm asp mcwpumm Empnoga mgp mcwcwmmu mucmpu=< cmpmwgmycH gmupoz Empoocm pcmuzpm \ucwaxm _ \Lm>ww muw>u< # \ngumw» HHH _ HH H 170 the role and postural shifts acorss time that occurred in this inter- action and their relationship to the four structural phases. There was a clarity of respect status and roles reflected in the way Betty con- trolled the talking and length of turns, as well as allocating turns to the two teachers and soliciting their agreement (I). The teachers were deferential in the way they talked and when they talked, and Betty was able to be directive and authoritative in giving them a solution to the problem without the danger of making them feel defensive or threatened (II). There was evidence of an effective working consensus (III) among these three participants in the way they were able to dis- agree and resolve the disagreement as well as in the explicitness of Betty's suggestions and the constant and continual ways the two teach- ers reflected their agreement through writing down suggestions, fre- quent head-nodding, and a Symmetry of movement. The three participants collaborated on their relative social roles and how they should be played out, and the working consensus achieved allowed Betty to interpret the problem and provide a series of steps in solving it in very clear, decisive, and authoritative and explicit ways. The two teachers' constant agreement and feedback, in turn, allowed Betty to become more and more explicit, directive, and authoritative in developing "the plan" and showing and telling them how to solve the problem at hand. There were no Shifts of relative status as there were in the se- cond case study since status and roles remained almost constant throughout the interaction. The only changes were in the content of the conversation which fell into essentially three phases: (a) the problem statement by the teachers, followed by agreement of the 171 diffizulty of the Situation by Betty (I); (b) the problem solution by Betty, accompanied by the teachers' constant agreement and feedback (II); and (c) an extended discussion of Betty's model of effective teaching and classroom management, also accompanied by the teachers' agreement and feedback (III). The conflicting concerns of staff de- velopment which were so evident in the first case study (concern for the needs of the school, the need of the teacher, and the needs of the staff developer) and could be met and served simultaneously because Betty was able tomeet the needs of the school by giving the teachers help on a Specific educational problem, meet the needs of the teachers by being supportive and directive, and meet her own needs by fitting their problem into her model of effective teaching/management. The Effect of Consensus The three case studies showed different ways of working for the staff developer and how the working consensus she and the teachers ne- gotiated together affected the degree to which she could be directive and how she did her job. In the first case, there was no evidence of a consensus with the teacher at the time of their interaction, but a great deal of frustration was expressed by Betty later which eventually led to a plan on her part of how she hoped to correct the situation (by being an advocate of the teacher). In the second case, how a working consensus was negotiated was explicated, and the amount of effort and collaboration that took was presented. In the third case, it was seen how a working consensus was maintained and how it allowed Betty to do her job effieiciently and in the most direct manner while, at the same time, serving the needs of the teachers and the school. So even though Betty may have been described similarly by this group of teachers as 172 well as others who knew and worked with her as being "directive, Open, observant, analytical, confident," etc. (Questionnaire Data, Appendix B), it has become possible to see how she earned those comments in different ways with different individuals. Similarities and Differences The summary of the three case studies reflected some of the com- plexities and ambiguities inherent in the role of the staff developer, making it a difficult role to enact. It also showed how some of these complexities and ambiguities were negotiated during the course of the face—to-face interaction among the staff developer and the teachers and the administrator with whom she worked. The degree to which a consens- sus was achieved was dependent on the success of these negotiations which, of course, was dependent on how much had to be negotiated and how difficult that was to do. The similarities across cases lie in the fact that (a) these ambi- guities and complexities existed and were inherent in the multiple realities, goals, and identities of the participants; (b) the ambigui- ties and complexities had to be negotiated in face-to-face interaction; and (c) the success of these negotiations influenced the degree to which a working consensus about both the purpose of the encounter and the roles of the participants could be achieved. There was also a structural similarity in each case. No matter how Short or long the interaction, or how difficult it was to negotiate, the teacher(s) and staff developer still went through a similar se- quence of steps. The sequence included four steps: (a) searching for the problem or deciding "what we're doing together," (b) negotiating the agenda, (c) carrying out the problem discussion, and (d) reaching 173 some kind of consensus. In each case study, a different step appeared to be the most complex. In the first case, searching for the problem was most complex because it was identified differently by each of the three people--the teacher, the staff developer, and the principal. In the second case, carrying out the problem discussion was the most com- plex because it included a number of tOpics and, more importantly, it included four different shifts in roles during the discussion. In the third case, the solution to the problem was the most complex, partly because the most time was spent on it, and partly because the solution was spelled out so explicitly. The first and last steps (searching for the problem and reaching consensus or solving the problem) were the first to appear across the data during the early analysis. It intuitively seemed reasonable that any kind of problem-solving situation would include these two steps. The second and third steps (negotiating the agenda and carrying out the problem discussion) didn't appear until after a more systematic analysis of the data was completed. It was in these two steps,howeven in which the ambiguity, complexity, and multidimensionality of the process of staff development became so evident. This, in turn, high- lighted the importance of the social phenomenon and the ways that the social relationships established before and during face-to-face interactions affected the learning environment and the opportunity for teachers to learn new skills, attitudes, knowledge, etc., during the process of staff develOpment. The differences across case studies were reflected in what prior understandings the participants had at the onset of the interaction about its purpose and their relative status in relationship to each 174 other. When neither purpose nor status was clear, based on little previous knowledge of each other, the participants had to go through long and difficult negotiations. The differences were basically in whee had to be negotiated and hew_it was done. The Similarities were both in form and in structure. In each case there were some complexi- ties and ambiguities, negotiations had to occur, and some sort of consensus or problem resolution took place. As stated earlier, each case study included the same sequence of activities (searching for the problem, negotiating the agenda, carrying out the problem discussion, and reaching some kind of consensus). In addition to the similarities in the process and structure of these conferences, there were also regularities in their content. The most common theme that appeared was that of classroom organization and management. This theme was present in case studies I and III and in most of the statements teachers made in the questionnaire (Appendix 8) about how Betty helped them most. Even in the conference with Pete about planning and how to look for an administrative position in the region, Betty spoke of the importance of developing a plan based on conscious and deliberate preactive decisions. Efficient decision-making was also a major theme of the summer clinical workshop (Appendix D) and in Betty's conversations and writ- ten materials (Appendices D and F) collected throughout the data set. She makes references to "plans" which are systematically "developed and implemented" and urges the teachers and administrators with whom she works to not react to situations intuitively or emotionally, but to be systematic in defining the problems, considering alternate solu- tions, and in developing and carrying out a careful plan. 175 The common theme of preactive decision-making works reflexively within the context of Betty's interactions. The amount of advice she can give and the directness in which she can state her ideas and be- liefs are all negotiated and mediated by the co-participants' reac- tions. Case study III was such a situation where the context of the conference, based on the common understandings and definitions of the situation, allowed Betty to be very explicit and direct in providing a solution. The two teachers' continued interest and supportiveness al- lowed Betty to go beyond the immediate problem and present her more general theory and philosophy of classroom organization and management The Complexities and Ambiguities Staff development is such a difficult task for essentially two reasons: (a) because pe0ple in the world come to an interaction with different perspectives of reality based on their own beliefs, experi- ences, thoughts, attitudes, and expectations which may or may not in- tersect with those of their co-participahts; and (b) staff development itself involves multiple roles and realities which may or may not be enacted Simultaneously. The initial problem in any interaction is in predicting the general goals and the various participants may have for a particular situation. From this prediction, it is possible to make a decision about some general limits on ways of behaving. Multiple Realities There are a great number of ways culture-Sharing adults may in- teract, and they make a selection about which of the ways is most ap- pr0priate based on their own perspectives. Their beliefs, attitudes, and expectations about an event are a product of their own experiences 176 and are, therefore, somewhat unique and personal. Since any social interaction involves two or more people, each with unique and per- sonal perspectives, then their perspectives must somehow be coor- dinated. The initial stage of this coordination process is based on how one person makes predictions about the goal of the other(s) for the interaction. The prediction is based on any available informa- tion, particularly context and subtle processes of inference. If a person is standing in line in a bank, for example, it can be pre- dicted that he or She wishes to take care of some sort of routine banking matten and then the teller will have some notions about what sorts of conversation or actions are relevant in this instance. If it turns out that the person waiting has some other goal such as rob- bing the bank or having a social or information interaction with the teller, then the teller may be caught off guard and will have to select some other way of interacting. Once general notions or predictions about goals are made and confirmed, then the participants are in a position to work out the specifics of their interaction. This is true in any interaction; but, fortunately, one of the things people learn in a culture is how to use and interpret a variety of cues about con- text and people so that every interaction does not mean a new or dif- ferent patterns of making sense of the event, but largely relies on familiar routines and oneS previously learned social knowledge. Multiple Roles Staff development itself involves multiple roles adding greatly to the complexities described above. The role of staff de- veloper as was illustrated in the review of literature is not institu- tionalized as are so many other roles in the society (i.e., bank 177 teller).There is a vagueness and diversity which adds ambiguity to the role, its goals and objectives. This suggests that the way the role of staff developer is carried out is open to a wide variety of inter- pretatons. Even if a teacher has had several interactions with a par- ticular staff develooer and has been taught and learned how to work with that individual, it would be difficult to generalize about the nature of all staff developers from these experiences. The reasons for such ambiguity probably go beyond the complexities of the role and will be speculated upon in the next chapter. The ambiguity is further increased because even one staff developer may act in a variety of ways, depending on which of his/her functions or concerns is primary. The staff developer may act as an advocate of the teacher and provide support in any number of ways; on the other hand, he/She could act as a defender of the system and support both the formal and informal goals of the institution. One study (Bussis, Chittenden, & Amarel, 1976) posits 12 categories of support which represent a type of continuum between the extreme opposites of advocate of the system or advocate of the teacher.* In the present study, it was shown that a single staff developer doesn't play ppe_role, but, in fact, plays a variety of roles, some- times simultaneously! And the role(s) that is/are played are not de- termined strictly by the staff developer's personality or preferred style, but negotiated within each interaction. The teacher being *The 12 categories of support are service and administrative agent, extension of the teacher, emotional stabilizer and stimulator, respector of individuality, stage director and demonstrator, diagnos- tician and problem-solver, provider of alternatives, explainer and theorist, modeling agent, appreciative critic and discussant, prova- cative and reflective agent, leader and challenger. 