Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A case study on the communication of older adolescents
LAUREN DAVIS, ELIZABETH SPENCER, & ALISON FERGUSON
School of Humanities & Social Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia
(Received 31 January 2011; Accepted 17 August 2011)
AbstractThis study compared the communication of two older male adolescents (aged 17 and 19 years) witheach other (peer interaction) and with a teacher (non-peer interaction) in three different types of activity(casual conversation, providing/listening to a recount and collaborative problem-solving). Conversationanalysis, selected analyses from the perspective of systemic functional linguistics and social psychology(communication accommodation theory) were applied in data analysis. Peer interaction showed fewerquestions, fewer challenging moves and the absence of divergent accommodation strategies. In the non-peer interaction, the teacher’s higher number of turns, questions and interruptions appeared toinfluence the opportunity for adolescent contribution to the interactions. Some aspects of languageuse by each adolescent – mean turn length, use of one-word utterances and sarcasm – were consistentacross communication partner and activity. The methodology is suggested to provide a suitableprocedure for use in similar research with older adolescents who have traumatic brain injury.
Keywords: adolescent language, conversation, traumatic brain injury
Introduction
This study compared the communication of two older male adolescents (aged 17 and 19years) with each other (peer interaction) and with a teacher (non-peer interaction) in threedifferent types of activity (casual conversation, collaborative problem-solving and providing/listening to a recount). The study aimed to pilot a methodology suitable for both research andclinical assessment of older adolescents who have an acquired traumatic brain injury (TBI).
Despite the knowledge that TBI peaks in late-stage adolescence and that it has beenassociated with poor long-term social outcome (Ylvisaker, 1993), research on pragmaticabilities has been limited with this specific population (Sharp, Bye, Llewellyn, and Cusick,2006). Additionally, there is a relative lack of comparative information available in relation totypical language use by this population, whose language skills are generally regarded as stilldeveloping (Nippold, 1998). Turkstra (2000) argues for the importance of understandingmore about adolescent language in natural interactions with peers as a way to more validlyinterpret the communication of adolescents following TBI. Previous research has predomi-nantly examined communication between friends or highly familiar peers that partners chose
Correspondence: Alison Ferguson, School of Humanities and Social Science, University of Newcastle, 1st Floor, McMullinBuilding, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, November–December 2011;25(11–12): 1044–1051
ISSN 0269-9206 print/ISSN 1464-5076 online © 2011 Informa UK Ltd.DOI: 10.3109/02699206.2011.616642
Clin
Lin
guis
t Pho
n D
ownl
oade
d fr
om in
form
ahea
lthca
re.c
om b
y U
nive
rsity
of
Stra
thcl
yde
on 1
1/18
/14
For
pers
onal
use
onl
y.
to communicate with. Little is known about how adolescents communicate with unfamiliarpeers or other unfamiliar communication partners (non-peer interactants). Furthermore,research has predominantly focused on the communication of younger adolescents (13–16years), and therefore limited attention has been directed to the communication of olderadolescents. Turkstra (2000) stated that older adolescents are progressing towards commu-nicating in a more adult-like manner (more advanced, mature pragmatic skills). This oldergroup judges language choices by adults in communication with them as patronising (Gilesand Williams, 1994). Adolescents have identified teachers as an alternative non-peer mentoror communication partner to a parent (Greenberger, Chen, and Beam, 1998). However,there is little research examining older adolescent–teacher communication outside formalclassroom interactions. In comparison to the younger adolescent, the teacher is potentially amore likely communication partner outside the classroom for the older adolescent, particu-larly discussing post-school options, and may require higher level collaborative discussion ornegotiation (Turkstra, 2000). In the present study, none of the participants had met pre-viously, and the non-peer interaction involved interaction with a teacher, in order to addressthis gap in the research literature.
