teachers' impressions of children varying in pragmatic skills

JOURNAL OF APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY ! 2, 397-412 (1991)

Teachers' Impressions of Children Varying in Pragmatic Skills

JUDITH A. BECKER KAREN S. PLACE

SUSAN A. TENZER B. CHRISTOPHER FRUEH

University of South Florida

Many behaviors and characteristics contribute to teachers' impressions of their students and affect teachers' judgments of such qualities as competence and likeability. Among these behaviors are pragmatic skills, the appropriate use of language in social contexts. One hundred fifty-three experienced school teachers listened to one of five audiotaped conversations between a girl and a school librarian, then rated the girl on several scales. In one tape the girl requested, took rums, responded when spoken to, and maintained the logic of the conversation appropriately. In the others she used pragmatic skills inappropriately. Tape condition had a significant e~ect on ratings of the girl's likeability. Teachers formed positive impressions of the girl when she used all pragmatic skills appropriately and when she failed to respond promptly when spoken to, and negative impressions of the girl in the other conditions. Implica- tions of these results for teacher training and children's pragmatic and social skills training are discussed.

Many factors contribute to teachers' impressions of their students. Often, because of the tremendous amount of complex information they receive, teachers rely on a small number of what they see as prototypical examples of behavior or characteristics in interpreting and evaluating their students' performance (Jack- son, 1968; Mehan, Hertweck, Combs, & Flynn, 1982). Children's physical attractiveness, names, and various types of behavior affect teachers' judgments of such qualities as competence and likeability. Unfortunately, only the behavioral characteristics are open to remediation. Among these potentially remediable characteristics are children's pragmatic behaviors (Arwood, 1984; Gallagher & Prutting, 1983). Pragmatics, the appropriate use of language in social contexts, involves knowing how to use phrases such as "please" and "thank you" or "hello" and "goodbye" appropriately, to take turns and stay on topic in a

This research was supported in part by a College of Social and Behavioral Sciences Faculty Research Enhancement grant to the first author. Portions of this study were presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Kansas City, MO, April 1989.

Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Judith A. Becket, Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620.

397

398 BECKER, PLACE, TENZER, AND FRUEH

conversation, to avoid inappropriate subject matter, and to respond when spoken to, among other things.

Teachers evaluate children in part on the basis of their communicative behavior. Several authors have suggested that cultural differences between children and teachers in pragmatic style and behavior may result in both communication breakdown and teachers' negative perceptions of children's competence, intel- ligence, intentions, cooperativeness, and aggressiveness (Ervin-Tripp, 1982; Hall & Guthrie, 1981; Hymes, 1972; Iglesias, 1985; McTear, 1985; Schieffelin & Eisenberg, 1984).

In one study of these claims, Philips (1970) observed teachers' reactions to Native American children on the Warm Springs Indian Reservation in Oregon. These children, who were socialized differently from Anglo children, behaved differently pragmatically in terms of ann-taking, directing attention, responding when spoken to, and modulating volume. Teachers viewed the children as "shy" and uncooperative and, in accommodating their teaching techniques to the students, deprived the children of the opportunity to develop communicative skills necessary for later school success.

Malcolm (1979, 1982), an Australian researcher, observed that teachers had difficulties when Aboriginal pupils exhibited pragmatic behaviors that were consistent with their cultural backgrounds. When the pupils did not reciprocate eye contact and failed to answer direct questions or participate "appropriately" in verbal classroom routines, teachers often saw them as shy, incompetent, or rebellious.

Insofar as cross-cultural differences in pragmatic behavior affect teachers' impressions of children, it is likely that individual differences in pragmatic abilities within groups also affect teachers' impressions. Recent research suggests that this is indeed the case. For example, f'trst-grade teachers (Mishler, 1972) and seventh-grade teachers (Bloome & Theodorou, 1988) have been observed to comment on and correct pragmatic errors, which indicates that teachers notice and censure behavior they deem inappropriate. Fivush (1983) found a positive correlation between teachers' evaluations and kindergarten children's knowledge of classroom behaviors such as procedures for taking turns, staying on topic, allowing the teacher to initiate conversations, and not screaming. Her study extends Bates and Silvern's (1977) earlier finding of a negative correlation between preschool ~ children's comprehension of politeness in requests and teachers' ratings of their conduct problems.

Similarly, Mehan (1979) noted that children must acquire the tacit, pragmatic rules of the elementary classroom, rules that often differ from those at home. He observed teachers reprimanding children for pragmatic errors. Furthermore, drawing more causal connections than did Fivush, he noted that a history of inappropriate pragmatic behavior "can lead the teacher to treat the student negatively, . . . can lead the teacher to believe a student is inattentive, unexpressive, and the like . . . . It is in this arena that teachers' expectations can be built up, and worked out interactionally" (pp. 139, 168).