178 worked with, the Situation, the range of problems, and the primary concern at the moment ell_have an effect on the role. Multiple Dimensions of the Role Betty's salary was being paid by the school and, therefore, She had to serve its interests. She did this by working with administra- tors and giving them her insight and perspective of what was going on. This also involved making recommendations on teacher placement and evaluating performance. Although both Betty and the administra— tors often said that she had no formal authority or decision-making power within the school, she did appear to have considerable informal authority. The principal of the school and the superintendent listened to her and very often followed her recommendations, and She always wrote out summaries of her visits which included her evaluations and recommendations (see Appendix F). One of the questions the researcher frequently asked to administrators and teachers in informal interviews was how they perceived the staff developer's position in the formal hierarchy of the school. Teachers reported her to be at the same level as principals, and so did the principals epme_of the time. But it was also stated that the principals didn't feel that they had the freedom pet_to have her in their schools, which implied that the super- intendent gave her some extra authority. In spite of this informal authority, the job description of this staff developer stated that giving help to teachers was her most impor- tant function. Most often teachers requested her help, but it was un- certain how much, if any, real or perceived pressure they were under to do this. She also appeared to have a relatively clear model of effective teaching toward which she tried to move both teachers and 179 administrators. Althought these multiple aims made for ambiguity about Betty's role, it was also possible that this ill-definedness was an asset. It gave her the freedom to work in many ways and gave her a marginal position in the formal structure, meaning that She didn't have to abide by the interactional rules of the existing hierarchy. This marginality also related to the fact that she wasn't a permanent fixture in the school, but flew in and out at regular intervals. These aspects of both physical and hierarchical marginality put her in the position of a consultant in some respects except that the teachers who occupied most of her working time were not paying her salary. Another dimension of the staff developer's role deals with the multiple tasks with which She has to deal. It was shown in the data analysis how Betty's task differed in each encounter and the multi- faceted quality of her role. In the first case study, there were at least five different tasks involved: (a) helping the principal de- cide what to do about a particular student; (b) helping the teacher in ways she requested; (c) helping the teacher in ways Betty thought were important, including recognizing the scope of the problem; (d) establishing a relationship with the teacher so that she could pro- vide further help and also protect her own job; and (d) helping the principal to solve his problem about the teacher. In the next two case studies, this aspect of Betty's job was much easier. In the second case study, Betty's task was to give information and opinions about the importance of planning, what educational lea- dership was, and how to schedule an interview with an international school's hiring agency. In the third case study, Betty's only task 180 was to solve the problem about one deviant child. In these two cases, there was no conflict about whether Betty had to be an advocate of the school, the teacher, or herself. It was clear that within these interactions, she only had to be an advocate of the teachers and help them in ways they requested. This multifaceted quality of the role, the marginality of the staff developer's position in the formal hierarchy, the fact that the individual couldn't ignore either the needs of the teacher or the needs of the institution, as well as the fact that the teachers brought their own expectations of Betty's role to the encounter often presented conflicts which had to be resolved. In each case these conflicts were resolved during the course of the interaction. The Negotiations Both real and potential conflicts were resolved through a process of negotiation. This was revealed in the study in the choices of vo- cabulary, facial expressions, body posture, and voice quality which Betty and the teachers exhibited in the course of the interaction and how and when these things changed. The changes may have reflected her decisions or those of her interactional partners about how to pro- ceed and how to interpret the function and quality of the encounter. Certain communicational choices were made at various junctures which were related to subtle changes in the mood and quality of the inter- action which, in turn, affected further choices that were made. Determining the function of the interaction, whether it was sup- portive, giving advice, observing for problems, evaluating, etc., had considerable impact on its structure and the behavioral organization 181 of the participants. Specifically, it impinged on the roles and status the participants took in relationship to each other. For example, there were some ways of "being supportive” which implied that the staff developer was of equal status to the teacher such as agree- ing and commiserating that the teacher's problems were caused by poor program organization or by mixed messages given by various consultants. There may be other ways of being supportive which imply a great deal of difference in relative statuses and roles such as when a parent compliments a child on a task well done. Advice can also be given in a number of ways; e.g., as a col- league who might say, "I tried this in a Similar situation and it worked,” connoting similar "teacher" status. It might also be given as an "expert" which implies a greater status differential. Evalua- tion almost always implies an even higher degree of status differen- tial because only one person has the power and is in a position to determine how to use it. Status and Role The status and roles of the various participants may be known or understood because of historical precedent,or they may be open to nego- tiation. For example, historical precedent or normative behavior dic- tates that teachers have a higher status and more power than students; adults have higher status than children; wealthy people have higher status than the poor, etc. Although the democratic ideal and liberal tradition of the United States has woked to negate the manifestations of a class society, its relative success is widely argued. 182 What varies is how the statuses are carried out; i.e., the roles. Although a teacher is given status formally and informally, each teach- er is in a position to decide how, when, if, or to what degree to use it. In staff development there is little or no historical precedent or normative behavior on the relative status of the participants. This means that each staff developer can and must interpret for him/herself the amount of power or the kind of status he/She wants to use, depend- ing on whether the role is seen as supportive, educative, or evalua- tive. However, because the role is designed as a teaching role, it follows that a certain amount of power and authoritativeness exists in- herently, no matter how an individual staff deve10per chooses to use it. He/She can "play down" this power in order to try to get close to the teacher as an equal or can utilize it to fuller extents to express authority. The differences between a person as an individual and hiS/ her commonly accepted or assumed role is what Goffman (1961) refers to as ”role distancing" or the difference "between doing and being" (p. 108). Goffman states that the display of role distance is directly affected by the immediate audience, so that the way the staff develop- er's role is played may vary if there is no audience or if the audi- ence is the principal, superintendent, the teacher's students, or even the researcher. By working out the relationship of the participants to each other and thereby determining "who they are," issues of respective rights. needs, and obligations are determined as are issues of intimacy or dominance within the constraints of a loosely defined teacher-student relationship. The negotiation of status and roles determines, in part, the situation or setting. It dictates how to behave, how to make 183 requests or ask questions, how or if to challenge or praise, and, in general, how, when, and how much to talk and how or when to listen. The relative statuses of the participants in the three case studies determined how questions were asked and how advice and solutions could be given. So, although behavior determined status and roles, status and roles also reflexively determined behavior. Issues of "Face" One of the ways participants have of negotiating issues of status in face-to-face interaction and of affecting each other's status has to do with the emotional investments each person has in showing his/her own competence and wanting approval and, at the same time, not wanting to be imposed upon or distracted. This combination of needs and wants has been called positive and negative face by Brown and Levinson (1978) in their work on face-threatening acts. This is particularly true of teachers who, like any other professionals, want to do their jobs com- petently, with a minimum of distractions. The staff developer is one of the people who is in a position to cast either doubt or praise upon a teacher's performance or to enhance the teacher's reputation and provide greater access to the school's rewards as well as to impose upon the teacher's time and patterns of performance. In this way, staff development is potentially face-threatening. The staff developer can negate, maintain, or enhance the teacher's "face" by challenging his/her competence. On the other hand, teachers can defend their senses of professionalism or confidence by blocking, prohibiting, or limiting the affect the staff developer has on them. If the staff developer is prohibited from or limited in doing the 184 assigned job, then his/her confidence as a competent and effective staff developer can also be threatened, as can the job itself. There- fore, it is in everyone's best interest to cooperate and try to maintain each other's face so that the teacher can learn and improve in knowledge, attitude, and skill, and so that the staff developer can continue to do his/her job. There are a number of ways in which face-threatening acts such as staff development can be carried out, some of which are riskier than others for both parties. For example, in the first case study where there was the issue of an ineffective and inefficient teacher, the staff developer had a number of options in ways of communicating this. She could have chosen not to bring up the subject at all and to speak only of less personally sensitive issues such as increasing chiL dreh's motivation on art projects or how to fill out report card forms This would decrease the possibility of the teacher's loss of face, but increase Betty's own loss of face by failing to communicate the most important issue. On the other hand, if Betty had been trying to be as efficient as possible, she might have been very direct and stated unambiguously something like "you're boring those children" or "you shouldn't teach three things at once" or "you're wasting the time of the task-oriented children by making them work at the same pace as the children who need more direction." Instead of either of these options, Betty selected to counteract the potential damage or threat to the teacher by givng her message in such a way as to indicate that no such face-threat was intended. She said l'you get more task orien- tation if you allow those who understand to go ahead, and help those who need it," which alluded to an assumption that Betty implied she 185 shared with the teacher about the value of task orientation and that it would ultimately be a payoff for the teacher. In each of the three case studies, the teachers talked about the issues or problems differently. These differences may have indicated the degree to which they perceived the act of staff development to be more or leSS threatening and also gave the staff developer some clues about ways of responding. In the first case, during the opening stages of communication with the staff developer, the teacher brought up two points which, in theory at least, she had little or no control over--the swimming program and the fact that She was new. She deper- sonalized the problems and attributed them to impersonal causes. In the second case, the teacher talked about planning in such a way that expressed that he didn't think it was necessary since his best lessons were not planned but were spontaneous. It may have been a sensitive issue to him because he implied that he eggplg feel responsible for planning. He brought up the topic because it seemed an appropriate one to talk about with the staff developer and because he was respond- ing to Betty's cues that he should start talking about ”the problem." He expressed that he was somewhat threatened by Betty and was also am- biguous about his relative status with her by "talking" about planning rather than asking a question or stating a problem. In the third case, the teachers stated the problem directly, probably because they had been trying to solve it themselves and had reached a frustration level and were, therefore, quite anxious for an "expert“ opinion. The staff developer reacted to these three different ways of ex- pressing feelings of being threatened by, in the first case, removing the cause of the real problem from the teacher; in the second case, 186 reinforcing the teacher when he talked about his successes; and, in the third case, placing the cause of the problem outside of the teachers and on the parents or the situation in which they found themselves. The fact that Betty chose to use less efficient and more ambiguous ways of responding to the teachers indicated that She was attempting to minimize the face-threatening quality of each inter- action. Therefore, the outcome of the staff development conference wasrelated to how successfully Betty neutralized the face-threatening quality of each interaction and the degree to which she and the teachers successfully negotiated their relative status and the purpose of their meeting--"who they were" and "what they were doing together." Reaching Consensus The relative difficulty and the ultimate success of the negotia- tions of the purpose of the interaction, the relative status and roles of theliarticipants, and the way that issues of face are handled de- termine the degree to which a working consensus is reached. As such, the consensus is the result of the negotiations. In the three cases, the relative outcomes were quite different in the degree to which the participants reached a working consensus and produced a situation in which the teacher(s) could acquire new Skills, techniques, or perspec- tives, and the staff developer could impart these things. The staff developer was "direct" in each case, but in very dif- ferent ways. In the first case, She stated a problem, but one about which the teacher was uninformed. They only reached a consensus on providing some help for the less sensitive issues on which the teacher requested help. In the second case, there was evidence of a working consensus on occasion, particularly when the two participants 187 negotiated a pattern of working in which they could talk about their own successes. It was only after such a consensus was achieved that Pete brought up his originally intended questions about administration. Betty was direct in stating that planning strategy was necessary, but was not explicit in how to do it. It seemed, therefore, that the dis- cussion about planning served the primary purpose of being a forum for negotiating and working out the issues of status, role, and purpose. In the third case, Betty was able to 99.1252 explicit in how to solve the problem. She told the teachers exactly what to say and how to say it because the three participants had already worked out those issues of status, etc., during former interactions and only had to clarify specific problems on this occasion. The session later evolved into one in which Betty could communicate more of her store of knowledge. She was able to talk about her model of effective teaching in a much broader perspective, beginning with the topic of classroom management and later talking about organization in general. In the third case study where the staff developer and the teach- ers had negotiated and collaborated upon common understandings and definitions of each other's behavior and knew them to be in the best interests of what they were trying to do together, they were able to evolve their discussion from one about a Specific behavior problem with one student into one which elaborated upon patterns of behavior management that had applicability well beyond this Specific circum- stance. Their working consensus was formulated during previous work- ing sessions as well as this one, acted upon, and then used to further the teachers' general and specific knoweldge about teaching. The fact that there was very little evidence of any kind of consensus' being 188 resolved in the first case and only a tenuous and temporary one's being reached in the second case provided the contrast in the third case that emphasized how the differences in the process and eventual successes of the negotiations affected the outcome of staff develop- ment interactions and the opportunity for learning. The Questions and Conclusions The original broad questions of the study were (a) how can posi- tive change in teachers be facilitated, (b) how is the role of the staff developer enacted, and (c) what enables people to behave sen- sibly with others in social encounters. An answer to the first question wasn't promised (see Chapter II), but this study has some definite implications for facilitating positive change in teachers which will be expressed in the next chapter. The most important knowledge gained from this study was about how the role of staff development is enacted and how people manage to behave sensibly with each other in social interactions. Staff devel- opment is enacted through the negotiations and collaboration of all the participants who manage to do this through the kinds of communica- tive choices they make. Through the analysis of face-to-face interactions of the parti- cipants engaged in the process of staff development, the