DYADIC CLASSROOM DISCOURSE BETWEEN TEACHERS AND YOUNG CHILDREN
by
ANNE CRAWFORD LINDSAY B.A., M cM aster University, 1973 M.A., U niversity of Victoria, 1988
A D issertation Subm itted in Partial Fulfillm ent of the requirem ent for the D egree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
in the Faculty of Education
We accept this dissertation as conform ing to the required standard
^ ^ M arg ie ifM ayfield,Ph.D./j^
(D epartm ent of C om m unication and Social Foundations)
(J
Peter O. Evans, Ph.D.(D epartm ent of C om m unication and Social Foundations)
v ' " tfo y d O. OHiTa7PND.
(D epartm ent of C om m unication and Social Foundations)
BarharaJPziuHarrisJ h.D. tm ent,of Ljngyistics)
M arvin I<leii>, Ph.D.
(W estern W ashington U niversity, External Examiner) © ANNE CRAWFORD LINDSAY, 1996
U niversity of Victoria
All rights reserved. D issertation may n o t be reproduced in w hole or in p art, by photocopying or other m eans, w ithout the perm ission of the author.
Supervisor: Dr. Margie I. Mayfield
ABSTRACT
Studies of classroom discourse have typically focused o n large o r sm all group interaction. In contrast, this study exam ined one-to-one or dyadic discourse. The stu d y 's purpose was to develop m ethods for recording and describing dyadic classroom discourse, and to suggest ways to ad ap t these m ethods for classroom-based use. The study w as exploratory and designed as an inductive inquiry grounded in the naturalistic p arad ig m (Guba & Lincoln, 1982), and structured by the approaches of grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) and netw orks analysis (Bliss, M onk & Ogburn, 1983).
The study w as conducted in three prim ary grade classroom s, a
kindergarten, a grade o n e/tw o , and a grade three. Sam pling continued for ten sessions in each setting, extending over all classroom activities.
Recording m ethods w ere audio and videotaping, and description m ethods, transcription and coding. The conceptual structure of dyadic discourse w as grounded in the classroom discourse literature and a broadly-defined w orking view of language consisting of features of context, structure, intent, affect and meaning.
The results suggested that audiorecording and videorecording m ethods w ere bo th viable for recording dyadic classroom discourse, b u t videorecording w as m ore reliably accurate and complete, and less intrusive.
Transcription m ethods considered accurate and com plete, an d coding
m ethods considered insightful b u t dem anding w ere described. Suggestions for adapting the m ethods for classroom-based u s e " -ere described. Coding revealed the tacitness of teachers' know ledge about classroom discourse, and also red u n d an cy and am biguity in their vocabulary used to describe it. The conceptual structure of dyadic classroom discourse appeared as intricately structured, and m arked by its pedagogical context, b u t not as substantively complex.
The stu d y suggested that despite its individualized and pedagogical qualities, dyadic discourse does n o t inherently su p p o rt children's substantive learning. To be effective it m ay require particular skills of teachers which first require th a t teachers' tacit know ledge of classroom discourse be m ade explicit. M ethods developed here m ay facilitate this process as well as reflective
practice m ore generally. Finally, the am biguity and redundancy found in teachers' language m ay have significance for current educational debates. E xam iners: ^ Mnrtn^lUIVIavfialrl Pli n A! ' % ( Ppter O. Evans, Ph£>., ^Q ovG O .T )llila,P h.D .. Bajfears P. Har/w. / M arvin L Kldln, I^fr.D.
Table of Contents
-Page Abstract ...
Table of C ontents ... .. iv
List of Figures ... xii
A ck now ledgem ents ... xiii
D edication x iv C hapter ONE BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY ... 1
Theoretical B a c k g ro u n d ... 2
C lassroom D is c o u r s e ... 2
A W orking View of L a n g u a g e ... 6
A D evelopm ental P e rs p e c tiv e ... 6
The cognitive-interactionist p e r s p e c tiv e ... 6 The social-interactionist p e r s p e c tiv e ... 7 A cognitive-linguistic-social interactionist perspective ... 8 A Role for A ff e c t... 9 A N otion of M eaning ... 10 R atio n ale 11 The Significance of Classroom Discourse in C u rren t Educational P ra c tic e ... 12
The Significance of Dyadic Classroom D isco u rse... 13
The Research Problem ... 15
P aram eters of the Research P r o b le m ... 17
The Role of the W orking View of L a n g u a g e ... 18
Extending Previous R esearch ... 20
R esearch Q u e s tio n s ... 20
L im itatio n s 21 Sum m ary of the C hapter ... 22
T W O REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ... 24
Classroom D is c o u rs e ... 25
The Process-Product A p p r o a c h ... 26
The D escriptive o r Sociolinguistic O r ie n ta tio n ... 28
Functions in Classroom D isc o u rse ... 31
Small G roup and Dyadic Classroom D isc o u rse ... 33
Structures an d Functions in D isc o u rse ... 35
Structures in D is c o u rs e ... 35
A U nit of D isc o u rse... 36
T urn Taking S tru c tu re s ... 37
Topic Structure ... 38
C ontextualization C u e s ... 39
Functions In Discourse ... 40
Classification Schemes of Language F u n c tio n s 41 Problem s w ith Classification Schemes of Language F u n c tio n s ... 45
Classification Schemes of Speech A c ts ... 46
Problem s w ith Classification Schemes of Speech A c ts ... 47
A W orking View Of L a n g u a g e ... 50
A D evelopm ental P e rs p e c tiv e ... 50
The Em pirical-N ativist I s s u e ... 51
A C ognitive-Interactionist Perspective ... 53
Piaget and inherent cognitive processes . . . . 54
D onaldson's c o n trib u tio n ... 56
The constructivist p e rs p e c tiv e ... 58
A Social-Interactionist P e rsp e c tiv e ... 59
A n A lternative Perspective ... 62
V ygotsky's contribution ... 62
A cognitive-linguistic-social-interactionist perspective ... 64
The Role of A ffe c t... 67
A N otion of M eaning ... 68
C o n v en tio n ality ... 69
Shared m e a n i n g ... 69
U nshared m eaning ... 71
Two form s of co n v en tio n ality ... 72
D ic tiv e n e s s ... 73
The Relationship Between Conventionality D ic tiv e n e s s ... 74
Sum m ary of the W orking View Of L a n g u a g e ... 75
Sum m ary of the C h a p t e r ... 76
THREE STUDY DESIGN AND M ETH O D O LO G Y ... 78
The N aturalistic Paradigm : A Theoretical Fram ew ork for the Study Design ... 80
C om paring the Rationalistic and N aturalistic Paradigm s , 80 The Naturalistic Paradigm and This S tu d y ... 83 M atching the Param eters of the Study
to the N aturalistic Paradigm ... 83
Additional Methodological P a ram e te rs... 85
A pproaches for an Inductive I n q u ir y ... 86
S am pling... 87
Defining the U n i t ... 88
The G rounded Theory A p p r o a c h ... 89
The sam pling, data collection, and data analysis c y c le ... 90
Data analysis in the open coding phase of the grounded theory a p p r o a c h ... 91
