Functional Analysis of Children's Classroom Talk: A framework for understanding children's discourse in educational contexts
Kristiina Kumpulainen, University of Oulu
David Wray, University of Exeter
Paper presented at the 1997 American Educational Research Association Conference, Chicago
Abstract
Although children's discourse plays a vital role in the construction of meanings and knowledge in educational contexts, we are still remarkably ignorant about the nature of this talk and how it works. There is very little knowledge about the structure, content and function of children's oral language or about how it changes and develops across the curriculum and activities employed over the school years. Yet, without close analysis of children's social meanings in discourse and their functioning in the interaction processes important information of the learning processes and mechanisms will be lost. This paper discusses and illustrates a framework, focusing on the functional meanings of children's discourse, which can be used to investigate the nature of children's classroom discourse. First, the theoretical underpinning of the method will be described. Then, the framework is introduced and its possible research applications outlined.
Introduction
The sociocognitive processes and mechanisms underlying a learning activity have been subject to an increased attention in the field of education (Forrester, 1991; Grossen, 1994; Levine, Resnick, & Higgins, 1993; Perret-Clermont, Perret, & Bell, 1991). Special attention has been paid to classroom discourse since it is seen as a significant mediator, or even as a constitute of learning (Draper, & Anderson, 1991; Mercer, 1995; Lyle, 1996; Wells, 1994; Wood, 1992). A central question around which recent educational research has concentrated upon is how discourse mediates the construction of knowledge in the classrooms. Research has explored the ways in which knowledge is situationally constituted in the construction of classroom discourse (Bergqvist & Säljö, 1995; Dyson, 1992; Edwards, 1993; Fisher, 1993; Lemke, 1990; Mercer, 1995; Schegloff, 1991). There are also research studies which have investigated teacher's use of discursive strategies to scaffold pupils' learning (Palincsar, 1986; Palincsar, & Brown, 1984). Other studies on discourse and learning have focused on pupils' social and cognitive representations in classroom conversation (Barnes & Todd, 1977; Sharan & Shachar, 1988; Webb, Troper, & Fall, 1995). More sociolinguistically oriented research on language socialization and classroom learning has, on the other hand, looked at the primary discourses of children's home and community lives and the ensuing impact of such differences on children's learning across the curriculum (Cazden, 1986, 1988; Delamont, 1976). In the light of current research it is clear that classroom discourse is seen as a significant aspect of learning which should be approached from interdisciplinary perspectives in order to fully understand its functioning in learning. Although recent research on classroom discourse has shed more light into the mechanisms and processes of learning, little is yet known about the nature of children's talk and how it works in educational contexts.
The present paper proposes a framework, focusing on the functional meanings of children's discourse, which it is hoped will contribute to present day knowledge of children's discourse in educational contexts. First, the theoretical underpinning of the framework will be discussed. That is followed by an introduction to the method. The paper ends, with a summary of the framework and with an outline of possible research applications of the method.
Defining discourse
Ideas about the role of discourse as a mediator of learning draw heavily on the socio-constructivist and socio-cultural theories of learning (Grossen, 1994; Perret-Clermont, et al, 1991; Vygotsky, 1962, 1978; Wertsch, 1985a, Wertsch & Stone, 1985). These perspectives have enriched understanding of how children appropriate academic discourses and how such appropriation mediates learning (Edwards & Potter, 1992; Rogoff, 1990; Säljö, 1994). The sociocognitive framework views language as a symbolic mediator of thinking and learning. It regards language as a social construct in which meaning is constituted through contextualized discourse between communicators. Regarding language as a cultural amplifier, which covers both social and intellectual functions, this theoretical perspective sees learning as a process of apprenticeship into social practices (Cole & Griffin, 1980; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Rogoff, 1990; Säljö, 1994). This process is explained by the concept of the zone of proximal development which hold that learning proceeds from the interpscyhological plane to the intrapsychological plane with the assistance of more knowledgeable members of culture (Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1985b).
Although the term discourse itself refers to both linguistic form and social communicative practices, it is common that within educationally oriented research greater emphasis is put on the latter: that is, on understanding social meanings and their construction in discourse. The theoretical grounding for this kind of approach can be found in Mikhael Bakhtin's (1981, 1986) work. Bakhtin contrasted his ideas with linguists and instead developed a theory of language which centred around dialogic utterances as opposed to grammatical sentences. He defined utterances on the basis of changes of speaking subjects, not on the basis of their formal structure. According to Bakhtin, individual words can have semantic content (i.e. dictionary meaning) and sentences can have stable grammatical form. However, once a word or sentence is uttered (or written), its meaning becomes inherently social in nature. To Bakhtin an utterance has "expressive intonation" and receives its meaning by virtue of its position in a chain of speech communication (1986, pp. 90-91). Also Vygotsky (1962, 1978) in his sociocultural theory of development suggests that although words have meaning, only speech has sense. Thus spoken and written language acquires meaning only through social usage. In the light of this sociocognitive perspective discourse implies communication and social meaning construction, which is socially situated and which sustains social relations. Therefore, explorations between language and learning need to concentrate on the interpretation of meanings in discourse. This interpretation should consider the social situation as well as the socio-historical context of the activity (Bakhtin,1986; Wertsch, 1991).
