Abstract

Oral communication represents for any human being an essential model of sociocultural interaction in diverse communicative contexts. Therefore, the purpose of this articlea is to present some considerations on the didactics of orality, specifically formal oral discourse in the round table, from the perspective of the Schema Learning Model. The study uses the qualitative approach for the structuring and analysis of the research instruments. Likewise, according to its typology, it is classified as Participatory Action Research (PAR). Regarding the results, they are based on the three phases of information analysis (diagnostic, formative, and consolidation) which indicate the conceptual and procedural advances of the learning situations (discourse, round table, and logical connectors). Concerning the discussion, progress by stages is specified and limitations are highlighted, emphasizing those related to collaborative work, the construction of materials, and the integration of ICTs. On the other hand, the conclusions show the functionality of the adopted model due to the lexical insertion of 187 connectors to the discourse and the fulfillment of the round table methodology in 88%. Likewise, the need to continue the validation of the approach in language and literature didactics considering the diversity of discursive typologies, the macro-skills of language, and special education is emphasized.

1. Introduction

It is laughable not to establish a relationship between the study of communication and human learning, even more so with the development of language macro-skills. From this point of view, oral competence allows for greater interaction and understanding of the phenomena of reality in communicative contexts. It is for this reason that teachers of the discipline of Language and Literature should provide didactic spaces based on the development of communicative competence.

However, in today’s education, there is no need to teach students to speak and listen. This premise is ratified in the study by O’shanahan (1996) when he explains that when teaching oral language, teachers base their practice on the behaviorist and structuralist theory of language, basing their discourse on correction and narration. Similarly, Brenes (2011) states that the didactic strategies of educators focus on literature and grammar, not on the development of oral expression.

In other words, teaching practice is based on the study of written language, the lack of applicability of current didactic models, theoretical-methodological gaps in the evaluation, and the lack of insertion of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). It is for this reason that the objective of this study was to present a proposal of pedagogical intervention for the development of oral expression skills, specifically oral-formal discourse through the use of logical connectors through the round table from the perspective of the Schema Learning Model.

2. Methodology

2.1. Research Approach

The present study is structured based on the qualitative approach since it complies with the methods and procedures established in this type of research. For Hernández, Fernández, and Baptista (2014) “The qualitative approach can be conceived as a set of interpretative practices that make the world “visible”, transform it and turn it into a series of representations in the form of observations, annotations, recordings and documents” (p.123). In this case, the phenomenon to be interpreted as the use of logical connectors in the oral discourse of fourth-grade students through the Schema Learning Model, the results were obtained through interpretative practices such as the establishment of a system of categories and the application of qualitative instruments.

2.2. Type of research

Regarding the type of research, this study belongs to Participatory Action Research (PAR). Balcazar (2003) argues that participatory action research (PAR) is an investigative approach and a research methodology applied to states about human realities, it deals with the research problem from a theoretical (philosophy) and methodological (specific procedures) approach. This proposition refers to the application of an approach (Schema Learning Model) to a human reality (oral expression schema) to solve a problem.

2.3. Population and sample

According to Fracica (1988), the population is “the set of all the elements to which the research refers. It can also be defined as the set of all sampling units” (as cited in Hernández, Fernández, and Baptista, 2014, p. 186). In this case, the population of this research comprised 236 high school students of the Camilo Zapata National Institute (Highschool). Regarding the sample, non-probabilistic convenience sampling was used because it was based on the researcher’s criteria.

2.4. Establishment of the categorical system

The categorical system became a research instrument because it served as a link between the theory adopted in the theoretical framework and the methodology conceived to support it with evidence obtained from the reality under study. Martinez (2013) argues that a categorical system is basic for qualitative studies because there is no real object of study, unique (Cited by Escobar, 2016). This work was built with its specific dimensions and categories as a reference to the research objectives, the literature review (discourse, round table, logical connectors), and the methodology of the applied model.

2.5. Techniques and instruments used

The research techniques and instruments were applied in the three phases of data collection and analysis. In the first phase, the diagnostic test was used to measure the previous schemas of the learning situations (discourse, round table, and logical connectors). Also, the observation guide was used to determine the methodology of the round table, and the audio recording to determine the use of lexical markers in the discourse.

