Transforming Talk And Phonics Practice: Or, How Do Crabs Clap?

Transforming Talk And Phonics Practice: Or, How Do Crabs Clap? SHEENA GARDNER The University of Birmingham Birmingham, England This article aims first to show how a teacher, working within a nationally proscriptive, standards-driven, mainstream context turns a formfocused phonics practice activity into a word game that engages the imagination, intellect, and identity of 5–6-year-old English language learners Based on the assumption that teacher–student interactions are crucial for bilingual students’ success at school (Cummins 2000, p 6), the transformation in the 15-minute Literacy Hour word work activity is presented in terms of five key discourse threads related to (a) covering the curriculum, (b) surface justification, (c) deep justification through shared imaging, (d) shifting the locus of experience, and (e) playing the word game, each of which is explained by different theoretical perspectives, and each of which embodies different pedagogical principles The subsequent discussion focuses on the fundamental changes in instructional and social assumptions about the nature of language, knowledge, learning, the curriculum, and student outcomes to explain how the traditional pedagogy implicit in the published activity develops into a constructive and then a transformative pedagogy (Cummins, 2001, p 219) The article shows how pedagogical transformation works on multiple related assumptions and how these are realised in discourse threads weaved through the teacher–student interaction ducational reforms and standards-driven curricula have forced change on English language teaching around the world, from North America to Australia, Hong Kong, and Great Britain, as illustrated, for instance, in Mohan, Leung, and Davison (2001) Such cross-national dialogue and comparison has shown not only the similarity of issues and concerns, but also the extent of international borrowing from curriculum policies and classroom practices It is perhaps especially in times of restrictive legislation that research on transforming educational practices is needed Cummins (2000) provides one such framework, which explores relationships between the communities, institutions, educational structures, and educator roles on the one hand, and the central microinteractions between educators and E TESOL QUARTERLY Vol 42, No 2, June 2008 261 students that “form an interpersonal space within which knowledge is generated and identities are negotiated” (p 43) on the other It is these interactions, he argues, that reflect either an exclusionary, assimilationist orientation or a transformative, intercultural orientation (pp 43–46) and which are therefore crucial in determining the success of bilingual learners working in a mainstream context Interactions between educators and students represent the direct determinant of bilingual students’ success or failure at school if change in educational practice is the goal an adequate conceptualisation of teacher-student interactions requires an interdisciplinary analysis (p 6) Such an interdisciplinary analysis brings together theoretical perspectives on the nature of language, learning, and the curriculum (Cummins, 2001, p 219) as implicit in classroom talk This article begins by outlining extensive changes in macroeducational structures in England, which threaten to constrain teaching In the lesson examined here, however, teaching and learning are liberated This process is explored through an analysis of discourse threads from a 15-minute phonics practice activity and through discussion of the changing assumptions about the nature of language, learning, and the curriculum which underpin the transition from a traditional, through constructivist, to transformative pedagogy (Cummins, 2001, p 219) CHANGE AND OPPORTUNITY IN ONE EAL CONTEXT Change has become the norm for the English as an additional language (EAL)1 support team involved in this research2 in an urban primary school in the English Midlands: There have been changes in the curriculum with the introduction of the National Literacy Strategy to this school in 1998; changes in ministerial responsibility for EAL from Section 11 (a division of the Home Office) to the Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant (under the Department for Employment and Education); changes in employer and employment status as EAL funding shifted from the Local Education Authority to the schools in 2001; changes The term EAL is used in UK primary and secondary schools in preference to ESL or ESOL Both EAL teacher and language support teacher are currently used The lesson analysed in this article was recorded in 2000 as part of the ESRC Major Research Grant R000238196 to Rea-Dickins and Gardner for a Study of Classroom Assessment of English as an Additional Language: Key Stage Contexts 1999–2003 I am most grateful to the project research team for sustained interest in EAL, to the staff and children for welcoming us into their classrooms and to Minority Group Support Services for its invaluable assistance 262 TESOL QUARTERLY nationally in the assessment of all learners and for English language learners (ELLs; Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 2000); changes in key personnel, including the head teacher, classroom teachers, and language support staff; changes in working relationships with classroom teachers toward an emphasis on partnerships between language support teachers and mainstream class teachers (Arkoudis & Creese, 2006; Bourne, 1997); changes in the language proficiencies and linguistic backgrounds of children entering school; and changes in practice resulting from in-service training, from local strategy decisions, and from a general filtering through of pedagogical trends In short, EAL teachers have been subjected to change from all sides Although rapid and repeated change can produce uncertainty, it can also create opportunities For instance, Gebhard (2005) has shown how school reform in the United States supported transformative literacy practices in a third grade Hmong–English classroom Indeed the introduction of the National Literacy Strategy in England—considered by teachers initially to be problematic for EAL in its rather lock-step, onesize-fits-all prescriptivism—produced the conditions for transformation that here benefit the linguistic, sociocultural, and cognitive development of learners, particularly ELLs The proscribed nature of the literacy curriculum freed teachers to focus more on how to teach, rather than what to teach; the focus on language in the literacy strategy has promoted more opportunities for noticing wordings, for direct language teaching and for the development of a common metalanguage to talk about language in the classroom; this school also saw the introduction of the Bradford Talking Partner scheme (based on an Australian scheme; Kotler, Wegerif, & LeVoi, 2001) with its focus on collaborative, structured talk which dovetails well with the ongoing Language Support Intervention Project’s dual focus on interaction in promoting talk and learning and gathering evidence of language development from spontaneous language samples to use not only to feed into the biannual assessments so necessary as evidence for funding, but