PRAGMATIC SKILLS AND TEACHERS' IMPRESSIONS 399

Heath (1983) reached the same conclusions in her ethnographic study of working-class children. In her study, teachers believed that preschoolers' inappropriate pragmatic behavior was problematic, reflected poor socialization~ and required remediation. Teachers of elementary schoolchildren associated the inappropriate use of apologies, requests, and turn-taking, as well as children's failure to respond when spoken to, with disciplinary and academic problems. As both Silliman (1984) and Bloome and Knott (1985) have pointed out, classroom discourse serves both a social and an academic role for teachers.

The relationship between teachers' impressions and their interactions with students is complex (Cherry Wilkinson, 1981), and teachers' impressions may have many consequences for children (Clark & Peterson, 1986; Hall & Guthrie, 1981; Schieffelin & Eisenberg, 1984). Impressions affect teachers' academic expectations for children, the instructional groupings in which they place children, the access they provide to various activities, and their responses to children's classroom behaviors. In turn, these reactions may affect children's attitudes about themselves as learners, their willingness to participate in the classroom, and their expectations about the results of classroom participation.

Although research suggests that pragmatic behavior in general contributes to teachers' impressions, no researchers have looked directly at the impact on teachers of specific pragmatic behaviors. In contrast, a great deal of research has been done on the contribution of pragmatic behaviors to peer impressions. Re- searchers have demonstrated correlationally that popular children have better pragmatic skills than do unpopular children (e.g., Dodge, Pettit, McClaskey, & Brown, 1986; Putallaz & Gottman, 1981; Rubin & Borwick, 1984), have shown that unpopular children trained in pragmatic skills improved in popularity rela- tive to control groups (Bierman & Furman, 1984; Ladd, 1981), and have found that pragmatically unskilled children were subsequently less popular than their more skilled peers (Dodge, Schlundt, Schocken, & Delugach, 1983; Putallaz, 1983).

In one of only two experimental studies in this area, Parker (1986) found that preschoolers liked a doll better when it demonstrated good pragmatic skills than when it simultaneously used six pragmatic skills inappropriately. Place and Becker (1991), in a more naturalistic experiment, asked 10-year-olds to listen to one of five audiotaped conversations between a girl and a school librarian. The audiotapes varied according to the girl's use of four pragmatic behaviors that were selected because they have been shown to be important in previous research and are readily operationalized. The children found the girl to be more likeable and described her more positively when she used all her pragmatic skills appropriately than when she requested rudely, interrupted, or failed to maintain the logic of the conversation. They viewed her failure to respond when spoken to as positively as her appropriate use of all skills.

Pragmatic competence not only facilitates social interaction and the formation of positive impressions, it also provides access to necessary learning experiences (Donahue, 1985) and is an indicator of academic skill. Pragmatic behaviors


provide children with conversational means to integrate into and synchronize with ongoing classroom interaction. One might say that pragmatic skills are an integral part of instructional interaction in that they enable children to practice and display social and cognitive skills and participate in various learning for- mats, and are a means for teachers and children to give and receive feedback.

Specifically, appropriate and effective requesting is necessary for children to obtain information and cooperative behavior from peers and teachers and has been shown to correlate with reading and math achievement (Cherry Wilkinson, Milosky, & Genishi, 1986). Maintaining the logic of the conversation (i.e., staying on topic) reflects collaboration, good listening, and the abilities to follow an argument, and predicts the structure of talk (Michaels & Cazden, 1986). Not surprisingly, the ability to listen attentively affects achievement (Wittrock, 1986). Likewise, turn-taking (not interrupting and responding promptly when spoken to) reflects interest in and attention to speakers and memory for one's own contribution (Silliman, 1984; Terrell, 1985), as well as control over impulsivity (Doyle, 1986). Competent turn-taking is particularly significant because teacher ques- t ioning-student responding represents the most common and important pattern of elementary classroom discourse (Brophy & Good, 1986; Cazden, 1988).

Degree of pragmatic competence appears to have significant consequences for children. Therefore, it is useful to understand the ways that specific pragmatic behaviors affect teachers' impressions so that teachers can accommodate to the children or children's problematic behaviors might potentially be remediated. The present study utilized the experimental paradigm developed by Place and Becker (1991) in order to address these issues more systematically and directly than has been done in previous research. It was predicted that teachers would form more positive impressions of a child who displayed appropriate rather than inappropriate behavior. The possibility that degree of experience teaching elementary-aged children would affect impressions was also explored.

