Let's Talk About It: Using Conversation to Facilitate Language Development Kevin J. Miller, John L. Luckner American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 137, Number 4, October 1992, pp. 345-350 (Article) Published by Gallaudet University Press DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2012.0411
For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/385147/summary
Access provided at 8 Dec 2019 08:00 GMT from Uppsala universitet
Let's Talk About It Using Conversation to Facilitate Language Development Kevin J. Miller and John L. Luckner For centuries, educators have searched for the best way to teach language to deaf students.
Throughout this time period, no one specific approach has emerged. In this article, we examine and justify the use of conversational approaches to teach language to deaf students. Classrooms for deaf students are often not conducive to conversation. We suggest that to
promote conversation in classrooms, teachers must reexamine how they teach as well as how they structure their classrooms and curriculums. The article closes with descriptions of activities that teachers can use to encourage conversation in their classrooms.
Yet, one has to ask: Is this what we wantf It has been found that in the typical general education classroom, the teacher
In the 1980s, a plethora of national reports were published that focused on reforming the American education system, with A Nation At Risk perhaps the bestknown example (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). All the reports essentially came to the same conclusion: America's schools were failing (Boyer, 1983; Lukas, 1985; Sapon-Shevin, 1987; Shanker, 1988). To counteract the perceived failure of American schools, many changes were suggested (McCune, 1986; Paguch & Sapon-Shevin, 1987; Patterson, Purkey, & Parker, 1986). Curiously, one practice that was not criticized was that of teaching styles. Instead, the reports seemed to indicate that
accounts for approximately 75% of the communication (Edwards & Westgate, 1987; Goodlad, 1984; Sizer, 1985). That is, the teacher, on average, talks three times as much as the students. This indicates that the opportunity for students
to ask questions and engage in dialogue with the teacher and other students is severely limited. A high percentage of talk on the part of teachers is not necessarily bad or wrong. After all, teachers are responsible for covering a certain amount of curriculum in a limited amount of time. That is why they
often feel compelled to cover material quickly, which frequently means relying on lecture formats, since they are
schools would improve if teachers would simply lecture more and give more tests. In other words, the reports appeared to encourage teachers to perfect what they were already doing most of the time, anyway—lecturing (Futrell, 1989; Paguch & Sapon-Shevin, 1987; Sizer, 1985). Goodlad (1984) noted this when he commented, "If teachers in the talking mode and students in the listening mode is what we want, rest assured that we have it" (p. 229).
the most efficient way to convey a large amount of academic
Miller is an assistant professor in tioe Department of Speech
Hirsch, 1987; Johnson & Johnson, 1987; Peters & Waterman, 1982; Sizer, 1985). Education reformers contend that one
content in a short amount of time (Cazden, 1988; Nelson,
1991; Ripich & Spinelli, 1985). Nevertheless, many educators believe that moving away from the lecture-discussion format toward more of a hands-
on format would better prepare students for the world of work, where conversation and collaboration among peers is
considered paramount in achieving quality (Goodlad, 1984; Pathology, Audiology, and Education of the Hearing Impaired at Trenton State College in New Jersey. Luckner ή an associate professor in the Division of Special Education at the University of
way to promote more hands-on experiences is to allow students to interact with other students and teachers far more
frequently than they do today.
Northern Colorado.
Vol. 137, No. 4
AAD
345
Let's Talk About It
At first glance, it appears that classrooms for deaf students would not adhere to lecture-discussion formats. After all, the usually around eight to one, which allows for abundant interaction between teachers and students. Yet, classrooms for deaf students are strikingly similar to general education classrooms. Research (Craig & Collins, 1970; Griffith, Johnson, & Dastoli, 1985; Wolff, 1977; Wood, Wood, Griffiths,
To encourage a more broad-based focus on pragmatics, educators need to shift the emphasis from teaching language to facilitating language. This involves providing opportunities for language to be produced and, in essence, providing conversational support, or scaffolding, to enable students to participate actively. In doing so, teachers accept students' behavior as meaningful communication, interpret it in a manner that is contextually appropriate, and become col-
Howarth, & Howarth, 1982) indicates that teachers of the
laborators with students in communicating their messages
deaf rely just as heavily as do general education teachers on lecture-discussion formats and are just as controlling of
more effectively. Bruner (1978) likens this to constructing a building where initially the scaffold is built to support the wall, but as the wall becomes more structurally complete and supports itself, the scaffold is disassembled. A guiding principle for these interactions is that students should be recognized and credited for their thoughts, rather than
student-teacher ratios in classrooms for deaf students are
classroom communication.
Fostering the development of age-appropriate language skills has long been regarded as the central mission in the education of deaf students (Kretschmer & Kretschmer, 1989). Whereas hearing children generally are capable of engaging
criticized for their errors in form.