N etw orks A n a ly s is ... 93
Data analysis in a netw orks analysis a p p r o a c h ... 93
Study Design ... 94
Developing M ethods for Recording and Describing Dyadic Classroom Discourse A n Inductive Inquiry P r o c e s s ... 94
Criteria for the research p r o c e d u r e s ... 95
Prelim inary p ro c e d u re s ... 98
The modification p ro c e d u re ... 99
A dapting M ethods for Classroom-Based U s e 101 M ethodology of the Study ... 102
Criteria for Sam pling Procedures ... 103
Prelim inary Procedures for S a m p lin g ... 104
Sampling of T each ers... 105
Sam pling of C om m unities and S c h o o ls ... 107
Sam pling of C hildren ... 107
Sam pling of Contexts of Dyadic Classroom D iscourse... 110
Sam pling of tim e b lo c k s... 110
Sam pling of curriculum a r e a s ... 112
Criteria for Procedures for Recording Dyadic Classroom D iscourse... 113
Prelim inary Procedures for Recording Dyadic Classroom D iscourse... 114
Fam iliarization w ith C la s s ro o m s ... 115
Recording Dyadic Classroom D isco u rse... 117
A u d io re c o rd in g ... 118
V id e o re c o rd in g ... 120
Criteria for Procedures for Describing Dyadic C lassroom D is c o u rs e ... 121
Prelim inary Procedures for Describing Dyadic C lassroom D is c o u rs e ... 123
Transcribing Dyadic Classroom Discourse ... 123
A udio tra n s c rip tio n ... 125
Video transcription ... 125
C oding Dyadic Classroom Discourse ... 126
A dapting M ethods for Classroom-Based U s e ... 128
Descriptions of Com m unities, Schools, Teachers, and C h ild re n ... 129 C om m unities a n d S c h o o ls... ... 129 O ldtow n ... 129 M id d le to w n ... 130 N e w t o w n ... 131 Teachers and C la s s ro o m s ... 132
O ldtow n School- G rade T h r e e ... 132
M iddletow n School- K in d e rg a rte n ... 134
N ew tow n School- G rades O ne/T w o ... 136
The Focus C h i ld r e n ... . . . 138
O ldtow n - M ore C om petent C h ild r e n ... 138
C la r a ... 138
T o m ... 138
D o n ... 139
O ldtow n - Less C om petent C hildren ... 139
J a r e d ... 139
C h a r le n e ... 139
W a y n e ... 140
M iddletow n - M ore C om petent C h ild re n ... 140
E sther ... 140
M arcella... 141
G raem e ... 141
M iddletow n - Less C om petent C h ild r e n ... 142
J e n n i f e r ... 142
J o e ... 142
Paul ... 142
N ew tow n - M ore C om petent C h ild re n ... 143
C a i t l i n ... 143
D a v i d ... 143
A l e x ... 143
N ew tow n - Less C om petent C h ild r e n ... 144
C a r r i e ... 144
C i n d y ... 144
B e n ... 144
Sum m ary of the C h a p t e r ... 145
FO U R RESULTS 148 Accounting for the Research P r o c e d u r e s ... 148
M odifications to Sam pling Procedures ... . 149
M odifications to Procedures for Recording Dyadic Classroom D iscourse... 151
A udiorecording .. , ... 151
V id e o re c o rd in g ... 152
Processes Accompanying R ecording... 152
M odifications to Procedures for Describing Dyadic Classroom D iscourse ... 153
Modifications to Transcription P ro c e d u re s... 153
C rite ria ... 154
T ranscription techniques ... 155
Contextual and structural features and their transcription conventions ... 155
Modifications to Coding P ro ced u res... 156
C oding processes- phase one ... 157
Coding processes - phase t w o ... 160
Coding processes - phase th r e e ... 161
T e c h n iq u e s ... 162
Features of function, affect and m eaning .. 163
R esults 165 M ethods for Recording Dyadic Classroom Discourse . . . . 166
The A udiorecording m e th o d ... 166
E qu ip m en t ... 166
R e c o r d in g ... 166
Problem s w ith the audiorecording m ethod 167 The V ideorecording M e th o d ... 167
E q u ip m e n t ... 167
R e c o r d in g ... 168
Problem s w ith the videorecording m eth o d 170 C om paring A udio and Video Recording M ethods 170 M ethods For Describing Dyadic Classroom Discourse , . . 172
Transcription - T echniques... 172
E quipm ent ... 172
T ra n s c rip tio n ... 173
Transcription - C ontextual and Structural Features 174 Contextual fea tu res... 174
Structural features discourse structures -e p is o d -e s... 174
Structural features discourse structures -turn taking p a t t e r n s ... 175
Structural features discourse structures -topic s t r u c tu r e ... 175
Structural features - discourse structures - lo c a ti o n ... 179
Structural features - verbal elements ... 179
Structural features - nonverbal elem ents . . 179 Structural features - nonvocal elem ents . . . 181
Coding - T echniques... 181
Coding - In te n t... 184
C oding - Intent - S tra te g ie s... 184
N o im m ediate effect... 185
Interaction ... 186
To obtain in fo rm a tio n ... ... 186
C hild's current a c t iv i t y ... 187
Child's next a c tiv ity ... 192
C hild's u n d erstan d in g . . , ... 192
C oding - Intent - Knowledge ... 196
C onceptual know ledge - discourse k n o w led g e... 196
Conceptual know ledge - w ord know ledge . 198 Conceptual know ledge - content know ledge 199 C onstruction ... 20°
Coding - A ffect... 201
C oding - M e a n in g ... .. 202
A N etw ork for Dyadic Classroom Discourse 204 A dapting M ethods for Classroom-Based U s e ... 205
Assessing the Value of the M ethods ... 205
The values for in-service teachers ... 206
The values for pre-service teachers ... 209
Suggestions for Use by T e a c h e rs ... 210
Suggestions for r e c o r d in g ... 211
Suggestions for tra n sc rib in g ... , 213
Suggestions for coding and discussion 213 Sum m ary of the C h a p t e r ... 214
FIVE SUMMARY A N D D IS C U S S IO N ... 215
Sum m ary of the Study ... ... 215
Background to the S tu d y ... 216
Features of Discourse from Studies of Classroom Discourse ... 217
The W orking View of L a n g u a g e ... 217
Design, M ethodology, an d R e s u lts ... 219
Study Design ... >... 219
M e th o d o lo g y ... 219
R e s u lts ... ...*... 220
M ethods for recording dyadic classroom d is c o u r s e ... , ... 220 Methods for describing dyadic classroom
d is c o u rs e ... 221
A dapting m ethods for classroom -based u se ... 222
Discussion of R esu lts... 223
The Viability of M ethods for Recording and Describing Dyadic Classroom D iscourse... 223
Accuracy and Com pleteness of Recording M ethods 224 The Ethical Tenability of Recording M ethods . . . . 224
The Intrusiveness of A udio Versus Video R e c o rd in g ... 225
Practicality and A uthenticity of T ranscription . . . . 226
Practicality and A uthenticity of C o d in g ... 227
Developing the C onceptual Structure of Dyadic C lassroom D iscourse ... 229
C ontextual F e a tu r e s ... 229
Structural F e a tu r e s ... 230
D efining u n i t s ... 230
M anagem ent of turns ... 232
Topic stru c tu re ... 232
L ocation... 233
Verbal, nonverbal, nonvocal elem ents and contextualization c u e s ... 234
Features of Intent ... 235
The m ajor p ro p erty of s tr a te g ie s ... 236
Levels of interactivity ... 237
A given-new d is tin c tio n ... 239
Choice and a d a p tiv e n e ss... 241
K n o w le d g e ... 241
A f f e c t... 243
