Developing the context and
ground rules for exploratory talk
Hilary Haworth
A
letter to his parents, March 17, 1912.
Taking positions in a rule-based system
Establishing context and ground rules for
exploratory talk
The Convergence of the Twain, (Lines on the
loss of the "Titanic")
Letter to my uncle 17th March 1912
This essay builds
on research into “which kinds of talk in the classroom enable successful
teaching and learning to take place” (Lillis and
In support of this
approach I examine how topicality is constructed (Stokoe,1994) and emphasise member categories, rather than pre-judging
which parts of the discussion are ‘successful’ or ‘on-task’ or producing commentary
on participants’ motivations (cf. Ncoko et al,2000;Torrance and Pryor,2003).
This Year 6
literacy lesson began with discussion of a poem in the form of a letter (Appendix
II) in which a young boy (‘G’) is has received an invitation from an uncle to
travel with him on the Titanic. Pupils
had previously studied Hardy’s poem Convergence
of the Twain (Appendix I), and the teacher uses a variety of techniques
within IRF exchanges to facilitate “remembering together” (Mercer, 2000), building
recaps, elicitations, repetitions and reformulations into the class discussion
of both poems. This establishes “shared
knowledge” (Mercer, 2000) of both poems, and introduces several ‘key words’
(Gibbons,1995). ‘Key words’ achieve
cohesion for the group in their discussion of the poems and their historical
context: they are ‘opportunity’, ‘maiden voyage’, ‘time off’ and ‘learning’. These, and their substitutions, are boxed in
the transcript.
For Mercer, for
whom context is mainly mental, the above description might suffice, since it
includes:
Whatever information listeners
(or readers) use to make sense of what is said (or written)
(Mercer, 2000)
However in this
sequence, technologies and physical space are significant contextual elements, being
foregrounded at various points when chairs were moved, when children noted the voice
recorder or negotiated control of their own technologies. Just as Ellen and Bill may have had a
different conversation had they met in a corridor rather than spoken on the
phone (Mercer 2000;p17), so this sequence would have gone differently had group
members not been instructed to prepare a letter, on paper, in a time limit, via
a scribe.
We join the
discussion just after the group are given five minutes to produce a letter from
the ‘G’ of the poem to his parents, requesting permission to travel on the
Titanic. The teacher nominates a scribe.
13.29
1.
Beth: OK so like, dear parents it’d be a
great opportunity for me to go to (.) on the Titanic
(.) er: (.) Titanic’s first voyage coz a:h::
[I could learn lots of things
2.
Tim: [Yeh
try and persuade them
3.
Beth: so then [it’s like….
4.
Ben: [Yeh
use persuasive language
5.
Beth: so then it would be
6.
Ben: it would be the opportunity of a
lifetime.
7.
Beth: no(.)put to start off with
8.
Tim: I know I’ve took a lot of time [off…
9.
Beth:
[I’ve received letter from my uncle(.)is it the uncle or is it?
10.
Ben: yeh the uncle
11.
Beth: I’ve received a letter from my u:ncle
12.
Tim: who I’ve not seen for [ages…
13.
Beth: [and
he asks if I’d like to go on the Titanic
14.
Tim: yeh and then I know I took a lot of days
off…
15.
Beth: on the Titanic [maiden voyage
16.
Ben: [so is he going there and back or is
he going to stay in
17.
Tim: what’s the point of going (.) to
like(.)just to
18.
Tim: no he’s gonna stay in
19.
Ben: yeh? (.)
20.
Beth: maybe he’s gonna stay there a few days
but(.)
21.
Ben: I know I took lots(.)of days(.)off
school [when I was ill
22.
Tim: [but
23.
Beth: [I’ve taken(.)
I’ve taken many days off
school
24.
Ben: yeh
25.
Beth: but um:
26.
Ben: but I’d be (.) it’d be the opp…the opportunity
of a lifetime (.) um::
27.
Ben: a::h::
28.
Beth: yeh it’ll be the opportunity of a
lifetime.
(…)
29.
Tim: I’ll be (.) [I’d be one of the first
to sail on it
30.
Ben: [Of. That’ll be off
31.
Beth: um::: Off school (.) but this is the
(…)
32.
Tim: U:m:
(…)
33.
Ben: maybe he could bribe em? like say (.) I bring you something back
34.
Tim: souvenir back
35.
Beth: u:m: yeh (.)
36.