Hearing children learn a great deal about language through conversational interactions with others; this is true even for infants who are months away from uttering their first meaningful word (Brinton & Fujiki, 1989; Northern & Downs, 1984; Owens, 1992). Likewise, it appears that deaf children may also be able to learn a great deal about language through conversational interaction with others (Kretschmer & Kretschmer, 1989; McAnally, Rose, & Quigley,
in conversation in and out of school, deaf children, for the most
part, do not have the skills to do so. Denying or reducing their opportunities by relying on lecture-discussion formats only makes matters worse (Griffith, Johnson, & Dastoli, 1985; Kretschmer & Kretschmer, 1989; Stone, 1988). This point was supported by McAnally, Rose, and Quigley (1987). Language is learned through communication for the
purpose of communication. When very young children are taught language through structured lessons, the basic purpose for learning language—that is, to
1987; Stone, 1988). However, teaching language conversa-
tionally requires a radical departure from traditional techniques, a change that cannot be achieved without considerable effort and support over an extended period of time. The remainder of this article describes sample activi-
communicate with others—often is obscured in the
imitating and patterning activities. For deaf children to understand that language is a way of influencing their environment and the people in their environment, they must be exposed extensively to language as it is used in communication, (p. 108)
ties that teachers of deaf students can use in educational
settings. Activities That Promote Conversation
Current thinking takes in account that language development centers on the social context in which learning occurs (Luetke-Stahlman & Luckner, 1991). When children study the formal aspects of language, they should study the syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic components simultaneously. Children do not learn language by studying it sentence-by-sentence, but rather, by understanding and using syntactic and semantic elements acquired within extended conversational exchanges. In other words, they learn language because they engage in conversations with other children and adults in a multitude of settings for a variety of purposes (King & Goodman, 1990). Despite this shift in perspective, teachers of deaf students continue to focus on language form and meaning while virtually ignoring the functional aspects of communication (Kretschmer & Kretschmer, 1989). Instead of focusing on the discrete skills of phonology, syntax, and semantics, educators would benefit by broadening their focus to include the role communication plays in the learning of language, that is, pragmatics (Blennerhassett, 1984; Griffith, Johnson, & Dastoli, 1985; Kenworthy, 1986; Kretschmer & Kretschmer, 1988; McAnally, Rose, & Quigley, 1987). 346
A variety of activities can be used to promote conversations in the classroom. Educators who want to use conver-
sational approaches as part of their language programs can make use of such activities in conjunction with developmental scales to assist in establishing appropriate goals. In addition, the taxonomy of developmental conversational skills adapted from Stone (1988) can be used in planning activities; this taxonomy is provided in the table. Semantic and syntax taxonomies (i.e., Luetke-Stahlman & Luckner, 1991) can be used to help establish language experiences that are comprehensible and developmentally appropriate. Following are a few activities to consider. Chats
Clark (1984) and Kretschmer and Kretschmer (1986) sug-
gested that deaf students take part in several chats each day. Chats encourage the use of authentic language in discussing topics such as real events, personal interests, television shows, movies, and books. The rationale for this approach is the belief that for language to be reinforcing, students should have the right to talk about things in which they are interested. The goal AAD
Vol. 137, No. 4
Let's Talk About It
is not to teach language, but rather, to provide active experiences with the use of language so that language may emerge (Piaget, 1952; Vygotsky, 1962). As was mentioned earlier, teachers using conversational approaches attempt to provide scaffolds for the students. Chats provide a unique avenue through which to scaffold. Scaffolding strategies that can be used during chats include prompts, questions, restatements, and other procedures that support what students are trying to communicate (Norris & Hoffman, 1990). Teachers collaborate with students by informing them about additional information that is needed, modeling language that can be used to express this information, and providing assistance in formulating the expanded communication. These strategies help students develop messages with greater complexity, specificity of meaning, accuracy, and clarity of expression. The process of participating in more complex communications enables students to attach meaning and function to the language, so that gradually more of the responsibility for the communication
Conversational Skills Taxonomy
Spontaneously initiates conversations with others and responds to the initiations of others. Takes turns within conversation.
Spontaneously introduces topics by commenting. Spontaneously introduces topics by requesting. Maintains topics by acknowledging. Maintains topics by answering. Maintains topics by commenting. Maintains topics by requesting. Cues desire to end a conversation.
Responds to cues to end conversation. Initiates conversations using various expressions.
Takes multiple turns around topics introduced by self and others.
Requests clarification at appropriate times during conversation.
Produces narratives within conversation which include the
shifts to the student.
primary characters and a series of authors. Produces explanations within conversations which are
Problem-solving Activities Several writers (Luckner, 1990; Stone & Fortier, 1984) have suggested that language instruction can be incorporated into lessons that stress problem-solving. Problem-solving involves carefully guided discussion, interaction among students, and examination of strategies employed. Problems should be discussed, a plan devised, and a solution worked out; and most important, time should be provided to reflect on the plan of attack and the solution. Problem-solving activities provide an avenue for linking the
made up of a series of actions. Terminates conversations using various expressions. Initiates conversations using idiomatic expressions.
cognitive, linguistic, and communicative domains. The activi-
episodes and a resolution. Initiates and ends conversations using routines appropriate
Initiates conversations with new persons using appropriate routines.
Carries on extended conversations of multiple turns with
teacher and/or peers utilizing all of the conversational intents.
Produces narratives which include all elements of the
setting, a problem or goal statement, one of more
ties require students to use language to convey their thoughts, ideas, and messages to each other. When using problemsolving, the students take part in the actual activities while the teacher models the appropriate language skills through the use of scaffolding and stimulates the students to use them. Stimuli for problem-solving are always at hand. The
to the age and status of the intended partner. Introduces topics that are of high interest to the conversational partner.
are role-playing situations that contain appropriate dialogue. They are planned by the teacher and presented to the student in a way that encourages realistic conversation
interests of the students and the opportunities that present themselves in the classroom, at home, and at school provide the best stimuli for choosing appropriate problem-solving
between the teacher and student. The most critical element
of successful role-playing is to create scenarios based on
activities. Luckner (1990) suggested the following stimuli. • Plan a trip. Where would you go? How much would it costf • What is the average height of people in our classroom? • What is the best way to fold a newspaper for throwing? • How fast does your hair grow?
situations and characters that are familiar to the students.
