0742-051X/93 $6.00 + 0.00 @ 1993 Pergamon Press Lfd
A TALE OF TWO TECHNICAL CULTURES: TEACHING
ROBERT Memphis
FOREIGN
LANGUAGE
C. KLEINSASSER
State University,
TN, U.S.A.
In broad terms this study investigated how the social organization of schools affects and is affected by the structures within which teachers find themselves: in essence how teachers shaped their reality. In particular this investigation was concerned with high school foreign language (FL) teachers’ perceptions of their work environment; specifically how FL teachers in differing school contexts defined FL instruction and the manner in which these contextual definitions associated with their classroom behavior. Many previous investigations have focused on the relationship of teachers’ classroom behavior and student outcomes. This study instead asked what the organizational antecedents for teachers’ classroom practices are by documenting high school FL teachers’ technical culturesthe processes designed to accomplish an organization’s goals (Lortie, 1975; Rosenholtz, 1989). Abstract-
This research seeks to expand the genesis of an educational culture (core) that includes, but is not limited to, how teachers’ perceptions of their work and the school conditions in which teachers are embedded determine what students and teachers actually do. The study reveals not only foreign language (FL) teacher perceptions, but high school teachers’ views as well, about their workplace; in general, describing the relationships between school context, teacher perceptions, and teacher performance. This study presents data gathered from secondary schools using a population of teachers that has rarely been studied. A major limitation of prior research on school context is the fact that most studies sample only elementary schools. Where high schools have been studied, the subject areas considered are usually restricted to remedial reading, mathematics, and science, rarely foreign languages. In general, however, Johnson contends, “. . . little empirical research is yet available to inform those seeking to understand high school teachers’ work better” (Johnson, 1990, p. 168). A version Francisco,
of this paper CA.
was presented
The primary objectives of the study included: (1) uncovering high school contexts through FL teacher perceptions; (2) documenting FL teachers’ perceptions of a technical culture-the processes designed to accomplish teaching and learning; (3) seeking information concerning how teachers’ perceptions influenced their technical cultures; and (4) understanding how teachers’ task conceptions (perceptions) affected their classroom performance and behavior(s).
Theoretical
Framework
Social organizational theory contends that organizations can be seen as tools having an indeterminate amount of resources that people, inside or outside of them, make use of and try to control (March & Simon, 1958). They are multipurpose tools because they can do a variety of things for many people. In short, organizations are tools for shaping the world as one wishes it to be shaped. Consequently, the existence of any organization is defined by its participants
at the 1992 American
313
Educational
Research
Association
annual
meeting
in San
374
ROBERT C. KLEINSASSER
(teachers) in a particular work environment (school). The district, school, and classroom heavily influence what the teacher decides or decides not to do. The organizational and social environment in which teachers find themselves determines what consequences they will anticipate, what ones they will not; what alternatives they will consider. what ones they will ignore (Rosenholtz, 1989). For instance, the extent to which the department has defined “successful teaching in the FL area” guides how FL teachers are taught in the classroom. Various typologies have been suggested in order to consider systematically workers’ perceptions of different types of organizations (Perrow, 1986). One typology that has merit is that of investigating an organization’s technical culture. It offers the framework to distinguish between organizations with similar professed structures and/or goals but which do not produce the same outcomes. Its analytic value aids in ordering the diversity of similar organizations. In the case of schools, its analytical value can seek to uncover why those with similar structures and/or goals deliver an array of various outcomes. In essence, a school’s technical culture represents how teachers perceive their work is to be accomplished. Thompson has noted, the technical culture of education “rests on abstract systems of belief about relationships among teachers, teaching materials, and pupils, but learning theories assume the presence of these variables and proceed from that point” (Thompson, 1967, p. 19). A technical culture, then, is determined by teachers (and other people involved with schools), their relationships among themselves, their materials, and pupils. The typology of technical culture attempts to capture the essence and nuance of teachers’ thoughts, beliefs, and actions in their workplace (i.e., school). It seeks to describe how teachers define and go about their work in their particular school context. Furthermore, it is important to note that a technical culture mirrors what the organization is and not what it professes to be.
Data Source Foreign language teachers (N = 37: 13 French, 4 German, 4 Latin. 16 Spanish) were
recruited from five school districts in the midwest for the initial stage of data collection. The five communities were rural in nature, situated in largely agricultural areas in the heartland of midwest America. The communities had high schools with three to six FL teachers, usually only one or two teachers per language taught. Three districts had one high school each, one district had three high schools, and one district had three high schools and two middle schools where foreign languages were taught. All teachers reported they held undergraduate degrees in their respective language, 13 teachers held a master’s degree (approximately evenly divided with majors in a language or education), and one held a Doctor of Education degree. The sample averaged 15 years of classroom teaching experience. This is representative of a more mature teacher workforce. It can also be assumed that many FL teachers across the nation find themselves in departments with three to six FL teachers, especially in more rural areas. The sample was kept small in order to document the technical cultures in which FL teachers find themselves and to allow for triangulation of data to support the technical culture descriptions.
