• A CASE STUDY IN ADULT

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING

by

Sandra Koop

Administration and Policy Studies in Education McGill University

Montreal, Quebec May, 1990

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts.

Copyright 1990 by Sandra Koop

l l

Abstract

ThlS case study examlnes adui t participation in

learnlng. Ethnographic methods were empIoyed to document

classroom processes and partlclpant perceptions ln an adult

basic educatlon classa Classroom observations showed that

learner partlclpatlon was for the most part inltlated by the

teacher rather than by the st~dents. Analysis of the data

lnd ica ted a close Iln k between the def l.ned teacher and

learner roles and the participants' shared perceptions of

the teac her as the ex pert. Analysis also showed that

teacher-student lnteraction was influenced by the teacher' s

pas t teac hlng ex per lence and by her perceptions of the

students and thelr needs. The resul ts of this study

demonstra te a need for teac her preparation designed both to

lnc rease awareness of approprlate adul t educa tion methods,

and to provlde experience in active learner partlcipatlon.

The study also hlghlights the lmportance of dialogue between

teachers and learners as a means of involvlng learners in

the learning process.

1.1.

Résumé

Cette étude examlne la partlclpatlon des adultes dans

leur apprentissage. Des méthodes ethnographlques ont serVl

à documenter les processus et les perceptlons des

particl.pants dans une classe d'éducatlon aux adultes. Les

observatlons ont montré que la particlpatlon des étud1.ants

était inltiée par l'enselgnante plutôt que par eux-mêmes.

L'analyse des données a lndiqué un llen rapproché entre les

rôles démarqués des étudiants et de l'enselç~ante et les

perceptlons qU'lIs ont tous partagées de l'enselgnante comme

experte. L'analyse a aUSSl montré que l'lnteractlon entre

les étudlants et l'enseignante était lnfluencée par les

expérl.ences antérieures d'ensel.gnement de celle-cl alnSl que

par ses perceptions des étudiants et de leurs besolns. Les

résultats de cette étude d~montrent la nécesSlté d'une

formatl.on des enseignants qUl viserait à augmenter la

connaissance d'une andragogie approprlée et à fournl.r une

expérlence de particlpatlon actlve dans l'apprentlssage. De

plus, l'étude soullgne l'lmportance du dialogue entre les

ensel.gnants et les étudiants comme moyen d'lmpliquer ceUX-Cl

dans leur processus d'apprentissege.

iii

1 Acknowledgements

1 w~sh to thank my husband, Gilles Bern~er, for his

constant encouragement and support throughout the research

and wr~t~ng processes of the study. 1 also w~sh to thank my

daughter, Sophle Bern~er, for be~ng a source of inspiration

aIl through the study.

1 extend speclal thanks to my thes~s adv~sor, Dr.

Norman Henchey, who was always ava~lable to read and discuss

my manuscrlpts, to make correctlons, to offer encouragement

and d~rect~on, and to challenge my thinklng.

1 thank my friends and colleagues who offered their

support along the way, with special thanks to Gaye Passy for

proof-readlng the final manuscript, to D~ane Dagenais for

her help in translating the abstract, and to Mary Lynn

Keenan for her asslstance with the technical detalls of

completlng the thesls.

1 want to thank the teacher and the students who

provided me w~th insights into adult learning. 1 recognlze

that th~s study was made possible by their cooperation in

allowlng me to be an observer-part~cipant in their class,

and in sharing thelr perceptlons w~th me.

1 l.V

Table of Contents Page

Abstract ............................................................................... .1

Résumé .............................................................................................

Ac:knowledgemen ts ........................................................................... .11.1.

Table of Contents .........................................................................

Abbrev.lations ..................................... III ....................................... ..

Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE Problem Statement Research Questl.ons L.lterature Review MethodolL~y ••..••

Chapter The The The

II. CONTEXT AND PEOPLE Montreal Context Setting Pnrtl.c i pan ts

Chapter III. PROCESSES

STUDY

Interactl.on with with wl.th wl.th

the Teacher Interactl.on Interact.lon In terac tion

Peers Materials the Con tent

Chapter IV. PARTICIPANT PERCEPTIONS Perceptions Perceptl.ons Perceptl.ons

of of of

Partic.lpants Ma ter l.a 1 s Content and

Chapter V. CONCLUSION Summary Dl.scussl.on

Processes

Implications Suggestl.ons for Further Research

Bl.bl iography .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ......................................................... ..

Appendl.ces A. Student Interview #1 B. Student Interview #2 .. .. .. .. .. C. Teacher 1 nterv iew #1 D. Teacher Intervl.ew #2 .. .. .. .. .. .. .........

l.V

v

1 1 3 4

10

17 17 19 21

24 24 34 39 45

5S ';5 65 67

75 75 81 91 93

95

101 103 104 106

1

.. \

ABE

ESL

Li

L2

O.P •

-"..

Abbrev i a tions

Adult Basic Education

Engl~sh-second-language

Flrst language or mother tongue

Second language (not d~stlnguished from third or fourth languages)

Observer-participant (the researcher)

v

1

l

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Problem Statement

The history ~f adult educat10n in Quebec can be traced

back to the seventeenth century when the first rel1gious

colleges and seminar1es were establ1shed by the Cathol1c

Chur~h. One of the f1rst major non-denominat10nal adult

education 1n1tiatives 1n Quebec, and throughout North

America, was the Y.M.C.A. (Young Men's Christ1an

Association), established in 1851. Th1S associat1on, and

1

other adult education efforts, were established to meet the

growing needs of the working class to confront and adjust to

major econom1C and social changes brought about by

industrialization and socialization. For the next 75 years,

adult educat10n was to be the concern of cooperatives,

religious organizat1ons, and community groups.

Educational reform in the second half of the twentieth

century resulted in the government taking responsibility for

adult education, institutionalizing a major sector of 1t in

the process. In 1964, adult education was established 1n

the school boards (Québec: CEFA, Annexe 1, 1982). While the

debate rages over the inability of government agenc1es to

offer effective adult educ~tion, the reality rema1ns, and it

i5 in such a setting that 1 propose to study adult

participation in learning.

• 2

While the practlce of adult educatlon dates back to the

seventeenth century, research ln the field followed far

behind. The concept of andragogy, or adult learning, was

developed by Llndeman ln 1926 (1926/1961), but this research

received little attention before the 1970's. It was in 1970

that Knowles popularlzed and further developed this concept

in his book The Modern Practlce of Adult Education. In the

sa me year, Frelre published the well-known Pedagogy of the

Oppressed, ln which he advocated learner-centered adult

education WhlCh would result ln empowerment for social

change. Although Knowles and Freire differ on the goal of

adult education, they do agree that the curriculum must be

learner-centred and related te the learner's life

experlence, that adults are ~elf-directed ~nd should

parti~ipate ln their learning experience, and that the

teacher should serve as a group coordinator rather than as a

reposl tory of facts. While adul t education theory "calls

for adults te become self-directed and empowered learners,

it is in the praxis that beliefs and assumptlons are

demonstrated" (Kazemak, 1988, p. 466). If adult educators

are to understand the practical implications of adult

participation in learning, future studies will need to focus

on participatlon practlces in order to show the relationship

between theory and practlce.

The purpose of this study is to gain a better

1 3

understanding of adult particlpatory learnlng. Knowledge

about the practices and processes lnvolved ln an adult

learning sltuation would help to clarlfy the special needs

of both learners and educators in adult educatlon programs.

8y investlgatlng and describlns the environment~ the

processes, and the perceptions of the partlclpants ln an

adult baslc education program, thl~ case study attempts to

add to, and expand on, a small body of qualitative research

on adult participatory learntng.

Research Questlons

The following research questions were developed ln order

to give direction to the observatlon-partlclpatlon process.

They aim at identifylng the context, the processes, and the

perceptions of the participants lnvolved in an Engllsh-

second-language (ESL) class of an adult basic educatlon

(ABE) program. Five questions guide the study:

1. What are the major characteristics of the backgrounds of the students and the teacher?

2. What are the major characteristlcs of the class structure, program content and methodology?

3. What kinds of interaction take place between the teacher and the learners, and between the learners and their peers?

4. What kinds of activities are learners lnvolved in and what are their roles in these activities?

1

f

4

5. What are the participants' perceptions of adult learning and of part~cipation in learning?

L~terature Rev~ew

Research and prom~nent theories related to adult

part~c~pation ln learn~ng form the basis for this two-part

llterature review. In part one, 1 review the various

perspectlves on adult learn~ng and part~clpation. In part

two, 1 rev~ew the practlces of adult part~cipation in

learn~ng, relatlng these practices to their theoretical

foundatlons.

Perspect~ves QQ Adult Learn~ng and Participation

One of the best-known theoretical constructs of adult

learnlng, developed by Knowles (1970), in his book The

Modern Practice of Adult Education, is based on four

andragog~cal prlnciples:

1. As a person matures the self-concept moves from dependency to self-direction.

2. Maturity brings an accumulating reservoir of experience that becomes an increasing resource for learning.

3. As the person matures, readlness to learn i5 increaslngly oriented towards the person's soclal roles.

4. As the person matures, the orientation towards learning becomes less subject-centered and increas~ngly problem-centered. (cited in Warren, 1989, p. 213)

1 While Houle (1972) espouses the general andragog~cal

principles developed by Knowles, he ma~nta~ns that there are

various appropriate approaches to adult educat~an. In

situations where the students re\~ on the teacher '5

authority ta meet a set of object~ves, the tradit~anal

educat~onal approach ~s appropriate. Student part~cipat~on

is l~mited to voluntary attendance, tak~ng part ln g~oup

activit~es, and bas~cally caaperating w~th th~ l~3cher. The

teacher has a defined role as the expert, and employs the

traditional methodology of straightforward expos~t~on, with

assignment of relevant tasks to the students.

Houle's self-directed learning approach contrasts

sharply with the traditional approach in that it is learner­

centered and learner-directed, with learners tak~ng

responsibility for planning, evaluation, and even select~on

of the teacher. Not aIl education experts share Houle's

broad perspective on part~cipation which includes voluntary

class attendance and cooperat~on with the teacher as the

authority figure at one end of the particlpation cont~nuum,

and se!f-directed learning at the opposite end.

The International Council for Adult Education (1979),

defines partlcipation as the intentlonal involvement of

learners "in determining content, levels of competence, and

methods of learning" (pp. 12-13). Bhola (1972), Knowles

(1975), Goodman (1986), and Shannon (1989), share this

"cooperative" perspective on participation, whit:h involves

negotiation between teacher and students. This approach to

adult education is almed at helping learners to cope with

their world by building their self-confidence and providing

them with problem solving skills.

Another perspective on participation argues for active

learner involvement not only in the decision-making aspects

of the learning experience, but also in the directing of it.

This kind of participation allows learners to gain the

experience necessary for them to become active participants

in transforming the world in which they live. Advocates of

thlS perspective on learner participation, including Nyerere

(1969), Illich (1971), Aronowitz (1981), Freire (1985), and

Kozoi (1985), agree that the goal of education must be the

liberation and empowerment of learners, not only to cope

with the world in which they live, but to interact with it

and transform it.

Just as there are different perspectives on what

constitutes partIcipation, there are also a variety of

theories on the factors influencing participation. Brundage

and Mackeracher (1980), suggest that age, past experience,

education, culture, gender, and motivation are some of the

factors involved. Bruner and OIson (1973), Knowles (1975),

and Hesser (1978), view learner experience as an important

factor. Houle (1961), and Oddi (1987), maintain that the

learner personality and motivation are the major factors.

They agree that a goal-oriented ind1vidual will be a self­

directed learner regardless of the 1nstruclion mode.

Rosenthal (1989), maintains that although personality

is a major factor in partlcipation, the teacher and the

methodology are equally important. Freire (1985), ignores

learner-related factors altogether. emphasizing rather the

methodology, course content and the role of the teacher as

the ali-important factors of participation. Both Kozoi

(1985), and Nyerere (1976) share Freire's view that the

course content must be relevant to the leArners, enabllng

them to interact with it; that the methodology must b~ one

of problem-solving and "l earn ing by doing"; and that the

teacher must be a coordinator and partner in the learning

process rather than the traditional teacher-expert who

imparts knowledge to be recorded, memorized and repeated.

Practices of Adult Participation in Learnlng

7

Many of the studies on practices of adult participation

in learning focus on adult basic education and literacy.

Literacy campaigns in Cuba (Kozol, 1978), Tanzania (Malya,

1979), and Nicaragua (Arnove, 1981; Cardenal & Miller,

l

8

1981), bear testimony to the effectiveness of the kind of

participation in learning advocated by Nyerere (1976),

Freire (1985), and others.

Hesser (1978), claimed that Freire's approach was

inappropriate for adult basic education programing in

Pakistan because of its political implications. Another

obstacle to using this approuch, according to Hesser, was

that learners were more familiar with authoritarian teaching

methods. She found that Houle's traditional approach was

effective when students' needs were met. In order to meet

these needs, students were encouraged to participate in

course plann~ng and selection of materials.

In his study 01 learner participation practices in the

United States, Jurmo (1987), found that adult basic

education programs tended to be teacher-centered rather than

learner-centered. One of the reasons for this, according to

Jurmo, is that this approach has been carried over from the

formaI school system in which ABE programs are housed.

Skagen (1986) suggests that it is because the teachers are

not trained to teach adults.

Since the purpose of second-language teaching is often

to assimilate the learners into the culture of the target

language, participants are encouraged to adjust to a new

9

world rather than challenge it. This is one of the reasons

cited by Jurmo (1987), for the absence of participatory

practices in language programs. Learners' "hierarchical

view of the teacher-student relationship" (p. 168), brought

with them from their home countries, is also considered an

obstacle to participation in learning in such programs. It

is important to note here that although Jurmo uses the

International Council for Adult Education definition of

participation, jt appears fram his analysis that he shares

the Freirian perspective.

While active participation in learning may be an

exception in second-language programs, effective use of the

Freirian approach to adult learning has been documented by

Auerbach and Wallerstein (1987).

Summary of the Literature Review

The different perspectives on participAtion in learning

have been presented in this literature review as different

points along the same continuum, each coinciding with a

different educational purpose.

There is no consensus in the literature as to the

factors influencing participation in learninQ. Some studies

focus on learner characteristics, while ethers focus on

1

l

10

methodology, content, or the role of the teacher.

Studies of national literacy eampaigns, aimed at the

empowerment of learners, have effeetively used a Freirian

model of learner-eentered adult education. This approach i.

seldom found, however, in adult basic education programs and

second-language programs aimed at immigrant populations.

Methodology

ln order to develop a deeper und~rstanding of adult

participatory learning, continued researeh is needed.

Educational researchers, including Bogdan & Biklen (1982),

Brice (1982), Hymes (1982), Goetz & Lecompte (1984), and

Schieffelin (1986), agree that the best way to begin to

understand social process is through adoption of

ethnographic methods, the assumption being that educational

outcomes are best explained through a description of the

context along with class observations and participant

interview data. 1 have chosen, for this reason, to use a

methodology within the ethnographie tradition to study adult

participation in learning.

The Role of the Researcher

My role as researeher was as observer-participant in a

English-seeond-language class ~f an adult basic education

1 11

program. The advantage of being an observer-participant

was that it allowed me the flexibility 1 needed to move back

and for th from interaction with the class members to

observation and note-taking. This enabled me to record

processes as they occurred, rather than record my

impressions of the processes after the observat10n seSS10ns.

One disadvantage of this role, however, was that it set me

apart as an outsider who was there to record what 1 saw.

As an outsider, and fluent in the language the students were

attempting to learn, 1 was considered by some to be a

student-teacher, a perception which would have affected my

interview results. For this reason, 1 was unable to use

some of the formaI interview results which at times

contradicted classroom observations and records of informaI

conversations outside of class.

Over a thirteen week period beginning on March 20th and

ending on June 15th, 1989, 1 spent three to four days a week

in the same EngI1sh-second-Ianguage class of an adult basic

education program which was housed in an English public

secondary scheel. The class began every merning at 8:30 a.m

and ended at 12:30 p.m. There were two 15-minute breaks,

one at 10:00 a.m. and the other at 11:15. 1 spent the

breaks with the students, most times in the cafeteria, and

sometimes 1n the clas~room. My records of observation

during the breaks were always written after the fact, since

12

1 1 considered these periods important in establishing rapport

with the students, a process which 1 believed would be

hindered by note-taking.