Features of M ean in g ... 244
Sum m ary of the C onceptual Structure of Dyadic Classroom Discourse ... 245
Lim itations of the Study ... 246
Im plications of the Study ... 248
Im plications for Teaching P r a c tic e ... 2.49 Dyadic Discourse and C hildren's Substantive learning ... 249
The Com plexity of C lassroom C o n v e rsa tio n 252 D em ands on te a c h e rs ... 252
D em ands on children ... 253
A Pedagogical Bond ... 254
The Case for Classroom C o n v ersatio n ... 256
Im plications for Teacher E d u c a tio n ... 257
C ontributions to Reflective P ra c tic e ... 259 Im plications for Observing and Assessing
Teaching Practice ... 260 Im plications for Con., micating About
Teaching Practice... 261 F u tu re Research ... . . , 263
M ethods for Recording and Describing Dyadic Classroom Discourse ... 264 The Conceptual Structure of Dyadic Classroom Discourse 264 Relations/ Correlations, and Effects ... 267 M ethods for Classroom-Based U s e ... 268 Broader Issues ... 269 S u m m ary 269 R eferences 271 A ppendix A 286 A ppendix B 289 A ppendix C 290 A ppendix D 291 A ppendix E 294 A ppendix F 295 A ppendix G 296 A ppendix H 297 A ppendix I . ... 298 A ppendix J 300 A ppendix K 301 A ppendix L 302 A ppendix M 303 A ppendix N 307 A ppendix O 314 A ppendix P 333 A ppendix Q 346 A ppendix R 347 A ppendix S 348 A ppendix T 350 A ppendix U 353 A ppendix V 356
List of Figures
Figure Page
X C om parison of classroom talk to
co n v ersa tio n ... . ... 29
2 Classification schem es of functions of language ... 42-43 3 Classification schem es of speech acts 48 4 C ontrasting axiom s in the rationalistic and naturalistic p a ra d ig m s ... 81
5 Criteria for a systematic in q u iry ... 97
6 Sample of episode and discussion of episode show ing application of discussion sessions to teachers’ practice ... 159
7 Sample of episode and discussion of episode show ing lim ited know ledge of researcher and the tacitness of teachers' know ledge ... 164
8 N etw ork of features of dyadic classroom discourse . . . . SEE MAP POCKET 9 Episode types ... 176
10 T urn p a tt e r n s ... 177
11 O nset a n d term ination p attern s ... 178
12 Verbal elem ents ... 180
13 N o n v erb al elem en ts ... 182
14 N onvocal elem ents ... 183
15 Levels of interactivity ... 238
A cknow ledgem ents
It is difficult to fully express m y gratitude to all those w ho have assisted m e throughout m y doctoral program . I will always be deeply indebted to m y advisor, Dr. M argie Mayfield, w hose guidance and w ell-m easured advice over these last five years have been invaluable. I have greatly appreciated all her patience and support. I also w ish to thank my committee members, Dr. Peter Evans, Dr. Lloyd Ollila, and Dr. Barbara H arris for their generous
contributions of direction, insight, encouragem ent, and time.
I m u st thank the children, teachers, rn d staffs of the schools where this w ork w as done. In particular, I am immensely grateful to the three teachers for taking me into their classrooms, and their professional and personal lives. Their exem plary abilities as teachers, their professionalism, and their
hum anism m ade w orking w ith them a rare pleasure.
I also w ish to thank m y friends, family, and colleagues who so often helped m e cope w ith the daily dem ands of completing a dissertation. In particular, I w ant to thank Judith L apadat for her unflagging su p p o rt over the last year of this w ork, and Judith and her husband H arold Janzen, for so generously extending to me their friendship in a new com m unity and
university. Finally, I w ish to acknowledge that H arold's tragic death on June 6, 1995, his ow n dissertation all b u t complete, will rem ain a constant
D edication
CHAPTER ONE
BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
Classroom discourse* has been the focus of various studies since Flanders' (1970) sem inal w ork on interaction patterns in classrooms. The study described here exam ined classroom discourse in prim ary grade classrooms. In contrast to m uch previous w ork in this area that looked at large group or sm all group discourse patterns, this study focused on one-to- one or dyadic classroom discourse. It w as an exploratory study. Its first purpose w as to develop m ethods for recording dyadic classroom discourse; the second p u rp o se was to develop m ethods for describing it; and the third purpose w as to suggest w ays teachers m ight adapt the m ethods developed in the stu d y for use in classrooms, such as for observation and reflective
practice. It was intended th at such adaptations m ight be useful for pre-service and in-service teacher training. In this chapter, the theoretical background for the stu d y is review ed first. The rationale, research questions, and the lim itations of the stu d y are then described. T hroughout the chapter, major term s are defined as used in the study.
1 Classroom discourse and the following term s used in this chapter are defined in the glossary in A ppendix A: dyadic classroom discourse, discourse, child-centred approaches, developm entally appropriate practice, an d m ethods.
Theoretical Background
The theoretical background to this study consists of tw o parts. The rocus of the stu d y w as the oral language of teachers w ith children in classrooms, a topic know n as classroom discourse. This topic is discussed first. Following is a brief description of a w orking view of language
developed for this study. Its role is discussed in the rationale (see pp. 11-15).
Classroom Discourse
The concept of discourse has been used to describe the language betw een teachers and children in classrooms (Cazden, 1986,1988). As a concept, discourse has no clear definition (Kess, 1992; Schiffrin, 1994). Schiffrin explained how it has em erged w ithin a range of disciplines w ith different philosophical, theoretical, and m ethodological com m itm ents resulting in different view s of w hat defines discourse and som etim es
radically different w ays of exam ining it. H ow ever, com m on to these different approaches is the n o tio n th at language is structured beyond the level of the sentence, for exam ple, as pairs of utterances, or as com plete texts. Also com m on is the notion that language structures function in v arious w ays to accom plish the exchange of m eaning betw een particip an ts in com m unicative events, Kess argued that "utterances in discourse carry m eaning of a m ore intricate type than just m orphem es and w ords, and in a very real sense are the typical m eans by w hich w e transm it both ideas and intentions in
com m unicative exchanges" (p. 141). Some views of discourse are particularly expansive. For example, Sherzer (1987) argued that discourse embodies, filters, creates, a n d recreates culture. Such qualities have m ade the concept of discourse am enable to studies of language in the complex social and linguistic contexts of classrooms.