importance of negotiations was demonstrated. Negotiations occur through minute- by-minute choices about vocabulary, facial expressions, body posture, tone of voice, interactional rhythm, and gestures. We could see in the analysis how and when social relationships between the teacher and staff developer affected the development of the learning 189 environment by the way they provided an opportunity to frame questions, present information, disagree, be directive, or receive information. Primarilx it was learned that each interaction between a staff de- veloper and teacher must be negotiated independently and that the dif- ferences in structure, function, and potential outcome of each inter- action was dependent upon how the various individuals worked together and collaborated in these negotiations. All of these negotiations were nested in and influenced by the larger context. The context in- cluded every participant's past experiences with teaching and other staff developers, with one another, and with the school. It also included all of the multiple realities, goals, and perspectives of each participant. The interactional work the participants did involved communica- tive choices made both consciously and unconsciously, how the choices of one participant influenced the choices of the others, and how the choices created and affected the working consensus that was reached and the opportunity to ask for and receive information. The understanding that staff development is a collaborated, nego- tiated, and interactionally accomplished event provided a new way of interpreting and comprehending other aspects of the process. The study showed that staff development is not only multidimensional, ambiguous, and complex, but also attempted to account for wpy_and ppp_ it is so. For this reason, this study goes beyond the intuitive no- tion that staff development must be rather difficult or tricky because it implies one person "changing" another and focuses on how the parti- cipants of a staff development conference make sense of what is going on and how they negotiate it. By looking at the actual face-to-face 190 communications, it became possible to see how the ambiguities and com- plexities of staff development came about and how they were resolved. CHAPTER V IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY Implications for Practice The first and broadest question asked of this study was how can positive change in teachers be facilitated. Although the question was not directly answerable within the scope of this study, it was main- tained as one that guided the study and kept it focused on the improve- ment of staff develOpment. There are, however, some implications about how positive change in teachers can and cannot be facilitated in staff development which resulted from this study. Change in people eeppep be facilitated simply. There are no laws, rules, or directions for helping people teach better. Nor is there a single set of skills, techniques, attitudes, methods, or orientations that are more appropriate than others. The skills, methods, and ap- proaches to be used in a staff development conference are instead de- termined by purpose, Situation, or even individual needs. Furthermore, only some of the information to be given in a conference can be deter- mined ahead of time. On the other hand, successful staff development conferences are not independent of Skills, techniques, or attitudes of the staff developer. The research cited in the beginning of this study has not been disproved. The study found that there are many hidden dimensions in the staff development process, all of which impinge on the relative success of the outcome. Staff deve10pers deal with these hidden dimensions 191 192 regularly just as all people involved in social interactions do. Most often pe0ple deal with these dimensions automatically and unselfcon- sciously. Since successful staff develOpment is strongly affected by these hidden dimensions, however, it is in the interest of the profes- sion to learn to both recognize and deal with them. The study demonstrated that staff development is something other than one individual's working on, or otherwise training, educating, counseling, or even "developing" others. It is also something other than one skillful, knowledgeable, sensitive staff developer somehow be- stowing a set of Skills, knowledge, or attitudes on another. Steffi development is, instead, a social transaction. It is a two-directional process in which the teachers as well as the staff developer must be actively involved. The teachers, too, must be talking, acting, listen- ing, describing problems, and providing feedback. In addition to staff develOpment'S being mutually dependent on the teachers as well as the staff developer, it is also dependent upon the context--the people, the school, the problems, and all of the multiple realities, goals, and identities of the people, as well as their past experiences and perspectives. All of these aspects of the context im- pinge upon the process of staff development even though they are largely invisible. Most generally, staff development is dependent upon how the parti- cipants make visible or explicit their relative goals and expectations, how they negotiate common definitions of the situations, how they syn- chronize and coordinate their behavior with each other, and otherwise collaborate in the encounter. The individuals, their specific back- grounds, the context and the social structure of the school are all 193 involved in the collaborative effort. Individuals bring with them a host of personal characteristics including a variety of values and at- titudes which contribute in many ways to the successes as well as the problems of communication. Many levels of organization and complexity, hidden or visible, impinge upon the conference and need to be uncovered and looked at in order to improve the process of staff development. The studies of Joyce et al. (1976), Berman and McLaughlin (1978), and others have shown that teachers prefer to be involved in the plan- ning, organization, and evaluation of their own staff development pro- grams. This study implies that the teachers mp§t_be involved. Staff development cannot work effectively unless the teachers are equally in- volved participants. This means that it is not only necessary for teachers to agree to be involved in a conference or other kind of staff development intervention, but it is also necessary for them to partici- pate actively throughout the intervention. Since people are not always aware of how they determine or communicate social meaning, it may be occurring unconsciously or subconsciously through utterances and move- ments. Another implication of this study deals with the ambiguity of staff development. The previous chapter pointed out how the multidimensional aspects of the role of staff developer contributed to the ambiguity as well as the complexity of the process. Another dimension of the ambi- guity comes from the element of power in a helping relationship. Re- search and the reports of teachers suggest that, as professionals, teachers prefer to maintain authority over their professional lives, in- cluding the help they receive from others. Yet, in this study, we saw that it was necessary to give pp some of that authority in order to be 194 helped most effectively. The lack of clarity about "help'I in the pro- fessional sphere and the flight from authoritativeness and authority in recent trends of staff development also reflect a discomfort with asking teachers to talk about their problems. This leads to a "double bind'I on the part of the staff developer for asking and the teacher for agreeing to give up authority and is, perhaps, the primary or underlying topic that has to be negotiated. There are other hidden dimensions embedded in the negotiations that contribute to the complexities and ambiguities of staff development. These involve the relative statuses of the individuals, both real and perceived, the roles the participants choose to play and the social distance between these roles, and the inherently face-threatening as- pects involved in any process of change. While this knowledge of hidden dimensions is not entirely new, the descriptions of how they are played out in face-to-face negotiations and the importance of these negotia- tions are new information and Show the extent to which the negotiations affect the working consensus achieved and, thereby, the relative effec- tiveness of the process. Implications for Staff Developers The question still remains--how can knowledge of these hidden di- mensions of staff development help the practitioner? This study sug- gests a twofold answer: (a) the knowledge of the ambiguity and com- plexity of the staff development process and its dynamic nature tells practitioners why it is so hard, and (b) explicating these hidden di- mensions may help practitioners to analyze and evaluate them in their 195 own interactions in order to improve conferences and to develop a fuller understanding of what it takes for teachers to get help. This study has shown that a great deal more than help is going on during the course of a staff development conference. The case studies explicated how much more than question-asking and suggestion-giving was occurring in the course of the help-giving and how the participants of a conference attended to more than the content of the discussion. Intui- tively, staff developers may have felt that their job of trying to fa- cilitate positive change in teachers was very difficult, but may have been unable to explain either to themselves or others the source of the difficulties. This study has given credibility to those intuitions by showing the number of places in which complexity and ambiguity could occur and the number of ways a person may deal with or resolve them. This study also offers an explanation of the difficulties a staff developer may have in trying to use some of the "check-list" approaches to staff development which currently exist. These check-lists tell staff developers to create an appropriate social-emotional climate by using such things as praise, teachers' ideas, and asking them for in- formation. These suggestions belie the dynamic nature of the interac- tion and make it appear static and controlled. The implication is that praise, for example, could be inserted anytime and that all praise works in the same way and, therefore, can and should be controlled by the staff developer. This study has shown that praise is Situation-specific and cannot be "given" unless the co-participant is ready or willing to "receive" it. The same is, of course, true to using teachers' ideas and asking them for information. 196 These understandings can at least give comfort to staff developers that their job is, indeed, hard and takes an extraordinary amount of interactional skill and sensitivity in addition to the knowledge, atti- tudes, and opinions about curriculum matters, schools, children, and the teaching profession. This may provide emotional support for those days or instances when staff developers may be feeling less adequate or ill-prepared to do their job. Secondly, this study may be useful to staff developers by helping them to analyze their own interactions with teachers and administrators. The case studies have shown the effect of context and relationships within the school on the negotiations that take place within a staff- development conference. They Showed how Betty's awareness of relation- ships between Specific individuals and with school administrators made them more or less "open" for her help. This study also showed that Betty is a Specific case of a staff developer who preferred being in a teacher-student relationship with the teachers in the school and how She both taught and learned from her co-participants what was necessary for her to get into this specific kind of relationship. This study also Showed that there is more than one style of dyadic staff development. 0f the three different case studies, there was only one (the last) for which it could be inferred that the teachers received the help they sought. Yet this doesn't mean that the first two cases were not instances of staff development. In the first case the teacher received unsolicited help as requested by the school administrator. The second case showed the formation of a viable working relationship by two people with professional agendas not initially shared by negotiated in the interaction. These two studies, though not clearcut examples of 197 help-giving and help-receiving, were also instances of staff develOpment because they Showed the formation of understandings and common defini- tions of how to work together and what kind of help teachers could ex- pect to receive from this particular staff developer. The implication for all staff developers is that they can benefit by learning how to recognize and deal with the hidden dimensions of their profession. They can learn to make the implicit explicit to see how they and their interactional partners are determining social mean- ings from each others' behavior and how they are communicating social meanings in their word choices, body movements, and other paralinguistic options. By learning to unravel these interactional gyrations, staff developers may be able to see more clearly when and why things are or are not going well. The implication is that the methods used to gain an understanding of the process of staff development can also be used to inform practitioners. Implications for Further Study One direction for study that this research suggests would be to teach staff developers the research methods used in this study so that they can study and analyze their own performance. In much the same way, medical anthropologists are helping interns and other medical pro- fessionals to improve their interviewing techniques with patients. Staff developers can learn to become more sensitive to how and when they are making decisions and whether these were made more or less con- sciously. They need to learn how to go beyond the tendency of infer- ring intent from teachers' verbal and nonverbal behavior and to look more carefully for alternative interpretations. Likewise, they need to 198 look more closely at how their own behavior could be interpreted in un- intended ways. A type of intervention could be devised in which staff developers were first videotaped in a series of conferences with teachers and/or administrators. Evaluations of the conferences could be obtained inde- pendently from both the teacher or administrator and the staff developen This would be followed by intensive practice in microethnography or in- teractional analysis during which the staff developers would improve their observational Skills by learning how to analyze their own language and behavior and how they use contextualization cues to make interpreta- tions. The staff developers could learn to analyze in much the same way as the researcher did in gathering these data for the purpose of improv- ing their performance. The result of such intensive practice might be for the staff devel- oper to learn how to focus on both his/her own interpretative and com- municative preferences as well as those of the pe0ple with whom he/she works. The goal of such practice would be to learn how to pick out ex- amples of miscommunication that might otherwise lead to negative evalua- tions and then to analyze them for both cause and effect. They would learn to look at the dynamics of interpersonal communication in order to become more knowledgeable and more objective about interpreting communi- cative cues. Researchers in other helping professions have used methods Similar to those used in this study and have also proposed teaching similar methods to practitioners in these professions for the purpose of improv- ing interactional Skills. The findings of this study which Show how staff development is interactionally accomplished are similar to those 199 found by Erickson and Shultz (1981) in their study of counseling inter- actions at a junior college, McDermott (1976) in his study of the organ- ization of reading groups, Labov and Fanshel (1977) and Scheflen (1974) in their studies of psychotherapeutic interactions, L0pes (1981) in his study of family counseling sessions, Orban (1981) in her study of in- structional development sessions with university instructors, and Cooper (1979) in a Similar study. All of these studies were accomplished through the microanalysis of interactional