Methods Three distinct methodologies to document FL teachers’ perceptions and describe their technical cultures were used: surveys, interviews, and observations. Briefly, the survey (consisting of 124 items) documented FL teachers’ perceptions of their working conditions and their perceptions of the certainty and social organizational antecedents found in other investigations. The major purpose of the survey data was to differentiate school environments by their technical cultures. In order to do this, a cluster of variables that relate to one another had to be identified. Using findings from Rosenholtz’ (1989) study of 1,213 elementary school teachers, eight social organizational variables were selected to serve as indicators for FL teachers’ perceptions of their particular school cultures. These variables included: (1) Teacher certainty about instructional practice and a technical culture to determine the strength of teachers’ beliefs in their own instructional skills. (2) Teacher cohesiveness represented teachers’ feeling of temporal, physical,
Tale of Two Technical
or psychological separation from other teachers and principal. (3) Teacher collaboration measured the extent to which teachers engage their colleagues in requests for and offers of assistance about the substance of teaching. (4) Teacher evaluation uncovered the frequency, objectivity, and clarity of evaluation as well as duration of supervisors’ classroom observation. (5) Faculty goal setting represented goal directedness of task orientation of faculty and principal activity. (6) Management of student behavior was scaled to show the presence of rules for student conduct and how consistently those rules are applied. (7) Parent involvement sought to explain the extent to which parents are involved in their children’s learning. (8) Teachers’ learning opportunities revealed the degree of teachers’ experimentation with new ideas in the classroom and their opportunities for learning new teaching strategies and skills. Following Rosenholtz’ (1989) procedures, scales were constructed at the school level for these variables and aggregation of teacher responses to the department level served as the data for analysis. Furthermore, the reliability of each scale was computed and it was found to be acceptable (.68 or higher) using the Cronbach Alpha Statistic (see Table 1). Correlations between scales were then computed (see Results section below for this discussion). Those schools that had the highest and lowest mean composite score of social organizational variables were selected for further study. The selection of the subsample for the interviews and observations were contingent upon these quantitative analyses. Using the idea of ethnographic monitoring, both the interviews and observations produced descriptive data that documented FL teacher perceptions of their environment and how the contexts of the schools (foreign language departments) with the higher mean composite scores differed from those with the lower mean composite scores. The interviews allowed teachers to answer open-ended questions about their work and the observations (a total of five observations per teacher) documented FL teacher interaction(s) with students during class and with other teachers in the school building throughout the day. The interviews were taped and transcribed. The observation information was collected and recorded in fieldnotes and interpreted through the use of cultural themes (Spradley, 1979). The
Cultures
315
collection and analysis of this information provided the basis to document and discuss the extent to which FL teachers perceived a technical culture existed and FL teachers’ perceptions of a technical culture.
Results The Correlations Vuriahbs
qf Social
Organizational
Knowing that these eight social organization variables directly and indirectly affect teachers’ certainty about instructional practice and a technical culture from Rosenholtz’ (1989) path analysis, it was necessary to reveal that the variables in this study had, to some extent, some type of association. Although the small sample size made it impossible to run any sort of multivariate analysis, the correlations compared favorably to Rosenholtz’ data providing evidence of similar tendencies. It is especially relevant to note that the smaller the sample size, the more difficult it is for correlations to reach statistical significance. Due to statistical significance of correlations and comparisons with Rosenholtz’ data, nonparametric statistics were not included in this analysis. As revealed in Table 1, each of the eight variables were found to have high reliability among FL teachers’ responses. It was important to determine the extent, if any, to which these variables related to teachers’ certainty about instructional practice and a technical culture. As Table 2 indicates, there are moderate to strong correlations shown within this small data set, indicating a very reliable instrument. When compared to Rosenholtz’ (1989) data, this data clearly shows the same tendencies, further validating the survey instrument because the survey in particular measures teachers’ perceptions of precisely the same thing at two different levels, Rosenholtz’ at the elementary and this sample’s at the secondary. It is this kind of validation one needs to proceed with any kind of assuredness in collecting quantitative data. In summary, not only are this study’s correlations moderate to strong, but they also correspond very well with Rosenholtz’ sample of 1,213 teachers. That this study’s small sample size reproduced similar results is indeed impressive. In Table 2 are the
376
Table
ROBERT
C. KLEINSASSER
I
Scale
Alpha
Number items
Teacher certainty about instructional practice and a technical culture
.68
I0
.26 .51
Teacher
cohesiveness
.90
18
.I4 83
Teacher
collaboration
.x9
15
.25 .x3
Teacher
evaluation
.90
10
.49 80
Faculty
goal-setting
.92
16
.36 .90
.83
10
.22-.70
.88
9
.48 .83
.92
14
.32~~.78
Management behavior
Parent
of student
involvement
Teachers’ learning opportunities
of
Range of item to scale correlations