METHOD Subjects Subjects included 153 experienced school teachers (125 women, 28 men). All were drawn from beginning, masters-level education courses at a Southeastern state university and all participated voluntarily. Seventy-seven of the teachers worked at the elementary level, whereas 76 only had experience at the preschool or kindergarten (9 subjects) or junior high or high school levels (67 subjects). Classrooms or portions of classrooms, rather than subjects, were randomly as- signed to conditions so that at least two classrooms contributed to each condition.

Materials

Audiotaped Scenarios. Five audiotaped scenarios were prepared in which a 10-year-old girl solicited the help of a female school librarian in obtaining infor-


marion for a report on France, This interaction required the girl to initiate conversation, request information, give information, sustain conversation, express gratitude, and end the interaction appropriately. Those listening to the conversation should expect the girl to follow certain pragmatic rules and be sensitive to violations or inappropriate usage. Only a female student was used in these stimuli in order to simplify the design and because pragmatic behaviors considered appropriate for girls and boys may differ (Gottman, 1986; Putallaz & Gott- man, 1983).

The 5 versions of the scenarios involved the same 2 interactants and were virtually identical. In one scenario, the girl demonstrated the 4 target skills (requesting, turn-taking, responding when spoken to, and maintaining the logic of the conversation) appropriately (see Appendix for copies of all scripts). In each of the remaining scenarios, the girl demonstrated one of these skills inappropriately 3 times. Except for that, the scenarios were the same so as to avoid confounding due to qualitative or content differences.

Prior to use of the 5 audiotapes as stimuli, each was rated by 10 adult judges to ensure consistency across tapes and to validate pragmatic usages. None of the 10 subsequently served as subjects in the study. Judges heard each audiotape twice and rated the child's use of the 4 target pragmatic skills for appropriateness on a 5-point Likert scale. Only those tapes that received extreme ratings were utilized. Intercoder agreement ranged from 80% to 100% for each skill presented in each scenario.

Questionnaire. First, subjects responded to 6 questions by marking a 7-point Likert scale. Subjects were asked how much they would like the girl in the audiotape (not very much to very much), how attractive they thought she was (very unattractive to very attractive), what kind of student they thought she was (very poor to very good), how much extra time they would be willing to spend helping her (no time at all to a great deal of time), what they would predict about her future educational and career achievements (very poor to very good), and what they would predict about her future social behavior (very poor to very good). Next, subjects were asked for demographic information about themselves. They were also given the opportunity to share other impressions of the child and explain their impressions.

Procedure Subjects participated in groups in their classrooms, although they completed the questionnaires independently. They were told that the study involved "factors contributing to children's mental health and the development of social competence" and that some of the questions about the audiotape might sound peculiar in that they were similar to questions asked of children. Each group of subjects heard only one audiotape. Subjects listened to the audiotape twice and then completed the questionnaire.


It should be noted that, with few exceptions, subjects found the stimulus tapes realistic. They all readily completed the questionnaires. Only 4 subjects noted that the tapes sounded "phony" or "like a script" and only one asserted, "I try not to judge my students this way" (although most of her ratings diverged from the neutral midpoinO. In fact, 76% of the subjects also chose to provide written impressions of the girl and some noted that she reminded them of particular students they had taught.

RESULTS

To assess the effect of appropriateness of pragmatic behavior and level of teaching experience on the teachers' ratings of the girl in the audiotape, 5 (Condition: all skills appropriate, rude requesting, interruption, not responding when spoken to, not maintaining the logic of the conversation) x 2 (Experience: elementary school only, experience with other levels) analyses of variance were conducted, one each on the 6 scales. The analysis of subjects' ratings of the likeability of the girl yielded a main effect of Condition, F(4, 142) = 13.83, p < .001, but no other significant effects. The means for this effect are displayed in Table 1. The girl was viewed as more likeable when she used all pragmatic skills appropriately than when she requested rudely: t(148) = 6.26, p < .001; interrupted: t(148) = 4.50, p < .001; and failed to maintain the logic of the conversation: t(148) = 2.11, p < .05. However, the girl's failure to respond promptly when spoken to was viewed as positively as her appropriate use of all pragmatic skills.