equally important as evidence to be shared in the ongoing formative assessment which feeds into planning in the classroom (Gardner & Rea-Dickins, 2002) These two teaching projects underscore this school’s explicit commitment to developing talk in the process of teaching the curriculum Changes in the teaching context attracted research interest, particularly in assessment Building on a one-year research project to provide an overview of assessment practices in primary EAL, the data for this article were collected during an initial ethnographic phase of a 3-year study (also with Rea-Dickins and funded by the Economic and Social Research Council), which aimed to understand EAL classroom-based assessment concepts and practices across the curriculum We tracked two learners in Year and Year in three schools for a full week in each of three terms TRANSFORMING TALK AND PHONICS PRACTICE 263 During the rest of the year, teachers would invite a researcher (me, Rea-Dickins, or a research assistant, as available) into their classroom to observe specific formative classroom-based assessment events Thus, over a 6-year period, I was a regular visitor to this teacher and her EAL classes The data we collected include preobservation interviews, teaching documentation (lesson plans, curricular guidelines, materials), video recordings of classroom interaction, field notes, postobservation interviews (with teacher, bilingual assistants, and learners), and lesson outputs for the target learners (student work, language sampling grids, teacher assessments, homework, and language development portfolios) The subsequent phase of the study included an intervention and is reported elsewhere (e.g., Gardner, 2004) THE SILLY QUESTIONS PHONICS PRACTICE ACTIVITY Within this context of reform, change, and research interest, there was much experimentation with new materials and approaches The Silly Questions phonics practice activity is taken from Progression in Phonics, Materials for Whole Class Teaching, which is a Department for Education and Employment (DfEE, 1999) publication with suggested activities for word work in the second stage of the Literacy Hour: Whole class (15 mins): Shared text work (e.g., ‘big book’ reading) Whole class (15 mins): Focused word work (here: phonics practice) Group & independent work (20 mins) Whole class (10 mins): Plenary (DfEE, 1998, pp 8–14) With open-plan classrooms in this school, a bell was rung at the end of each stage of the daily Literacy Hour when all children would change from whole class to group work or back again, with minimal disruption to others The materials provide sets of Silly Questions on large cards and sets of yes/no cards to be copied, one per child The procedure is given as follows: • give every child a ‘yes’ and ‘no’ card • hold up a Silly Question • ask the children to read the question and answer it by holding up a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ card • repeat with other Silly Questions (DfEE, 1999, p 31) Questions are grouped to practice decoding, for instance, the Syllabus Step CVC (Consonant-Vowel-Consonant) words (e.g., Can a cat run?); or Step Consonant Blends (e.g., Do slugs swing?) The purpose of the 264 TESOL QUARTERLY activity is given as “to read words in context” (DfEE, 1999, p 31), which here means with cotext, in a sentence, rather than words in isolation As presented, it is essentially a convergent, form-focused practice activity that requires decoding sentences out of a meaningful or situational context, where the learner reads silently and individually then responds nonverbally MACRO-SCAFFOLDING The class comprises 21 Year ELLs aged to 6, the monolingual teacher (who is the language support teacher, LST) and two bilingual education assistants (BEAs) Most children are third generation British Asians with Gujerati, Mirpuri, or Punjabi home language With the additional language support provided, this group of children are expected to reach the national target of Level in their Year Standard Attainment Tests (a national test taken at ages 7, 11, and 14) the following year The activity might work well with a class of proficient English-speaking children in that it could offer them practice at rapidly decoding amusing questions However, because the teacher anticipated difficulties for ELLs, she decided to modify the activity by adding a stage where children were required to explain why they chose to answer yes or no to the Silly Questions This macro-scaffolding (Van Lier, 1996, pp 198–199) was designed, she explained in our prelesson discussion, to a number of things: • To check comprehension: Even if the children can decode the sentences, it is more meaningful if they can also understand them Although the basic vocabulary used in Silly Questions might be understood by most if not all Year monolinguals, ELLs may lack general vocabulary such as slug or swing.3 • To encourage all children to complete the task: If they know they may have to justify their answer, they are less likely to simply respond as the majority of their classmates The teacher had high expectations of all children • To provide practice in justifying responses: With particular relevance to academic English, this strategy is part of a school-wide approach encouraged by the language support team across the curriculum • To promote learning through meaningful talk, a main focus of the language support One Year ELL we tracked as part of the research was in the top sets for numeracy and literacy, had been in school since Reception, yet in an art lesson revealed substantial gaps in vocabulary related to baby animals (chicks, lambs, etc.) Such gaps in everyday language are not uncommon TRANSFORMING TALK AND PHONICS PRACTICE 265 • To provide opportunities for language sampling and for formative assessment in general: The main focus of the larger research project was EAL assessment, and I had been invited to observe the lesson because the teacher correctly anticipated this activity would provide good language sampling and formative assessment opportunities.4 Kotler et al.’s (2001) review of research supports this teacher’s approach: “Bilingual learners can adequately learn the rudiments of literacy with very little understanding of the target language Comprehension and ‘higher order skills’ are not possible without competence in oral registers supporting reflecting and reasoning” (p 404) During the Word Work activity, the children sit on the carpet around the feet of the teacher and bilingual assistants, who are seated on low chairs The teacher shows a Silly Question, the class read it silently, reflect, and respond with their yes or no cards, then the teacher invites one person with each response to come to the front to justify their answers DISCOURSE THREADS What follows are discourse threads selected to focus on (a) covering the curriculum, (b) surface justification, (c) deep justification through shared imaging, (d) shifting the locus of experience, and (e) playing the word game Unless otherwise stated, the extracts are from the 15-minute Word Work session of the Literacy Hour where the activity was first introduced to consolidate and revise the Step target “blend and read CVC words” (in the teacher’s weekly plan) Covering the Curriculum The move to mainstreaming creates a constant tension between covering the curriculum, keeping up with the curriculum, and allowing enough time to properly meet the needs of ELLs This tension has been recognised in evaluations of the National Literacy Strategy: Schools find it difficult to provide sufficient time within the curriculum for the development of speaking and listening but feel that this is particularly important to the progress of [EAL] pupils (Office for Standards Education, 2001, p 30) 266 A version of this article with a focus on formative assessment was presented at the TESOL 2005 Research SIG My thanks to colleagues, most recently K Richards, for comments on this and other versions TESOL QUARTERLY It is important, therefore, that in implementation the Silly Questions activity does cover the curriculum The children practice reading the Consonant-Vowel-Consonant (CVC) words in sentential contexts Moreover, the occasional miscues provide opportunities to review reading strategies In Turns 93–103, for instance, one child misreads red as run (Please see Appendix for transcription conventions.) 