Chapter 9 Constructing knowledge schemas in the

1 2 3

5

10

Chapter 9 Constructing knowledge schemas in the workplace: A microanalysis Susan Bridges and Brendan Bartlett 1. Introduction

15

20

25

30

35

38 39 40

TESOL institutions in Hong Kong and around the world have competed in recent times to provide language training and education packages for secondary and primary teachers of English. Driven by the Hong Kong Language Proficiency Requirement (LPR) policy (Standing Committee on Language and Education Research 2003), Hong Kong’s language teachers have sought to upgrade and demonstrate their own language proficiency. Some research has been conducted on learner-related aspects of their effort and of the programs through which they undertook further study (Bridges 2007; Coniam and Falvey 2003). However, little has explored the enterprise from a provider’s perspective. In this chapter, the authors attempt to do so. We present a microanalysis of what one administrator has told us of her work. The analysis centres on the social-cognitive dimensions of the administrator’s conceptualisation of “success”. This is framed in a synthesis of two layers of analysis from previously distinct ontological and epistemological perspectives – interactionism and cognitive psychology. The first is from the field of social interaction (Baker 2004; Freebody 2003; Silverman 1998) and works from ethnomethodological perspectives founded by Harvey Sacks. It assumes that communication is an intersubjective, co-constructed accomplishment that can be examined in talk data. The second layer of analysis draws on a theory of mind (Bartlett 1978, 2003; Meyer, Young, and Bartlett, 1989, 1993) that accounts for the organisation, prioritisation and communication of schematic content in terms of levels of idea structure. Specifically, the theory of top-level structuring (TLS) reflects an associative view of how memories are constructed and retrieved and meaning generated at the mostintegrated or “top” level of the idea hierarchy underpinning a communication (Bartlett 2003). Thus, when looking at what the administrator said, we added

Verlag: Walter de Gruyter

P-Nr.: B12-722091

P-Anfang: 26.11.2008

ID: int03 – AGB 1 – 11.08

Printjob: Seiten: 230/258

Constructing knowledge schemas in the workplace 231 1 2 3

5

10

a technical analysis of how she said it. We did so by identifying links within and between clusters of related ideas in her account (through role and propositional analysis) and finding the integrating theme throughout what she said (through prioritization analysis). We have synthesised the interactional analysis of her co-construction of the interview text with a TLS analysis of the administrator’s data as a means to examine a social, cognitive and metacognitive perspective of “success” in a language enhancement program. This synthesis of interactional and cognitive psychological perspectives provides a means of examining both the context and the content of what is said. 2. Context

15

20

25

30

35

38 39 40

This research originated from a case study of stakeholders’ perceptions of learning and provision during a specific English language program (Bridges 2007). The pedagogical context of the program was clearly defined. English teachers from Hong Kong who had either Cantonese or Mandarin as their first language (L1) came to Australia for intensive language proficiency training and assessment. The Hong Kong government determined the program’s syllabus, including assessment instruments and criteria in the Syllabus Specifications for the Language Proficiency Assessment for Teachers (English Language) (LPATE) (Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) 2000). The Australian provider had created the program from the specifications and had developed appropriate teaching and assessment materials for its implementation in all syllabus components. Additionally, the provider was responsible for administering and marketing the program. Delivery was in immersion mode with the Hong Kong teachers travelling to Australia and residing with Australian ‘homestay’ families for the 6-week program. The ‘guiding issue/question’ for the case study (Stake 1995, 2000) was: How did the multiple stakeholders perceive learning and provision? Of specific interest is research undertaken with an administrator who also held a wider role in the general marketing of TESOL in-service and education training programs (INSET) (Bolam 1986). She was a senior course administrator and had been part of the administrative team for this LPATE immersion since its first delivery by this Australian university. A two-pronged approach was taken in the research design with application of a visual stimulus and a verbal reporting technique to gather stimulated response data. Working from the position that meaning is constructed in social contexts, these data gathering tools were used to foreground her viewpoint.


P-Nr.: B12-722091

P-Anfang: 26.11.2008

ID: int03 – AGB 1 – 11.08


232 Susan Bridges and Brendan Bartlett 1

3. Concept mapping

2 3

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

38 39 40

The visual stimulus was a concept map drawn by the senior course administrator (Participant M) relating to a role the participant had filled in the INSET. She was asked to draw a concept map of successful INSET provision that focussed on “what made for a successful immersion LPATE delivery”. This was used as the visual stimulus for the stimulated recall session conducted as an open-ended interview. In the session she explicated her concept map labels and design with the researcher. Her account was audio taped and transcribed.1 Use of concept maps as stimuli originated in cognitive process research (Novak and Musonda 1991), and the stimulated recall approach has been applied in education since the 1970s in order to understand teachers’ judgements in classrooms (Cooke 1999). Cooke saw recent changes in working conditions across many fields as a justification for “knowledge elicitation” methodology. She believed that such a methodology had a “stronger focus on the cognitive complexity of job performance” and that it measured “the connection between knowledge and performance” (Cooke 1999: 8). She defined elicitation of knowledge as a process which constructs “a model of the expert’s knowledge – the outcome of which may reflect reality in varying degrees” (Cooke 1999: 3). Gass and Mackey (2000) described this approach as an “introspective paradigm” of cognitive psychology. In this study, concept mapping and stimulated recall were applied as introspective tools to elicit knowledge. 4. Stimulated recall Stimulated recall is a verbal reporting technique which Gass and Mackey (2000: 11–12) saw as evolving from earlier “think aloud” protocols that had subjects vocalise their “silent thoughts” whilst completing a task. They justified stimulated recall as an “information processing approach whereby the use of and access to memory structures is enhanced, if not guaranteed, by a prompt that aids the recall of information” (Gass and Mackey 2000: 17). They justified its application by asserting it helps participants relive the situation under investigation. The aim of the two-pronged approach to knowledge elicitation was to explore this key stakeholder’s perception of a successful program delivery. An 1 All qualitative data quoted in this study are expressed in italics with interview transcription conventions based on the work of Gail Jefferson and turn numbering based on Baker (2004). The content is authentic reproduction with uncorrected instances of expression.