Although 1 was free to come and go as 1 pleased, 1

found that students expected explanations for any absence

from classa My obvious pregnancy during the period of data

collection could potentially have been a negative factor in

my research, since hospltalization made it necessary to miss

a week of classes. It turned out to be a very positive

factor, however, in that it sp~med to shift student

attention away from .ny observer raIe, to my raIe of

inexperienced future mother in need of their superior,

experience-based knowledge about pregnancy, child-birth, and

chi ld-care.

Data Collection

Fieldnotes and in~erviews were the two modes of data

~ollection 1 used in this case study. For the most part, 1

recorded fieldnotes by hand during observations. When note-

taklng was inappropriate, as during informaI conversations,

or impossible, as during classroom activities in which 1 was

a participant, 1 recorded the fieldnotes immediately

following the activity or conversation. In aIl, 204 pages

of fieldnotes were recorded by hdnd.

1 13

1 divided fieldnote pages into three columns, recording

descriptive notes in the first column and reflective notes

in the second. The third column was reserved for analysis

and coding purposes.

Descriptive notes were records of observed events.

They described people, places, activit~es, and

conversations. Reflective notes were my reactions to the

observed events. They recorded hunches, ideas, or questions

about descriptive commentaries. The analysis column

contained notes from which categories would emerge, and

wh~ch would also be used for cross-referenc~ng in the

analysis process. An example of the three k~nds of notes is

taken from page 60 of my fieldnotes which were recorded on

April 7th, 1989:

Descriptive Notes (4) Teacher: Now who will read the conversation? (5) R: 1 will. (6) Teacher: You want to read again? (7) R: Yeso

Reflective Notes (5) R seems determined to Iearn to read (6) ev en though she has difficulty.

Analysis (4) Eliciting participation (5) Volunteering (6) Personality/motivation factor

InformaI interviews were used throughout the study to

elicit information which participants would be reticent to

give in formaI interviews. These interviews teck the form

• 14

of casuai conversations, which wouid then be recorded as

accurately as possibl~ immediately after they took place.

In order to fac~litate communication, conversations were

carried on in French, English, or Spanish, depending on the

preference of the informants.

Two formaI ind~viduai ~nterviews were conducted with

each of the participants during the course of the study.

The purpose of these ~nterv~ews was to obtain more in-depth

information and gain insight into participants' backgrounds,

objectives, and perceptions about course content and

processes. Interview schedules (Appendices A, B, C, & 0),

were prepared te facilitate note-taking and provide a guide

for these formaI conversations. Although questions were

generally reworded several times or translated into French

or Spanish, 1 was unable to get answers in some cases. In

other cases, the informants were an~ious to talk and were

able te previde me with insights that 1 could not have

possibly gained from informaI conversations where other

participants were present.

Gaining Entry

The week before this study was to begin, 1 telephoned

the director of an adult basic education program in order to

make the final arrangements for the study, and to make an

appointment to meet the teacher of the class 1 would be

1 15

observing. l had already gained permiss~on from the

school board to do this study, and had visited the school to

make contact with the teachers who seemed interested ~n my

study proposaI. The d~rector told me that she had been able

to find only one teacher who was willing to have me observe

his class, but who was unable to ga~n the students' consent.

With this door closed, 1 called a fr~end who was teach~ng in

an adult basic education program in another school belong~ng

to the same scheel board. She explained the pel~tical

atmosphere in adult education, and suggested that getting

cooperation might be difficult, but she would get back to me

the same afternoen since her program would be beginn~ng the

following Monday. A few hours later l was in contact with

Nicole (not her real name) , a teacher whe had consented to

my study being dene in her class. 1 explained my research

project to her and arranged to meet her Just before the

first class on Monday morning. My friend was there to

introduce us, and the three of us went te speak to the

director who was quick to consent te the study since both

the school board and the teacher involved had g~ven their

consent.

Following the first break, the teacher introduced me to

the class as a university student who would be attending the

class for the duration of the semester in order to study

adult learning. She asked the students to sign consent

16

( forms, which they readily did. Only on the following day,

when a student told me in French that he thought my English

was good enough for the next level, did 1 realize that some

students had not understood the teacher's explanation. 1

explained, in French, my purpose for being there. 1 believe

that be~ng able to converse with the students in French and

Spanish during breaks allowed me to establish rapport with

many of the students more quickly than if 1 had been

confined to the use of the English language. Another

factor that eased entry was that 1 was soon to have a child,

an experience that most of the students could relate to.

, J

1 CHAPTER II

CONTEXT AND PEOPLE

The Mont~eal Context

17

In th~s study, 1 desc~~be pa~t~c~pation ~n learning ~n

an adult bas~c-Engl~sh class~oom settlng. ln o~der to

unde~stand and fully apprec~ate th~s descrlpt~on, ~t ~s

impo~tant to unde~stand the people and the events wlth~n the

la~ge~ context of both the l~ngulst~c environment ~n

Montreal, and adult second-language educat~on offered by

the two Montreal public school boa~ds.

The Language Environment

Unllke the Engl~sh-language env~~onments ~n wh~ch the

majority of English-second-Ianguage prog~ams take place both

ln the United States and ln the rest of Canada, Mont~eal

boasts a predomlnantly French-language env~ronment. ThiS

means that although students who registe~ ln such p~ograms

pe~celve an lmmedlate o~ futu~e need for communicat10n ln

the Engllsh language, very few of them have the opportun1ty

to p~actice the language outslde the classroom. Another

featu~e of the F~ench-Ianguage envi~onment lS that ~t

produces English-second-Ianguage (ESL) teache~s who have

also lea~ned Engllsh as a second language. Whlle such

teache~s may be more empathetlc toward the~r students w1th

whom they share a language-Iearning expe~ience, they may

also be insecu~e in the language wh~ch they are teachlng.

18

The School Boards and Adul~ Education

The C1ty of Montreal has two school boards, both of

Wh1Ch offer adult educat10n in bottl Engl1.sl1 and Frencl,.

French adult educat10n programs offer English-second­

language (ESL) courses wh1ch are open to aIl adults and are

obl1gatory for those students who are work1ng towards a

secondary d1ploma. Engl1sh adult educatl.on programs also

offer ESL courses (generally referred to as basic-English

courses), whl.ch are designed to teaLh basic readl.ng,

wr1tl.ng, and commun1cation skl.lls.

In practice, there is little difference between ESL and

bas1c-Engllsh courses, but the policies governing them are

different. One of the basic differences is l.n funding,

since the Ml.nl.stry of Education places no budgetary

restr1ctl.onS on basic education programs, while other

second-language programs are required to function on a

11.m1ted budget. In one of the school boards, only 3% of the

second-language budget 1.S allocated to ESL 1nstruct1.on.

Th1s severe restr1.ct10n on ESL education, coupled with a

large demand for such education, has forced potential ESL

students 1.nto basl.c-English classes. Both of the programs

are fully subsid1zed by the government.

A second basic difference is in curriculum. While

ESL courses have a set program which serves as a basis for

1 19

student evaluation, basic-English cou~ses have ne~the~ a set

p~ogram no~ evaluations. Rathe~, the~e is a 200-hou~ limit

after which a student ~s expected to be llte~ate and ~s

therefo~e no longer subsid~zed in the prog~am.

The Setting

Tne class l observe ~s pa~t of an adult bas~c-English

p~ogram offe~ed by one of the Montreal school boa~ds. The

p~ogram ~s housed in an Engl~sh seconda~y school where

space has been set aSlde for adult educatlon classes and

offices. Classes begln at elgMt-th~rty ln the morning and

end at twelve-thlrty ln the afternoon.

The Physlcal Envlronment

The classroom lS situated on the ground floor near the

cafete~ia and lockers, and in the same area as the othe~

basic-English classes. Upon ente~lng the class~oom, 1 g~eet

the students who a~e al~eady there, and take a seat next to

one of them. l wrlte down my fl~St lmpressions:

The classroom is ve~y b~lght. There are two la~ge

windows wlth vertlcal bllnds. The pale turquoise wall below the window appears to have been f~eshly painted. A "Happy St. Pat~~ck's Day" slgn above the window must be left over f~om last semeste~. There are fou~ green sham~ocks on an adJOlnlng white wall around a poste~ of the deep sea world. Two la~ge green chalkboa~ds caver the othe~ two walls. The desks a~e arranged in the shape of a horse-shoe. There lS a large cablnet wlth teaching mate~ials in the front corner. (F~~ldnotes, March ?0)

The Atmosphere

The f~eldnotes taken du ring the first few minutes of

class and my reflections recorded after the class describe

the atmosphere on day one.

The teacher introduces herself to the students as they walk in (There are nine stujents right now). She seems very friendly, smil.i.nq a lot. She asks the students their names. She Moves around, sits on a cha~r near the students. She walks to t.le chalkboard and wr~tes "How long have Vou been in Canada?", and then si ts down on a desk facl.ng the students. Each stlt.Jent answers in turn. The teacher stands ur, and walks to the student who is speaking to help hl.m or her rephrase the sentence. She speaks loudly and authoritatively. (Fieldnotes, March 20)

20

After class I record my l.mpressions about my first day

in class:

l've just come from my first three hours of observation, and l'm exhausted, far from enthusiastic, and wondering what there is to learn in this situation. Am I wasting my time? Do these adults participate beyond answering the teacher's questions or followl.ng the teacher's instructions? Do students have objectives? Will they tell me what they are? •.• The atmosphere seemed tense to me, but what made it tense? The room was bright and cheery. Students sat in desks that had been moved to form a horse­shoe. Many students knew each other from former classes. There was no real introduction to the course. Personal introductions were used as a grammar exerCl.se rather than a communicatl.on exercise .... The teacher told me she was comfortable wl.th my being in class but I felt she was uncomfortable. She spoke loudly, as if loudness would make the students understand her better. She laughed at the students' mistakes. How did the studerlts feel? (Fl.eld Diary, March 20)

1 21

On day two 1 note that the teacher is more relaxed.

She apologizes to the class for speak1ng very loudly the day

before, explaining that she got complaints from the students

next door. She tells the students to remind her 1f she

speaks too loudly, and explains that perhaps she was nervous

the day before.

As the semes ter progresses, 1 find the atmosphere slowly

change~, becoming more relaxed. It seems that the students

begin to understand the teacher's sense of humour, and they

laugh cogether.

The Participants

The study begins with 21 participants, one of whom is

the te.cher. Four students drop out in the first two weeks

of the program, so that the study is based on the teacher

and sixteen student5 who remain ln the program unt11 the end

of the semester.

The Teacher

Nicole (not her real name) i5 in her late thirtie5, 15

married, and has two children. Ali her formai education has

been in French, her mother tongue. She began to learn

Engli5h at the age of six, when she was sent by her parents

to an Engli5h summer camp. Her knowledge of English

,

22

continued to grow as she played wi th the Engl ish chi ldren on

her street, and read nevels. After earning a Bachelers'

degree and completing a certificate program in Teaching

English as a Second Language, Nl.cole taught primary scheol

for three years. She was then hired by the Canadian Armed

Forces to teach French as a second language te i ts Eng 1 ish­

speak ing recrui ts. Af ter ten years ef teaching French,

Nlcele returned to teaching English, filling a teaching

posi tien in a secondary schoel for one year prior to

accepting her posi tien as an adul t education teacher, a

position she had occupied only one semester prior to the

beginning of this study.

The Students

The students in this program come from a wide variety

of backgrounds. They are aIl adults, the youngest being

seventeen years old, and the oldest being close to sixt Y

years old. Most of the students are in the 30 to 50 age

group. Three students are under thirty, and one is over

fifty. Three of the students are male.

AlI but three of the students are immigrants,

one having arrived in Canada Iess than two years prior to

the beginning of this study. Of the thirteen immigrants,

two are from South America, five are from South-east Asia,

and six are from the Middle East. The other three students

23

are French Canadian.

The students represent a wide variety of educational

backgrounds. Ali but one of the immigrants were educated

in their home countrles. The one exception was educated ln

Guebec. Ali the students have a minimum six years of

primary education, and eight of these also have a secondary

education. Of the eight, five have completed grade twelve,

or university entrance, one has completed two years of

university, and one has completed four years of university.

Although many of these students may be very literate in

their first languages, even the most highly educated student

had difficulty readi,g and writing, having received aIl of

her education in Arabie and therefore being unfamiliar with

the Roman script and the English alphabet.

1 r , !

l

1 î !

l

24

CHAPTER III

PROCESSES

The processes l describe ln this chapter are documented

ln fieldnotes taken by partlcipant observation in the ABE

(Adult Basic Education) setting delineated in chapter two.

In keeping wlth the purpose of this study, which is to gain

a better understandlng of how adults participate in thelr

learnlng process, 1 describe the types of lnteractlon which

take place between learners and their teacher, their peers,

the materlals, and the course content. Wlthin these four

categories are two major forms of interaction, one being

that of teacher-directed interaction, and the other being

student-initlated interaction.

Interaction ~ the Teacher

The majorlty of class time involves interaction with

the teacher. While most of this interaction appears ta be

teacher-directed, student-initlated interaction is aiso

evident.

Teacher-dlrected Interaction

There are three basic types of teacher-directed

interaction, each involving the students ta a different

extent. In the first type, the teacher volunteers

lnformation while the students listen. The t~acher

1 25

volunteers news items, comments about the weather, personai

opin~ons, grammar and vocabulary explanat~ons, translations,

and corrections. The following is a typlcal example of

correction, explanat~on, and translat~on:

Teacher: 8: J:

Teacher:

B/J:

(Reading) He is wise to that extent. Wlse. What is w~se? Intelilgent. No, not exactly. You know the Chrlstmas story about the three wise men who went to vlsit baby Jesus and brought gifts? Les rois mages. Ah.

(Fieidnotes, May 16)

The teacher frequently voices personal op~nions,

especially dur~ng morning conversation perioâ~. The

following example demonstrates the point:

(The teacher asks the students if they remember her telling them about the teenage nelghbour who was given a Cherokee Chief by hlS parents. She tells them that now a second teenager on her street has been given a brand-new Jeep by his father.)

Teacher: 1 don't understand the parents who do this. My son was very excited and asked for a jeep too. 1 said sure, we' Il get Vou three of them!

A: Maybe they not have control. Teacher: WeIl, one of the fellows ~s klnd of w~ld

but the other goes to a private school, and hlS mother won't even talk to me because l'm not good enough for her. l never knew there were people llke th~s before. It's not even because of colour or rellgion, but because 1 don't earn as much money!

(Fieidnotes, May 19)

In the second type of teacher-dlrected ~nteractlon, the

teacher elicits information fram the students either ta

1 prompt oral expression or to check the1r understanding of

a grammatical or vocabulary item. Oral expression lS

prompted by means of general questions like the following:

"What's new th1S morn1ng?" "Do we have anyth1ng to say today before we start?" "What 15 the weather going to be like today?" "Old we have a nice weekend?"

The follow1ng ep1sode describes the resulting

interact10n:

Teacher: What lS the weather going to be today? Y: 14.

Teacher: 14 what? 14 tomatoes? 8: Degree.

Teacher: Yeso What happened recently in Alaska? (Students try to talk about the oil sp1ll.) On the south shore something happened tao.

J: Stab. Teacher: You remembered that word. Yes, somebody

was stabbed. And what happened in Russia?

5s: Elections. Teacher: That's right. And did we have a nice

long weekend? D, did vou eat a lot of chocolate?

D: No Madam, but l drive many cars ••• Teacher: How about you, F?

F: Very bad. (F says he got 1 ticket and 4 warnings over the weekend. He 15 speaking a mixture of French and English. The students turn to F, and then begin to ask questi!:'ns.)

8: What k1nd of car you have? (Fleldnotes, March 28)

The following ep1sode is a typical example of the

interactlon which takes place when the teacher checks the

students' understanding of the comparative in English,

26

r 1

eliciting a specifie example:

Teacher: How would you make a sentence with beautl.ful? Start with "Snow White".

E: Snow white l.S more beautiful than •.. B: Than slush.

Teacher: Why slush? B: More beautiful than slush.

Teacher: Slush is snow and water. B: l know. Snow whl.te more beautiful than

slush. Teacher:

C/B/J: Snow White! Blanche Neige! Ohhh!

(F1.eldnotes, March 22)

Sl.milar l.nteractl.on takes place when the teacher

elicits an explanation of a vocabulary l.tem:

(Teacher asks L ta read.) L: Apologlze.

Teacher: What does that mean? (D guesses. Then B guesses.)