According to Stone (1988) the following are essential elements of conversational scenarios.
• The situation and topics are familiar to the student. • The teacher makes sure that the student understands the
• How fast is your pulse? When does it speed up or slow
situation before beginning. • As the dialogue proceeds, the need for the targeted
down?
• What is the most frequently used letter in the alphabet' • What is the most popular television show at your school?
conversational skill arises.
• The teacher does not tell the student what to say, rather
the situation and conversation bring about the need to use the targeted skill.
Scenarios
Stone (1988) suggested that teachers use scenarios to develop the conversational skills of deaf students. Scenarios Vol. 137, No. 4
• The situation and conversation are carried to a logical conclusion.
AAD
347
Let's Talk About It
Following are examples of scenarios that could be used
a vehicle through which students can be exposed to various aspects of conversation. Specifically, it allows contestants to ask a variety of questions while being exposed to a variety of responses.
with secondary level deaf students.
• You want to go to a Bears football game. You go to a Ticketron outlet to buy the tickets. One person is the customer and the other is the Ticketron salesperson. Information such as date and time of game, who they are playing, cost of tickets, number of tickets, and method of paying need to be addressed. • Today you got back your graded test paper. After talking to your classmates, you feel that one of your answers was not graded fairly. Later in the day, you go to your teacher's room to discuss your test. • Your best friend has continually borrowed money from you for several days and hasn't paid you back. Today you don't have the money you need to buy lunch. You ask your best friend for some money and are refused.
Movie Reviews
Movies are a pervasive part of everyday life, and this is also true for deaf students. Adapting a "Siskel & Ebert" type of format as movie reviewers is another effective yet fun way for deaf students to practice their conversational skills. Students review movies they have recendy seen. They summarize the highlights of the movie while engaging in a debate with the other movie reviewer. Then they give the movie the proverbial "thumbs up" or "thumbs down." Again, this type of activity gives students practice with initiating and maintaining a topic. Moreover, the students are given
opportunities to engage in turn-taking with the other movie reviewer. Finally, they are given an opportunity to engage in conversation while possibly disagreeing with each other.
Interviewing Interviewing a fellow classmate, a teacher, or someone
outside of school provides an opportunity to practice
Cooperative Learning Cooperative learning is an instructional alternative that allows opportunities for small-group interaction (Augustine, Gruber, & Hanson, 1990; Cohen, 1990; Ellis, 1990; Johnson & Johnson, 1985; Luckner & McDonald, 1991). Students in cooperative learning groups share responsibility for com-
conversational skills. To conduct interviews, students must be able to initiate and maintain a topic. Furthermore, the interview format gives students a chance to practice turntaking while maintaining a topic and provides practice in closing a conversation. Initially, interviews may need to be structured, whereby students are provided a general list of questions such as the following. • • • •
pleting academic assignments. Because of the shared responsibility, they must collaborate. Through the collabora-
How many people are in your family? What do you like to do for fun? What is the best present you ever received? Where would you like to go on a vacation?
tive process, they are exposed to and engage in conversations. For deaf students in mainstreamed or self-contained
As students become more comfortable conducting interviews, they can develop their own questions.
settings, cooperative learning groups offer an avenue through which conversational skills are practiced during interaction with other deaf students, hearing students, and teachers (Johnson & Johnson, 1985; Miller, 1992).
Television Game Shows
areas. Mathematics is one that lends itself well to this activity.
Cooperative learning can be applied to many subject For example, each cooperative learning group could be
Although some may question the intellectual value of television game shows (with the possible exception of "Jeopardy"), it cannot be denied that many people find them entertaining. Game shows can provide a unique way for deaf students to practice their conversational skills. Students can role-play being the host or the contestants on a popular television game show. For example, secondary students may enjoy adapting the "Dating Game" to their classroom. In this particular show, a male or female contestant asks a series of questions to three single members of the opposite sex. Based on the answers to the questions, the contestant picks the one with whom he or she would like to go on a date. Although couples on the television game show win trips to exotic places, students in classrooms could win, say, a trip to a Baskin-Robbins ice
assigned the task of coming up with a problem that demonstrates a particular concept. Each group then presents
its problem, and the other groups try and solve it. Social studies is another subject area that lends itself to cooperative learning. For instance, in a class studying the cultures of Africa, each group could be assigned a different aspect of African culture to study, such as art, language, or storytelling. The activity could culminate with each group presenting information on their assigned cultural aspect and then as a class discussing how the aspects fit together as a whole. Summary
Remediation of language problems has long been considered one of the primary objectives of educators of deaf students. As the 21st century approaches, we continue to search for ways to help deaf students develop age-appropriate linguistic competence. Clearly, to date no singular
cream store.
High school students, in particular, are interested in dating and this type of activity is a fun way for students to explore the topic. More important, the game show format is 348
AAD
Vol. 137, No. 4
Let's Talk About It
Hirsch, E. (1987). Cultural literacy. New York: Random House.
approach or technique has surfaced as the answer to this puzzling question. Yet, contemporary thinking seems to be moving in the direction of engaging language learners in conversation. Language is not learned first and then used contextually, but rather learned through its contextual use. Motivation to learn and use language is gained through participating in real conversations rather than in simulated practice activities that attempt to isolate and teach discrete language skills outside the context of meaning and functional use (Norris & Hoffman, 1990). We realize that it is one thing to talk about using a conversational approach and quite another to actually implement one in a classroom (Cazdin, 1988). It is not easy to restructure curriculums and classrooms to encourage conversation. However, for teachers interested in using this approach, one source of conversational stimuli is easy to access—the interests, passions, and experiences of the students that each of us encounter every day in our classrooms.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1985). Mainstreaming hearing-impaired students: The effect of effort in communicating on cooperation and interpersonal attraction. The Journal of Psychology, 119(l),31-44.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1987). Learning together and alone (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Kenworthy, O. (1986). Caregiver-child interaction and language acquisition of hearing-impaired children. Topics in Language Disorders, 6(3), 1-11.