93.LST Okay Put your hands down, because I’m asking these two now Inderpreet, you’ve answered ‘yes’ Why did you answer ‘yes’? 94.Ind I thought that was ‘run’ and then I thought ‘yes’ Inderpreet indicates the word ‘red’, which she mistook for ‘run’ 95.LST Ah You thought that word was ‘run’ Okay, let’s have a look at it Let’s see if you can read—actually look at the letters now and tell me the sounds they make R? 96.Ind E D 97.LST Right, so read the whole word? 98.Ind RED 99.LST RED! So you can read it If the—that word had been ‘run’ the sentence would have been ‘Is a dog run?’ Does that sound right? Is a dog run It doesn’t sound quite right, does it, Inderpreet? 100.Ind No 101.LST If it had been ‘can a ru- dog run,’ the answer would have been ‘yes’ The teacher reminds the child of three familiar reading strategies: sounding out letters (95), blending sounds (97), and checking whether it sounds right (99) The following day another child misreads tin as thin, which suggests the child is using what would, in other contexts, be a good reading strategy—that is, making sense of the question Do ducks have tin legs? There is also evidence from the opening (Turn 17) and closing (Turn 103) of the activity that the curricular objective of reading new words was a focus and that this objective was achieved: TRANSFORMING TALK AND PHONICS PRACTICE 267 17.LST Please try to read the questions in your head I will be asking you some questions about them Although these questions have new words in—got some new words in—you will be able to read them Right, Miss Begum’s just going to explain it in Mirpuri now 103.LST Because all the words here use the rules that we’ve been working on in word work, okay? So I know that you can read these words Within the context of covering the phonics curriculum, however, the teacher wants children to develop justificatory speech Surface Justification One of the goals in asking for justification was to check comprehension; another was to give children the opportunity to practice the language Here is an early response to Can a hen dig? 52.LST Okay, Davinder, can you explain why you answered ‘no’, which is what most people answered 53.Dav Because hen can’t dig 54.LST Because—? 55.Dav Hen can’t dig 56.LST Right Hens—you think hens can’t dig Turn 54 by the teacher gives the child, who is proficient enough to be able to offer more accurate and detailed explanations, the opportunity to expand and to correct his answer—neither of which he does The teacher then accepts his response justifying no, and indeed has accepted similar responses earlier (See Turns 30–32) There are several possible explanations for this First, this is the second question in the activity, which will only last about 15 minutes (and is being recorded) and she may feel she has been held up explaining the nature of the activity, so she may be anxious to move on—the children will understand the activity better with practice Second, it has been observed (e.g., Willes, 1981 in Edwards & Westgate, 1994, p 159) that teachers of young children often accept answers that are less than adequate in order to nurture the turn-taking aspects of classroom discourse—here the child has answered in an appropriate manner in that he has used a clause of reason (because ) that is consistent with his no response to a why question He is exhibiting appropriate turn-taking skills, even if other aspects of the turn are minimal She builds on this in her feedback (56) by not only offering a linguistic correction, but also possibly suggesting a pedagogically ap268 TESOL QUARTERLY propriate response if we consider the argument: Hens can’t dig; this is a hen; therefore this can’t dig She may not feel the child is able at this point in the game, day, or lesson to produce a better response Finally, in this context, in the initial rounds of the activity, the answers accepted in this way were explicitly acknowledged as those most people had given (Turn 52, 32), so the onus to explain the so-called commonsense answer is less Indeed, where alternative (less common) answers are not explored, the danger is that some children are quite lost as to why no was the commonsense answer Such an approach fosters assimilation, and failure in those who cannot see the majority view In this respect, McWilliam’s (1998) advice to teachers is apposite: “We need to inquire how words affect the imaging of learners and maintain awareness that common usage of words can mask differences in the meanings which learners construct” (p 113) What was obvious to the teacher and most of the class did not match everyone’s imaging of the meanings of the common words in Can a hen dig? Deep Justification Through Shared Imaging From the surface justification that Davinder takes as self-explanatory, the teacher moves to Nita, perhaps expecting another misreading of the sentence 56.LST 57.Nita 58.LST 59.Nita 60.LST 61.BEA2 62.Nita 63.LST Why did you answer ‘yes’, Nita (.) Nita looks blank Can you read us the question? CAN A HEN DIG Okay Do you think a hen can dig? What are you thinking of a hen doing? Nita does not respond Can you show us with your hands Davinder mimes digging with a spade Do you want to ask her in Gujerati, Mrs Vadgama? Khabar chay thuane (***)? 〈 Do you know (***)?〉 Hatha tha kere bhathow 〈Show it with your hands.〉 Mimes a hen scratching Right There’s a special word for that Can you all look, because I think Nita has got a logical answer, even though it’s different from the all the rest of you TRANSFORMING TALK AND PHONICS PRACTICE 269 64.Px 65.BEA2 66.Nita 67.LST 68.Nita 69.LST 70.Nita 71.LST You’re thinking of a hen with its claws, scratching on the ground, Nita Thinking of hens—have you seen hens scratching? Have you seen hens doing that? Yeah, I have Karta jou chay? 〈Have you seen it doing it?〉 