Teaching technology through story: learning to make sense of the story developer.

There has been a tremendous resurgence of interest in narrative in many fields and disciplines including educational technology. Behind this concept of narrative is the idea that the story form is a fundamental structure of mind and an activity humans use to make meaning of experience. One demand we face as educators and technologists is to learn more about the role of narrative in teaching and learning. This study documents one case of a teacher educator teaching technology through narrative, or a "storied" curriculum. Evidence from this study suggests that teachers wanting to use a narrative approach must: (a) create a space for the sharing of stories; (b) support students in their development of a teleography; and (c) develop ways to document and evaluate the reshaping of original stories. Even without a storied curriculum, educators must begin to understand both the role of student as "story developer" and the fluidity of the story as "process." Suggestions for future research are offered.

**********

Although it is debatable whether it originates in postmodern thought, a further analysis of Freud, or a reaction against Piaget, there has been a tremendous resurgence in the interest of narrative in fields ranging from Education to Psychotherapy (Bruner, 1996; Stone, 1996; White & Epson, 1990). Underlying this interest in narrative is the idea that the story form is both a fundamental structure of the mind and a primary activity used by humans for meaning-making and organizing experience (Lauritzen & Jaeger, 1997; Bradt, 1997; Bruner, 1996; Reissman, 1993; Polkinghorne, 1991; Schank, 1990; Levi-Strauss, 1970). Narrative is the study of how humans derive meaning from experiences by telling stories (Connelly & Clandinin, 1988). Narratives not only help make sense of our own experiences but also allow us to understand the experiences of others (Collins & Cooper, 1997).

Following this mode of thought, if children can make meaning of their lives and are readily and powerfully engaged by stories (Egan, 1986), then one demand placed on educational researchers and research-practitioners is to find out more about the role of narrative in the classroom--especially in regards to teaching. Alasdair MacIntyre (1985) further challenges that if you "(d)eprive children of stories ... you leave them unscripted, anxious stutterers in their actions as in their words" (p. 201). Researchers have approached this challenge by focusing on two perspectives of narrative in education: teacher as storyteller (Witherall, 1995; McEwan, 1990; Egan, 1986) and the structure and importance of children's stories and storytelling activities in the classroom (Hamilton & Weiss, 1994; Nicolopoulou, 1996; Engel, 1995; Paley, 1990; Cazden, 1988). Although both perspectives offer insights into what it may mean to teach with and through narratives, the field lacks much empirical evidence of what actually transpires during narrative teaching episodes. Many of the articles and books written about narrative classroom experiences involve teacher autobiographies, brief anecdotal sketches or, paradoxically, undetailed stories about the classroom experiences (Wagler, 1994). Although these data sources lend better descriptions of the methods of narrative-centered teaching, most fail to address the actual classroom events surrounding teaching with story. Empirical evidence exploring teaching through narrative is needed to provide insight into this instructional approach and also to afford an examination of students' development, acquisition, and use of narrative thinking--a process Bruner challenged that we know very little about (Bruner, 1995). Moreover, the time is ripe for this type of evidence as educational technologists are beginning to grapple with supporting narrative instruction through the development of electronic artifacts and tools, and supporting technology instruction through narrative means (Jonassen & Hernandez-Serrano, 2002; Harlow & Johnson, 1998; Schank, 1990).

This article documents one such case study of teaching technology with and through story. This study not only offers a new perspective into what actually occurs during teaching with story in the classroom, but it also has implications regarding innovative methods of supporting the development and research of narrative teaching and learning in the technology classroom.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NARRATIVE APPROACH

Sarah, a preservice teacher at a large Midwestern university, complained that although there had been a few curricular attempts to help her integrate technology into the classroom, she felt like she "had learned nothing about technology" during her undergraduate teaching program. She was going to start teaching in the fall and was unprepared to use computers in the classroom.

Having spent a good deal of time observing or taking part in technology programs in two countries over the last five years, I had become frustrated with the focus on technology objectives which translated into learning specific skills outside of the context in which they would be used. (To gain a better scope of this problem, look at the different classroom objectives regarding technology use, many of them published on the web.) I held those same objectives accountable for reasons why people like Sarah had experience with technology but did not appear to relate how it fit into pedagogy. Seeing the potential for story-use as afforded by the aforementioned literature on narrative as a meaning-making activity, I decided to explore the implications of teaching her computer use through a "storied" curriculum. Exactly how to plan to teach through story was a much harder struggle. Does a narrative perspective imply that one has to tell a story about the history of computer use in the classroom? Or, should a teacher focus on the importance of a student's learning to tell a story about technology?

