University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 1-1-1992 A sociolinguistic analysis of participants co-constructing the learning context in a graduate-level seminar. Mary Louise Waite Rearick University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1 Recommended Citation Rearick, Mary Louise Waite, "A sociolinguistic analysis of participants co-constructing the learning context in a graduate-level seminar." (1992). Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014. 4924. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/4924 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A SOCIOLINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF PARTICIPANTS CO-CONSTRUCTING THE LEARNING CONTEXT IN A GRADUATE-LEVEL SEMINAR A Dissertation Presented by MARY LOUISE WAITE REARICK Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION May, 1992 School of Education © Copyright by Mary Louise Waite Rearick All Rights Reserved A SOCIOLINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF PARTICIPANTS CO-CONSTRUCTING THE LEARNING CONTEXT IN A GRADUATE-LEVEL SEMINAR A Dissertation Presented by MARY LOUISE WAITE REARICK Approved as to style and content by: Masha K. Rudman, Chair R. Mason Bunker, Member Bailey Jackson, Dea School of Education ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank my family, for their love and encouragement enabled me to complete this project. Charles and Theresa Waite, my parents, nurtured my sense of wonder and competence. Charles, my husband, joined with me and supported me in balancing caring for the family with cultivating a career. I especially want to thank Charles for reading and editing the dissertation. Andrew, our son, provided me with joy, and Anne and Deborah, Charles' daughters, gave me a reason to continue growing and learning. I extend my warm appreciation to friends who provided tangible and intangible encouragement. My dearest friend, Sharon Thulliard-Rohrs, shared conversation, childcare, and celebrations with me. Michele Dufresne, a fellow graduate student, reviewed my proposal and gave me concrete suggestions for improving it. I would like to thank Bruce Levin for generously providing me with a laser printer so I could print the dissertation. These concrete gestures are overt signs of the kind of love and support that ultimately undergird our real accomplishments. Next I would like to thank the members of my comprehensive and dissertation committees. Dr. Patt Dodds, Dr. Gretchen Rossman, Dr. Richard Konicek, and Dr. R. Mason Bunker read my drafts, advised me, and guided me through the dissertation process. A special thanks to Drs. Patt Dodds and Gretchen Rossman who carried on dialogue with me through iv print and gave me very specific feedback on my writing and my work. I especially want to thank Dr. Masha Rudman for her insights, thoughtful advising, and generosity. The monthly support group for graduate students that Masha offered in her own home and on her own time enabled me to receive her excellent guidance. The forum also enabled me to share with and learn from other graduate students. Lastly, I want to acknowledge the tremendous contributions made by the professor and the graduate students who participated in the research project. Without their open and generous support the dissertation would not have been possible. v ABSTRACT A SOCIOLINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF PARTICIPANTS CO-CONSTRUCTING THE LEARNING CONTEXT IN A GRADUATE-LEVEL SEMINAR MAY 1992 MARY LOUISE WAITE REARICK B.S. Ed., FRAMINGHAM STATE COLLEGE M. Ed., UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS, AMHERST Ed. D., UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS, AMHERST Directed by: Professor Masha K. Rudman This dissertation describes and analyzes how participants in one gender-informed graduate-level seminar socialized each other through joint construction of the learning environment and the learning. The research was conducted in two phases. First an ethnographic approach was used for collecting data over the course of the year in a graduate-level women's history seminar. Using ethnographic methods, I worked out an analysis of the learning environment—in particular the expectations of the professor, the motivations of participants, subject matter, and organization of space and activities. The second phase of the research used sociolinguistic methodology to arrive at an analysis of how the participants co-constructed the learning in a gender-informed collaborative classroom. vi Reviews of research on gender and graduate-level teaching and learning, constructivist and social constructivist learning theory, and learning processes