King, D., & Goodman, K. (1990). Whole language·. Cherishing learners and their language. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the SchooL·, 21 (4), 221-227.
Kretschmer, R., & Kretschmer, L. (1986). Language in perspective.
In D. Luterman (Ed.), Deafness in perspective (pp. 131-166). San Diego: College-Hill Press. Kretschmer, R., & Kretschmer, L. (1988). Communication competence and assessment. Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology Monographs, 21, 5-18. Kretschmer, R., & Kretschmer, L. (1989). Communication compe-
tence: Impact of the pragmatics revolution on education of hearing-impaired individuals. Topics in Language Disorders, 9
References
(4), 1-16. Luckner, J. (1990). Using problem-solving activities to facilitate the
Augustine, D., Gruber, K., & Hanson, L. (1990). Cooperation works! Educational Leadership, 47(4), 4-7. BIennerhassett, L. (1984). Communicative styles of a 13-month-old hearing-impaired child and her parents. Volta Review, 86 (4),
language development of hearing-impaired students. The ACEHI/ La Revue ACEDA, 16(2/3), 101-109.
Luckner, J., & McDonald, J. (1991). Teaming up to learn. Perspectives in Education and Deafness, 10(1), 2-6. Luetke-Stahlman, B., & Luckner, J. (1991). Effectively educating students with hearing impairments. New York: Longman Publishing Group.
217-228.
Boyer, E. (1983). High school: A report of secondary education in America.. New York: Harper and Row. Brinton, B., & Fujiki, M. (1989). Conversational management with
language-impaired children. Rockville, MD: Aspen Publishers,
Lukas, J. (1985). Common ground. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. McAnally, P., Rose, S., & Quigley, S. (1987). Language learning practices with deaf children. San Diego: College-Hill Press.
Inc.
Bruner, J. (1978). Learning how to do things with words. InJ. Bruner & R. Carton, (Eds.), Human growth and development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom dxcourse. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books, Inc.
McCune, S. (1986). Guide to strategic planning for educators. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Miller, K. (1992). The effect of cooperative learning on the conversa-
Clark, M. (1984). An auditory/oral program for hearing-impaired
tional interactions ofmainstreamedhard-of-hearing students in middle school social studies classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO.
children. Mini-seminar presented at the International Convention of the Alexander Graham Bell Association of the Deaf, Portland, OR.
National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation
Cohen, E. (1990). Continuing to cooperate: Prerequisites for
at risk The imperative for educational reform. Nelson, N. (1991). Teacher talk and child listening: Fostering a better match. In C. Simon (Ed.), Communication skilL· and classroom
perspective. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(2), 134-138. Craig, W., & Collins, J. (1970). Analysis of communicative interac-
tion in classes for deaf children. American AnnaL· of the Deaf,
success (pp. 78-105). Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications. Northern, J., & Downs, M. (1984). Hearing in children Grd ed.).
115 (2), 79-85.
Edwards, A., & Westgate, D. (1987). Investigating classroom talk.
Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
London: The Falmer Press.
Owens, R., Jr. (1992). Language development: An introductionOrd
Ellis, S. (1990). Introducing cooperative learning. Educational
ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.
Leadership, 47(4), 34-37.
Paguch, M., & Sapon-Shevin, M. (1987). New agendas for special
Futrell, M. (1989, September). Mission not accomplished: Education reform in retrospect. Phi Delta Kappan, pp. 9-14.
education policy: What the national reports haven't said. Exceptional Children, 53 (4), 295-299.
Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Patterson, J., Purkey, S., & Parker, J. (1986). Productive school systems for a nonrational world. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Griffith, P., Johnson, H., & Dastoli, S. (1985). If teaching is conversation, can conversation be taught? Discourse abilities in
Peters, T, & Waterman, R., Jr. (1982). In search of excellence. New
hearing impaired children. In D. Ripich & F. Spinelli (Eds.), School discourse problems (pp. 149-177). San Diego: College-
York: Warner Books, Inc.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York:
Hill Press.
Vol. 137, No. 4
Norton.
AAD
349
Let's Talk About It
Ripich, D., & Spinelli, R. (1985)· An ethnographic approach to assessment and intervention. In D. Ripich & F. Spinelli (Eds.), School discourse problems (pp. 199-227). San Diego: College-
Stone, P., & Fortier, G. (1984). Developing conversational competence: A planning/instruction model. Mini-seminar presented at the International Convention of the Alexander Graham Bell
Association of the Deaf, Portland, OR.
Hill Press.
Sapon-Shevin, M. (1987). The national education reports and special education: Implications for students. Exceptional Children, 53(4), 300-306. Shanker, A. (1988). Restructuring schooL· for results: A miniconference (pp. 50-79). Published by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Sizer, T. (1985). Horace's compromise. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wolff, S. (1977). Cognition and communication patterns in classrooms for deaf students. American AnnaL· of the Deaf, 122(3), 319-327.
Wood, D., Wood, H., Griffiths, A., Howarth, S., & Howarth, C. (1982). The structure of conversations with 6- to 10-year old deaf children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 23 (3), 295-308.