events which focused on the dynamics of the event--what is communicated, how it is communicated, how it is interpreted, etc. The similarity in findings may be due to the similarity of the events. All of these events involve unequal sta- tus between the participants, multiple role options, and various pur- poses or agendas to be negotiated between the participants. Most impor- tantly, perhaps, is the fact that all of these situations--counseling, therapy, staff development, teaching, and instructional development-- are potentially face-threatening, and one person has more to lose in terms of self-confidence than the other whose general purpose is to create positive change. Another direction for further study would be to develop other mea- sures for determining when a working consensus has been achieved in staff development or similar kinds of interactions. In this study only functional definitions were used, meaning that the presence of a working consensus was determined because it functioned to produce parallel, otherwise similar ways of talking and moving and resulted from coordi- nated definitions of the Situation. Another way of determining the pre- sence or absence of a working consensus would be to analyze behavioral symmetry which is the relationship between the kinesic rhythm of 200 speakers and listeners, as was done by Shultz (1975) or to analyze speech rhythm as was done by Scollon (1981). Erickson and Shultz (1982) found that there was an underlying rhythmic pattern in interactions which may function to coordinate communicative choices which are made from moment to moment. They also found that the lack of a rhythmic pat- tern may indicate a cultural mismatch or some other serious interac- tional trouble. Scollon determined a method for analyzing Speech rhythm that in- volved the measuring of tempo, Silence, and density of speech. It would be interesting and potentially useful to see if or how changes in rhythm co-occurred with other types of negotiated changes in status and role, purpose, and structure that affected the arrival at a working consensus. Scollon also presented arguments relating an increase in information processing to an increase in rhythmicity in behavior. Further research may Show if there is a definite link between what people do together, and its rhythmic manifestations, to learning. What is proposed is a study of how rhythm relates to differences in staff development interactions rerported in this study. The purpose would be to see if variations in a working consensus can be more pre- cisely defined and described, thus giving staff developers another tool for analyzing their own use of language. This could help to further sensitize them to when and how changes were taking place and what con- textual differences were causing these changes. A third possibility for further study would be to do Similar stud- ies for staff developers in other contexts as was pr0posed by Fox (1981) for the purpose of showing future inquirers into staff development how 201 different contexts I'do and do not influence the instructional decisions and performance of the staff developer" (p. 19). Theory Building in Staff Development The discovery of the hidden dimensions of staff develOpment and how they operate during face-to-face interaction has broadened the concept of staff development which was originally defined as the deliberate ef- forts to promote or facilitate positive change in teachers. It has been learned that staff develOpment, or promoting positive change, is not a simple or direct act of one skillful, knowledgeable individual's passing the Skills or knowledge onto a less skillful individual. It is, in- stead, a convoluted, complex, and ambiguous process which involves a great deal more than the passage of information. The concept of staff development has been broadened by first recog- nizing the importance of the communicative act in actual face-to-face interactions. By focusing on the process of staff development rather than the input or output, the complexities and the sources of ambiguity have become visible and open to systematic observation of how they func- tion. The focus on the process demonstrates the dynamics of the inter- actions and precludes those concepts or theories which demonstrate staff development as one-directional, static, and controlled. It has been learned that staff development is, instead, mutually dependent on all participants and is, in fact, a social transaction. The concept and theory of staff development have also been broad- ened by Showing the multiple dimensions of the staff developer's role and the shifts of advocacy with which he/She must deal. The staff de- veloper's role has, in most cases, been created by the administration of 202 a school or district with or without the advice of teachers or teachers' representatives. Therefore, the staff developer must Show some loyalty to those who created the role, hired him/her, and pays the salary. This includes loyalty to the implicit or explicit notions of what kind of help the administration thinks is needed and any philosophy of education that might be expounded within decision-making policies or accounta- bility structures. The complexity may begin when the staff deve10per considers that he/She must also protect his/her own interests. Other than the personal factors of how the conditions of any job suit any individual, there are the more theoretical factors of the staff developer's own beliefs and theories of good teaching--what it looks like and how it should be ac- complished. This may or may not be in conflict with the first source of advocacy--the hiring institution and its administrators. Further complexity and ambiguity arise when an advocacy for the teacher is also incorporated. In many cases the staff developer is hired specificially to help teachers. The conflict occurs if the teach- er's definition of his/her problem is different from that of the insti- tution and/or the staff developer. It is also possible that some staff developers, such as those in special services, must also be advocates of the children they serve. This, of course, is one more place where com- plexity and ambiguity might occur. The theory of staff development has also been furthered by the re- cognition and understanding of the face-threatening quality of any in- teractions where help iS sought. The person who seeks help, such as the teacher, becomes vulnerable to the one who gives help. It is a very one-Sided encounter since the helpee/teacher has much more to lose than 203 the helper in terms of face, self-esteem, and confidence or professional efficacy. The helper, or staff deve10per, can only lose his/her ability to do the job with a Specific teachergand his/her more general or per- sonal "face" is left intact. The fourth way in which the theory of staff development has bene- fitted by this study is in the recognition of the power of the staff developer's role. Power resides in the helping relationship and also in the social structure of the school, educational institutions, and society which create the status of staff deve10per. When an individual steps into this status, he/she must play many roles which are negotiated in specific Situations. In each role played, there is an implicit decision being made about the amount of power to be exerted. The case studies, taken as a whole, tell us that there are many op- tions for roles and ways of being a staff developer dependent upon the amount of power that is negotiated to each member of the interaction. The staff developer described in this study negotiated her role differ- ently in each case study, but showed a preference for teacher-student roles and worked to negotiated herself into that position. The amount of power she exerted Shifted within each interaction. Along with the shifts in power came shifts in the teacher's power to set the agenda and enact the conference. The staff developer's role can also be carried out in ways not attempted in these case studies if certain personal and institutional changes could be made. Other options would include dif- fering amounts of absolute power exerted and differing amounts of re- lative power between the participants. It would be possible to estab- lish a great deal of difference in relative power between two pe0p1e 204 such as that exerted by a supervisor or expert or to attempt to minimize power differences by Operating as colleagues and friends. NO matter how the role of staff developer is played, it is still a necessary role because it allows an outsider to witness the workings of a classroom from a perspective different from that Of the teacher, or insider.‘ The staff developer can, therefore, see workings and dynamics which the teacher is too close to see and ideally present these dynamics to the teacher for improvement. This study has not altered that goal, but only shown why it is so difficult to reach. APPENDICES APPENDIX A EXAMPLES OF DATA 1. Interview Data a. A Principal b. A teacher 2. Field Note Excerpt 3. Documents: Personal Note, Paper 4. Informal Interviews Given by Three Teachers Interview with Jack Randal Saturday, February 24 6:30pm, my house (with a glass Of wine in his hand, just finishing dinner) I: J: In what ways has she been most effective for you? She sharpens up my Observation techniques. Through talking and sending in stuff, such as one that says "for a good Observation, do __3 __, and __J etc. It has forced all three of us (he and the two other principals) to look critically at all the things we look at in classrooms. Last year the three of us worked on it together. There are lots of other things, too. Last year She helped us cri- tique our PIC meetings, but this year she hasn't been at school on the days PIC meets. She also acts as a courier between here and other schools. Checks things with publishers. How do you think she's been most effective for the school? From my point of view, She helps by going into classes where there is a problem that I've seen. She gives me feedback on my observa- tions as well as her own. We sometimes use her as a hatchet woman and she knows it. She can say things differently or more bluntly because she's leaving. Have you seen yourself change? Oh, yeah--I had never been in a school with IGE, open classrooms, or multi-aged grouping. SO essentially, everything I've picked up on dealing with and evaluating IGE is from her and the workshop. Has she changed the way you work with teachers? Yes, probably SO. Not a lot, but some. She's encouraged me to lean on them some more in some ways other than what my normal nature would have me do. Have you seen ways She facilitates change? Yes, for example in Team I, last year with the new staff members; they were floundering. She came in on several visits and change 205 206 has been affected. Now when they have meetings, they keep agendas and have time schedules. Now they have a form to follow. I wasn't able to help them enough. I: Can you give another example? J: With several teachers who were unfamiliar with the technique of teaching we like to use--for example, with Nancy--to pull them alonglwithwhat we have in mind and how to get it across to kids. She frequently gives me input as to what's going on at the other campus. It's good to see things from a different point of view. It's different from the other elementary principal's, too. I think She feels comfortable talking to me--She knows it won't go far. She tells me what's in the rumor mill. It's useful to me. I find out new information. I: What are her weaknesses? J: Sometimes with teachers, she is more direct than a teacher can handle. She reads them wrong, or misreads how they'll take cri- ticism and puts them in a blue funk for two weeks. This doesn't happen very Often. I: Do you have to encourage teachers to see her? J: Yes, some teachers feel that they have everything under control. Others don't want her for the same reasons they don't want princi- pals in the room--as an intruder or challenges the status quo. I'm going to ask her to sit in with Bob Jeffrey on Monday--so that she can give input to Don Baker in Betty's home school (Jeffrey wants to transfer there). She acts as a gO-betweeh in jobs. Some people feel she's only looking for problems and for something she can work on. I know she doesn't want to be perceived that way. I: It takes looking at yourself in a different way to want her in your room (being critical of yourself and wanting to make improve- ments instead of being satisfied). Jack would like his alias for this study to be Festus Scruggs. 207 Interview with Kirk Clausen, a teacher and part-time administrator Wednesday, February 7, 1979 2-2:40 pm, his Office I: How have you changed over time, and what did Betty do to influence that? My way of Operating over the past five or six years has changed partly due to the IGE workshop and partly due to her and my friendship with her. The kinds of things IGE has to say about decision-making and change made sense to me. I don't feel that she has sold me anything. It:made sense to me. There are some things I don't agree with. My feeling is that initially Betty got me going in that direction. I continue to ask for advice and she continues to use me as a sounding board. It's a reciprocal arrangement. It's not the situation of guru and student. I no longer Sign up for times to meet her. I see her informally and when we touch base. Part Of my function is to brief her on what's happened here Since her last visit. I'm one of her in- formation sources. Have you seen any changes in the way she operates over the years? I don't have any hard data on that. My hunch is that she has de- veloped a feeling over the years of what she can do and can't dO-- what not to get involved in. Some battles are worth fighting and some aren't. I think one of the roles she serves (and She serves different roles to different levels of people)--to administrators she says here'swmatl'nlhearing and I think you ought to know about it or a potential problem she picksup. That's an unofficial role. She provides valuable information to administrators and that's why they feel comfortable with her around. In the past, with problems of concern to me, she's suggested strategies, alternatives, things to do and not to do. My primary benefit in the last couple of years has been process rather than content. Not curriculum and classroom management. 208 Our discussions are on how you go about affecting change and in- fluencing the decision-making process. I think Betty and I operate on Similar wave lengths. We're analy- tical about things. We both have an ongoing analysis of data, the significance of it, where does it fit. I think that's one reason we've developed a friendship. Also our educational values. It has developed out of the realization that we agree on a lot. What do you think is the effect of her information relationships with teaching and administrators on her formal work? It makes her a known quantity and thus understood. Can compare the formal and informal and get an image of the total person. I'm more trusting and I have a better idea of where she's coming from as a result of our informal relationship. It's one of trust-building. She knows I won't blab around school. The other value is that it gives her a much larger data base. She's picking up things a mile a minute. Her friends decide that here are some things Betty needs to know. And She asks her friends to fill her in. Informally, She makes judgments. The question is--there may be a group with whom she'll make judgments and another group with whom she won't. She makes judgments with me because she trusts me or because there's a process she wants to Share with me. I think she has different kinds of informal relationships. With some she goes out batik shopping and having dinner, and with some she makes judgments. She might say something like "there's really no class- room management going on in there." Betty has a very fast mind and that's one of the reasons we get along so well. I do, too. We can sometimes just click along. We establish a rhythm. It would be interesting for you to find the convertS--the people who are receptive to her now but weren't initially. 209 Example of Field Notes October 23, 1978 Primary Campus In Wilma's room--9:35 The three of us were Sitting at the round table. 