P-Nr.: B12-722091

P-Anfang: 26.11.2008

ID: int03 – AGB 1 – 11.08



5

10

15

interpretive analysis of the relationship between her curriculum knowledge and her administrative knowledge was made in investigating her account of factors contributing to successful INSET. Analysis is initially framed by the interactional features of the recall session in order to establish how the ‘social’ contributed to and impacted upon the knowledge elicitation process (Holstein and Gubrium, 2004). This is followed by top-level structural analysis to reveal how the program administrator clustered her knowledge into a coherent account (Bartlett, 1978, 2003; Meyer et al. 1989, 1993). This approach provided insights into the participant’s conceptualisation of the elements of INSET provision and also into the impact of the research tools upon the data-gathering process. One advantage in having the administrator’s concept map was that her thought processes in schematising, organising and depicting the INSET provision had already been depicted and checked with her as accurate and complete prior to the interview with the researcher. The narrative provided by the interview, therefore, was highly structured and coherent. 5. Language and interaction

20

25

30

35

38 39 40

Interviews have been questioned as an objective form of data gathering with qualitative researchers (Baker 2004; Freebody 2003; Holstein and Gubrium 2004; Potter and Hepburn 2005) arguing that one cannot view the interviewee’s account as an objective reality but rather as the intersubjective, co-construction of formulated accounts of an interaction. The research interview, therefore, is seen as an interactive accomplishment between the researcher and the research participant drawing upon cultural knowledges in a manner similar to naturallyoccurring talk. Interactional issues to be explored include in the following section include: 1. the intersubjective accomplishment of a recall interview as socially constructed talk-in-action; and 2. the sequential features of the spoken text. Potter and Hepburn (2005: 285) identified “contingent problems” in qualitative interviews in psychology such as: –– –– –– –– ––

“the deletion of the interviewer; the conventions of representation of interaction; the specificity of observations; the unavailability of the interview set-up; and the failure to consider interviews as interaction”.


P-Nr.: B12-722091

P-Anfang: 26.11.2008

ID: int03 – AGB 1 – 11.08


234 Susan Bridges and Brendan Bartlett 1 2 3

5

10

15

In what follows, we call upon analytic perspectives from ethnomethodology to address these contingent problems by a) describing those interacting, their roles and relationships; b) describing the interview set-up; and, c) examining the transcribed text of the interview as interaction. An interactionist perspective on stimulated recall data produced in an openended context may be of greater interest to social cognitivists than data framed by scripted questions. The former bring the interviewer to life in the data gathering process from the virtual reality of predetermining questions and direction to one of participating at point of demand in helping an interviewee – from such practical matters as rewinding a tape to more interpersonally cognitive ones such as sorting or clarifying a recall or what it means. 5.1. The intersubjective accomplishment of a recall interview as socially constructed talk-in-action Analysis of interactional dynamics of the interview with the administrator (Participant M) provides a view of the social context of the recall session.

20

25

5.1.1. The interactants The interviewer and Participant M were native speakers who interacted socially as well as professionally. They shared a background and interest in working in international education, in both onshore and offshore contexts. Data-gathering involved the use of social time and home spaces and reflected the high level of comfort in the interaction. Table 1. Interactional characteristics of interview Characteristics

Interviewer (I)

Interviewee (Participant M)

Role in the study

Researcher/teacher

Research participant/ administrator

Role in the INSET

Language instructor

Course administrator/ marketer

English proficiency

English L1

English L1

Professional background

Secondary teaching and tertiary TESOL teacher education

International education administration

39

Gender

Female

Female

40

Age

Early 40s

Mid 30s

30

35

38


P-Nr.: B12-722091

P-Anfang: 26.11.2008

ID: int03 – AGB 1 – 11.08



5

Participant M had a high level of industry experience with this and similar ESL/EFL immersion programs. As a senior administrative team member, she had worked on most INSET run by this provider, including the LPATE. As an administrator since its first delivery three years before, she had a thorough knowledge of LPATE policy and of this ELICOS provider. Her prior experience included course marketing and management in all phases from conceptualisation through implementation, evaluation and replanning, to final reimplementation. She had represented the institution’s LPATE involvement in:

10

1. 2. 3. 4.

15

Her experiential knowledge of the administrative processes involved in INSET and the LPATE program in particular provided a relevant background as an administrative stakeholder. Additionally, this extensive experience in delivery may have afforded her opportunity to understand other positions and stakeholders and their positions within the institution. This included notions of program design and learners’ needs. The interface between administrative knowledge and curriculum knowledge as displayed by the administrators/marketers of INSET delivery and perceptions of clients’ needs as learners were of particular relevance to the wider study of the INSET phenomenon in the internationalisation of higher education in Australia (Bridges 2007; Bridges and Bartlett 2007) The interviewer was a language instructor undertaking contract work on the same program. She taught two of the three classes offered in this Australian immersion program and had prior offshore LPATE teacher education experience. She was also a student undertaking doctoral studies at the time. The two shared social time with families as well as collegial time at work.

20

25

30

Liaising with officials from the Hong Kong government; Marketing and liaising with the Hong Kong agent; Managing client relations and administrative support staff; and Reporting to senior management staff.

5.1.2. The interview set-up 35

38 39 40

The concept map and interview process for Participant M involved three steps. First, the researcher explained and modelled the concept during a shared car journey. Two nights later, Participant M completed the concept map in a 30-minute session in her home. She then telephoned and was visited immediately at home for an audio taping of her account. This process reflected the realities of Participant M’s availability. She was in Australia only briefly between international marketing trips. Gass and Mackey (2000) noted Bloom’s (1954)


P-Nr.: B12-722091

P-Anfang: 26.11.2008

ID: int03 – AGB 1 – 11.08



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

38 39 40

argument that “recall accuracy” diminishes significantly in proportion to the length of time that passes between the event and the stimulated recall – “generally 48 hours”. This warning informed data gathering for this study in that Participant M was interviewed immediately after completing her concept map. The social context of the recall session allowed for use of personal time and home environments as well as immediate access. The respondent produced a coherent concept map (see Figure 1) which she explicated well in interview, showing through some minor adjustments as she spoke that she was attending to the task and rethinking the depiction represented in her map. The work of this first section has been to indicate some of the intersubjectivity that may be at play in the interaction by exploring the roles and relationships of the interactants. Secondly, it has provided a detailed account of the set-up of the interview indicating how the recall tools were employed. In what follows, we examine more closely the talk data itself to explore how the use of a recall item may have influenced the interactional accomplishment of the interview. In particular, we draw briefly upon the ethnomethodological traditions to examine the structure of the text in terms of the turn taking pattern employed by the interactants. 5.2. The sequential features of the spoken text The transcript examined here provides this administrator’s reflection on her conceptual framing of a successful INSET stimulated by her attention to a freshly completed concept map of that framing (see Appendix 1). The following analysis draws upon the tradition of ethnomethodology (EM), specifically Conversation Analysis (CA) (see Silverman 1998). The sequential organisation of turns is of special interactional interest in these talk data. ethnomethodology looks at turns at talk as sequential organisation within a three part structure: 1) relation of a turn to prior; 2) what is occupying the turn; and 3) relation of the turn to a succeeding one (Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson 1974). That is, the analysis explores how a turn is “heard” and “understood” by the hearer and then how this understanding is “heard” by the next interlocutor/s. In his interpretation of Sack’s work, Silverman (1998) reasoned that turns have three consequences: 1) needing to listen; 2) understanding, and 3) displaying understanding. Analysis of talk data that focuses on turns is therefore seated in the understanding that talk is social action and that analysis of their sequential organisation can provide the apparatus whereby the analyst may examine how the social is co-constructed (Freebody 2003). The interview text in this study holds specific points of interest in terms of the structure of interview talk-in-action, specifically in terms of the turn-tak-


