The aim of this paper is to reconsider conversation analytic findings on repair organization in mass teaching lessons.
In this paper, based on an integrated perspective, I aim to fulfill this objective by taking into account two distinctions: (a) “repair” —targeting comprehension-related problems with a student's utterance / “correction” —targeting an error (not a comprehension issue) contained in a student's utterance; and (b) self / other students / teacher as the agents of repair practice. These distinctions have not been simultaneously considered in previous studies.
The results of the analysis of a collection of video data and transcripts obtained through fieldwork in a primary school elucidated the following: in conversations during a mass teaching lesson, repair and correction frequently “co-operate” to establish a single exchange of teaching and learning, and this co-operation typically takes the following trajectory:
First, simple formal errors in a student's utterance are corrected through teacher-initiated (teacher/self-completed) correction during the progress of the utterance. Second, after freeing the student's statement of minor errors by this correction practice, (self/teacher-initiated) self-completed repair takes place to establish the teacher's understanding of the statement. Third, self- or other student-completed repair is accomplished in order to share the understanding among the whole class (in this case, repair initiation is formed by distribution of understanding in class, visualized through a show of hands). Fourth, after establishing the student's statement and its comprehension through the above process, a teacher-initiated, other student-completed correction targeting a content error contained in the statement begins to operate effectively.
Since changes and improvement of lesson forms are currently required, these findings can provide a “prototype” for the development of lesson study which seeks to transform teaching at the detailed level of interaction.
The purpose of this study is to clarify the characteristics of teaching as a profession in special education in the United States, which the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) indicated in the early 1980s was different from the mainstream of professional teaching in the US at that time.
Teaching as a profession in the US had been widely considered to be directed by the “second wave of reform” towards sophistication of the teacher education system and general improvement of the treatment of teachers. The “second wave of reform” was primarily represented by the Carnegie Foundation's Task Force and the Holms Group, who were opposed to the “first wave of reform” and the top-down policies derived from ‘A Nation at Risk (1983)’. However, after examining the Professional Standards adopted by the CEC in 1983, the ‘Reply to “A Nation at Risk”’ reported by the CEC Ad Hoc Committee in 1984, and several other documents and articles relating to the CEC's activities, this study has discovered that there was another style of professionalism taking shape in American special education. The commitment to exceptional children was seen as the essence of professional teaching in special education as presented by the CEC. The following are the three aspects of this essence.
First, the essence of the teaching profession according to the CEC was identified with the Code of Ethics, which had set the standards for “good” and “right” for exceptional children. There was also the Standards for Professional Practice, which stipulated criteria for teachers' actions, and finally the Standards for the Preparation of Special Education Personnel, which were based on the Code of Ethics and the Standards for Professional Practices. By prioritizing the Code of Ethics, the CEC set the ethical norm in working with exceptional children.
Second, the CEC Professional Standards (1983) were developed with a focus on the commitment to exceptional children. Thus, ‘Reply to “A Nation at Risk”’ focused on ensuring both the quality of education that exceptional children were to receive and the educational opportunities for diversely exceptional children.
Third, in the process of developing the professional standards, the CEC clarified their mission on the basis of the definition that special education is education that supports the maximum potential development of each individual with exceptionalities. The CEC shared a sense of mission to practice the most beneficial education for exceptional children, special education teachers, and the nation as a whole.
Behind the formation of these properties, undesirable factors against special education were found. These factors included challenges in the Education for All Handicapped Act, special education teachers' dilemmas, and a lack of the perspective of diversity in “A Nation at Risk”. However, the CEC's work toward overcoming these enabled the formation of the essence of teaching as a profession in special education with the commitment to exceptional children in terms of “public mission and ethical responsibility.”