By Leon James (c)19xx

Preparing The Desocs


    
"DESOCS" is an acronym that stands for "developmental" sequence of the Conceptual statement." In gross terms, a course program that divides selected materials into unit presentation chunks over a semester period of study is-an instance of a desocs plan. In smaller (though equally imprecise terms so is a single lesson when viewed from the perspective of the teacher preparing his daily lesson plans. This article will attempt to elaborate on the notion of structured pedagogic presentations ("developmental sequence'') of some academically organized topical unit ("conceptual statement"). The presentation will focus on language teaching, although it is theoretically applicable to other traditionally accepted academic topics and subjects.

The Specification of the Teacher's
Personal Pedagogic Model

     To the extent that the teacher blindly uses instructional techniques and of materials prepared and packaged by others, to that extent he robs himself freedom to teach (see Jakobovits 1973, Chapter 1). The degree to which he fails to exercise his freedom to teach, to that extent he fails in his responsibility to himself for creative expression and self-actualization, as well as in his responsibility to his pupils for their freedom to learn (their creative expression and self-actualization).

     Freedom to teach requires both freedom in instructional choices and knowledge or awareness of the teaching-learning process. The former implies the availability of technical and specialized consultation and access to desired materials and equipment. The latter implies an experiential understanding of the on-going instructional transaction in the classroom, such as can be had in the saorogat techniques practiced in TEC Workshops. In language teaching, there is an overlap between what is being taught and how it is to be taught. This follows from the peculiar perspective of educational psycholinguistics whereby teaching is viewed as an instructional transaction between teacher and pupil, the transaction being defined in terms of the on-going conversations in the classroom (see Jakobovits, 1973, Chapter 2). Since teaching is the use of a special kind of conversational register (the instructional register), the teacher must have an adequate-knowledge of the nature and rules of conversations, which in language teaching, is precisely the knowledge that is to be imparted to the student, whether it be in the pupil's native language (Language Arts Courses) or in some other language (Foreign Language Courses and ESL); hence this special relationship between what is being taught and how it is to be taught.

  
In the past, and still currently for the major part language teachers in preparation are told that the answer to the pedagogic problem of what it is that needs to be taught in the language classroom is to be understood in terms of a linguistic analysis of language as a system. Despite the faithful application of this strategy, supported by an impressive array of technological machinery and programming, little success has been achieved in producing graduates that have the interest or ability to use a foreign language for ordinary communicative purposes (see Jakobovits, 1970). There has been a gradual realization that a good part of the problem rests in the fact that knowledge about language as a system is not directly related to the ability to use that language in conversational transactions. As a result, more and more foreign language and ESL programs are supplementing their regular teaching of Linguistic materials with "free"      conversational practice (e.g. see Savignon, 1972). Without questioning the value of conversational practice per se, it is legitimate to raise the issue of the desirability of introducing structuredness into that kind of instructional activity. Thus, just as it is relevant to inquire into the desocs steps of teaching linguistic knowledge (cf. commercial packages for teaching-various languages), it is relevant to investigate the desocs steps for teaching conviersational rules, quite apart from linguistic knowledge per se (syntax and vocabulary), and we can do this without, for the moment, taking a stand the problem of how the two are to be related, if at all. This is important because we do not, now have the capability of providing a definitive answer to this problem. We shall leave it up to the individual teacher to decide what is best for him at any particular time. Instead, we shall discuss ways in which a language teacher can go about preparing teaching materials and instructional activities related to teaching the rules of plain, ordinary talk.

                               The Role of the Saorogat in Preparing the Desocs

    The first problem to confront the teacher relates to what is to be taught (e.g. in teaching syntax and vocabulary, which patterns, which lexical items and in which sequence). In teaching conversations, the what problem overlaps with the question: What is going on in plain talk? The saorogat technique practiced in TEC Workshops is designed precisely to give the participants the ability to specify in transactional terms what's going on in a conversation.  Thus, one of the first things to be specified in the desocs is the category of events that transpire in ordinary conversations. The following represents a desocs step, in a teacher's lesson plan dealing with learning conversational openers:

                                 (1). Common, recurrent conversational routines:

(A). Conversational openers.
(1) Face-to-face conversations.

 

                                                              Role dyad: type X

                                                (i). Setting conditions: type m.
An illustration of a conversational event that is specified along each of these five dimensions, is the following:

(I). The beginning of a conversation; (A). Performing the Greeting Transaction; (1). Two participants meet face-to-face: (a) Involving two pupils; (i). Walking together to school.

Example 1:                                 Example 2:                             Example 3:
A; Hi.                                              Ah, Hi, John.                            Hello.
B: Hi.                                              Hi.                                             Hi, George.

Here is a second illustration:

                                (I). Common recurrent conversational routines:
                                     (A) Introducing first topic of conversation.

                                          (1). Telephone interaction.

                                               (a). Role dyad: type Y.

