Resultados tratamiento informativo

5.1.1 The classes and the teachers

The present study is based on the observations of intact classes. Although student composition within each class fluctuated during the observation time, the teachers remained a constant variable (see also section 4.4 on student placement). For each class, one teacher was observed throughout the observation period. In adult education, it is common that classes are taught by more than one teacher and each teacher is responsible for one or more lessons per week. The teacher observed taught per week an equal number of lessons as her colleague or the majority of the lessons. The teachers of the selected classes are presented in section 4.4, and their profile is given in Table 4:15. In short, next to the consent of the institution, three points were essential: (1) the teacher’s willingness to participate and to be observed during the teaching of the oral skills, (2) the classroom organization of the oral skills conforms to the criteria, and (3) the teacher’s quality: an excellent reputation in her institution and at least three years of experience teaching adult literacy classes. Each class was observed once a month, covering a period of 30 weeks. Classes 3, 4, 5, and 6 were observed eight times, and Class 2, nine times. The teacher for Class 1 transferred to another teaching position near the close of the observation period. Consequently, her class was observed only six times. Table 5:1 gives an overview of these observation hours.

Table 5:1 Number of lessons and hours observed and transcribed for each class. Class Lesson duration in hours Lessons observed and recorded Lessons transcribed Total hours observed Total hours transcribed 1 1.50 6 3 9.00 4.50 2 1.50 9 3 13.50 4.50 3 1.25 8 3 10.00 3.75 4 1.50 8 3 12.00 4.50 5 2.50 8 3 20.00 7.50 6 2.75 8 3 22.00 8.25 Totals 47 18 86.50 33.00

5.1.2 Observation Scheme A

The aim of Observation Scheme A is to draw a general picture of classroom practices for each class making it possible to compare the classes in terms of hours and percentages spent on selected instructional and organizational categories. The domains on which Scheme A focused were: content focus, participant interaction, participant organization, and materials. A description of these domains, its categories, and coding procedures using Scheme A are given in section 5.4. As Table 5:1 shows, for the data collection three entire lessons from each class were selected from the body of observed and audio recorded lessons. In the selection of these three lessons, two features were of central importance: (1) the lessons would show, over time, didactical variation on the part of the teacher and language development on the part of the student; and (2) the lessons would give a characteristic picture of each class. For the first point, three lessons were chosen covering the 30-week time span of the observation period. This meant that for each class one lesson was chosen at the beginning of the observation period, one in the middle, and one at the end. At the same time the second point had to be taken into account – are the lessons representative of that class? Having observed a substantial number of lessons for each class, it could be determined if the lessons were exemplary of that class in terms of organization, content, and pedagogy. For example, at one time Class 3 was joined by another class whose teacher was absent. The teacher of Class 3 had to adapt her lesson to accommodate the situation. This obstruction to the daily program resulted in an atypical lesson. Although this lesson was observed and audio recorded, it was not selected to be transcribed, and consequently, not analyzed. Finally, these eighteen lessons (three for each of the six classes) were transcribed and coded using Scheme A. The data surfacing from the analysis was then extrapolated to the 30-week observation period. The results are presented in chapter 7.

5.1.3 Observation Schemes B and C

The practice of the oral skills was more closely scrutinised through the use of Scheme B (classroom instructional interaction) and Scheme C (classroom corrective feedback) focusing on the four areas of instruction coded in Scheme A under the domain of content focus: vocabulary, grammar, restricted discourse (RD), and unrestricted discourse (URD). These fragments represented form-focused and meaning-focused instruction. The form-focused lesson fragments were those during the practice of vocabulary and grammar. The meaning-focused lesson fragments were those during RD and URD. LSK (Life Skills Knowledge) was not analyzed for interaction

using Scheme B or C as the teacher was the primary speaker. A description of the domains/categories and coding procedures using Scheme B are given in section 5.5 and using Scheme C in section 5.6.

Table 5:2 gives an overview of the lessons (date and time span) used for Scheme B and Scheme C. In order to be able to demonstrate variation in the teachers’ pedagogy, two lessons of each type of practice were analyzed – one at the beginning of the observation period and one at the end, and if possible, with an interval of at least five months between the two lessons. For the selection of lesson fragments covering these four areas of instruction, the beginning and end lessons transcribed for Scheme A were first screened for suitable fragments. If no such fragments were present, then the other observed lessons were screened. These are printed in bold in Table 5:2. In addition, in order to be able to evidence the teacher’s style of instruction, an attempt was made to cover a continuous time span of at least ten minutes for each fragment. As this was not always possible for all the practice sessions, those which took ample amount of time (such as during vocabulary practice) were transcribed for a longer span of time.

Table 5:2 Dates and time spans of lesson fragments analysed for

Observation Schemes B and C (date: month-day-year; time span in whole minutes; bold=lessons not taken from Scheme A; RD=restricted discourse; URD=unrestricted discourse. Dates in bold indicate additional selected lesson fragments).

Practice sessions

Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Class 6 Totals (mean) Vocabulary 1 Date 04-25-07 11-13-06 04-19-07 11-22-06 11-16-06 03-22-07 Time span 17 20 17 14 9 10 87 (14.5) Vocabulary 2 Date 10-29-07 04-23-07 11-06-07 05-09-07 02-06-07 10-01-07 Time span 13 11 19 10 20 10 83 (13.8) Grammar 1 Date 03-26-07 12-18-06 04-19-07 01-17-07 11-16-06 03-22-07 Time span 10 8 4 11 9 10 52 (8.7) Grammar 2 Date 04-25-07 05-23-07 10-02-07 02-14-07 04-03-07 10-01-07 Time span 10 10 10 5 8 10 53 (8.8) RD 1 Date 02-19-07 11-13-06 10-16-07 12-13-06 11-16-06 05-21-07 Time span 10 7 7 4 9 11 48 (8.0) RD 2 Date 10-08-07 05-23-07 11-06-07 05-30-07 05-22-07 10-15-07 Time span 10 10 4 12 3 6 45 (7.5) URD 1 Date 02-19-07 11-13-06 05-31-07 11-22-06 11-16-06 05-21-07 Time span 6 8 10 8 3 11 46 (7.7) URD 2 Date 10-29-07 05-23-07 11-06-07 05-30-07 05-22-07 10-15-07 Time span 8 10 2 9 10 9 48 (8.0) Totals (mean) 84 (10.5) 84 (10.5) 73 (9.1) 73 (9.1) 71 (8.9) 77 (9.6) 462 (9.6)

In total 48 lesson fragments were analyzed for Schemes B and C – two lessons for each of the four areas of instruction. As Table 5:2 indicates, only four practice sessions were not separated by a time span of more than five months. These were: Class 1 and 4 for grammar, Class 3 for RD, and Class 5 for vocabulary. Table 5:2 also indicates that lesson fragments for vocabulary practice were either plentiful and/or practiced for longer continuous periods of time, whereas those for RD and URD were much less frequently found and/or occurred for shorter periods of connected time. The latter particularly applied to URD. The occurrence was substantial, but a continuous span of time was not always easy to find. At times, particularly during URD episodes for Class 5, the interactions were chaotic, making it difficult, and at times, almost impossible to transcribe.