Tea~her: You do a boo-boo. Like you drop something on somebody's dress. You apologl.ze. Or you step on somebody's foot •..

G: Apologize you sl.ck okay? Teacher: No. You need to do somethl.ng wrong to

apologl.ze. Give me another example. C: You drink something, and somebody ••.

(Acts this out, makl.ng a motl.on with el bow. )

Teacher: Yes, bumps you. What do you say? C: l apologize.

(Fl.eldnotes, May 8)

27

In the third type of teacher-directed lnteractl.on, the

teacher attempts to control activl.ties and exchanges.

Controlling activities involves not only telllng students

what to do, but how to do lt. The most obvious examples of

thlS are the instructions to write long-hand rather than

prin t.

,

1 28

Controlling e)(changes is accomplished through different

means of calling the class to order whether directly or by

changing the subJect of conversation. Some examples of the

direct method follow:

(Everyone is talkl.ng at once. The classroom is noisy and Ilvely.)

Teac her: Okay, lets get ser ious. (G keeps talking - l.n English - and has the whole cl ass 1 aughing. ) Children children. Take out your list of verbs. Let' s see. 1 marked number 38. F, make a sentence with "felt".

(Fieldnotes, April 5)

(M and Gare talking.) Teac her: (Bangs on desk.)

M and G (loudly) ~

(G smlles. A looks hurt.) R: (Continues ta e><plain her point.) G: (E><plains that it's because women don't

work in these countries.)

(La ter in the morning): Teacher: A, you are so quiet today.

the next one? A: (Shakes her head.)

1 not talk. Teacher: But can you read it?

(A reads.) (Fieldnotes, April 5)

Can you read

The more subtle form of control, whl.ch involves

changing the subject, is illustrated by the following

typl.cal epl.sode:

J: The problem is mothers not stay home. Teacher: Not? How do you say that?

8: Don' t. C: There are not communication parent

children. Teacher: (Nods.) Was it slippery this morning?

J: No, because i t was mud.

Teacher: What is mud? J: Because water in the snow.

Teacher: What do we call that? C: Slush.

Teacher: That's r~ght. (Fieldnotes, March 21)

5tudent-~nitiated Interact~on

29

There are three types of student-in~t~ated interactlon

with the teacher which take place in the classroom. In the

first type, students volunteer news ~tems, correct~ons,

examples of grammar or vocabulary items, compllments, and

comments about particular learning actlvitles.

Volunteered news ltems often have cultural content, as

students seem to take every poss~ble opportunity to talk

about their countries and cultures. The following episode

illustrates:

(The teacher says that Chinese typically have black hair.)

N: Some Chlnese have light hair under the arms.

Teacher: Let·s not get personal! N: But in China we have public baths. We

see every body. R: 1 would be shy. N: But men women separate. But in Japan

everybody together. R: Ah. Make love everybody and then bath? N: (Ignores question. Explalns that publ i.:

baths are more economlcal.) 5s: You go to pUblic baths?

N ~ Yes. Everybody in win ter. (Fieldnotes, March 28)

Francophone students, on the other hand, volunteer

• • ~nformation about local news:

F: Chef of police say twenty-seven gangs in Montréal.

Teacher: The chief of police says there are twenty-seven gangs in Montreal?

F: Oui. Teacher: Yeso (F~eldnotes, March 21)

The following episode is also typical of the kind of

student-in~t~ated interact~on which takes place in the

classroom when students volunteer examples ta show their

understanding:

Teacher: Next one. Ta fight. What's the past tense?

G: Fought. R: Yeso Yesterday 1 foughl with J.

Teacher: Was J hurt? R: No. (She laughs and pats J on the back.)

She not understand. J: Yes 1 understand. G: Yesterday 1 fought my son.

Teacher: You don't say fight if it's not physical.

G: But he h~t me! Teacher: Ohhh. That's violence. (Fieldnotes, April 5)

Correction is another means of student-initiated

interaction with the teacher. A typical example follows:

R: What ~s several? Teacher: We don't know how many. Maybe two.

Maybe ten. N: Dictionary says a few but not many.

(Fieldnotes, March 29)

In the second type of student-initiated interaction,

the students make suggestions as a means of initiating

30

31

change. Nearly aIl the suggestions ta th~ teacher come from

one of the students who seems to be the spokesperson for the

group. Discuss~on of prev~ous learning experiences take

place in the cafeteria dur~ng the breaks, usually ~n the

absence of the teacher. R speaks out in the class, asking

the teacher ta spend more time on phonet~cs and the A8es, so

that they can learn to read and wrlte Engl~sh, or on the

rules of English p~onunciation, suggest~ng that earphones

would be helpful for pronunciation practice.

The teacher responds by telllng the student that

e~rphones are too expensive. She tells students on one

occasion that Engllsh has no rules of pronunclat~on and on

another, that it's a matter of trlal and error. Ta the

suggestion about spending t~me on the ABes, she responds

that it would be possible and the following episode occurs a

few days later:

As the students enter the class, the teacher tells each one where ta sit. She sa ys she ~ants to work w~th some students separately today. The students obl~ge. AlI the students from the M~ddle East are seated on one side of the classroom whlle aIl the others are seated on the other. Besldes be~ng from the Middle East, the only other thlng these students have in common is that they aIl have vary~ng amounts of difflculty readlng and wr~ting. After dOlng a textbook exerClse ~n the usual way, the teacher looks at the sludents on one side of the classroom and tells them to work in pairs to compose dlalogues. She walks to the group of students on the other slde of the classroom and tells them they will work w~th the alphabet. She tells them ta wrlte each letter ln long-hand, and begins d~ctatlng the alphabet. After each letter, she checks thelr notebooks,

ei ther- commenting "good ~ Il or- cor-r-ecting the for-m and tell~ng them to pr-actice at home. The exerc~se takes about twenty minutes. (F~eldnotes, April 20)

32

In the th~rd type of student-~nit~ated interaction, the

students elicit ~nfor-mat~on fr-om the teacher-. This is done

~n sever-al d~fferent ways. In the follow~ng example, the

students' fac~al expr-essions cue the ttacher that an

explanat~on is needed:

L: Joan. (Pronounces John.) Teacher: Joan. (Goes ta the chalkboard.

N: Teacher:

Joan John.) Joan is a woman. But pronunc~ation the No N. John and Joan. Joan of Arc.

same? You know,

Writes

like

(Noticing students' blank faces?) Joan of Arc was burned. You don't know about her-?

N: Jeanne d'Ar-c. Teacher:

B: Yeso Oh ~

In French Jeanne d'Arc.

Teacher: I guess Muslims don't understand this story. (Laughs.) K, read the next example.

(Fieldnotes, May 8).

The teacher does not always respond to these cues,

however, and the students employ other- methods of eliciting

~nformation, such as telling the teacher they don't

understand or- r-equesting an example or- ask~ng a direct

question. The follow1ng episodes demonstrate the thr-ee

appr-oac he':;:

Teacher: Let's get back ta the present perfecto R: Can you write example of present per-fect

on the blackboard?

1 Teacher:

Teacher:

G:

l have rules and examples of the present ~erfect. Maybe you could wr~te them c~wn. r'm gonna write them out en the blackboard today. (Teacher writes five rules w~th two examples of each. Students copy.)

Are you f~n~shed wr~t~ng? (Most of the students look up.) Let's go over the rules. (She pOlnts to each phrase w~th the yardst~ck, ask~ng ~f students understand, and explalning vocabulary when they don't.) Yesterday l understand. Today ~t's diff~cult. l no understand.

Teacher: Yes, that's because lt's more d~ff~cult today. (T goes to the board ta continue writing. Wr~tes four more rules with examples.)

(Fieldnotes, April 18)

N: Nicole, can Vou tell me how to use a d~shwasher?

Teacher: Okay. Who has a d~shwasher? K: Everybody. J: My husband dlshwasher. It good for his

arthritis. (Students laugh.)

Teacher: Okay. What machine shall we explain? J: Wash~ng machine.

Teacher: Okay. You have a ma~d. Do vou understand mal.d?

J: Teacher:

G:

Teacher:

Woman work l.n house. Yeso You are rlch. You ll.ve l.n Westmount. You have a ma~d. It's her flrst day on the job and you tell her how to use the washing mach~ne. (Everybody is talking at the same tl.me.) Okay. Come on, let's go. (Beglns to explaln how to USE

machlne. P helps her. Other are talk~ng w~th each other.

a wash~ng students The no~se

level is very high. G makes a motion of openl.ng the washer lld.) Nicole, what's th~s ? What's that? It's a l~d. You open the l~d.

P: (Makes a motion of fol ding the cl othes. ) And what's this?

33

r 1

34

Teacher: Fold. You fold the clothes. J: Can you write this expression on the

blackboard? It very good. (Teacher writes instructions for using a washer on the board. The students copy. )

(Fieldnotes, April 7-)

Interactl.on Wl. th Peers

Peer interactl.on, which is l.nterspersed wl.th teacher-

student l.nteraction, takes place both inside and outside the

classroom. While for certal.n activities, like role plays,

peer interactl.on 1.S teacher-directed, for the most part it

1.S student-inl.tiated. Peer interaction takes place

primarily on two levels, the first of which is frlendship.

Interactl.on between Friends

1 observe on the first day of class that the students

who leave the classroom to go to the cafeteria leave in the

company of someone from their own culture. This gradually

changes, and by the e Id of the semester the cultural

segregation is hardly eVl.dent. Even in the fl.rst week of

elass there is an attempt by the students to get te know

one another. The teaeher instruets students to ask each

other quest1.ons with eue words she has written on the

chalkboard, but students ask thel.r own questions and are

repr1.manded for asking questl.ons that have not been

practiced! At f1.rst they are qUl.ckly brought "te order,"

1 35

but as the semes ter progresses~ spontaneous student

exchanges are frequent and natural both lnside and outside

the classroom.

Besides asking each other personal questlons, students

give each other compliments, advice, and sympathy, as the

following episodes demonstrate:

R: (Addresses K.) Are you sad that Khomeinl died or are you happy?

K: Bad for Iran. R: I am happy because Khomeinl not glve me

anything. People ln Iran afrald of hlm. (Turns to teacher to explaln.) You know Nicole, you very severe. You dle and your son or daughter teach after you. Even if 1 happy you die, I cry because I afraid. In Iran same thing. People afraid of Khomeini even after he dle.

K: It problem for Iran. (Fieldnotes, June 9)

R: (Explains late arrivaI.) I have trouble with my car.

Teacher: Maybe you shouid take lt to a garage. J: CalI your brother. R: My brother's at work.

(Fieldnotes, Aprli 17)

I arrive ln the class. G is teaching J how to say hello in Arablc and in Farsi. N arrlves. He asks J who dled in her famlly. (This is J's f1rst day back after a week of absence because of a death ln the family.) J says lt was her godson. B walks in and puts her arm around J and sa ys someth1ng to her. The teacher walks ln, sees J, and tells her it lS good to have her back and sm1llng too l

(Fieldnotes, May 16)

There is not a lot of tension between students, but on

l 36

several occasions the sparks fly. Both teacher and peers

intervene, but l notice that peers are more effective for

restoring the peace, as the following episode demonstrates:

R: Two-and-a-half years, and pay very much money. The lawyer cheat me. l am happy l hear he now not have lawyer permission.

Teacher: They took his permit away? R: Yes, because he cheat many people.

Teacher: Cheated. (R looks down. Lips tremble. Eyes fill with tears. She lS upset. 5 bursts out laugh1ng. R screams at her in French.) Calm down~ Count till 10.

R: l don't care she don't 11ke my face. G: R, she sick. Go take a break. P: Yes, she slck. And she very young.

l feel bad. (5 leaves the room. R goes to the door, and asks P to come.)

(F1eldnotes, May 10)

1 note upon returning to class after the break that the

tension has disappeared.

Interaction between Colleagues

The second level of peer interaction, Wh1Ch is

interaction between colleagues, is composed of three

different types of interaction. The f1rst type involves

eliciting and offering help and encouragement. This type of

1nterar.tion takes place on a continuaI basis both during

teacher-d1rected act1vity as weIl as during the break. The

follow~ng examples are typical of such interaction:

(F does not understand "show".) Teacher: Show us how to cross-country ski.

(F gets up, tries to say something. Names sk~ resort.)

Teacher: No No! Show us how! B: (Turn1ng to F.)

,

,

l

Demonstration demonstrat1on~ (Gets up to demonstrate.)

(Fieldnotes, March 20)

Teacher: Has anyone used a copying machine before? (C and R raise their hands.) Okay. Come to the front of the class. (C grimaces, and stands up with her hands in her pockets. R comes to Join her.)

C: (Begins to read.) How ... Teacher: Don't look 1n your book~

(Silence. C looks very uncomfortable.) R: (Beg1ns the d1alogue for C.)

Can you show me how to use a copy mach1ne?

C: (Takes her hands out of pockets and expla1ns w1th her hands.) First you ...

(F1eldnotes, Apr1l 7)

Teacher: Excellent! B: Estrella!

Teacher: B:

Teacher:

8, speak English~ (Turns to Y.) What is (Turns to teacher.) Star!

estrella? Etoile.

Yes, she deserves a star. (Fieldnotes, March 31)

The second type of 1nteract10n between colleagues

37

involves discussion about what is happening 1n the classroom

and how they feel about it. This kind of 1nteract10n takes

place mainly in the absence of the teacher even though the

teacher herself is never criticized. 1 note that students

tend to blame themselves cr their phys1cal cond1t10n for

their lnability to understand the lesson, as the following

episode demonstrates:

(Students are copying rules and examples of the present perfect tense from the chalkboard. )

Teacher: l'Il be r~ght back. (Leaves the room.) G: (Speaks to K - ~n Farsi?) P: Me too 1 don't understand. G: Nothing Nothing. Maybe me problem. P: Me too. Me too. N: 1 understand because 1 learn Eng 1 ish

e~ght years. (Conv~rsat~ons are go~ng on in several languages. )

Teacher: (Enters room.) Are we fin~shed? It's almost break t~me.

R: (Closes book and gets up.) 1 cont~nue after. (Leaves room. B and A follow.)

(Fieldnotes, Apr~l 18)

The th~rd type of interaction between colleagues

38

~nvolves leadership and following. The main class leader is

R, who always announces break time, gets up, and leaves the

class w~th other students following close behind. Since it

~s effect~vely break t~me, the teacher thanks R for

remind~ng her. Later in the semes ter , when a lesson ~s

part~cularly diff1cull, R announces break time early and the

teacher makes no move to stop the procession to the

cafeter1a.

R's 1nfluence on her peers begins the very first day

she arrives in class. Upon returning to class after the

first break, she admonishes her peers ta speak English:

We here to learn English. In cafeteria everybody speak French and Arabie. Please everybody let's speak Engl1sh. It not matter w~ make mistakes. We don't forget our language. It's impossible. We aIl immigrants. We can aIl be friends if we

1

'1

aIl try speak English. It's only way to learn, okay? (Fieldnotes, March 22).

Later on in the semester R further demonstrates her

39

leadership by organiz~ng cooperation with the teacher. The

teacher organizes a field trip to Dld Montreal with the

other classes. When she discusses the tr~p with the class,

many students demonstrate no enthusiasm. The teacher

appears disappo~nted and sa ys she w~ll not go e~ther but

will g~ve a class. During the break Rand P talk to the

students ~n the cafeteria. They ask the~r peers how they

can disappoint the teacher like that. They get a prom~se

from most of the students to cooperate, and tell the teacher

that they aIl want to go to Dld Montreal after aIl. Only

hali of the students show up the next day, and the teacher,

sure that the trip has been rained out, never arr~ves, much

to the disappointment of the students who w~sh to please

her.

.Interaction with Mater~als

A variety of materials are being used in the teach~ng

of th~s course. These include textbooks and handouts,

d~ctionaries, v~deo cassette record~ngs of telev~sed news

broadcasts, cassette recordings of songs, and perhaps most

important of all, the chalkboard (generally referred to as

the "blackboard"). Most of the interaction with these

materials is directed by the teacher, but a certain amount

of it is initiated by the s~udents.