C lassroom events are often organized around different groupings of teachers and children, an d studies in classroom discourse can be categorized similarly. One group of studies has described the language of large group teacher-directed lessons (e.g., M ehan, 1979; Sinclair & C oulthard, 1975). Some large gro u p studies have focused o n the participation patterns in cross-
cultural settings (e.g., Philips, 1983; W ard, 1990). O thers have studied the use of language in the developm ent of a particular concept or skill, for example, the construction of oval narratives du rin g sharing tim e (Michaels, 1981; Michaels & Cazden, 1986). A nother group of studies has focused on the language used in sm all group events, such as reading lessons (e.g., A u & Mason, 1983; Dore & McDermott, 1982).
O ther types of classroom events are organized around one-to-one interaction betw een the teacher and one child. The accom panying discourse w as term ed here dyadic classroom discourse and defined aft naturally
occurring discourse betw een a teacher and one child. It is n o t well
represented in the classroom discourse literature. H ow ever, it can appear less formal o r planned than form s of classroom discourse described above, and as
such, it is somet imes referred to as conversation betw een teachers and
children. Research related to conversation in classroom s has tended to focus on children’s talk, not necessarily in interaction w ith adults (e.g.,
Halliday,1975; Tough,1976). One exception is Wells and Chang-W ells' (1992) w ork w hich focused on the talk betw een teachers and children.
In sum m arizing studies on classroom discourse, several observations can be m ade. The first is that it is still a topic that is relatively undeveloped. Second, to date, it has prim arily been a study of group-based discourse
excluding the genre of dyadic classroom discourse. Third, w hen dyadic forms have been studied, the focus typically has been on the language of the child. H ow ever, perhaps the m ost salient point in surveying the research in
classroom discourse is its general paucity. As Wells and Chang-W ells (1992) indicated:
Given the pervasiveness of talk in classrooms, at all levels of education, it is surprising to find how little detailed attention it has received. . . . Little is known, for instance, about the types of tasks that are m ost likely to prom ote talk in w hich students m ake new and productive connections betw een their ow n ideas and those of others, nor about the types of teacher intervention th at foster rath er than interrupt - or worse still, suppress - such thoughtful talk. . . . curricular subjects, have tended to treat talk as straightforw ard and
unproblem atic, (p. 26)
Finally, several observations can be m ade about the underlying concept of language in these studies. Generally, only selected features of discourse have been m entioned, b u t both C azden (1986) and C ham bers (1991) argued that it is im portant to understand that linguistic variables need to be
considered in com bination. For exam ple, C azden cited Schw artz' doctoral dissertation on discrim ination of stu d en t differences that depended on ways of com bining linguistic variables, rather than in the frequency of occurrence of any single variable. Similarly Bloome and Theodorou (1988; argued that classroom discourse needed to be exam ined as a composite of m ultiple levels. Also, C azden pointed o u t that in studies of classroom discourse, it is evident that interpretation of m eaning is dependent on context, and that m ultiple m eanings exist for any surface feature. As well, she pointed to the lack of h u m o u r and affect in the accounts of classroom talk, even though both "are basic to social life" (p. 443), and to the evidence for the critical role of non verbal elem ents in classroom discourse (e.g., Dore & M cDermott, 1982; M ehan, 1979; & Shultz & Florio, 1979). The need for a coherent theoretical m odel of language w ithin which to locate w ork in educational and clinical settings has been pointed o u t by several researchers (Lapadat, 1994; N orris & Hoffm an, 1993; P rutting & Kirchner, 1987). Similarly, Schiffrin (1994) argued that the need in studies of discourse w as to develop m odels that organize our know ledge about how discourse w orks and to link such m odels to m odels of language m ore generally.
Together, these points suggested that the concept of language in a stu d y of classroom discourse should be broadly-described. In this study, it was decided th at a broadly-described concept of language should include the range of features aro u n d w hich-discussions in the classroom discourse literature
the stu d y also sought to broaden the conceptual base further. To accom plish this, a w orking of language w as developed for the study. It is review ed briefly below an d described in detail in C hapter Two.
A W orking View of Language
The view of language developed here incorporates ideas from various disciplinary sources. It is understood as a hypothetical or w orking conceptual structure. It is discussed in three parts: first, language is discussed from a developm ental perspective, and th en the role of affect is discussed, and finally a notion of m eaning is addressed.
A D evelopm ental Perspective
C hom sky's 1957 publication of a theory of a universal gram m ar and his refutation tw o years later of Skinner's theory of verbal learning w ere a serious attack on the behaviorist tradition that h ad dom in ated N o rth
A m erican psychology for decades, an d also served to d ra w attention to other approaches in the stu d y of language developm ent (M urray, 1988). In the 1960s, attention focused for the first tim e in N orth A m erica on the w ork of Piaget.
The cognitive-interactionist perspective. In Piaget’s view , "language is structured or constrained by reason; basic linguistic developm ents m u st be
based u p o n or derived from even m ore basic general changes in cognition. The sequence of cognitive developm ent then, determ ines the sequence of language developm ent" (Gleason, 1989, p. 182). In Piaget's view, cognitive developm ent is driven by a need to m ake sense of the surrounding w orld or context. H ow ever, sense, as perceived by an individual, is constantly
challenged by new inform ation presented by the w orld, in tu rn forcing the individual to reorganize h is /h e r u n d erstanding to reestablish h is /h e r sense th at the w orld m akes sense. Linguistic structures em erge w ithin this sense- m aking function. A lthough Piaget hypothesized that the cognitive origins of language w ere inherent, his w ork p rovided the theoretical fram ew ork for u n d erstan d in g the dynam ics of the interaction betw een the organism and the environm ent, or context. Com m only referred to as interactionism , Piaget's approach is also know n as constructivism (Gleason).
The social-interactionist perspective. In recent decades, m uch research has taken a social-interactionist approach to language use and developm ent. This w o rk has h elp ed to illum inate the connection betw een the developm ent of language and the social and com m unicative context. Social-interactionist approaches to language developm ent may be seen as sharing the orientation of the behaviorist tradition ascribing the force behind language learning to environm ental o r contextual factors. In this view, h u m an language is seen as structured in response to the social-communicative functions it plays (Gleason, 1989).
The social-interactionist perspective appears to share assum ptions of the behaviourist tradition, and so to conflict w ith a perspective th a t assum es some inherent foundation for language developm ent. H ow ever, this is n o t so. Social-interactionist approaches, w hile not addressing the n atu re of innate factors, typically acknow ledge that they exist (Gleason, 1989). It is argued here th at the dynam ics described by the cognitive-interactionist perspective p ro v id e a fram ew ork for u n d erstanding h o w the factors in the social-interactionist perspective function.