P-Nr.: B12-722091

P-Anfang: 26.11.2008

ID: int03 – AGB 1 – 11.08



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

38 39 40

ing structure. The conversation analysis literature has established the pattern of initiation-response sequences with a) an interviewer prompt in the form of a question and statement followed by b) an interviewee response and conversation analysts have established the highly complex nature of the interactive work undertaken in this simple pattern in terms of the formulation of the turns and how they are heard by the interactants (Silverman 1993). While a full conversation analysis of the talk data is beyond the scope of this paper, examination of some of the fundamental aspects of talk provides key insights this particular text and its interactional accomplishment. In the text shown in Appendix 1, the overall pattern of interview talk is clear as initiation-response sequences. Indeed, the interaction is quite rapid and freeflowing as indicated by frequent overlapping and latched speech and with few pauses or reformulations. However, it has particular features of interest in the turn-taking organisation, particularly relating to the interviewer’s role in the interaction. The first is in the absence of a traditional question-answer pattern. The second is a predominance of response (or receipt) tokens (Gardner 1998; McCarthy 2003). 5.2.1. Turn-taking As an open-ended interview, the talk consists of 116 turns. There is a total absence of questions in the turn-taking exchanges. The interviewer begins with an open-ended prompt in Turn 1 tell me about you concept map and uses a second prompt at the end of the interview in Turn 102 mm You‘ve got this one=. There is little interviewer talk, one possible cause being that the nature and presence of the recall stimulus had already reconfigured the interactional dynamics of the interview in a way that was mutually acceptable and that needed no additional negotiation. The interviewee had already formed her cognitive schemata and the work of the talk was to explicate its visual representation in the form of a concept map. As such, the interviewee was able to substantively lead the interaction with only two prompts from the interviewer that asked for content or clarification – one to start (Turn 1), the other to explicate a label that had not been addressed (Turn 102). This second prompt was acknowledged immediately by the interviewee who addressed it in Turn 103 as indicated by the latching symbol (=) at the end of Turn 102. The latching reflects rapidity of response. The physical presence of the concept map stimulus may have contributed to this rapidity. Both interactants were seated in close proximity reading the map together and physically indicating labels and links. In Turn 102 when the interviewer indicated a label that had not been explicated, the interviewee responded immediately.


P-Nr.: B12-722091

P-Anfang: 26.11.2008

ID: int03 – AGB 1 – 11.08



5

10

These turns indicate the interviewer’s work at controlling the opening sequence and correcting a possible omission. In addition the interviewer takes on the work of closing the interaction from her first overlapping talk at Turn 112 miminal curriculum changes to her summary statement at Turn 114 mm Tha::t is a successful in-service delivery! to her closing thanks at Turn 116. Besides this work, the main interactive task for the interviewer is as an active listener and this is accomplished verbally through the use of response tokens (McCarthy 2003). The role of active listener affected the structure of the talk in terms of length of turn as the interviewee’s long turns and the interviewer’s short ones dominated the pattern of this text (see Appendix 1). 5.2.2. Response tokens

15

20

25

Gardner (1998: 220) identified the “core functional meaning” of tokens as “continuation of current speaker, of aligning/agreeing acknowledgement and of minimal acknowledgement”. Part of the work of these tokens is “back channelling” whereby the listener maintains active participation in the action of the talk. Besides the work of the few turns indicated above, in the remainder of her turns, the interviewer provides multiple response tokens such as mm, yeah, yep, ahah, OK, right, alright as well as laughter. These turns do interactive work in signalling active listening and participation as well as indicating agreement and encouraging further talk. As such, they reflect the first two of Gardner’s (1998) core functional meanings. Indeed, the high usage of response tokens indicates that the majority of the interviewer’s talk was used as encouragement. Additionally, there are instances of acknowledgement such as in the turns below: 32. 33.

M: A little bit circular I: no no that’s great

30

35

38 39 40

The work of this sequence is affirmation in response to the heard hesitation from the interviewee and as such it continues the work of active listening and encouraging. This brief discussion of the organisational structure of the interview has highlighted two specific interactive features. First, the interviewee’s explanatory talk dominates the interaction with the interviewer providing relatively few prompts and doing a large amount of agreeing and encouraging through the use of response tokens. Second, the turn taking is rapid and tightly structured. These features may be attributable to the recall task of concept map construction and to the map’s role in providing stimulus and structure for the interaction.


P-Nr.: B12-722091

P-Anfang: 26.11.2008

ID: int03 – AGB 1 – 11.08


Constructing knowledge schemas in the workplace 239 1

6. Language and cognition

2 3

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

38 39 40

Interactional analysis indicated how social context and the stimulus prompt may have influenced interactional patterns within the interview. Of added interest is an exploration of the content of the interviewee’s recall interview. We now draw upon the top-level structural analysis to explore the structure of procedural knowledge. 6.1. The structure of procedural knowledge Communicated knowledge is a representation of the apposite realities of those involved in its communication as much as it is of the content that communicators leave for each other. Its vehicle typically is language and in this study, Participant M’s advice on the content and structure of her thinking was moderated by her rendering of them as first a concept map and then as a recall of its representation. As our account of this process shows, Participant M was an active and engaged respondent. She was stimulated not only to recall what the map had meant to her, but also to correct it along the way so as to better represent her views on looking at (.) elements of successful (0.3) provision of the ((course name)) or a teacher professional training course=in-service training course. (Turn 2). As a finished product, the respondent’s concept map had been constructed with labels stuck onto a blank manila folder with hand-drawn arrows and connecting phrases joining them to show where clusters of information were formed. This map was then reproduced electronically as an organisational chart (Figure 1). The reproduction however shows straight arrows rather than the looped ones that Participant M had drawn to indicate relations between sub-clusters of information on the original. The relations fell generally into two forms of rhetorical predicates – lists and cause-and-effect structures and are described in this way throughout the chapter. Participant M’s approach to the task cognitively is analysed here in terms of top-level structure theory – a conceptualisation of language-evidenced cognition that assumes people schematically organise and prioritise ideas into more or less coherent schemas that may be identified by a finite number of rhetorical predicates (Bartlett 1978, 2003, 2008; Meyer, Young and Bartlett 1989, 1993; Fletcher, Zuber-Skerritt and Bartlett 2008). These predicates have specific functions in arranging information into formats such as lists, comparisons, causal chains or problems and solutions. They do so with progressively larger clusters of information as a communication is constructed so that one