Pearson correlation coefficients, means, and standard deviations of these eight social organizational variables. As identified in Table 2, teachers’ certainty about their instructional practice and a technical culture has moderate to strong relationships with all but one of the variables. It has a strong relationship with teachers’ learning opportunities. What this means, for example, is that the greater teachers’ learning opportunities, the greater teachers’ certainty about a technical culture and their own instructional practice. Likewise, the greater teachers perceive their
Sample
items
I can get good results with students other teachers have found difficult, I don’t know how to make academic progress with some of my students. I can go for days without talking to anyone about my teaching. I really belong at this school. I really belong in this department. I can get good help or advice from other teachers at my school when I have a teaching problem. I don’t offer advice to others about their teaching unless I am asked for it. The methods used in evaluating my teaching performance seem objective and fair. Evaluation of my teaching is based on hearsay and gossip. At faculty meetings. we spend most of our time on the small stuff, we rarely get a chance to talk about the bigger Issues in teaching and learning. There arc explicit guidelines in this school about the things teachers arc to emphasize in their teaching. We have rules for student conduct here, but nobody follows them. Rules for student behavior arc consistently enforced by teachers at this school, even for students who are not in their classes. Parents at this school help teachers and school staff provide better educational services. I instruct parents in how to assist at home with learning activities related to the student’s class work. At this school, I have many opportumttes to learn things about instruction. My department head encourages me to try out new teaching ideas.
certainty about instructional practice and a technical culture, the greater their perceived opportunities to learn. Five other variables (cohesiveness, collaboration, evaluation, goal-setting, and parent involvement) have moderate relationships with certainty about instructional practice and a technical culture. In essence, the greater teachers’ cohesiveness among faculty and administration, the greater their certainty about instructional practice and a technical culture. And where teachers interact, discussing and exchanging advice and assistance regarding instructional issues, the greater their certainty
Tale of Two Technical
371
Cultures
Table 2 Correlation
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Coefficients,
Means, and Standard
Certainty Cohesiveness Collaboration Evaluation Goal-setting Managing student behavior Parent involvement Teacher’s learning opportunities
*p < .05. **p < .Ol.
Deviations
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
M
SD
.35*
.50**
.37** .48** .25
.46+* .71*** .39* .58**
.16 .61*** .49** .lO .41*
.55** .60*** .52** .04 .69*** .50**
.6S*+ .81*** .60*** .53** .78*** .50** .13***
32.96 63.35 47.00 29.12 49.96 38.08 23.12 37.44
4.26 11.49 9.64 1.71 11.05 5.54 6.45 9.90
,71***
***p < .OOl.
becomes. Furthermore, in environments that alleviate uncertainty, the more teachers perceive quality evaluation from their principals or other school administration, the more certain they are about what they do in their classrooms and school. And where goal-setting is perceived as a joint effort among teachers and principals, the greater certainty teachers feel about what can be done to help their students learn. Finally, the greater parent involvement with their children’s educational setting, the greater teachers perceive their technical culture and their instructional practice. The only variable with a nonsignificant relationship to teacher certainty, and at odds with Rosenholtz’ elementary school sample, is managing student behavior. Foreign language teachers, at least in this selected sample, see a positive but statistical barren relationship between these two variables. Two types of technical cultures then emerged: Those schools with high mean scores were classified certain and schools with the lowest mean scores were classified as being uncertain. Moreover, when the qualitative data were analyzed, those schools with a certain technical culture tended to produce evidence that teachers nonroutinely went about their daily tasks while those schools with an uncertain technical culture tended to produce evidence that teachers routinely went about their daily tasks. The differences between teachers’ task conceptions and actions as being nonroutine and routine are eloquently described by Rosenholtz (1989): Where teachers conceive of their work as routine, they perform standardized tasks over and over, despite variations in the students that they serve. But when teachers view their work as nonroutine, they
place more emphasis on feeling their way, on experimenting and collaborating with colleagues and principals, on developing more unique than standardized solutions to students’ varied problems. (p. 105)
Additionally, the present study expands the definition of a technical culture being nonroutine/routine specific to FL teaching. In completing the data analysis, it became clear that FL teachers in routine schools emphasized language form (e.g., grammar, punctuation) to the exclusion of language use and FL teachers in nonroutine schools emphasized language form as well as language use. The data produced a typology typical to that written in second language methodological discussions (Ellis, 1988; Rivers, 198 1; Savignon, 1983); that is, three approaches to practicing second language skills. For example, one approach, associated with the audiolingual method, places emphasis on controlled practice. Another approach gives equal attention to controlled and communicative practice, where controlled practice usually precedes communicative practice. In the third approach there is only communicative language use. This study incorporates these definitions and extends the meaning of the nonroutine and routine typology. Throughout the presentation of data, teachers in nonroutine/certain technical cultures reveal they tend to incorporate controlled and communicative practice to a greater extent, occasionally injecting real language use in their classrooms, whereas teachers in routine/uncertain technical cultures rely heavily on controlled practice in their classrooms. In essence, the workplace conditions found to enhance FL teachers’ certainty about their nonroutine technical culture included cohesive
