Publishing Web for Students' Final Papers
Publishing Web for Students' Final Papers |
|
From: Mercedes, Monaco
Email: mamonaco@cats.ucsc.edu
Course: Psychology 101: Informal Learning and Technology
College: University of California at Santa Cruz
Instructor: Eugene Matusov
ClassWeb: http://www.ematusov.com/psych101
ChildrenObservations: Yes
Date: 13 Dec 1996
Time: 20:41:14
Remote Name: tsb-44.ucsc.edu
The present paper discusses nonverbal communication looking specifically at the communication of children observed through a field study with the University of California. Undergraduates participated in a program which linked the University with a local Latino community violence prevention agency. I participated in this program and worked with Latino youth on computers. Nonverbal communication was essential for us to understand the children's learning and experience. This paper looks specifically at the role of nonverbal communication with bilingual and limited second language speakers. The paper also addresses issues of interpretation.
Through a field study program with the University of California at Santa Cruz, I observed the verbal and nonverbal communication of several children. The present paper discusses nonverbal communication looking specifically at the communication of the children observed through this field study. In a formal learning environment the learner typically is required to communicate his/her learning through formal tasks such as homework assignments, exams, and written assignment. Our field study, however, took place in an informal learning environment. This environment had no assignments, or exams. The children came to a community agency after school to play on computers with the undergraduates involved in the program. There were no requirements for the children in terms of learning. The children selected their computer on their own as well as the games they wanted to play. If a child did not want to play on the computer there were board games and art supplies available. We, as undergraduates, came to the situation with the assumption that learning would be taking place. In this informal learning environment there was no requirement for the learner to communicate learning. The undergraduates still wished to see evidence of learning. Because we did not emphasize the strong verbal communications of learning through exams and tests, much of the children's learning was communicated to us nonverbally.
Thirteen undergraduates from the University of California at Santa Cruz participated in creating this informal learning environment for mostly bilingual youth over a ten week period. The University linked with a Santa Cruz community agency. This agency is a violence prevention agency that provides services directed at the Latino community. The University and the agency provided an after school program for mostly Spanish-speaking and bilingual children between the ages of three and twelve. The site is a computer lab designed to give the children the opportunity to use and become familiar with computers.
As an undergraduate participating in this program, many questions arose for me concerning the role of nonverbal communication. How and when did the children use nonverbal communication? How does the children's bilingualism play a role in nonverbal communication? How can nonverbal communication help us to assess learning?
Nonverbal communication accounts for approximately three-quarters of communication (AAECP, 1996) Some argue that nonverbal communication can be more important in understanding communication than verbal (Archer, 1996). But what is nonverbal communication? Nonverbal communication refers to a variety of forms of communication excluding language. How one dresses, what personal space is kept, facial expressions, body movements, sounds, tone and eye contact are all forms of non-verbal communication (AAECP, 1996 and Archer, 1996).
Every undergraduate in the program wrote field notes about their experience at the site. The field notes contained a description of events, as well as the undergraduates reactions to the events. The undergraduates posted their field notes on a confidential class web site. The field notes contain many examples of non-verbal communication. The most common examples in the field notes were pointing, moving the mouse, smiling, and silence. Sometimes the communication could be as simple as a child pointing to a piece to show another child how to move in a game. Other times the child's pointing could demonstrate a complex interaction. One undergraduate wrote, "I noticed she came up with the answer immediately (her mouse pointer would hover over the correct answer while I watched her read over the remaining possibilities. )" (Thomas, 1996). The undergraduate heard the child reading possibilities but noticed what the child was saying nonverbally. The undergraduate interpreted that the child knew the correct answer, but was reading other possibilities to make sure. This can contribute to our understanding of the child's learning process. If only listening to verbal cues we would assume that the child first read all possibilities carefully, and then chose the answer. But, if we see her nonverbal cue, moving the mouse to the correct answer first, we can conclude that the child quickly made her decision, but waited to check her answer before actual selection.