Nods Where have you seen them doing that? I went somewhere When you went somewhere Do you remember where it was? Was it in India? Or was it in England? I think it was in England You think it was in England Perhaps on the farm trip? (.) Go and sit down Davinder and Nita sit down You see, sometimes you can have those two answers Most people thought, ‘no’, a hen can’t dig And I would say ‘no’ Because when I’m thinking of big—digging with a spade, or something like that But Nita was thinking of how a hen—you know how a hen scratches on the soil? On the ground? And she’s thinking that that is digging There is much of interest in this exchange, which turns out to be pivotal in the transformation of the activity The LST, BEAs, and other children use positive encouragement, suggestion, and probing strategies (verbal, nonverbal, translation, imaging) to co-construct Nita’s meaning The whole class is involved in the exchange and excited by the meanings that emerge and the possibilities they open up The language of digging and scratching has become, memorably, linked to Nita’s hens This is not a simple comprehension check but the construction of meaning in a very rich sense (through exploration of semantic features, linking language with prior experiences) The class has engaged in a multilingual, multisensory exploration of the meaning of digging and scratching involving shared imaging Shared imaging is a way of talking about what connotations words trigger for each of us It is a process which involves all parties in reconstruction— the speaker reconstructing a set of mental images as a verbal text and the 270 TESOL QUARTERLY audience reconstructing a mental/sensory set from the words they hear (McWilliam, 1998, p 113) In our example, this is complicated by the fact that the teacher has to facilitate the reconstruction without herself being clear what it might be It is thus a process of valuing the individual as well as the linguistic and sociocultural perspectives he or she brings to the classroom community—a process which is particularly constructive, and fascinating, in a multicultural setting This extract shows why ELLs take longer—why fewer Silly Questions would be read in this class, compared with a more fluent monolingual class It illustrates the tension between covering the curriculum and investing time in talk—not just listening to what learners have to say, but helping them construe meanings and explore associations It also illustrates the scaffolding expertise that educators develop to promote successful interactions with ELLs The teacher uses a wide range of strategies In all, she • allows ‘wait time’ (e.g., 57) • goes back to the question to refocus (58) • asks the child to something she can more easily to build confidence (58) • asks her to mime her answer (60), to which another child responds with a digging motion • asks for a translation (60), to which the child does mime a hen scratching (62) • focuses the attention of the class on the word scratching and away from the child (63) • explicitly values the child’s contribution thus reinforcing the point that variety is acceptable and increasing the likelihood of other individual explanations (63) • tries to elicit an experience base and shared imaging (63), to which other children respond (64) • encourages translation again, to which the child responds positively, again nonverbally (65–6) • breaks the question down, which makes it easier cognitively and linguistically: where (67), and the child responds, verbally this time (68) • accepts the child’s response (69) • offers a face-saving option—the child may not remember—and then probes further (69) TRANSFORMING TALK AND PHONICS PRACTICE 271 • breaks the question down further by changing the open question (where?) to a polar question (was it in India?) (69) accepts the child’s answer and reinforces the child’s meaning as a possible alternative (71) • This investment in Nita’s response pays off As the class become familiar with the game and realise that both yes and no answers can be justified, they have increasing communicative pressure to actually explain an answer, and so the justifications become more sophisticated—they now have a reason to explain what to an individual learner might seem obvious, and the appeal to visual imagination has provided a means of justification to which children respond well The activity here has become at once more cognitively challenging with the real communicative need to justify, more enjoyable in its appeal to the imagination, and more social in its negotiation of meanings and past experiences The next series of extracts traces the transformation process through which the class realise that alternative answers are indeed acceptable Shifting the Locus of Experience Wells (1992, pp 298–301) categorises questions in terms of locus of expertise, with the teacher, focal pupil, or other pupils in the role of expert in answering Evident from the discourse threads of this extract are similar distinctions in what I would prefer to call locus of experience to suggest less of an expert–novice distinction and more of a sharing of understandings and experience: 9.LST 10.Px 11.LST 15.LST 22.LST 272 And what I’ve got on these bits of paper are something called ‘Silly Questions’ (LST shows blank side of papers with questions on reverse) Silly Questions! Some of them are true Some of them, the answer will be ‘yes’ If the answer’s– can I borrow yours, please, Mahesh? If the answer is ‘no’ you hold up ‘no’, if the answer is ‘yes’ you hold up ‘yes’ (LST demonstrates by showing the ‘no’ and ‘yes’ sides of the folded paper) But you don’t read the questions aloud, you’ve got to try really hard Okay So, don’t call out the question Read it—just look at it and read it silently if you can When you know the answer, hold it up TESOL QUARTERLY As the bold text shows, throughout the introduction to the activity the teacher’s talk assumes that each Silly Question has one “true” correct answer This assumption appears in the teacher’s use of the answer rather than you as typical subject, theme, and agent; true; the definite article (the answer); and the lack of any modality (are, will be, know) or projection / interpersonal metaphor5 (you think) 28.LST 29.Nai 30.LST 31.Sal 32.LST Naima—(LST shows Naima the first question) What is the answer? (.) Er—(I thought it was ‘no’) Okay So—she thinks the answer is ‘no’ And Salim thinks the answer is ‘yes’ Salim, why you think the answer is ‘yes’? Because a cat can run Because a cat can run Okay, I think that’s a very good answer, and that’s what most of you had But sometimes I think you could—there could be the other answer Naima why you think the answer is ‘no’? Turn 32 hints that the first question might have more than one answer (the other answer), but because neither Naima nor any of the other no responders are able to supply a reason, the class is left with the impression that yes is the correct answer The LST moves on to the second Silly Question: Can a hen dig? As she moves from what is the answer to why you think the answer is no to why did you answer yes, we see her language is more open to the possibility of different answers now in that she asks an open, referential question (Turn 52) rather than a display question (as in Turn 28) This question now has double projection: Can you explain why you answered ‘no’? 