TABLE 1 Mean Ratings and Standard Deviations on All Scales in Each Condition

Conditions (Tapes) All

Skills Rude No Appropriate Requests Interruption Response

Not Logical

Scales Likeability 5.78 3.50 4.35 5.86 5.06

(1.31) (1.59) (1.59) (1.25) (1.03) Attractiveness 4.80 4.63 5.03 4.95 4.61

(1.13) (1.17) (.97) (1.09) (1.02) Academic 5.94 4.58 5.20 5.73 4.68

quality (1.04) (1.38) (1.24) (1.32) (1.40) Extra time 6.06 4.21 4.63 5.32 5.26

offered (1.12) (1.74) (1.27) (1.43) (.77) Future 4.69 3.25 3.45 4.64 3.20

achievement (1.70) (1.67) (1.72) (1.22) (1.62) Future social 6.17 3.46 3.95 5.45 5.29

behavior (.94) (1.06) (1.30) (1.37) (1.04)

Note. 7 = very positive rating 1 = very negative rating


The analysis of subjects' ratings of the attractiveness of the girl in the audiotape revealed no significant effects. The means for this analysis are displayed in Table I. Not surprisingly, contrasts indicated that there were no significant differences among any of the mean attractiveness ratings.

Ratings of the academic quality of the girl's performance were assessed. There was a main effect of Condition, F(4, 142) = 6.93, p < .001, but no other significant effects (see Table 1 for means). The girl's academic performance was viewed as being of higher quality when she used all pragmatic skills appropriately than when she requested rudely: t(148) = 4.08, p < .001; interrupted: t(148) = 2.56, p < .05; and failed to maintain the logic of the conversation: t(148) = 4.08, p < .001. However, the girl's failure to respond promptly when spoken to was viewed as positively as her appropriate use of all pragmatic skills.

When subjects rated according to the amount of extra time they were willing to spend helping the girl in the audiotape, there was a main effect of Condition, F(4, 143) = 9.65, p < .001, but no other significant effects (see Table 1 for means). Teachers were more willing to spend extra time helping the girl when she used all pragmatic skills appropriately than when she requested rudely: t(148) = 5.53, p < .001; interrupted: t(148) = 4.91, p < .001; failed to respond promptly when spoken to: t(148) = 2.15, p < .05; and failed to maintain the logic of the conversation: t(148) = 2.57, p < .05.

Similarly, there was a main effect of Condition, F(4, 143) = 6.51, p < .001, but no other significant effects, in the analysis of teachers' ratings of the girl's future educational and career achievement (see Table 1 for means). The subjects had higher expectations for the girl when she used all pragmatic skills appropriately than when she requested rudely: t(148) = 3.40, p < .01; interrupted: t(148) = 3.36, p < .01; and failed to maintain the logic of the conversation: t(148) = 3.80, p < .001. The girl's failure to respond promptly when spoken to was viewed as positively as her appropriate use of all pragmatic skills.

Finally, the analysis of teachers' predictions of the girl's future social competence yielded a main effect of Condition, F(4, 143) = 30.33, p < .001, but no other significant effects (see Table 1 for means). Teachers were more optimistic about the girl's future social competence when she used all pragmatic skills appropriately than when she requested rudely: t(148) = 8.96, p < .001; interrupted: t(148) = 8.41, p < .001; failed to respond promptly when spoken to: t(148) = 2.29, p < .05; and failed to maintain the logic of the conversation: t(148) = 3.12, p < .01.

Teachers' written comments provided additional evidence of the effects of pragmatic behavior on impressions. Their descriptions of the girl and explana- tions of her behavior support the contention that teachers often form negative impressions of children who exhibit inappropriate pragmatic behavior.

Tables 2 and 3 (p. 404) summarize subjects' descriptions of the girl in the different conditions. Synonyms were counted as equivalent to the labels in these tables and, because many subjects used several descriptions in their comments, a given subject could contribute to the proportions in several rows. As can be seen,


TABLE 2 Proportion of Comments in Each Condition That Included Positive Descriptions


Skills Rude No Not Appropriate Requests Interruption Response Logical

Descriptions Polite .73 0 .21 .33 137 Interested .38 .06 .21 .47 .11 Positive

self-concept .04 0 .04 .13 0 Listens .04 0 0 .13 0 Independent .04 .06 .07 .07 0

Note. Some comments included several descriptions. A given subject could thus contribute to the proportions in several rows.

the positive and negative comments used in describing the girl varied systematically as a function of her use of pragmatic behavior.