Interaction with Textbooks

Interaction with textbooks plays an important role in

40

this language class. In fact, the teacher's introduction to

the course iS ~n introduction to the textbooks. She tells

the students on the first day of class that the textbooks

for thiS course Will be Expressways, Side ~ Side, lu Touch,

Essen tia 1 Idioms in Eng liSh, Cri tica 1 Reading, and Reading

Skills, and that she will not skip pages, but wi.l begin on

a speclflc page and continue page by page 50 that they will

be able to tell their next teacher exactly what pages they

have completed. Each day, following the morning

conversation perlod, the teacher tells the students which

textbook they will work ln. She then takes the books from

the storage cupbDard and hands them to one of the students

to hand out. When there are not sufficient books for each

student to have a copy, students share. The first textbook

to be used each day is invariably Expressways or Side ~

Side. The teacher announces the page number and asks a

student to read the title. She asks another two students to

read the first dialogue. As the students read, she corrects

pronunciation errors and asks them to repeat. After the

first dialogue has been read, the teacher checks to see if

1

l

41

the students understand the vocabulary. Then two more

students are asked to do the next dialogue which involves

reconstructing the f1rst one w1th a d1fferent set of

informat10n. Some students know the strategy for

reconstructing, but others seem unaware of any pattern, and

simply read the new 1nformation. The teacher corrects them

and they repeat. On one occasion, she attempts to teach the

strategy:

(K has trouble d01ng the exercise. The teacher helps her. M has the same problem.)

Teacher: M, M. Use the subJect 1n the quest10n. (Walks to the chalkboard.) M and everybody. Why complicate your 11fe? Use the 1nformat10n in the question to g1ve the answer. (Wr1tes the dialogue on the board.)

(Fieldnotes, Apr11 12)

After oral reconstruction exerc1ses, the teacher asks

the students to work in pa1rs and compose a new dialogue

with different information. Some students work w1th a

ne1ghbour while others work ind1v1dually. Most of the

students wr1te this dialogue 1n the1r notebooks. When the

major1ty of the students have completed the exerc1se, the

teacher asks them either to read 1t or to come ta the front

of the class to act it out. The teacher corrects

pronunciation errors, and writes grammatical errors on the

board, e11cit1ng the corrections from the students.

Not aIl the interaction with the textbook is teacher-

1 42

directed. Many of the students borrow the textbooks for

consultation at home. One of the students photocop1es aIl

the books 1n order to have a personal copy in which he can

wr1te. Another student cop1es by hand aIl the pages which

have been covered that day in class. Many of the students

copy parts of the text while working on an exercise or

dur1ng the break.

Interact10n w1th D1ctionar1es

Interaction w1th d1ctionaries is pr1marily initiated by

the students, man y of whom br1ng their own dict10nar1es to

the class. The students who use the class dictionar1es will

stand up during any activity and go to the corner cupboard

to get a dictionary. 1 note that the majority of the

students spend a great deal of class time looking up words

and then writing in the1r notebooks. The only students who

do not use the d1ct10nary during the class are some of those

who express diff1culty w1th reading English.

At first, d1ctionary consultation 1S a h1ghly

individualized activity, but as team spirit develops among

the students, they begin to share the1r f1ndings. This 1S

done not only during the breaks, but also during teacher­

directed activitles. Students will get up and walk across

the room to show another student the dictionary.

1 ,

,1

l

43

Student-initiated 1nteraction with the dictionary also

leads to interaction with the teacher, as the following

episodes demonstrate:

U: What is CaYlar? N: Shark eggs. (Teacher dlsagrees and a

discussion follows between the two, N consultlng the Korean dlctionary, and the teacher the Oxford dlctlonary, WhlCh she claims is more credlble. Teacher wins. Oxford says CaYlar comes from sturgeon, a flSh which resembles the shark).

(Fieldnotes, April 18)

Teacher: N:

J : Teacher:

N:

You don't understand shelter? No. (Teacher writes the word on the board. ) Bus shelter~ Yeso Why do people use a bus shelter? (Looks up from the Oxford English Dlctlonary he has been consultlng.) Protect from bad weather.

Teacher: Good~

N: (A blg smile. Holds up dictionary.) Because it says in here!

(Fieldnotes, March 31)

There is very little teacher-directed interaction with

dictionaries, but a few episodes slmilar to the followlng

take place:

Teacher: Consist of. Look it up in your dictionaries. (Helps G look it up.)

N & B: (Address me.) What "made up of" means? (N comes and shows me the dlctlonary.)

o.P.: (1 point to the phrase "cons1st of".) ThlS phrase conslsts of a verb and a preposltlon.

N: Thank vou. 1 understand. (Returns to seat and explalns to 8.)

K: (Addresses teacher.) Together? Teacher: No. Made up of.

K: (Shows me her dictlonary and reads example.) "The class consists of six

1 women and five men." women and five men. together.

(F~eldnotes, May 8)

Interaction w~th the Chalkboard

Together. Six Consist of mean

The chalkboard is used continually, mostly to re-

enforce in writing what is being expressed orally, whether

44

~t be grammar rules, vocabulary ~tems, or spelling. Most of

the ~nteraction w~th the board is teacher-d~rected. She

d~rects students ta copy exercises or rules from the

board as the follow~ng ep~sode demonstrates:

Teacher: (Beg~ns ta write on the board.)

S: Teacher:

J:

Teacher:

Write what 1 write. Be sure to sk~p a line so that vou can answer the quest~on. Make a l~ne under the words 1 underl~ne.

(AlI the students are busy copying from the board. K, 8, & R change seats to see the side board. Teacher fills up side board, moves ta front board, and continues writing. K, 8, & R move back to the~r places ta copy from front board. Teacher lS finished. S~ts down at her desk. Looks at some papers. Students are still writing. Teacher looks up.) S, are Vou copying what 1 wrote on the blackboard? (Laughs. ) (Looks at J's raised hand.) Yes? (Polnts to board.) "The" should be they. (Goes to board and corrects mistake.) Pr~tty good, J!

(Fieldnotes, ~pril 12)

The teacher also uses the chalkboard for corrections

and explanatlons. Whenever a student does not understand a

J;

45

particular word or how to do an exercise, the teacher w~ll

write it on the board.

The students also ~n~t~ate sorne ~nteraction w~th the

chalkboard, at times request1ng the teacher to wr1te an

example or to spell a word, and at other t1mes wr~t1ng on 1t

themselves for the purpose of ver1f~cat10n. The following

ep1sode 111ustrates such interartion:

J is 10ok1ng in her notebook and writing on the board:

Susan put~ my book ùn my desk Pu t my book on ;"jIY desk It don't cake s because 1ts a order

After exam1n~ng what she wrote, J changes the last phrase:

It don't take of s because its a order

Teacher walks in. J reads the two examples and asks, "Correct?" The teacher says "yes". J's face 11ghts up. She Jumps up and down. Teacher goes to board to correct the th1rd phrase. (Fieldnotes, March 22)

Interact~on with Content

1 describe interaction with course content in terms of

listening, oral, reading, and wr1ting act1v1t1es, though

these categories are not clearly defined 1n the classroom

context. Grammar and vocabulary bU11d1ng exerC1ses are an

integral part of most of the actlvities 1n all of these

categor1es. For the most part, 1nteract10n w1th course

content is teacher-directed rather than student 1n1t1ated,

1 as the follow~ng accounts will demonstrate.

Interaction with Listen~ng Activ~ties

There are two types of organized listening activities

~n th~s course. The f~rst ~nvolves go~ng to the video room

to watch a telev~sed news broadcast which the teacher has

v~deo-taped the previous even~ng. Th~s act~v~ty usually

46

takes place once a week. The teacher instructs the students

to take notes wh~le they watch. A few students oblige.

After watching the v~deo, the students return to the

classroom to recount the news. The teacher prompts the

students by ask~ng what the f~rst news item was, then what

the second ~tem was, and so on. A student who has taken

notes w~ll answer, often w~th one word. A d~scussion might

ensue ~f the subJect ~nterests the students. Somet~mes the

students ask the teacher questions related to vocabulary

they have not understood.

Another l~sten~ng activity ~nvolves listening to songs.

Dur~ng the first week of classes we hear songs coming from

the next classroom and the students ask the teacher why they

don't l~sten to songs. The teacher replies that she has

somp l~sten~ng activ~t~es based on songs, and she w~ll bring

them, which she does on three occasions. The exercise

beg~ns w~th the teacher giv~ng the students a handout with

most of the words of the song wr~tten out. The students are

1 47

supposed to f~ll in the missing wo~ds which a~~ indlcated by

blanks. The students l~sten once o~ tw~ce, and then the

teache~ asks students to take tu~ns ~ead~ng. When ~hey

hes~tate at a blank, the teacher suppl les th~ word. The

teache~ then tells the students to s~ng along as they l~sten

fo~ the second o~ thi~d time.

Inte~action with O~al Activitles

There a~e fou~ basic k~nds of o~al actlvitles, aIl of

which a~e, to a g~eat extent, teache~-di~ected. The dally

mo~ning conversation perlods are usually p~ompted by a

leadlng questlon from the teache~. Towards the mlddle of

the semeste~ thlS changes in that the students often begln

by asking the teache~ lf she has heard a certaln news ltem,

o~ by telllng her about a personal problem. Some students

say as l~ttle as possible dU~lng these conve~sation periods,

answerlng only di~ect questions. Other students have a lot

to say, and ca~~y on a discusslon untll the teacher

lntervenes to change the topic. The followlng eplsodes

illustrate the types of dialogues which take place:

H: (Says her sister came home from the hospital but the baby had to stay.) Because a p~oblem with the blood. Very yellow.

C: Babies always a Ilttle blt yellow. G~ Depends the mothe~ what she eat.

Impo~tant the wate~melon because lt clean out everythlng, aIl the yellow. (Turn: ta me.) You eat watermelon?

D.P.: Yeso 1 like it. G: Good. It good for your baby. D: 1 see a fllm about conquest in Canada.

l (He explains that childbirth was difficult for women then.) Not l~ke now. (He explains how the conquerors m~xed w~th the T, dlan women. He says the women walked to the rlver to give birth to bab~es by themselves.)

Teacher: l'm sure that there was some health care for these women. Okay, we'll work wi~h Expressways this mornlng.

(Fieldnotes, May 5)

G: N~cole, another news. Father lost a three-year-old g~rl. Another family find. Keep family 25 years.

K: Excuse me. 1 know that people. He come to work one day. He cry and cry. 1 say calm down and 1 give him a coffee. He sald I saw my daughter .•• Father and mother flght. Mother tell daughter father crazy. One day mother is sick. She know she do something bad in her llfe. She calI father •.• H~ cannot bel~eve it really his daughter. Taller than him.

Teacher: Yes, thls is not the same news. But G, r'm so happy you're listening to the news in Engllsh.

(Fle.jnotes, April 5)

The second type of oral activity, which ~s role play,

48

tdkes place two or three times a week. As an alternative to

readlng a dlalogue they have just composed and wrltten down,

students are asked to come te the front of the class and act

out the dlalogue. Sometimes students are asked to act out a

story. Whlle some students seem very uncomfortable during

thlS activlty, others appear ta enJoy it, and volunteer ta

do lt, as the following episode illustrates:

(The teacher dictates a newspaper article about a purse-snatching

1

1

incident. ) Teacher: Who understands the story?

R: 1 do. Teacher: Okay. Go to the front of the class wlth

your purse. Who wants to be the assailant? (N raises his hand.) Okay. Now act out the story. (R and N act lt out.) Again. With language. Say "gl.ve me your purse" or somethlng. (R and N begin again.)

N: Give me your purse, baby. (He knocks R on the head, and grabs her purse. )

R: Hey~

(AlI the students laugh.) (Fieldnotes, April 20)

49

The thlrd klnd of oral activity is class presentation.

The students demonstrate little enthuslasm as the following

episode illustrates:

Teacher: Who would like to make a presentatlon ln class so that 1 don't talk aIl the tlme? 1 tried it last class and lt worked very weIl. You can talk about your country, or about how to make somethlng. Who would start? 8, would yOu start?

8: 1 not have the time. 1 work every night.

Teacher: What about weekends? 8: 1 have to cl ean house and shopPlng. Si

1 have tlme ••. Teacher: If 1 had the tlme.

R: 1 not understand. Teacher: (Explair,s what is meant by presentation.)

N: 1 can do lt. Teacher: When could vou do l.t?

N: Now. 1 not need paper. Teacher: You need to prepare and wrl.te down

something. How about tomorrow? N: Okay.

Teacher: And who will be after N? (Two students volunteer and the teacher tells the other students to think about lt.)

(Fieldnotes, April 5)

50

The second and last presentation is made the following

week:

o goes to the front of class to organize his notes (at least 10 pages), maps, and postcards. He begins: "1 ta 1 k to you about my coun try the republ.lca de Colombia, Sud Amer.lca". The teacher attempts to correct pronunciation, but 0 ignores the interrupt.lons. He is speaking very fast in a mixture of Spanish and English. Sorne students are l.lstening, and others are looking in their d.lctionaries, or writing, or talking with each other. P interrupts D to ask a quest.lon. D answers the question and then cont.lnues. The teacher interrupts 0 and asks h.lm to continue next class. It.ls time to go home. The students clap. (Fieldnotes, Apr.ll 14)

The fourth type of oral exerrise is games, which are

introduced by the teacher durlng the last hour of class,

often Just minutes before the class lS over for the day.

The teacher explains what the students have to do. The

games are 1nvariably word games. One of the games is a

guess.lng game. The students play in pairs fac.lng each

other, w.lth one facing the chalkboard. The teacher writes a

word on the board, and the students facing the board give

the.lr partners a clue. The student who guesses the r.lght

answer is declared the winner and receives a candy.

For another word game the students are divided into two

teams. The d.lvis10n is made through the m.lddle of the class

unless a student obJects to the unfalrness of such a

division, .ln which case the teacher does some shuffling

51

until there are no more objections. The teacher asks me to

keep score. She g~ves a dictionary defin~t~on and the

teams have to guess the word, or else she g~ves a word and

the teams have to supply a def~nltlon. If a team glves the

wrong definition or word, they lose the pOlnt and the

question goes to the other team.

Interaction wlth Reddlng Activ~tles

Readlng actlvltles always follow the same pattern and

are always teacher-dlrected, though two of the students tell

the teacher they would l~ke to learn to read. The teacher

lntroduces the act~vlty by hand~ng out a text or by

indicat~ng the text ln one of the textbooks. Students

volunteer or are designated to read a sentence or a d~alogue

out 1 oud. The teacher usually interJects to correct

pronunc~ation. Either students ask questions about the

vocabul~ry, or the teacher asks quest~ons to check the

students' understand~ng. The follow~ng eplsode ~llustrates

the different k1nds of lnteractlon which occur dur1ng a

reading exerClse:

The students are taking turns readlng a story about the Loch Ness Monster in Read1ng Skliis. N is readlng out loud. K is followlng, readlng ln a low voice. Teacher asks, "Whrlt lS 'open mlrd'?11 Silence. Teacher explalns. G has her head ln her hands. She looks ready ta cry agaln. D contlnues readlng. J lS wrltlng ln her notebook. Then she follows ln the textbook. G is starlng lnto space. W is looklng up somethlng ln the d1ctlonary. C and N are holding hands whlle followlng ln the same book. Teacher corrects D's pronunclatlon. D reads hesltatlngly. B ~s look~ng up a word ~n the

l d1ctionary. 0 pronounces as though he were read1ng Spanish (e.g. Jumped: "humped"). The teacher ignores the errors. She asks H to cont1nue. Now G 1S following in her book. Teacher asks me to f1nish reading the story. 1 f1n1sh. The teacher asks class, "Do you bel1eve 1n the Loch Ness Monster?" (F1eldnotes, June 12)

Interact10n w1th Wr1t1ng Activit1es

There are four kinds of wr1ting act1vit1es in this

course and aIl of them are directed by the teacher. The

52

f1rst k1nd 1nvolves "composing" or reconstructing dialogues,

an exerC1se the students have practiced orally, and must now

do in pa1rs and 1n writing. In this wr1ting exerC1se, as in

aIl of them, the teacher insists on the students writing 1n

long-hand rather than printing. The follow1ng ep1sode

1llustrates the point:

(The students are wbrk1ng in pairs constructing dialogues.)

Teacher: Any problems? G: Yes.

Teacher: (Walks over to G and looks in her book.) 1 want you to write long-hand, not pr1nt l

(F1eldnotes, March 29)

The second k1nd of writing activity involves copying

an exercise or grammar rules from the board. The teacher

always uses cursive writing so that students w1ll learn to

read 1 t. Th1S 1S d1fficult for several of the students who

tell the teacher that they can not read. On the first such

occas10n shf:! tells them that she will pr1nt for them "th1S

r " , ~

! ,

t.

l

"1 53

time", but they wi Il have ta learn ta read long-hand.