52.LST 53.Dav 56.LST Okay, Davinder, can you explain why you answered ‘no’, which is what most people answered Because hen can’t dig Right Hens—you think hens can’t dig Why did you answer ‘yes’, Nita? Terminology here follows systemic-functional grammar (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004) TRANSFORMING TALK AND PHONICS PRACTICE 273 There then follows the exploration of Nita’s understanding, which clearly shifts the locus of experience from what the teacher talk presents as true or common knowledge to an alternative, but less likely, understanding 60.LST 63.LST 71.LST Do you think a hen can dig? What are you thinking of a hen doing? I think Nita has got a logical answer, even though it’s different from the all the rest of you You see, sometimes you can have those two answers The teacher’s talk still suggests that one answer is better or more expected than the other However, as the activity progresses, the typical elicitation is referential, with you as subject, sayer-agent, and theme of double projection This referential shift invites different acceptable responses (yes, no), with individualised explanations 84.LST Can you tell us why you answered ‘no’? This double projection shifts the locus of experience from one true commonsense answer to the individual learner and his/her understanding, experience, or ideas Thus, alternative explanations are possible, and as the activity continues it becomes increasingly a challenge for learners to justify both yes and no answers This difficulty with justifying both answers leads to, for example, a lively discussion of questions such as Can a crab clap? in a subsequent lesson (on consonant blends) The no camp argued that a crab can’t clap because it doesn’t have hands, and it can’t clap its two front claws together or make a clapping sound; the yes camp argued that crabs can tap their pincers together to make a noise, which is how crabs clap (Such debate is not unlike the philosopher’s black swan paradox where it was thought that being white was an essential characteristic of swans until black swans were encountered.) My use of argued here is perhaps misleading In fact, the children very quickly reached their own answers, and the process of exploring those answers was similar to the exploration in Nita’s sense of digging in its multilingual, multimodal construal of meanings and construction of shared images The series of extracts presented in this article suggest a shifting of the locus of experience from the teacher to the learners through transformation in the discourse from display questions that elicit formally acceptable responses where the teacher is the primary knower who controls the proposition base (Berry, 1981), to genuine questions that prompt diverse shared imaging and exploration of understandings of semantic features, lexis, and, indeed, of the world This transformation comes about as a result of a willingness to pursue meanings, in a socially constructed, nonassimilationist manner It also brings the experiences and identities of the learners to the curriculum and opens the curriculum up to more meaningful discussion 274 TESOL QUARTERLY Playing the Word Game Silly Questions became a very popular activity for this class, partly because of the creative aspect (e.g., imagining crabs clapping) but also, I suggest, because it was introduced as a game, of which the class took ownership The extracts in this discourse thread trace the development of the game, starting at Turn on the day it was introduced 1.LST 6.Px 7.LST 8.Sal 9.LST Right, now— Today we’ve got a new word game Okay? And I’m going to give you each (LST and BEAs hand out individual slips of folded paper, with the words ‘yes’ and ‘no’ on either side) You’ve each got a little—cos you have to show a word in this game It says ‘yes’ Once you’ve had a little look at it, fold it back so that it’s just like it was when I gave it to you And—Salim, can you read the words that are on your little bit of paper? NO YES Good Everyone’s got exactly the same And the first bit of this game we without any talking, right? Here the teacher introduces the activity as a game where everyone receives a card to play with The children are excited at this prospect and follow the instructions carefully The game-playing perspective is reinforced after the first question has been posed 26.LST Well done, put your hands down You’ve really got the idea of playing this As the game progresses, and it has become clear that alternative responses are possible, a pupil suggests that the rules of the game be changed 74.LST 75.Px 76.LST Okay, we’ve got time to one more You know if you’re not sure, can you put ‘yes’ and ‘no’? If you’re not sure can you put ‘yes’ and ‘no’? I don’t see why not Yes Good—good idea TRANSFORMING TALK AND PHONICS PRACTICE 275 Turn 75 is significant for a number of reasons First, it is a pupil initiation, and it is not at a point in the discourse where such initiations could easily be made—the teacher had already moved on to the next question Second, it shows that Px has clearly understood the significance of the hen digging exchange and is working through the implications for the rules of the game Third, it seems to be pivotal in encouraging other children to further extend the possibilities of the game, within the constraint of decoding the Silly Questions There was in fact much in the discourse leading up to this suggestion to show that the class were enthusiastic, engaged, and caught up in the game, to the extent that Px continues, as he would in play contexts, to suggest that the rules be changed Such student-initiated changes to the management of an activity were not observed in more formal schooling activities, which suggests that playing the word game discourse has an empowering effect on the development of the activity Researchers have recognised this potential in the hybridity of play and learning discourses, which can interact to construct “third” spaces as effective resources for building collaboration and promoting literacy learning (Gutierrez, Baquedano-Lopez, Alvarez, & Chiu, 1999, p 89) It is clear in this extract that a productive learning space has been created, although the notion of a productive tension between play and learning was not in the teacher’s explicit strategy It is not possible to say how the game discourse thread influences the development of the activity, partly because it operates here in a “safe” classroom space (Canagarajah, 2004) where children feel secure in making suggestions and expanding the game, but the activity does develop into a more sophisticated language game, and learning is thereby enhanced Research on language play offers explanations from second language acquisition focusing on the tension between creativity and control (Bell, 2005, p 193) For instance, in discussion of the benefits of language play—such as deeper processing and richer interaction leading to increased quality of attention to language—Bell discusses the destabilization conducive to interlanguage (IL) development “IL development occurs through the push and pull of ‘more conservative forces demanding accuracy counterbalanced with more creative forces demanding innovation’ (Tarone, 2000, p 49)” (Bell, p 209) This research highlights the significance of language play, which Silly Questions clearly is It engages learners in reflecting on and playing with the language, with all the concomitant benefits of developing control over, interest in, and fun with the language As with play, there are those who shape the game and those who try to imitate successful players