Classroom Discourse Analysis

Classroom Discourse AnalysisClassroom instructor ChildrenWhat Characteristic patterns of classroom address be apparent in the passage below?Context This discourse takes place in a first-grade classroom in the USA, where the kidren are approximately 6 years old. The instructor has been learning from a book on hurri sackes and tornados.1. Manuel Uh, if tornados go to the Antarctica, what the penguin gonna do?2. Teacher Oh, you know what*3. Male Child They could go under pee.4. Teacher Could they go under water? What kind of protection could a penguin have?5. Bernardo If theres enemies // if theres enemies, how could a penguin go underneath the water if theres enemies?6. Teacher Oh, he wouldnt want to go underneath the water would he? Well, whos his enemy?7. Children The seal.8. Teacher The seals, yeah. Good thinking, researcher, yeah.9. Children several students speaking at once10. Teacher Alright, Manuel had his egest up first. He asked a really important drumhead. He said, well, what buns a penguin do if he knows that a tornado is coming? Wasnt that your interrogative?11. Bernardo No, that was mine.12. Teacher Well, together you were kind of talking about it. Now listen. Thats a really good question. Now lets try to the question13. Teacher Now, Im going to go over and get a book. In fact Alejandro, no, Manuel, you go over and get the Emperor penguin book. The ane from National Geographic on the table over there. (Adapted from the Shuart-Faris and Bloome, 2004, p. 106).From their beginnings children grow up learning lecture. This complex learning process is often taken for granted, as babies suckle and begin responding to the language which surrounds them. Bancroft (2007) suggests that these early language disciplines take place primarily between the dyad, in other words the child and his/her main caregiver (p.14). As children get older they become undecided to, and learn from, a much wider group of people and this helps to develop their ability to use language effectively. While the development of language skills is an on-going process, the children in the example of classroom discourse above have clearly already essential many of the skills essential in spoken language. These children can conform to the basic rules of conversation, such as turn taking and responding to prompts, recognising the teacher as being the initiator and themselves as respondents. They have also already developed enough comprehension of vocabulary to be able to participate in the discourse and have enough language noesis to behave appropriately inside the context of a classroom discussion.At approximately six years of age, these children appear to have already developed some of the skills which Crystal (1995) identified as essential acquisitions for young language learners an extensive vocabulary, with words such as enemies and underneath along with comprehension of words such as protection, and knowledge and use of grammatical structure, such a s the sentence formation shown in lines one, three, five and eleven (cited in Bancroft, 2007, p. 5). This discourse, according to Crystals (1995) theory, is a to a greater extent or less representative example, as he claims that at least three quarters of all grammar is understood by most children by the time they first pursue school (cited in Bancroft, 2007, p.5).Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) were the first linguists to describe the structural element of classroom talk, otherwise known as Initiation-Response-Feedback exchange or IRF (cited in Mercer, 2007, p.122). Mercer (2007) explains that IRF exchanges between teacher and pupil are considered to be standard interaction, with the teacher asking questions and the pupil(s) responding (p.122). As a result of their research, Wills (1983) and Edwards (1992) concluded that children quickly become familiar with the use of IRF at bottom the structure of classroom discourse, and provide automatically begin to participate in it (cited in Mercer, 2007, p.124). In the transcript above we can see clear examples of IRF in both lines 4 and 6 the teacher asks direct questions to their pupils. In the first IRF exchange the teacher asks two questions and while the first was a closed question which could be answered by one correct answer, by following it immediately with an open question, it would seem that the teacher was attempting to make the children consider the subject before make a discussion. In the second IRF exchange, seen on line 6, the teacher again asks two questions at once, these however are both quite closed questions which then are followed by all of the children answering together with the correct answer of the seal.The most common form of IRF, consisting of closed questions being asked, has received unfavorable judgment from schoolingal researchers such as Dillon (1988) and Wood (1992) who feel that little opportunity is given for pupils to develop their ability to reason, argue and explain using la nguage (cited in Mercer, 2007, p.123). Mercer (2007) however argues that, by including open questions in these exchanges, IRF can be used positively to shape pupils awareness and help them gain deeper understanding. He concludes that, while he accepts criticisms of IRF, caution must be taken in simply associating language structures, or verbs used in questions, with language functions, the act of asking a question, as what is ultimately more revealing is looking at the context in which these exchanges occur (p.124). A good example of this is a recording on the U211 videodisc (2007) of a teacher speaking to secondary school students about a project they were participating in. As we are able to insure this discourse we can