I realized very quickly that I had a story I was trying to tell Sarah. It was a story about how technology in the form of computers could be used in the classroom. Moreover, it was a story about exemplary practice in combining technology and pedagogy. However, I also realized that she came to the learning environment with a story of her own; and, according to her, technology was not a part of her story. "Well," she said, "I really don't know anything about computers other then my roommate has one, and I word process on it some days." The first step, therefore, was to provide a context for us to share our stories (Engel, 1995; Heath, 1994; Schank, 1990). The second step was to find a way to not only evaluate the progress of her changing story (Egan, 1986), but to plan activities that would best capture the interactions occurring around and during our storytelling episodes.

In this storied approach, although skills would obviously still be taught, the focus would shift to how Sarah could use those skills in conjunction with what she already knew about teaching and learning. The proposed outcome was not merely mastery of a set of technical skills, but rather a personal, future story of how she could use technologies to innovate classroom learning and teaching practices. George Howard (1996) labeled this future story a teleography. A teleography is much like a grappling hook that anchors a learner on their journey towards a desired goal. My teaching strategy would include technology and pedagogy "success stories" as well as the aforementioned skills so that Sarah could have models to borrow from in shaping her teleography. This is not to argue that Sarah came without a teleography or sense of what she would be like as a teacher. Rather, her pedagogical teleography did not include using technology in her teaching.

If one prerequisite was to provide a space for her to shape and reshape her teleography, then I also needed a way to capture those interactions. This would provide a space to evaluate her changing story as well as examine the process by which the narrative methodology supported and enhanced her growth. I decided to encourage the use of think-alouds during the teaching sessions. The think aloud method is an expression of the lived experience of the subject (Aanstoos, 1983). Having her think-aloud during our learning episodes would not only give me a clearer perspective about the process she was going through, but it would also encourage her to tie in what she was learning with a larger, broader context of pedagogical computer use (her teleography). Furthermore, hearing her talk about the implications of technology use had the potential of making the instructor cognizant of his thoughts on technology and pedagogy rather than on technology skills. The think-aloud method thus provided the context for storytelling as well as the methodology to capture that experience (Ericson & Simon, 1993; Aanstoos, 1983). Finally, I also planned on having Sarah write open-ended, "thoughts-of-the-day" journals following each meeting.

After laying out this narrative curriculum, I began working with Sarah. I assured her that I would help regardless of her decision, but asked her if it would be acceptable to follow a nontraditional format. That format would include journals, think-alouds, audio-taped sessions, and beginning and ending interviews regarding her thoughts about technology use. She agreed and we began our two-month journey towards learning about computers in the classroom.

A CHANGING STORY

The major goal of the narrative curriculum was to help Sarah develop a teleography of technology use. Whatever story she came in with about her future aspirations as a teacher would be "re-storied" to include an enhanced focus on the possibilities of teaching and learning with technology. Therefore, a scale to measure the success of the teaching intervention would be to measure the degree by which her story changed regarding "Sarah and pedagogical computer use." In this manner, the time we spent together was a complete success. Sarah described herself (in the initial interview) as someone who knew "next to nothing about technology or its role in the classroom." The story she told at the final session was one of a teacher who was "willing to try new exciting technologies in the classroom because (she saw) the potential benefits of computers, kids, and classrooms."

Focusing only the changing story, compelling as it may be, leads us to wonder what exactly caused the change in story. Was it due to the existence of think-alouds, the journals, the way the instructor shared stories during the sessions, or merely the importance of the time we spent together? Examining many of these different possibilities provided no answers. The think-aloud method, at least the way I tried to use it to elicit stories, seemingly failed. Many of her responses were one-word answers, and I could find no occasion in any of our meetings (outside of the beginning and ending interview) when she actually told a story (story defined here as Egan's 1986 distinction between other forms of narrative and stories which have particular, clear beginnings and ends). My sharing of stories seemed irrelevant as well because at no time did the I ever tell a complete story (again referring to Egan). Finally, the journals seemed to offer no particular assistance as they ended up being mere summaries of what we had accomplished that day.