For example, in justifying a yes and no response to the Silly Question Can a man run?, one learner replied: 276 TESOL QUARTERLY 36.Dav Because mans have got two legs and if they had one leg they can’t walk If they had two legs they can run This is the child who earlier (Turns 53–55) had given a minimal response In contrast, this response is praised by the teacher and recorded by BEA1 Two questions later, another child tries to give a similar performance in response to the question Has a duck got tin legs? 53.LST 54.Sat 55.LST Satnam, you said ‘yes’ Can you tell me why you said ‘yes’ Cos if ducks didn’t have legs they couldn’t of swim If ducks didn’t have legs they couldn’t swim, you’re quite right But what sort—what sort of legs does it say this duck has? This less contingent response gives the teacher insights into the different children’s level of comprehension and reasoning in English as well as a clear sense of who is working to develop and expand the possibilities of the game The game has brought out something of the element of competition, imagination, air of excitement, and learner ownership—a sharp contrast from guessing commonsense interpretations of CVC patterns DISCUSSION Examining threads of classroom discourse has shown how the lesson was transformed in practice In the discussion that follows I develop the theoretical analysis to explain how this was possible, building on Cummins’s (2001) framework of instructional and social assumptions underlying traditional, constructivist, and transformative pedagogy (p 219) which, in turn, underlie the micro-interactions with the children (p 20) For reasons of space, I shall not discuss macro-interactions, educational structures, and educator roles further; it is hoped that readers will have gleaned a sense of these from the earlier discussion of change and macro-scaffolding and will appreciate that the language support team is working within a mainstream context where bilingual support aims to promote access to the national curriculum in English Views of Language Inherent in the decontextualised, form-focused, convergent phonics practice activity is a traditional, building-block view of language that TRANSFORMING TALK AND PHONICS PRACTICE 277 contrasts with the teacher’s view that language is best taught whole and used for meaningful communication As the activity progresses, the teacher elevates the language work to meaningful contexts, and through the emerging need to explain meanings, the language is used for increasingly meaningful communication with the challenges to commonsense meanings During the lesson, language is clearly transformed from the decontextualized traditional building-block view to a contextualized, whole-language, and communicative view Such a contextualised view of language is not, however, inconsistent with a focus on form, and the teacher does focus on the form of the text in developing the children’s decoding skills This approach is consistent with current research on second language acquisition, which suggests not only that noticing and talking about language structures is beneficial, but also that it is effective in the context of meaningful interaction (e.g., Ellis, Basturkmen, & Loewen, 2002) Whole language here also means exploring vocabulary from all angles Through shared imaging, the class reconstructed images of hens digging (or scratching)—and subsequent images of crabs clapping, and so on This process of shared imaging proved essential as soon as it became clear that one person’s image of a hen digging was not necessarily the same as another’s These constructions involved the whole class, different languages, gestures, actions, and much playful working out of meanings In exploring the semantic features of words (digging versus scratching), learners developed greater precision of ideational meaning; in exploring collocations or typical participant-process patterns (Can crabs clap?), they explored contextual meaning with the full realisation of emergent bilinguals that what crabs may well be different in different languages, and in imagining where the images might occur, they connected the images to their own experiences For ELLs this became a very useful vocabulary development and awareness-raising activity As the game develops, there is increasing language play With the cognitive challenge of lateral thinking, the children started imagining the different conditions for the Silly Question to have a yes answer and a no answer Surprise has been expressed at the extent of humour and language play in spoken British English (e.g., Carter 2004), so although these answers seem to be leading to the childishly absurd, they also represent talk that is common in the United Kingdom Indeed, I recently heard a comedy team on national radio questioning the nature of a “lame duck” prime minister, in exactly the way that the children here were imagining crabs clapping and red dogs (Punt et al., 2005) This development to language play presents a whole new and exciting view of language as something the children can manipulate and control Alongside changes in view of language is a shift to more academic English as children are encouraged not only to respond to a general 278 TESOL QUARTERLY question, but also to justify their responses Research has shown that such interventions can be effective with young children (McWilliam & Howe, 2004; Wegerif, Mercer, & Rojas-Drummond, 1999) What we see so clearly from this study are the drawbacks of surface justification when compared with legitimised, meaningful justification of responses Views of Learning Consistent with these views of language is a move toward an increasingly social constructivist pedagogy, where knowledge is not proscribed in advance but is generated from interaction within the class The knowledge is construed by the child, with the teacher, and so it is the teacher’s role to draw the meaning out of the child—or to construct it with her This reverses the usual power dynamic in classrooms By persevering, the teacher sends the message that what individual children think, their reasons, are valued She works at trying to understand their meanings, where often it is the children’s role to work at understanding her meanings Communication is established as a two-way process and opens up the classroom as a genuine space for learning Creating a genuine space for learning is achieved through multifaceted scaffolding, as with Nita’s hen digging This collaborative interaction generates new knowledge, which in turn leads to critical inquiry not only about, for instance, the precise semantic features of clapping and hence to the paradox of yes and no responses both being justifiable, but also to critical awareness of differences between languages and cultures in that what the teacher calls a drum has different properties and cultural associations to what some children call a tabla This suggests that learning in this lesson has moved from traditional teacher-controlled internalisation of standard knowledge implicit in materials, through a constructivist phase where learning is scaffolded and inquiry collaborative, to an approach that suggests the beginnings of critical inquiry, where learners are encouraged to question common sense and evaluate alternative explanations