Metodología de identificación de sub-tours

Findings are given in relation to the three initial questions which the study addressed.

First, what was shared? Although the content of the lessons varied, the shared materials were, superficially, remarkably alike: short to medium length blocks of text, small pictures or diagrams. In many cases, the physical appearance or layout of this material was an important part of its meaning (as with poems, advertisements, newspaper pages).

What did the participants do with the shared material? The specific activities varied but it was found

that they could be allocated to relatively few categories. These were labelled as:

1. Order: included listing items, adding itans to a list, re-ordering, charting, completing time lines

2. Match: involved matching items fi’om two or more lists, matching words to pictures

3. Label: pictures or diagrams with arrows pointing to specific areas; sometimes there was a list from

which to select labels.

4. Caption: Similar to label but where there was not necessarily a right answer. Included headlining.

5. Fill in gaps in text: usually single words but one instance of supplying missing parts of a narrative.

Sometimes given a selection fi-om which to choose.

6. Complete tables: great variation in size and purpose.

7. Mark: this included underlining or marking areas of text. This was sometimes set by the teacher, as a

task in itself (examples might include, "m derline all the references to mountains") but was also done incidentally to other tasks.

A few activities are not included in the above categories. These were entirely oral, most frequently where students were asked to speculate or predict based on material they had encountered prior to the lesson, to relate reading to other fects or experiences, ot to “discuss”.

The tasks were intended to help students: 1 understand a sequence,

2 understand choices writers made; 3 understand cause and effect; 4 identify main points;

5 see the purpose of an argument;

6 appreciate aspects such as tone and atmosphere; 7 see the significance of individual elements;

8 identify patterns and understand their possible significance.

How would the sharing of material be organised? The material was always on paper, more ofren a

single worksheet, sometimes a page of a book, sometimes both. Sometimes, physical manipulation was needed to perform the task, as when pieces of paper had to be assembled in order, in order to construct a poem or other text.

The CILT Information Sheet, (http://www.cilt.org.uk/infos/76tol00/info76.htm ) refers to the reading support software developed by the ILEA Computing Centre. See also Bentley, (1990).

It was shared in two main ways. Either each group member had a copy or there was a single copy to be shared by the whole group. A few groups of three simply sat in a line but students would usually sit in some approximation of a circle (that is, feeing one another). This meant that where a single copy of the material was shared it was impossible for them to share the same view of it. When a single complete text had been cut into pieces it was, similarly, difiScult for all group members to see all the pieces. Where there was a single copy, there was also occasionally a tussle for ownership. It is tentatively suggested that having a copy of the material increased the sense of involvement in the task. Roles (such as chair, secretary) were usually allocated formally only if the teacher had specifically asked for this.

The activity was not observed closely enough to analyse how ideas were shared, beyond the observation that much of the sharing appeared to take place through talk.

The teacher visited the groups in turn, as well as spending some time looking at the class as a whole.

5.3 Document Study and Interview - Spanish Class

5.3.1 Summary of work done

A second study considered activities and teaching materials used over a ten week period, two hours per week, in an intermediate level Spanish class^. Copies of all paper documents given out to students were collected. A note was made on each, if this was not stated on the paper itself, saying what students were asked to do with it. The list of activities is in Appendix 5.2.

As in the school groups, students alternated between working as a whole class, and being subdivided into smaller units. The most common pattern in these language classes was for students to work in pairs, with only occasional use of larger groups. Tasks were shorter in duration than in the school English classes. In between these pair activities, the whole class (usually 6-10 students) would assemble for a session directed by the teacher.

The learners were adults in a university language centre. They were not taking the course for credit. Group size was different fi-om that used with the school students. Because of these differences, and the subject difference, it was not expected that the activities here would be very similar to those of the school students.

After the course had ended, the teacher was interviewed. The interview had to be recorded in note form, on paper because the teacher did not feel comfortable about being recorded on audio tape. The notes are also appended (Appendix 5.3).

5.3.2 Analysis

The set of categories derived fi-om observing the school students was used as the basis for analysis. Each item of lesson material was examined and assigned, if it fitted, to one of the categories. If it did not fit, it was set aside under "Other activities" (see Table 5.1).

Notes on the interview with the teacher were used to illuminate findings from studying the lesson material. They were regarded as illuminating what this particular teacher did, not as representing any generalisable truth about language teaching.