Oral Language analysis
I have included this essay to highlight my thoughts on the value of observing children while they engage with one another. I love the saying that children are artifacts; we gain invaluable insight when we observe how children use language . This assignment required me to go beyond the obvious behaviors children exhibit and required me to give great thought into the influences behind their actions. These are the skills that enable me to really "see" my students, in the midst of the business of teaching.
Oral Analysis: A Cautionary Note to Self
My biggest takeaway after doing this assignment: An objective analysis of the spoken and unspoken language of the students I share my classrooms with has the potential to inform and reform my educational belief systems. The influences I allow to shape and guide my analysis carry great significance (Scollon & Scollon, 1996). During my time observing four students engaged in an oral activity, my perception of the children and my perceived beliefs behind their language and actions evolved with each visit I made to the data. I attribute this evolutionary process to the ongoing collaborative classroom exploration we made through examining theoretical literacy research. The result of my newly informed perspective led to numerous analysis revisions: not only was I becoming more aware of what to observe, but I was noticing my social, cultural and intellectual views were overshadowing my perception of the language experience (Smagorinsky, 2007; Vygotsky, 1978).
A Summary of the Oral Language in Action Experience:
By observing the four students through a lens that states, “thinking is a product of cultural practice” (Smagorinsky, 2007, p. 66), my views shifted, and I began to question why the students might be interacting with each other as they were. The child (Gpb) whose tone initially appeared to be flat, and her speech primarily regulatory (Halliday, 1975), may have been behaving out of the social and cultural influences of her home life (Vygotsky, 1978; Heath, 2002)). The child (Bw) who initially seemed overly agreeable, but began to present as frustrated, may have been struggling with gender disparity while working with his female classmates (Blair, 2000). The girl (Gp) who at first seemed insecure and disengaged, might have been taking everything in and formulating her own voice (Britton, 1979). Lastly, the child (Gg) that seemed to dominate the discourse, may have been scaffolding her peers through her think aloud talk (Vygotsky, 1978; Smagorinsky, 2007). Gg may have also come from a family where the adults around her engage with her more often, and in more open ways (Heath, 2002). What was apparent was the language and actions displayed by each student offered rich data to probe the ways each student employed language.
The How of Analyzing the Oral Language Activity
Given the complexities of observing and interpreting simultaneous verbal and non-verbal discourse, while taking into consideration “the different patterns of learning and using oral and written language” (Heath, 2002, p. 75), I found analysis required numerous, ongoing, spaced observations of the video and of the transcript. I found it best to examine and re-examine the video, and the transcript independent of each other, and then in tandem, and so on. I also found it helpful to focus on the verbal and nonverbal actions of one student at a time, and then as they interacted with each other (Power & Hubbard, 2002). This approach enabled me to break apart the observational process and notice which issues captured my interest (Power & Hubbard, 2002). I then built my analysis by determining which theoretical perspective might be linked to my observations. As my analysis of a video and transcript lack full contextual background, I recognize that my observations are only speculations.
Areas to Explore
After careful examination of the data, and upon reflection of the class literacy research, I chose to explore four overarching topics. At times it was necessary to explore the topic from multiple placements within the oral activity, as some topics had implications in multiple parts of the language activity. The first topic I chose to explore was how might the social, cultural and intellectual life experiences of these four children have impacted how they interacted with each other? Secondly, I found myself intrigued by how this unique group of students supported and collaborated with each other throughout the language activity. Thirdly, I wondered what I might learn by exploring the quiet, the frustrated and the confident students. Lastly, what can I learn when I examine language frequency, and tone in relation to leadership placement in this group of children.
An Analysis of the Oral Language in Action Data
Analyzing Language and Actions of Gpb: a deeper look at less interactional students.
As mentioned earlier, after several reviews of my field notes, and numerous revisits of the video, it was evident to me that I had formed assumptions based on the most prominent utterances, facial expressions and displays of body language that touched a chord with me (Power & Hubbard, 2002). I noticed I had formed a negative bias towards the student who appeared cold and neutral (Gpb) and I found myself in support of the child (Bw) who seemed overpowered and agreeable. If these students were in my classroom, I have no doubt, prior to starting this assignment, I would have looked for opportunities to over support the boy (Bw) and play down what I viewed as the girl’s (Gpb) overconfident intellectual attitude.