Research on adolescent communication has typically used observational methods, semi-structured interview or questionnaire sampling. Self-report measures are partial to biasresponses that are considered desirable to societal opinion or the researcher’s aims. Whilstobservation has high ecological validity (e.g. as used by Readdick and Mullis (1997)), theresearchers are limited in their ability to manipulate variables of interest such as familiarityand role relationship of the communication partner. For these reasons, the present researchnot only chose to investigate casual conversation (Eggins and Slade, 1997/2004), but alsoinvestigated the suitability for this age group of interaction sampling methods that have beenused previously with adults with acquired neurological language disability: the problem-solving task developed by Togher (Kilov, Togher, and Grant, 2008) and the eyewitnessrecount task developed by Ferguson (1994). The activities were selected to simulate thedemands of everyday communication.
In order to analyse the effect of role relationship and activity on the communication of twoolder adolescents, three distinct approaches that have been used successfully in the analysis ofcommunication following brain damage were adopted to selectively illuminate particularaspects of the interaction. Conversation analysis informed the analysis of the basic structuralcomponents of the conversation, particularly turn taking (Sidnell, 2009). Exchange structureanalysis (ESA; Berry, 1981) was used to explore the roles taken within the interaction byparticipants, and communication accommodation theory (CAT) (Giles and Smith, 1979)was used to explore the similarities and differences in interaction as speakers talked withdifferent partners.
Method
The study employed a descriptive single case design, to investigate the influence of rolerelationship (non-peer vs. peer–peer dyads) and activity type (casual conversation, problemsolving, eyewitness recount).
Participants
Participants were two older male adolescents and a secondary high-school teacher, none ofwhom had previously met. Adolescent 1 (A1) was 19 years old and in his second year at
Communication of older adolescents 1045
Clin
Lin
guis
t Pho
n D
ownl
oade
d fr
om in
form
ahea
lthca
re.c
om b
y U
nive
rsity
of
Stra
thcl
yde
on 1
1/18
/14
For
pers
onal
use
onl
y.
university. Adolescent 2 (A2) was 17 years old and in his final year at secondary school. Thesecondary high-school teacher (Tch) was a 42-year-old female with an undergraduate degreein teaching. All participants in the study were matched for culture (Australian) and spokeEnglish as their first language.
Data collection
Participants’ interactions were recorded using a Sony DCRSX65 digital video camera (Sony,supplier Harvey Norman, Bennetts Green, NSW, Australia) and a handheld tape recorder ina home setting. First, each participant engaged in casual conversation with one other parti-cipant for a maximum of 5 minutes. In dyads, the participants then participated in theproblem-solving task (Kilov et al., 2008) in which participants were required to work outthe use of an unidentified object – an aid used for brain injury rehabilitation (see Kilov et al.,2008, for full description). The final task was an eyewitness recount. Each partner, in eachdyad, had a turn at witnessing and listening to a mock car accident demonstrated by theresearchers. Witnesses were required to recount the accident to their partner who was in thelistener role (Ferguson, 1994).
Data analysis
All interactions were transcribed and entered into the software program Systematic Analysisof Language Transcripts – SALT, Version Research V8.0 from www.saltsoftware.com(Miller, 1984–2004). Basic SALT-coding conventions were used to describe the structuralproperties of conversation (focusing on turn length).
For the ESA, transcripts were divided into a series of exchanges consisting of synoptic anddynamic moves (Berry, 1981; Kilov et al., 2008). A move is a semantic unit, in comparisonwith a turn, which is a structural unit within conversation. Exchanges are described usingsynoptic moves (requesting, giving information) and dynamic moves (track or challenge theinformation). Roles in the exchange were coded as follows: –listener roles (receiving informa-tion, ‘secondary knower’, K2) and witness roles (giving information, ‘primary knower’, K1).
For the analysis of CAT (Giles and Smith, 1979), strategies that indicated commu-nication convergence and divergence were coded in each transcript. Convergent strate-gies emphasising group similarities were coded. Convergent strategies includeapproximation (speaker attunes to the partner’s communication style by altering rate,dialect, style and non-verbal behaviours), interpretability (speaker responds to partner’sneeds in discourse, e.g. speech rate or increasing non-verbal gesture) and discoursemanagement (in relation to topic, personal relationship). Divergence was coded whenparticipants emphasised intergroup differences between the communication partners inthese same domains. Strategies that incorporated elements of more than one domainwere double coded. Both verbal and non-verbal behaviours could be coded within astrategy, for example, simultaneous laughter.