P-Nr.: B12-722091

P-Anfang: 26.11.2008

ID: int03 – AGB 1 – 11.08



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

38 39 40

or another of the predicates will provide the macrostructure – the top-level structure of a completed text, while any number of them will be present at lesser levels. Participant M had three definable moments in producing her map. First, she itemised key features of successful INSET delivery as she saw them, and generated labels for each. At this point, the top-level structure of her record was a list of attributes. However she moved on, sorting and reclustering the items into two differentiated lists of content shown in Figure 1 as “Maximum enrolments” and “Successful delivery”. She added detail during this second-stage review. For example she now included content about “positive evaluations” and “school visits” when talking through her item on “student satisfaction”. At this second point, she had a list of lists. But again she changed; this time rearranging the two lists in causal relation to the issue at hand, i.e. indicating in description of the connecting lines that a successful INSET was an outcome of “Maximum enrolments” and “Successful delivery”. Her label as shown in Figure 1, “Successful outcomes”, underscores the “effect” of the two causal conditions. The importance levels for the respondent of each piece of information are indicated by their positions on the seven levels represented in Figure 1. Most important is the cause (“Successful outcomes”) – effect (List of two: “Maximum enrolments” and “Successful delivery”) cluster shown on the first and second levels of the array. They constitute the top-level structure of her account as a cause-and-effect rhetorical predicate of structural and content elements. Her key message is that a successful INSET relies on maximum enrolments and successful delivery. The specific top-level structuring Participant M used indicates two features in her message about success. First, her social cognition in relation to the matter at hand is heavily causal. What matters is getting it right. Second, in informational terms, what is needed to do this is contained within enrolment and delivery issues. Participant M’s opinion is structured around success for the institution providing the course, as might be expected from an administrator of that institution. “Maximum enrolments” unfolds in her account as information associated with effective promotion and cost-efficiencies – such as communicating well with agents and having promotional seminars well-attended. Crossovers indicating connections with details of the second cluster occur, such as between cost-efficiencies and minimal dramas. “Successful delivery” is her second cluster. She weighted it generally at the same level as the first. Participant M thinks the information this schema contains is generally as important in its causal function as that for “Maxi-


P-Nr.: B12-722091

P-Anfang: 26.11.2008

ID: int03 – AGB 1 – 11.08



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

38 39 40

mum enrolments”. It does have more detail and hence its depiction descends further. It loads strongly at each level on institutional information. The view includes items on student satisfaction, timely assessment and notification of results, positive moderation visits, all students passing and the Hong Kong Government being happy. Such clustering is listed rightly under a “delivery” label rather than a “transaction” or “reception” one. Its emphasis is on how the composite accomplishments of a successful delivery connect with future enrolments (strong) and minimal curriculum changes. There is no explicit message about the nature and quality of learning or socialisation experiences of students that matches an emphasis Bridges (2005) found in their reports. Together, the two clusters cohere as causal explanations of “Successful outcomes”, rather than other forms of organisation such as an explanation highlighting solutions for problematic issues expected along the way to being successful, or one presenting alternative, comparative or contrasting arguments for success. The interview highlighted Participant M’s cognitive processing as she explained her change in rhetorical predicates when making decisions about how best to present her information. She advised that she had used categories generated in the original list to instantiate content into causal relationships as the map. Her map design and her explication of the causality among categories followed a strongly hierarchical structure as Bartlett (1978) and others (Meyer et al. 1989, 1993) indicated it should. It followed logically from her focus on outcomes, as did the transcription protocols of student-learners in the same INSET that Participant M had just administered. There were two important differences, however, in the account from Participant M and those of student-learners that are reported elsewhere (Bridges 2005, 2007). First, student-learners tended to organise their accounts of “success” in a problem-solution top-level structure rather than the causal one our respondent had used. They talked through what they needed to do in order to address problematic issues such as passing examinations of their English language competency, or how better to benefit from immersion experiences in the Australian context of their studies, or how to transfer learning on return to Hong Kong. These centred on their learning and benefits that would follow – again reflecting the different orientations and social press of the parties. The absence of detail in Participant M’s accounts of “Student satisfaction – positive evaluations”, “Assessment/Results: Provision on time” and “Student results: All pass” suggests a concept of benefit imposed as a students’ perspective rather than one derived from it.


P-Nr.: B12-722091

P-Anfang: 26.11.2008

ID: int03 – AGB 1 – 11.08


30


38

39

P-Nr.: B12-722091

P-Anfang: 26.11.2008

40

ID: int03 – AGB 1 – 11.08

Figure 1. Concept map of successful INSET provision

Homestay arrangement successful

Good PR future enrolments strong

10

Promotional seminars well attended

Useful/positive school visits

5

Minimal curriculum changes

Student Results: all pass

Hong Kong Government happy

Positive moderation visits

3

Assessments / results provision on time

Experienced staff

2

Student satisfaction positive evaluations

Minimal dramas

Successful delivery

1

Promotional material accurate and available

Cost effective delivery

Good communication with agents

35

void

25

Effective promotion

Maximum enrolments

20

Successful Outcomes

242 Susan Bridges and Brendan Bartlett

15



6.2. Successful outcomes

2 3

5

10

15

20

25

In explicating the construction of the map, Participant M discussed her organising framework with us. Initially, she had started with a ‘top three’ – effective promotion, successful delivery and assessment and results. Her justification for this was that this was a chronological framing with initial course promotion followed by delivery and then results. Results were viewed as follow-up including post-course assessment. However, she reconsidered this structure before pasting down the labels. Her decision to change to a cause-and-effect top-level structure by including successful outcomes as part of the overarching issue was that it was the better way to tell her story. With her new organisational format, she decided that most important labels under the header of successful outcomes were maximum enrolments and successful delivery. These had strongest causal links to successful outcomes and so the cause-and-effect top-level structure was instantiated with successful outcomes (follow) maximum enrolments and successful delivery as specific content. Participant M also argued that these two “causes” were fairly equal – placing them at the same level immediately below the effect they created in combination. In teasing out these two major factors as sub-headings and causal organisers, she recognised that maximum enrolments were not as quantifiable as successful delivery. She accounted for the visually unbalanced nature of the map’s branches by stating that successful delivery was very broad and difficult to measure, which is why there are more stickers under it. Participant M’s explication of these two major sub-headings is addressed further in the two sections that follow. 6.3. Maximum enrolments

30

35

38 39 40

The strong causal format of Participant M’s thinking on the issue of a successful INSET is reflected not only at the top-level of her structural information, but throughout middle-level and lower levels of ideational importance for each of the two causal factors. In explicating maximum enrolments, she linked various exemplifications of the ideas effective promotion and cost-effective delivery back through a causal chain stretching from accurate and available promotional material and well-attended promotional seminars through good communication with agents. The dominance of the cause-effect predicate in her thinking is revealing also in terms of the greater weighting given to ‘effect’ content throughout the


P-Nr.: B12-722091

P-Anfang: 26.11.2008

ID: int03 – AGB 1 – 11.08



5

10

causal chain in the cluster. If a distinction is to be made, Participant M is more interested in outcomes than in their antecedents – she has prioritised effects over causes across her whole communication. The final representation of the hierarchy reflects her thinking that the action behind the more detailed information at any lower level exemplifies and leads to that of levels above it. This was not how she presented at the beginning of the data-gathering exercise. Originally, she had positioned the various items in almost reverse order to that shown in Figure 1 and reflecting the chronological framing with which she was familiar of INSET – promotion followed by delivery and then results that we outlined previously. However, in reconstructing the map she rearranged the items without any prompting, arguing a need to re-prioritise them. 75.

15

76. 77. 78.