Discourse genres in the classroom
One significant aspect of discourse is its situatedness. Classrooms, as any other social settings, are characterized by stable discourse genres which are associated with particular activity structures (Bakhtin, 1986). These stable discourses are socially established and become part of a shared history within the classroom. The existence of such stable discourse genres enables the development of "common knowledge" (Edwards & Mercer, 1987) between the pupils and the teacher which is a significant condition for effective interaction and learning. Another aspect of discourse concerns the presence of ideologies in discourse. Discourse always reflects ideologies, systems of values, beliefs and social practices. In consequence, to "talk science", or "talk math" involves more than just a set of linguistic forms, it also involves learning the ideologies associated with the subjects. This aspect of discourse becomes clearly an issue when the academic discourses are in conflict with pupil's home and community discourses (Hicks, 1995). In school, children gradually master the forms of discourse and social activity appropriate to different settings. Each form of classroom activity has its distinct ways in which participants socially and linguistically orient themselves to one another and to the activity at hand (compare, for example, whole class teaching and small group work). In order to participate successfully in classroom discussions children must learn to match their classroom discourse both in terms of its social appropriateness and its content. In addition, they have to be attuned to any number of contextual cues (Hymes, 1974). A typical triadic discourse structure found in the traditional classroom in which the teacher tightly controls the structure and content of the dialogue is Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) (Cazden, 1986, 1988; Mehan, 1979; Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975). This discourse genre is typical of direct instruction in which teacher initiates the discussion, usually by asking questions to which children respond. Finally, the teacher evaluates or gives feed-back to students' responses. Although the discourse analysis system from which this pattern has emerged has been successful in describing classroom discourse during whole class teaching and enabling understanding of the interactional exchanges between teachers and pupils, it has been criticized for shedding little light on the communicative functions of interactions (Orsolini & Pontecorvo, 1992). Also Wells (1993) has shown in his studies that although the discourse structure of the IRF may be constant across instructional settings, its communicative functions may vary widely.
Recent ideas of effective learning are changing traditional classroom discourse genres and the communicative roles of teachers and pupils. For example, Palincsar & Brown (1984) have developed a set a discursive strategies for scaffolding students toward higher level text comprehension. The teaching process is called reciprocal teaching and it includes explicit modelling by the teacher of dialogic routines, such as summarizing, questioning, clarifying and predicting, that are invoked after students' reading of a text. Other researchers (Orsolini & Pontecorvo, 1992) have been interested in looking at teachers' discursive strategies in classroom discussions, and how they are interpreted and reflected upon by the pupils. These strategies have included repetition and rephrasing pupils' own contributions. Studies of this nature give evidence of the existence of new discourse genres in classrooms. These classroom genres are likely to be more conversational in nature with an emphasis on children's discourse. New learning environments, mostly based on constructivist ideas of learning, and which include intentional learning, knowledge-building, problem solving, collaborative small group work, authentic and meaningful learning contexts with complex, ill-defined tasks, and the use of educational technology (see e.g. Brown & Campione, 1994; Cohen, 1994; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994; Wegeriff & Mercer, 1996) are also changing the ways in which discourse is used in the classroom. Along with the new learning environments students have more opportunities to observe, reflect on, and practice socially shared ways of knowing and thinking. This is also likely to be reflected in classroom discourse genres. Although we do not have yet much information of the nature of children's discourses in these new learning environments, it seems clear that classroom discourses are going to become more pupil initiated with extended peer discourses which reflect narrative genres in which a pupil constructs a larger text as opposed to a single utterance (Hicks, 1995; Maybin, 1991). Extended pupil discourses can be seen as a significant window onto children's appropriation of knowledge in these new learning environments. Yet, this is territory which is almost completely unresearched by researchers (see e.g. Edwards & Westgate's, 1994 review on classroom talk). The mere opportunity for social interaction and discourse will not necessary lead to learning experiences, unless serious attention is paid to the purposes the discourse serves in particular activities and the types of interaction to which it contributes. It is clear that wider research is needed in this area and, in particular, that a more sophisticated and replicable methodology is required.
Method
In this paper we would like to propose a framework for understanding children's discourse and its use in the process of knowledge construction in educational contexts. The rationale for the framework is based on the sociocultural, communicative perspective in which the unit of analysis lies in the socially constructed meanings of discourse. The framework is derived from our own studies of children's classroom talk in diverse settings, particularly in settings which encourage pupil collaboration, problem solving and knowledge building (Fourlas, 1988; Fourlas & Wray, 1990; Kumpulainen, 1994a, 1994b, in press; Rogers, 1996). The data for these studies were gathered through tape recordings, video recordings, observations and transcriptions. In our analyses we have focused on the functional meanings, i.e. illocutionary force, of children's utterances. The functional meanings we have identified from children's discourse are interesting from the educational point of view since we consider them as giving evidence of the nature and purposes of children's discourse in the process of knowledge construction in the classroom. We also believe that the framework reflects children's discourse genres in new learning environments. Moreover, by investigating the interplay and sequential development of the functions in children's discourse one can obtain more understanding how educationally valuable explorative and argumentative discourses are constituted by children.