A cognitive-linguistic-social-interacrionist perspective. The view of language in this stu d y combines the above perspectives. The process is seen as g ro u n d ed in tw o fundam ental h u m an needs. The first Piaget (1968/70) described as the n eed to m ake sense of the w orld. The second w as described by H orm ann (1986) as a fundam ental h u m an need to influence the
su rro u n d in g w orld. Individuals act or function w ithin their w o rld to attem p t to m eet these tw in needs.
Essential to this perspective is the notion of context w hich is n o t just the physical environm ent, b u t also the social-com m unicative context as described by the social-interactionists. As an individual's sense of the w o rld m eets conflicting inform ation in the su rro u n d in g w orld, the in d iv id u al is m otivated to resolve the perceived differences. The context m ay be construed as dem anding rethinking or reinterpretation. In tu rn , the in d iv id u al uses the new ly constructed view in acting u p o n the su rro u n d in g w orld, or
context. There is an interactive process betw een sense as previously
constructed by th e individual, or individual m eaning, and sense as found in the su rro u n d in g w orld, o r contextual m eaning, a process resulting in
n egotiated m ean in g . Language is understood as integral to this interactive process being the p rim ary m eans by w hich it is accom plished in hum ans. It serves various functions in accom plishing this process, an d the various structures of language serve as vehicles for accom plishing these different functions. The features aro u n d w hich previous studies of classroom discourse have been organized w ere considered to be exam ples of such structural and functional aspects of language.
A Role for Affect
The interaction of cognitive, linguistic, and social forces in language developm ent has been recognized (Harste, W oodw ard, & Burke, 1984; H orm ann, 1986; M oerk, 1977). H ow ever, as M oerk stated in 1977, no
coherent theory th a t explains how these factors interact yet exists, a statem ent w ith w hich few w o u ld disagree eighteen years later, A m ajor difficulty, as pointed o u t by Robinson an d Giles (1990), is the absence of a coherent theory of m otivation, th e essential force in the view described here. Some w ork has recognized the m otivational role of affect (e.g., M cCann & H iggins, 1990; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986), b u t few attem pts exist to account for this
com ponent in studies of language beyond the early stages of linguistic d ev elo p m en t.
A N otion of M eaning
The interactionist perspective described above form ed a background for an u n d erstan d in g of m eaning in this study. H ere it is assum ed that m eaning in any given event is constructed w ithin the interaction of cognitive,
linguistic, and social forces, as described above. From this perspective, tw o qualities of m eaning w ere hypothesized. The first relates to the relationship betw een individual m eaning and contextual m eaning. The second relates to the relationship betw een structural and functional features of language and m eaning. These qualities appeared very sim ilar to tw o qualities of m eaning Grice (1989) identified as conventionality and dictiveness. They are described in detail in C hapter Two.
In sum m ary, the theoretical background to this stu d y consisted of two parts. The classroom discourse literature provided bro ad param eters within w hich to locate the study, The w orking view of language provided a broad base for conceptualizing language in the study.
R ationale
The rationale for this study is described below. First the significance of research in dyadic classroom discourse, given current educational practice is discussed. The research problem is then described including a discussion of the role of the w orking view of language. Finally, there is a discussion of how this study extends previous research.
The Significance of Classroom Discourse in Educational Practice As increasing attention has been paid to classroom discourse by researchers in recent years, practitioners and docum ents prepared for them have also begun to em phasize the im portance of such talk. Various
docum ents p rep ared by the British Colum bia M inistry of E ducation have advocated that teachers pay attention to the role of talk in classrooms, or as it is som etim es term ed language across the curriculum .
For example, one docum ent stated that "reciprocal speech, suggested by W ilkinson as the tool for learning and akin to expressive w riting, m ust be given the sam e attention as process ir. com posing'1 (British Colum bia
M inistry of Education, 1990a, p. 22). A nother exam ple w as the docum ent Thinking In The Classroom (British Columbia M inistry of Education, 1991). It focused on the developm ent of w hat was term ed thoughtful learn in g , consisting of questioning, m aking connections, representing, and reflecting in the context of topics in science, social studies, and literature, w hich w as also
the approach advocated by Blank (1985). This docum ent provided teachers w ith excellent guidelines for contextualizing talk in term s of texts, problem s, readers, and thinkers. T hroughout the docum ent, teachers w ere encouraged to establish discussions w ith w hole groups, sm all groups, an d individual children,and to question and elicit questions. Sam ple questions and com m ents by both teachers and students w ere used to exem plify the
discussion. H ow ever, the focus o n the language u sed to serve these various purposes could be described as relatively sim ple and intuitive, or as Wells and Chang-W ells (1992) indicated "straightforw ard and unproblem atic"
(p. 26).
O ther m aterial p repared specifically for teachers has pro v id ed a sim ilar level of guidance. For exam ple, Scholastic Canada, a w ell-know n educational publisher, recently released a new anthology series for language arts in
elem entary classrooms, The accom panying professional text by Peetom (1993) referred repeatedly to the role of talk in language arts. The au th o r asserted that talk is the vehicle for extended thought, in particular, in the process of com prehension or interpretation of literature. H ere again, how ever, w hile it was recognized as im portant, classroom talk w as treated as unproblem atic. The following excerpt is typical:
The trick is to encourage classroom talk that isn't restricted by a present a g e n d a ,. , , to give time and opportunity so th at real engagem ent lights com m unal sparks. . . .Their shared talk m ay bring to light all kinds of magic, found individually an d collaboratively in text an d illustration. (p-84)
More specifically, Peetom advised teachers to:
pro v id e a n environm ent th at encourages conversation of all kinds; encourage and m odel tentative, speculative talk; carefully attend to a n d value w hat yo u r students say; don't direct or control the talk; ensure th a t w hat they have to talk about is relevant, interesting, challenging, w orth talking about; w atch (listen) for body language; [and] som etim es stay quiet yourself, (pp. 74-75)
In sum m ary, the above docum ents suggest that teachers are being advised to consider classroom discourse as playing an im portant role in developing a learning environm ent in their classrooms. H ow ever, the language of
classroom discourse is being treated as relatively sim ple an d straightforw ard.
The Significance of Dyadic Classroom Discourse
Dyadic classroom discourse as described in this study is distinguished from references to teacher-student interaction in large groups. Dyadic
classroom discourse, as understood here, refers to discourse w here the teacher's focus is not on the large group b u t on the individual child. Jt appears to take tw o forms. The first m ight be considered by observers to be casual conversation w ith no ap p aren t lesson or teaching focus. Typically, teachers create opportunities to engage children in casual talk, especially at the beginning and the end of w orking sessions or the school day. This talk does n o t ap p ear to be ordered system atically in time and space, or in advance, by the teacher. The second form of dyadic classroom discourse appears m ore guided o r lesson-focused. H ow ever, in practice, both these functions blend together w ithin increasingly prevalent instructional strategies th at are
som etim es term ed child-centred approaches. One com m on form th at such strategies take involves the teacher establishing an in d ep en d en t w orking session and th en circulating thro u g h o u t the room to identify an d address individual needs. It is also typical for children to approach the teacher d u rin g these sessions.