Ben: bring you a souvenir
37.
Beth: what else
38.
Tim: [yeh like hint hint
39.
Beth: [
40.
Ben: um he could say (.) that he could learn
41.
Beth: yeh I can learn many things from the
42.
Ben: I can learn many things=
43.
Beth: many things
44.
Ben: =in
45.
Tim: What if you put it in huge red
letters
46.
Beth: in
47.
Ben: yeh he’d put it on the bottom of the
letter like(.) hint (.) hint (.) let (.) me (.) go
48.
Tim: Please
(.) let me go (.)
(…)
49.
Ben: let me go (.) wink wink nudge nudge
50.
Beth: .hhhh u:m:
(…)
51.
Ben: u:m:
(…)
52.
Ben: Please (.) take the time to (.) think
about this (.)
53.
Tim: yeh put this letter in consideration
54.
Beth: yeh put this letter in (.) into
consideration
(…)
55.
Jav: what is it?
56.
Tim: con/sid/er/ation
57.
Ben: O-R-A-T-[I-O-N
58.
Beth: [And what do we put um at
the end?
59.
Ben: from… from your
60.
Tim: signed G
61.
Ben: from G
62.
Tim: what other (.) what are the names uh
is it a girl or a boy?
63.
Ben: it’s a boy it’s
64.
Tim: you need a name
65.
Ben: Gary (.)
66.
Beth: say G
67.
Ben: [
68.
Tim: [Gordon (.) [Gordon
69.
Jav: [Gee?
70.
Ben: it could be any G
71.
Tim: just say G
72.
Beth: Gee yeh say gee
73.
Tim: yours sincerely (.) your loving son
Gee
(All talk at once)
74.
Tim: [Beth
75.
Ben: [Gee (.) two E’s
76.
Tim: [Beth
77.
Ben: [G-E-E
78.
Tim: do a do a bribe line (.) If you do let me go on this trip (.) I might I
may bring you something back
79.
Ben: you may
80.
Beth: OK (.) u:m. (.) if (.)
81.
Ben: nudge nudge
82.
Tim: yeh write P-S (.)
83.
Ben: PS I’m getting the boat
84.
Tim: yeh huh
(…)
85.
Ben: Tim
86.
Tim: he probably wouldn’t write that,
he’d probably just [go:
87.
Ben:
[Tim
88.
Beth: OK (takes paper and pen from scribe) so we’ve got to the end so yours
faithfully (.)
89.
Tim: yeh [yours
faithfully…
90.
Ben: [don’t forget the bribe
line so [if you let me go (.) yeh?
91.
Beth: [yeh,
yours faithfully (.)
92.
Tim: yours faithfully (.)
93.
Ben: your (.) [beloved
94.
Tim: [your loving son
95.
Ben: your beloved son
(…)
96.
Beth: I’ll just put (.) your beloved (.)
there
97.
Tim: just write your son
98.
Ben: how do we know it’s a boy
99.
Beth: cause its (.)
100.
Tim: it’s a (.)
101.
Ben: it could be a girl
102.
Beth:
(All
talk at once)
103.
Beth: it’s still going to be Gee.
104.
Tim: gee gee huh huh
105.
Ben: gee-gee h:a:
106.
Tim: (French
accent) Gigi
107.
Ben: yours faithfully Gigi::
In the first two
lines of transcript we see most of the ‘cohesive’ words from the whole-class
discussion brought into play. These are,
then, the ‘potential mentionables’ of the topic for the participants (Stokoe,1994).
While one
participant seemingly attempts to add more mentionables (‘it’s like’, ‘it would
be’), a meta-linguistic conversation continues between Tim and Ben, where they
agree to use ‘persuasive language’ and give rapid-fire examples[1]:
(Potter and Wetherell,1987)
This has the
function of re-casting the topic (as ‘persuasive letter-writing’) which leads Beth
to use repeated topic-initiators and a topic-ending utterance (‘so then’ in
lines 3 and 5;‘no’ in line 7) to ‘mark’ the boys’ exchange as off-topic,
despite its use of potential mentionables. At this point Tim’s response at line 8 is
clearly dis-preferred and Beth over-rides it to dictate an opening phrase to
the scribe. (It takes 23 lines and six iterations
to introduce ‘time off school’ into the output document.) The closed question (‘is it the uncle’) and
response brings all the students to the same focus point in the task.