Stone, P. (1988). Blueprint for developing conversational competence: A planning/instruction model with detailed scenarios. Washington, DC: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf.
350
AAD
Vol. 137, No. 4
For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/385147/summary
Access provided at 8 Dec 2019 08:00 GMT from Uppsala universitet
Let's Talk About It Using Conversation to Facilitate Language Development Kevin J. Miller and John L. Luckner For centuries, educators have searched for the best way to teach language to deaf students.
Throughout this time period, no one specific approach has emerged. In this article, we examine and justify the use of conversational approaches to teach language to deaf students. Classrooms for deaf students are often not conducive to conversation. We suggest that to
promote conversation in classrooms, teachers must reexamine how they teach as well as how they structure their classrooms and curriculums. The article closes with descriptions of activities that teachers can use to encourage conversation in their classrooms.
Yet, one has to ask: Is this what we wantf It has been found that in the typical general education classroom, the teacher
In the 1980s, a plethora of national reports were published that focused on reforming the American education system, with A Nation At Risk perhaps the bestknown example (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). All the reports essentially came to the same conclusion: America's schools were failing (Boyer, 1983; Lukas, 1985; Sapon-Shevin, 1987; Shanker, 1988). To counteract the perceived failure of American schools, many changes were suggested (McCune, 1986; Paguch & Sapon-Shevin, 1987; Patterson, Purkey, & Parker, 1986). Curiously, one practice that was not criticized was that of teaching styles. Instead, the reports seemed to indicate that
accounts for approximately 75% of the communication (Edwards & Westgate, 1987; Goodlad, 1984; Sizer, 1985). That is, the teacher, on average, talks three times as much as the students. This indicates that the opportunity for students
to ask questions and engage in dialogue with the teacher and other students is severely limited. A high percentage of talk on the part of teachers is not necessarily bad or wrong. After all, teachers are responsible for covering a certain amount of curriculum in a limited amount of time. That is why they
often feel compelled to cover material quickly, which frequently means relying on lecture formats, since they are
schools would improve if teachers would simply lecture more and give more tests. In other words, the reports appeared to encourage teachers to perfect what they were already doing most of the time, anyway—lecturing (Futrell, 1989; Paguch & Sapon-Shevin, 1987; Sizer, 1985). Goodlad (1984) noted this when he commented, "If teachers in the talking mode and students in the listening mode is what we want, rest assured that we have it" (p. 229).
the most efficient way to convey a large amount of academic
Miller is an assistant professor in tioe Department of Speech
Hirsch, 1987; Johnson & Johnson, 1987; Peters & Waterman, 1982; Sizer, 1985). Education reformers contend that one
content in a short amount of time (Cazden, 1988; Nelson,
1991; Ripich & Spinelli, 1985). Nevertheless, many educators believe that moving away from the lecture-discussion format toward more of a hands-
on format would better prepare students for the world of work, where conversation and collaboration among peers is
considered paramount in achieving quality (Goodlad, 1984; Pathology, Audiology, and Education of the Hearing Impaired at Trenton State College in New Jersey. Luckner ή an associate professor in the Division of Special Education at the University of
way to promote more hands-on experiences is to allow students to interact with other students and teachers far more
frequently than they do today.
Northern Colorado.
Vol. 137, No. 4
AAD
345
Let's Talk About It
At first glance, it appears that classrooms for deaf students would not adhere to lecture-discussion formats. After all, the usually around eight to one, which allows for abundant interaction between teachers and students. Yet, classrooms for deaf students are strikingly similar to general education classrooms. Research (Craig & Collins, 1970; Griffith, Johnson, & Dastoli, 1985; Wolff, 1977; Wood, Wood, Griffiths,
To encourage a more broad-based focus on pragmatics, educators need to shift the emphasis from teaching language to facilitating language. This involves providing opportunities for language to be produced and, in essence, providing conversational support, or scaffolding, to enable students to participate actively. In doing so, teachers accept students' behavior as meaningful communication, interpret it in a manner that is contextually appropriate, and become col-
Howarth, & Howarth, 1982) indicates that teachers of the
laborators with students in communicating their messages
deaf rely just as heavily as do general education teachers on lecture-discussion formats and are just as controlling of
more effectively. Bruner (1978) likens this to constructing a building where initially the scaffold is built to support the wall, but as the wall becomes more structurally complete and supports itself, the scaffold is disassembled. A guiding principle for these interactions is that students should be recognized and credited for their thoughts, rather than
student-teacher ratios in classrooms for deaf students are
classroom communication.
Fostering the development of age-appropriate language skills has long been regarded as the central mission in the education of deaf students (Kretschmer & Kretschmer, 1989). Whereas hearing children generally are capable of engaging
criticized for their errors in form.