In recent years, the value of dyadic classroom discourse teaching
practices for the learning of children, and particularly for young children, has been encouraged by: (a) prevailing approaches to teaching em phasizing child-centred approaches and developm entallv appropriate practices: (b) the
increasing appreciation of the role of diverse oral language strategies in classrooms; an d (c) increased aw areness of the role of children's em otional involvem ent in their language developm ent. These three poin ts are all reflected in the follow ing extract from The B.C Prim ary Foundation D ocum ent (B.C. M inistry of Education, 1990b):
C hildren have a basic need to express them selves and learn ab o u t th eir w orld, an d this leads them to com m unicate w ith others. They n eed to talk w ith o ther children, b u t m ore im portant for the extension of vocabulary and thinking are their conversations w ith adults. . . . It m u st be k ep t in m ind th at a child's use of language is directly affected by the topic of discussion a n d by how he or she feels about being
involved in that discussion. To help sustain a n d enhance a child's language, the teacher m u st engage him or her in dialogue, th at is, guided talk betw een teacher and child on an individual basis, in w hich the child receives the full attention of the teacher, (p. 181)
The potential significance of such strategies has also b een stressed by several researchers. For exam ple, Clay (1991) referred to the need for teachers to use a variety of oral language strategies w ith children to p rep are them for success
in school generally, and in particular for the acquisition of literacy. C am bourne (1990) listed seven characteristics of teachers w ho h a d been judged as having highly effective classroom s for literacy learning. All seven characteristics w ere oral language strategies. The m ore casual conversational form of dyadic classroom discourse has also been stressed. For exam ple, D onaldson referred to pedagogy as an extension of conversation (Grieves & H ughes, 1990), and others have com m ented on the likely significance of casual talk in classroom s (e.g., Chambers, 1991; Enns, 1992; McLarin, 1989). C azden (1986) n o ted in her review of research into classroom discourse that forms of this language event have typically not been included in studies of classroom discourse. She stated, "it is an analysis of educationally significant talk usually overlooked as just a side sequence, or h id d en from consideration outside recording range" (p. 442). As in classroom discourse m ore generally, it is assum ed th a t such language plays a critical role in learning, b u t little attention has been p aid to the underlying structures and processes of the language in these exchanges.
The Research Problem
The research problem in this study w as the need to better u n d erstan d dyadic classroom discourse given its significance in cu rren t educational practice an d its lack of developm ent in the research literature. Small group lessons share w ith large group lessons the requirem ent th at teachers m u st
m onitor the g ro u p as well as the participation of individuals (Green, W eade & Graham , 1988). In contrast, in dyadic situations, the teacher's m ain focus is the individual child, although subtle forms of m onitoring the activity of the entire group are also likely to be occurring. Given this distinction, one m ight expect to find different or at least a different range of uses of language in dyadic exchanges from exchanges in large and small gro u p events.
The im m ediate problem for research in the area w as th at few, if any, m ethods for recording and describing dyadic classroom discourse w ere available. This form of discourse generally occurs in a classroom context of considerable activity and talk. As well, the locations an d orientations of participants are unpredictable and constantly shifting. G iven these problem s, it w as n o t clear w h a t m ethods for recording w ould p rovide the basis for
reasonably com plete an d accurate transcriptions. Also, it w as n o t k now n how m ethods taken from the b ro ad er classroom discourse literature for describing discourse sam ples w ould be applicable to this genre of classroom discourse. The im m ediate task of research in the area w as u n derstood as developing m ethods for recording and describing it. Therefore, the first p u rp o se of the study w as to develop m ethods for recording this genre of discourse, and the second to develop m ethods for describing it. The third p u rp o se w as to consider ways that the m ethods developed in the stu d y could b e a d ap ted by
teachers for use in classroom s. The term m ethods w as u n d erstood to include techniques for recording and describing sam ples of dyadic discourse,
as well as concepts and conceptual fram ew orks necessary to discuss this form of discourse.
Param eters of the Research Problem
The initial design of the stu d y w as framed by the follow ing eight param eters. The first param eter w as the need to focus on dyadic classroom discourse, defined as the discourse betw een one child and a teacher in its naturally occurring context. The next param eter w as the u n d erstan d in g of discourse w ithin a broadly-described concept of language. Next, as the significance of dyadic classroom discourse has been of particular interest in the learning of y oung children, the stu d y w as to focus on children in the prim ary grades.
Tw o other p aram eters for the stu d y w ere taken from assum ptions about the natu re of educational research. The first was an ethical
consideration an d assum ed th at research should in no w ay detract from the quality of a learning environm ent from the point of view of children, teachers, parents, or adm inistrators. The second assum ption w as th at educational research should address the needs of the field as closely as
possible, an d th at teachers in classroom s w here research is conducted should both contribute to and benefit from the research process, from their point of view.
Three m ethodological param eters further defined the stu d y 's focus. Given the lack of research in the area, the study w as considered to be exploratory. This m eant that it w ould not test hypotheses b u t explore
possible dim ensions of the language of dyadic classroom discourse. In turn, the exploratory n atu re of the stu d y indicated that it should attem p t to account for dyadic classroom discourse across the range of contexts in w hich it
occurred. Finally, it w as expected that the data in the stu d y w ould be qualitative, and th at research procedures w ould n eed to accom m odate this kind of data.
The Role of the W orking View of Language
The literature suggested that the concept of language for a stu d y in classroom discourse should be broadly-described. This could be partly accom plished by considering the range of features represented in the
classroom discourse literature as potential com ponents of dyadic classroom discourse, rath er tha.i ust focusing on one or two of them . H ow ever, it w as assum ed that developing a concept of language incorporating these elem ents but also in teg ratin g :hem into a m ore extensive view of language could
suggest o ther w ays to conceptualize the sam ples of language th at m ig h t n o t be present in the literature. As the stu d y w as to be exploratory an d the
broad range of possible features seem ed appropriate. The w orking view of language for the study w as developed for this purpose.
It w as also seen to serve several other purposes. The current
com plexity of the field pointed to the im portance of clarifying the concept of language in any w ork w here language is the focus. In this study, such
clarification w as seen as particularly im portant as the research w as intended for educational audiences. M uch of the w ork in language has been done in fields o th er th an education, and the transfer to education m ay be limited. Also, research in language in education has been criticized for its isolated and fragm entary nature. In referring to this body of research, Stubbs (1981) stated that "it is n o t un fair to say that m any researchers seem to feel justified in picking out, as evidence, any feature of language w hich appears intuitively to be interesting" (p. 116). A difficulty w ith this task involved the
interdisciplinary body of research and related assum ptions contributing to contem porary language theory. H ow ever, the integration of different
orientations has been advocated o r undertaken elsew here (Lieberman, 1992; Jacobs & Schum ann, 1991; Resnick, 1991), and it has been arg u ed that the b lending of approaches provides a m ore com plete u n d erstan d in g of the phen o m en o n of interest (Van Kleeck, 1986).
