E844 eTMA 01 (Talk) Option 1		Angela Litton (U0354239)

In the following I will discuss the added perception and understanding I have gained in regard to the ‘importance of spoken language in the processes of teaching and learning’ (AG, p. 15)(Study Guide, p. 11) during my study of Block One of E844. I will also apply these insights to my present professional context while considering the aspects of the sociocultural approach, discourse, IRF, scaffolding and exploratory talk. (AG, p. 15)

Beginning with the first ‘Good morning’ and ‘Hello’ and ending with my last ‘Bye!’ as I walk through the courtyard of my institutional context, spoken language is the mode (Study Guide, p. 5) which guides and influences most of my professional actions. As a ‘Native Speaker Teacher’, or NST, of English as a Foreign Language in a small urban primary school in Vienna, Austria, my primary medium of interaction with students, staff and parents is oral, supplemented by mime, music or images. Additionally, NST should communicate in English with all students, staff and stakeholders at all times with no exception. When Lillis and McKinney state ‘…learning to talk is very much about learning to think.’ (2003, p. 31), it accurately describes the sociocultural context in my school concerning EFL. Students begin their formal schooling between the ages of five and six and simultaneously learn the traditional skills of reading, writing and calculation parallel to EFL and IT. (Stadtschulrat fuer Wien, 2004) The methodology used in most lessons varies from open learning, The Silent Way, Total Physical Response, Communicative Language Teaching to the Natural Approach. (Knight, 2001, p. 152-166) Learners are encouraged to express their thoughts ideas in all situations in either L1 or L2. The GEPS (Global Education Primary School) project began in 2000 as an answer to the increasing demand for English for young learners and the globalisation of our planet. (Stadtschulrat fuer Wien, 2004) Parents are also encouraged to adopt an active role in their child’s schooling, e.g. accompanying excursions, weekly reading with students, baking cookies and providing breakfast after in school sleepovers. Therefore a sociocultural basis has been created through the sharing of knowledge and involvement of community members in language acquisition. (Study Guide, p. 12) 

Discourse occurs in all areas of social interaction. During an excursion a dialogue with a student emerged due to my limping. The student’s parent had also had a recent injury, and as the conversation progressed, a ‘linguistic misinterpretation’ materialized. (Torrance and Pryor, 1998, p. 30) The student explained the details of the accident, the hospital stay and their opinion of the hospital staff. The dialogue continued and I inquired, if the parent could work, as we had also spoken about the parent’s professional context. 
T: Can they work?  (Initiation)
St: It was their knee, I told you!  (Response)
T: Oh, I see.  (Feedback)
The above discourse could evidence that both context and meaning are “socially constituted”. (Hicks, 1995, p. 3) Hicks cites Erickson and Shultz:
...contexts are constituted by what people are doing and where and when they are doing it. …Ultimately social contexts consist of mutually shared …definitions of situations… (Erickson and Shultz 1981 cited in Hicks, 1995, p. 4)
The sudden variation in the discourse was not registered which resulted in annoyance and misunderstanding on behalf of the student. As Torrence and Pryor state students’ questions and teachers’ responses have diverse functions and often students wish to “

…interpret teachers’ questions and make sense of what is being asked of them...over and above what might be taken to be the obvious meaning of a particular question.” (1998, p. 32) 
Perhaps more pronounced cues demonstrating my intended modification of direction of the discourse would be useful in the future.

If the above discourse example were examined as an IRF/IRE interaction, the initiation, response and feedback or evaluation aspects are obvious. (Study Guide, p. 14)(Hicks, 1995, p. 16) Peggy Preciado mentions that she observed that the feedback aspect was absent in an exchange between students, “I found the IR of the IRF but not the F.” (Preciado, 2009) Feedback may be both verbal and nonverbal, e.g. a smile, a tilt of the head or a frown.  The lack of any manner of clearly defined evaluation could also be an assessment in IRF exchanges, as in the cases of drilling or open questioning, although this discourse genre could also be labelled as classroom speech. (Hicks, 1995, p. 15) Ultimately I agree with Deborah Hicks (1995, p. 17) in that although “discourse structure … may be constant across instructional settings, its functions may vary widely.” Particularly in IRF/IRE triadic classroom discourse (ibid, p. 16), I believe that the structure of some exchanges may be entrenched in routine and learned behaviour and should be reassessed in order to avoid misunderstanding. Therefore it is my intention to reflect on my use of IRF in my professional context in order to avert misinterpretation and aid comprehension. 