One could argue that these possibilities played (or could play) some role in reshaping her teleography. However, it seemed as if what had helped change her story had something to do with our interactions during the time we spent together. This became apparent when I examined an audiotape of one of our instructional sessions (the meeting occurred during one of our early sessions.)

As with most of our meetings together, there was not one single topic that dominated the taped discussion. Rather, the meeting was divided into mini-lessons. This specific tape contained 32 of those mini-lessons, ranging from understanding web browsers to purchasing hard-drives. The 31 segments were differentiated by who appeared to have an agenda during that specific segment of conversation. Agenda here refers to when either Sarah or I (the instructor) would direct the conversation by asking a question or initiating a topic. Roles were defined for each of the members based on who had an agenda during the segment (Table 1).

When my agenda was evident and hers was not, Sarah took on the role of a participant. In the following example, I was teaching Sarah about the desktop and menus (my agenda) and only received a simple "Yes."

I: Think about it as if it were your desktop at school. You know, for instance, that you have a trashcan next to your desk. This is kind of like, well it would almost be like you had a menu on top of that elementary school desk where you could tell it what you wanted out of there when you lifted it up. And what I was trying to get across to you the last time we talked about the menu system was the fact that basically no matter where you are, the different menu systems are going to be the same. No matter what program you use, no matter what you're in//

S: Hmm ... hmm ... Yes//

There were other times when my agenda seemed to get lost under hers. At those times, Sarah became the leader. She interrupted one of our conversations on chatrooms to talk about her cat.

S:... in the chatroom, you hope for a response.

I: Well, in a chatroom you actually have to have someone in a room with you and you may not get a response. In a newsgroup, you can post something and it provides a forum for discussion. Think of it as a bulletin board in the sense that you have this thing up there and you post messages hoping someone will respond.

S: I found out a couple of months ago that my cat had leukemia.

I: Oh, that's too bad.

S: Well, I am not too worried about that because it's 15 years old. My friend went home and got on the computer and went to a chatroom. They told him to kill the cat, and I asked him if he was talking to doctors. He said he was just talking to people ...

Finally, there were times where we both seemed to share an agenda. I labeled her role as "storyteller" because she always seemed to be connecting what we were learning to something she had done or was interested in doing. In this example, Sarah and I were finishing a discussion about e-mail.

I: That's e-mail--that's the easiest way to use it.

S: I think it's pretty ... //

I: How do you think you would use it? Would you use it to write your friends? Not just in your class but you ...

S: I was thinking it is good way for the kids to correspond, like a journal type situation where a journal doesn't have to be passed around ... For me, it's nice to e-mail colleagues about things, all kinds of things--getting more information for teaching, field trips, contact people.

I: Go on with your idea about the journal for kids. So you would assign kids to write a journal and then what?

S: Say we are reading a novel--To Kill a Mockingbird--and I want the kids to respond to some kind of journal with their own ideas about the novel. And, I want them to be in a dialogue back and forth about different ideas they're having--how would that work? Partners, maybe--I could assign one group of partners questions and they respond to it; and then the other partner (based on their general response from their reading) would ask questions. The first person would then respond ... that would be a super day, Haha.

I: Would their be other uses in the classroom with a group of students?

S: They could e-mail kids in other schools.

After defining these initial roles, I attempted to identify a role Sarah adopted in each of the 32 segments. I immediately ran into problems with the labeling. If she was a leader, did that imply that she could not be a storyteller in that segment, too? What exactly did the role of participant mean? Participant does not imply anything negative and yet I seemed to be trying to convey an attitude of apathy. Finally, if I were concerned with the interaction that occurred between the instructor and student, why was I only looking at her role?

I decided to redefine the roles bearing in mind the problems I encountered during the initial labeling (Table 2).

When my agenda was evident (e.g., trying to teach her the difference between ROM and RAM) and hers was not apparent, I took on the role of teacher and Sarah became a passive participant. Although she appeared engaged during the conversation, it seemed as if learning only required storing the facts the instructor had presented. I accounted the high number of one-word responses to this passiveness. When she would initiate a conversation, the roles would shift and she became a leader. I would then change hats and become a resource person for her.

Finally, there were times when both of us seemed to have an agenda. At those times, the instructor resumed the role of teacher, but Sarah's role changed to what I would define as "story developer." I initially labeled her discourse as storytelling. However, hardly any of her talk had either Egan's (1986) or Bruner's (1996) definitions of what constituted a story, even on a temporal level (having a beginning, middle, and end). What was interesting is that during those times she seemed to be relating the paradigmatic, factual content-knowledge back to a larger story of what it meant to teach with technology.