378
ROBERT
C. KLEINSASSER
teacher collaboration, their involvement with goal-setting, evaluation, and opportunities to learn; their reception of positive feedback and involvement of parents; and their belief that language acquisition included language form as well as language use. These same workplace conditions were less prevalent or nonexistent in routine/uncertain technical cultures. Another interesting result from the data concerned the issue of high school departmentalization. In nonroutine/certain technical cultures, teachers collaborated not only among teachers in their department but with many teachers in the high school, regardless of discipline lines, to discuss teaching and the general duties of their workplace. In routine/uncertain technical cultures, FL teachers were isolated; rarely talking with each other at all. The interview and observation data clarify these and other contentions. Foreign Languaye
Teacher Collaboration
According to Rosenholtz’ (1989) path model, collaboration strongly and independently predicted teacher certainty about their instructional practice and a technical culture-a more effective or learning-enriched environment. Additionally, Rosenholtz’ data found a reciprocal relationship between teacher collaboration and their certainty-the greater the collaboration, the stronger teachers’ certainty, which then circled back to strengthen their collaborative efforts (see Rosenholtz, 1989, chap. 5). It is of primary import to cull FL teachers’ task conceptions with perceptions of their school’s and department’s collaboration. As noted earlier, FL teachers perceived a moderate relationship between collaboration and certainty about instructional practice and a technical culture. Further quantitative description from Table 2 reveals collaboration having strong relationships with cohesiveness and teachers’ learning opportunities; moderate relationships with managing student behavior and parent involvement; and a positive albeit somewhat weak relationship with evaluation. Thus, in less isolated schools where teachers talk together, the more they willingly exchange advice and assistance. Further, the more frequently teachers ask each other for advice and assistance, the greater their perceived learning. Additionally, the greater teachers’ opportunities for
collaboration, to ask for or offer advice and assistance, the more they tend to involve parents in their children’s learning. And the more teachers collaborate, the more they tend to manage collectively student conduct in the department or school. Finally, the more teachers believe their evaluation to be fair, frequent, and helpful, the more they tend to collaborate, exchanging advice and assistance. Strong support for these quantitative findings is found in the qualitative data. To specifically explore FL teachers’ views with regard to collaboration and cohesiveness, teachers in the sample’s schools were asked: “What are the most typical things you talk about with your colleagues?” First, teachers in routine technical cultures describe their situation followed by responses from teachers in nonroutine technical cultures. (It should be duly noted that teachers were not apprised of the technical cultures in which they were embedded.) Routine/uncertain schools. The sample’s routine/uncertain technical cultures, teachers report little time to communicate with each other and few conversations regarding the teaching of foreign languages. As these typical teachers describe: Well, I suppose the most typical is the weather and then after that, the scheduling, the texts, discipline, classroom activities, club activities. I’m hard pressed to think, we don’t necessarily have a typical, it’s a lot of conversation that goes on in the office that sometimes has nothing at all to do with the foreign language. (Q2) There isn’t a foreign language department. I never talk to the members of the foreign language department cause they do not happen to be in my prep period by design. So you never talk to members of your department. You talk to the people with whom you happen to share [the same] prep period that I have. So, it’s not ever. Do I ever talk to people in the foreign language department, the answer is no. There are three separate persons who go their separate ways and never the three shall meet. (82)
When teachers in these schools mention academic or classroom behavior matters, it tends to center around a specific area or problem, rarely giving an idea of colleagues working collectively in their environment regarding instructional issues. My colleagues‘? In the foreign language department or in other departments? [Your colleagues, how ever
Tale of Two Technical
you choose to define them.] Most of my responses that are related to the foreign language field I have with the Spanish teacher with whom we speak and discuss Spanish grammer. (B3) Individual student behavior. [Can you give an example?] If a person repeatedly comes late or doesn’t come for make-up or detention, something like that. (Q3) Well, basically our free time is very limited, so when we do have time to discuss it, we’re both working out of the same book, we may discuss how far we are. What we hope to cover within a certain period of time. And what did you think of this and so forth as far as the text materials we’re using. But, as you know from the high school setting, the time to talk to other colleagues is rather limited because you’re rather busy. (Qt)