20

25

30

35

38 39 40

M: and – I don‘t know if you want me to go across here now- but ‘maximum enrolments’ I put will also help to ensure ‘cost effective delivery’ I: Yeah M: because if you’re delivering to less that your potential obviously it’s going to cost you more. I: mm

Her connecting maximum enrolments to cost effective delivery was not delineated further in her account nor was it isolated to maximum enrolments. In contrast with effective promotion, she saw it as having direct links to subbranches of successful delivery. A perfect binary with links at each level was not established between these two major organizers. Rather, a synergy was woven between them. Direct links that facilitated this synergy were minimal dramas and successful delivery with Participant M adding minimal curriculum changes as an afterthought in the interview. She accounted for this with the argument that dramas are what cost you money and that it’s curriculum development …that costs you a lot of extra money (Turns 95–97). These links provide in number and content the strongest account of financial gain as a key factor in “success” from her viewpoint. All the concepts under maximum enrolments were financial in terms of marketing – ‘selling’ the program and gaining revenue from enrolments. These naturally evolved from her administrative role and are consistent with expectations of this perspective. We have noted already that the concept label cost-effective delivery ties the content maximum enrolments and successful delivery. When explicating successful delivery, Participant M added the additional connector that minimal dramas contribute to student satisfaction. The causality here was that a little drama it can cause a really big issue and rea:lly impact badly on your student (.) perceptions (Turn 71). She later related student satisfaction to adding value


P-Nr.: B12-722091

P-Anfang: 26.11.2008

ID: int03 – AGB 1 – 11.08



5

10

15

20

25

30

in terms of good PR for the course which should result in strong future enrolments. The logical connection between the two sets of linked information was to maximum enrolments – a connection illustrating close relation in Participant M’s cognitive framing between business and costs in curriculum elements. She positioned satisfied students as “satisfied clients” able to promote the educational product to peers. To have them capable of doing so increased the institution’s profile and prospective market share (Turn 89). The financial aspect of perceived success is an important thread in the tapestry of INSET in the international ESL marketplace. It highlights a difference in focus between administrators/marketers and course designers/language instructors and the possible influence this can have on stakeholder interactions. Course designers for INSET generally adopt a reflective, cyclical approach to program development and evaluation and operate under the premise that programs need constant revising, replanning and renewing of materials based on reflections of what did and did not work in the classroom for each particular group. This stance might create tension with administrators. While recognising a need to invest in curriculum change as a means of ensuring client satisfaction, administrators are cognizant also of its high cost. A balance is required between reducing investment in curriculum development for cost-effective delivery and replanning for greater success in the classroom. Finding the balance between curriculum change and cost-effectiveness may become a major source of negotiation and tension between the two stakeholders. 6.4. Successful delivery What Participant M was thinking in relation to Successful delivery was explicated in terms of a hierarchical organisational structure centred on a chain of causal relationships. This replicated her organisation in the previous cluster (Maximum enrolments). Major organisers were the concept labels, minimal dramas, and, experienced staff. In her account that follows, “staff” meant “teaching staff” (course developers and language instructors). 34.

35

38 39 40

35. 36.

M: um (0.1) so over on the other side. ‘Successful delivery’. I had these little bits that didn’t necessarily fit in anywhere else but I felt were really important elements to include. I: mm M: One was ‘experienced staff’ which are vital to ‘successful delivery’ but I put your ‘successful delivery’ relies on ‘experienced staff’. You couldn’t possibly have it with a bunch of (.) newcomers or amateurs.


P-Nr.: B12-722091

P-Anfang: 26.11.2008

ID: int03 – AGB 1 – 11.08


246 Susan Bridges and Brendan Bartlett 1 2

37. 38.

3

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

38 39 40

39. 40. 41. 42.

I: mm M: And that ‘minimal dramas’ would contribute to your ‘successful delivery’ I: ((laugh)) M: Those are (.) these outlying issues (.) but they do:: I: mm M: link up with other things. But rea:lly then I broke ‘successful delivery’ down into four elements

Participant M recognised that really important elements of successful INSET delivery were experienced staff and minimal dramas. She argued that experienced staff were vital (original emphasis) to successful delivery and appreciated the key role of experienced ESL teacher educators who were familiar with the context. Minimising dramas was important because dramas are what cost you money (Turn 73). Her initial difficulty in placing these elements in the concept map is reflected in the excerpt above. It illustrates her indecision when she had these little bits that didn’t necessarily fit in anywhere else but I felt were really important elements to include (Turn 34) even though they were outlying issues (Turn 40) within the concept map. She recognised the importance of curriculum design in the enacted and experienced curricula. However, she also was confused about how to integrate and represent them so that the diagrammatic exemplar of her cognitive schema was accurate. While our respondent displayed some understanding of curriculum components, she lacked clarity about their adequacy or perhaps how they fitted best alongside other elements of a successful INSET. This hesitation would be understandable given that curriculum design is outside her area of expertise. Participant M listed a cause-and-effect top-level structure as she explicated four elements of successful delivery. The first was cost-effective (delivery). This was a financial consideration that she recognised in her account as coming from my perspective in the admin ro:le (Turn 46). While she qualified the importance of cost-effective delivery in the branch of successful delivery by stating that it was pa:rtly measured by its cost effectiveness (Turn 58), she perceived it as a causative thread linking her cognitive schema. The second element was student satisfaction. Participant M explained this as positive evaluations by the students. The student satisfaction survey was delivered at the end of the program and is used institutionally as a data-gathering tool to measure that satisfaction. Participant M’s account of program evaluations has agency for students alone and was based on data were generated in response to the provider’s questions. In this account, she did not include provision for what course designers or language instructors may have had to relate from students’ interactions with them, or from their own perspectives.


P-Nr.: B12-722091

P-Anfang: 26.11.2008

ID: int03 – AGB 1 – 11.08



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

38 39 40

Her third element of successful delivery was assessment and results being provided on time. Participant M’s rationale for its inclusion was that it was there because a lot of that takes place after the course finishes (Turn 54). Yet, she did not detail or exemplify the item identity and timing issues involved in her statement. Her fourth element was positive moderation visits. While a small element, she argued that they’re very important, I think, because it’s a government course (Turn 56). She believed that if you were to measure ‘successful delivery’ part of it would be that those visits went well (Turn 62). External relations are important to Participant M’s success in marketing and administrating INSET. Therefore, the positive evaluations and reports of moderation visits by the commissioning body hold a significant place in her concept map. After justifying the placement of the four elements, Participant M then drew links between them. She argued that these little bits like ‘experienced staff’ will contribute to good moderation visits. They will help to get ‘on time provision of results’ and will lead to:: your ‘student satisfaction’ (Turn 64). Strong causality is drawn between results and satisfaction as ‘student results’…i.e. them passing, will lead to ‘student satisfaction’ (Turns 83–85). It was only after explaining this subordinate level that Participant M returned to the level above and the missing sub-branch of successful delivery. This was minimal dramas. The label proved to be an outlier in form. As a descriptor it was the only instance where she used informal language. The label was afforded great importance because it’s one of those things if you have a little drama it can cause a really big issue and rea:lly impact badly on your student (.) perceptions (Turn 71). While the nature of the dramas was not elaborated, their importance was recognised in her statement that ‘minimal dramas’ (.) contribute to ‘student satisfaction’ (Turn 69) and connect with the concept map label, student evaluations (Level 4). Dramas related to the enacted and experienced curricula with which, as an administrator, she was not familiar. While her understanding of the nature of the dramas may have been limited, Participant M did recognise they linked to the other, more financial side of her map. This is apparent in her argument that ‘minimal dramas’ will also assist with cost-effective delivery because dramas are what cost you money (Turn 73). Participant M then moved her discussion to kind of a different layer (Turn 89) to explicate the more detailed levels in her thinking. She was consistent with her application of the cause-and-effect structure noting that ‘student satisfaction’ will lead to ‘Good PR’ (.) for the course which will lead to:: ‘strong future enrolments’ (Turns 89–91). She also saw a causal relationship between the ‘Hong Government being happy’ and a ‘positive moderation visit’ (Turn 103).