8: OK, What can I do for you? I have tried having centers 3 groups--one with rods, one with chips, and one with me and the books I'm not really happy I'm thinking in terms of ability groups B: What about working styles Basically, what do you want them to do today? Pages 9 and 10 DO they know how? Most of them, but 2CD: they'll have sticks. They'll also have a practice sheet on the number line. Wilma asked Betty to do a part B: We can plan it together--build how we will go about it. W: OK, let's plan it. 8: (gets up) Where do we meet them? Wilma explains the procedure of how they come in and where they Sit. 8: Where do you meet to know. W: At their desks. them. That's what I want (We all go over there--other board.) But I'm not prepared. B: OK, We11, W: Good, I'd like to I'll Show you how I do it anyway. know that. B writes assignments on the board using symbols of a book, a ditto, and chips. It seems as if the kids are not independent enough to do these things on their own. W: 8: OK, maybe we have W: Maybe 8 Independent Centers Eventually you'll do independently. some unreal expectations. This group (as she's writing on the board) D.T. find something they can (A first/second grade team with two teachers and 44 students.) The intention here and in the note that W. sent to B. was that B. do a les- son or a part of a lesson. lst graders can't read yet. D.T.: directed teaching 210 So you're really using your centers to teach them how to work independently. They need to know what to do when they're with you and what to do when they're finished. I would not allow them to interrupt you at all. They should ask questions before hand. You have to be mean--it's teaching time (how to behave). The first thing I do is teach behavior, then you have to retrain periodically. You have to get them to see where they are. You're teaching them organization Skills-- modeling teacher and student comments. I'll stay and watch if you want me to. She's Obviously no longer planning to W: I don't think I'll do anything differently. do a demo. lesson. 8: OK (erases board) In general, how are things going? Good? W: Well, better now, but I was really disap- pointed how things were going. 8: Work on behavior. Teach it. Unless you get rid of these behaviors... You're right on target. W: I've never had such a difficult class. She talked about some specific students, including a ten year Old in the second grade. 8: While Donald is here, grab him. 8: I'd like to stay and...not to watch you, but to watch some of these kids. W: I'll be working with the younger ones. The kids come in (from recess) and settled on the floor for story time. Jane (team teacher) was sitting in a chair reading. 8 wrotEa note to Wilma: 1. re confusion--is it caused by new en- vironment? Is it caused by double standard? (in green ink--pointing to me) You? She had a pen with (presence) changeable points. 2. Student behavior-—is it a problem? (identify specific problem) (turned over Sheet) wrote: --passing out M. workbook (student re- Wilma was sponsibility?) --again paper tool! 211 --passing out pencils (anxiety Three different trips four Wilma got the kids placed in seats by calling off each name and Showing the kid where to sit. W: OK, boys and girls, look at page nine. 8 (to me) I have to Show her what she's doing An example of diag- and what they're doing. nosis Behaviors aren't Specified; a non-directive approach and a more relaxed atmosphere (than Anita's). No goal setting--not saying that there has to be. There was no transfer. She can't get to everyone because She hasn't previously diagnosed needs. She may have a plan, but it hasn't been articulated to you, me, or them. She feels she's being beaten to death. We're assuming that her definition Of beha- vior is the same as mine and yours. --then we talked about the '6OS--how What happened to 8. much is W's non-directiveness a product during the '60s? of the philosophy of the '60s. She has blamed the same thing on me. W. came over and asked 8 and me to move tables; she needed the one we were at for a group of kids to do some chip-trading. Specify and get it down. 8 (to me): I stayed because I needed more data. I needed her definition of behavior and what behaviors she's working on at the time. She's getting her grading done in class For W, because She's which I heartily approve of. working so hard, or for everyone? I (as we were walking back to the Office): How do you give her this when she didn't ask for it? Jack came in B: Wilma has taken over the anxiety that Jane had. 8 goes over with Jack what She went over with Wilma: It's very warm (atmosphere)--the opposite of what we saw earlier. 212 Jack asked about what 8. thinks of Pete and Wilma working together next year (spouses). B: You wouldn't do that to them! 8: Several topics to use Donald for: (Jack takes these down) --how to group effectively --what to do with a ten year Old non-reader in the second grade --independent centers focusing on reading skills and samples If Wilma comes to me and asks what you think, tell her: --a warm classroom --it's good that you have chip-trading --my definition of behavior management and hers --"I get the feeling that you feel confused." 213 (This is a letter written to Betty by a workshop participant towards the end of the two-week period.) Dear Betty, This is a little note of appreciation for the work you're doing, the talents you've shared with us and the ideas, suggestions you've given freely. I validate you on your dynamic energy--it flows out of you and elec- trifies and energizes those working with you. I've felt it and I've seen it in people who've said after being with you, "It's always good with Betty." It has been a delight to encounter a strong, positive woman on this Side of the world and inspires in me the courage to seek more treasures like you in Asia. If you're here, there must be others? Right! Thank you for your insights and encouragement. I'll look forward to your visits to my school. Love, L. 214 (This is a paper presented by Betty to a Reading Conference in San Francisco in April, 1977.) INNOVATIVE CLASSROOM PRACTICES AN OPEN CLASSROOM ORGANIZATION PLAN FOR TEACHING K-8 Many teachers each year are encountering, either by professional in- terest or by designation, an open classroom experience frequently in an open space school. Educational journals are full of articles both for and against the issue of "open classroom," and there are almost as many definitions for "openness" as there are schools, a myriad of acronyms for programs and packaged materials for these classrooms exist with additional jargon to complicate the issue for the professional and the publics served by the schools. The term "open-education" in this paper refers to these concepts: 1. The learning environment is of major importance in structuring learning and aesthetically pleasing en- vironments help learning. 2. Children have different learning styles and different rates of learning. 3. The child's self-concept is important and the feelings the child has toward learning have a great effect on his learning. 4. The teacher's role is that of a designer, diagnosti- cian and a guide for the children in this learning environment. This plan is designed for implementation by a team of three or four teachers; a team approach, where the teachers can share ideas, exper- tise and grow professionally together as they design and provide an effective instructional program for their students. The "basics" are included as well as other proven teaching strategies. It does require that a variety of learning activities and experiences involving the student be planned providing a positive and human approach to educa- tion. There is structure, but it is not a teacher-centered environment. While the organization of the school can be Single grade level teams, it will be more beneficial to have two or three year or grade ranges with several options for any age group (for example, 2, 3, 4 and 3, 4, 5 offers a third grade child several Options). Teachers and students can be together for two or three years, thus enabling the teachers to better understand and know the children in the team. It is wise to involve your community of parents when you make these decisions as you need informed and supportive parents when you make any changes in the school structure. 215 The organizational plan presented Should not be considered as a model, Since each group of students and teachers that worktogether must be dealt with as unique Situations, however, this plan can serve as a practical guide for teachers as they develop their own open classroom model. While the plan prepares you to implement the program in an Open space school, an individual teacher in a single-graded class in an older school will find it useful. The key to a successful Open-space classroom, like other classrooms, is the foundation that has been constructed by careful planning by those who will initiate the plan. Step One: Develop a Team Get together with the teachers that will be sharing this open space and establish a team. Even if you intend to do no team planning or team teaching, it is imperative that all who share the environment develop guidelines together. Since you will probably not complete all the tasks that you need to complete in one meeting, it is therefore important to establish a business meeting atmosphere, so no time is wasted. During this initial meeting take the time to get to know one another. One way is to take a few minutes by sharing your background, interests, favorite area of teaching, and reasons for being involved with this group. It is not surprising to find that although teachers have been on the same faculty for years and have taught in adjacent rooms, they may know little about one another or their views on teaching. If your team views the sharing of this environment and new experience as a problem solving adventure, the rewards will be bountiful. These questions will guide you in this initial discussion session: What are some of the advantages Of this new environment? What are some of the benefits of open education? Since all of us will be teaching in this area, what guide- lines do we need to develop so that we can all live here successfully? How can we be honest, and not hurt one another's feelings? Are there any areas or materials that we will want to Share? What are some of the problems others have enountered in teach- ing in an open-space? What are some of the possible problems or concerns we each have? 216 What are some of the pitfalls of open-education that we can avoid? At this point, you will begin to know each other, and perhaps consider more team work than you expected. At first you may decide to Share centers, materials, ideas and team plans,and not do team teaching. One cannot minimize the effects the individuals that compose the team and the leadership of the team have on team development. By teaming and utilizing the strengths of all, you can provide more flexible group- ing arrangements for instruction. It has been aptly stated that team- teaching is like a marriage, however, the marriage is frequently ar- ranged. If possible teachers Should choose their teammates, however, all the strengths in the school should not be on one team. While teams can be large and effective, most teachers that have teamed prefer teams of 3 teachers involved with 75 students, because the groups of students are easier to manage and a family feeling is still maintained. Leadership of the team is essential and the person in this capacity should possess the characteristics of an effective leader and also have the ability to work with others. Now that you are a team and have decided how you will team and how much you will cooperate, you are ready to proceed. If you plan to team- teach, select a leader before you go to the next step. Step Two: Plan the Learning Environment Examine the environment that will be your home of learning for both you and your students. Remember in this new open space room, you have the opportunity to build the learning atmosphere. There are no walls or at least few walls to hinder your plan. This classroom can be a work shop. If you are really fortunate, there is a team room or a teachers' work area, so your desk does not need to accompany you into this new environment. Just think how much space you have without it! DO not throw it out, it might make an ideal center, but wait and see. With the team and the new leader, hold a planning session. Brainstorm the possibilities for this new environment. These questions will serve to get you started: What centers will we need? Where shall we have the library? Where Shall we have the quiet areas? Where can we hold a group meeting for all the students? How can we use the bookcases? 217 Where can we put plants? Where shall we store the games? What can we hang from the ceiling? Where can we have a display area? How shall we arrange the desks? (How many different ways?) How many instructional areas do we need for teacher directed activities? Where will students keep their personal belongings? How can we mark the areas? What colors shall we use? Now that you have all your ideas, you are ready to draw your plan on paper, but do not lift the furniture yet. Using a large sheet of paper or the chalk board, begin to design your environment. These hints will help you: a. Decide what to do with the desks and chairs first. Re- member that the emphasis is on small group and indivi- dual learning. Take into consideration the learning needs of all your students and develop areas for these needs. b. Label everything in this environment and begin to live by "everything has a place and everything in its place." This is a laboratory for learning. c. Remember that your environment will change and become more functional as you live in it. d. Leave some of the decision making about the environment up to the students. You want them to have the feeling that this is their environment. Remember that the spatial arrangements you design will communicate a great deal to your students. After the plan is on paper, you are ready to move furniture. Let's all share the load, ready, team? Step Three: Decide on the Curriculum One of the most important decisions you will make as a team is deciding how to deal with the curriculum. To some educators involved in "open education," it means doing away with all formalized curriculum, but I 218 believe that you can take the curriculum guides existing in your school and wisely use them in your planning. Examine the curriculum both in content and in concepts normally presented to students of the age you will be teaching. List the skills that are considered important for students to acquire in both the area of communication skills and mathematics. These can be considered as the "basics,“ so you are not throwing them out! The rest of the curriculum decisions have to do with content and the approach you decide to use as a team. Your goal is to have a variety of learning experiences that will turn children on to school, not off. Most teams prefer to integrate the curriculum as much as possible, however, the skills are best directly taught and not left to incidental learning. One way to handle this is having the early part of the day for structured skill time, while the rest of the day is open for more integrated study and less teacher-directed activity. The team will need to make decisions regarding time, space use, and the grouping processes that will meet the ever-changing needs of the stu- dents. You can further individualize yourprogram through the use of centers, various media, learning contracts, learning packets, and varied activities. In the beginning, it would be advantageous to start with your own group of students in the basic skills. As you group them for instruction within the group, you can discuss with the other teachers on the team and move students among yourselves for instruction, so that you have the best learning and teaching situation. In that way you develop flexible groupings, and each teacher will have identified the need for utilizing another teammate. Start with team planning the first two integrated units of study and the development of the centers. The times you use centers and an in- terdisciplinary or theme approach will provide the opportunity for true teaming, but let it evolve. If you develop a daily schedule together that allows flexibility adn the opportunity to work together or group among yourselves that will be a step in the right direction. The more flexible the schedule, the more options you have as an indi- vidual teacher and as a team. Bring those activities and plans that have been successful. Remember that you are teaming and implementing a curriculum plan that best meets the needs of all involved. Step Four: Develop the Routines and Procedures This