                                               (i) Setting conditions: type n.

      (I). A conversational event immediately following the successful completion of a greeting exchange; (A). The person being called introduces the first topic of conversation; (1). The call comes through on the family telephone line; (a). A calls B and they are friends; (i) it is the evening before an exam B is scheduled to take the next morning.

Example 1: (after greeting exchange).

B: I've been trying to call you all evening but the phone was busy

A: Jane is forever talking to Buzz.  Anyway, I just got in. You remember Martha at George's party Saturday night? Anyway, I called her up last night and ...

B: Listen.  I've got a History test in the morning and my notes are in terrible shape.  Could I come over to look at your notes from last semester?  Do you still have them?

A: Sure.  I have some errands to do for Mother, but I'll leave my notebook on my desk and you can wait for me.  I should be back by 8:00. 

In this example, A, the caller, was going into a description of his date with Martha; B interrupts him and succeeds in introducing the first topic of conversation,  i.e. a request to consult A's notebook. 

Example 2:
   B:  I'm glad you called.   Listen, I wanna borrow your History notes from last semester.  I have an exam tomorrow morning and my notes are in terrible shape.  Can I come over now? 

  A:  Sure thing.  I'll leave it on my desk and you can ask Mother for it.  I'm on my way to ...

In this second example, B takes the initiative right away after the completion of the greeting exchange and there is no need for interruption.   Note that in both examples, B justifies or explains his request, but in Example 1, the justification is introduced before the request, while the reverse obtains in Example 2.  The following is an illustration of a desocs unit dealing with a very common conversational transaction:  Making a Request. 

                                             Desocs Unit 12:         Making Requests

1.  Contextualizing Components

     (a) socio-logical  (=Role Dyads)
     (b) sub-cultural (= Definition of Setting)
     (c) emotional (= Mood of Participants)
     (d) informational (=Shared Background Knowledge)
     (e) inferential (= Practical Implications)

 


2. Process Components

(a) Initiating a Request.(= Initiating Proposal)
(i) Introducing through topic switch
(ii) Form of the request
(b) Reacting to the Initiation of a Request
(i) Accepting (= Validating Confirmation),
(ii) Rejecting
(iii) Justifying Rejection

The following illustrative exchanges serve as practical examples of variations along the dimensions specified by the desocs table: Example 1:

Contextual specification:

(a) two pupils, A and B are engaged in a (b) conversational exchange in the classroom during a free work period; they are discussing solutions to a homework problem, and (c) A is excitedly defending his proposal; (d) they have worked together in the past and know what the teacher is expecting of them; (e) they have specific ideas in regard to possible solutions

Process.specification: sequencing

(a) B makes the initiating proposal for the request, introducing it following an interruption through a transactional idiom proper for making a request.

(b) A initially rejects the proposal;

(c) B justifies his proposal;

(d) A then accepts it.

1.  A:    I think we should start by looking up the History of Spain in the' Encyclopedia ...  then, one of us will make a drawing of

2.  B:   Wait a minute. I've got an idea. 'Why don't you draw the flag and the coat of arms while I summarize the facts in the Encyclopedia?

3.  A:   No. No. I think we should both read the Encyclopedia article first
            Maybe we won't need the drawings. Or maybe the flag idea is not
            such a good one. Maybe a ship or a fleet of ships with soldiers in
            armor standing on the deck.

4.   B:  Look. We don't have that much time. We're supposed to divide up the assignment. We'll never get through in time otherwise. The teacher said ...

5.   A:  O.K. O.K.   I'll start with the coat of arms of Philippe's court
            Several practical stylistic variations can be explored with the same specifi-
            cations on context and process components. Here is another version:

1.   A:  We need to gather more information on the History side. Then I can make a couple of drawings ... Maybe a flag ... or the coat of arms of one of the royal families

2.   B: Hold it. Hold it. I'll look up the facts while you prepare the two drawings.

3.   A: Well ... Maybe we should both look up the facts first. Maybe I'll get some other  ideas about the drawings.

4. B:  Come on ... We're supposed to work this thing out together. You do your share and I'll do mine. It's only fair. Right?

5. A: Oh ... all right.

Once variations of this type are practiced, changes in the specified dimensions can be introduced on a systematic basis. Here is A second illustration:

Example 2:

        (1) Contextual specification:

              (a) teacher and pupil are engaged in a (b) conversational exchange in the classroom during a regular class period; they are discussing the algebraic proof, a2 +   b2+ c2 (c) the pupil is asking for an explanation;

(d) the problem relates to a previous lesson and (e) the pupil seems to have misunderstood that a and b refer to the sides of a right angled triangle.

(2) Process
     (a) the pupil makes the request after teacher asks him a question.
     (b) teacher asks for a clarification;
     (c) the pupil elaborates his
     (d) teacher accepts proposal.

The following is one possible variation of an exchange:

1. Teacher:   Fran, do you recall the algebraic equivalent of "the hypottenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the two sides"?