P-Nr.: B12-722091

P-Anfang: 26.11.2008

ID: int03 – AGB 1 – 11.08



5

10

15

20

25

30

103. M: =Over here you’ve got the ‘Hong Kong Government being happy’ umm 0That’s meant to come in here too 0. Really what you need to keep the ‘Hong Kong Government happy’ is that they have a ‘positive moderation visit’. They like what they see= 104. I: [mm] 105. M: =They get the results on time= 106. I: [mmm] 107. M: =and the results are good. 108. I: mm 109. M: If you have those three things 110. I: [mm] 111. M: you’re gonna have a ‘happy government’ and tha::t will also contribute to= 112. I: = ‘minimal curriculum changes’ 113. M: Because they can demand that things (.) be different. Her conclusion in the excerpt indicates that if positive elements fill the causeand-effect relationship, then a successful in-service delivery will result and in turn contribute effectively as one of two causes of a successful INSET. Cost-effective delivery as a category is unique in Participant M’s cognitive map. Its placement creates coherence between administrative notions of financial viability and maximum enrolments on one side of the map, and program design elements of a successful enacted curriculum and future enrolments on the other. For an administrator, cost-effective delivery of INSET is a bottom line issue and its position as a unifying element in her cognitive map is both descriptive and predictable. Participant M values good curriculum delivery. Her marketing background and administrative role dominate her perceptions of it and accentuate its worth. This is apparent in her map where curriculum achievements were represented in terms of profitable marketing. She administers and promotes INSET as a financially-viable training product for her institution. Her concept map reflects these administrative and promotional priorities and so has little to say about education or the learning that may accrue for students and teaching staff.

35

7. Summary 38 39 40

Our account of Participant M’s opinion of what makes for a successful INSET drew heavily from theory that suggests knowledge and its communication are affected by social-cognitive dimensions of language. The two dimensions we


P-Nr.: B12-722091

P-Anfang: 26.11.2008

ID: int03 – AGB 1 – 11.08



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

38 39 40

have emphasised are perspective and top-level structure. The former we contend acts to filter both perception of the task of communicating one’s thoughts on an issue, and sequential organisation of what is communicated. Thus it introduces into communication particular bias that is reflected in what is co-constructed as interview talk. In this instance, we saw the interviewee dominating the turns at talk. This reconfiguration of the social and organisational structure of a research interview may be attributable to the cognitive application of concept mapping as a stimulus. The latter suggests that there are identifiable ways in which we organise what we communicate as big-picture information. These ways help us to predicate content so as to highlight the relative importance of its elements and to define in structural terms how the keypoint of our message is constructed. Participant M is a senior manager of a provider institution whose training program through INSET for teachers of English in Hong Kong needed to be financially viable as well as educationally responsive. Her position in the institution was to ensure success in these terms. She was committed to the goal of successful provision of the LPATE. Her constructs of how provision should be scaffolded were driven by this goal. Given her perspective, predictions could be made that what she would communicate to us as a “successful” program would be loaded with information about viability. And it was. It may seem that her relatively minor detailing of educational content in learning terms or in relation to what students and their teachers considered important was surprising, given her prior related experiences and opportunity she might have made to speak with students in this specific program. However, she knew the first author both as a colleague who worked as a teacher-programmer in INSET and as the researcher who had set up the mapping and interview task. She may have assumed that we would fill in the pieces more pertinent to educational viability while she emphasised the business elements. If so, it would be a piece of meta-social cognition familiar to all who have made assumptions about what audiences or readers know and how they act in communication events. What we have added to what might otherwise have been predictable in Participant M’s account, is a characterisation of how she verbalised her thoughts so that they might accurately and effectively represent her thinking. We did this by using top-level structuring theory. Her attention to getting labels positioned just right was evidence of the socialisation pressures on her for precision in her communication. This precision manifested in applied linguistics terms as a very strong causal top-level structuring of what she had to tell us. She brought her thinking to consciousness first as a simple list of ideas that might address the issue and that followed a sequence she had become accustomed to as she


P-Nr.: B12-722091

P-Anfang: 26.11.2008

ID: int03 – AGB 1 – 11.08



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

38

had moved through various roles in her institution. She then sorted and sifted her information, interrelated and prioritised it until she had communicated the message that maximum enrolments and successful delivery were the antecedents of a successful INSET. Actually, Participant M’s account was dominated throughout by a causal predication of information. Other than with her main idea, she used it also to link content that she felt explained what predisposed a course to be successfully delivered and what factors led to maximum enrolments. It may not be a common practice for Participant M or for people generally to rely so heavily on one type of predicate throughout the cognitive and communicative processing of content. Typically, our written and spoken texts are more diverse. Participant M’s use of the cause-effect predicate not only at the top-level of her message, but also in its supporting detail is suggestive of a constraint in her reporting to ensure she had tied down all that she said as logical and iterative. A second suggestion is that she felt this was an appropriate form of address given her prior knowledge of the interviewer/researcher. If this is the case, it is reason to support the virtues of an interactionist perspective that situates a research interview as a co-constructed accomplishment. The interviewee’s account is therefore not examined as an objective truth but rather as an intersubjective, co-construction of an account that is formulated in-situ. It is uncertain at what level of consciousness Participant M operated during and after the research concerning the bias in her account toward “success” in business terms. It is also unclear whether and how a wider view of benefits and beneficiaries in a successful INSET to include learning, students and teaching staff alongside her institutional concerns would affect ways in which she does her work and verbalises it. An important methodological outcome of a socialcognitive approach to exploration of how people communicate their thinking is that it opens possibilities for checking with respondents on the accuracy and completeness of their accounts. For example, pointing out the structure at the top-level of presented information might then be followed by inviting respondents to reconfigure their thinking using alternative predication. In Participant M’s case, her revisit might prompt alternative constructions of success if she were to access that part of her knowledge schema that had been co-constructed with her staff and or students in the INSET. In validating the respondent’s data against the given perspective, the interviewer-researcher might help Participant M to see legitimate bias as a starting point for a more fulsome account of “success” that incorporates education as what is learned and voices other than her own.