The th~rd kind of wr~t~ng act~vity, which is usually

done once a week, invo1ves tak~ng dictat~on. The following

ep~sode describes the interact~on wh~ch accurs:

Teacher: Now we'11 have a l~ttle d1ctat~on.

C, wlll you come to the blackboard to wr1 te? (C makes a gr~mace, but goes to the board, and beg1ns to wrlte as the teacher dictates the letter they have just flnished readlng. Teacher notlces tha t Gand Mare not wr l tlng. She look,. at Gand then at M.) Please wr~te.

G: l can't. One day l write. Teacher: Okay. M and G, open up your books and

copy. (Looks at J who ~s s~ttlng between GandM.) J, don't get d~stracted. You write. (Completes dlctatlon.) Thank vou, C. You may Slt down. (Wa1ks to board and reads out loud. Corrects two m~stakes.)

(Fieldnotes, April 7)

The fourth k~nd of wr~ting activity wh~ch involves

learning to write curslvely, or long-hand, lS carrled out

only once wlth a group of students who have requested to

learn to wrlte, and several tlmes with ~ndlv~dual students.

In the group wr~ting exerc~se, the teacher d~ctates the A8Cs

and asks students to wrlte each letter dawn. After

d~ctating each 1etter, the teacher checks each student's

notebeok to see if the letter is written correctly. If net,

she corrects lt, and tells the student to practlce at home.

S4

When the cursive writing activity involves only one

student, the teacher gives that student a page of curs~vely

writt~n notes to copy. The following episode illustrates:

Teacher: (Addresses M.) You can't pass to level four ~f vou can't wr~te long-hand. You pract~ce at home th~s weekend.

M: Je no have time. Teacher: Okay. At the break Vou copy this sheet.

(Hands sheet of paper to M.) Monday morning Vou will give it to me. (Addresses the class.) Okay. Now l will gather your books.

(Fieldnotes, March 31)

J: As usually. Teacher: As usual. B, can vou write it on the

blackboard? (8 gees to the board and writes.) 8, can yeu write long-hand?

8: Yeso (8 erases what she wrote -pr~nted - and writes.)

(Fieldnotes, Apr~l 12)

Summary

1 have attempted in this chapter te g~ve an accurate

p~c ture of the klnds of interaction which take place ln the

classroem. While lt appears that the teacher dIrects mest

of the classroom activlty, it ~s lnterest~ng to note the

various klnds of student-~nitiated actIvities WhlCh take

place simultaneously wlth teacher-directed actlvity.

It appears that students participate in thelr learning

process ~n a varlet y of ways, with or without an invItat~on

by the teacher to do 50. An analysis of student

partlc~patlon w~ll be attempted ~n chapter five.

CHAPTER IV

PARTICIPANT PERCEPTIONS

55

In thlS chapter, 1 descrlbe partl.cl.pants· perceptl.ons

of the people, the materlals, the content and the processes

involved ln this partl.cular learnl.ng experl.ence. The

perceptions 1 record in this chapter are documented in

fieldnotes taken both insl.de and outside the classroom. For

the most part, perceptlons are expressed during prl.vate

intervl.ews or in l.nformal conversations during the breaks

and after- class.

Perceptlons of Partlc ipants

1 describe the perceptions that the teacher has of the

students and Vl.ce versa, as well as the perceptlons the

studen ts have of eac h other-, as a means of crea tl.ng a

clearer plctur-e of partlcipant interactlon whl.ch lS most

cer-talnly influenced by these per-ceptions.

Perceptions of the Teacher

The students do not volunteer their perceptl.ons of the

teacher, and when 1 ask each of them directly about thelr

perceptions, aIl are qUlck to respond that the teacher l.S

very good, and they like her very much. R, en the ether

hand, does not be ll.eve tha t the teacher ll.kes her, and is

close to tears when she tells me, "She don't ll.ke my face; 1

56

don't know why". When l ask her why she feels that way, she

responds, "Everyone should have a c:hance. It not fair."

She explains that the teacher ùsked for a volunte~r to come

to the blackboard; she volunteered but the teacher chose

somebody else (Interview notes, April 26).

Other perceptions that the students have of the teacher

are vo~ced as a response to the following questions (May 23

& June 12):

Do Vou feel Vou have any impac:t on 1) what is taught (the curriculum)? 2) on the way something is taught

(the methodology)? 3) on the teacher? 4) on the structure of the class?

Most of the students perceive the teacher as being in

complete control of aIl of the above. A few students

elaborate on the~r perceptlons of the teacher's control of

the currlculum:

W: The teacher knows best. P: The teacher knows better than me what l need. 0: Professor should decide because they have a

program. The school knows what is important. N: Teacher has fixed 1dea of what she wants [to

teach]; l don't agree but she is the teacher.

The perception that the teacher knows best is also

eVlde",t in the c lassroom. On one occasion when the teacher

contradlcts the textbook, G suggests to the teacher that

"Maybe book lS wrong" (F ieldnotes, April 28).

l 57

The students do not elaborate on thelr perception that

the teacher is in control of the structure of the class.

One of the students, however, disagrees that the teacher lS

ln control, and comments that "The teacher should control

more" (Interview notes, May 23).

Percept10ns of the Students

The teacher perceives adult learners ln general to be

motlvated and not ln need of discipline, unlike adolescents

or chlldren (Interv1ew notes, April 26). Other perceptions

she has of these particular adults are eVldent when she

lnstructs them how to answer the following questlons ln a

questionnaire from the school board' s research department

(Fieldnotes, Aprll 12):

9. Could you tell us what, approximately, is your family's annual income (before taxes and deductions)? 1. under S10 000 2. S10 001 - S20 000 4. $30 001 - S40 000 5. $40 001 - $50 000 6. over $50 000

11. What was your pald occupation for the longest perlod of tlme before arrlv1ng in Canada? 1. Unskilled worker 2. Sk1lled worker 3. Office worker 4. Semi-professlonal 5. Professional 6. Executlve or specialist .... 7. None

12. What lS your maln occupation ln Canada at present? 1. Unskilled worker 2. Skilled worker 3. Offlce worker

4. Semi-professional 5. Professional 6. Executive or special~st 7. None

14. What h~ghest level of schooling had you reached before arriving ~n Canada? 1. Grade school started .... 2. Grade school completed 3. High school started 4. H~gh school completed 5. Vocat~onal school started 6. Vocational school completed 7. Un~vers~ty programme started 8. Un1vers~ty programme completed

58

When several students tell the teacher they do not know

what the1r fam~ly 1ncome lS, the teacher says, "It's

probab 1 Y less than $10 000. Check number one." K i 5

sltt~ng beslde me. She marks number four ($30 000 -

$40 000) on question number nine. The teacher checks her

questionnaire and asks, "Are you sure?" K admits she is not

sure, and the teacher tells her to check number one or two.

When the teacher reads question eleven, several women

students volunteer that they stayed at home in their

country. The teacher tells the students to just mark

number one (unskilled worker) for both questions eleven and

twel ve.

For question fourteen, the teacher lnstructs students

to mark e~ther one, two, three, or four. She corrects

herself, "No, not number four (High school completed). Mark

59

one, two, or three. N objects. He says he has two years of

university. The teacher says that universlty ln [Country X]

is not the same as university ln Quebec and tells hlm to

mark number three (H~gh school started). K has marked

number seven (Unlvers1ty programme started). The teacher

comes to check K's form and tells her to erase her answer

and mark number three. K acqulesces.

The ~eacher s perceptions about N's level of

education are vOlced on another occasion when N says that

he lS trying to get into [Univers1ty A]:

Teac her: You' re not ready yet. 1 hope vou know that. It's hard to get lnto [Universlty A]. [Universlty 8] lS eaS1er. You're pushlng it a llttle.

N: Yes, but 1 tryl (Fieldnotes, May 8)

The teacher also perceives some of her students to have

learning problems. She explalns ta me after the first class

that this lS not a typical adult education class. Accord1ng

to her, these students da not have a very h1gh educatlon and

therefore do not participate ta a great extent. The teac her

has taught sorne of these students ln the previous sesslon,

and she shares her perceptions of them wlth me: S, for

example, "doesn' t part1clpate; she on 1 y laughs". The

lranian students have a lot of trouble read1ng curS1ve

writing. "Sometimes 1 have ta print for them", she

comments. J, she says, has severe learnlng problems,

60

"probably tone-deaf. She doesn't seem to advance at aIl"

(F~eIdnotes, March 20). The teacher's percept~on of J is

ev~dent throughout the session. 1 not~ce that the teacher

corrects J's pronunc~at~on more than she corrects others.

She aiso translates into French for J. On one occasion the

tea~her seems part~cularly frustrated because J ~nsists on

her answer to a question, and says, "J, l'm go~ng to explain

ta you ~n French because 1 don't know how ta make you

understand" (Fieldnotes, April 5). Near the end of the

semester J and D are reading a dialogue. 1 note that

although both of them make pronunciation errors, J is much

eas~er to understand than D. The teacher addresses only J:

"You have to concentrate more on your pronunciation"

(Fieldnotes, June 9).

The following d~alogue between the teacher and myself

sheds addit~onal light on her perceptions of the students:

O.P.: Do you think that students' cultures play a role in the level of part~cipation or the way in which students participate in their own learn~ng?

Teacher: Sure. O.P.: Could you elaborate?

Teacher: Most ~mmigrants want to tell you about the~r culture. G thinks her country is better than Canada. She d~strusts K. She thinks K's son is a spy working for Khomein~. Iran~ans are diff~cult to understand.

O.P.: What about students from other cultures? Teacher: OrientaIs listen more. What you say is

gospel truth. When they ask quest~ons, it's not because they doubt you. It's because they don't understand.

1 O~ientals say what you want to hear.

(Inte~view notes, Ap~~l 26)

Anothe~ gene~al pe~cept~on the teache~ seems to have

61

of the students ~s that they a~e children. In arder to l,jet

the students' attent~on the teacher w~11 frequentIy bang on

her desk. She aiso qU1ets the class on several occaS10ns

w~th "children, children, let's get ser~ous". The follow~ng

ep~sode ~s tYP1cal:

U: Teacher:

U: Teacher:

She ~s fin~shes her compos1t10n. She 1S •.. F~n1shed.

Yeso She is f~n1shed with her compos1t10n. U, 1 will write it for you (Goes to the chalkboard and wrltes). It's because th1S 1S a pass1ve construct10n, but 1 didn't really want to expla~n 1t. It's d1ff1cult to understand. The normal construct1on would be .•• (Writes on the board) "The composit~on is finished." We change ~t

~nto pass1ve (P01nts to the origlnal sentence) • (P is consulting R.) P, be qUlet, or we'll have to put you someplace by yourself.

P: But 1 don't und~rstand. Teacher: If you would be qU1et and listen~ yau

would understand. (Fleldnotes, May 19)

The teacher's perceptions of two other students become

evident one day when she comments about a student's react10n

to the stor-y "Terrible Revenge of a Lover-". After students

have taken turns reading the story, the teacher asks for a

volunteer to re-tell it. One of the students volunteer-s.

The following approximate dialogue takes place after class:

l Teacher:

o. P. : Teacher:

O. P. : Teacher:

o. P. :

Teacher:

O. P. : Teacher:

What do you think of [Student A]? Why da you ask? She laves to grovel in dirt, doesn't she? 1 mean, [Student BJ does too, but [Student A] really bugs me sometimes. What d~d you think of her story? 1 thought she had a real sense of humour. Oh yes? 1 try not ta show ~t, but sometimes 1 can't stand her. She has ~nv~ted me far lunch, and 1 Just can't go. WeIl, you don't show ~t. Are there other students that bug you? No, not really. Except [Student Cl. She's as stubborn as a mule. Somet~mes

l get lmpatient w~th her. Yes. 1 've not~ced. Today ~n the cafeter~a there were two soups poured and she ~nsisted on hav~ng another SOUpe She sa~d those soups were cold.

(Notes recorded after class, May 5)

The students perceptions of themselves, and adult

learners ln general, vary. 1 ask each of the students if

adults learn d~fferently than children, and 1 get the

following responses (Interview notes, May 23 and June 12):

8: Adults say what th~y want ta learn. R: Adults have more control,

understand more eas~ly, need less explanation.

K: Adults learn better because more serious, more mot~vated, ch~ldren laughing laughlng.

D: Adults learn because they need to. They are ~nterested and motivated. Chlldren want to play.

C: Easier for adults because you concentrate on one thlng.

One student says adults and children learn the same way.

H: The saIne. either.

1 don't knaw A8Cs. Children not

62

1

--- -----------------......

A few students agree that learn~ng ~s more diff~cult for

adults:

P: Adults have no time to study. G: Adults have many preoccupat~ons. U: More d~ff~cult for adults.

Children have better memory. N: Adults have tao many ~deas.

Too much past exper~ence. Adults analyze too much. Ch~ldren accept at face value.

63

These comments about adults most l~kely reflect to sa me

extent the students' percept~ons of themselves. Some

students perce~ve themselves in a more pos~t~ve l~ght than

others. It ~s interest~ng to note that the students who

be11eve that learn~ng 15 more d1ff1cult for adults aiso have

a tendency to blame themselves when they do not understand

the lesson be~ng taught. Comments l~ke the followlng

illustrate the po~nt:

G: Maybe me problem. P: Me too. Me too. (F~eldnotes, Apr~l 18)

P: 1 ashamed 1 don't read and wr~te. notes, April 25)

( lnterv~ew

Sorne students also perceive the~r physlcal or mental

condition to be the cause for learnlng d~ff~cultles, as the

followlng comments lilustrate:

F: 1 don't learn weIl. 1 don't sleep at nlght. (F~eldnotes, March 21)

R: 1 unders tand nothing today. 1 don' t concen tra te. 1 don't sleep weIl last n~ght but 1 come to class because 1 don't want to mlSS anyth~ng. (Fleldnotes, Apr~l 20)

1 64

W says she cannot concentrate because her mind ~s on her

chlldren. She also says she needs to make frlends in order

to practice Engllsh, but she ~s too shy and f~nds ~t easier

to speak Ch~nese with her husband dur~ng the break

(Interview notes, April 26).

The students perce~ve their peers as being better or

worse at Engl~sh than themselves. N, for example, ~s

consldered by the students to be good. Many of the students

consult hlm when they do not understand the teacher.

palr work, some w~ll get up to go to ask him a question.

Those s~ttlng bes~de hlm will consult him throughout

d~fferent act1vltles. R cons1ders J to be good, and says

she likes to work wlth her.

consults her frequently.

She usually sits beslde her and

1 not~ce that students avoid as much as possible

work~ng wlth M, F or S. G says F 1S not good, and prefers

to work alone rather than worklng w~th hlm. Most often it

~s K who works wlth M, and A who works with S. B tells me

thls 1S unfa~r, and that the teacher should make students

change places. It is dlfflcult, she says, to work with M

and 5 because they are so slow. 8 also cons~ders ~t unfalr

that she nearly always ends up worklng wlth [student X].

She says he is a fl~rt and has very bad breath because he

drlnks.

1 65

S is cons~dered by sorne of the students to be s~ck.

She leaves the class frequently, ask~ng the teacher for the

keys to the bathroom. She washes her face and returns t0

class. She speaks to nobody, even dur~ng the breaks, and

often bursts out laughlng durlng the class. She answers any

direct quest~ons and reads when the teacher tells her to.

Otherwlse she keeps busy consultlng her dlct~onary.

Although S does not appear to have fr~ends, she lS defended

by sorne student when attacked verbally by another, each t~me

the cause be~ng an ~nappropr~ate outburst of laughter.

R ~s cons~dered a leader. Students llsten to her.

They get up to leave the classroom when she announces break

time. D says R controis the class, but the teacher ought to

control ~t. It's like having two teachers, D says.

Perceptions of Materlals

The partic1pants talk about their percept10ns of

materials ln terms of Ilking or dlsl~klng. They do not

volunteer these perceptlons, but share them w~th me ln

response ta d~rect ~nterview questlons.

Percept10ns of Textbooks

AlI the students without exception say they enJoy

working wlth the textbook, and aIl of them name Expressways

1 66

or S~de ~ S~de as being the~r favourite. They prefer these

two because:

8: Real l~fe conversations. A: We can use the dialogues outside the class. R: Good for pract~ce.

Ask and answer at the same time. N: D~alogues.

C: Construct~ng d~alogues is good. J: Compose d~alogues.

U: Eas~er.

P: 1 understand.