The German teacher in one school, who also speaks Spanish, admits to only speaking with 01le of his colleagues about Spanish grammar-an issue about language itself and not specifically about its instruction. This narrow, discrete-point focus leads one to suspect that both teachers’ task conception of language teaching relies heavily upon the grammar of the particular second language. Indeed, the German teacher reinforces this particular perspective later on during his interview when discussing the nature of his work. He states, “We have lots of tasks that we attempt to complete in the classroom, grammar, punctuation, pronunciation, the hearing side.” Conspicuously absent are any notions about the discourse, strategic, and sociolinguistic aspects (notions) of language, to name a few. Obviously, emphasis on language learning seems to be solely limited to grammar, with little time spent on other language acquisition issues. Two teachers at another school describe their particular topics of discussion also removed from language instruction, per se. The Spanish teacher, for instance, has difficulty with students reporting to her before or after school for makeup or detention issues and the French teacher is more concerned with how far she is in the book than with what students are acquiring. In fact, the French teacher appears to place emphasis on couerage of material over acquisition of material for her students in her classroom. The dilemma between coverage versus mastery is apparent here. And, as Rosenholtz suggests, it is not necessarily how much is covered, but how it is covered that makes all the difference. “Proper pacing means striking the balance between stu-
Cultures
319
dents’ achievement levels and their successful task experiences” (Rosenholtz, 1987, p. 539). She then argues that inappropriately paced instruction-directly associated with emphasis on coverage of material-accounts for poor reading performance on the part of low SES (SocioEconomic Status) students. Teachers in academically successful low SES schools, however, favor more concentrated teaching, scrutiny, and selection of instructional goals and materials over the goal of coverage which usually leads to greater basic skill mastery. Instead of discussing instructional issues regarding how and if students are learning the target language, the teacher here is more concerned with getting through the book. The Spanish teacher (B3) suggests that when he interacts with his colleagues they discuss different techniques and share reading materials. What is surprising, however, is that his colleagues do not share this same view. One colleague, as shown above, strongly feels there to be very little communication between foreign language faculty members, and the other colleague only discusses Spanish grammar-a routine technical culture. Furthermore, there was little evidence that this teacher interacted collegially on any regular basis, especially during observations. When these FL teachers did communicate with teachers of other disciplines, as the question about typical conversation revealed, the topics dealt less with academic interests than with social cordiality; as these typical comments reveal : Basically other business. My other job doesn’t allow me to have enough time to spend in the lounge. I don’t talk about my students. Just general type of stuff. (Q4) Concerning, teaching? [Anything.] Sometimes. [Could you tell me who they are and what do you typically talk about?] Who they are? [Not their names, but areas.] Mm, areas.. Well, no one in specific. Just people I generally run into and it [is] just more or less hello, and so forth. (QI) Yes. Oh let’s see. If I’m talking to someone outside the department it’s usually going to be on the subject of discipline. Because that’s the area where you’ve simply got to be good enough at it. You simply got to know what you’re doing. Without discipline everything falls apart. And I’m afraid occasionally I start to verge, go on to a subject of this student or that student. And I know that’s not professional, so I, when I realize I’m doing, I back off. I don’t want to become prejudiced against the students. But, some-
380
ROBERT
C. KLEINSASSER
times. you know, with the student that does come up. That’s very rare, though. (Q5, [Teachers in] art, history, music. PE. [What do you talk about with them?] Politics. the art people sometimes we get involved with the art, Spanish, Mexican. Hispanic art. The local leadership, or local politics. national politics. Everything. A variety of things. (Bl)
Apparently, FL teachers in routine/uncertain schools tend to define their particular technical cultures individually and separately from their coworkers. Offering little evidence of collaboration and cohesiveness, they appear to see their work environment as isolated, accepting sole responsibility for instructional duties as the normal state of affairs. Nonroutinpl~ertuin schools. Foreign language teachers at nonroutine/certain high schools present an altogether different picture. Here faculty see communication as a means to find out about and help each other with teaching duties. Although they relay there is not enough time for adequate faculty interaction, when there is, they tend to discuss issues involving their school and classrooms. All teachers resoundingly suggest they talk about issues regarding instruction when asked, “What are the most typical things you talk about with your colleagues?” Well, with other foreign language teachers, I think sometimes, it’s you know, we discuss we wish we had more opportunity to get new ideas, try to get new ideas from each other. Someone in my particular held, a lot of times we just talk about what are you doing in class and do you have any ideas for me and I might offer suggestions. And if it’s other faculty in general within the school it might be about the kids or just day to day. you know. events that are going on in school. (D4) I think probably the number one. right now. is lesson plans, units. What do you do’? Do you do bull fights? Do you use the Ernest Hemmingway article? Have you managed to come across any super supplementary material or AV equipment necessities that you think that I would profit by’? Types of methodology. When people started talking about TPR, what does TPR mean and are you doing it in class‘? Does it apply to the preterit tense as well as commands’? Mostly what are you teaching and how are you teaching? (D?) You mean in relation to content or in relation to students themselves’? [It can be both.] O.K. As far as content. mainly we do extremely well. You know, sharing material and sharing ideas. Methods of presenting a concept when we get stuck. Like, for example. the subjunctive is extremely hard for the students to grasp because the subjunctive in English has just gone down. There’s not much usage. And so when we,