39 40


P-Nr.: B12-722091

P-Anfang: 26.11.2008

ID: int03 – AGB 1 – 11.08



8. Implications for method

2 3

5

10

In the recall session, further analysis could be done on factors such as task completion style in terms of time, work habits and the actual process. In the concept map, Participant M was loath to place stickers down before she had totally finished the process mentally and said she had conceptualised it in her head before starting, as she didn‘t want to ‘make a mess’. She even suggested creating it straight into a computerised organisational chart as she felt that she thought better on a screen. This reflected a different approach to the representation of knowledge. From a social-cognitive perspective, stimulated recall provided a principled account from an important stakeholder in INSET. An insightful picture of the provider’s account was drawn by facilitating participants’ reflection and metacognition on the administrative perspectives of INSET.

15

20

25

30

35

38 39 40


P-Nr.: B12-722091

P-Anfang: 26.11.2008

ID: int03 – AGB 1 – 11.08



Appendix: Interview transcript

2 3

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

38 39 40

I = interviewer M = senior administrator 1. I: ((M)), tell me about your concept map. 2. M: OK. The concept map is looking at (.) elements of successful (0.3) provision of the ((course name)) or a teacher professional training course=inservice training course. u::m So I started, I wrote all my bits and pieces and then I didn’t stick them do:wn 3. I: [mm] 4. M: because I sta:rted wi::th (.) I actually started with ‘maximum enrolments’, ‘successful delivery’ and ‘assessments/results’ (.) as my= 5. I: [mmm] 6. M: =No, sorry I tell a lie. My three=I started with my top three as (0.2) ‘effective promotion’ u::m ‘successful delivery’ and ‘assessment and results’= 7. I: [mm] 8. M: =thinking that, there were three, breaking it down kind of chronologically. >You promote the course, you deliver the course< and then you have to do all that (.) results follow-up= 9. I: [Yeah] 10. M: =and assessing videos etcetera (.) and that those would be the three and I had it all laid out but the:n in the end I decided the overarching issue at the ve:ry top was ‘successful outcomes’ and I’d already written that one. I just mo:ved it up. 11. I: mm 12. M: But it took me a while to get to that (.) And then I decided that rea:lly in terms of ‘successful outcomes’, the most important things we:re (.) ‘maximum enrolments’= 13. I: [mm] 14. M: =for what we’re able to take and ‘successful delivery’ which is ve::ry broad. It’s unfortunately not as measurable and specific as ‘maximum enrolments’ which is why there are more stickers under it ((jokingly)) 15. I: ((laugh)) 16. M: So I’ll start with ‘maximum enrolment’ = 17. I: [OK] 18. M: =because it’s easier. So I (.) actually I went here. I said I decided these were fairly equal ‘successful outcomes’ a:re ‘maximum enrolments’ and are ‘successful delivery’ 19. I: [mm] 20. M: Now, ‘maximum enrolments’ (.) actually started at the very bottom (.) of this. If you have this and this and this you will get maximum enrolments but then I decided as the outco::me (0.1) 21. I: mm


P-Nr.: B12-722091

P-Anfang: 26.11.2008

ID: int03 – AGB 1 – 11.08



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

38 39 40

22. M: It had to come up the other wa:y because I started with outcomes. That ‘maximum enrolments’ – but then I didn’t apply that to the rest of this this = 23. I: [that’s alright] 24. M: = 0then moves back the other direction0 – will result from (.) ‘effective promotion’ (.) and ‘effective promotion’ (.) will be assisted by ‘good communication with agents’ so the people promoting the course and representing us in Hong Kong 25. I: [mm] 26. M: are rea:lly the people we rely on to promote the course. And ‘good communication with the agents’ will lea:d to:: ‘accurate and available promotional material’ which will (.) and will which will also lead to ‘promotional seminars being well attended’ 27. I: [mm] 28. M: and that your communication with your agents would contribute to that as we:ll= 29. I: [Yeah] 30. M: =because they’re promoting the course and that ultimately that would assist to achie:ve ‘maximum enrolments’ 31. I: ahah 32. M: A little bit circular 33. I: no no that’s great 34. M: um (0.1) so over on the other side. ‘Successful delivery’. I had these little bits that didn’t necessarily fit in anywhere else but I felt were really important elements to include. 35. I: mm 36. M: One was ‘experienced staff’ which are vital to ‘successful delivery’ but I put your ‘successful delivery’ relies on ‘experienced staff’. You couldn’t possibly have it with a bunch of (.) newcomers or amateurs. 37. I: mm 38. M: And that ‘minimal dramas’ would contribute to your ‘successful delivery’ 39. I: ((laugh)) 40. M: Those are (.) these outlying issues (.) but they do:: 41. I: mm 42. M: link up with other things. But rea:lly then I broke ‘successful delivery’ down into four elements 43. I: mm 44. M: ‘cost effective’ 45. I: Yep 46. M: and that’s from my perspective in the admin ro:le 47. I: mm 48. M: ‘student satisfaction’ and then I put in brackets ‘positive evaluations by the students’= 49. I: [mm] 50. M: =and that’s how you’d measure that satisfaction. 51. I: mm


P-Nr.: B12-722091

P-Anfang: 26.11.2008

ID: int03 – AGB 1 – 11.08



5

52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58.

10

15

59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64.

M: The ‘assessment and results being provided on time’ I: mm M: because a lot of that takes place after the course finishes I: mm M: and ‘positive moderation visits’. Although they’re really a small element, they’re very important, I think, because it’s a government course. I: mm M: So we’ve got ‘successful delivery’ pa:rtly measured by its ‘cost effectiveness’ will lead to ‘student satisfaction’ I: [mm] M: requires the ‘on time provision’ of these things and inclu::des (.) I: positive = M: = If you were to measure ‘successful delivery’ part of it would be that those visits went well. I: mm M: then you have these little bits like ‘experienced staff’ will contribute to good moderation visits. They will help to get ‘on time provision of results’ and will lead to:: your ‘student satisfaction’.