Hearing children learn a great deal about language through conversational interactions with others; this is true even for infants who are months away from uttering their first meaningful word (Brinton & Fujiki, 1989; Northern & Downs, 1984; Owens, 1992). Likewise, it appears that deaf children may also be able to learn a great deal about language through conversational interaction with others (Kretschmer & Kretschmer, 1989; McAnally, Rose, & Quigley,
in conversation in and out of school, deaf children, for the most
part, do not have the skills to do so. Denying or reducing their opportunities by relying on lecture-discussion formats only makes matters worse (Griffith, Johnson, & Dastoli, 1985; Kretschmer & Kretschmer, 1989; Stone, 1988). This point was supported by McAnally, Rose, and Quigley (1987). Language is learned through communication for the
purpose of communication. When very young children are taught language through structured lessons, the basic purpose for learning language—that is, to
1987; Stone, 1988). However, teaching language conversa-
tionally requires a radical departure from traditional techniques, a change that cannot be achieved without considerable effort and support over an extended period of time. The remainder of this article describes sample activi-
communicate with others—often is obscured in the
imitating and patterning activities. For deaf children to understand that language is a way of influencing their environment and the people in their environment, they must be exposed extensively to language as it is used in communication, (p. 108)
ties that teachers of deaf students can use in educational
settings. Activities That Promote Conversation
Current thinking takes in account that language development centers on the social context in which learning occurs (Luetke-Stahlman & Luckner, 1991). When children study the formal aspects of language, they should study the syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic components simultaneously. Children do not learn language by studying it sentence-by-sentence, but rather, by understanding and using syntactic and semantic elements acquired within extended conversational exchanges. In other words, they learn language because they engage in conversations with other children and adults in a multitude of settings for a variety of purposes (King & Goodman, 1990). Despite this shift in perspective, teachers of deaf students continue to focus on language form and meaning while virtually ignoring the functional aspects of communication (Kretschmer & Kretschmer, 1989). Instead of focusing on the discrete skills of phonology, syntax, and semantics, educators would benefit by broadening their focus to include the role communication plays in the learning of language, that is, pragmatics (Blennerhassett, 1984; Griffith, Johnson, & Dastoli, 1985; Kenworthy, 1986; Kretschmer & Kretschmer, 1988; McAnally, Rose, & Quigley, 1987). 346
A variety of activities can be used to promote conversations in the classroom. Educators who want to use conver-
sational approaches as part of their language programs can make use of such activities in conjunction with developmental scales to assist in establishing appropriate goals. In addition, the taxonomy of developmental conversational skills adapted from Stone (1988) can be used in planning activities; this taxonomy is provided in the table. Semantic and syntax taxonomies (i.e., Luetke-Stahlman & Luckner, 1991) can be used to help establish language experiences that are comprehensible and developmentally appropriate. Following are a few activities to consider. Chats
Clark (1984) and Kretschmer and Kretschmer (1986) sug-
gested that deaf students take part in several chats each day. Chats encourage the use of authentic language in discussing topics such as real events, personal interests, television shows, movies, and books. The rationale for this approach is the belief that for language to be reinforcing, students should have the right to talk about things in which they are interested. The goal AAD
Vol. 137, No. 4
Let's Talk About It
is not to teach language, but rather, to provide active experiences with the use of language so that language may emerge (Piaget, 1952; Vygotsky, 1962). As was mentioned earlier, teachers using conversational approaches attempt to provide scaffolds for the students. Chats provide a unique avenue through which to scaffold. Scaffolding strategies that can be used during chats include prompts, questions, restatements, and other procedures that support what students are trying to communicate (Norris & Hoffman, 1990). Teachers collaborate with students by informing them about additional information that is needed, modeling language that can be used to express this information, and providing assistance in formulating the expanded communication. These strategies help students develop messages with greater complexity, specificity of meaning, accuracy, and clarity of expression. The process of participating in more complex communications enables students to attach meaning and function to the language, so that gradually more of the responsibility for the communication
Conversational Skills Taxonomy
Spontaneously initiates conversations with others and responds to the initiations of others. Takes turns within conversation.
Spontaneously introduces topics by commenting. Spontaneously introduces topics by requesting. Maintains topics by acknowledging. Maintains topics by answering. Maintains topics by commenting. Maintains topics by requesting. Cues desire to end a conversation.
Responds to cues to end conversation. Initiates conversations using various expressions.
Takes multiple turns around topics introduced by self and others.
Requests clarification at appropriate times during conversation.
Produces narratives within conversation which include the
shifts to the student.
primary characters and a series of authors. Produces explanations within conversations which are
Problem-solving Activities Several writers (Luckner, 1990; Stone & Fortier, 1984) have suggested that language instruction can be incorporated into lessons that stress problem-solving. Problem-solving involves carefully guided discussion, interaction among students, and examination of strategies employed. Problems should be discussed, a plan devised, and a solution worked out; and most important, time should be provided to reflect on the plan of attack and the solution. Problem-solving activities provide an avenue for linking the
made up of a series of actions. Terminates conversations using various expressions. Initiates conversations using idiomatic expressions.
cognitive, linguistic, and communicative domains. The activi-
episodes and a resolution. Initiates and ends conversations using routines appropriate
Initiates conversations with new persons using appropriate routines.
Carries on extended conversations of multiple turns with
teacher and/or peers utilizing all of the conversational intents.
Produces narratives which include all elements of the
setting, a problem or goal statement, one of more
ties require students to use language to convey their thoughts, ideas, and messages to each other. When using problemsolving, the students take part in the actual activities while the teacher models the appropriate language skills through the use of scaffolding and stimulates the students to use them. Stimuli for problem-solving are always at hand. The
to the age and status of the intended partner. Introduces topics that are of high interest to the conversational partner.
are role-playing situations that contain appropriate dialogue. They are planned by the teacher and presented to the student in a way that encourages realistic conversation
interests of the students and the opportunities that present themselves in the classroom, at home, and at school provide the best stimuli for choosing appropriate problem-solving
between the teacher and student. The most critical element
of successful role-playing is to create scenarios based on
activities. Luckner (1990) suggested the following stimuli. • Plan a trip. Where would you go? How much would it costf • What is the average height of people in our classroom? • What is the best way to fold a newspaper for throwing? • How fast does your hair grow?
situations and characters that are familiar to the students.
According to Stone (1988) the following are essential elements of conversational scenarios.
