English Teaching: Practice and Critique
Volume 9, Number 2 (September 2010): Focus: Douglas Barnes revisited: If learning floats on a sea of talk, what kind of talk? And what kind of learning?
Co-editors: Alyson Simpson (Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney) and Yolanda Majors (University of Illinois at Chicago) and Neil Mercer (Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge)
Rationale:
Why 'a sea of talk'? Does talk run with undercurrents? Can talk sweep us away with its power? Is talk soothing and gentle in some moods and a shape shifter, drowning us in others? It seems that talk can achieve all this and more. In this edition, the editors have gathered papers that address a range of perspectives on talk to examine the questions: What do we use talk for and how does it support children's learning?
It is acknowledged that talk is the starting point for all forms of literacy through the language play of first interactions (Crystal, 1998). In the early years, vocabulary knowledge is built before a child commences school as caregivers read books and name things in pictures. Graphophonic awareness is built as children hear the sounds of language translated from symbol into meaningful expression. Comprehension is supported as children predict what will happen next or question the action of a story. The rhyme and rhythm of literary language is embedded in the child's mind through early experiences with oral performances of poetry and nursery rhymes.
In later years when children are at school, talk becomes the bedrock of classroom activity. Teachers and students use talk for performance, talk as process and talk for learning (Wells, 1999). Talk can be the support mechanism for a child's writing development through conferencing. Talk can be used to share knowledge and confirm understanding in reciprocal teaching sessions (Palinscar & Herrenkohl, 2002). Talk can become the focus of assessment or the means through which literary texts are explored in literature circles (Day, 2003) and drama (Ewing & Simons, 2004) to improve both intellectual and affective engagement. It is through talk that children are able to collaborate and so learn together in ways that they would not do with a teacher (Barnes & Todd, 1977; Mercer & Littleton, 2007; Webb & Mastergeorge, 2003).
Technologies such as interactive whiteboards also offer new ways of stimulating and orchestrating talk (Smith, Hardman,& Higgins, 2006). And then there is "talk" that uses technology. If we consider chat and blogs to be talk online then we need to consider the impact of Web2.0 technologies on the use of talk. Opportunities are created via the Internet for talk for collaboration, for social networking, for critical discussion in activities such as book raps (Unsworth, Thomas, Simpson & Asha, 2005). If people learn as a cultural process through action and talk with others (Gee, 2004), then online archives, podcasts and other recording forms can make thinking visible by tracing the learning pathways that talk creates.
Contributors to this issue address such questions as:
It is acknowledged that talk is the starting point for all forms of literacy through the language play of first interactions (Crystal, 1998). In the early years, vocabulary knowledge is built before a child commences school as caregivers read books and name things in pictures. Graphophonic awareness is built as children hear the sounds of language translated from symbol into meaningful expression. Comprehension is supported as children predict what will happen next or question the action of a story. The rhyme and rhythm of literary language is embedded in the child's mind through early experiences with oral performances of poetry and nursery rhymes.
In later years when children are at school, talk becomes the bedrock of classroom activity. Teachers and students use talk for performance, talk as process and talk for learning (Wells, 1999). Talk can be the support mechanism for a child's writing development through conferencing. Talk can be used to share knowledge and confirm understanding in reciprocal teaching sessions (Palinscar & Herrenkohl, 2002). Talk can become the focus of assessment or the means through which literary texts are explored in literature circles (Day, 2003) and drama (Ewing & Simons, 2004) to improve both intellectual and affective engagement. It is through talk that children are able to collaborate and so learn together in ways that they would not do with a teacher (Barnes & Todd, 1977; Mercer & Littleton, 2007; Webb & Mastergeorge, 2003).
Technologies such as interactive whiteboards also offer new ways of stimulating and orchestrating talk (Smith, Hardman,& Higgins, 2006). And then there is "talk" that uses technology. If we consider chat and blogs to be talk online then we need to consider the impact of Web2.0 technologies on the use of talk. Opportunities are created via the Internet for talk for collaboration, for social networking, for critical discussion in activities such as book raps (Unsworth, Thomas, Simpson & Asha, 2005). If people learn as a cultural process through action and talk with others (Gee, 2004), then online archives, podcasts and other recording forms can make thinking visible by tracing the learning pathways that talk creates.
Contributors to this issue address such questions as:
- Where does dialogic teaching fit into current pedagogy?
- How do the affordances of Web2.0 technologies support pupil-to-pupil interaction?
- What is the role of talk in learning and teaching?
- Are student teachers well enough trained in the use of talk, and in how to help children use it effectively?
- Does educational policy properly recognise the value of talk?
References:
Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (1977). Communication and learning in small groups. London:
Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (1977). Communication and learning in small groups. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Crystal, D. (1998). Language play. London: Penguin.
Day, C. (2003). Reading and responding in literature circles PEN 140. Newtown:
Crystal, D. (1998). Language play. London: Penguin.
Day, C. (2003). Reading and responding in literature circles PEN 140. Newtown:
Primary English Teaching Association.
Ewing, R., & Simons, J. (2004). Reader's theatre. In R. Ewing & J. Simons (Eds.),
Ewing, R., & Simons, J. (2004). Reader's theatre. In R. Ewing & J. Simons (Eds.),
Beyond the script: Take two (pp. 83-92). Marrickville: Primary English Teaching
Association.
Gee, J. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling.
Gee, J. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling.
New York: Routledge.
Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children's
Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children's
thinking: A sociocultural approach. London: Routledge.
Palinscar, A., & Herrenkohl, L. (2002). Designing collaborative learning contexts.
Palinscar, A., & Herrenkohl, L. (2002). Designing collaborative learning contexts.
Theory Into Practice, 41(1), 26-32.
Smith, F., Hardman, F., & Higgins, S. (2006). The impact of interactive whiteboards
Smith, F., Hardman, F., & Higgins, S. (2006). The impact of interactive whiteboards
on teacher-pupil interaction in the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies.
British Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 443-457.
Unsworth, L., Thomas, A., Simpson, A., & Asha, J. (2005). Children's literature and
Unsworth, L., Thomas, A., Simpson, A., & Asha, J. (2005). Children's literature and
computer-based teaching: From book raps to story palaces. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Webb, N., & Mastergeorge, A. (2003). The development of students' learning in
Webb, N., & Mastergeorge, A. (2003). The development of students' learning in
peer-directed small groups. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 361-428.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of
education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
The Editorial Board expresses its gratitude to the the guest editors of this issue and also to the following (some are members of the Review Board) who have helped with the review process: Paul Brock ([honorary] University of Sydney); Beryl Exley (Queensland University of Technology); Kelly Freebody (University of Sydney); Jenny Hammond (University of Technology, Sydney); Mari Haneda (Ohio State University); Veronica Hanke (Cambridge University); Sally Humphrey (Australian Catholic University); Jackie Manuel (University of Sydney); Louise Sutherland (University of Sydney); Paul Thomson (Nottingham University); Terry Locke (University of Waikato).