The ground rules of
group discussion with a scribe are not made explicit by the teacher during this
lesson but are clearly understood by the group.
All collaborate to provide writing time for the scribe (lines 28, 31,
32). These pauses are longer than would
be used with acknowledgement tokens simply to achieve topical shift (
Group members use
discourse to negotiate their positions with this rule-based system. Beth constructs herself as the filter of data
to the scribe. She negotiates floor time
as the sole speaker when her utterances are intended for the scribe by a
briefly overlapping speech followed by a pause (see for example lines 9 and
23). However, physical context is also important:
Beth has moved her chair to position herself directly opposite the scribe.
At this point (line
33) Ben attempts to extend the topic by introducing a new mentionable, the
bribe - not a ‘cohesion’ word from the
whole-class discussion. Beth’s token
acknowledgement (u:m: yeh) closes down this topic for the scribe (who has not
recorded the bribe input) and constructs it as off-task humour rather than
on-task persuasive rhetoric. Ben
responds by adding to the output from the toolkit of agreed mentionables
(‘learning’) but returns to the subject of bribery with Tim, now using
Pythonesque intertextuality to mark it as joking!
Ben positions
himself thus as bridging two communities – a ‘law-abiding’ citizen, respectful
of roles, using shared tools and resources to build the finished product – but
also sharing disruptive asides with Tim.
(He repeats this strategy in lines 79, 83 and 90.)
Here (line 50)
hesitations and pauses mark unsuccessful attempts to introduce new topical
material, after which Ben introduces call-and-response rhetoric to close his
persuasion attempt. This is accepted as
a closing strategy with participants moving to design the sign-off. The output has effectively been produced in two minutes
of the five allowed. However, designing
the sign off involves 38 lines of cumulative talk reminiscent of the ‘fantabuloso’
sequence in Mercer (2000) as the options
In fact, the group talk
as a whole is more ‘cumulative’ than ‘exploratory’ as participants sequence their
list of arguments. However it is
important to mention that whereas in Mercer’s (2000) examples of exploratory talk
participants ‘produce’ little more than a mouse click or a multiple choice tick, this
and the other ‘cumulative talk’ sequences above share a common technology (pen
and paper) and produce the same artifact (structured text). Perhaps cumulative talk is the appropriate
strategy for this task with these tools?
This is not to take
a technological-determinist position, since learnt social rules of interaction
are just as important for the group. Group
members consistently apply generally-accepted ground rules for ‘brain-storming’
to their cumulative talk. The
‘brain-storming’ ground rules below are taken from the Cambridge University
Institute for Manufacturing website:
Tim makes direct appeal
to this rule system in order to include the bribe (line 78), addressing Beth by
name to draw attention to his contribution and so ‘force’ its inclusion according
to the rules. Anticipating objections he
suggests a postscript, and produces only token response (‘yeh huh’) to Ben’s
‘jokey’ PS and re-iteration of the ‘hint hint’ line. His unresponsiveness functions to create
requisite pauses (line 84) for the scribe, and his contribution changes from being
only peripherally-mentionable into part of the output.
When Beth
transgresses division of labour rules, taking possession of the technology
(line 88), her disclaimer/excuse marker (‘I’ll just put…’) functions as an
attempt to minimise changed community relations.
A number of
researchers are preoccupied with identifying “which particular aspects of
expert-novice interaction and discourse can be associated with particular
developmental and learning outcomes in the students” (Rojas-Drummond, 2003). In his introduction of this discussion the
teacher did indeed stress the ‘dimension’ of process with appropriate ‘actions’
outlined by Rojas-Drummond (2003):
a. Recapping or reviewing learning with pupils
b. Emphasising the meaning or purpose of tasks
c. Emphasising or elaborating the process of arriving at a
solution
An activity theory
view of groupwork as mediated by tools and rules, would imply that those
elements in the lesson ‘system’ problematised the achievement of exploratory
talk (Russell, 2002). One conclusion is
that teachers also need to provide technologies and request output appropriate
to the talk skills they require students to practice, and that this choice
plays a part in learning outcomes.
A secondary
conclusion might challenge the hierarchical positioning of exploratory talk; with
the context, tools and object of the activity system in which they were working,
Beth, Tim and Ben may not have achieved exploratory talk, but they did produce
a summary document of two lesson’s learning, and in the process constructed
links between these and a third lesson’s language work on persuasive rhetoric. Approaching material from multiple
perspectives in this way is a key skill in memorization and can help achieve
knowledge-transfer.