Finally, it w as hoped that attem pting to relate a stu d y of discourse to a view of language m ight contribute to the dem and for coherent theoretical m odels of language an d discourse in particular for w ork in clinical and
educational settings. How ever, as N orris and H offm an (1993) explained, a m odel of language has various practical purposes, one of w hich is to assist in naturalistic observation, and this w as the prim ary p u rp o se of the w orking view of language in this study.
Extending Previous Research
G iven the significance of classroom discourse in contem porary educational practice, as described above, this stu d y attem pted to extend previous research by focusing on the topic of classroom discourse generally. More specifically, it focused on the genre of dyadic classroom discourse w hich ap p eared to hav e little representation in the research literature. U nlike some previous w ork, it focused on the language betw een children an d teachers rath er than solely on the language of children. Finally, the stu d y attem pted to extend past research in its use of a concept of language believed to be m ore broadly-described than has been typical, at least in studies of language in education.
Research Q uestions
The research questions for this stu d y w ere developed to ad d ress the three pu rp o ses of the study. They w ere understood as constrained by the param eters of the stu d y as described above. They were:
2. W hat m ethods for describing dyadic classroom discourse can be d eveloped?
3. W h at can b e suggested for adapting the m ethods developed in questions one and tw o for classroom -based use by teachers?
As described above, the term m ethods in these questions was understood as referring both to techniques for recording and describing discourse sam ples, as w ell as to concepts and conceptual fram eworks necessary to discuss them.
L im itatio n s
O ne lim itation of this study w as its restriction to young children,
Further developm ent and refinem ent of this tool w ould likely b e necessary if the study's findings were to be useful w ith older students or w ith adults, A different range of structural and functional features m ight be involved in classroom discourse w ith these groups. Also, it was assum ed that children’s know ledge of conventions of classroom discourse are m ore highly developed in the later grades, and this know ledge w ould affect the quality of teacher- child discourse.
A second lim itation w as the p o pulation of children and teachers upon w hich th is stu d y is based. For populations of children and teachers that varied in any w ay, one m ight expect less applicability of the results of this study. A nother lim itation w as that given the range of features included in the scope of the study, no single feature could be exam ined in depth. The
exploratory natu re of the stu d y could only provide brief glim pses of particular features rather th an in-depth views of them . Finally, replication of the stu d y design used here could be limited. A lthough it pro v id ed a collaborative m odel of research w ith m uch to be gained by participants, it is likely to be seen as intrusive and p erh ap s threatening by som e teachers or
adm inistrators. C onsequently, the m ethodology m ay be lim ited in its application.
Sum m ary of the C hapter
This chapter described the theoretical background an d rationale for the study, a n d listed the research questions and lim itations of it. The stu d y
focused on dyadic classroom discourse for three reasons. First, it is n o t well- represented in the literature on classroom discourse. Second, it is a teaching practice being advocated for use in prim ary classroom s, an d third, the
literatu re pro v id ed evidence of the possible significance of this form of
discourse in teaching and learning. The stu d y w as designed to be exploratory an d to develop m ethods to record and describe dyadic classroom discourse, and w ays to a d ap t such m ethods for classroom -based use by teachers. A w orking view of language w as described. Its m ain p u rp o se w as to p ro v id e a broadly-described concept of language to su p p o rt the exploratory n atu re of the study.
In C hapter Two the literature pertinent to this stu d y is review ed. The study design and m ethodology are described in C hapter Three and the
analysis of the data and results in C hapter Four. C hapter Five sum m arizes the stu d y and discusses the results and im plications for teaching practice and future research.
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
In this chapter, the literature that provided the theoretical b ackground to the stu d y is discussed. This stu d y w as an investigation of classroom
discourse, specifically dyadic classroom discourse. Its p u rp o se w as to explore m ethods for recording and describing dyadic classroom discourse, an d w ays to ad ap t such m ethods for classroom -based use. M ethods w ere u n d ersto o d as both techniques for recording and describing dyadic classroom discourse and as the concepts and conceptual fram ew orks necessary to discuss it. In the literature, little elaboration of techniques for recording or describing dyadic classroom discourse w as available. Exceptions w ere the recent w orks of Silliman and W ilkinson (1991) an d E dw ards and L am pert (1993). R elevant details are incorporated into the discussion of m ethodology in C h ap ter Three.
The literatu re on. classroom discourse is dom inated by investigations of w ays to conceptualize this form of language. These investigations are review ed in tne first p art of this chapter. This review provides a context w ithin w hich to locate this study, and also indicates h o w prev io u s studies have organized discussions of classroom discourse aro u n d tw o dim ensions of language, stru ctu re2 and function. These dim ensions are then discussed in
2S tructure and the follow ing term s in this chapter are defined in the glossary in A ppendix A: function, IRE pattern, contextualization cues, adjacency pairs, topic, lexical, prosodic, W horf-Sapir hypothesis, an d
the second p a rt of the chapter w ithin m ore general studies of discourse. This discussion is lim ited to features of discourse relevant to the stu d y 's focus on classroom discourse. In the third p art of the chapter, the w orking view of language developed for the stu d y is described in m ore detail than in the previous chapter. Its purpose w as to provide a broad reference for w ays to conceptualize the discourse sam ples in the study.
Classroom Discourse
C lassroom discourse has som etim es been div id ed into tw o approaches, a process-product tradition and a descriptive tradition (Cazden, 1986). Studies in the process-product approach, or in p u t-o u tp u t m odels (Bloome &
Theodorou, 1988), have focused on the effectiveness of given teaching
approaches on stu d e n t achievem ent. In contrast, in the descriptive approach, studies have focused on describing or defining the various elem ents that m ay m ediate the process-product connection, although often providing im plications for teaching practice, intentionally or otherw ise (e.g., Shuy, 1988). C azden distinguished betw een m ethodological differences in these two approaches. She stated that process-product studies used preconceived
category system s to code classroom language as it occurred, b u t research in the descr otive tradition has typically w orked from transcripts of recordings of classroom talk. C azden also noted that the tw o approaches are rooted in
different disciplinary backgrounds. Process-product studies have been
grounded in a behavioural approach to studies of learning and teaching, and descriptive studies w ithin a sociolinguistic background.
The Process-Product A pproach
C lassroom discourse w as initially identified in studies of a process- product kind. In 1970, Flanders described his first experiences w ith
interaction analysis in classroom s in N ew Zealand ten years previously. Interaction analysis rested on the assum ption th at teacher-pupil interaction w as critical to teacher effectiveness. It w as not directed at all interaction in classroom s, b u t rather focused on dimens ions u n derstood as affecting stu d en t attitu d e and achievem ent, such as teacher-centredness an d dem ocratic versus autocratic teaching styles (A m idon & H ough, 1967). It w as believed th at such analyses could "achieve u n d erstan d in g of teacher-pupil interaction, an d , in particular, to specify conditions in w hich learning is m axim ized" (Flanders, 1970, p. 103). A m ong effects on learning that w ere stu d ied w ere differences am ong grade levels, differences am ong subject areas, and effects of differences in p attern s of learning in specific subject areas and in p u p il attitudes. The w ork w as prescriptive in nature, an d Flanders and his colleagues w ere optim istic that their w ork w ould im prove the effectiveness of teachers both through pre-service and in-service training.