Non-parametric testing (chi-square analysis) was performed on findings that wereobserved in the communication of both adolescents with a significance level of 0.05.
Reliability
Inter-rater reliability was conducted for the coding of ESA and CAT. Two transcripts thatcomprised 26% of the data were selected at random for reliability analysis. Total percent
1046 L. Davis et al.
Clin
Lin
guis
t Pho
n D
ownl
oade
d fr
om in
form
ahea
lthca
re.c
om b
y U
nive
rsity
of
Stra
thcl
yde
on 1
1/18
/14
For
pers
onal
use
onl
y.
agreement between two of the researchers was established for each set of coding, rangingbetween 85.0% and 95.7%.
Results
Overall, the contribution of the adolescents in the peer interaction was more equally balancedthan their contribution in the non-peer interaction (as indicated by comparison of mean turnlength).
ESA analysis indicated that the adolescents had relatively equal proportions of synopticmoves in casual conversation, across tasks (see Table I). In casual conversation, A2 demon-strated a similar pattern of synoptic moves with both the teacher (K1¼ 70%, K2¼ 30%) andA1 (K1 ¼ 69%, K2 ¼ 31%). This pattern was also observed across both interactions in theproblem-solving task. In contrast, A1 provided more information across interactions with theteacher than with A2. Both adolescents directed significantly fewer questions to the teacherthan they did to one another in the problem-solving task (p ¼ 0.048), but this finding did notreach significance in the casual conversation (p ¼ 0.085).
Few challenging moves were seen across the peer interaction. Both adolescents used morechallenging moves with the teacher (see Table I) than with each other. However, A1 did notprovide any direct challenges to the teacher; all challenging moves were in response toteacher-initiated challenges. By contrast, A2 provided direct challenges to the teacher asindicated by the following excerpt in Example 1.
Table I. Exchange structure patterns for adolescent in the peer and teacher interactions (proportion of moves as apercentage of total moves).
Interaction TaskSynopticmoves
Dynamic moves(track)
Dynamic moves(chall)
Informationgivinga
Informationreceivinga
A1 with peer CC 80% (71/89) 19% (17/89) <1% (1/89) 52% (37/71) 49% (34/71)PS 70% (44/63) 30% (19/63) 0% (0/63) 27% (12/44) 73% (32/44)
EWL 33% (1/3) 66% (2/3) 0% (0/3) 0% (0/1) 100% (1/1)EWW 100% (6/6) 0% (0/6) 0% (0/6) 100% (6/6) 0% (0/6)
A2 with peer CC 78% (58/74) 20% (15/74) <1% (1/74) 69% (40/58) 31% (18/58)PS 81% (46/57) 12% (7/57) 7% (3/57) 72% (33/46) 28% (13/46)
EWL 17% (1/6) 83% (5/6) 0% (0/6) 0% (0/1) 100% (1/1)EWW 100% (6/6) 0% (0/6) 0% (0/6) 100% (6/6) 0% (0/6)
A1 withteacher
CC 68% (42/62) 21% (13/62) 11% (7/62) 71% (30/42) 29% (12/42)
PS 77% (33/43) 23% (10/43) 0% (0/43) 82% (27/33) 18% (6/33)EWL 50% (1/2) 50% (1/2) 0% (0/0) 0% (0/1) 100% (1/1)EWW 88% (7/8) 12% (1/8) 0% (0/0) 100% (7/7) 0% (0/7)
A2 withteacher
CC 67% (44/66) 23% (15/66) 11% (7/66) 70% (31/44) 30% (13/44)
PS 51% (37/73) 36% (26/73) 14% (10/73) 68% (25/37) 32% (12/37)EWL 47% (7/15) 13% (2/15) 40% (6/15) 43% (3/7) 57% (4/7)EWW 100% (21/21) 0% (0/21) 0% (0/21) 100% (21/21) 0% (0/21)
Notes: CC, casual conversation; PS, problem-solving task; EWL, eyewitness (listener role); EWW, eyewitness(witness role).aPercentage of total synoptic moves.