• The situation and topics are familiar to the student. • The teacher makes sure that the student understands the
• How fast is your pulse? When does it speed up or slow
situation before beginning. • As the dialogue proceeds, the need for the targeted
down?
• What is the most frequently used letter in the alphabet' • What is the most popular television show at your school?
conversational skill arises.
• The teacher does not tell the student what to say, rather
the situation and conversation bring about the need to use the targeted skill.
Scenarios
Stone (1988) suggested that teachers use scenarios to develop the conversational skills of deaf students. Scenarios Vol. 137, No. 4
• The situation and conversation are carried to a logical conclusion.
AAD
347
Let's Talk About It
Following are examples of scenarios that could be used
a vehicle through which students can be exposed to various aspects of conversation. Specifically, it allows contestants to ask a variety of questions while being exposed to a variety of responses.
with secondary level deaf students.
• You want to go to a Bears football game. You go to a Ticketron outlet to buy the tickets. One person is the customer and the other is the Ticketron salesperson. Information such as date and time of game, who they are playing, cost of tickets, number of tickets, and method of paying need to be addressed. • Today you got back your graded test paper. After talking to your classmates, you feel that one of your answers was not graded fairly. Later in the day, you go to your teacher's room to discuss your test. • Your best friend has continually borrowed money from you for several days and hasn't paid you back. Today you don't have the money you need to buy lunch. You ask your best friend for some money and are refused.
Movie Reviews
Movies are a pervasive part of everyday life, and this is also true for deaf students. Adapting a "Siskel & Ebert" type of format as movie reviewers is another effective yet fun way for deaf students to practice their conversational skills. Students review movies they have recendy seen. They summarize the highlights of the movie while engaging in a debate with the other movie reviewer. Then they give the movie the proverbial "thumbs up" or "thumbs down." Again, this type of activity gives students practice with initiating and maintaining a topic. Moreover, the students are given
opportunities to engage in turn-taking with the other movie reviewer. Finally, they are given an opportunity to engage in conversation while possibly disagreeing with each other.
Interviewing Interviewing a fellow classmate, a teacher, or someone
outside of school provides an opportunity to practice
Cooperative Learning Cooperative learning is an instructional alternative that allows opportunities for small-group interaction (Augustine, Gruber, & Hanson, 1990; Cohen, 1990; Ellis, 1990; Johnson & Johnson, 1985; Luckner & McDonald, 1991). Students in cooperative learning groups share responsibility for com-
conversational skills. To conduct interviews, students must be able to initiate and maintain a topic. Furthermore, the interview format gives students a chance to practice turntaking while maintaining a topic and provides practice in closing a conversation. Initially, interviews may need to be structured, whereby students are provided a general list of questions such as the following. • • • •
pleting academic assignments. Because of the shared responsibility, they must collaborate. Through the collabora-
How many people are in your family? What do you like to do for fun? What is the best present you ever received? Where would you like to go on a vacation?
tive process, they are exposed to and engage in conversations. For deaf students in mainstreamed or self-contained
As students become more comfortable conducting interviews, they can develop their own questions.
settings, cooperative learning groups offer an avenue through which conversational skills are practiced during interaction with other deaf students, hearing students, and teachers (Johnson & Johnson, 1985; Miller, 1992).
Television Game Shows
areas. Mathematics is one that lends itself well to this activity.
Cooperative learning can be applied to many subject For example, each cooperative learning group could be
Although some may question the intellectual value of television game shows (with the possible exception of "Jeopardy"), it cannot be denied that many people find them entertaining. Game shows can provide a unique way for deaf students to practice their conversational skills. Students can role-play being the host or the contestants on a popular television game show. For example, secondary students may enjoy adapting the "Dating Game" to their classroom. In this particular show, a male or female contestant asks a series of questions to three single members of the opposite sex. Based on the answers to the questions, the contestant picks the one with whom he or she would like to go on a date. Although couples on the television game show win trips to exotic places, students in classrooms could win, say, a trip to a Baskin-Robbins ice
assigned the task of coming up with a problem that demonstrates a particular concept. Each group then presents
its problem, and the other groups try and solve it. Social studies is another subject area that lends itself to cooperative learning. For instance, in a class studying the cultures of Africa, each group could be assigned a different aspect of African culture to study, such as art, language, or storytelling. The activity could culminate with each group presenting information on their assigned cultural aspect and then as a class discussing how the aspects fit together as a whole. Summary
Remediation of language problems has long been considered one of the primary objectives of educators of deaf students. As the 21st century approaches, we continue to search for ways to help deaf students develop age-appropriate linguistic competence. Clearly, to date no singular
cream store.
High school students, in particular, are interested in dating and this type of activity is a fun way for students to explore the topic. More important, the game show format is 348
AAD
Vol. 137, No. 4
Let's Talk About It
Hirsch, E. (1987). Cultural literacy. New York: Random House.
approach or technique has surfaced as the answer to this puzzling question. Yet, contemporary thinking seems to be moving in the direction of engaging language learners in conversation. Language is not learned first and then used contextually, but rather learned through its contextual use. Motivation to learn and use language is gained through participating in real conversations rather than in simulated practice activities that attempt to isolate and teach discrete language skills outside the context of meaning and functional use (Norris & Hoffman, 1990). We realize that it is one thing to talk about using a conversational approach and quite another to actually implement one in a classroom (Cazdin, 1988). It is not easy to restructure curriculums and classrooms to encourage conversation. However, for teachers interested in using this approach, one source of conversational stimuli is easy to access—the interests, passions, and experiences of the students that each of us encounter every day in our classrooms.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1985). Mainstreaming hearing-impaired students: The effect of effort in communicating on cooperation and interpersonal attraction. The Journal of Psychology, 119(l),31-44.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1987). Learning together and alone (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Kenworthy, O. (1986). Caregiver-child interaction and language acquisition of hearing-impaired children. Topics in Language Disorders, 6(3), 1-11.