Flanders' w ork (1970) and his colleagues' w as significant in d raw ing attention to interactional patterns and their role in classroom learning (Cook- G um perz & G um perz, 1992). H ow ever, in focusing on causal connections betw een discourse structures of teachers and effects on stu d en t learning, this w ork neglected to describe the underlying processes by w hich such results w ere achieved (M ehan, 1979). A lthough there have been exceptions, (e.g., Cazden, 1988; E dw ards & W estgate, 1987; Jaggar & Smith-Burke, 1985; Willes, 1983), studies of classroom discourse prepared particularly for teachers have typically taken a m ore prescriptive th an descriptive approach. For exam ple, H ynds an d R ubin's (1990) text presented papers on various topics relating classroom language to classroom learning w ith recom m endations for
teaching practice. Similar w ork advocating particular form s of classroom talk has em erged in the educational literature (e.g., Brause & M ayher, 1985; Roth, 1986). As Bernstein (1990) stated, "we shall argue here that w h at is absent from pedagogic discourse is its ow n voice. . . . We do not find any system atic account of the principles of the specialized com m unicative practice w hich is the d istinguishing feature of the school's central activity,
transm ission/acquisition" (pp. 164-165). O bservations such as Bernstein's and M ehan's help distinguish betw een a descriptive an d prescriptive
approach an d also point to the im portance of describing u nderlying processes w hich m ediate the effectiveness of particular teaching approaches. In
for the significance of classroom discourse, b u t not specific details about how it functions.
The D escriptive or Sociolinguistic O rientation
A sociolinguistic orientation to classroom discourse em erged in the early 1970s, w h en researchers in both sociology and anthropology developed an interest in this form of language (Cazden, 1986). M ehan's w ork has been recognized as the m ost influential w ith in this orientation (Leeds-H urw itz, 1989). H is w ork revealed u n d erly in g structures in classroom events show ing that students w_ ^ 2 required to "not only provide technically correct
inform ation in response to teacher questions, b u t also to provide it in the interactionally correct form" (Leeds-Hurwitz, p. 49). M ehan (1979)
dem onstrated th at one p attern in particular dom inated th e classroom events he studied. This consisted of teacher initiation, stu d en t response, an d
teacher evaluation of the student's response, now know n as the IRE p a tte rn . It is illustrated in Figure 1 below w here it is contrasted w ith an alm ost
identical m essage, b u t in a conversational rather th an a classroom context. In contrast to the early interaction analysis w ork in ten d ed to identify effective teaching practices, the w ork of M ehan (1979) an d his colleagues seldom attem pted to be prescriptive, instead focusing on describing structures and functions of classroom discourse. This sam e focus on structure and function is found generally in com m unicative approaches to language
Figure 1. C om parison of conversation to classroom talk (Cazden, 1988, p. 30).
C onversation Classroom Talk
W hat tim e is it, Sarah? W hat time is it, Sarah?
H alf-past two. H alf-past two.
(Robinson & Giles, 1990), an d specifically in studies of language at the
discourse level (Schiffrin, 1994). A lthough structure is u n d ersto o d to m ean linguistic structures such as w ords and sentences, here it refers to structures of language at the discourse level. Function is understood as the p u rp o se to be served by the language used in a particular event. Follow ing is a
description of how these tw o dim ensions have been ad d ressed in the
classroom discourse literature. They are described fu rth er in the next p a rt of the chapter w ith reference to the literature on discourse m ore generally.
Structures in Classroom Discourse
Descriptive studies of classroom discourse have described four m ajor discourse structures in classroom language. Like M ehan's (1979), som e w ork has described patterns in turn-taking that occur in classroom events (e.g., Au, 1980; Philips, 1983; W ard, 1990). Some w ork has exam ined turn-taking in com bination w ith the structure of the topic (e.g., Michaels, 1981; M ichaels & Cazden, 1986), w hile other w ork has focused principally on the topic stru ctu re (e.g., H arker, 1988). A nother structure addressed has been the u nit of
discourse. For exam ple, C azden (1986) argued that the notion of a lesson such as a m ath lesson, a reading group, or a m usic class has been recognized as a discrete event or unit of classroom discourse.
O ther w ork has described a set of structures, term ed contextualization cues, w hich Dorr-Bremme (1990) argued were pow erful , direct, and
im m ediate m eans of regulating discourse. C ontextualization cues w ere originally defined by G um perz (1982) as a linguistic form or forms "by which speakers signal and listeners interpret w h at the activity is, how sem antic content is to be understood and h o w each sentence relates to w h at precedes or follows" (p. 131). Cook-G um perz an d G um perz (1992) argued that classroom conversation "like verbal interaction anyw here, is guided by a process of conversational inference w hich relies on participants' p ro d u ctio n and
perception of verbal and nonverbal cues that contextualize the stream of daily talk activity" (p. 173). Examples of contextualization cues identified by
G um perz w ere nonverbal structures, choices am ong lexical and syntactic structures, conversational openings an d closings, an d sequencing strategies.
Functions in C lassroom D iscourse
F our approaches can be identified in descriptions of function in
classroom discourse. Some studies (e.g., G oodm an, 1985; Pinnell, 1985) have applied schem es of language functions such as that developed by H alliday (1975) to discussions of classroom language. For exam ple, Pinnell described and elaborated on H alliday's seven language functions: instrum ental, regulatory, interactive, personal, im aginative, heuristic, an d inform ational. O thers have ad o p ted T ough's (1976) scheme. Tough arg u ed that teachers could evaluate th eir effectiveness in developing ch ild ren 's language use by observing the range of functions displayed by their children.
A second approach to studying language functions in classroom s has been to use the speech act theory originating in A ustin's (1962) w ork and Searle's (1979) m odification of it. Speech act theory is concerned w ith defining connections betw een a particular u n it of discourse an d the act or function it perform s w ithin a com m unicative event. C onventional speech act theory has often been adapted to studies of classroom discourse (Ramirez, 1988). O ne of the earliest of such applications to classroom discourse w as the w ork of Sinclair and C oulthard (1975). Later applications of this type include the w ork of Dorr-Bremme (1990), Cooper, M arquis and A yers-Lopez (1982), W ilkinson an d Calculator (1982), an d L am pert and Ervin-Tripp (1993).
A nother approach has been to develop analytic fram ew orks for
identifying language functions by com bining various sources. For exam ple, Green and W allat (1981) described how they m apped large group
instructional events using a coding system incorporating theoretical
constructs from fields of sociolinguistics an d conversation analysis, an d also from the stu d y of teaching. Green, W eade, and G raham (1988) stated th at this system served b o th conversational and pedagogical purposes. The system included such functions as focusing, fram ing, ignoring, confirm ing,
extending, bidding, clarifying, editing, controlling, refocusing, a n d restating. The authors stated th at p ast research has indicated th at this set of strategies, although n o t exhaustive, provided a system atic m eans of describing