Communication of older adolescents 1047
Clin
Lin
guis
t Pho
n D
ownl
oade
d fr
om in
form
ahea
lthca
re.c
om b
y U
nive
rsity
of
Stra
thcl
yde
on 1
1/18
/14
For
pers
onal
use
onl
y.
Example 1. Casual conversation with A2 – exchange 10 – example of challenge by adolescentto teacher
3 Tch I taught it for seven years, I’d love to get back
into it actually. I really enjoy it, it’s a great subject.
4 *A2 (shoulder shrug) it’s a bit bland but^
5 Tch Oh no it’s good.
From the CAT analysis, no divergent strategies were found across the peer interactions.Approximation and discourse management were the convergent strategies found across thecasual conversation and problem-solving task. No evidence of communication accommoda-tion was found across the eyewitness recount task. In comparison to the peer interaction, A2usedmore divergent and less convergent strategies with the teacher. A1’s accommodation didnot change whether in interaction with A2 or with the teacher (convergent strategies onlyused). In casual conversation, significantly higher proportions of approximation (p ¼ 0.00)and discourse management of relationship (p ¼ 0.00) were observed across the peer com-pared with non-peer interaction. In the problem-solving task, the higher proportions ofapproximation in the peer interaction reached significance (p ¼ 0.00).
Example 2.Casual conversation between A1 and A2 – exchange 19 – example of supportivecomment between peers (convergence)
1 A1 The maths I find at uni pretty hard.
2 A2 With two unit maths I failed the last two unit test.
3 A1 Yeah.
4 A2 I got ninety percent for extension, but failed the
two unit paper.
5 A2 Great (thumb gestures)!
6 A1 I remember my half yearly for two unit maths
I got thirty three percent.
7 A2 Thats probably about what I got.
8 A1 Yeah.
9 A1 And then I got eighty four, for the HSC [Higher
School Certificate].
10 A2 That’s alright hey,11 A1 Yeah.
Different patterns of interaction were observed to be used by the adolescents when talking withthe teacher. The analysis suggested that these differences largely reflected the individualadolescent’s responsiveness to the teacher’s interaction style. Overall, the teacher’s meanturn length was proportionally longer across all interactions except the eyewitness task whenthe teacher was in the listener role. The teacher also asked more questions than both of theadolescents, which influenced patterns of exchange structure in the non-peer interaction. Theteacher used more challenging moves with A2 across each context (11% casual conversation;14% problem-solving task; 40% eye witness listener role). Similar proportions of challengeswere presented to both adolescents in casual conversation (11% for both). These challengesappeared to function as comments on the adolescents’ behaviour, opinions and perspectives.
Similarly, communication accommodation appeared to be different when talking with theteacher. Topic selection for casual conversation was often directed by the teacher. This was
1048 L. Davis et al.
Clin
Lin
guis
t Pho
n D
ownl
oade
d fr
om in
form
ahea
lthca
re.c
om b
y U
nive
rsity
of
Stra
thcl
yde
on 1
1/18
/14
For
pers
onal
use
onl
y.
used as a discourse management strategy, but the strategies were not employed as a directresponse to the adolescents’ conversational needs. The teacher used both convergent anddivergent strategies across interactions with both adolescents. In the problem-solving taskand in conversation, each adolescent showed similar proportions of strategies. However, thetask itself did appear to have influence, in that higher proportions of convergent strategieswere observed across the problem-solving task for A1 (84.6%) and A2 (87.5%) than in thecasual conversation.