King, D., & Goodman, K. (1990). Whole language·. Cherishing learners and their language. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the SchooL·, 21 (4), 221-227.
Kretschmer, R., & Kretschmer, L. (1986). Language in perspective.
In D. Luterman (Ed.), Deafness in perspective (pp. 131-166). San Diego: College-Hill Press. Kretschmer, R., & Kretschmer, L. (1988). Communication competence and assessment. Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology Monographs, 21, 5-18. Kretschmer, R., & Kretschmer, L. (1989). Communication compe-
tence: Impact of the pragmatics revolution on education of hearing-impaired individuals. Topics in Language Disorders, 9
References
(4), 1-16. Luckner, J. (1990). Using problem-solving activities to facilitate the
Augustine, D., Gruber, K., & Hanson, L. (1990). Cooperation works! Educational Leadership, 47(4), 4-7. BIennerhassett, L. (1984). Communicative styles of a 13-month-old hearing-impaired child and her parents. Volta Review, 86 (4),
language development of hearing-impaired students. The ACEHI/ La Revue ACEDA, 16(2/3), 101-109.
Luckner, J., & McDonald, J. (1991). Teaming up to learn. Perspectives in Education and Deafness, 10(1), 2-6. Luetke-Stahlman, B., & Luckner, J. (1991). Effectively educating students with hearing impairments. New York: Longman Publishing Group.
217-228.
Boyer, E. (1983). High school: A report of secondary education in America.. New York: Harper and Row. Brinton, B., & Fujiki, M. (1989). Conversational management with
language-impaired children. Rockville, MD: Aspen Publishers,
Lukas, J. (1985). Common ground. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. McAnally, P., Rose, S., & Quigley, S. (1987). Language learning practices with deaf children. San Diego: College-Hill Press.
Inc.
Bruner, J. (1978). Learning how to do things with words. InJ. Bruner & R. Carton, (Eds.), Human growth and development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom dxcourse. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books, Inc.
McCune, S. (1986). Guide to strategic planning for educators. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Miller, K. (1992). The effect of cooperative learning on the conversa-
Clark, M. (1984). An auditory/oral program for hearing-impaired
tional interactions ofmainstreamedhard-of-hearing students in middle school social studies classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO.
children. Mini-seminar presented at the International Convention of the Alexander Graham Bell Association of the Deaf, Portland, OR.
National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation
Cohen, E. (1990). Continuing to cooperate: Prerequisites for
at risk The imperative for educational reform. Nelson, N. (1991). Teacher talk and child listening: Fostering a better match. In C. Simon (Ed.), Communication skilL· and classroom
perspective. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(2), 134-138. Craig, W., & Collins, J. (1970). Analysis of communicative interac-
tion in classes for deaf children. American AnnaL· of the Deaf,
success (pp. 78-105). Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications. Northern, J., & Downs, M. (1984). Hearing in children Grd ed.).
115 (2), 79-85.
Edwards, A., & Westgate, D. (1987). Investigating classroom talk.
Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
London: The Falmer Press.
Owens, R., Jr. (1992). Language development: An introductionOrd
Ellis, S. (1990). Introducing cooperative learning. Educational
ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.
Leadership, 47(4), 34-37.
Paguch, M., & Sapon-Shevin, M. (1987). New agendas for special
Futrell, M. (1989, September). Mission not accomplished: Education reform in retrospect. Phi Delta Kappan, pp. 9-14.
education policy: What the national reports haven't said. Exceptional Children, 53 (4), 295-299.
Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Patterson, J., Purkey, S., & Parker, J. (1986). Productive school systems for a nonrational world. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Griffith, P., Johnson, H., & Dastoli, S. (1985). If teaching is conversation, can conversation be taught? Discourse abilities in
Peters, T, & Waterman, R., Jr. (1982). In search of excellence. New
hearing impaired children. In D. Ripich & F. Spinelli (Eds.), School discourse problems (pp. 149-177). San Diego: College-
York: Warner Books, Inc.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York:
Hill Press.
Vol. 137, No. 4
Norton.
AAD
349
Let's Talk About It
Ripich, D., & Spinelli, R. (1985)· An ethnographic approach to assessment and intervention. In D. Ripich & F. Spinelli (Eds.), School discourse problems (pp. 199-227). San Diego: College-
Stone, P., & Fortier, G. (1984). Developing conversational competence: A planning/instruction model. Mini-seminar presented at the International Convention of the Alexander Graham Bell
Association of the Deaf, Portland, OR.
Hill Press.
Sapon-Shevin, M. (1987). The national education reports and special education: Implications for students. Exceptional Children, 53(4), 300-306. Shanker, A. (1988). Restructuring schooL· for results: A miniconference (pp. 50-79). Published by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Sizer, T. (1985). Horace's compromise. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wolff, S. (1977). Cognition and communication patterns in classrooms for deaf students. American AnnaL· of the Deaf, 122(3), 319-327.
Wood, D., Wood, H., Griffiths, A., Howarth, S., & Howarth, C. (1982). The structure of conversations with 6- to 10-year old deaf children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 23 (3), 295-308.
Stone, P. (1988). Blueprint for developing conversational competence: A planning/instruction model with detailed scenarios. Washington, DC: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf.
350
AAD
Vol. 137, No. 4