In addition to the descriptions summarized in these tables, subjects made other less readily categorized comments. For example, when the girl requested rudely she was described as being "humorous," "pressured to perform," "typical of the gifted," and "irrational," as well as putting up a "facade" and "trying to be cute." In the condition in which the girl interrupted, comments included

TABLE 3 Proportion of Comments in Each Condition That Included Negative Descriptions


Skills Rude No Not Appropriate Requests Interruption Response Logical

Descriptions Arrogant 0 .50 .18 0 0 Bossy 0 .44 .11 .07 .04 Dependent .08 .11 0 0 .04 Poor attention 0 0 .04 0 .22 Poor listener 0 0 .21 0 .04 Rude 0 .22 .11 0 0 immature .04 0 .07 .07 .04 Shy .04 0 0 .33 .15 Attention-

seeking 0 .06 .04 0 .15 Bad attitude 0 .17 0 0 0

Note. Some comments included several descriptions. A given subject could thus contribute to the proportions in several rows.


"upper SES," "precocious," "2 working parents," and that this was "just something some kids do." In response to the gift's failure to maintain the logic of the conversation, comments included "typical," "creative," and "dumb blond."

DISCUSSION

In general, the results of this experimental study support the prediction that teachers would form more positive impressions of a girl who displayed pragmatically appropriate rather than one who displayed pragmatically inappropriate behavior. Specifically, teachers said that a 10-year-old girl who used pragmatic skills appropriately was more likeable, was a better student, would merit more extra time for help, would have greater future educational and career achievements, and would have better future social behavior than would that same girl when she requested rudely, interrupted, or failed to maintain the logic of the conversation. Pragmatics alone created the impressions, because subjects knew nothing else about the girl other than her age and that she was talking to a school librarian. The results thus support and extend previous findings that pragmatic behavior affects the impressions of both teachers (e.g., Fivush, 1983; Mehan, 1979; Philips, 1970) and peers (e.g., Dodge et al., 1983; Parker, 1986; Place & Becker, 1991; Putallaz, 1983).

Furthermore, to the extent that teachers' impressions affect their behaviors (e.g., Clark & Peterson, 1986), the results suggest that children's inappropriate pragmatic behavior (either by virtue of lack of socialization or cultural differences) may prevent children from having optimally effective classroom learning experiences. As many authors have noted, pragmatic skills are the currency of classroom interaction (e.g., Cazden, 1988; Donahue, 1985; Doyle, 1986).

There were two major ways in which the results departed from those predicted. First, for 4 of the 6 analyses, the gift was viewed as positively when she failed to respond promptly when spoken to as when she used all pragmatic skills correctly. This seemingly anomolous finding is consistent with Place and Beck° er's (1991) results, and may be explained by means of subjects' comments. One third of the subjects commenting about this condition described the girl as being "shy" and 13% said that she "listens." McHoul (1978) argued that teachers have several ways to interpret students' failure to respond promptly. They may see students as pausing to think, not listening, or not understanding; classroom silences are ambiguous. Teachers' inferences or knowledge about students' abilities and personalities moderate the effects of students' behaviors on teachers' impressions (Mehan, Hertweck, & Meihls, 1986). Without nonverbal information which would have disambiguated the gift's behavior, the teachers apparently assumed that she was attentive but not responding quickly because she was either thinking or too shy. Future researchers might use videotapes or provide subjects with background on the students in order to explore the interactive effects of different types of information on impression formation.


Another way in which the results failed to support the predictions was that there were no significant effects of condition on ratings of attractiveness. Of all the factors, attractiveness is least related to language. The absence of findings for this factor indicates that the teachers did not form globally positive or negative impressions of the girl and generalize them to all attributes, but rather formed impressions confined to attributes related to language and classroom performance. In a sense, this factor served as a validity check on teachers' ratings.

The condition in which the girl requested rudely received the most negative ratings. This was also the condition in which the girl was described with the fewest positive comments and the most negative comments. These findings are consistent with parents' early emphasis on children's use of "please" and other polite request forms (Becker, 1990; Becket & Hall, 1989). It may be that teachers reacted less negatively to other pragmatic errors because they were multiply interpretable. It is difficult to view the girl's rude requests as anything but evidence of intentional insolence or poor upbringing. In contrast, there are alter- native, less negative interpretations possible for the other pragmatic errors.

The findings in this study applied comparably to teachers specifically experienced in teaching elementary-aged children and to those only experienced with children of other ages. The lack of an effect of level of teaching experience may be because the teachers' training included contact with and information about various age groups. Alternatively, responses to pragmatic inappropriateness may be culturally determined and less a function of experience teaching young children.

It is important to note that most of the mean ratings on the six scales ranged from neutral to very positive. This indicates that the teachers did not draw extremely negative conclusions from very little information, which speaks well for their training. It also indicates that the effects of pragmatic skill may be relatively subtle despite their strong statistical significance. Perhaps the context of the interaction (a child seeking help for a report from a school librarian) was inherently positive in that the child was competent enough to take this action. The generalizability of these findings should be explored in future research that samples other school contexts, such as peer interactions and teacher-student interactions that inherently require lower or more ambiguous levels of competence.