when I encounter that, if I have a method or a handout or something, I usually share it with the others and they do the same thing with me. I mean, we work pretty well within the department. (Bu5)
This particular Spanish teacher goes on to discuss how her students benefit from collaborative efforts with others: As far as the students, w-hen there is any particular problem. And I don’t know really if I’m answering that, from the students, if we find, or I find in my classes that a student is not working to his potential or her potential, then I not only suggest that student come in for extra help with me. but sometimes the boys are kind of, a little awkward in coming and getting help. So [a colleague] and I have worked a way in which, if that student feels more comfortable going to [him] and since we are both doing the same thing, the student feels free to go over there and work with him. Because sometimes the boys are extremely shy. It doesn’t occur so much with the girls. But the boys feel awkward of staying with me here, let’s say ‘til 3 o’clock, 3:30 getting extra help. There’s usually nobody in the building. And the boys are kind of funny at this age. So they feel more comfortable with him and they just do that. And we work that [out]. [And you work it out together so that you’re.. .] And we work it out together so when there’s someone from him that needs either to make tests or do something because he’s busy. And it’s usually him and I just happen to work just beautiful as far as that goes. (Bu5)
Furthermore, teachers are mindful sharing positive happenings or stories, ways emphasizing or swapping negative ences.
about not alexperi-
Typical things. Well, many times things which come up in the news are springboards for topics of conversation. Occasionally maybe something that’s happened within the classroom. We talk about the situations there. Not to say that these are problem situations, but it’s something good even, and positive that happen, and. [Could you give an example of that?] Oh, O.K. We have, I have some very good students and if perhaps maybe like a student is the top. I’ve had him for four years, and he can come up with a comment someday that might be a little bit OR the wall and it’s really, really a good comment. you know and something like that. Or filling out apphcations for them [students] for college who I might mention, something like that. (Bu2) That I talk about with my colleagues? Like during the lunch period? [Or between classes.] Between classes. [Anytime during the day.] Oh, sometimes we check with each other to see where we are, as far as in the book. Whatever. Not usually problems. I usually stay away from talking, I usually avoid the gossip. (Bul)
Tale of Two Technical
When problem situations do arise in conversations, teachers from nonroutine/certain technical cultures seem to seek solutions for how they can be overcome. Accepting full responsibility for students’ learning, one teacher suggests: Basically about gregarious things that happen among the kids. Sometimes very disappointing things that might happen with students in terms of their learning ability. Often we have this perception of our kids, that is what, what we’re presenting to our kids that it should be very easy for them to learn and they should be able to just get this right back to you. Forgetting that we are the adults sometimes, and that it, it’s a whole new process for them. It’s difficult. So I would say those are the kind of things we generally talk about. (Bu4)
Colleagues in the environment do not feel they are alone or ashamed about revealing frustrations or inadequacies. There are others whom they can talk to, share ideas, and give and take assistance; indicating strong norms of collegiality. And at the school level, for example, another teacher emphasizes how she and teachers from outside the foreign language department cooperate for the benefit of the entire school: The people that I do talk to on a daily basis are [sic] a math teacher. And we talk about the running of the school. In other words, how can we, as separate voices, affect what’s being done. Not only administration wise, but in lots of other little details that pertain to how many teachers need to chaperone the barns when they’re building the floats, Our administration has been, I think, more than SO/50 responsive about things like that in the past with teacher input. And this particular math teacher and I do a lot of that. (D2)
Notice here that the teacher takes on responsibility outside her department. Attempting to influence how things can be done, or done better, this teacher communicates with faculty and administration for the good of the school and the running of its activities, both academic and extracurricular. The majority of teachers in nonroutine/certain schools talk to colleagues outside the foreign language department. As one teacher expresses: I talk to a lot of people from the English department, math, special ed, history. I talk to everybody, I really do. I talk to secretaries, guidance counselors. [O.K. Is it a potpourri of.. .] Yeah, a little bit of everything. [When you do talk about school things, what do you
Cultures
381
talk about?] Students. Sharing ideas. I admit I indulge in a little bit of gossip. Frustrations. Things that anger us. Administrators, very frequently discipline problems with administrators. Events, kind ofkeeping each other up on what’s going on. (Bu3)