Based on the works of (Vygotsky, 1978; Smagorinsky, 2007) I began to wonder if Gpb may have come from a home where one does not make eye contact with those in authority, or engage in the playfulness of language (Smagorinsky, 2007, p. 62), choosing instead to employ primarily heuristic and informative language (transcript pp. 1; pp. 2; pp. 3)(Halliday, 1975), while remaining on task until the task had reached a certain point of completion (transcript pp. 9). I noted a few, very brief moments of playfulness, that if not for the recording, would have gone undetected because Gpb’s tone and facial expression remained very neutral throughout the activity. (transcript pp. 4 line 19; pp. 8, line 5). As the group reached a point of accomplishment in the activity, I noted Gpb interacted playfully with Gg, and then the whole group, as they bounced back and forth the phrase “Dada.” (transcript pp. 9, line 2-9). Although I did not notice examples to support it, I wondered if Gpb may have found herself operating from a stance of seriousness in order to hold her place in the activity with Bw (Blair, 2000).
Analyzing Language and Actions of Bw: a deeper look at frustration
As I attempted to analyze the interactions of the activity objectively, I started asking myself why was Bw reacting to Gpb and Gg as he was? Bw may have believed, based on his previous experiences, that he had the right (Blair, 2000) to lead the activity (transcript pp. 1, line 8, 10, 14, 16, 18), but when he could not keep control of the lead position, or his ideas were rejected (transcript pp. 1 line 16, 18), Bw, like the Athabaskan in (Scollon and Scollon, 1996, p. 190), he may have “started to feel like his ideas are always being ignored.”
Whatever the cause, I was interested to note that at times Bw appeared frustrated (see table page 12 titled: Examples of Bw appearing frustrated). Bw appears to be accustomed to attempting to take the lead (see transcript pp. 1, line 8, 10, 15). while Gpb appeared to operate from a stance of less interactional, more methodical and on task language, in order to hold her place within the task (transcript pp. 1, line 12).as she immediately launches into informative language (Halliday, 1975) as she reads the instructions. What is interesting to note, that while it appears at times that Bw finds Gpb and Gg’s approach challenging, as noted in transcript box above, they continue to support each other and ultimately work together to move the task forward, even without the use of a teacher (Wells, 1989). See table page 12 titled: Examples of the students talking through the activity and supporting each other.
Analyzing Language and Actions of Gp: A Less Vocal Student
How might I interpret the student that rarely speaks? Is this child disengaged, or merely observing and responding in the way they feel the group allows (Smagorinsky, 2007)? Do gender differences impact her open dialogue that would possibly flow freely in single gender environments (Blair, 2000)? As I observed the verbal and non-verbal behaviours of Gp, I noted that Gp primarily refrained from discourse (Total of # of utterances made over a seven minute, twenty nine second period of time: Transcript pp. 1, 0; pp. 2, 1; pp. 3, 3; pp. 4, 3; pp. 5, 6; pp. 6, 4, pp. 7, 4, pp. 8, 2, pp. 9, 1. Total 24 utterances)(see full working transcript), other than offering words of support or praise, (of the 24 utterances, she made over a seven minute, twenty nine second period of time, 9 were of support), yet her eyes were always moving back and forth between the two dominant female participants (Gpb & Gg) and it appeared, Gp was much like the Athabaskan person in (Scollon and Scollon, 1996, p. 189). “she was waiting to see what would happen” and how and where she could engage.
From the beginning of the activity I observed Gp was up and out of her seat, pencil in hand, looking around at the other three faces to figure out where she might jump in, yet after Gg made declarative “No’s” to Bw (transcript pp. 1, line 16, line 18), Gp sat down and put her pencil down as well. Later however, as Gg struggles to know if she is doing something correctly (transcript pp. 4, line 4, line 6), you see Gp sit up and immediately offer feedback in the form of heuristic and informative language (Halliday, 1975) (transcript pp. 4, line 8) and later Gp is able to utilize heuristic language (Halliday, 1975) (transcript pp. 4, line 25) showing that she is on task and very much aware of what is going on.
Analyzing Language and Actions of Gg: A Very Vocal Student
One might wonder if Gg comes from an environment where enthusiastic discourse is valued (Smagorinsky, 2007). At any rate, it appears that Gg has “developed ways of using language as an intentionally controlled tool” (Wells, 1989, p. 254). Shortly after the activity was given to the students, Gg (transcript pp. 1, line 11) sits up, leans across the table and appears to move into a dominant role throughout the activity, using repeated regulatory language (Halliday, 1975) to hold her position (transcript pp. 1, pp. 3, pp. 4, pp. 5, pp 7).