Future research might also assess the generalizability of the findings in several other ways. First, stimuli might involve boys and students of other ages. Clearly, what is considered appropriate pragmatic behavior for children changes as they get older. Surprisingly, virtually no gender differences have been observed in children's pragmatic behavior, although it is likely that teachers expect such differences or view the pragmatic behaviors of boys and girls differently (Got- tman, 1986; Putallaz & Gottman, 1983). Second, the stimuli could be extended to include scenarios with multiple interactants for which somewhat different pragmatic rules apply.


These findings have implications both for teacher training and for children's pragmatic and social skills training. Teachers could be sensitized to both cultural and individual differences in pragmatic behaviors so that they would not unfairly judge or punish children. Rather, teachers could to some extent accommodate their teaching styles and help children learn appropriate pragmatic behavior for the classroom. Silliman (1984) pointed out that inappropriate behavior covaries with different kinds of classroom events. That is, the "problem" may not reside within the child, but within the interaction between that child and specific en- vironments. Teachers can provide a variety of learning contexts in which different children could be able to display their pragmatic competencies and which could encourage their further participation and development.

In addition, given that appropriate pragmatic behavior is so important for children to acquire, intervention efforts should be directed at those children whose pragmatic behaviors are, for whatever reason, inappropriate in the context of the classroom. The present findings suggest that such intervention should specifically target rude requesting and, to a lesser degree, interrupting and failing to maintain the logic of conversations, because these behaviors make the greatest contribution to teachers' negative impressions. Future research should investigate the effects of such interventions and explore further the contribution of children's pragmatic behavior to teachers' responses and impressions.

REFERENCES

Arwood, E. (1984). Pragmaticism: Treatment for language disorders. Rockville, MD: National Student Speech Language Hearing Association.

Bates, E., & Silvern, L. (1977). Social adjustment and politeness in preschoolers. Journal of Communication, 27, 104-111.

Becker, I. (1990). Processes in the acquisition of pragmatic competence. In G. Conti-Ramsden & C. Snow (Eds.), Children's language (Vol. 7, pp. 7-24). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Becker, J., & Hall, M. (1989). Adult beliefs about pragmatic development. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 10, 1 - 17.

Bierman, K., & Furman, W. (1984). The effects of social skills training and peer involvement on the social adjustment of preadolescents. Child Development, 55, 151-162.

Bloome, D., & Knott, G. (1985). Teacher-student discourse. In D.N. Ripich & F.M. Spinelli (Eds.), School discourse problems (pp. 53-76). San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.

Bloome, D., & Theodorou, E. (1988). Analyzing teacher-student and student-student discourse. In J. Green & J. Harker (Eds.), Multiple perspective analyses of classroom discourse (pp. 217- 248). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 328-375). New York: Macmillan.

Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse. Portsmouth, Nit: Heinemann. Cherry Wilkinson, L. (1981). Analysis of teacher-student interactions: Expectations commanded by

conversational structure. In J. Green & C. Wallat (Eds.), Ethnography and language in educational settings (pp. 253-268). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Cherry Wilkinson, L., Milosky, L., & Genishi, C. (1986). Second language learners' use of requests and responses in elementary classrooms. Topics in Language Disorders, 6, 57-70.


Clark, C., & Peterson, P. (1986). Teachers' thought processes. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255-296). New York: Macmillan.

Dodge, K., Pettit, G., McClaskey, C., & Brown, M. (1986). Social competence in children. Mono- graphs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 5/(Whole No. 213).

Dodge, K., Schlundt, D., Schocken, I., & Delugach, J. (1983). Social competence and children's sociometric status: The role of peer group entry strategies. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 309-336.

Dunahue, M. (1985). Communicative style in learning disabled students: Some implications for classroom discourse. In D.N. Ripich & F. M. Spinelli (Eds.), School discourse problems (pp. 97-124). San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.

Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 392-431). New York: Macmillan.

Ervin-Tripp, S. (1982). Structures of control. In L. Cherry Wilkinson (Ed.), Communicating in the classroom (pp. 27-47). New York: Academic.

Fivush, R. (1983). Negotiating classroom interaction. Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 5, 83-87.

Gailagher, T., & Prutting, C. (Eds.). (1983). Pragmatic assessment and intervention issues in language. San Diego, CA: College-Hill.

Gottman, J. (1986). Commentary: Merging social cognition and social behavior. Monographs of the Society for Research in ChiM Development, 51(Whole No. 213).