Discussion
From the previous research literature, it had been expected that the adolescents would changetheir communication in response to the difference in role relationship and the findingssupported this suggestion. The contribution of partners was more equal in the peer interac-tion, indicating that the partners were sharing the communication burden and limitedstruggle for power was evident (Eggins and Slade, 1997/2004). The pattern of trackingmoves was consistent with previous findings that adolescents often use backchannels andrarely use clarification requests in casual conversation (Turkstra, Ciccia, and Seaton, 2003).The type of tracking moves (mainly backchannels) observed across the peer and non-peerinteractions did not change, which suggests that role relationship did not affect this aspect ofadolescent communication. The teacher restricted the adolescent’s contribution by demon-strating floor-holding behaviour and demonstrated dominance over the interaction by con-trolling topic, having a high number of turns/questions and interrupting more often. Thisfinding is consistent with previous research on classroom discourse (Christie, 2002).
With regard to dynamic moves identified as challenges, the observation that both ado-lescents used more challenges across the teacher interaction corresponds to self-report dataof older adolescents who stated that teachers had a less defined role in regulating theirconventional and moral behaviour, and in comparison to younger adolescents, the olderadolescents were not afraid to challenge status boundaries that were marked by teachers(Smetana and Bitz, 1996). Adolescents changed some aspects of their communication inthe teacher interaction; however, features that appeared typical to the communication ofeach adolescent were maintained across both the peer and non-peer interactions. While athorough discussion of how personality influences communication is beyond this article,studies have demonstrated correlations between personality traits and communication(Cohen, Minor, Baillie, and Dahir, 2008). As predicted from the CAT model’s assump-tions, no divergence was found across the peer interaction indicating the adolescentsaccommodated to one another’s speech style and paralleled non-verbal behaviours suchas laughing. This may be interpreted as the same-age peers converging strategically toreflect identification as sharing in-group membership. In contrast, the teacher shiftedbetween convergent and divergent strategies, which coincided with the CAT model’sassumptions that partners continuously re-evaluate their decisions to accommodate(Giles, Coupland, and Coupland, 1991). The teacher’s attempts to exert control viafloor-holding devices raises implications for communication partner training for productiveaccommodation for communication difficulties following TBI, as previous research hasunderscored the pivotal role of partners in enabling others’ communicative performance(Togher, McDonald, Code, and Grant, 2004).
The effect of the type of activity was not as marked as the effects of role relationship on thecommunication of older adolescents. In the peer interaction, structural differences weremainly seen across the problem-solving task and strategies of accommodation differed across
Communication of older adolescents 1049
Clin
Lin
guis
t Pho
n D
ownl
oade
d fr
om in
form
ahea
lthca
re.c
om b
y U
nive
rsity
of
Stra
thcl
yde
on 1
1/18
/14
For
pers
onal
use
onl
y.
the interaction tasks. Of the three activities used in this study, the problem-solving taskappeared to hold the most promise for future use in research and clinical assessment.
Of course, case studies are inherently limited in their capacity to provide a representativesample to explain the variables of interest against the wider population and larger sample sizesare needed. Additional evidence from other demographic samples is needed to explore thetypical language use of older adolescents. However, given that this small study found thatindividual characteristics of communication were maintained in some interactions it issuggested that it is important to recognise the role of personal communication style and, sofor clinical purposes, reference to individual premorbid styles of communication is impor-tant. The methods for sample elicitation and analysis presented in this article are suggested tobe potentially useful within the clinic (e.g. to compare the communication of older adoles-cents with TBI and their similar aged family members).
Conclusion
This case study found that role relationship appeared to influence the communication ofolder adolescents more than the types of communication activities used in the research. Thisstudy also demonstrated a methodology that, it is suggested, may prove useful for furtherresearch and clinical assessment in the area of older adolescents with TBI.
Acknowledgements
This research formed part of the requirements for the award of Honours in the Bachelor ofSpeech Pathology degree at the University of Newcastle, Australia, for Lauren Davis, underthe supervision of Dr. Elizabeth Spencer and Professor Alison Ferguson. We also acknowl-edge the contribution made to the development of the present research through the Honoursresearch of Jessica Edwards, which was completed as part of her Bachelor of SpeechPathology degree at University of Newcastle, Australia. The authors gratefully acknowledgethe support of Dr. Sally Hewat in the development of this research, the assistance withrecruitment by Matthew Frith and the statistical support provided by Kim Colyvas. Theauthors thank the participants for their contribution to the research.