building block perhaps will be the "keystone" to your success, because the tone and atmosphere that you desire for your learning en- vironment is affected by the physical setting planned as well as the methods used in communicating the expectations to students. While you cannot anticipate every situation, you can set the tone and rhythm for 219 the total year, if you spent enough time at the beginning. Teach the children to live in this new environment carefully, then you never have to eliminate a negative behavior and re-teach the proper one. The best advice is that you ASSUME not one of the students has ever been in an open-space school or an open classroom. Therefore, you be- gin at ZERO. Develop the expectations and standards as a team. Generally, the shorter the list, the better. A common sense approach toward living together is best. Decide what to do if a student does not meet the standards. List the responsibilities of students. (The students later may enjoy listing the responsibilities of teachers, or you can collec- tively work on the list.) Open-ness can be implemented by degrees and go from structure to less- structure. Procedures take time to learn and sometimes practice is necessary as well as a model to see. In this open space work from a structure that allows as much freedom as these individuals demonstrate they can handle. Those who cannot handle the freedom do not have the freedom. This environment is new, and the older the child, generally the more time you need to teach the expectations. Just imagine if you had just finished four years of schooling in a traditional classroom environment, and you walked into this new one. What would you think? Spend time teaching the expectations and standards. Do it creatively and always reinforce the students that meet the standards. As a team, develop procedures. Describe the behavior that is expected so that every student has a clear picture. These guiding questions are samples: How do we dismiss for ? What do you do if a teacher is late or absent? How do we use the ? When do we ? When do you sharpen a pencil? In the very beginning teach how to use a center or an area, discuss with the students what is expected and then evaluate with them at the end of the activity. Remember that clean up is part of the activity. (Any teacher)that picks up after a class is not teaching students responsi- bility! Plan the first day as a team carefully. Get to know your students and begin to teach them about this new environment. Share your enthusiasm with them for this coming year. After a few weeks the routines will become habits. Your learning en- vironment will have a quiet atmosphere at times that is necessary and 220' a "busy hum of learning" at other times, but all strdents can learn because they know what to do, when to be there, and what is expected of them. Step Five: Evaluate Your Teaching Practices The last four steps have been a team effort, but this step iS an indi- vidual task. Set reasonable goals for yourself this year and plan your self- improvement. You may find that you have been an "open-classroom" teacher for years. However, you may need to concentrate on acquiring some "open space" teaching behavior. Put your track shoes on and take these questions with you to the new environment: Can you manage several activities at one time? Can you plan enough to allow students an Opportunity to choose? Have you ever used a "contract"? Are directions clearly stated on your centers? Do students always have to wait on you? Do you use the chalkboard in communicating with the class? Do you interrupt students who are working in one area because your voice is too loud? DO you ever move around and observe students at work? Do you instruct three or four students or have small instructional groups? . Do you plan lessons individually as well as for a group? Do you allow students to evaluate their work? Is your record keeping up to date? Do you know your individual students in terms of what they have learned and how they learn? Relax; you do not need to change overnight. Teach the way you feel most effective and comfortable. Plan to learn new strategies to teach or to try. Observe another teacher teaching for new ideas. Within this "open-space," each of you will begin to examine what he or she has been doing professionally and by critiqueing his actions and others will grow professionally. 221 All right team--you have followed the plan and you are ready for the doors to open. lake with you all that has been successful in your old environments and move into this new open space. The changes in the architecture and in teaching strategies have come about because of the quest to meet the individual needs of children more effectively. Do not throw out the old because it is old, but because you as a pro- fessional have evaluated the situation and fee there is a better way for your students to learn. The effective management and organization of your open classroom de- pends on your ability as a team to evaluate and monitor the program and its progress, making changes when necessary and appropriate. 222 Informal Interviews from Summer Workshop Teachers/workshop participants were asked to describe Betty and her working style: M.R. D.B. J.P. She has a way of listening and analyzing. She makes you think you've done it before. She gives you the direction and helps you reach it. She came to my classroom last year. I didn't know how to manage time and she gave be direct advice that made a big difference. She said, "Time yourself." After a while I knew that a lesson would last _____ minutes. Other staff de- velopers give the answer but not the "why." I can gp_it, but I don't get it. Betty doesn't say, "Go do it." She lets you discover it by yourself and then She gives you the opportunity to go and see her again. Sometimes I think she doesn't listen because her answers come SO fast. She's like a computer. When she tells you something, it's like she has experimented with it before. One of the biggest ways Betty helped me was in organization. She knows so many processes for organizing. I have also learned by observing her and the way she interacts with teachers. She gives very concrete advice. She is also systematic. She always helps people see the system, the whole picture. She makes you look at what you're doing and see where changes can take place. She is also extremely energetic. Betty is strong-willed, dynamic, and full of energy. You can't get away with any b.S. with her. She forces you to be open, and She certainly sets an example. She isn't domineering, but She's matter-of-fact in the way she does things. But She's human, too. Sometimes I think she's like a walking computer. She's so or- ganized and efficient. She really gets things done. I don't feel that my time was wasted here. She earns respect. She doesn't try to be a friend as much as She tries to help you, yet she's friendly. And she's very professional. It's easy to take critiquing from her because she is so professional. She does it in such a positive way. APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE DATA February 20, 1979 Dear Mary, AS you know, I have been working on a research project with Betty Leslie since August. I am very grateful to all of you for allowing me (or the videotape projector) into your classrooms and for your openness and candidness in answering my questions. I believe that with all of your help, I will have enough data in seven months instead of in the ten plus months as I had originally planned. I need to ask your help one more time. I'm enclosing this questionnaire which I'd like you to fill out for me. It covers four of the areas I've been trying to learn about. I've tried to think of everything, but if you see where I've left something out or haven't left sufficient room for your explanation, please feel free to add it on. It would be most helpful to me if you could complete and return it to me by the end of February. Sincerely, Arlene Anang 223 224 QUESTIONNAIRE Your Relationship with Betty How long have you worked with her professionally? How often during her six yearly visits do your work with her? 4-6 times a year 42% 2-3 times a year 38% once a year 17% once every other year less 3% Please explain your reasons for this frequency Have you attended an IGE workshop with her? What ideas from there have you been able to use? Her Classroom Visits usually occasionally never Do you ask her for help on 63% 29% 8% specific things? Does she come in to observe 13% 52% 35% (without a specific request from you)? Does she stop by your room to say hello? 30% 40% 30% Do you talk to her casually in the faculty lounge, etc. 51% 43% 0% Do you see her informally outside of the school en- vironment? 17% 46% 37% 225 Areas of Helpfulness Please rate her helpfulness to you on the following scale (l=least helpful; 5=most helpful) 1 2 3 4 5 Behavior management 5.5% 5.5% 22% 11% 50% Time management 5% 5% 20% 35% 35% Record-keeping 17% 5% 22% 39% 17% Curriculum ideas 0% 11% 39% 39% 11% Advice about specific student(s) 12.5% 12.5% 19% 25% 31% Environment 6% 12.5% 12.5% 50% 19% Other (please describe): Please describe some of the specific ideas She has given you that you have been able to use: (See attached sheets for data.) Do you think she has helped you change in any fundamental ways--Of a long-range nature? If so, please describe. (See attached sheets for data.) Personality and Style What do you like about her and the way she works? What do you dislike about her and the way She works? Signature (optional) 226 A.opo .mmcppooE .mmoHo :pv op>pcp co ospp zoos oop mcpocoom oooomo oco Loppo oco xHHooL o3 pox: co AHnmoocozp oLoE mooop os moHo; ogm .omH< .ocpgooop co oepp ocos ocoom op oE mcpoocp memop popcos poulpcocm op mxoz Low mcpxoop .coppoNpcom -Lo HE po poop op xocoocop o Ho ogoe o>oz oco omocos op mxoz Loppoo Lop mcpxoop ozozHo E.H .oHopmmoo mo :oom mo commop :H oo>Ho>cp AHo>ppoo mHHooo HHo poo .coppoHom o>pp lpmoo o poo xcoz oco .omocmopo .EoHooLo apppcoop op oHoo moo; opo Lo>Hom-EoHooco o oEoooo o>.H .omo mcooa coop opo H cocp Losooop pcopooeoo ocoe sons o oxpp Hoop H oco .mooco Home :p oNHHooop>po -cp coo H .ocpHopompo sppz omoo po Hoop 3o: H .onpm mcpcooop An concoco xHopoHosoo mo; ocm .Emppocopmmowoco Ho oHoono ocpp Hpcoooom Hopes Hmcocooop Lop Hooos ooow mmczo;oo cop mogoocopm mcpcooop ”Zopm opppocp coppon o Lop sooc osp omcocco op 3o: mpoogpcoo zppz Lop>ocoo mcpmcozo ”soop o co Ho: czo cpocp mcpom ocoxco>o op oomoooo mo mcopmpooo =Eoop= mcpxos co mooop Hmpco icoo sppz oococopcoo op 3o; co mooop mzpo>pp loommo mpmopoco om: op 2o; Hmcpooocm co moooH mopppgz o>ppoocu .pp ooooogo o3 mo: pHomoL ogp oco =aoo popcou= Loo po omoocoo ogp xcpgpoc op m: oo¥m< .opo .pooocoo poono moopo Hoogom sop; gooocooo op 3o: .ooocm o mopsooop oHpsz mEoHnoco popcoo mcpcopmHH po ogoo oxop op 3o: mppoo lo: op o>HpoccopHo co mo pcosoocopcpog o>HpHmoo .o>Hpoowoo pcopcoosp .opppooom o o>og po: mooo gopgz posp ogoompo op ocop oco Hpcop icoo ospv gooop H poo; o:Hono H .moopcoo ospp popcocm op oLoE cmpHoEoooo H Hpcopopppo ocos E.H .mcpom so H coppooppo nopgz :H 3ocx H .omppcooxo pcosomocoe Lo; Ho ppomog o mo .mocoz Lozpo cH .mcpgooop oco mcpccopo as Ho om: Loppoo oxos oco o>ppoowoo oLoE so H .zHo>pmcopxo pH om: op oco cpmcogpm pmopoocm HE on Hos oocoppoo ms posp omH< .Eogp co mcpzpoeom HoH H ocopoo pcooopm o oxHH xcpcp op ng op oE pcmoop mo; ogm .pogp pooHpoc oHoosm pp oco mcpogp mp EoocmmoHo on» .mcpposlcopmpooo Hocomgoo Ho pcosomocoooco ogp oco mpcooopm :H oocoocoooocp po mcpcopmop on» .cho HHHocoo \zHHoco 4mm mcpgooop co ocppmHmcp an xoocp pcopg onp co mo: H posp oococommoog ogp .mcpooox ogooog oo>ocosp Hmoopppssoo mcpm: .coppcoppo mpcoz HHco ox: oHpgo o :ppz poo: op 3ocll on< cppz mcpHooo HHomLoozo; ooocm opmos o co» mo>ppoonoo oco mHoom opmpooom mopppom .Hoooe popcopm mopppczlo>ppooco Hmoocogop icoo pcocoolgocooop Hooop>po=H cop mcoo isos soop Ho coppoopo>o pcooopm cop msgop oco copposgopcp zoos Homolsoop cop cmpmoo ocpppczlppco HmcoHo commoH oopcopcolpHme .mooopczoop oco oocoopom m.m Ho pHomoL o mo poopoppmo ocoe cons oco HEoop o mov o3 .xppcossoo oco mpcopoo mcpHoco; :H co>pm mo: oop>oo ococm Hoopcoppo pmHHlxoozo Hprm oco oopcopco o>Hpoowno ocos on oe ooos mo; ocm .mHHme Ho pcoEmmommo .coppo>ppos co oomooop ogm cops; :H commoH mopppcz o>ppooco o pgooop m .os op 3o: mo; pp cog: ooogo 5pm Ho pcoEomocoE op ocomoc zppz ooH>oo osom o5 o>om ocm .mpcooopm o>Hpo=meoo Lop mHoc -mpm Hooco>coc oco ooco pooloepp HmcooooH copmmoompo pcooopm cppz copmmoompo mopoopm Hopoom mcpco>HHcm .Eopmam zoooo oco mop: loosom Hooop>pocp co mpcooopm Hmu mcpooox :N >N IN Hm am gm 2N 228 .oon co oooollcogooop o mo pHomHE po HHHooHpmHHooc xooH op Hpoosomocos mmopo Loppom .omcoc omo cppz Hooo op oHoo Loppoo HmcpccoHo ooNHHoooH>pocp cppz oHnopcoHEoo ocoz .o>HpHmoo ocos on op oco Hmmcppoos o>Hpooppo oco poopopppo ogos cog op Hmo>ppoowoo mo :ooop op Hooppoogpm lop oNHHooop>Hocp op o5 ooopo; mo; ogm Hmo> .Hoom oocpmoo o sumo; Hprm poo oHonoHp on coo pocp mcopollmcpccoHo :H mco>opHoo Ecpp ogo o3 .mo>ppoowoo omosp op oopoHoL HHpoocHo ogo mpmop oposp new no mcpxcoz oco Hosp mo>ppoowoo ogp zocx :oLoHpso ozp pocp oocgoocoo oLoE cooe E.H .mpcooopm ooHnooLp opppooom mcpoHo; HpcoEomocoE Eoop mospp .mpcooopm mcpHooocom Hpcosomocoelospp .soogmmopo CH ppogp :ppz ocpHaoo ”mpcooopm aop mcpmcoHHogo mmpcooopm 4mm sppz mcpxcoz .mopx ocp op prHpnpmcoom lop oco oocoocoooocp cooop op mmcozpo oco mopx sppz o>pppmoo on op Hmopoopm Lponp co opocpcoocoo coo Hosp om Lop>ogoo oopoooxo mpcooopm :ooop op ospp mcpxop HmeoHooco gop>oson o>os on: mpcooopm gppz mapppomlHoom HapoE Lop Eopmam pcosomocoz .mpcooopm HE mcoEo oopococoo mo; pH coppppoosoOlpHom oco Emopmocpco ogp oom op ogomooHo o coon on: pH .mpoocpcoo Ho ooHo> osp ooccooH o>os H .opo .xoooc o>og op mHoHcopoEllmoocoLopcoo oco omoo; :ooo cop mcpcoooco Hmpcooopm cocmpz Lop moppp>ppoo HHcomcoo oHoncoomoL o sppz soap poov mcoxHop Lop sopmxm zooom mm mm Hpomoc o2 poooo mxHop ocm xcpgp H .mpcoEmoon moxos ocm 3ocx H .mooEoo mpgp :0 to; oxHH o.H ““cozoco ago; p0: m.o;m .xspooso Ho omcom o mmHE H .oHoo>opHooco mpzp oop» H .oHoco; co cppz oooo op oHnoco mp ogm coppooppm o cppz pos co>oc mo; ocm mpoop ogm mcpHoop ogp o>os H .opLoH Lo; po: oco app>ppoo Lopopoo mp mcpcopmpo .copmHH op oop> loo mcpmcoompo xppcopopppo oop coppo mp ocm .szHocomcoo Ho ocpx oEom mpcp o>og op omHo ocoxco>o mpoooxo oco pcopopppo oop mp ocm «PH Hzom< mxHHmHo 20> on b<23 .coppooppm o Ho oocommo ocp op pom op popoo .HHomEH; Lop popo op Hooop>pocp onp mcp>ooH .mcpmooepc: .opo .mo>ppo:copHo .mooop mo HHom .ooocm mopsgopm :Hoco oocpopcoOlpHom o m.o;m .xozo pzmpg mmocpmoo op czoo mpom onm oco oEHp co mxozHo mp osm .xcoz xHHoom: mcoppmom loom Lo: .Hozo pomp; EoHooco ogp co :H opo~ coo ogm .oHoE Lo; 5. 