Hall, W.S., & Guthrie, L.F. (1981). Cultural and situational variation in language function and use-- Methods and procedures for research. In J. Green & C. Wallat (Eds.), Ethnography and language in educational settings (pp. 209-228). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Heath, S. (1983). Ways with words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hymes, D. (1972). Introduction. In C. Cazden, V. John, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Functions of language

in the classroom (pp. xi-lvii). New York: Teachers College Press. Iglesias, A. (1985). Cultural conflict in the classroom: The communicationally different child. In

D.N. Ripich & F.M. Spinelli (Eds.), School discourse problems (pp. 79-96). San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.

Jackson, P. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Ladd, G. (1981). Effectiveness of a social learning method for enhancing children's social interaction

and peer acceptance. ChiM Development, 52, 171-178. Malcolm, I. (1979). The West Australian Aboriginal child and classroom interaction: A so-

ciolinguistic approach. Journal of Pragmatics, 3, 305-320. Malcolm, I. (1982). Speech events in the Aboriginal classroom. International Journal of the So-

ciology of Language, 36, 115-134. McHoul, A. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society,

7, 183-213. McTear, M. (1985). Children's conversations. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Har-

vard University Press. Mehan, H., Hertweck, A., Combs, S., & Flynn, P. (1982). Teachers' impressions of students'

behavior. In L. Cherry Wilkinson (Ed.), Communicating in the classroom (pp. 297-321). New York: Academic.

Mehan, H., Hertweck, A., & Meihls, J. L. (1986). Handicapping the handicapped. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Michaeis, S., & Cazden, C. (1986). Teacher/child collaboration as oral preparation for literacy. In B. Schieffelin & P. Gilmore (Eds.), The acquisition of literacy (pp. 132-154). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Mishler, E. (1972). Implications of teacher strategies for language and cognition: Observations in first-grade classrooms. In C. Cazden, V. John, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom (pp. 267-298). New York: Teachers College Press.


Parker, J. (1986). Becoming friends: Conversational skills for friendship formation in young children. In J. Gottman & J. Parker (Eds.), Conversations of friends: Speculations on affective development (pp. 139-191). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Philips, S. (1970). Acquisition of rules for appropriate speech usage. In J. Alatis (Ed.), Report of the 21st Annual Roundtable Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies: Bilingualism and language contact: Anthropological, linguistic, psychological, and sociological aspects (pp. 77-101). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Place, K., & Becker, J. (1991). The influence of pragmatic competence on the iikeability of grade- school children. Discourse Processes, 14, 227-241.

Putallaz, M. (1983). Predicting children's sociometric status from their behaviors. Child Develop- ment, 54, 1417-1426.

Putallaz, M., & Gottman, J. (1981). An interactional model of children's entry strategies into peer groups. Child Development, 52, 986-994.

Putallaz, M., & Gottman, J. (1983). Social relationship problems in children. In B. Lahey & A. Kazdin (Eds.), Advances in clinical child psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1-43). New York: Plenum.

Rubin, K., & Borwick, D. (1984). The communicative skills of children who vary with regard to sociability. In H. Sypher & J. Applegate (Eds.), Communication by children and adults: Social cognitive and strategic processes (pp. 152-170). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Schieffelin, B., & Eisenberg, A. (1984). Cultural variation in children's conversations. In R. Schiefelbusch & J. Pickar (Eds.), The acquisition of communicative competence (pp. 377- 420). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.

Silliman, E. (1984). Interactional competencies in the instructional context: The role of teaching discourse in learning. In G.P. Wallach & K.G. Butler (Eds.), Language learning disabilities in school-age children (pp. 288-317). Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.

Ten'ell, B. (1985). Learning the rules of the game: Discourse skills in early childhood. In D.N. Ripich & F.M. SpineUi (Eds.), School discourse problems (pp. 13-27). San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.

Wittrock, M. (1986). Students' thought processes. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 297-314). New York: Macmillan.

APPENDIX

Scenario With All Skills Appropriate (L = Librarian, C = Child)

L: Hi there! Can I help you with something? C: Yeah, I need to do a report on France for my class. Could you please help

me find some information for it? L: Sure thing, I'd be glad to help. We have all kinds of information in here

about France. What would you like to know? C: Well, I'll need books, maybe some maps. I'd like to put some pictures of

France in my report too. L: OK, and what kinds of information would you like to put in your report? C: I have to report on geography, products, and government. Then I can pick

another topic. Can you help me pick it? I'm not sure what another good topic would be.

L: Let me see. France is famous for its good food, and we have lots of books about that. Have you ever eaten a Crepe Suzette?