K: Grammar and e~ercises. 0: Many e~amples for past and present.

Three of the students say that there are tao many

textbooks and that they ought ta have only one or two at the

very most for the entire semester. They say it 1S tao

confus~ng to Jump from te~tbook ta textbook. Only one

student says she d~slikes working w~th the textbooks. She

says she does not understand.

Percept~ons of Dict~onar~es

AlI but one student say they llke looking up words in

a d~ctlonary, but two of these do not like ta do lt in

class. J says It'S faster If the teacher explalns the

vocabulary. K says her Farsi-Engllsh dictlonary is too

heavy ta take ta class. A sa ys he would like ta be able ta

use a dictlonary bath inside and outside class, but he

cannat find a Persian-English dict~onary. 5 says that

looklng up vccabulary in the dictionary is her favourlte

r

1 learnlng actlvity.

Most of the students say they prefer worklng wlth a

bllingual dlctionary (English and Li). Two students say

they aiso llke worklng wlth an Engllsh-French (L2)

dlctlonary, and one says he llkes to work wlth both the

Engllsh-Li dlctlonary, as weIl as the un1l1ngual Engl1sh

d1ct1onary.

67

The one student who dlsl1kes worklng w1th a d1ct1onary

says she does not know how to r~ad. Another student says

she f1nds lt diff1cult to work with ~ne dlctionary because

she does not know the English alphabet, but she 15 try1ng to

learn at home.

Perceptions of Content and Processes

Only rarely do students comment on course content or

processes. The1r percept1ons, Wh1Ch 1 describe here, are

for the most part ga1ned through d~rect questions during

personal 1nterv1ews. 1 go over a 11st of class activ1t1es

and ask students to tell me 1f they llke the act1vlty,

d1slike lt, or feel lndifferent about it. 1 also learn

about the1r perceptions through the follow1ng 1ntervlew

quest1ons:

1 Why do you want to Iearn English? Are you learn1ng what you exp~cted to Iearn in

th1S class? If not, what did Vou expect? What activ1ty should be added to the program? What is your favourite act1vity, and why? What act1v1ty do you d1s11ke the most, and why? Wh1Ch Sk111 (oral expression, Iistenlng

comprehens1on, read1ng, or wr1t1ng) is most 1mportant to you, and why?

Llsten1ng Comprehens10n

Two students say that 11stening comprehension is the

most 1mportant Sk111 because:

C: If 1 understand, 1 can learn the other Skliis more easl1y.

D: If Vou don't understand, vou can't speak.

1 ask students how they feel about watchlng the news,

68

WhlCh 1S the main 11stenlng comprehens1on activity 1n thlS

course. Three of the five students who say they dislike the

L: 1 don't like. 1 don't understand. B: 1 can't understand. 1 don't Iike it. M: Not like. Watching news too sad. 1 cry.

N says he Iikes the activity but cons1ders it Iess lmportant

than Iearnlng grammar.

1 aiso ask the students how they feel about listening

te songs. N says this lS his favourite activity because he

lS a mUS1C1an. Four students say they dislike the activity,

and six students say they like only the listenlng part, but

not the slnging.

c R would like listening exerc~ses that would help her

practice Engl~sh pronunc~at~on. She requests such

activit~es on various occas~ons, and cites her past

language-learn~ng exper~ence as an exampIe:

When 1 study French ~n Cof~ [Centre d'or~entation et de formation des ~mm~grants, Imm~grant

orlentat~on and train~ng center], we have, you know .•. (Explalns ear-phones wlth hands). If we pronounce wrong, the teacher she correct us. Very good. Why we don't have that here? (Fleldnotes, April 7)

Oral Expresslon

The teacher believes that this ~s the most ~mportant

69

sk~ll for the students to learn. SlX of the students agree

that thlS ~s the most important skill for them. ,hey g~ve

the follow~ng reasons:

H: 8:

1 need practice. 1 can l1sten and read at home. opportunity to speak and wr~te.

K: Important for living in Canada.

1 have no

N: Everyth1ng 1S important, but 1 know how to write so conversat10n more important.

W: Important for find a Job. J: Important for speak~ng wlth confrères of my

husband and aiso glrIfrlend of my son.

The main oral expression activity ln class 1S

conversat10n, an activ~ty wh~ch ~s bas~cally teacher-

d\rected, and centered around news, weather, and week-end

activltles. The teacher says thlS is her favourlte

activity, "llstening to students' point of Vlew because they

need to talk to somebody who wlll listen". Two students

t 70

cla~m this is their favourite activity, but for two very

different reasons. W says that conversation is her

favour~te activity, "but ll.stening, not speaking". G says

that l.t's her favour~te act1vity because she likes speaking.

The four students who disll.ke the actl.v~ty give four

different reasons:

M: Talkl.ng about news too sad. 1 cry a lot. H: Talkl.ng about news borl.ng. r not understand. W: r don't ll.ke talkl.ng. 1 th~nk nobody

understand me. U: 1 can't talk. r don't speak because r don't

understand.

The teacher bel~eves that students like to talk about

their countries and cultures, and believes that oral

presentat~ons are a good way of g~ving aIl the students an

opportun~ty to speak. She also believes that students need

to prepare their presentatl.ons in advance and bring notes to

refer ta. N and G do net believe they need ta prepare.

Nine students say they ll.ke presentat~ons, though only two

volunteer ta make one. Seven students say they dislike

th~s activl.ty, and four of these students explain why:

U: Presentations should be about Canada. B: 1 don't like listening to presentatl.ons.

Maybe l'm too tired at the end of classa L: Because 1 don't speak. C: Because r'm very shy. My face l.S red.

Students make no specif~c comments about games or role

plays, two ether oral expression activlt~es. Nine students

71

like role play, three dislike it, and four teel ~nd~fferent

about ~t. Twelve students l~ke games, one student says ~t

~s the worst act1vity, and three students say ~t depends

WhlCh game.

Readlng

The teacher perceives reading long-hand to be

important, and tells the students she wants them to learn

thlS. After the class she explalns to me why this lS sa

important: "If students can' t read writ~ng, they can' t get a

Job •.. " (Fleldnotes, Aprll 5).

Only a few students comment about read~ng act~v1t~es,

but none of thelr comments refers to read1ng long-hand. P

would slmply llke to learn to read because "1 can't apply

for a Job because l can't read. l need more phonetlcs."

R says that "to learn phonetlcs and read Engllsh more

lmportant than wrltlng". English, she says, "lS confuslng.

Sometlmes ln Engllsh you pronounce the "a" llke [a] and

sometlmes ~ike [ae] and sometlmes [e]" (F1eldnotes, Aprll

3). She asks the teacher to "spend one hour each week

teachlng A8Cs and pronunciat~on" (Fleldnotes, Aprll 14).

C, on the other hand, knows how to read and comments

that "we should have more readlng comprehenslon exerclses".

N agrees that "reading dialogues out loud is very borlong" ,

1 and suggests work~ng with newspapers would be a better

read~ng act~v~ty.

Wrlt~ng

The teacher perceives cursive wr~t~ng ta be very

~mportant and ~nsists that students pract~ce th~s skill

whenever they wr~te. She warns students about fa~l~ng ta

mas ter thlS sk~ll: "You can't pass ta level four if you

72

can't wrlte long-hand" (F~eldnotes, March 31). The students

who have never prev~ously learned th~s skill tell me they

enJoy learning to wrlte, and would l~ke ta spend more class

tlme learning how.

In general, when students talk about wr~t~ng they are

talk~ng about express~ng something in wrlt~ng rather than

actually wrlt~ng long-hand.

for he, ta be able to write:

B tells me how ~mportant ~t ~s

"If 1 can't wrlte, 1 can't get

a Job". She sa ys that she can llsten and read at home, but

she has no opportun~ty to speak and write, and therefore

needs ta pract~ce these Skllis ~n class. G also sa ys she

needs ta learn to wrlte in order ta get a Job. R says that

wrltlng lS "~mportant for fliling out forms. 1 need to

learn ta read and wrlte". She says she expected much more

wrltlng ln th~s class. When she tells the teacher this, the

teacher assures her that one day she will be able to read

and wr~te, and exclalms, "look how long ~t takes Engl~sh

73

ch~ldren to read and wr~tel" (Fieldnotes, June 9).

There ~s l~ttle creat~ve writ~ng act~v~ty ~n th~s

course. For the most part, wr1tlng ~nvolves copy1ng from

the chalkboard. The students do not comment about thls

particular act~vlty. Two students say that taklng dlctat~on

~s thelr favourite actlvlty. S~x students say they dlsllke

this activlty, two of them explalnlng that lt lS too

dlfflcult and another two explalnlng that they are unable to

wr~te.

The wrltlng act~vlty that is llked the bpst lnvolves

reconstructing dlalogues. The teacher tells the students

that th~s activlty 15 good for them (F1eldnotes) May 4).

AlI but two students say they l~ke thlS actlvlty. The two

who say they are ~ndifferent, expla~n that ~t ~s because

they don't know how. Four students say thlS ~s the~r

favourlte activ~ty. Three students say they enJoy lt more

when they are working w1th a student who understands what to

do. D explalns that everyone wants to advance and not be

held back. 8 suggests that the teacher should encourage

students to change places. R would l~ke th~s to be a

homework exerc~se that the teacher would correct

~ndlv~dually: "8etter to have homework for teacher ta

correct. Teacher doesn't know the level of the students lf

we always correct ln class."

74

Summary

1 have attempted to record as accurately as posslble

the perceptions of the participants as they were shared with

me. 1 acknowledge that the record is incomplete, partially

due, belleve, to the particlpants' dlscomfort with sharing

feellngs, as weil as their dlfflculty wlth expressing

themselves ln a second language. However partial the

lnformation, 1 assert that there are some ObV10US

correlatlons between partlclpant perceptlons and

lnteractlon, WhlCh lead to lmportant lnslghts lnto the

subject of adult partlclpatlon in learn{ng.

correlatlons ln the following chapter.

1 analyze these

1 75

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION

Summary

In chapter one, 1 1ntroduce th1s case study and pose

flve questions wh1ch then serve as a general guidel1ne both

for data collection and for the discuss10n of the data. The

descript10ns of the sett1ng and the part1c1pants 1n chapter

two, processes 1n chapter three, and part1c1pant percept10ns

1n chapter four, prov1de detailed answers to aIl the

quest10ns. The follow1ng summary, uS1ng as 1ts framework

the research questions, provides a br1ef review of the

descr1pt10ns.

Research Question #1: What ~ the major characterist1cs of the backgrounds of the students and the teacher?

The part~c1pants in th1S study come from a variety of

backgrounds. Three of the s1xteen students are male, and

the other th1rteen are female. Most of these students are

between the ages of 30 to 50, w1th only three belng between

the ages of 16 to 30, and only one over 50. The educat10n

level of these students ranges from S1X ta s1xteen years of

school1ng, with eight of the s1xteen students hav1ng

completed at least secondary educat10n. The students also

represent a var1ety of ethn~c or1gins, w1th only three be1ng

of French-Canad1an or1g1n. Of the other 13 students, two

are from South Amer1ca, f1ve from South-east AS1a, and S1X

76

from the M~ddle East.

The teacher ~s French-Canad~an, and has learned English

as a second language through exposure to ~t beginn~ng at the

age of SlX. AlI her formaI educatlon has been carr~ed out

~n French, although her spec~al~zation ~n teachers' college

was Engllsh second language. She has an accumulated 14 1/2

years of teach~ng exper~ence, 13 of wh~ch have been spent

teachlng French as a second language, flrst to ch~ldren ~n

primary school, and later to army personnel. She has one

year of experlence ln teach~ng Engl~sh as a second language

ln secondary school, and had been teach~ng in her present

post for only half a year when thlS study began.

Research Questlon #2: What ~ the major characterlst~cs ~ the class structure, a[ogram content, and methodologv?

Although the seating arrangement lS non-traditlonal,

wlth student desks arranged ~n the shape of a horse-shoe,

the class structure could best be descrlbed as traditional

and teacher-centered.

The program content offers little variety, although

there appear to be a varlet y of ava~lable materials.

Textbook exercises, llke nearly aIl the classroom

actlvltles, focus on grammar and vocabulary. Listen~ng

actlvltles conslst of watching the news and llstenlng to

songs. Conversdtion perlods, generally controlled by the

1 77

teacher, fall short of explor~ng issues beyond news .~

headlines, weather reports, or weekend happen1ngs.

act~v~t1es ~nvolve tak~ng turns read~ng out loud the art1cle

chosen by the teacher, answer~ng spec~fic quest~ons about

vocabulary, and somet1mes re-telling the story.

act~v~t~es ~nvolve copy~ng and tak~ng d1ctat10n, the a~m of

both being to pract~ce cursive wr1tlng.

The methodology could best be descrlbed as trad~tlonal,

where the teacher lS engaged ln a process of transferrlng

knowledge to her students. The students, on the other hand,

generaIIy accept their pass~ve role of Ilsten1ng, copylng,

answerlng quest10n~., or doing the ass1gned palr work.

Research Question #3:_ What k~nds of 1nteract10n take place between the teacher and Iearners, and between the Iearners and thelr peers?

The maJority of teacher-student lnteractlon lS teacher-

d1rected rather lhan student-~n~tiated, although a Shlft

toward more stud~nt-ln~t~ated ~nteract10n ~s observed ~n the

second half of the semester. There are three baslc klnds of

interact~on which take place between the teacher and

students. In the flrst k~nd, tne teacher or students

volunteer ~nformatlon about current events, weather,

personal news, grammar and vocabulary explanat~ons or

examples, and correctlons. In the second kind, the teacher

or the students ellcit ~nformation about these same

1 78

subJ ec ts. In the thl.rd kl.nd, the teacher controls the

ac tl. v l tlE'S and exc hanges by gl vlng orders or by chang lng the

subJ ec t, whlle on 1 y a coup I e of the students ever make any

attempt to lnltlate change in Iearnlng actlvl.ties or to

pursue a tOplC of conversa tion.

Peer lnteractlon takes place on two Ievels. As

f r l.ends, the studef"l ts ask eac h other persona l questlons,

compllment one another, glve personal advlce, offer

sympa thy, and defend as the need ar l.ses. As colleagues, the

students ask f'ach othe>r for help, oHer each other both hel p

and encouragemen t, and share feel ings about the learnlng

actlvltles. The most out-spoken student ln the gr oup

becomes the spokesperson for the students, making

suggestlons to the teac her a bout l earning ac ti v 1. tles, and

lnformlng the teacher about br"eak t1.me. The same student

al sa encourages studen t cooperatl.on l'Il th the teacher.

Research Questlon #4: What klnds of activltl.eS are learners lnvolved ~ and what ~ thelr raIes ln these activltl.es?

The maln actlvlties that students are lnvolved ln are

dlctlonary research, note-taklng, consultHlg peers,

verlfylng hypotheses wlth the teacher, role play, grammar

exerclses, Ilstenlng exercl.ses, conversatlon, reading

exerclses, games, and wrlting exerClses. The students play

elther actlve or passive roles ln each of these activities,

or ln por t Lons of these ac t i Vl tles. might clar l fy here

79

that ~hen 1 speak of active involvement, 1 am referr~ng to

that involvement wh~ch is ln~t~ated by the student, s~nce

students are ~n no way involved ln any actual plannlng of

course content or classroom actlvlt~es. In thlS particular

case, Slnce ae tl v ~ ty tends to be teac her-cen tered, l t- ~s

impossible for students to be act~vely lnvolved all of the

t~me . Most of the students, for example, are act~vely

~nvo l ved ~n d ~c t~onary researc h, one of the few ac tl v ~ t~es

that ~s student-~n~tlated. The maJor~ty of students are

also ~nvolved ln note-taklng, another act~v~ty wh~ch lS

often student-~nltiated. To be act~vely ~nvolved ln e~ther

ai these two actlv~tles, as weIl as ~n some of the others,

presupposes that the student h...ls the abll ~ ty to read and

reproduce not only prlnted Engll,h scr~pt, but also in many

cases, the teacher's curs~ve scrlpt. The students who tend

to avo~d read~ng and wr1t~ng actlvltles, for the reason 1

Just mentloned, might be more apt to actlvely partlc1pate ln

oral actlv~ties, lnltlat1ng conversatlons, engag1ng ln

monologues, and lnvent1ng ~nterest~ng dlalogues ~n role

play.

Research Questlon #5: What ~ the partlc1pants' percept~ons of adult Iearning and of particlpat~on ill learn 1ng?