I: Now I hope you can see the power of being able to have two things open at once//

S: I did that the other night when I was trying to e-mail. I thought I had them pulled up together//

I:... It's called ... integration//

S: Do you do that by copying the whole thing? And, if you wanted to do that, is that how you do large pieces of say, text?

In one of the sessions, I was teaching Sarah how to integrate two applications to create one document. Notice in the previous transcript, Sarah first attempts to understand the skill by relating it to something she had done previously. After a little more discussion, she then asks about different uses of the skill. This segment of text is much different than the occasional "yes" and "no" answers she was giving earlier. It was at these times of deeper engagement that she tied little segments of information into a larger story of what technology and pedagogy meant to her. In essence, it appeared as if she was not necessarily telling a story but rather developing one.

With this in mind, I again returned to the 31 segments and labeled all of the interactions. (Table 3.)

I immediately noticed the strong definition of three phases of activity during the taped conversation. From lines 1-103, there were some attempts on Sarah's behalf to develop a story, but most of her reactions were very passive "yes" and "no." During the second phase (approximately lines 104-454), Sarah took over the floor and became leader of the interactions. I tried to regain control but spent much of the time as a resource person answering her questions. Finally, phase three was dominantly a story-developing time for Sarah.

I wondered if I had serendipitously found the most important tape. In other words, would all of the taped meetings prior to this one depict Sarah as a passive participant and all later tapes show her as a story-developer? Was there something about this magical meeting and the chance to become a leader that encouraged Sarah's transformation from passive participant to story-developer? This notion was not supported by the data. Earlier and later tapes not only verify the existence of the three distinct roles for both instructor and student, but they also support the notion that the order of the three phases in the original tape was by mere chance. None of the other tapes reflect the order presented here.

Based on this interesting pattern, I also wondered if the topics had anything to do with her becoming a story-developer. Colwell (1980), among others, defined storytelling as the bridging of content and audience. Was it possible that I had somehow provided her with the content to tell a story, content that she had not known until that time, and thus helped her bridge her story? The data did not support this hypothesis either. Although "note-pad" and "desktop" are discussed more than once, almost all of the topics were "new" to the discussion and, furthermore, did not hinge on one another or form a hierarchy of knowledge. Therefore, the topic in-and-of-itself did not appear to offer any insight into the interaction.

The last piece I decided to examine was the instructor's role in the process. Initially, it seemed common-sensical. When she asked questions, I assumed the role of resource personnel. However, she had also come to learn. So, when not acting as a resource provider, I would of course assume the role of teacher. Prior to disregarding this perspective, I focused solely on the relationship between the my roles and the three phases (defined by Sarah's roles in those phases). Although none of the other data sources reflect the pattern of three separate time phases, they all validate the existence of the roles. I wondered if there was something different about my teaching during each of the three phases.

At this time, I compared transcripts from each of the three phases. Although I had been concerned with her engagement during the process, I discovered that what differentiated the phases was the amount of engagement on my part. Simons (1996), wrote about speech act theory, he referred to this engagement as uptake. In phase I events, with Sarah as passive participant, there was very little uptake of conversation on either side.

I: What I would like to do is to show you how to use Netscape and Internet Explorer. Netscape will actually do your web-browsing but will also allow you to do your e-mail as well. It's like a two-in-one tool, which is pretty powerful. So ...

S: Like AOL, right?

I: Right, exactly. So, what I'd like to do now ... (on to a different topic).

Notice in this example, Sarah makes an attempt at tying in what we are learning with something in her life. Uptake in this case would have consisted of me either using her example of America Online (AOL), or at least responding to her attempt at connecting the two items. This occurs again in phase II with Sarah as leader and my role shifting to resource person:

S: Are there lots ... I feel like there are some pretty big differences between the Macintosh and the IBM.

I: There are differences. The one major difference and the reason I like IBM is that you have a lot more control over what happens ...

S: Right.

I: So, what I was trying to show ... (on to a different topic).

There is some level of engagement as she asks a question and receives a response. However, as soon as her question is answered, I shift topics and leave the Mac versus IBM debate. Almost no single topic transition was prefaced with any uptake whatsoever. Even during phase II when she controlled much of the floor, one of the members would transition topics after very little uptake. It is not until phase III when uptake occurs from both participants.