References
Berry, M. (1981). Systemic linguistics and discourse analysis: A multi-layered approach to exchange structure. InR. M. Coulthard &M.M. Montgomery (Eds.), Studies in discourse analysis (pp. 120–145). London: Routledge &Kegan Paul.
Christie, F. (2002). Classroom discourse analysis. London: Continuum.Cohen, A. S., Minor, K. S., Baillie, L. E., & Dahir, A. M. (2008). Clarifying the linguistic signature: Measuring
personality from natural speech. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 559–563.Eggins, S., & Slade, D. (1997/2004). Analysing casual conversation. London: Cassell (1997)/Equinox Publishing
(2004).Ferguson,A. (1994).The influence of aphasia, familiarity and activity on conversational repair.Aphasiology, 8, 143–157.Giles, H., Coupland, N., & Coupland, J. (1991). Accommodation theory: communication, context, and
consequence. In H. Giles, J. Coupland, & N. Coupland (Eds.), Contexts of accommodation: Developments inapplied sociolinguistics (pp. 1–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Giles, H., & Smith, P. (1979). Accommodation theory: Optimal levels of convergence. In H. Giles & R. St. Clair(Eds.), Language and social psychology (pp. 45–65). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Giles, H., & Williams, A. (1994). Patronizing the young: Forms and evaluations. International Journal of Aging &Human Development, 39, 33–53.
1050 L. Davis et al.
Clin
Lin
guis
t Pho
n D
ownl
oade
d fr
om in
form
ahea
lthca
re.c
om b
y U
nive
rsity
of
Stra
thcl
yde
on 1
1/18
/14
For
pers
onal
use
onl
y.
Greenberger, E., Chen, C., & Beam, M. R. (1998). The role of ‘very important’ nonparental adults in adolescentdevelopment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 27, 321–343.
Kilov, A., Togher, L., & Grant, S. (2008). Problem solving with friends: Discourse participation and performance ofindividuals with and without traumatic brain injury. Aphasiology, 23, 584–605.
Miller, J. F. (1984–2004). Systematic analysis of language transcripts (SALT) (Version Research V8.0). Madison, WI:Language Analysis Laboratory, University of Wisconsin–Madison.
Nippold, M. (1998). Later language development: The school-age and adolescent years. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Readdick, C. A., & Mullis, R. L. (1997). Adolescents and adults at the mall: dyadic interactions. Adolescence, 32,
313–322.Sharp,N. L., Bye, R. A., Llewellyn, G.M., &Cusick, A. (2006). Fitting back in: Adolescents returning to school after
severe acquired brain injury. Disability & Rehabilitation, 28, 767–778.Sidnell, J. (2009). Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives. Leiden: Cambridge University Press.Smetana, J. G., &Bitz, B. (1996). Adolescents’ conceptions of teachers’ authority and their relations to rule violations
in school. Child Development, 67, 1153–1172.Togher, L.,McDonald, S., Code,C., &Grant, S. (2004). Training communication partners of people with traumatic
brain injury: A randomised controlled trial. Aphasiology, 18, 313–335.Turkstra, L. (2000). Should my shirt be tucked in or left out? The communication context of adolescence.
Aphasiology, 14, 349–364.Turkstra, L., Ciccia, A., & Seaton, C. (2003). Interactive behaviours in adolescent conversation dyads. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 34, 117–127.Ylvisaker, M. (1993). Communication outcome in children and adolescents with traumatic brain injury.
Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 3, 367–387.
Communication of older adolescents 1051
Clin
Lin
guis
t Pho
n D
ownl
oade
d fr
om in
form
ahea
lthca
re.c
om b
y U
nive
rsity
of
Stra
thcl
yde
on 1
1/18
/14
For
pers
onal
use
onl
y.
