Over the last ten years my thinking and writing have been
concerned with the nature and process of effective teaching
and learning. Although I have tried to present my thinking as
a chronological sequence much of the work developed
concurrently. Over the period covered by my publications my
thinking has focused on three main areas:
a. An exploration of the implications for language learning of
the shared meaning-making process in reading, reading aloud
and writing. (Approx.1978-1982)
b. An exploration of the influence that a teacher may have in
the shared process of meaning-making and its implications
for teaching and learning. (Approx. 1982-1990)
c. The power context of the classroom where the participants
employ power strategies in an attempt to influence the
outcome of the negotiation. (Approx. 1990- present)
My early interest in linguistics led me to focus on the role of
language in the process of teaching and learning. Initially I
was concerned with linguistically analysing children's
writing in an attempt to explore the ways in which their
written language developed. However, I soon began to
realise the importance of the learning context and the ways
in which meaning is negotiated within that context. It
became clear that the linguistic exchanges between the
teacher and the pupils had a significant effect upon the
learning that was taking place.
I began to linguistically analyse the interactions between
teachers and pupils. The linguistic evidence seemed to
suggest that the operation of power between the teacher and
the pupils affected the quality of learning. Much of my later
work has therefore been concerned with describing power
relationships and their role in the teaching and learning
process. My interest extended to interactions in staff
meetings where I analysed interactions between teachers and
between head teachers and teachers.
In all of these interactions I observed dominant strategies
which constrained the future possibilities of action for
others and were characterised by:
* More institutional and less intimate syntax choices.
* More formal choices in vocabulary.
* Using high key or high termination choices.
* Using dominant rising tones
* Firmer and more emphatic paralanguage.
* Intermittent or disrupted eye contact.
* Emphatic gestures.
* Repetition.
* Ritual forms of language.
I also observed less dominant strategies which facilitated or
opened up the future possibilities of action for others and
were characterised by:
* More intimate and less institutional syntax choices.
* More casual vocabulary choices
* Mid key and mid termination choices.
* A soft or moderate voice.
* Long eye contact.
Once I could describe the linguistic patterns which seemed to
accompany dominant and less dominant strategies, I was able
to explore the kinds of power strategies operating in the
learning situation. I concluded that power strategies
circumscribe the degree of co-operation and consent or
conflict and challenge in the learning context. I found this
was a helpful perspective in trying to describe what may be
happening in the teaching and learning process. It can provide
a measure of the quality of learning and illuminate different
styles of teaching.
Date of Award | 1993 |
---|
Original language | English |
---|
Awarding Institution | |
---|
WHAT IS THE NATURE AND PROCESS OF EFFECTIVE TEACHING AND LEARNING?
Warham, S. M. (Author). 1993
Student thesis: PhD