((0.12 break to tend to a boiling pot)) 20

25

30

35

38 39 40

65. M: a:nd (.02) and again your ‘minimal dramas’ really that mainly,>oh I should have, I‘m missing one‘cost effective’ I didn’t break down any further< but ‘student satisfaction’ and ‘positive evaluations’. You have your ‘homestay arrangements’ being successful and I put that ‘plays a large role in student satisfaction’ 80. I: Yeah


P-Nr.: B12-722091

P-Anfang: 26.11.2008

ID: int03 – AGB 1 – 11.08



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

81. M: ‘Useful/positively evaluated’, really ‘school visits’ contribute to ‘student satisfaction’ 82. I: mm 83. M: ‘Student results’ 84. I: [mm] 85. M: i.e them passing, will lead to ‘student satisfaction’ 86. I: mm 87. M: u::m (.) and then I kind of jumped beyond those= 88. I: [alright, yep] 89. M: =again to kind of a different layer. That ‘student satisfaction’ will lead to ‘Good PR’ (.) for the course which will lead to:: ‘strong future enrolments’. 90. I: Right 91. M: And will also contribute to ‘minimal curriculum changes’ = 92. I: [mm] 93. M:= which I saw as a really positive thing. 94. I: mm 95. M: In fact tha::t should link up to ‘cost effective delivery’ because it’s ‘curriculum development’ 96. I: [Yeah] 97. M: that costs you a lot of your extra money. 98. I: Yeah 99. M: So if you have ‘minimal curriculum changes’ 100. I: [mm] 101. M: it helps to (.) achieve ‘cost effective delivery’. 102. I: mm You’ve got this one= 103. M: =Over here you’ve got the ‘Hong Kong Government being happy’ umm 0 That’s meant to come in here too0. Really what you need to keep the ‘Hong Kong Government happy’ is that they have a ‘positive moderation visit’. They like what they see= 104. I: [mm] 105. M: =They get the results on time= 106. I: [mmm] 107. M: =and the results are good. 108. I: mm 109. M: If you have those three things 110. I: [mm] 111. M: you’re gonna have a ‘happy government’ and tha::t will also contribute to= 112. I: = ‘minimal curriculum changes’ 113. M: Because they can demand that things (.) be different. 114. I: mm Tha::t is a successful in-service delivery! 115. M: ((laugh)) 116. I: Thank you ((M))!

38 39 40


P-Nr.: B12-722091

P-Anfang: 26.11.2008

ID: int03 – AGB 1 – 11.08



References

2 3

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

38 39 40

Baker, Carolyn 2004 Membership categorization and interview accounts. In Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, David Silverman (ed), 162–176. London: Sage. Bartlett, Brendan J. 1978 Top-level Structure as an Organizational Strategy for Recall of Classroom Text. Tempe: Arizona State University. 2008 Action research in changing workplace climate. In Evaluating Action Research, E. Piggot-Irvine, and B.J. Bartlett (eds.) Auckland: New Zealand Research Council. 2003 Valuing the situation: A referential outcome for top-level structurers. Paper presented at the 1st International Conference on Cognition. Language and Special Education, Gold Coast, Australia. 2008 I’ve Been Workin’ on the Railroad: Action Research in Changing Workplace Climate. In Evaluating Action Research, E. Piggot-Irvine, and B.J. Bartlett (eds.), 167–190. Auckland: New Zealand Research Council. Bridges, Susan 2005 English Language Immersion: Theorising from Stakeholders’ Accounts. Unpublished Doctoral thesis. Brisbane: Griffith University. 2007 Mapping learner perceptions of an English immersion INSET. Prospect 22 (2): 39–60. Bridges, Susan and Brendan J. Bartlett 2007 Prospect or promise – Internationalisation in Australia. In Language and Languages: Global and Local Tensions, Christina Gitsaki (ed), 15– 39. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Bloom, B. 1954 The thought processes of students in discussion. In, Accent on Teaching: Experiments in General Education, S.J. French (ed.), 23–46. New York: Harper. Bolam, R. 1986 Conceptualising inservice. In Inservice Training and Development: An International Survey, D. Hopkins (ed.), 14–26. London: Croom Helm. Coniam, D., P., and Falvey 2003 Benchmarking the benchmark: Assessing the fit of a new test with its target population of teachers of English in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8 (1): 1–15. Cooke, Nancy 1999 Knowledge elicitation. In Handbook of Applied Cognition, F.T. Durso (ed.), 479–509. New York: Wiley. Fletcher, M., O. Zuber-Skerritt, E. Piggot-Irvine, and B.J. Bartlett 2008 Data collection methods for evaluation. In Evaluating Action Research, E. Piggot-Irvine, and B.J. Bartlett (eds.), 53–90. Auckland: New Zealand Research Council.


P-Nr.: B12-722091

P-Anfang: 26.11.2008

ID: int03 – AGB 1 – 11.08



5

10

15

20

25

30

35

38 39 40

Freebody, Peter 2003 Qualitative Research in Education: Interaction and Practice. London: Sage. Gardner, Rod 1998 Between speaking and listening: The vocalisation of understandings. Applied Linguistics 19 (2): 204–224. Gass, Susan, and Alison Mackey 2000 Stimulated Recall Methodology in Second Language Research. Mahwah N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum. Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) 2000 Syllabus Specifications for the Language Proficiency Assessment for Teachers (English Language) (Syllabus). Hong Kong: Government of the HKSAR. Holstein, James A., and Jaber F. Gubrium 2004 The active interview. In Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, D. Silverman (ed.), 140–161. London: Sage. McCarthy, Michael 2003 Talking back: “Small” interactional response tokens in everyday conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 36 (1): 33–63. Meyer, B.J.F., C.J. Young, and B.J. Bartlett 1989 Memory Improved: Reading and Memory Enhancement across the Life Span through Strategic Text Structures. Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 1993 Reading comprehension and the use of text structure across the adult lifespan. In Reading across the lifespan, S.R. Yussen and M.C. Smith (eds.), 165–192. New Jersey: Springer-Verlag. Novak, J.D., and D. Musonda 1991 A twelve-year longitudinal study of science concept learning. American Educational Research Journal, 28 (1): 117–153. Potter, Johnathan, and Alexa Hepburn 2005 Qualitative interviews in psychology: Problems and possibilities. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2: 281–307. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson 1974 A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking in conversation. Language 50 (4): 696–735. Stake, Robert 1995 The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 2000 Case studies. In Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2d ed. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln (eds.), 435–454. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Standing Committee on Language and Education Research 2003 Action Plan to Raise Language Standards in Hong Kong (Final report of language education review). Hong Kong: Government of the HKSAR.


P-Nr.: B12-722091

P-Anfang: 26.11.2008

ID: int03 – AGB 1 – 11.08



Silverman, David 1993 Interpreting Qualitative Data: Strategies for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction. London: Sage. 1998 Harvey Sacks: Social Science and Doing Conversation Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

38 39 40


P-Nr.: B12-722091

P-Anfang: 26.11.2008

ID: int03 – AGB 1 – 11.08


Chapter 9 Constructing knowledge schemas in the

Chapter 9 Constructing knowledge schemas in the

Suggest Documents

Constructing Interface Schemas for Search ... - Computer Science

Constructing Interface Schemas for Search ... - Computer Science

chapter 9 - Construction - Virtual Knowledge Centre - Hydraulic ...

Constructing Knowledge in the Classroom - Southwest Educational ...

Constructing Knowledge in the Classroom - SEDL

chapter 1.1 the force and balance schemas in journey

Janitors of Knowledge: Constructing Knowledge in the ... - CiteSeerX

Chapter 9: The Absolute and Ultimate Knowledge of ALLAH (SWT)

Chapter 9 - Leaves and Plants CHAPTER 9

Chapter 9

Chapter 9

CHAPTER 9 ,

chapter 9

chapter 9

Chapter 9

Chapter 9

9 Chapter

Chapter 9

Chapter 9

Chapter 9

CHAPTER 9

CHAPTER 9

Chapter 9

chapter 9