and understandings of events When I observed the Silly Questions initially in March 2000, children worked silently on their own to reach answers By March 2002 literacy partners had been introduced and children discussed their answers with their partners first Where possible, literacy partners are friends who share the same first language I was intrigued to see how the children huddled in pairs to discuss their answers It was impossible to hear what they said or what language they spoke, even if you were right next to them This process was clearly seen as private brainstorming I was also amazed how quickly they could agree on a response It seemed as if they read the question, put their heads down for a few seconds (often with TRANSFORMING TALK AND PHONICS PRACTICE 279 accompanying gestures such as pincer movements for crabs clapping), and then were ready with their agreed-on response This was an example of understanding between friends par excellence A meaning had been agreed, but it still remained for that meaning to be put into words and explained to the class in English, for private understanding to become public This putting into words happened in the teacher-guided reporting stage (Gibbons, 1998, 2002) when children’s coming to the front of the class provided that natural push for a more formal register Although on a much smaller scale than Gibbons’ unit on magnets, it follows Gibbons’ linguistic sequencing of class activities, suggesting how social constructivism is enhanced, particularly for ELLs, when meanings are first generated among peers, then construed in increasingly academic English wordings, with teacher guidance A further aspect of learning brought out by this task is the shift from a lower-level decoding task to a task that engages the whole child with his or her past experiences, identity, imagination, and intellect Drawing on past experiences and imagination, through scaffolding and shared imaging, enhances the children’s engagement with and enjoyment of the task Requiring justification adds cognitive challenge, but the subsequent expectation of providing alternative justifications created explicit information gaps which naturally required effective communication of justifications Student Experience and Empowerment In terms of the curricular content of this lesson, there is a clear transformation from learning to decode curriculum-generated sentences to learning to justify responses to questions in relation to students’ own lives and experiences Simply connecting to a broader range of knowledge and experience makes learning deeper and more meaningful, but providing a space where alternative views are acknowledged and celebrated affirms children’s original contributions as valuable and helps develop confidence and identities This process is building toward Cummins’s (2001) transformative pedagogy which focuses on “critical examination of student experience and social realities” (p 219) Although Cummins’s “attention to power relations” (p 219) is not explicit in the lesson, the children are empowered in the increasing recognition of their ideas, imagination, and experiences They are empowered in their developing ability to play with language They are also empowered in their increasing ownership of the process of playing the game, as they bring about changes not only to the rules, but also to the types of possible response to the questions The teacher has high expectations of 280 TESOL QUARTERLY these children, and conveys this to them in her expectations of their performance and in her engagement with their ideas Classroom interactions which empower learners in this way are part of the process of socially constructing and negotiating learners’ multiple identities Moreover, students are disadvantaged when their language, culture, and experience are ignored (Cummins, 2001) “When [culturally diverse] students’ developing sense of self is affirmed and extended through their interactions with teachers, they are more likely to apply themselves to academic effort and participate actively in instruction” (p 2) In the following paragraphs, I show how learners’ identities are “affirmed and extended” (Cummins, 2000, pp 248–249) through engagement with their languages, past experiences, shared cultures, and indeed through the invitation to develop their individual senses of humour in class The role of the bilingual assistants legitimises home languages and cultures Although Nita never actually speaks Gujerati to the class, she is encouraged to respond by the BEA’s use of it, which affirms the heritage aspects of her identity important to many third generation British Asians (Mills, 2001, p 400) A good example of the children explicitly making cultural comparisons is in the answer to the question Can you bang a drum?: Yes if it’s a tabla because you use your hands, and no if it’s an English drum because you use a stick In looking for a yes and a no answer, the child is thinking laterally; he uses his full range of cultural experiences, imagining two different drums from different musical traditions, or different funds of knowledge, and wording the knowledge for the classroom context (Martin-Jones & Saxena, 2003) This potential for lateral thinking explicitly gives the activity the intercultural orientation anticipated when educational discourse has been transformed (Cummins, 2000) Although the BEAs support the negotiation of linguistic and cultural identities, it has also been suggested that the general positioning of the BEAs as teacher assistants (rather than teachers) supporting learning in English (rather than in community languages) may have some negative impact on EAL learners (Bourne, 2001) Not all aspects of the children’s experience is related to their home language and heritage, of course For instance, their familiarity with the cartoon character Clifford, the Big Red Dog, emerges in the yes response to Is a dog red? The Silly Questions brought out aspects of the children’s sense of humour and imagination that were not often legitimised in the classroom As Wallace (2005) points out in a study of bilingual children in London, this kind of talk that crosses home and school boundaries has rich potential to involve children and make learning meaningful, but it is infrequently associated with the Literacy Hour The National Literacy Strategy offers much opportunity to focus on language to the benefit of bilingual learners in particular However, TRANSFORMING TALK AND PHONICS PRACTICE 281 attention to basic skills such as decoding must be embedded in meaningful activity Automatic decoding of isolated sentences cannot generate excitement and interest in language Arguably (Cummins, 2000, pp 248–249), the most effective means of developing basic skills is through a transformative pedagogy This article has shown how this most unlikely of exercises developed into an enjoyable activity which explores the richness of language, develops justificatory talk, negotiates the identities of learners, and begins to empower them with critical capacities for multicultural living in a world of paradoxes, and it has shown how the transformation is realised in talk through examination of interwoven discourse threads A traditional pedagogy has shifted through a constructivist pedagogy to a pedagogy