Analyzing Language and Actions to Hold Placement in a Conversation
This brings me to attempt to synthesize the students in this activity, and how their use of certain types of language (Halliday, 1975) affected who held the dominant role in the activity, and how it seemed to silence some and upset others (Scollon & Scollon, 1996). Within this group of four students there appeared an immediate race for leadership (see table below). As soon as the researchers handed the activity to the four students, Bw, Gpb and Gg
jostled for the role of leader (Scollon and Scollon, 1996). This was evidenced by Bw speaking first and third (transcript pp 1, line 8, 10). Gg attempts to join in as she pulls the instructions more in front of her (transcript pp. 1, line 11), while Gpb takes the lead by reading the instructions first (Scollon and Scollon, 1996), in a noncollaborative tone and stance, possibly modeling the role of teacher, (Wells, 1989). In (transcript pp. 1, line 14 and 18) Gg engages using informative and heuristic language (Halliday, 1975) and establishes a leading place for herself.
Given the limited number of utterances by Gp (based on 24 utterances throughout the seven minutes, twenty-nine second period of time), it appeared that Gp may have began to take on the role of spectator (Britton, 1979). It is important to note that Gp did not appear troubled by this position for herself; it is possible that she may have been accustomed to having little opportunity to speak (Cazden, 1988; Wells, 1989). Taking on the role of spectator (Britton,
1979) may have enabled Gp to develop her thoughts, however, I wonder if she found the group environment safe enough to actively engage in and take risks (Vygotsky, 1978)?
Peer Supports Through Collaborative Discourse
I noted a great deal of talking as the four took on different supportive scaffolding roles (Cazden, 1988) as they helped each other through the process of reasoning and refining their thoughts, while verbalizing the next steps (Cazden, 1988). See table titled: Examples of students talking through the activity and helping each other.
Vygotsky believed that “external talk affects internal speech.” (Vygotsky, 1978, pp. 125), and through the use of talk with peers, free flow corrections can occur naturally, as was evidenced as the students worked to accomplish their task (transcript pp. 8, line 3, 4, 6, 7). I noted that by talking through the thinking process, they were able to self correct, and clarify their own thoughts (Cazden, 1988) (transcript pp. 5, line 5-24). Although this group was very task oriented, I savored the small moment of language being used solely for pleasure (Britton, 1979) during Gg’s playing with words. (Gg, transcript pp. 4, line 16).
Examining Overlap of Discourse
Even during times of overlap within the discourse (See boxes below titled: Page 1 to Page 9 with examples of overlap). (transcript pp. 1, line 9, 25a; pp. 2, line 6; pp. 3, line 12a, 21a, 24a; pp. 4, line 1, 10a, 11a, 18a; pp. 5, line 25a; pp. 6, line 4a, 12, 15a, 18a, 19a, 21; pp. 7, line 3a, 23a; pp. 8, line 4a, 8a, 11; pp. 9, line 5a, 9) there remained a smooth flow and a sense that the task was moving forward (please see full transcript for proof of smooth flow through entire activity.
Implications for Classroom Practise:
Moving from oral language analysis to possible instructional strategies
By taking the time to record and analyze language experiences, I will allow myself the ability to capture rich data that can be revisited multiple times, in order to more fully observe specific language interactions and contemplate what is happening, or not happening within the confines of the learning environments I have sometimes unconsciously created (Power & Hubbard, 2002).
Implications surrounding biases in observations:
Because it is said that we perceive people based on our own life experiences (Vygotsky, 1978), I realized how important it is to at least attempt to guard against allowing social, cultural and intellectual life experiences to negatively inform and affect how I respond to others (Scollon & Scollon, 1996). In order to help each other understand the other's behaviour, I will invite exploration and discussion where social, cultural, and physical differences exist. Our unique discourse timing, dialect differences, word selections can be talked about, explored, and celebrated, in order to dispel myths (Scollon & Scollon, 1996). It is my intent to promote an environment of solidarity and respect, one where my students might feel more compelled to support each other’s uniqueness and see beyond the surface. I can create lessons where students read books or watch videos and discuss how they initially perceived the speaker or situation and probe why.
Implications surrounding peer supports in the classroom:
We know the ratio of teacher to student is unbalanced, yet teachers still choose to dominate the language that is used in classrooms (Wells, 1989). By having students work in
groups they can help each other through the thinking and reasoning process (Wells, 1989), as well as enable each other to work beyond their own current cognitive level: the stronger students can offer modelling (Vygotsky, 1978). In addition, when students observe and listen to the approach the other students use, they gain valuable skills that they can apply to other situations (Vygotsky, 1978). I also believe that teacher-created peer grouping should place value on sharing skills other than just academics: such as perseverance, curiosity, good discourse manners, empathy. An example would be grouping students who are less strong in their ability to read text, say someone whose mother tongue is other than English, but who has a deep curiosity and knowledge base about dinosaurs, within a working peer group who know very little about dinosaurs, but are required to create a poster and presentation about dinosaurs.