In the analysis framework the functions are identified from the utterances on the basis of meanings constructed in a social situation. In other words, the analysis does not focus on linguistic forms of discourse but rather interprets the social meanings from discourse. Practically, this means that an utterance which can linguistically be considered as a question, e.g. "Do you want to do it ?" can be considered as serving an organisational function on the basis of interaction processes and situational information. In the analysis process the interpretations of the participants are also taken into consideration by investigating how utterances are responded to by the children in the conversation.
The framework consists of 16 functional categories subsequently labelled as the Informative, Interrogative, Responsive, Organisational, Judgemental, Argumentational, Compositional, Reproductional, Experiential, Expositional, Hypothetical, External thinking, Imaginative, Heuristic, Affectional, and Intentional. These categories were grounded (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) in the data via content analysis (Weber, 1990) and then modified on the basis of two other studies.
Functions of children's classroom talk
In the following, the functions in the framework will be described with some brief indication of findings from our studies.
Informative (I)
Our studies show that a common feature of children's discourse in modern classrooms is exchanging knowledge and information. The information exchanged seemed to be derived from children's pre-existing knowledge, interpretations, personal opinions and ideas. Sometimes this information is further developed by the children in situ. With new learning environments there are many available resources, like computers, books, and maps and they also seem to work as a source of information for children. Thus children's information giving is also derived from the resources children have under their control. In addition, we have noticed that children's talk often draws upon information derived from the current situation (Kumpulainen, 1994a).
Interrogative (Q)
Questioning appears to be a common feature of children's discourse in the classroom. By asking questions children use their peers as information sources. On the other hand, questioning seems to help children to recall their own knowledge and understanding. By questioning children appear to become aware that they have a problem and that they need to solve it. In addition to information seeking, questioning seem to be used by the children to obtain social approval or encouragement.
Responsive (R)
One would expect that children's talk contains as many answers as there are questions. However, in our data, we have noticed that responding to questions may not be as frequent as asking questions. One reason may be that children are simply unable to answer all the questions they ask. However, when looking closely at the interplay between questioning and answering in children's discourse, it seems that social questions, i.e. questions waiting for social acceptance or approval, do not necessarily gain a reply. Neither do questions that act as clarifiers of children's thinking. Our data also show that children respond to questions by non-verbal behaviour, for example, by pointing out the answer from the computer.
Organisational (OR)
Organising appears to be a common characteristic of children's discourse. Children use their talk for organising their work and controlling their peer's or their own behaviour. This feature of children's discourse gives valuable information about their control and ownership of the task. Furthermore, verbal expression of working strategies may give children opportunities to self-monitor their activities and possibly their own cognitive functioning. These are all important acts in the development of metacognitive skills (Brown & Campione, 1990).
Judgemental (J)
One critical feature of effective learning is that children are able to judge and evaluate their work and actions (Brown & Campione, 1990; Cohen, 1994). In our data we also found evidence of this. Children were frequently observed to judge their work, actions, ideas, opinions and information.
Argumentational (ARG)
The argumentational use of language is closely connected with judgemental discourse and is used by children to support their judgements. Argumentative discourse is widely considered as an educationally valuable mode of discourse (Wegeriff & Mercer, 1996). Our data suggests, however, that although judgements often occur in children's discourse, justifications and arguments may not always be that frequent.
Compositional (C)
Writing reports, summaries, etc. is a common feature of children's work in educational contexts and this is also reflected in children's discourse. In our studies we found that the compositional function serves different purposes in children's activities. It is often used for the creation of children's writing or sometimes it is used for revising already composed text. In addition, children use tlanguage to dictate. The occurrence of the compositional function gives evidence of collaborative activity since children are collaboratively exploring new ways of creating ideas and expressing themselves. In addition, whilst dictating children show evidence of taking responsibility for organising and sharing their writing with their peers.
Reproductional (RP)
Interacting with texts and reading aloud from them is one characteristic of children's discourse in classrooms. In project and problem-based learning contexts reading often plays a vital role. Reading activity can be connected with children's own text production or with the use of pre-existing texts. In addition to reading, we found that the reproductional function was also used by children for repeating what was recently mentioned in the discourse. This use of language seemed to serve as a reminder of what had been said in discourse, or children wanted to put an emphasis on some meanings which were produced in the discourse.
Experiential (E)
Some activities in new learning environments elicit or even require children to use their discourse to express their personal experiences. These are usually related to children's personal lives at home or school. Recently, there has been emphasis on valuing and accepting children's home and community discourse genres in school contexts (Hicks, 1995). In fact, this is seen as helping children and the teacher to increase their reciprocal understanding. Observations of children's use of the experiential function may give a lot of information about children's personal contexts.