that embraces most of the assumptions of a transformative pedagogy: meaningful contextualised language, activities that generate new knowledge, and learning through joint interactive construction with developing critical examination of student experience and social realities (Cummins, 2001, p 219) THE AUTHOR Sheena Gardner is a Reader in educational linguistics at the University of Birmingham, England Her teaching of English linguistics and language teaching complement her funded research on the discourse of classroom-based assessment and on genres of assessed student writing across the curriculum in the British Academic Written English corpus REFERENCES Arkoudis, S., & Creese, A (Eds.) (2006) Teacher–teacher talk: The discourse of collaboration in linguistically diverse classrooms [Special issue] International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 9(4) Bell, N (2005) Exploring L2 language play as an aid to SLL: A case study of humour in NS–NNS interaction Applied Linguistics, 26, 192–218 Berry, M (1981) Systemic linguistics and discourse analysis: A multi-layered approach to exchange structure In M Coulthard & M Montgomery (Eds.), Studies in discourse analysis (pp 120–145) London: Routledge Bourne, J (1997) The continuing revolution: Teaching as learning in the mainstream multilingual classroom In C Leung & C Cable (Eds.), English as an additional language: Changing perspectives (pp 77–88) Luton, England: National Association for Language Development in the Curriculum Bourne, J (2001) Doing ‘What comes naturally’: How the discourses and routines of teachers’ practice constrain opportunities for bilingual support in UK primary schools Language and Education, 15, 250–268 Canagarajah, A S (2004) Subversive identities, pedagogical safe houses, and critical learning In B Norton & K Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogies and language learning Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Carter, R (2004) Language and creativity: The art of common talk London: Routledge 282 TESOL QUARTERLY Cummins, J (2000) Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters Cummins, J (2001) Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society (2nd ed.) Los Angeles: California Association for Bilingual Education Department for Education and Employment (1998) The National Literacy Strategy Framework for Teaching London: Author Department for Education and Employment (1999) Progression in phonics: Materials for whole class teaching London: Author Edwards, A D., & Westgate, D P G (1994) Investigating classroom talk (2nd ed.) London: Falmer Press Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S (2002) Doing focus on form System, 30, 419–432 Gardner, S (2004) Four critical features of teacher-guided reporting in infant science and literacy contexts Language and Education, 18, 361–378 Gardner, S., & Rea-Dickins, P (2002) Focus on language sampling: A key issue in EAL assessment (Occasional Paper 15) Luton, England: National Association for Language Development in the Curriculum Gebhard, M (2005) School reform, hybrid discourses, and second language literacies TESOL Quarterly, 39, 187–210 Gibbons, P (1998) Classroom talk and the learning of new registers in a second language Language and Education, 12, 99–118 Gibbons, P (2002) Scaffolding language scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Gutierrez, K., Baquedano-Lopez, P., Alvarez, H., & Chiu, M M (1999) Building a culture of collaboration through hybrid language practices Theory Into Practice, 38(2), 87–93 Halliday, M A K., & Matthiessen, C M I M (2004) An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.) London: Arnold Kotler, A., Wegerif, R., & LeVoi, M (2001) Oracy and the educational achievement of pupils with English as an additional language: The impact of bringing “talking partners” into Bradford schools International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 4, 403–419 Martin-Jones, M., & Saxena, M (2003) Bilingual resources and “funds of knowledge” for teaching and learning in multi-ethnic classrooms in Britain International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 6, 267–282 McWilliam, D., & Howe, C (2004) Enhancing pre-schoolers’ reasoning skills: An intervention to optimise the use of justificatory speech acts during peer interaction Language and Education, 18, 504–524 McWilliam, N (1998) What’s in a word? Vocabulary development in multicultural classrooms Stoke-on-Trent, England: Trentam Books Mills, J (2001) Being bilingual: Perspectives of third generation Asian children on language, culture and identity International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 4, 383–402 Mohan, B., Leung, C., & Davison, C (Eds.) (2001) English as a second language in the mainstream: Teaching, learning and identity Harlow, England: Longman Office for Standards Education (2001) The national literacy strategy The third year: An evaluation by HMI (HMI332) London: Author Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (2000) A language in common: Assessing English as an additional language Sudbury, England: Author Retrieved September 26, 2007, from http://www.qca.org.uk/libraryAssets/media/3359_language_in_ common.pdf Tarone, E (2000) Getting serious about language play: Language play, interTRANSFORMING TALK AND PHONICS PRACTICE 283 language variation and second language acquisition In B Swierzbin, F Morris, M Andreson, C Klee, & E Tarone (Eds.), Social and Cognitive Factors in Second Language Acquisition: Proceedings of 1999 Second Language Research Forum (pp 31–54) Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press Punt, S., & Dennis, H., with Benn, M., Shavin, L., Holmes, J., & Brigstocke, M (2005) The lame duck sketch [Radio series episode, BBC Radio 4, May 7, 2005] In S Punt & H Dennis, The now show London: BBC Radio Van Lier, L (1996) Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity London: Longman Wallace, C (2005) Conversations around the literacy hour in a multilingual London primary school Language and Education, 19, 322–338 Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Rojas-Drummond, S (1999) Language for the social construction of knowledge: Comparing classroom talk in Mexican preschools Language and Education, 13, 133–150 Wells, G (1992) The centrality of talk in education In K Norman (Ed.), Thinking voices: The work of the National Oracy Project (pp 283–310) London: Hodder & Stoughton Willes, M (1981) Learning to take part in classroom interaction In P French & M MacLure (Eds.), Adult-child conversation (pp 73–90) London: Croom Helm APPENDIX TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS LST BEA1 and BEA2 Ren P PP 93 Italics 〈show it〉 (**) (I thought) (.) twe., ? ! underline ‘red’ CAPS RED BOLD CAPS bold 284 Language Support Teacher Bilingual Educational Assistants abbreviated child’s name (e.g., Rena) unidentified Pupil more than one Pupil numbered turns stage directions translation from Gujerati inaudible probable transcription pause transcript omitted false start, stutter, incomplete or interrupted word used to suggest intonation stress or emphasis words referred to, not used or read reading aloud sounding out letters ‘re’ ‘eh’ ‘de’ the Silly Questions on cards focal section of transcript TESOL QUARTERLY