C" L:

C: L:

C" L: C:

No. Well, take it from me, it's delicious. When people go to France, one of the things they really like to do is eat. That sounds like a fun topic. I like to eat too! Good! You'll find information on food in most any book on France in this library. Do you think you could show me where the books are? Sure. They're in this comer over here. Come with me and I ' ll show you. OK~

Scenario With Inappropriate Requesting (L = Librarian, C = Child)

L" C: L:

C:

L" C:

L:

C" L:

C: L:

C: L: C:

Hi there! Can I help you with something? I want you to get me some books on France for my report, right now! Sure thing, I 'd be glad to help. We have all kinds of information in here about France. What would you like to know? Well, I ' l l need books, maybe some maps. I 'd like to put some pictures of France in my report too. OK, and what kinds of information would you like to put in your report? I have to report about geography, products, and government. Then I can pick another topic. You have to pick it for me. I 'm not sure what another good topic would be. Let me see. France is famous for its food, and we have lots of books about that. Have you ever eaten a Crepe Suzette? No. Well, take it from me, it's delicious. When people go to France, one of the things they really like to do is eat. That sounds like a fun topic! I like to eat too! Good! You'll find information on food in most any book on France in this library. Show me where the books are. It 's your job, you know. Sure. They're in this comer over here. Come with me and I ' ll show you. OKI

Scenario With Inappropriate Turn-Taking (L = Librarian, C = Child)

L" C:

L:

Hi there! Can I help you with something? Yeah, I need to do a report on France for my class. Could you please help me find some information for it? Sure thing, I 'd be glad to help. We have all kinds of information in here about France. What would you like to know?


C:

L: C:

L:

C" L:

C" L:

C: L: C:

(Interrupting) Well, I ' l l need books, maybe some maps. I 'd like to put some pictures of France in my report too. OK, and what kinds of information would you like to put in your report? (Interrupting) I have to report about geography, products, and government. Then I can pick another topic. Can you help me pick it? I'm not sure what another good topic would be. Let me see. France is famous for its good food, and we have lots of books about that. Have you ever eaten a Crepe Suzette? No. Well, take it from me, it's delicious. When people go to France, one of the things they really like to do is eat. (Interrupting) That sounds like a fun topic. I like to eat too! Good! You'll find information on food in most any book on France in this library. Do you think you could show me where the books are? Sure. They're in this comer over here. Come with me and I'll show you. OK[

Scenario With Inappropriate Responding (L = Librarian, C = Child)

L" C:

L:

C:

L: C:

L:

C: L:

C: L:

C: L: C:

Hi there! Can I help you with something? (LONG PAUSE). Yeah, I need to do a report on France for my class. Could you please help me find some information for it? Sure thing, I 'd be glad to help. We have all kinds of information in here about France. What would you like to know? Well, I ' l l need books, maybe some maps. I 'd like to put some pictures of France in my report too. OK, and what kinds of information would you like to put in your report? (LONG PAUSE) I have to report about geography, products, and government. Then I can pick another topic. Can you help me pick it? I 'm not sure what another good topic would be. Let me see. France is famous for its good food, and we have lots of books about that. Have you ever eaten a Crepe Suzette? (LONG PAUSE) No. Well, take it from me, it's delicious. When people go to France, one of the things they really like to do is eat. That sounds like a fun topic. I like to eat too! Good! You'll find information on food in most any book on France in this library. Do you think you could show me where the books are? Sure. They're in this comer over here. Come with me and I ' ll show you. OK~


Scenario With Inappropriate Logic (L = Librarian, C = Child)

L: C:

L:

C." L: C:

L:

C:

L:

C: L:

C: L: C:

Hi there! Can I help you with something? Yeah, I need to do a report on France for my class. Could you please help me find some information for it? Sure thing, I 'd be glad to help. We have all kinds of information in here about France. What would you like to know? My Dad took a picture of our dog having babies and it got in the paper! OK, and what kinds of information would you like to put in your report? I have to report about geography, products, and government. Then I can pick another topic. Can you help me pick it? I ' m not sure what another good topic would be. Let me see. France is famous for its good food, and we have lots of books about that. Have you ever eaten a Crepe Suzette? Yesterday I bit into an apple and my tooth fell out so I put it under my pillow and my grandma gave me a dollar for it! Well, take it from me, it's delicious. When people go to France, one of the things they really like to do is eat. I only have two baby teeth left. The rest are adult teeth. Good! You'll find information on food in most any book on France in this library. Do you think you could show me where the books are? Sure. They're in this corner over here. Come with me and I ' ll show you. OKI

teachers' impressions of children varying in pragmatic skills

Documents