In the second phase, the questionnaire was applied to verify the conceptual and procedural progress of the model round table and the discourse. In addition, observation through a rubric was used to contrast previous and new knowledge in the presentation. Similarly, the interview was used to consolidate the knowledge acquired. Finally, in the third phase, an observation guide was used from the establishment of the BOA (Orienting Basis of Action) to assess compliance with the methodology of the round table and the audio recording to determine the insertion of lexical items and argumentation in the students’ discourse.

3. Results

The results of the study are presented according to the specific objectives of the research. These, in turn, correspond to the three phases of analysis of results and the four learning moments of the adopted model.

3.1. Diagnostic phase

This phase corresponds to the first research objective, which refers to the detection of difficulties in the use of logical connectors in the formal discourse during the round table discussion.

3.1.1. Results of the diagnostic test

The diagnostic test analyzed five learning situations (definition of discourse, definition, types of connectors, definition, and steps to structure the round table). The objective of the test was to identify the previous schemas of the learners about the situations mentioned. For a detailed analysis, students were classified into three categories: students with difficulties, students with intermediate responses, and students with good responses. The following graphs show the specific results:

Figure 1: Students with difficulties

Note: number of students with no information recorded in the learning subschemas. Source: diagnostic test

Figure 2: Students with good response

Note: number of students with information recorded in the learning subschemas. Source: diagnostic test.

The above graphs denote the level of theoretical and procedural knowledge of the students according to the learning situations under analysis. In the category of students with difficulties, those who do not register information in the learning subschemas, it is specified that 19.23% do not know the definition of discourse, 80.7% the definition of logical connectors, 92% examples of connectors and 71% the steps to execute the round table. In the category of students with an intermediate response, it is estimated that 26.9% of the students know to some degree the definition of discourse, and 23% the definition of the round table. However, none of the learners specified the types of connectors and the methodology of the round table. In summary, the learning situations, logical connectors, and round tables are the least determined.

3.1.2. Results of the round table methodology

For the analysis of the diagnostic roundtable, the observation guide technique was applied. This was divided into two main categories. The first was related to the methodology of the round table and the second to the discursive elements. The following tables show the results:

Table 1: Round table methodology

Note: compliance with the methodology in the three round tables during the diagnostic phase. Source:

observation guide.

The results of the previous table, show that the students do not possess any type of information in the learning subschemes related to the round table methodology. In summary, it is concluded that the methodological competence is null, the participants only limited themselves to listening to the students who managed to speak. Regarding the discursive elements, the following table is presented: results:

Table 2: Discursive elements during the round table execution.

Note: evidence of discursive elements in students. Source: observation guide.

The table above indicates that all three groups spontaneously used logical connectors and arguments in oral discourse. It is essential to indicate that most of the arguments correspond to those of personal experience and exemplification, this is due to the lack of mastery of the topic addressed in the discursive typology considered for this purpose. Likewise, the linguistic register used corresponds to the colloquial, this is inferred by the use of routine terms used in informal, non-academic contexts.

3.1.3. Use of logical connectors

The following table shows the number of connectors used in the students’ discourse during the diagnostic round table.

Table 3: Number of logical connectors in the diagnostic round table discussion

Note: Number of discourse connectors used by students. Source: audio recording.

The data provided in the table above through the audio recording and speech transcription show the use of 117 logical connectors in the students’ discourse. From the conceptual-factual and linguistic action scheme, it is inferred that there is a basic knowledge of them since the improper use of some of them was corroborated by repetitions, queísmos, dequeísmos and syntactic constructions of agrammatical sentences.

3.2. Formative phase

This phase corresponds to the second and third moments of the didactic sequence and the second research objective focused on the analysis of the students’ progress in the use of logical connectors in formal pluri-managed discourse. This was evidenced by the theoretical material analyzed, written and discursive comparison of the learning situations under study.

3.2.1. Model Round Table Methodology

Using a questionnaire of open questions, the students analyzed the development of the model round table on gender violence and actions to combat it. Therefore, the following figures show the main findings:

Figure 3 :Steps for structuring the round table

Note: identification of the round table methodology. Source: open questions guide.

The previous figure shows the level of learning acquired by the students about the round table methodology. Concerning the steps to structure it, it can be stated that the procedures determined at a theoretical level were: the selection of the topic, the election of the moderator, and to a certain extent one of the functions of the moderator contemplated in step 4 (presentation of the topic), 7 (question and answer session) and in step 6 (synthesis of the aspects addressed). However, in order to understand the actions of the moderator, the following figure is presented:

Figure 4: Roundtable coordinator’s steps

Note: identification of the round table methodology. Source: open questions guide.