There lS llttle consensus among the partlc~pants as to

the nature of adult learn~ng as opposed to Chlld learnHlg.

The teacher percei ves adu l ts ~n genera l as be~ng more

, 'ij ,

80

motivated and thus posing fewer disclpline problems in the

classroom than chlldren or adolescents. On the other hand,

she tends ta percel ve these studen ts as chi Idren, and of ten

lnteracts wlth them accordlngly.

Students' perceptlons of adult learners vary. Some

belleve that adults have more dlfflculty learning because

they have many preoccupations, Il t tle tlme for study, and

poor memorl.es l.n comparlson ta children. One student

comments that there lS no dlfference between adult learning

and chl.ld learnl.ng. Other students believe that adults have

an advantage over children because they are motlvated and

serlous, knowlng what they want and need. Another student

comments that adults learn more easily because they are

allowed to concentrate on one subJect.

The teacher perceives partlcipation in learning ta be

closely related ta oral expresslon. She explains that most

of the students want ta talk about thel.r countrles and

cultures, and thls motlvates them to partlclpate. When she

says that one student does not partlclpate, but only laughs,

she lS sayl.ng that the student does not talk. In l.nformal

conversatl.ons, she cltes learnl.ng problems and low-level

educatlon as barrlers to partl.Cl.patlon. She also comments

that age l.S an lmportant factor because of retentlon

ability.

1

l

81

How students perce1ve part1c1pat10n in learning is

unclear. Wh11e most of them cla1m that they have an 1mpact

on their learn1ng, they seem to be11eve that the1r 1mpact 1S

conf1ned to out-of-class learn1ng act1v1t1es such as re-

copying class notes or prepar1ng someth1ng to talk about

for the next conversat10n per10d by watch1ng the news,

look1ng up vocabulary 1n the dict1onary, and wr1t1ng a ~ew

notes. W1th regard to classroom part1c1pat1on, students

belleve that the teacher "knows best" what they need to

learn, and they depend on her to make dec1s10ns about

learn~ng act1v1tles.

D1ScUSSlon

The Teacher and Part1clpation

Because the teacher 1n this case study 1S responslble

for the methodology, course content, and class structure,

she 1S ln a posltlon to share these responslb111tles w1th

her students, thereby encouraglng student partlclpatlon.

The students have some lnterest1ng ldeas for the course:

Presentat10ns should be about Canada (p. 70)

Worklng wlth newspapers would make readlng a more 1nteresting actlvlty (pp. 71-72)

The teacher should assign and correct wr1tten work (p. 73)

Phonetics lessons would be helpful for pronunclatlon and for learnlng to read (pp. 69 & 71)

l 82

There may be several reasons for the fact that none of

these ~deas ~s used:

The students do not share their ~deas w~th the teacrer, perhaps because they have not been asked to do so;

The students share the~r ~deas, but the teacher does not know how to ~ncorporate these ~deas ~nto the prograrn;

The students share the~r ~deas, but the teacher ~s unw~ll1ng or unable to ~ncorporate these ~deas into the program.

Whatever the reason, these students have 11ttle or no ~mpact

on methodology, curr~culum or class structure.

ThlS means that the teacher uses her own cr~ter1a ~n

her cho~ces of methodology, course content, and class

structure, rather than consult~ng the students about the1r

needs and ~nterests. The criter1a cf the teacher, 1n th1S

case, are based on her cultural background, past teachlng

exper~ence, as weIl as on her perceptlons and pre-conce~ved

not~ons about her students and the~r needs and interests.

The teacher's cultural background ~nfluences course

content, and therefore, student partlc~patl0n. Vocabulary

explanat10ns ln terms of b~bllcal references (i.e. "wlse" as

~n "Wlse men"), fa~rytales (l.e. "beautiful" as ln "Snow

Wh~te"), and North Amerlcan culture (~.e. "not getting along

w~th spouse" means "divorce"), contrlbute to non-

partlc~pat~on, and ult~mately, to cultural liliteracy.

r 83

The teacher's teach1ng experlence lS evtdent 1n her

structural teachlng approach Wh1Ch was the approach used ln

the army, and lS, 1n fact, an approach not uncommon 1n the

teachlng of second languages.

There are aiso multlple examples ln th1S case study

that are eV1dence of the relatlonshlp between the teacher s

percept 10ns of her s tuden ts and her 1n terac t 10n Wl th them.

A tYPlcal example of thlS 1S her perceptlon of them as

children. ïhere lS also eV1dence that the teacher 15

ln fI uenced by her pre-conce1 ved notlons. For examp 1 e, when

a 5 tuden t ex presses a need ta 1 earn to read, the teac her

lnterprets that need ta fit wlth her pre-concelved notlon

tha t the s tuden t needs ta 1 earn ta read curs 1 ve wr 1 t lng .

The result 1S that the teacher'5 prlorltles overrlde student

There i5 no lndlcat10n that the teacher's own second-

language-learn1ng experience has much 1mpact on her teach1ng

practlces. The teacher dld not learn Engllsh from textbooks

or chalkboards or teacher5, but by belng lmmersed ln a

sltuat10n where she was forced to communlcate ln that

language.

This case lS not a-typ1cal accordlng ta Jurmo (1987),

who found that the impact of the learners on methodology,

, t

1 84

course content, and class structure ~s seldom s~gn~f~cant in

adult t ~s~c educat~on programs, or in Engl~sh-Ianguage

programs a~med at ~mm~grant populations.

Shannon (1989) bel~eves that ~t 1S because the teacher

does not have control of these areas. He argues that

learners and teachers ought to have control together, the

role of the teacher beIng ta llsten ta the students and

foster the1r Independence through self-selection of learning

proJects and mater~als. In th~s case, the teacher does have

control, but does not share 1t. Accord~ng to Skagen (1987),

and Kazemak (1988), thlS m~ght be because the teacher lS

unfam11!ar w1th the theor1es of part~c~patory learn~ng, or

because the teacher does not know how to put these theorles

~nto pract1ce.

WhIle learner self-d~rect~on is one of the central

themes of adult educatIon literature, the raIe of the

teacher lS glven l~m~ted attent10n. It ~s probably Fre~re

(1970), who has contributed the most to th1S subJect through

hlS controverslal beliefs and practlces of effectlve adult

l~teracy educat10n. Accord1ng to Fre1re, the teacher's role

lS that of fac~l~tator or animator, rather than a

transmltter of knowledge. The teacher and students are

equals and aIl learners together. They may not aIl know the

same things, but the teacher does not know more than the

1 85

students. Wh1le Knowles (1970), Houle (1972), and 8hola

(1972), seem to ag~ee with Frelre, at least ln p~lnclple,

they tend to advocate learner cooperat10n rather than

learner control, the goal of educatlon be1ng to produce

crltical thinkers, rather than Frelre's more extreme goal of

empowerment for soclal and polltlcal actlon.

Methodology and Pa~t1clpat10n

Tradltional teacher-centered methodology, characterlzed

by rote learnlng as opposed to reflect1ve learning, appears

to be a negat1ve factor ln adult part1clpatlon ln learnlng.

Many of the eplsodes descrlbed earller show eVldence of how

reflection or exploration of ldeas lS dlscouraged ln favour

of "ser 10US work" in tex tbooks. Houle (1972), and Hesser

(1978), would argue that a trad1tlonal approach lS lndeed

SUl table ln thlS sltuatlon, slnce most of the students are

famlilar wlth the tradltlonal methods Whl~h are also used ln

thelr countries of orlgln. Houle cautlons, however, agalnst

the danger of 19norlng lndlvldual student needs and treatlng

education "as an operat1ve rather than a cooperatlve art"

(p. 109). The successful use of any methodology, Houle

pOlnts out, depends on the competence of the teacher to

adapt that methodology to the situatlon.

Learner-cente~ed methodology lS one of the baslc

assumptions of andragogy, yet in practice lt lS an e~ceptlon

86

1 rather than the rule in adult basic English programs

(Jurmo, 1987). In hlS recent study of adult participatory

learnlng practlces ln the United State~; Jurmo cites various

reasons for the absence of thlS methodology, among these the

teacher's unfamlliarity wlth the methodology, the threat it

poses to tradltlonal power structures, and the difficulty it

poses ln assessing effectiveness.

Rosenthal (1989), speaking from a teacher's point of

view, states that "the less capable we believe our students

to be, the more likely we are to structure tlghtly their

learnlng. Il This leads to a teacher-center'ed methodology

which addresses only surface structure (syntax) of the

target language, rather than a methodology WhlCh would

encourage students to explore the reading/writing/thinking

connectlon and thus get lnvolved in the deep structure

(semantlcs) of the target language. Rosenthal has echoed

the Frelrl.an concept of a teacher who is a "knowing subject

face to face with other knowing (and capable) sUbjects"

(Frelre, 1970, p. 217), whose pur pose is to encourage

students te become crltical thlnkers, and actlve

particlpant~ in thelr world.

Course Content and Participation

Course content which does not reflect students'

speciflc need~ and interests is considered a negative factor

87

in adult partlcipation ~n learnlng, even by Hesser (1978),

who advocates trad1tlonal methodology. ThIS case study

prov1des us with a great many episodes Wh1Ch support thlS

conclus1on. Sorne students who are dlscouraged from

explor1ng ~deas (I.e. parent-chlld communlcatlon, p. 28),

w~ll w~thdraw rather than make other attempts to partlc~pate

~n conversatlons. When subject matter, chosen by the

teacher, ~s of no 1nterest to the s~udents (l.e. Loch Ness

Monster, p. 51), the result aga1n is wlthdrawal, or "tunlng

out" untll called upon to read or answer a quest~on.

Confus~on and discouragement are other results of

~nappropr1ate course content wh~ch m~ght be assoc~ated wlth

the level of the mater~al, the cultural content of the

mater1al, or even the amount of new mater~al. When students

are faced with tao much new mater~al, they e~ther "tune out"

or get dlscuuraged. This is especially ev~dent when the new

mater~al happens to be a mean~ngless set of grammar rules,

or explanations wh~ch are 50 culturally bound that only

those who share the same cu~tural values could posslbly

unders tand t hem. Whether students "tune out" or get

d1scouraged, the result in both cases is a negat~ve effect

on part~clpatlon.

Class Structure and Partlcipatlon

Though certa1n space arrangements may not be condUClve

to partlcipatlon, therc 15 no eV1dence in thlS case study ta

88

conclude that lnformal seatlng arrangements positively

affect partlclpatlon.

InfleXlble tlme arrangements are a negatlve factor

ln partlclpatlon ln learnlng, as lilustrated by many of the

eplsodes. Potentlal dlScusslons were stopped short ln order

to begln "5er ious" work ln the tex tbooks. In some cases,

teachers feel pressure to complete a pregram of study laid

down by a higher authorlty (Jurmo, 1987). The teacher in

thls case study, whlle net bound by any set program, may

have felt pressured by objectives which she had set for the

class.

Learner Çharacteristlcs and Particlpatlon

Students' self-lmage, personallty, and motlvation

appear to be lmpertant f~ctors ln partlclpatlon 4n learning.

ThlS case study shows evidence that a motivated out-golng

student wlth a posltlve self-image wlll tend to overcome any

hurdles to learn what he or she wants te learn. None of

these three factors by ltself leads to the same result.

Closely connected to students' self-lmage is their abillty

or percelved ab111ty to express themselves in the target

language, another lmportant factor ln partic1patlon. It was

also found that students tend to blame themselves when they

fa11 to understand, the result be1ng withdrawal rather than

challenglng the teacher or the material. This also

1 indicates the impurtant role of self-image, together with

personal~ty, in part~c~pat~on.

Students' age and gender were faund ta be nan-factors

in part~c~pat~on. There ~s, however, some ~nd~cat~on that

cultural background and level of educat~on may lnfluence

partic~pation, but th~s hypothes~s requIres further study.

l suggest that level of educatIon lS a construct of self­

Image, and important only for that reason.

89

Whlle age, gender, past experience, level of education,

culture and motlvat~on have ail been l~sted as factors

Influenclng adult participation in learnlng (Brundage and

Mackeracher, 1980), there lS ~nsufficient eVldence ln thl~.

study ta support every Item ~n that 11St. Oddl (1987)

proposes that the prlnclpal factor governlng adult

partlcipatlon ln learnIng is personallty. The two main

problems wlth her theory is that she does not separa te

personailty from self-concept or fram motlvatlon, and she

Ignores other factors such as the teacher, methodology, and

course content. Frelre (1970), on the other hand, Ignores

learner-related factors such as personailty and motIvatIon,

and emphasi,es the role of the teacher, the methodology, and

the course content. Rosenthal (1989), recognizes the

Influence of personallty ln partIclpat~on, but agrees wlth

Freire that the role of the teacher ~s to c~eate an

1 f1f

r

90

a tmosphere where 1 earners w~ Il be encouraged to take con tro 1

not on 1 y of the~r own 1 earning, but al so of thei r 11 'les,

becoming act1ve participants in a world which they have

1earned to exam~ne critically.

Questions Raised Qy the Study

Th1S dise ~sion wou1d be 1ncomp1ete without sorne

recogni tion of the questions raised by the study. Does

traditional methodology, far exampIe, play a negat1ve role

in part~c~patory learnlong, or does Houle have a val~d p01nt

in suggesting that the teacher's competence lS a deC1dl.ng

factor ~n the successful use of any methodology?

Another questl.on which must be raised loS student

preference for any g1ven method. In V1ew of the fact that

these students perceived the teacher as being the expert who

knew what they needed to learn, might they not have been

uncomfortab1e w1th a learner-centered methodology, such as

proposed by Freire?

The beneflts of lnvolving students in decislon-maklng

proc~sses cannot be questioned, but if this group of

students had been responslbie for dec1sions about content

and methodology, for example, would they have been able to

come to a consensus on what they wanted ~nd needed?

î ,

l

91

1 These and other questions remain to be answered in

future studles.

Implications

Slnce the purpose of adult baslc Engllsh programs is to

prepare adults to functl.on in the Engll.sh language and

participate ln its culture, l.t stands to reason that the

partl.Cl.patlon begln l.n the classroom. Thl.S case study

descrlbes a potentlally ldeal learnl.ng situation. High

attendance and low drop-out rates l.ndicate high student

motivatl.on. Government subsidies ensure a wealth of

avai lable materials. In the absence of standardization and

testl.ng, course content lS determined largely by the

indivldual teacher, a prlv1lege and responsl.billty that

ml.ght weIl be shared with the students. Yet, in spite of

thl.s opportunlty for a stl.mulating l~~guage-learning

experlence, tailored to meet individual student needs and

aspirat10ns, the students in this case study have very

l1ttle 1nput into learnlng content and processes. 1 bel ieve

that the case is not a-typical, and that from it emerge

issues wh1ch must be dealt with if students are to be active

partlclpants 1n the learn1ng process.

Teac her Traln 1n9

If, as has been suggestec1, the teacher plays such an

92

1 1.mportant raIe in encouraging or dl.scourag1.ng student

particl.pation, then the teacher must not only be aware of

the theoret1.ca 1 framework of partic1.pa tl.on, bu t a 1 sa have

the knowledge and experlence l.n order ta put the theory into

prac tlce. This is the responslbi I i ty of teacher trainlng

programs, whl.c h must prov ide not on 1 y the theoretlca I

framework, but aiso a role model for teachers to copy. For

teac hers to be aware of the possi bi Il. ties for partic i patl.on,

as weIl as the benefits that these possibilities lmply, they

must first experl.ence thl.s kind of partl.cl.pation 1.n thel.r

own learnl.ng process.

Adu 1 t Educatl.on Adm1.n istrators

If partlcipatlon l.n learning is so important, t.hen i t

1.S tl.me ta re-think strategies, and take strenuous measures

to ensure that it takes place in the classroom. This means

that administrators will have te become aware of beth

teacher and student needs. ThlS may weIl lmply changl.ng

both policies and practices of selectlng and hl.ring teachers

who are tral.ned and have experl.ence l.n involving students in

the learning process. It also impll.es provlding l.n-serVl.ce

trainl.ng for teachers who are net familiar with

participatory learnl.ng. This ml.ght further lnvolve the

coordination of a team-teaching system, WhlCh would allow

teachers to see particl.patory methodology put l.nto practice

, .: by thelr- colleagues.

93

1 I..bg. Ro l e Qi the Teacher

According to Freire (1983), the teacher's role must

change from the tradltlonal role of transferring knowledge,

to that of learner, coordinator and anlmator, lf

partlcipatlon and self-directed learnlng is to take place.