Phase III:

I: Ok, let's load it and see what happens. How do you feel about the desktop? Do you feel comfortable with it?

S: Yes, I feel like I learned a lot of vocabulary and I can understand and communicate the conversation//

I: So, it's learning the language that's ... //

S: I didn't realize that I've heard all those words. So, in my mind, I had convinced myself that I knew what they meant but it was just a bunch of words//

I: Right, right. Do you think you would be able to teach these words to a student? It's almost like a different language in itself//

S: Yeah, yeah//

In this conversation, both participants structure their discourse by building on the comments of the other speaker. The topic gradually shifts from desktop to vocabulary to teaching other students. However, this shift occurs through the engagement and uptake on behalf of both participants. This type of conversation was markedly different than the talk in the first two phases.

JUST WHOSE STORY IS IT?

As previously highlighted, each of the topic transitions in phases I and II (Sarah as passive participant and as leader) occurred as abrupt shifts in the conversation. Changes in topic appeared more gradual in phase III (Sarah as story-developer), with participants engaging and continuing the discourse of the previous speaker. Was it this engagement and uptake that allowed Sarah to become a story-developer?

Rather than viewing the instructor's uptake as the sole cause of her ability to develop stories, it is important to understand the role of participant agenda. In phase I events, the instructor's agenda was related to the sharing a story of technology use. It is not surprising that she does not have an agenda during these times. Her language cues during this phase consist of either asking questions of understanding or acknowledging what the instructor is saying (with "yes" and "right").

Phase II highlights a shift in the conversation and a change in the storyteller. Sarah is very much working on telling her story of technology use. Her asking of questions may suggest a desire to further develop her teleography. However, almost all of the questions were tied to a specific event in the past. They were connected to a part of her story that did not make sense to her. The instructor's role of resource person is compared to that of a behind-the-scenes movie producer who provides the actor with the resources she needs to perform. Although I was positive that she was engaged in the conversation and was trying to relate it to her own life, I continued to shift topics immediately upon answering a question or receiving some indication and acknowledgement of her understanding.

In phase III, the role shifted once again as I regained the floor and task of teacher. However, rather than teacher being defined as a teller of stories of technology use, I, too, become a story-developer. My focus and agenda also shifted from sharing content to copainting a picture of what it meant to teach with technology. This copainting is important because I was not longer only a storyteller but had allowed her to share the floor. This sharing appeared to have created a space for both of us to think about this model of what it means to teach with computers in the classroom. It was not a function of either party telling a story, but rather both people developing a story together.

IMPLICATIONS OF UNDERSTANDING HOW TO TEACH TECHNOLOGY THROUGH STORY

As I reflected on the three different phases that Sarah and I took part in, I could not help thinking about many of the technology classrooms in which I had either observed or been a participant. Why does a teacher shift topics when he/she does? Is it a function of his/her subconsciously picking up language cues from certain students that they "got it"? Why do we see uptake with certain comments/stories and not others? Finally, what does this uptake have to say about dominant discourses in the classroom? For instance, a teacher may gauge understanding by the story development as displayed in certain types of responses from certain students. If certain students always maintain this role, what about the stories of other students?

This research, and the needed empirical research and discourse analysis of story-use in the classroom, will hopefully provide some insight into answering those questions. It not only provides a scope of the interactions between the students and teacher, it also lends an eye on what is important to the teacher (as judged by their uptake). However, I would like to focus on two specific implications of this research towards thinking about teaching technology with narrative and stories.

First, when we think about teaching with story, the market has recently been flooded with self-help books for teachers on how to become better storytellers. However, it is important to view the role of a teacher as someone who coconstructs a story with the students rather than someone who passes along information through the structure of a story. I do not wish to imply that the role of traditional storyteller has no place in the classroom, it does. However, enveloping everything that occurs in classroom related to story as storytelling rather than story developing may force us back to a transmission model of teaching.