A relevant aspect to highlight according to the previous graph is the accurate identification of the moderator’s functions in this practical phase on the part of the work teams. However, at the procedural level, the steps: designate time for the interventions and yield the floor, were only identified by two teams. This indicates that the linguistic and procedural action subschemes should continue to be strengthened in the students. As for the methodological determination of the speakers, it was analyzed by means of the questionnaire. The results are shown in the following figure:

Figure 5: Aspects to be improved by the lecturers

Note: identification of the methodology of the model round table.Source: open-ended question guide.

According to the previous graph, it can be inferred from the linguistic action subschema that some of the elements mentioned by the students were indeed fulfilled in the presentation of the model round table, for example, the presentation of the members and the purpose of the round table expressed by the moderator. The other procedures mentioned, the establishment of conclusions, the question and answer period, the statement of the objective, and the precision of the subject matter, correspond for the most part to the moderator. From the subschema of sociocultural action, social relations continue to be expressed as an information system, and most of the exposed procedures allude to multi-managed communication.

3.2.2. Use of logical connectors

This learning situation was developed from two approaches. The first was the identification of logical connectors in the speakers’ discourse and the third was the exemplification of these connectors in precise linguistic constructions (syntax). The following table shows the number of connectors identified by the students:

Table 4: Number of logical connectors in the round table model

Note: number of discourse connectors used by students. Source: open-ended question guide.

The table above shows that the students identified 37 connectors, the classifications determined were summative, consecutive, counter-argumentative, ordering, conditional, reformational, and explanatory. Regarding their syntactic use, from the conceptual-factual action and linguistic action subschemes, it was determined that of the seven teams in analysis, five were classified as a good response, because they were able to identify the relators, create the precise linguistic situation (sentences) and explain the function of the connector indicated, the other two teams, only specified the connector, but did not explain its functionality.

3.3. Consolidation phase

This phase corresponds to the fourth moment of the didactic sequence and the third objective of the research. The students used a BOA (Base of Action Orientation) to structure their final round table. The results are shown below:

3.3.1. Round Table Methodology

Figure 6: Compliance with the BOA in the roundtable methodology

Note: compliance with the BOA by work teams. Source: observation guide.

From the previous figure, it is possible to infer the theoretical and methodological mastery of the students in the linguistic, procedural, and sociocultural action subschemes, since there was 88% compliance with the methodology of the round table, except for team No. 3, in which the moderator did not use recursive questions to guide the topic. About the methodological elements, the following table shows the findings:

Table 5: Discursive elements during the round table execution

Note: evidence of discursive elements in students. Source: observation guide.

Evidently, according to the previous table that collects the students’ discourse from the BOA and audio recording shows that the teams handle the topic through the use of different types of arguments, in total of 33. It is necessary to indicate that there is considerable use of authority-type arguments, which shows the level of research carried out by the students, and the procedural appropriation of the discourse issued.

3.3.2. Use of logical connectors

Regarding the use of logical connectors, the following table shows the amount used in the final pluri-managed discourse:

Table 6: Number of logical connectors in the final round table

Note: number of discourse connectors used by students. Source: audio recording.

The table above shows the number of logical connectors used by the students, in total 189. Of which the consecutive markers were most used with a frequency of 47 repetitions. In general, there are 8 types of discursive connectors in the linguistic and procedural schemes of the students. In addition, it is essential to state that the characteristics of these connectors are fulfilled according to Martínez’s (1997) approach: the first is anaphoric, where consecutivity and addition prevail according to their use; the second is lexication, which refers to the use of the different markers according to their syntactic functions; the third is visibility, which is fulfilled from the structure of the arguments; and the fourth is to guarantee the continuity of the discourse since they mark the grammatical and semantic relations of the premises addressed in the dissertation.

4. Discussion

The discussion of the results will be carried out according to the phases of information collection and analysis.

4.1. Diagnostic phase

The results in this first phase according to the learning situations under study (speech, round table, and logical connectors) indicate that there is a supremacy of the technical-procedural subschemas, because, at a theoretical level, most of the students were unable to argue in a written and oral way the concepts under study. These gaps were manifested in the communicative practice by using only arguments from personal experience and exemplification, creating multiple language vices due to the spontaneous use of connectives, using only the basic steps to structure the round table, and the lack of basic communication norms.