in gender-informed classrooms formed the theoretical framework for the dissertation. Particularly relevant were studies which examined gender-balancing processes and constructivist perspectives in graduate-level learning. The study contributes to our understanding of how participants in a gender-informed seminar socialized each other and jointly constructed meanings. When the professor provided gender-informed subject matter to men and women who were willing to learn, then men and women became more conscious of the workings of gender in their own lives. In addition, the social context in the classroom became more supportive across gender lines. Through discussions alone, consciousness can be raised, but it is through collaborative work and group dialogue on individual projects that new understandings are integrated and demonstrated in written work and in social behavior. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.. ABSTRACT.. LIST OF TABLES. xi LIST OF FIGURES.. Chapter I. STATEMENT AND BACKGROUND OF PROBLEM. 1 Statement of Problem . 1 Background of Problem . 2 Assumptions . 5 Statement of Purpose . 6 Significance of the Study . 7 Delimitations and Limitations . 8 Definition of Key Terms. 8 II. LITERATURE REVIEW . 11 Gender and Graduate-Level Teaching and Learning 11 University Context . 12 Teachers. 13 Students. 15 Subject Matter . 19 Seminar Courses . 21 Constructivist and Social Constructivist Theory 24 Learning Process in Gender-Informed Classrooms . 32 Broad Goals. 32 Knowledge Construction . 36 Group Process Skills. 46 III. METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN . 57 Site and Participants. 57 Human Subjects and Confidentiality .... 58 Gaining Access . 58 Methodology for the Study. 59 Procedures for Data Collection and Time Lines: Phase One. 61 Participants . 65 Professor. 66 Students. 68 Key Informants. 69 My Role as Participant-Observer ... 71 Importance Given to Participants' Definitions During Data Analysis: Phase One ... 72 Data Collection and Time Lines: Phase Two 74 Data Analysis. 75 Gender Influences in the Learning Environment . 76 Characteristics of the University Departmental Context . 76 Expectations of Professor . 77 Motivations of Students . 78 Selection and Presentation of Subject Matter 78 Organization of Space and Activities ... 79 Process By Which Participants Constructed the Learning and Learning Environment ... 79 Gender Influences in Teacher-Student Interaction . 80 Implementing Joint Leadership .... 80 Involving Students in Planning .... 80 Employing Effective Teaching Skills . 81 Establishing Gender-Informed Norms for Conversation. 81 Gender Influences in Peer-Interaction ... 82 Agenda Setting . 83 Multiple Interactions . 84 Rules for Conversation. 84 IV. DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS. 86 Gender Influences in the Learning Environment . 86 University Departmental Context . 86 Expectations of Professor . 92 Motivations of Students . 98 Selection and Presentation of the Subject Matter. 109 Organization of Space and Activities . 116 ix Gender Influences in the Learning Process ... 121 Teacher-Student Interaction . 121 Joint Leadership. 122 Group Planning . 127 Effective Teaching Skills . 131 Gender-Balanced Norms for Conversation. 139 Peer-Interaction . 155 Agenda Setting . 155 Multiple Interactions . 158 Rules for Conversations. 172 V. CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH . 192 Conclusions. 192 Implications . 197 Recommendations for Further Research . 202 Gender Studies . 202 Role Models. 2 03 Shared Leadership . 202 Personal Knowledge . 204 Diversity. 204 Relationships .. 2 04 Nonverbal Cues. 2 05 Cultural Knowledge . 205 APPENDICES A. HUMAN SUBJECTS REVIEW . 206 B. PARTICIPANT INFORMATION . 208 C. ANALYSES OF THE SYLLABI. 212 D. SEATING CHARTS 9/11/89-5/8/90 218 E. INTRODUCTORY SESSION, SEPTEMBER 11, 1989 . 223 F. INTRODUCTORY SESSION, JANUARY 30, 1990 . 230 BIBLIOGRAPHY . 237 x LIST OF TABLES Table . Page 1. Frequency of participation in agenda-setting (listed by topic) by female and male students and the professor from September 11 through December 4, 1989. 156 LIST OF FIGURES Figure .Page 4.1 Seating of participants, September 18, 1989. 134 • ••••••••••••• 4.2 Seating of participants, December 4, 1989. 135 4.3 An example of webbing—a technique for summarizing conversations . 153 4.4 Frequency of Participation: Agenda-Setting . 157 • • Xll CHAPTER I BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF PROBLEM Statement of Problem Despite widespread interest in gender, socialization, and learning today, hardly any research has been carried out on educational environments where men and women are looking at cultural