Implications surrounding quiet children in the class:
The same skill-based grouping mentioned above could be used for students who have limited opportunities to engage with or lead a conversation. I can group a student who has the required knowledge base (dinosaurs) with peers who lack this knowledge but require it to complete an activity. By doing this the less vocal student is shifted into a position of importance. Through these types of activities, silent students gain an opportunity to practise using heuristic, instrumental and informative language (Halliday, 1975). Reciprocal teaching (Vygotsky, 1978) is another way to have children engage in heuristic, instrumental and informative language (Halliday, 1975). Not only do these opportunities offer less verbally engaged children a chance to vocalize, but they also gain the opportunity to solidify their own understanding of the material by verbalizing to clarify their own thinking (Wells, 1989). It would also be interesting to have students experiment with timing in answering questions. Teachers could randomly divide the class and have all students labelled R to wait 10 seconds before responding to a teacher question, and ask those students labelled M to answer as soon as they have the answer.
I could also have a rule that all answers are worth exploring. When I ask a question, rather than answering with a yes or no, I could employ different responses, such as “interesting” or “let’s dig into that further” or “tell me more.” This type of regulatory language (Halliday, 1975) might help children move away from being afraid that they don’t have the “right” answer, to believing they are in an environment where learning is a process which involves deeper exploration and values multiple perspective.
Implications surrounding the dynamic of power in the classroom:
Recording classroom interactions enables me to be aware of the power dynamic in my classroom, plus it enables me to begin to “structure social interactions to promote a desired outcome” that is lacking (Smagorinsky, 2007, p. 61). As was evidenced with three of the four children in this analysis, only Gg seemed to feel comfortable utilizing most of Halliday’s functions of language (1975), such a personal, informative, instrumental, interactional, imaginative, regulatory and heuristic to interact with her peers (see full working transcript). This informs me that possibly Bw, Gp, Gpb “need intense and frequent occasions to learn and practise those language uses they had not acquired at home” (Heath, 2002, p. 78), thus enabling them to develop language skills that enable them to feel more confident in taking leading roles, or using language for persuasion, as well as language for relational development, rather than only for instrumental gains (Pinnell, 2002).
Conclusion of Oral Language Analysis
Working through the unknown to the known is a learning process that works well when we share the journey (Wells, 1989). Theorists have spent countless hours observing how language is used, the functions it serves and how the differences we bring to the experience affect all participants (Vygotsky, 1975). The four students who engaged in the vegetable activity appeared quite representative of the macrosystems within our societies: someone dominates the conversation, many observe, and everyone navigates the people around them based on their own previous social and cultural experiences. By taking the time to “see and contemplate” our observations with our colleagues, (Power & Hubbard, 2002, p. 1) (Pinnel, 2002) we expand our ability to level educational playing fields, engage the disengaged, challenge the high and struggling achievers, and create collaborative, reciprocal classroom environments that breed lifelong language learners (Cambourne, 1995).
References:
Blair, Heather A. (2000). Genderlects: Girl Talk and Boy Talk in a Middle-Years Classroom, Language Arts 21 (2) (pp. 315-323).
Britton, J. (1979). Participant and Spectator., Language and Learning (pp. 97-125)
New York: Penguin.
Cazden, C. (1988). Peer Interactions: Cognitive Processes., Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning. (pp.123-135). Portsmouth, NH. Heinemann.
Heath, Shirley Brice, (2002). A Lot of Talk About Nothing. (pp. 74-79) Language Development: A Reader for Teachers (2nd ed.).
Pinnell, G.S. (2002). Ways to Look at the Functions of Children’s Language., Language Development: A Reader for Teachers (2nd ed., pp. 110-117).
Power, B.M. & Hubbard, R.S. (2002). Language Development: A Read for Teachers (2nded.). New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Scollon R. & Scollon S. (1996). Narrative, Literacy, and Face in Interethnic Communication. Language Development: A Reader for Teachers (1st ed., pp. 226-229).
Smagorinsky, Peter (2007). Vygotsky and the Social Dynamics of Classrooms. English Journal: Vol 97, No 2. ProQuest Education Journals.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Interaction between Language and Development. In Editors here., Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes (pp. 79-91). Cambridge, Massachusetts. London, England. Harvard University Press.
Wells, G. (1989). Language in the Classroom: Literacy and Collaborative Talk., Language and Education 3 (4), 1989: 251-273.