2. Pupil:   I think it's a2+ b2 + 2ab equals... No, that's not it.  Is the third side of any triangle  ... I don't know what the answer is.  Could you explain again which-side is the  hypotenuse?

3. Teacher:   Were you here when we discussed solutions to the quadratic equation? Or did you miss the lesson on right triangles?

4. Pupil:   I had to go to my aunt's funeral last week.  Do you remember? Jane tried to explain her notes, but...

5. Teacher: All right.  Hypotenuse refers to the longest side of a right triangle.... the one that faces the-right angle. Now, you square ... (etc.)

Again, several variations with the identical contextual and process specifications can be reviewed for practice. The following is an illustration of a partially specified Desocs plan covering an ESL teacher's instructional proposal for a mini-course on telephone conversations.

                                  Desocs Units 7-15: Telephone Conversations.

1. Process components:

   (a)   organizational structure sequencing rules.
          (i) distinction between caller and called;
          (ii) Greeting exchange;
          (iii) Introduction of "first topic";
          (iv) Ending routines.

  (b)   utterance structure: semantic and transactional content.
         (i) transactional idioms;
         (ii) topic switch devices;
         (iii) legitimization;
         (iv) face work related to conversational identity

2. Contextualizing components:
        (a) register;
        (b) standing claims;
        (c) transactional embeddings.

3. Unit  breakdown:
    (a) Unit 7:  sequencing rules related to opening exchange (including Greeting Transaction)

    (b) Unit 8: problem of introducing "first topic" of conversation;

    (c) Unit 9: transactional idioms designed to handle routine events (topic switches, interruptions, initiating requests);

    (d) Unit 10:  the problem of legitimizing statements and requests;

    (e) Unit 11: maintaining face, repairing activities;


  (f)  Unit 12: transactional register: victimizing, validating;

    (g) Unit 13: recognizing-standing claims;

    (h) Unit 14: transactional embeddings;

    (i) Unit 15: testing, diagnosing, and practicing exchanges.

 

4. Practice examples:
    (Readers who are interested in an elaboration of the items in this desocs table should consult Chapter. 2 in Jakobovits, 1973.)

The Teaching-Learning Process As A Series of Desocs Steps

The minimal unit defining learning is related to the successful completion of a single desocs step. Desocs steps are delimited by insights accompanied by a distinct emotional response (excitement, relief). The following events, sequentially ordered in time, represent a typical desocs step (t-1 unit).

      (a) delimiting point: pupil has just experienced a forward learning step marked by an insight that was accompanied by the relief reflex.

      (b) pupil rehearses insight, marvels at its simplicity, beauty, and power

      (c) pupil enjoys moment of self-confidence then turns his attention back to the on-going classroom discussion.

      (d) pupil listens to new information, rehearses, paraphrases, relates.

      (e) pupil contextualizes new relations.

      (f) delimiting point:  pupil experiences another forward learning step marked by an insight that is accompanied by the relief reflex.

      The six steps of a successful t-l unit (teaching-learning unit), as described here, can  be seen to relate to the following transactional process:

 

A. From the pupils perspective:

    (1) involvement (2) paraphrasing; and (3) contextualizing. Involvement relates to listening attitude of the pupil in interaction with inspirational quality of teacher's performance. Paraphasing relates to the pupil's selectivity in storing information given. Contextualizing relates to the integration of new information into the pupil's             personal conceptual structure of the problem.


B. From the teacher's perspective.

(1) Authentic feedback; (2) Conceptual adequacy and, (3) Reformulation.

     Authentic feedback relates to the teacher's awareness of the on-going instructional transactions (e.g. level of listening of pupil, legitimization validating confirmation). Conceptual adequacy relates to the validity of the desocs units, its level of pedagogic ambiguity (clarity to the pupil).
    Reformulation relates to pedagogic responsiveness to determined level of ambiguity left unspecified in the preceding desocs units

     Instructional effectiveness (teacher competence) is a joint function of the validity of the desocs and the teacher's personal reporting style (the inspirational quality of his"dramatization"). Desocs is task oriented and includes-selection of information to be presented, its sequencing and appropriate reporting register. Dramatizations are pupil-oriented and reflect the teacher's overall storage of information (his mental encyclopedia), what he can call upon in order to illustrate, give examples, recapitulate, summarize, paraphrase, put in a story.

     Learning effectiveness (pupil competence) is a joint function of listening attitude and performance style. The former relates to the pupils learning strategies, his prior orientation towards the manner of his involvement in the listening process. Performance style refers to the pupil's attempts to develop a cognitive model of the task.

     The teaching-learning process is the outcome of these two factors in interaction:  Teacher competence and pupil competence.  Preparing and executing a successful desocs is a joint, intimate transaction between teacher and pupil.  In future issues of BOTEC, we shall continue to explore various problems of interest with regard to preparing desocs units. 


                                                                             Back Home