Language did not seem to be too overwhelming of a barrier for communication at the site. One undergraduate writes of an experience with a boy he describes as having "little understanding of English" (A., 1996). The undergraduate still seems to be in touch with how the child is doing. He writes, "He had a wonderful time at memory (a game) and when he got one right I would get all excited and shake him around and he couldn't stop smiling." (G., 1996). The child was limited in his ability to tell the undergraduate verbally how he was doing, but this did not seem to hurt their interaction. The undergraduate was able to assess the child's level of enjoyment and what was causing this enjoyment (getting on right). The undergraduate was able to demonstrate his excitement by shaking the child and the child was able to demonstrate his enjoyment through smiling. Even though there was a language barrier, the undergraduate and the child were able to have a comfortable, fun interaction with nonverbal communication.
When looking at nonverbal communication interpretation is an issue. As we interact with people, we are interpreting what they are saying verbally and nonverbally in order to understand what they are communicating. This leaves us with the possibility of misinterpretation. One undergraduate recognized this in himself. He was working with a girl who was being very quiet. The undergraduate thought that this meant the child didn't speak English. This interpretation is understandable considering the context: Spanish was the primary language of many of the kids, and some of the kids didn't speak English at all. The undergraduate interpreted the silence to mean she didn't speak English, but, after working with her for a while, it turned out that she did. He realized that he had misinterpreted her nonverbal cue of silence (personal communication, T., December 4, 1996).
Spanish appears to be the first language of most of the children at the site. Most of the children were able to hold conversations in English, but a few spoke very little or no English. One might instinctively think that monolingual Spanish speaking children would use a lot of nonverbal communication when trying to communicate with primarily English speaking undergraduates. But a study by Marcon (1985) suggests that children limited in a second language reduce their body movements when interacting with someone speaking a language other than their native tongue. The majority of the undergraduates at the site were English speakers so it is difficult to make a comparison between the nonverbal communication of the children based on the language of the undergraduate. Based on their own experience, many of the undergraduates voiced disbelief that second language speakers reduced body language. One undergraduate sited a interaction with a Spanish speaking girl who speaks a limited amount of English. The child was trying to tell the undergraduate, who speaks some Spanish, about something that happened in school. She tried to tell the undergraduate in Spanish, but he didn't understand. The child began to demonstrate by hitting herself on the head. Eventually, the undergraduate understood that she'd been hit on the head (personal communication, B., 1996). This could be seen as contrary to the study. The child used a great deal of nonverbal communication to tell her story. But, the undergraduate spoke some Spanish, so this is not a clear example of a limited second language speaker interacting with someone speaking other than their native tongue. This issue is complicated. The study did not suggest that limited second language speakers do not use nonverbal communication, it suggested they use less. In order for us to see if this is true in our interactions, someone would need to score different interactions for nonverbal cues. It would be interesting for future undergraduates at the site to look into this.
Nonverbal communication was essential for us. It helped give us insight into the children's learning process as well as into their state of mind. This is especially helpful when verbal communication is blocked by a language barrier. Interpretation can be a limitation in nonverbal. Undergraduates working in this program in the future can be aware of the usefulness of paying attention to nonverbal communication as well as the limitations. They can continue to investigate the amount of nonverbal communication based on children's language capabilities. They can also look into the role of interpretation in nonverbal communication.
References
ASEAN-Australian Economic Cooperation Program (1996). Nonverbal communication. http://www1.fste.ac.cowan.edu.au/AAECP/oral_pre.4/nvc/nvc.htm
Archer, D. (1996). Exploring nonverbal communication. http://zzyx.ucsc.edu/~archer/
B.,M., G.,A., Thomas, C.M., T.J. (1996). Psychology 101: Student Web Discussion. http://www.ematusov.com/psych101
Marcon, R.A. (1985). Variation in children's nonverbal communication as a function of listener and second-language development. _Journal of Genetic Psychology, 146,_ 459-468.