8585 So: 3 osm .cmon onp ocooco mchoon ocllpnmpogpm poooooop HHo mo>pm ozm .oom op omoHo oop ogo so» msoHooLo moom ogm .poo oox oHo; op ooop co mo; mxozHo osm .oopmo mmoHco op gomgogo= po: mooo osm .mcoppmzppm pHsopppHo oco 3o: mcpogomoc oooppppo o>pppmoo ooow .Lo; :H oocooppcoo oE o>om 5.23 tomco; poooo pcooicoo CCo> Posm .pco>comoo >Lo> oco .poocpo .cooo m.o;m opo; Ho on coo ocm .omppgooxo so: oopmcp mp pogp pmoooog oHHHooom aco> o o>os so» pH mxHH 30> on h<23 cszmoz no mH>Hm oz< >hHH ogm mcocpo oco Hoogom Loo Ho mcoppo>comoo Lo; Ho ocos ococm oHoo;m ogm xcpgp H .o>ppoomoo oop oprpH o oo op mocop ozmllgmooco mompoco ogm popsp p.:oo H .mooco cozpo :H meooc immoHo cooo gogpo sogp mooop mo cppz ocogm oHooo ogm poop Hoop o3 .Lo; sogp mocpH omocp ocoHo mcpcposom Loo; op oxHH oHooz oz .po>ozo; mompoco op ocopoc m.m po: mp pp pogp mccooH oco moom oco HHHoz om mcpxgoz mo; pp poop oompcocom mo: ogm poop pHoH H =mmoococopcoo pcocoo po opoo o>oz so» HHH3=llpcpoo oop po mozo oocoeso; ocm .coox mpgp Hooos soop Loo :o pcossoo po: opo ogm pogp oopcpoooompo ocoz oz ppop H .Eoop o m4 .oow Lo; mcpoo Hocopmmopoco o pooh m.o;m .AHHooc mcpzpoz .oHoco; coo Lo moooc on coop opoo ocoe oe mo>pm oco cons oop mxHop ogm mosppoeom .o:HH oop co mocpgp oCHHoH HHHpm oHH;3 o>pppmoo on op momocoe zocosom ocm pox .mmocpooppo go; opo H .poocp HopoHo; mo ooxp osom mo; mxozHo osm “so; momozo mcpcpoz .ocozoop-p;opocpm .pcoHopro .peooHHHoch =.c3oo no» mopppoo= mp osm poop Hoop co>oc Losooop o mo no» ocollocoogo on op cop m.o;m .EoHooLo oop Ho mcp>pom ogp :o =cp oLo~= op HpHHHoo osp mos oco HHHowocoo mcopmpH ogm .Hooop>pocp co mo so» moom ogm .Hmcopp lmooo oco mEoHooLo moop>ogo goo» mcooEoEoL ogmv HgoEoE poocm o mo; upcopoppwo mp osm .mooopcgoop Eoop co mooop swoop mo>pm Lo EoHooLo opppooom o opoco: op mcoppmommom 3o: opp: moEoo mzozHo ozm .o>o; poops 3o» EoHooLo LoHooppgoo o poooo mcpnposom mooo oco mgooEoEoL osm .mcoxcoz zopHop Ho mooppo>comoo co wsoHoogo op copmHH op mcHHsz mxozp< .coppoopcosEoo mcp>ocosp op cooocooo poocpo moocho on HooEoHoHo .xpmoo locopHospm coppozppm o op coppoHom oco cosp ocos co Lomcpp\o:ps Lo; poo op AppHHoo Lo: IN om HN am pm 2N 231 .p.ooo H oooz poooo monHop mp oom poo: oop pxopooo oop o>oo H poop mosommo oom moepposom .zozo oHoooo moopompop ooppo ooo mooopm oop oo mosoollpopoooop oop m.oom .HHoH om m.poop opooooom poo op ooox op opoo m.oom Ho: HHoooooo m.poop poollooomoc mp Loo opp3 oepp HE Hoop H .poo o5 oHoo op ooco Hooopm lmopooo Hopppooomv HE op ooooeom oopH oHooz H .oomooo =mopooom .mopooo= o mp oom .mHo>oH HHo pop mooop Ho omoooooopm o moo oom .mpoooopm Lop =o>oH= o moo oom .zoz mopoopooooplooo o op mooppmommom Loo mo>pm ooop ooo pmopp m>HhHmoa m><3o< mp oom .moppppo20mpoo poo .mEoHooLo opp; mHooo ooo HooppaHooo mp oom .ooz oop oHoo opp: HonHoo poom opooocp o poom ooo ooo mooppooppm HHo op o>HpHmoom xxo> mp oom .zoz opop o op mpoom opoooop opp: moHHooo po opmpgoop ooo oooo .szoopmoH mEoHooLo op HooppoHom o oop>ooo gov o>Hom op oHoo oo op msoom ooo xoooooop opopoosep mo>pm oom .E:=oo> o op mopxooz mo 3oHp moopoom oop Eoop ooppom mHoooom Hoooppocoopop ooo mooop zoo oop oo op moooo mopoooop ooou .ooppoHomp op oooop p.ooo o3 om mHoooom Hoooppoooopop oop op oooozomHo mopoooooo m.pooz mo oosoopop mo oooo op .Hoooom Loo op ooHo> poo op Hop oop mp poop oopop H .mopoo ooo oopmop oop op mHoooom Loopo poo: poooo poH o ozoox oom oo< .xpoooppp ooo Eco: .oompoo poomooHo o msoom oom .xooopopppo mopmooooop oo ooo poosomoooe oo mooop oooo om N APPENDIX C MAPS OF SCHOOLS A. ELEMENTARY CAMPUS (attached to high school) B. PRIMARY CAMPUS (older one) up 22o: av «>323 .C EOMHpHm $3.55 SSS S .mhk? HQ 3% 5&on 9 E333 S Q gfitu Np HASH/G 233 Primary Campus 1978-1979 supply Office Book RI. Library Courtyard APPENDIX D THE INDIVIDUALLY GUIDED EDUCATION CLINICAL WORKSHOP IGE CLINICAL WORKSHOP August 7-18, 1978 Your Workshop Goal: To be able to discuss and to apply in practice the outcomes from the workshop implementation guide. Objectives: 1. The participant will experience and participate in a variety of Human Development activities designed to help individuals function as part of a group or team. The participant will experience the role Of the teacher in designing, implementing, and evaluating an instructional pro- gram to individualize learning for a group of children. The participant will have experiences which will assist him to help others as they experience change in the learning en- vironment. Each learning community will develop and implement an effective advisor program involving home-school communication. Each participant will develop a plan for implementing the out- comes and strategies that will lead to improvement in his or her classroom this fall. 234 235 Portions of a clipping from the expatriate community newspaper de- scribing the IGE summer workshop; dated September 25, 1978. Teachers Go to School... Clinical Workshop From a slide Show about cities in Asia to a circus parade, from a play of Greek myths to an exhibit of underwater sea life, parents visiting the Open house of the Summer Workshop...saw the varied and interesting results of their children's seven mornings of classes. For the 116 students themselves, those mornings proved that going to school, even during the summer vacation, can be fun! The students had been part of the 10th annual clinical workshop held for teachers and administrators of expatriate schools in Southeast Asia. Designed to improve skills in all areas of teaching, the work- shop was jointly sponsored by the United States Office of I.D.E.A. (Institute for Development of Educational Activities) and the S____ American School, the seventh such clinic held in S___, For the participating teachers who earned three hours graduate credit through their efforts, the workshop was ten full days of intense in- volvement in a learning atmosphere. First, becoming accustomed to working with other members of the team to which each was assigned and developing study plans around the interdisciplinary theme of each group, actual teaching and observing took place during the mornings with the students. Afternoons were filled with analyzing the day's progress, revising and modifying the program as necessary to make the plan more effective for each student. Thus the important goals of the workshop were stressed: *Functioning effectively as a member of a team *Designing a program of individualized study for a varied group of children *Implementing the study, re-evaluating and revising goals as the program progressed *Recording the progress of each child *Increasing communication between teacher and child and be- tween teacher and parent Seminars covering a wide range of topics also were held in the after- noons with topics such as Time Management, Behavioral Contracting, Effective Meetings and Team Teaching. No wonder past participants have labelled it "a workshop not a talkshop." The workshop was planned and administered by Mrs. Betina Leslie of the S___ American School. The 32 teachers participating in the workshop represented five area schools. APPENDIX E SHEETS USED TO SCHEDULE APPOINTMENTS WITH BETTY (This is the standard form distributed each month approximately one week before Betina Leslie's visit.) J International School October 11, 1978 C___ Elementary Betina Leslie week, October 23-27 All teachers are encouraged to plan a time with her. Each IGE team Should plan to meet with her. All who wish a contact with Betina, please complete this form and return to Yati by Thursday afternoon, October 19, so Betina can have her schedule prepared. Betina will be at our elementary school on Tuesday, from 11:00-2 30 Wednesday, full day Thursday, from 7:30-10:30 How can She help you? C] Observe and provide feedback to you on your classroom. [J Assist you in lesson planning. Help you solve a problem. Suggest and Share ideas with you. Observe a meeting and provide feedback to your group. Meet with your grade level or team. DECIDE] Meet with a small group of teachers who want assistance in I want Mrs. Leslie to The best time to meet is Teacher 236 APPENDIX F BETTY'S EVALUATION REPORT/ SUMMARY OF VISIT T0: Mr. B___, high school vice principal Mr. B___, elementary school principal Mr. R___, primary school principal Dr. W___, high school principal Dr. V___, superintendent FROM: Betina Lester DATE: Ja TOPIC: Su nuary 31, 1979 mmary of League Fourth Visit (January 22-26, 1979) The report and length Elementary format for this visit has been revised in both its content in order to provide all of you with more complete information. Activities Team A Team B In a lengthy conference with this teaching team, we developed a plan for a Research Unit to be used in the near future, as well as discussed various methods and materials to use in the evaluation of their students' progress. In a subsequent Ob- servation and post observation conference, the Math program implemented by the team was analyzed. This two teacher team is both organized, well planned, and provides excellent instruction and guidance to their students. These teachers could provide a model for others in their use of class time beginning with their opening activities with their students, as well as their activities at the end of the day. No time is wasted and the activities are designed to extend their students' thinking. In two conferences with this three teacher team, following a pre-observation meeting and an observation, the topic of student leadership and developing responsibility with stu- dents was discussed. Since these teachers moved from their former experience of teaching 3rd and 4th grades to the 5th and 6th grade, it is understandable that the teaching methods and strategies are as they were; however;I shared with the team the need for them to plan learning activities that provided opportunities for more student leadership as well as incorporated more guided independent activities. I explained these activities are necessary, especially for the Sixth grade students as they prepare for the seventh grade program, which expects them to be independent. The teachers accepted these sug- gestions readily and planned to implement some ideas imme- diately. I plan to follow up with ideas later. 237 238 Team C Together with one teacher from this team, we observed spe- cific students (ESL) as well as the other team teacher dur- ing a social studies lesson. During the post-observation conference, it was agreed that this observation process was very valuable in identifying and analyzing student performance, and together we developed strategies to be used with several of the students observed. This team analyzes their program on a regular basis, and it is evident as one observes or meets with them that they are very professional and benefit from this teaming experience. (Naturally the school and students benefit as well!) Mrs. W After observing in the classroom as well as modeling for the teacher while working with her, we met and I outlined spe- cific actions She could adopt that would help her in the management of her students and the activities in the class- room. She was open to these suggestions and is interested in her students and her classroom. At this time the students exhibited that they indeed are acquiring the basic skills. This teacher is effective in her role, and there is evi- dence that her participation in the MSU overseas graduate program has helped her in her professional development. Mrs. P In a conference we discussed methods that this teacher could use to improve her communication between the classroom teach- ers and herself. I suggested She have the topic put on the PIC agenda. I had written to other schools on her behalf to ascertain information on materials as well as strategies other schools are using in their ESL programs. Mr. K During a conference with this teacher a new arrangement for classroom instruction was designed, as well as suggestions for independent work for students, to facilitate the teacher's use of the small group instructional mode (Dr. Donald's course). The teacher indicated later that this new design was very effective. (Prin- Numerous discussions were held about the classroom Observa- cipal) tions and the results of conferences with teachers. Together we observed one classroom teacher and shared our data and discussed strategies that could be used to assist this teacher in his professional improvement. Program During an observation of this meeting and later as a parti- Improve- pant, it was evident that the group has improved their meet- ment ing Skills and are concerned about the role of this council Council as well as the role of the PIC representative. The Princi- pal led the meeting assisting everyone to accomplish the tasks at hand. During this meeting I suggested that the use of a "proposal system" developed by one or two people of a small committee could facilitate the discussion and progress of the council. (In other words a proposal in draft form is distributed Mrs. A 239 during the meeting for the council's perusal, discussion, and decision.) As promised a sample is attached. In a conference with her, I suggested she list all the ac- tivities that a new team member would need to have provided by her team to become well acquainted with her team's pro- gram, so that a smooth transition could occur when Mrs. A leaves. At the present time there appears to be little evidence of a teaming situation or analysis of the program by this team. I also suggested that She follow-up with a questionnaire or interview with all the teachers with whom I met during the week to further evaluate my effectiveness with them. High School Activities CPI Mrs. W Math Depart- ment Mrs. T After an observation of this meeting, I met with the princi- pal to review the observation data and suggested several strategies that could help this group improve. In practice this group appears to follow more of a "forum," rather than a group that analyzes and makes recommendations. Since the high school departments and the department chair- men function in such an outstanding manner, the department chairmen have and need to have information that effects the department and the school initially, I suggested this com- mittee could be more fully utilized. In the meeting specifics can be delegated and decided that will clear up some communication gaps, as well as avoid others. Another committee can make a report to this group and modifications (a "proposal format"). During an observation of the Foreign Language Department's inservice activities, at the request of a staff member, it revealed a well planned and balanced Sharing of inservice activities. The substitutes received a valuable inservice experience and will no doubt perform their services in the future more effectively due to the activities provided by Mrs. W. While the conference had been originally scheduled for Mr. P, he asked that he include the total department in our discus- sion of the math lab classes. Therefore, as a group we dis- cussed ways of improving the instructional program offered by the math department. In a conference we reviewed the results of the student re- sponses in evaluating the various music groups under the teacher's direction. We developed a plan for sharing this information with each group so that the student would be aware of the diverse concerns among themselves and be able to develop plans to improve within each group (a shared decision making strategy). I encouraged the teacher to Mrs. Mr. P Mr. D Other 240 continue to provide students with these opportunities to evaluate the class or choir Situation, but suggested to her that we develop a format more suitable for analysis and assessment in the future. In a conference several methods and strategies were illus- trated to help the teacher meet the student performance levels and needs within her class. The teacher shared his progress with his class, and we de- veloped specific strategies to further improve his program. He is most enthusiastic about his profession. In a conference we reviewed plans for his class, as well as planned his proposed inservice visit to K___. As an observer at a later science department meeting, I was asked by him to critique the meeting and did so. For future reference, it would be helpful for all future department chairmen and CPI representatives to see a video tape or observe Mr. D conduct a meeting. He does an excellent job. Certainly this week, once it was underway, became well booked and I indeed felt the time was well used. Four days were Spent between the two sections of the school, as I scheduled high school people at unscheduled times as well. One day was Spent at a new expatriate school, 60 km away, helping the teachers and Board in analyzing their program. Teachers were generally enthusiastic about their inservice plans and at no time were there any negative comments. The high school teachers were especially enthusiastic. Hope- fully the evaluations of this inservice will support this attitude. AS future inservice activities are planned, as an administrative group you might like to schedule some time for your own inservice and share ideas and strategies. The high school program particularly lends itself to that and could have included the guidance department plans for inservice as well. All in all the inservice program at the elementary and high school certainly should reap a difference for your students this week! Requests from the Staff *Cap and gown--ready for sending via H or myself next trip *Elem Science Book--D. 0. *Learning Packet Format--D. H. *Homework Article--Team C *Ideals for Developing Student Leadership and Responsibility--Team B *Capsule Report--Team A 241 *Proposal Format--Elementary School Principal *Dr. Z's AddreSS--M. W. *Student Evaluation FormS--L. T. *Sample Books--J. R. (Primary School Principal) (The publisher con- tacted me!) Next trip: February 25 - March 2, 1979 Arrive Sunday SQ 208 at 1800 hours Betina Leslie Staff Development Specialist BL/ay/sp February 8, 1979 REFERENCES REFERENCES Agar, M. H. ThegprofeSSional stranger: An informal introduction to ethnography. New York: Academic Press, I980. Austin, J. L. PhiloSOphical pepers. London: Oxford, 1962. Becker, H., Geer, 8., & Hughes, t. G. Boys in white. Chicago: Univ- Versity of Chicago Press, 1961. Becker, H., Geer, B., & Hughes, E. G. Making the grade. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1968. Bennie, W. A. Campus supervision of student teaching--a closer look. Teachers College Journal, December 1964, pg, l33. Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. Federal program supporting educational change, Vol. IV: The findings in review. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, April 1975. Berman, P., & MCLaughlin, M. W. Federal program Sppporting educational chapge, Vol. VIII: Implementing and sustaining innovations. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 1978. Birdwhistell, R. L. Kinesics and content: Essays on body motion com- munication. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1970 Blom, J. P., & Gumperz, J. Social meaning of linguistic structures: Code-switcning in Norway. In J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1972. Blumberg, A. Supervisors and teachers: A private cold war. Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1974. Blumberg, A., & Amidon, E. Teacher perceptions of supervisor-teacher interaction. Administrator's Notebook, September 1965, 13, 1-8. Blumberg, A., & CuSick, P. Supervisor-teacher interaction: An analysis of verbal beahvior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Minneapolis, I970 (ED 040 938). Bradley, R. C. Clarifying the supervising teacher's rOIe. Teachers College Journal, December 1966, pp, 92-94. 242 243 Bremme, D. W., & Erickson, F. Relationships among verbal and nonverbal Classroom beahviors. Theory into Practice, 1977, 5, 3, 153-161. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1978. Brown, R. V., & Hoffman, M. J. S. A promissory model for analyzing and describing verbal interaction between college supervisors and student teachers during supervisory conferences. Ed.D. disserta- tion, Columbia University, l966. Bussis, A. M., Chittenden, E. A., & Amarel, M. Beyond surface curricu- lum: An interview studygof teachers' understandings. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 19/6. Byers, P., & Byers, H. Nonverbal communication and the education of children. In J. Cazden, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press, 1972. Cazden, C. 8. Language in education: Variation in the teacher-talk register. Paper presented at the 30th Annual Georgetown Univer- Sity Round Table in Languages and Linguistics, Language in Public Life, 1979. Chomsky, N. Aspects of the theopy of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, I965. Cicourel, A. V. Basic and normative rules in negotiation of status and role. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction. New York: Free Press, l972. Cicourel, A. Cognitive sociology. New York: Free Press, 1974. Cicourel, A. v. Cpgnitive sociology: Language and meaning in social interaction. London: Penguin, 1973. Cicourel, A. V. The SOCial organization of juvenile justice. New York: Wiley, 1968. Cooper, C. R. An ethnographic study of the instructional process in a college classroom. UnpubliShed doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1979. Cruickshank, D. R.,Lorish, C., & Thompson, L. What we think we know about inservice education. Journal of Teacher Education, January- February 1979, 30, l. Davis, K. Human society. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1949. Davis, M. S. That's interesting! Philosophy of social science, 1971, 1, 309-344. 244 Uenzin, N. K. The logic of naturalistic inquiry. In N. K. Den2in (Ed.), Sociological methods: A sourcebook. New York: McGraw- H111, 1978. Den2in, N. K. Sociological methods: A sourcebook. New York: McGraw- Hill, I978. Diesing, P. Patterns of discoveryirlthe social sciences. Chicago: Aldine, 1971. Doyle, W. Student mediating responses in teaching effectiveness. Final report. Denton: North Texas State UniverSity, 1980. Erickson, F. The cycle of situational frames: A model for micro- ethnography in urban anthropology. Paper presented at Midwest Anthropological Meeting, Detroit, April 1971. Erickson, F. One function of proxemic Shifts in face-to-face interac- tions. In A. Kendon, R. Harris, a M. R. Key (Eds.), The organiza- tion of behavior in face-to-face interaction. The Hague: Mouton/ Chicago: Aldine, 1976. Erickson, F. Some approaches to inquiry in schOOI/community ethnog- raphy. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, l977,_§, 2, 58-69. Erickson, F., & Shultz, J. J. The counselor as gatekeeper: Social interaction as interview. New York: Academic Press, 1982. Erickson, F., & Shultz, J. J. Social solidarity and indexical repair: Contexts, forms, and functions of a speech act. Unpublished pa- per, I976. EriCKson, F., & Shultz, J. J. When lS a context? Some issues and methods in the analysis of social competence. In J. J. Green, a C. Wallat. Ethnography and Ianguege in educational settings. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1981. Esposito, J. P. School-based staff development: Collaborative plan- ning and preparation for change. Unpublished doctoral disserta- tion, University of Massacnusetts, 1981. Feiman, S. Evaluating teacher centers. In K. DeVaney (Ed.), Essays on teachers' centers. San Francisco, 1977. Feiman, S., & Flooen, R. E. What's all this talk about teacher de- velopment? Institute for Research on Teaching Research Series #/0. East Lansing: Michigan State UniverSity, 1980. Florio, S. Issues in the analysis of the structure of classroom inter- action. Qualifying paper, Harvard University, I976. Florio, S. Learning how to to go school. Unpublished doctoral disser- tation, Harvard University, 1978. 245 Fox, G. T., Jr. Investigating the contexts of staff developers: The need and a suggested response. Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, LOS Angeles, April l98l. Frake, C. Notes on queries in anthropology. In S. Typer (Ed.), 99g- nitive anthropology. New York: HOIt, Rinehart & Winston, 1969. Frake, C. Plying frames can be dangerous: An assessment Of methodol- ogy in cognitive anthropology. Paper presented at the Conference on Meth0ds in Cognitive Anthropology, Durham, North Carolina, April 1974. Garfinkel, H. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1967. Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. The formal properties Of practical actions. In J. C. McKnight & E. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1970. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1967. Glickman, C. 0. Developmental supervision: Alternative practices for helping teachers improve instructon. Alexandria, VA: ASCD, 1981. Goffman, E. The presentation of the self in everyday life. New York: Anchor, 1959. Goffman, E. Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction. Indianapolis: Boobs-Merrill Educational Publishing, 1961. Goffman, E. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experi- ence. New York: Harper and Row, I974. Goldhammer, R. Clinical supervision: SpeCial methods for the super- vision of teacners. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and WinSton, 1969. Goldhammer, R., Anderson, R. H., & Kirjewski, R. J. Clinical super- vision: Special methOdS for the supervision of teachers, 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1980. GOOdenough, W. H. Culture, language, and society. Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley Modular Publications, NO. 7, 1971. GOOdy, E. N. Towards a theory of questions. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, I978. Gumperz, J. J. Language, communication, and public negotiation. In P. R. Sanday (Ed.), Anthrgpolpgy and the public intereSt. New York: Academic Press, I976. 246 Gumperz, J.J. Lapguage in social groups. Stanford: Stanford Univer- sity Press, 1971. Gwynn, J. M. Theory and practice of supervision. New York: Dodd, Mead, & Co., 1961. Hall, E. T. Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday, 1976. Hall, E. T. The hidden dimension. New York: Doubleday, 1966. Hall, E. T. The Silent language. New York: Doubleday, 1959. Hamondsworth, A. Ways of the hand: The organization of improved con- duct. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978. Harris, 8. M. Strategies for instructional change: promising ideas and perplexing problems. In J. Raths & R. R. Leeper (Eds.), The supervisor: Agent for change in teaching. Papers from the ASCD 11th Curriculum Research Institute. Washington, D. C.: November 6-9, 1965. Heidelbach, R. The development of a tentative model for analyzing and describing the verbal behavior of cooperating teachers en- gaged in individualized teaching with student teachers. Ed.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1967. Hymes, D. H. Foundations in sociolinguistics. Philadelphia: Univer- versity of Pennsylvania Press, 1974. Hymes, 0. Intro: Toward ethnographics of communication. In J. Gum- perz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Ethnography of communication. American Anthropologist, 1964, pp, 5 (pt. II), 1-34. Jackson, P. W. Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, Inc., 1968. Janesick, V. J. A theory about theories: The symbiosis of practice and theory. A paper delivered at the annual meeting of the Ameri- can Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, April 1981. Jick, T. D. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangula- tion in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1979, 24, Johnston, G. S., & Yeakey, C. C. Administrators' and teachers' prefer- ences for staff development. Planning and Change, Winter 1977, §S 230-238. Joyce, 8. R., McNair, K. M., Viaz, R., & McKibbin, M. 0. Interviews: Perceptions ofiprofessionals and policy makers. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Research and Development in Teaching, 1976. Kaplan, A. The conduct of inquiry. San Francisco: Chandler, 1964. 247 Kindsvatter, R., & Wilen, W. M. A systematic approach to improving conference Skills. Educational Leadership, April 1981, 33, 7, 525-529. Labov, W., & Fanshel, 0. Therapeutic discourse: Peychotherapy as conversation. New York: Academic Press, 1977. Lakoff, R. T. Language and women's place. New York: Octagon Books, 1975. Lawrence, G. Patterns of effective inservice education: A state of the art summary of research on materials and procedures for chang- ing teacher behaviors in inservice education. Tallahassee: Florida State Department of Education, 1974. Lewin, K. Resolving social conflict. New York: Harper & Row, 1948. Lopes, L. M. Problem solving in a human relationship: The interac- tional accomplishment of a "zone of proximal development" during therapy. Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, January 1981, 3, 1, 1-5. Lucio, W. H., & McNeil, J. D. Supervision: A synthesis of thought and action. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Co., 1962. Malinowski, 8. Argonauts of the western Pacific. New York: Dutton Paperbacks, 1961 (Original edition, 1922). McDaniel, T. R. The supervisor's lot: Dilemmas by the dozen. Educa- tional Leadership, April 1981, 33, 530-533. McDermott, R. P. Kids make sense: An ethnographic account of the interactional management of success and failure in one first grade classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1976. McDermott, R. P., Gospodinoff, K., & Aron, J. Criteria for an ethno- graphically adequate description of activities and their contents. Paper presented to American Anthropological Association Meeting, Washington, D. C.: November, 1976. McLaughlin, M. W. Pygmalion in the school district: Issues for staff development programs. In K. DeVaney, Esseys on teachers' centers. San Francisco: Teachers' Centers Exchange, 1977. McLaughlin, M. W., & Marsh, 0. D. Staff development and school change. Teachers College Record, September 1978, 3g, 1, 69-94. Mead, G. H. Mind, selfi and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934. 248 Mehan, H. Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979. Mehan, H., Cazden, C., Fisher, 5., & Maroules, N. The social organiza- tion of classroom lessons. A technical report submitted to the Ford Foundation, 1976. Mehan, H., & Wood, H. The reality of ethnomethodology. New York: Wiley Interscience, 1975. Merton, R. K. On theoretical sociology. New York: Free Press, 1967. Meyer, L. Emotion and meaning in music. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956. Mitzel, H. E. Increasing the impact of theory and research on programs of instruction. Journal of Teacher Education, 1977, 33, 15-20. Mosher, R. L., & Purpel, D. E. Supervision: The reluctant profession. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1972. Nicklas, M. S. A comparative study of critical incidents to determine recommended techniques for supervisors of student teachers. Ed.D. dissertation, University of Arkansas, 1960. Ogbu, J. The next generation: An ethnography of education in an urban neighborhood. New York: Academic Press, 1974. Orban, D. A. Using consultation to improve college teaching: An eth- nographic study of the collaborative analysis and action planning process. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State Uni- versity, 1981. Pelto, P. Anthropological research: The structure of inquiry. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1970. Philips, S. The invisible culture: Communication in the classroom and community or the Warm Springs Indian Reservation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1974. Pickhardt, C. E. Supervisors and the power of help. Educational lea- dership, April 1981, 33, 530-533. Pike, K. Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior. The Hague: Mouton, 1967. Rubin, L. J. (Ed.) Improving inservice education: Proposals and pro- cedures for change. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1971. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. A simplest schematic for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 1974, 50, 4, 696-735. 249 Sanday, P. R. The ethnographic paradigm(s). Administrative Science Quarterly, December 1979, 33, 4, 527-537. Sapir, E. Sound patterns in language. Language, 1925, 1, 37-51. Sarason, S. B. The culture of the school and the problem of change. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1971. Schatzman, L., & Strauss, A. L. Field research: Strategies for a natural sociology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973. Scheflen, A. E. Communicational structure. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1972. Scheflen, A. How behavior means. New York: Anchor, 1974. Schutz, A. Collected papers. Vol. 1: The problem of social reality. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1962. Shultz, J. J. The search for potential co-membership: The analysis of conversation among strangers. Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1975. Snow, R. E. Individual differences and instructional theory. Educa- tional Researcher, 1977, p, 11-15. Spindler, 6., & Spindler, L. Forward in G. Rosenfeld, Shut those thick lips! New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1971. Spradley, J. P., & McCurdy, D. W. The cultural experience: Ethnog- raphy in complex society. Chicago: Science Research Associates, Inc., 1972. Strauss, A., Schatzman, L., Bucher, R., Ehrlich, D., & Sabshin, M. Peyehiatric ideologies and institutions. New York: Free Press, 1964. Sudnow, D. Talk's body: A meditation between two keyboards. Middle- Sex: Penguin, 1980. Tyler, S. (Ed.) Cognitive anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969. Volk, 0. Turn allocation: The construction of conversations in the bilingual classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, April 1981. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam Co., 1980. Weiner, B. Achievement, motivation,iand attribution theory. General Learning Press, 1974. 250 Weller, R. H. An observational system for analyzing clinical supervi- sion of teachers. Ed.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1969. Weller, R. H. Verbal communication in instructional supervision: An observational system for and research stugy of clinical supervi- sion in groups. New York: Teachers College Press, 1971. Whiting, J., Child, I. L., & Lambert, W. W. Field guide for a study of socialization. New York: Wiley, 1966. Wilkinson, R. 0. Student teaching experiences. Journal of Teacher Education, December 1958,_3, 363-369. Wilson, S. The use of ethnographic techniques in educational re- search. Review of Educational Research, Winter 1977, 41, l, 245- 265. Withall, J., & Wood, F. H. Taking the threat out of classroom Obser- vation and feedback. Journal of Teacher Education, January- February 1979, 39, 55-58. Yinger, R. J. Fieldwork as basis for theory building in research on teaching. East Lansing: Michigan State University Institute for Research on Teaching, 1978.