Word count: 2195
Note on
transcription marks:
:: extension of the previous sound,
e.g. u:m:
.hhh audible intake of breath
bold stress
placed on a word or syllable
[ overlap between speakers
(.) hesitation or pause of less than
one second
(…) a longer pause
=
a speaker’s continuing talk
across lines of transcript or no discernible gap between different speakers’
utterances
Con/sid/er syllable-by-syllable
enunciation
Gibbons, P. (1995) Discourse Contexts for Second Language
development in the Mainstream Classroom, Doctoral Thesis, University of
technology,
Goodman, S.,
Lillis, T., Maybin, J. and Mercer, N. (2003) Language, Literacy and Education: A reader, Stoke on Trent,
Trentham Books
Hutchby, I. and
Wooffitt, R. (1998) Conversation Analysis;
Principles, Practices and Applications,
Hutchby, I. (2001) Conversation and Technology: from the
telephone to the internet,
Jefferson, G.
(1993) Caveat speaker: Preliminary notes on recipient topic-shift implicature, Research on Language and Social Interaction
26(1), 1-30
Lillis, T. and
Mercer, N. (1995) The Guided Construction of Knowledge,
Clevedon, Multilingual Matters
Mercer, N. (2000) Words and Minds: how we use language to work
together
Ncoko, S.O.S.,
Osman, R. and Cockcroft, K. (2000) ‘Codeswitching among multilingual learners
in primary schools in
Phillips, T. (1992)
‘Why? The neglected question’ in Norman, K. (education) Thinking Voices: the work of the national oracy project,
Potter, J. and
Wetherell, M. (1987) Discourse and Social
Psychology: beyond attitudes and
behaviour,
Rojas-Drummond, S.
(2003) Guided participation, discourse
and the construction of knowledge in Mexican classrooms, in Sharon Goodman,
Theresa Lillis Janet Maybin and Neil Mercer (eds), Language, Literacy and
Education: A Reader, Stoke on Trent, Trentham Books
Russell, R. R.
(2002) ‘Looking beyond the interface: activity theory and distributed learning’
in Lea, M and Nicholl, K. (eds) Distributed
Learning: social and cultural approaches to practice,
Stokoe, E. (1994)
‘Constructing topicality in university students’ small group discussion; a
conversation analytic approach’, Language
and Education, 14(3), pp. 184-203,
on-line at http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/%7Essehs/Language%20and%20Education%202000.pdf
I
In a solitude of the sea
Deep from human vanity,
And the Pride of Life that planned her, stilly couches she.
II
Steel chambers, late the pyres
Of her salamandrine fires,
Cold currents thrid, and turn to rhythmic tidal lyres.
III
Over the mirrors meant
To glass the opulent
The sea-worm crawls -- grotesque, slimed, dumb, indifferent.
IV
Jewels in joy designed
To ravish the sensuous mind
Lie lightless, all their sparkles bleared and black and blind.
V
Dim moon-eyed fishes near
Gaze at the gilded gear
And query: "What does this vaingloriousness down here?". . .
VI
Well: while was fashioning
This creature of cleaving wing,
The Immanent Will that stirs and urges everything
VII
Prepared a sinister mate
For her -- so gaily great --
A Shape of Ice, for the time fat and dissociate.
VIII
And as the smart ship grew
In stature, grace, and hue
In shadowy silent distance grew the Iceberg too.
IX
Alien they seemed to be:
No mortal eye could see
The intimate welding of their later history.
X
Or sign that they were bent
By paths coincident
On being anon twin halves of one August event,
XI
Till the Spinner of the Years
Said "Now!" And each one hears,
And consummation comes, and jars two hemispheres.
Dear uncle,
Thank you for the
invitation to sail with you next month.
I would very much
like to accept,
but there’s a
complication.
I really ought to
write and ask my parents.
They may not let me
miss more time from school
After my illness,
so
With your
forbearance, I write.
But stopping me
would be too cruel.
I hear the
Titanic’s really something
The biggest thing
afloat, that’s what they say.
I think I’ll
stowaway!
Perhaps there’s
hope though,
Maybe they’ll agree,
I’ll let you know.
Your loving nephew,
G.
[1] These are triggered by Beth’s use of ‘coz’ at line 1; the wider context for this response is a lesson on persuasive letter writing - more recent than the one ‘remembered together’ here.