When students and teachers coexist within a mutual sociocultural context, ‘shared knowledge’ supports classroom interaction. (Mercer, 2000, p. 139) I often use Spongebob’s friend Patrick in connection with nonverbal cues to elicit the concept of uncertainty to first form students. Due to a ‘shared contextual frame of reference’ (ibid) it is possible to create a definition for an emotion or idea in order to avoid code switching to learners’ L1 language. Recapping and abbreviation (ibid, p. 138-139) in further lessons would function as the basis in order to ‘bring the learner closer to a state of competence’ (ibid, p. 140), which in the above case would be the eventual usage of a student of “I don’t know.” in the appropriate context. The progression of the afore depicted scenario is scaffolding. (Study Guide, p. 18)

Scaffolding aids in promoting ‘guided participation’ in classroom contexts and ‘can foster development and learning’ (Rojas-Drummond, 2000, p. 36) by linking the knowledge of teachers and students during discourse. Vygotsky introduced the concept of ‘Zone of Proximal Development’ (Study Guide, p. 18), which asserts that learners should be challenged during instruction in order to reach their full developmental potential. (Mercer, 2000, p. 140) The view that learners are dependent on both ’intermental’ and ‘intramental’ or individual and social factors (ibid) is a key issue in sociocultural contexts in my opinion. At my institutional context I have observed IDZ or intermental developmental zones that function as ‘shared communicative space’ in which educators and learners perform to achieve goals. (Mercer, 2000, p. 141) Moreover, Mercer concurs with the findings of Rojas-Drummond (2000) as both ascertain that the outcome of development in learners could be determined by the successful employment of IRF, scaffolding and guided participation. 

The concept that scaffolding not only occurs between experts and novices, but also in pair and group work of is raised by Andrea Machado de Almeida Mattos. (2000, p. 55) Machado de Almeida Mattos cites the findings of Donato who maintains that there is evidence of ‘scaffolded help’ in L2 acquisition during pair work of students that possess similar competency. (Donato, 1994, cited in Mattos, 2000, p. 55) Support for this concept can be detected in my professional context, especially during pair work in EFL English lessons. Furthermore, I have observed ‘negative learning’ (Machado de Almeida Mattos, 2000, p. 59) throughout scaffolded help which often runs like a whispered wildfire from group to group. Nevertheless, scaffolded help is a valuable tool for students performing pair work. I plan to introduce more ‘scaffolded interaction’ in the areas of preparation for oral collaboration and testing in the future. (ibid, p. 62)

Group work can be a valuable classroom tool for promoting autonomous learning. In my context it is often combined with open learning, which enables students independent interaction concerning task selection. Neil Mercer provides a particularly miserable example of ‘collaborative activity’ (2000, p. 146) that clearly demonstrates ineffective communication. Through their use of ‘disputational’ (ibid, p. 148) discourse some students may not competent in producing the appropriate communication in order to succeed in fulfilling a shared task. To facilitate this aspect of discourse, Mercer states that education should provide students with:
…access to ways of using language which their out of school experience may not have revealed, help them extend their repertoire of language genres and so help them use language more effectively as a means for learning, pursuing interests, developing shared understanding and generally getting things done. (Mercer, 2000, p. 149)
At my institution I have observed that three of four classes have classroom rules to which students should adhere when joint activities are undertaken. These rules address discourse as well as other sociocultural facets, such as respect, and assist in building a foundation for successful group work as well as overall task completion. 

The development of classroom discourse in order to promote exploratory talk (ibid, p. 153) among learners is a crucial issue in my professional context. Students are encouraged to be proactive whenever feasible. An example was the ‘private discourse’ (Alexander, 2000, cited in Lillis and McKinney, 2003, p. 49) between a teacher and student about the capital of The Netherlands within the framework of a Europe project. The student insisted that their parent contradicted the information offered by the teacher. This difference of opinion presented an opportunity for examining the relationship between European History and Geography for a group of learners. I feel in many classrooms a more ‘public discourse’ (ibid) approach or a simple “No, that’s not right.” from an educator could have stifled the discussion and its outcome. Therefore, the above suggests that a ‘nurturing, child-centred approach to learning and teaching’ (ibid) is evident and may provide learners with the means to use exploratory talk during classroom discourse. 