assess the use of tone, intonation and stress patterns, along with the language structure and language function to give a much clearer idea as to the force of IRF. Throughout this IRF exchange the teacher is encouraging the students to share, and expand on, inform ation about their project, using open questions along with informal, supportive and friendly intonation (Unit 20). Without the ability to hear the classroom discourse exchange in our question, we should acknowledge that we can only make limited judgements as to the mode of IRF used.One aspect of classroom discourse which is not present in our example is that of specialised technical terms. Children in education will inevitably encounter these terms, as Mercer (2007) explains, which come from specific vocabularies of the several(predicate) subjects within their curriculum. The fact that technical terms are lacking from our example could be due to the age of the children, as pupils will progressively become exposed to, and begin to use, these terms as they go through their education. Mercer notes that the use of this language can be confusing for pupils and easily misinterpreted, with children reliant upon the teachers skill in back up to learn and understand them (p.127).In our dis course example a teacher is present and is initiating, shaping and controlling the conversation. Mercer (2007) however comments on how school based language interaction between teachers and pupils differs greatly to that between pupils only. He suggests that pupils working in groups or pairs without the presence of a teacher tend to make extended contributions to the conversation, are more willing to share knowledge, offer explanations and express uncertainty, probably due to their shared status (p.131). Teachers undoubtedly tomboy an important role in the education of children, however we should consider whether more pupils in our example would have shared their knowledge if they had been discussing the topic without the teachers presence. We can see on lines 7 and 9 more than one child talking at once, firstly to provide an answer to a closed question and secondly in inaudible speech, but likewise these there are only two children who offer answers in this, admittedly small sect ion, of discourse.While researching the topic of classroom discourse, Halliday (1985) stressed the importance of a childs understanding and use of the distinctive register of written English (cited in Mercer, 2007, p.139). Hallidays theory of functional linguistics was the basis of the development of the writing style approach, which recognised that language needed to be used in different ways dependent upon the context or medium for which it was being used (Maybin, cited in Mercer, 2007, p.140). In other words, as Mercer (2007) explains, children need to learn education cause rules, or conventions, in order to recognise and utilize language effectively (p.138). These make rules include learning specialised words, patterns of classroom interactions and the differences between spoken language and written texts (DVD, Unit 20). Mercer (2007) also acknowledges that rather than these ground rules being directly taught, children will learn them through their teachers example and feedba ck (p.139). In our example we have no written comparison for the transcribed spoken language, and it is therefore severe to assess just how different the language would be if the children had been writing about tornados rather than discussing them. Maybin (1994) suggests that written genres tend to be more condensed and abstract (cited in Mercer, 2007, p.139). In line 5 of our example we can see an example of this, with Bernardo possibly speaking while still determining what it is that he wants to say. Had he been asked to write his question, we would be unlikely to see any record of the false start or repetition of the words if theres enemies which we see in his speech, as the ground rules of written language require the thought process to be completed prior to writing.One of the most important points about our example, as mentioned earlier, is with only a written transcript of the conversation it is difficult to be able to fully analyse the discourse. Intonation, rate of speech a nd facial expressions, also known as paralinguistic features, play an important role in spoken language (Mayor, 2007, p.71), and without knowledge of this we cannot be sure of the rapport between the teacher and their students. We can see clear evidence of IRF in our example, but what we cannot gauge is the extent to which the teacher was engaging and encouraging the pupils. What is clear is that the complete process of learning is extensive, with children developing unspoken rules of language alongside the curriculum. Learning, by example and through the feedback, the ground rules of language the construction of different forms of language, specialised technical terms and discourse patterns is just as important as learning specific set information, as without it children would grow up unable to communicate effectively.REFERENCES(2007) English as a classroom languagein mental imagery and Reference Materials 1, The unfastened University, p.25 30.An A-Z of English, U211, DVD 2.B ancroft, D., with contributions from Gillen, J., (2007) English as a first language, N. Mercer, J. Swann and B. Mayor, Using English, London, Routledge/The Open University, p.5 36.Mayor, B., (2007) English in the repertoire, N. Mercer, J. Swann and B. Mayor, Using English, London, Routledge/The Open University, p.43 72.Mercer, N., with contributions from Barnes, D., (2007) English as a classroom language, N. Mercer, J. Swann and B. Mayor, Using English, London, Routledge/The Open University, p.117 142.