Second, tied in with this shift in defining roles, it is important that we rethink the definition of narrative in learning to teach with narrative. Egan's (1986) and Bruner's (1996) definitions adequately and appropriately helped us construct what a story is and what is not. However, in this study of Sarah, the traditional story became a product that we were coconstructing, not an entity that reared its head in various forms along the way. As a matter of fact, there were numerous times when Sarah or the instructor referred to the "larger story" by simple two or three word comments. Seeing their roles as codevelopers of a larger narrative lends itself to being concerned with components and elements of stories rather than smaller, complete stories leading up to larger ones. Although it happens in this way as well, focusing our attention on discourse that contain a beginning, middle, and end may cause us to lose sight of what is really occurring in the discourse of the classroom. In this manner, it is still content that gets learned, but it is taught in the understanding that it will be part of a larger narrative.

FUTURE STORIES

We need to know more about what it means to teach with and through narratives. Studying more examples will not only help us better define what is meant by "teaching technology as storytelling," but it may also lend insight into how narrative thinking develops. Having said that, I have learned much about how to replicate this study and this teaching style. Drawing on Howard (1996), Engel (1995), Heath (1994), Egan (1986), and others, future attempts need to focus on three major steps. First, technology instructors interested in a narrative approach need to provide space for students to share stories. Sharing stories allows students to understand where they have been and provides a strong ground to throw their grappling hook from. Second, students need ways and space to develop their teleography (throw their grappling hook). They need help in reshaping their future perceived self as a person who uses the skills learned in the teaching session. Finally, there must be ways to document and evaluate growth, such as a written story or portfolio of use. Obviously this provides teachers with evidence for assessment and researchers with data for a more developed understanding of narrative teaching. However, it also scaffolds students as they continue to develop their teleography. It is something they can return to and reshape as they proceed in their learning.

Understandably, not all teaching situations will focus this much energy or attention on a storied curriculum. However, in situations fulfilling these steps, or in those devoid of a full-blown narrative schematic, it is imperative to reshape our own conception of our learners and the narratives they create. We must realize that our students are continually developing a story, and that story is an evolving process rather than a complete product. (To reiterate what was stated earlier, there are times when a traditional story can be used as either a teaching tool or an assessment technique, acting as a "snap-shot" of a situation.)

This study addressed the relationship between two participants. It provides insights into the interactions of two people building a story about technology use. Future studies will address how these interactions play out in a typical, larger classroom setting. If we really are helping students develop technology stories by teaching through narrative, then this type of research will also help us learn how to support, encourage, and scaffold the building and sharing of multiple stories.

Table 1 Roles and Agendas

Instructor's Agenda  Sarah's Agenda  Sarah's Role

Evident              Not Evident     Participant
Not Evident          Evident         Leader
Evident              Evident         Storyteller

Table 2 Redefined Roles and Agendas

Instructor's Agenda  Sarah's Agenda  Instructor's Role  Sarah's Role

Evident              Not Evident     Teacher            Passive
                                                        Participant
Not Evident          Evident         Resource Person    Leader
Evident              Evident         Teacher            Story Developer

Table 3 Roles and Agendas with Topics and Phases

Line  Topic               Instructor's Role

  1   Web browsers        Teacher
 11   Menus               Teacher
 18   Desk Metaphor       Teacher
 25   Menus               Teacher
 48   Notepad             Teacher
 65   Trashcan            Teacher
104   Icons               Resource Person
111   Disks               Teacher
195   Mac vs. IBM         Resource Person
210   Features of the
      Desktop             Teacher
230   Desktop             Resource Person
245   Printing            Resource Person
252   Notepad             Teacher
272   Menus               Teacher
297   Applications        Resource Person
303   Servers             Resource Person
355   Servers &
      Networks            Teacher
385   (Conversation
      Break)              Resource Person
391   Rom & Ram           Teacher
455   Hard Drives         Teacher
489   Computer
      Components          Teacher
535   MS Word/Works       Teacher
563   Vocab & Click/Drag  Teacher
579   MS Works            Teacher
634   Opening Files       Teacher
657   Open/Close
      Windows             Teacher
681   Drawing Program     Teacher
790   Opening Multiple
      Windows             Teacher
778   Saving              Teacher
800   Newsgroups          Teacher
916   Getting Connected   Resource Person