These findings correspond with the approach of Arias and Hernández (2017) when explaining that the predominant discursive practice in the oral language is limited to question and answer (deductive). In this case, the absence of linguistic politeness and collaborative work hindered team activities in the construction of concepts. These disagreements according to Granda (2010) are due to the lack of listening by the students, probably the behaviorist model prevails in their way of conceiving learning.

Undoubtedly, it is considered appropriate to strengthen in the first phase, the detection of cultural elements associated with collaborative work (sociocultural patterns) and the discussion practice (multidiscursive discourse). Likewise, to create playful activities to achieve interaction among students for the construction of theorems at the individual and collective levels.

4.2. Formative phase

The results of this phase are based on the second and third moments of the Schema Learning Model. The first is focused on the theoretical and methodological appropriation of the learning situations under study. In this particular, the reading of the theoretical material, and the reconstruction of the variables at the oral and written level allowed the acceptable comprehension of the theorems; however, in the identification of the logical connectors, only their morphology is specified, not their syntactic performance in a specific communicative plane. Similarly, in the second moment, during the analysis of the model round table, there is an imprecision in the procedures of the speakers.

These theoretical gaps are due to inadequate incorporation of the methodology of the adopted model. In the first place, attractive theoretical material should have been constructed, according to the linguistic development of the learners. Secondly, in the confrontation of previous and new knowledge, active learning strategies should have been applied, such as case studies, problem-solving and semi-directed research, not only graphic diagrams, comparative tables, and expositions. Finally, the lack of optimization of technological platforms did not favor the understanding of modeling (video).

Under these circumstances, to consolidate the learning accommodated in the mental schemas, the elements described above should be considered to comply with the adopted model at the methodological level. Undoubtedly, the vices detected should be complemented according to Quiles (2015) with the alternation of the study of discourse, i.e., to establish communicative situations from the least to the most complex related to writing and orality. Although, indeed, the project did not explicitly relate the two skills, nevertheless, it created a correspondence between the study of the argumentative discursive typology and oral practice through the round table.

4.3. Consolidation phase

The results in this last phase correspond to the fourth moment, called procedural application (problem-solving), whose purpose was to determine the concepts and procedures learned and relearned by the students in the development of formal discourse through the use of connectors. In general, concerning discourse, it was corroborated through the BOA and the audio recording applied to the three final round tables, the use of 33 arguments, in supremacy authority, which indicates a vast domain of the topic product of the research.

Likewise, 189 discursive connectors were used, distributed in eight types (summative, sequential, consecutive, reformulative, counter-argumentative, exemplifying, and organizing). With the methodology of the round table, 88% compliance with the procedures described in the BOA was verified; only the moderator of team three did not use recursive questions to guide the topic. On the other hand, it is important to highlight, through the focus group at the end of the application of the didactic sequence, aspects mentioned by the students related to the attitudinal evaluation.

Firstly, they highlighted the fulfillment of the values of responsibility, respect, and empathy. Likewise, they were able to detect failures, referring to the disdain for some activities, the hierarchy of discourse, and the lack of resilience. In summary, it can be affirmed, according to the results described, that the Schema Learning Model is functional; however, elements related to emotional education and the insertion of ICTs in the study of learning schemas should be considered.

5. Conclusions

The development of oral expression competence includes diverse and complex aspects such as pronunciation, argumentation, grammar, and the adoption of an active methodology based on the study of human learning schemes. Therefore, this research work leads to the following conclusions:

The Schema Learning Model is functional for the development of oral expression through the use of logical connectors in formal discourse. The contrast of the theorems in action in the accommodation and assimilation of previous and new knowledge through the conceptual-factual, linguistic action, sociocultural action, and technical-procedural subschemes allowed the structuring of formal discourse through the lexical incorporation of 189 textual markers, 33 arguments and the fulfillment of 88% of the round table methodology on the part of the work teams.

To the limitations of the study, elements associated with emotional education should be considered in the proposed activities, preferably in the first phase. Likewise, the understanding of the theoretical material is necessary to use different strategies for active learning and the insertion of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and Collaborative Learning Technology (CLT).

Accordingly, it is necessary to continue with the application and validation of the Schema Learning Model in language and literature didactics based on the following suggestions. First, to study oral macro-skills in other discursive modalities (expository, narrative, and descriptive). Secondly, to adapt this proposal to the development of the other language macro-skills (writing, reading, and listening). Thirdly, to orient the study of learning schemes to students with special needs.

---