Often students have mimicked and parroted my elicitation of “And why… ?” as I am rarely content with a single word answer. In my attempts to further EFL exploratory talk, I feel it is essential that learners express themselves, not only in affirmative and negative remarks, but also in more advanced discourse. Mercer outlines two sets of rules for talking, which students composed with their teachers. (2000, p. 161) There are parallels between the guidelines at my context and the rules which are stated by Mercer (2000, p. 160) such as ‘Spiral IRFs’ (Rojas-Drummond, 2000, p.  39), problem solving techniques, and the maximisation of the social and communication talents of the students. 
But the application of exploratory talk in L2 acquisition with young learners can be complex and requires thorough preparation from both L1 and EFL teachers. Nevertheless, I regard the effort advisable as Mercer (2000) and Rojas-Drummond (2000) both stress the value of a sociocultural approach to classroom discourse and interaction as opposed to routines in which IRF, scaffolding and guided participation are absent.  

In conclusion Block 1 of E844 has greatly influenced and enhanced my perspective of talk in the classroom and elsewhere. The numerous innovative aspects of the sociocultural approach will prove to be valuable during reflection of my professional teaching context and ideally will be employed. The issues of spiral IRF, scaffolding, guided participation and exploratory talk (Study guide, p. 14-20) are essential, if educators wish to provide learners with a ‘community of enquiry’ (Mercer, 200, p. 161) and the necessary discourse skills that they require in order to function in society. A true sociocultural context means for me that learning and social interaction occur simultaneously and coincidentally on behalf of learners and educators. A particularly exciting point was brought up by Andrea Machado de Almeida Mattos (2000) concerning the concept of scaffolding help in pair and group work. I perceive this phenomenon as evident in my institutional context and aspire to increase and develop its implementation. Finally, the contention that ‘guiding children into ways of thinking collectively is a vital aspect of human development‘ (Mercer, 2000, p. 165) is intrinsically valid. Both individuals and educators should reflect upon the effect of discourse within a sociocultural context and its consequences on education in particular.
Word count: 1981

References

Hicks, D. (1995)‘Discourse, teaching and learning’ in Goodman, S., Lillis, T., Maybin, J., and Mercer, N. (eds) (2003) Language, Literacy and Education: A Reader, Stoke-on-Trent, Trentham.

Knight, P. (2001) ‘The Development of EFL Methodology’ in Candlin, C. and Mercer, N. (eds) English Language Teaching in its Social Context, (pp. 147-166) Oxon, Routledge.

Lillis, T. and McKinney, C. (2003) Analysing Language in Context: A Student Workbook, Stoke-on-Trent, Trentham.

Machado de Almeida Mattos, A. (2000) ‘A Vygotskian approach to evaluation in foreign language learning contexts’ in Goodman, S., Lillis, T., Maybin, J., and Mercer, N.  (eds) (2003) Language, Literacy and Education: A Reader, Stoke-on-Trent, Trentham.

Mercer, N. (2000) Words and Minds, London, Routledge.

Preciado, P. (13 November 2009) ’Robert's sociocultural approach / Talk’, tutor group forum message to Block 1 tutorial conference E844 (accessed 14 November 2009)

Rojas-Drummond, S. (2000) ‘Guided participation, discourse and the construction of knowledge in Mexican classrooms’ in Goodman, S., Lillis, T., Maybin, J., and Mercer, N.  (eds) (2003) Language, Literacy and Education: A Reader, Stoke-on-Trent, Trentham.

Stadtschulrat fuer Wien, (1 September 2004) Global Education Primary School (GEPS), Available from: , (accessed 13 November 2009)

Torrance, H. and Pryor, J. (1998) ‘Classroom assessment and the language of teaching’ in Goodman, S., Lillis, T., Maybin, J., and Mercer, N. (eds) (2003) Language, Literacy and Education: A Reader, Stoke-on-Trent, Trentham.