In many cases this lnvol ves al tering perceptlons, not only

of ourselves as teachers and our roles ln the classroom, but

al so 0 four studen ts and thel r capabi Il tles. 1 f the teacher

.!.s to encourage the klnd of partlclpatlon WhlCh implles both

retlectlon and action, he or she must flrst perceive the

learners as belng capable of such partlclpatlon.

Suggestlons for Further Research

1 n arder to verl fy the f indlngs of this study and

develop further lnsl.ghts into the factors influenclng adult

partI.c ipation ln learning, 1 would suggest that a slmi lar

group of students be followed thr:Jugh their entire program

of study. ThlS would allow for the documentatJ.on of

partl.c i patlon processes and partlclpant perceptions over a

two-year per lod ln WhlC h the s tuden ts wou 1 d be in terac tlng

wlth a variety of teachers, teachlng methods, and

currlcu lums. Whi le hlgh drop-out rates in these programs

would reduce the number of partlclpants in the l ater stages

of such a proJect, the study would greatly contribute to our

understandl.ng of adul t partJ.ci pation ln learnlng.

•

94

More research is needed on the effects of methadology

on part1clpatory learnlng. In order to undertake such a

:-tudy, a pre11mlnary survey of teacher attltudes and

descr1ptlons of tne1r teachlng methods mlght be carrled out

in arder to do an in-depth comparatlve study of at least two

classrooms in WhlCh contrastlng methodologles are used wlth

simllar clientele.

More research is also needed on how andragogy trainlng

translates into classraom practlces. Are teachers, tralned

ln andragogy, better able to involve thelr students ln self­

directed learnlng? A survey of adult pducatlon teachers

might reveal their contrastlng perceptlons of partlclpatory

learning practlces, but only a descrlptlve study involvlng

extensive observation would make an lmportant contrlbutlon

ta the Ilterature on adult participation in learning.

95

Bibliography

Arnove, Robert F. (1981). The Nicaraguan national 11teracy crusade of 1980. Comparative Education Review, 25 (2), 244-260.

Aronowitz, S. (1981). Toward redefining 11teracy. Social POI1C~, 12, 53-55.

Auerbach, E. R. & Wallerstein, N. (1987). ESL for action. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Publishing Company.

Bhala, Harbans Singh. (1972). Functional literacv: One approach to sacial change. Bloom1ngton, Indiana: School of Educat10n, Indiana Univers1ty.

Bogdan, Robert C. & Blklen, Sari Knopp. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Bolster, Arthur S. (1983). research on teaching. (3), 294-308.

Toward a more effective model of Harvard Educational Review, S3

Brice, Shirley Heath. (1982). Ethnography i~ education: Defining the essentials. In P. Gilmore & A. Glatthorn (Eds.), Children in and out ~ school: Ethnography and education (pp. 33-55). Wash1ngton, D. C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Brookef1eld, S. D. (1986). Understandina ~ facilitatina adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.

Brundage, D. H. & Mackeracher, D. (1980). Adult learning principles and their application to program planning. Ontario: Ministry of Educat10n.

Bruner, J. S. & OIson, D. R. (1973). Learning through e~perience and learning through media. Prospects: Quarterly Rev1ew of Education L ~, 20-38.

r !<

1 Cardinal, Fernando & Miller, Valerie. (1981). Nlcaragua,

1980: The battle of the ABCs. Harvard Educatlonal Review, 51 (1), 1-26.

Cassidy, F., & Farris, R. (Eds.), (1987). Chooslng our fu ture: Adu 1 t educa tlon and pub Ilc poll.cy ill Canada. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studl.es ln Education.

Conti, G. J. (1982). Directions for the 80's: Goals ~nd strategles for adult basic education. Adult Llteracy and Baslc Educatlon, (Spring), 10-16.

Conti, G. J. (1985). The relatlonship between teaching style and adult student learning. Adult Educatl.on Quarterly, 35, 220-228.

96

Curr.~n, Charles A. (1976). Counselllng-learnln,g 1n second languages. Apple River, IL: Apple R1ver Press.

Darkenwald, Gordon G. & Merriam, Sharan 8. (1982). Adult education: Foundations of practice. New York: Harper & Row.

Draper, James A. (1986). Rethinking adult llteracy. Toronto: World Literacy of Canada.

Fingeret, A. (1984). Adult literacy educat10n: Current and future directions. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearlnghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education.

Freire, Paulo. (1970). Pedagogyof the Oppressed. New York: The Seabury Press.

Freire, Paulo. (1973). 8anking educatlon. In H. Giroux & D. Purpel (Eds.), The hidden curr1culum and moral education: Deception QC discovery (pp. 285-290). Berkeley: McCutchan Publishlng Corp.

Freire, Paulo. (1985). The politics QL education: Culture. oower, and liberatl.on. Massachusetts: 8~rgin & Garvey.

97

Goetz, Judith P. & Lecompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnograchy and gualitatlve design in educational research. Orlando, Fla.: Academic Press.

Golany, Esther. (1988). An ethnographic study of the teachinc of Hebrew to adult immigrants in ~ Israeli Ulpan. Unpubllshed doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State Unlverslty, Phlladelphia.

Goodman, K. (1986). What's whole in whole language. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.

Herman, R. A., & Draper, J. A. (1982). To; ... ards a model of adult bas~~ education for school boards. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Hesser, Florence E. (1978). Village literac~ programing in Paklstan: a comparative ~ studv with guide-lin,s. Vdncouver: The University of British Columbial International Council for Adult EducAtion.

Houle, C. O. (1961). ~ inguiring~. Madison, Wisconsln: The University of Wisconsin Press.

Houle, C. O. (1972). ~ design of education. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.

Hymes, Dell H. (1980). Language!n education: Ethnographie essays. WAShington, D.C.: Center for applied linguistics.

Illich, 1. (1971). Deschooling society. New York: H~rper & Row.

International Council for Adult Education, (1979). The world of literacy: Policy. research. and action. OttAwa: International Development Research Center, pp. 12-13.

Jarvis, P. (1987). Adult learning in th, locial context. New York: Croom Helm.

r

1 98

Jurmo, Paul J. (1987). Learner particiDêt~on practices ~ adult Ilteracy efforts in the Unlted States. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massac huset ts.

Kazemek, Francis E. (1988). Necessary changes: Professlon~l involvement in adult llteracy programs. Harvard Educat~onal Revlew, 58 (4), 464-487.

Knowles, M. S. (1970). ïhe modern practice of adu1t educatlon: Andragogy versus ~dagogy. New York: Associatlon Press.

Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed le.rn~ng: a. gUld, for learners and teachers. Chlcago: Follett Publishing Company.

Knowles, M. S. (1978). The adult learner: a. neglected species. Houston: Gulf Publishlng Company.

Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy in Actlon. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.

Kozol, Jonathan. (1978). A new look at the llteracy campaign ~n Cuba. Harvard Educational Review, 48, 341-377.

Kozol, J. (1985). Ill~terate Amer~ca. Garden Clot y, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.

LIndeman, E.C. (1961). Th~ meanlng of adult educatlon. Montreal: Harvest House. (OrigInal work publlshed 1926) •

Longfield, D. M. (1984). Teachlng EngllSh!!.2.!!. roecond language LESL) to adults: State-of-the-art. Washington, D. C.: ERIC Document Reproduction SerVIce.

Lowe, J. (1982). The education of adults: a. world perspective. Toronto: The Ontario Institute 10r Studies in Education.

t 99

Malya, S. (1979). Literacy: A work-oriented adult literacy pllot proJect and a natlonal campalgn. In H. Hinzen & V. H. Hundsdorfer (Eds.), The Tanzanian experience: Education for Ilberatlon and development (pp. 141-152). London: Evans Brothers.

Martln, O'Arcy P. (1975). Reappralslng Frel.re:. The potential liml.ts of conscl.entl.zation. Unpubll.shed master's thesl.s, Unl.Verslty of Toronto, Ontario.

Mezl.row, J. (1985). Concept and action in adult educatl.on. Adult Educatl.on QuarterlYL 35, 14~-151.

Morl.arty, P., & Wallersteln, N. (1979). Student/teacher/ learner: A Frel.re approach to ABE/ESL. Adult Llteracy and Basl.c Educatlon, ~, 193-200.

Nyerere, J. K. (1969). Educatlon for self-rell.ance. Convergence III (1), 3-7.

Nyerere, J. K. (1976). Declaratlon of Dar es Salaam: Ll.berated man and the purpose of development. Convergence, ~ (4), 9-17.

Oddl, Lorys F. (1987). Perspectives of self-directed learnlng. Adult Educatlon Quarterly, 38 (1), 21-31.

Québec: Commission d'étude sur la formation des adultes (1982). Apprendre: Une action volontalre et responsable. Québec: Minlstère des Communlcations. Annexe 1 - L'educatlon des adultes au Québec depuis

1850: points de repère. Annexe 2 - Sondage sur les adultes Québécois et leurs

actl.vltés éducatlves. Annexe 3 - Sondage sur les pratlques de formation en

entreprise. Annexe 4 - Recherches connexes de la Commission. Annexe 5 - Blbll.ographie annotée sur la formation des

adultes.

Rosenthal, Nadlne (1989). Active Learning/Empowerment. Adult Learning, l (6), 16-18.

100

Sch~effelin, Bamb~ B. & Gilmore, Perry (Eds.). (1986). The acgu~s~tion of l~teracy: Ethnographlc perspectlves. Norwood, N.J.: Able~ Publlshlng Corp.

Shannon, Patr~ck (1989). The struggle for control of l~teracy lessons. Language Arts, 66 (6), 625-634.

Skagen, A. (Ed.). ,1986). Workplace l~teracy. New York: AMA Publicat~ons Divls~on.

Sm~th, Davld M. (1986). The anthropology of llteracy acqul.s~tion. In B. B. Schleffelin & P. Gl.lmore (Eds.), The acguislt~on of Ilteracy: Ethnographlc perspectlves. Norwood, N.J.: Able~ Publishlng Corp.

Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnograohlc l.ntervlew. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Wlnston.

Thomas, A. M. (1984). ABE artlculatl.on: Dratt whlte paper. Vlctorla, B.C: Mlnlstry of EducatIon.

Warren, C. (1989). critical link. 211-223.

Andragogy and N. F. 5. Grundtvl.g: A Adult Educatlon Quarterly. 39 (4),

---------------------------------

Appendu< A

STUDENT INTERVIEW #1

NAME: ____________________ _ NATIONALITY: DATE: ____________________ _ MOTHER TONGUE:

LANGUAGE LEARNING EXPERIENCE

1. What other languages have you learned, and when?

2. How was learnlng Engllsh?

dlfferent fram learn1ng

3. Have you studled Engl1sh before?

4. How was that exper1ence different fram thlS one?

MOTIVATION

5. Why do you want ta learn Engl1sh?

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

6. What was the last level of school yau completed?

7. What do vau do for a liv1ng in Canada?

8. What d1d you do for a llv1ng ln your country?

CLASSROOM ACTIVITIES

9. What lS your favorlte actlvlty, and why?

10. What actlvity do you dlsllke the most, and why?

101

r f 1

11. Are you learn~ng what you expected to learn in th~s class? If not, what d~d you expect?

12. What act~v1ty should be added to the program?

For the following actlvltles, 1nd1cate 11ke, dlsllke, or lnd1fference:

102

LIKE ? DISLIKE

1. Talklng about the news - talk1ng - llstenlng

2. Watch1ng the news 3. Glvlng a presentat10n 4. Llsten1ng ta a presentatlon 5. Do~ng a raIe play 6. Learn1ng new vocabulary

- teacher explalns meanlngs - somebody translates mean1ng

- Into French - lnto mother tangue

- 10ok1ng word up ln dlctlonary 7. Worklng with the 11St of verbs 8. Learn1ng grammar rules 9. Construct1ng dlalogues/pa1r work 10. D~ctatlon 11. Wrlt1ng on the blackboard 12. Playlng games

Wh1Ch one do you prefer? Why? _________________________________________________________ __

13. Work1ng ~n books Wh1ch one do you prefer? Why?

14. D01ng crossward puzzles 15. Work1ng w1th newspapers 16. Songs

- 11sten1ng - fllllng 1n blanks - slnglng

17. Learning ABC's - pract1sing curSlve wrlt1ng

( 1 ong-hand)

1 Appendix B

STUOENT INTERVIEW ~2

1. Learning Engl~sh as a Second Language Which sk~ll ~s most important ta Vou, and why?

oral commun~cat~on l~sten~ng comprehension reading comprehens~on writ~ng

2. How do vou go about learn~ng that sk~ll?

3. Do adults learn differently than children? How?

4. How do Vou part~c~pate in your learning? depend on teacher translate ~nto mother tangue or memor~ze words/d~alogues

use d~ct~onary Wh~ch one? ask somebody for help pract~se dur~ng the break or outside of school read newspaper or English books watch T.V. listen to the rad~o

5. Do Vou have any impact on: the curr~culum the teacher the structure of the program the structure of the class the methodology your learn1ng?

6. How does the educat~on system in your country compare w1th Quebec's? Other parts of Canada? Prlmary (6 years) Prlmary grades 1 - 6 (6 years)

103

Secondary (5 years) Junior Hlgh grades 7 - 9 (3 years) CEGEP (2 years) H~gh School grades 10 - 12 (3 yrs) un~vers1ty (3 years) University (4 years)

16 years 16 year~

r ,

1

.. _-_. --------------------------------...

Appendlx C

INTERVIEW WITH TEACHER ~1

TEACHING BACKGROUND:

1. How long have you been teaching Engllsh as a second language?

2. Have you always taught adults? If not, what was your prevlous teachlng experlence?

3. Where and when dld you take your TESL tralnlng?

4. How would you compare this partlcular ESL class wlth other classes you have taught prevlously?

LANGUAGE LEARNING BACKGROUND

104

5. At what age dld you learn English, and ln what kind of setting dld Vou learn lt?

6. Have Vou ever studied any other language?

MOTIVATION AND OBJECTIVES

7. What, ln your oplnion, are your students' reasons for wanting to learn Engllsh?

8. What are your obJectlves for these students? (What, ln your opinion, makes them ready for the next level?)

1 105

BACKGROUND OF STUDENTS

9. What a~e the students' educat10nal backgrounds, and do you thlnk thei~ educational backg~ound influences eithe~ the deg~ee of pa~tlcipation, o~ the ways in which they partlclpate ln thel~ own lea~ning?

10. Do you th1nk that students' cultu~es play a ~ole in the level of pa~tlclpation o~ the way ln WhlCh students' partlclpa~e in the1~ own lea~n1ng? Please explain.

FACTORS INFLUENCING STUDENT PARTICIPATION?

11. Please rate the following facto~s thought to influence student pa~t1cipation as hav1ng a h1gh, low, o~ O-level of 1mpo~tance:

- student's personality - student's educat10nal background - student's cultu~al backg~ound

- student's gende~ - student's age - student's motivation - student's past expe~ience - cou~se cu~riculum

- structu~e of the prog~am - methodology used by the teacher - teacher

Comments:

CLASSROOM ACTIVITIES

12. What lS you~ favou~ite class~oom activity, and why?

13. What do you think lS the students' favou~ite class~oom ac t1vi ty?

14. Wh1Ch book do you prefe~ to use, and why?

15. Wh1Ch book, in you~ opinion, is p~efe~~ed by the students?

t

l

Appendix D

INTERVIEW WITH TEACHER #2

1. B.A. in Pedagogy, (B~eve A), MaJo~ ~n Engl~sh

Was th~s TESL o~ English lite~atu~e?

106

Have you taken any cou~ses in TESL? --------------------------Whe~e? and When? ________________________________________________ _

2. Could you expand on the dlffe~ences between thls teachlng expe~~ence and that of teachlng F~ench to a~my personnel?

3. You lea~ned Engllsh th~ough speaking lt, yet it seems you spend a fair amount of time teaching g~ammar? Is there a pa~tlcula~ ~eason fo~ thlS?

4. You mentioned some speciflc cha~acteristlcs of O~lentals' style of learning, o~ the way they tend to pa~ticlpate ln lea~ning. Can you make any gene~alizations about other cultu~es? Quebequoi? Lebanese? I~anians? Latlns?

5. How much impact do you as a teache~ have on: What you teach (cu~~iculum)?

How you teach (Methodology)?

When & Whe~e you teach (St~uctu~e)?

The extent to which and the ways in which students participate ln thei~ lea~ning?