Line  Sarah's Role         Phases

  1   Story Developer
 11   Passive Participant  Phase I
 18   Story Developer
 25   Passive Participant  Instructor
                           as
                           Teacher
 48   Passive Participant  Sarah as
 65   Passive Participant  Passive
                           Participant
104   Leader
111   Passive Participant
195   Leader               Phase II
210
      Passive Participant
230   Leader
245   Leader               Instructor
                           as
252   Passive Participant  Resource
                           Person
272   Passive Participant
297   Leader               Sarah as
303   Leader               Leader
355
      Story Developer
385
      Leader
391   Passive Participant
455   Story Developer
489
      Story Developer
535   Story Developer      Phase III
563   Story Developer
579   Story Developer
634   Passive Participant  Instructor
                           as
657                        Teacher
      Story
      Developer
681   Story Developer
790
      Story Developer      Sarah as
778   Story Developer      Story
      Developer
800   Story Developer
916   Leader

Note

The author wishes to expressly thank Jenny Denyer for her advice and comments on earlier versions of this draft. Her insight into qualitative understandings proved immeasurable.

The labeling of these interactions, as with all labeling in this study, was completed by two separate evaluators with 97% agreement.

References

Aanstoos, C.M. (1983). The think aloud method in descriptive research. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 14(2), 243-266.

Bradt, K. M. (1997). Story as a way of knowing. Kansas City, MO: Sheed & Ward.

Bruner, J. (1985). Narrative and paradigmatic modes of thought. In E. Eisner (Ed.), Learning and teaching the ways of knowing (Part II, pp. 97-115). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Bruner, J. (1996). Culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cazden, C.B. (1988). Classroom discourse. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Collins, R., & Cooper, P.J. (1997). The power of story: Teaching through storytelling. Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick Publishers.

Colwell, E. (1980). Storytelling. Westminster College, Oxford: The Thimble Press.

Connelly, F.M., & Clandinin, D.J. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives of experiencer. New York: Teachers College Press.

Egan, K. (1986). Teaching as storytelling. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Engel, S. (1995). The stories children tell. New York: W.H. Freeman & Company.

Ericson, K.A., & Simon, H.A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hamilton, M., & Weiss, M. (1994). Teaching children to tell stories. In The National Storytelling Association (Ed.), Tales as tools: The power of story in the Classroom (pp. 85-90). Jonesborough, TN: The National Storytelling Press.

Harlow, S.D., & Johnson, D.L. (1998). An epistemology of technology. Educational Technology Review, 9, 15-19.

Heath, S.B. (1994). Stories as ways of acting together. In A. H. Dyson & C. Genishi (Eds.), The need for story (pp. 207-220). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Howard, G.S. (1996). Understanding human nature: An owner's manual. Notre Dame, IN: Academic Publications.

Jonassen, D.H., & Hernandez-Serrano, J. (2002). Case-based reasoning and instructional design: Using stories to support problem solving. Educational Technology Research & Development, 50(2), (65-77).

Lauritzen, C., & Jaeger, M. (1997). Integrating learning through story: The narrative curriculum. Albany, NY: Delmar.

Levi-Strauss, C. (1970). The raw and the cooked. New York: Harper & Row.

McEwan, H. (1990). Teaching acts: An unfinished story. Philosophy of education 1990, (pp. 189-201). Normal, IL: Philosophy of Education Society.

McIntyre, A. (1985). After virtue. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Nicolopoulou, A. (1996). Worldmaking and identity formation in children's narrative play-acting. In B. Cox & C. Lightfoot (Eds.), Sociogenetic perspectives on internalization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Paley, V.G. (1990). The boy who would be a helicopter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Polkinghorne, D.E. (1991). Narrative and self-concept. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 1(2 & 3), 135-153.

Reissman, C.K. (1993). Narrative analysis. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE 

Schank, R.C. (1990). Tell me a story: Narrative and intelligence. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Simons, B. (1996). Directives in an American office: A cross-cultural study, University of Surrey, Surrey, U.K. [Online]. Available: http://www.surrey.ac.uk/ELI/ishizukab.pdf

Stone, R. (1996). The healing art of storytelling. New York: Hyperion.

Wagler, M. (1994). Jailbreak! Storytelling in room 103. In The National Storytelling Association (Ed.), Tales as tools: The power of story in the Classroom (pp. 21-29). Jonesborough, TN: The National Storytelling Press.

White, M., & Epson, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Witherell, C.S. (1995). Narrative landscapes and the moral imagination. In H. McEwan & K. Egan (Eds.), Narrative in teaching, learning, and research (pp. 39-49). New York: Teachers College Press.

RICHARD E. FERDIG

University of Florida 

Gainesville, Florida 

USA

[e-mail]