The teacher here exemplifies teachers in nonroutine cultures. They talk about various instructional issues along with troubling issues regarding the particular school’s administration. Just because schools have a nonroutine technical culture, however, it does not mean they have consensus on all issues regarding their environment. They continue their need of negotiation, improvement, and communication. Relevant to note here is that in this particular school, there is open communication, teachers appear able to talk to each other, discussing and hopefully resolving problem areas. The German proverb -all that glitters is not gold-is appropriate here; nonroutine schools do have pressing issues that need to be dealt with on a day-to-day, weekto-week, month-to-month, and year-to-year basis. Indeed Rosenholtz (1985) contends that good teachers are made and not born; working together, collegial exchange recycles synergistically to allow teachers to improve. Likewise, administrator, teachers, and students can work synergistically to improve their together, school’s environment. The organizational climate of a nonroutine school clearly fosters such things: collegial norms supporting group problem-solving, social support, ongoing professional development, and everyone working together for the school’s benefit that, in turn, benefits all involved in the teaching-learning process. Observations
The more certain a technical culture could be classified (i.e., higher mean scores), the more nonroutine teachers acted in their workplace. The more uncertain a technical culture could be classified (i.e., lower mean scores), the more routine teachers acted in their workplace. Discrete point, grammar-centered topics, and vocabulary activities provided the basic focus observed in uncertain/routine technical cultures. Vocabulary memorization, verb conjugations, verb tense, and adjectives, along with direct translations, were the major themes for all classroom activities. In fact, typical vocabulary presentations had the instructor say the word with
382
ROBERT
C. KLEINSASSER
the class responding chorally; sometimes one to three students were then individually selected to repeat the same word. Completing textbook pattern drills and teacher made worksheets, students sat at their desks and teachers called on them in row order. Typically, if the student’s response was correct, the teacher would go on to the next student; if it was incorrect, the teacher would either give the correct response or recurrently call on the two or three particular individuals who always seemed to know the correct response. Finally, when grammatical structures were introduced, it was not at all uncommon to hear both teacher and student reading grammar points, word for word, directly from the textbook. Relying solely on themselves, it was not surprising that many teachers in uncertain technical cultures used the book exclusively for exercises and activities. Teachers’ isolation shaped what they planned to accomplish in their classrooms and the textbook appeared to be these teachers’ best colleague. Examples from observations in two separate uncertain/routine environments are revealing: The class completed three exercises from the book. The students responded in row order, one student was not paying attention and the teacher asked him if he was lost. He was, so she went to the next person. The major task was verb conjugations. Then the teacher said for tomorrow they had to write out exercises 5.6, and 7. These were the exercises they had just completed in class. (German 1) The teacher presented grammar points. He read the grammar explanation directly from the book. Then the teacher asked the students to translate the Spanish sentence to English and he did quickly note that yesterday’s handout that he gave might explain it better than the book. Then he went on to the next exercise. The class completed this exercise in row order. The class went over the verb fenur on page 220. When that was done, the teacher handed out a worksheet. He told them that this worksheet was similar to a test and the more practice the student got. the more practice on whether they should choose the imperfect or preterit tense of the verb form they would have. The teacher then gave the assignment which was to complete activities 6 and 7 (which were just completed in class) and a short worksheet. (Spanish 3)
Activities in certain/nonroutine technical cultures were strikingly different. They included students writing a play about a roman wedding, in Latin, first year French students reading French newspapers, and students designing and completing scavenger hunts in Spanish. Al-
though teachers in nonroutine technical cultures did complete controlled practice exercises, they also involved their students with other language learning experiences. Learners and teachers used their new language for communication. Students in these schools spoke to each other and their teachers in Spanish, Latin, and French before and after class periods. In fact, Spanish students in one school talked to each other in Spanish after school while working on their foreign language fair. And the students were at different instructional levels! At no time was this type of language use evident in the uncertain/routine schools. Students in nonroutine technical cultures seemed motivated to use their second language with their classmates and teachers as a means of communication. The practice and translation exercises that supplemented other more communicative activities were personalized and/or contextualized. For example, in a Spanish 1 class students read and translated a selection dealing with basketball. Afterward, the teacher asked questions about the school’s basketball team and games, allowing learners to use the same vocabulary but in a context that involved the students’ school environment. Not relying strictly on book exercises and explanations, nonroutine teachers attempted to overcome classroom tedium and boredom. They took language teaching one step further by using the new language in the classroom and making sure that learners themselves had the opportunity for self expression. Teachers in certain/nonroutine schools randomly selected students to respond to a much greater extent than in uncertain/routine schools. What’ is interesting is that the clear majority of students were called on and actively participated. Furthermore, in many classes it was not unusual for students to raise their hands and assist the instructor in explaining a point for a student having difficulty or an exercise that started out to be a teacher-student-teacher response pattern and ended as a group activityeveryone working together to complete and understand the task at hand. Most of the time the bell rang for the period to end, but students would be too involved in the activity, not realizing how quickly time passed. Unlike students in the uncertain/routine schools who spent the last few minutes of their class piling their books and talking to each other in English, students in certain/nonroutine classrooms used the second
Tale of Two Technical
language and appeared to be continually active in their second language acquisition process. Teachers in certain/nonroutine technical cultures have a story to tell that differs from that heard from teachers in uncertain/routine technical cultures. The following remarks are taken from interview and observation data: I think that within every class period, every day, every level, you need to do a variety of things. Sometimes you don’t get them all done, because of the 50 minute limitation. But you need to hit at least two every day. I do only Spanish with third and fourth year [students]. But I don’t hesitate to refer back to English. That may be a problem, but I make the conscious decision of keeping the students with me so they understand my instructions, instead of staying in the language. (Spanish Instructor) During the translation exercise the students told the teacher that she could translate and they would tell her if she was wrong. She took them up on their challenge and it was quite amazing how all students got involved in listening to her translate and see if she would do something wrong. And they were checking with her on some of the words she chose for translation, instead of some of the ones they chose. (Latin 1) First the teacher had the classes do a book exercise that involved a review of verb conjugations. Then the teacher presented three more new verbs. It was a very lecture-oriented presentation. Not using the book, the teacher would talk about the verb, say the verb, write it on the board, and then give some examples of how to use the verb. After the examples, the student got involved with the teacher and tried to come up with other examples. All of the students did take out pieces of paper and were writing the examples offered by both teacher and classmates. (Spanish 2)
Cultures
383
particular task conceptions of uncertainty fit with routine behaviors. Two distinct technical cultures emerge: one where teachers work together with colleagues and learners and one where teachers work by themselves; one where teachers think all learners can acquire a second language and one where teachers suspect that some students have no foreign language learning ability; one where learners have the opportunity to use the second language for communication, and one where students spend class time talking about the foreign language grammar in English; one where the learners, teachers, parents, administration, and community together shape a successful learning environment and one where teachers individually define their idiosyncratic classroom situations. Overall, the findings from this study support the notion that social organizations establish the rules of appropriateness for the behavior of participants in a technical culture on the basis of who they are, where they are, why they have come together, and what they can do, and gives meaning to that behavior. In essence, the findings reveal that the social organization determines how teachers’ daily experiences affect their beliefs, cognitions, and behaviors and the reciprocal effects of those beliefs, cognitions, and behaviors on their schools’ social organization.
References What the data begin to show is that besides routine versus nonroutine pedagogical practice, FL teachers’ use of the L2 in the two (technical) cultures also varies. The routine environment reveals heavy teacher reliance on controlled practice, whereas the nonroutine situations reveal teacher tendencies to incorporate communicative practice to a greater extent, occasionally incorporating real language use. The data suggest certain/nonroutine teacher emphasis on language use as well as on language form, whereas uncertain/routine teachers emphasize language form, or usage, to the exclusion of language use. Thus, the notions of routine and nonroutine are further elaborated by the FL teachers’ task conceptions of language form and language use. We begin to see some interchanges in the typology: Some FL teachers’ particular task conceptions of certainty fit with their classroom behaviors of nonroutineness, other FL teachers’
Ellis, R. (1988). Investigating language teaching. The case for an educational approach. Sq’stem, 16, 1~ 11. Johnson, S. M. (1990). The primacy and potential of high school departments. In M. W. McLaughlin, E. Talbert, & N. Bascia (Eds.), The conlexf.7 of teaching in secondq schools (pp. 167-l 84). New York: Teachers College Press. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Perrow, C. (1986). Complex organizations: A crirical essq (3rd ed.). New York: Random House. Rivers, W. M. (1981). Teaching ,foreign language skills. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers’ nsorkpluce. New York: Longman. Savignon, S. J. (1983). Communicative competence: Theoq and classroom practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Chicago: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizafions in action. St. Louis: McGraw-Hill. Submitted 28 September Accepted 2 February
1992 1993