ENHANCING THE COMMUNICATION LEARNING ENVIRONMENT OF AN EARLY YEARS UNIT

Melanie NindCentre for Curriculum and Teaching StudiesFaculty of Education and Language Studies

The Open UniversityWalton Hall

Milton KeynesMK7 6AA

Email: M.A.E.Nind@open.ac.uk

Paper presented to the BERA Annual Conference13-15 September 2001

University of Leeds

Abstract

The paper reports on an action research project in which an external consultant, special

educational needs co-ordinator and staff of the early years unit of a mainstream school

worked together to understand and enhance the communication learning environment

provided for 3-5 year old pupils. The project arose from concern about the number of

pupils with limited communication and language abilities. A transactional rather than

deficit model was adopted, such that bi-directional influences in communication

difficulties and communication learning were fully recognised. The focus was on the

communication environment and the verbal and interaction behaviour of the adults rather

than on individual problems. Concepts of optimal interactive styles from studies of

caregiver-infant interaction and interventions based on this were applied. Activity

included a mixture of observation, discussion and reflection on summaries of other

research projects. Changes in the thinking and practice in the unit are discussed.

Key words: early years, communication, action research

1

Background

Honilands school is a large, vibrant primary school in the London Borough of Enfield. The Enfield statistical directory describes the population in school’s ward as being high in the multiple deprivation rankings as well as child poverty indicators, scoring in the highest category of social deprivation that the area has. There is high unemployment, poor health, poor housing and little access to higher or further education. A considerable proportion of the school’s children are on the special needs register. The Early Years Unit (EYU) of the school comprises a nursery and two reception classes with 3 teachers, 2 nursery nurses and 2 classroom assistants and 120 children (not all of them full-time). The environment is open plan, with baseroom areas, a small quiet room, and a well-used outdoor play area. The project was instigated following concern felt by school staff, and expressed by one of the school governors, about the number of pupils in the EYU who were experiencing language or communication difficulties/delay.

I had already been involved with the local education authority (LEA) in an action research project with the special schools aimed to enhance the diversity of pupils within the teachers’ routine confidence and confidence (Nind & Cochrane, in press). My role had been as consultant and critical friend using the approach of Intensive Interaction (Nind and Hewett, 1994; 2001) as a vehicle for reflection, collaborative problem-solving and skills and confidence boosting. Intensive Interaction makes use of the nurturing style of interaction in caregiver-infant interaction found to be associated with communication, social and other development, to inform the communication style of teachers working with pre-verbal learners, usually with severe and complex learning difficulties.

Intensive Interaction can be seen as an inclusive approach, utilising a model of ‘good teaching for all’ at the earliest stages of development (Nind & Cochrane, in press). The interactive principles and transactional model were seen as equally relevant for the mainstream early years environment. The staff in the EYU were already comfortable with working in a collaborative problem-solving framework and were keen to use an action research model to enhance their practice. They are proud for themselves and the school to be named in the dissemination of the project to others. The anonymity of individual children is protected.

Aims of the project

The aims of the project were initially negotiated by the LEA adviser, headteacher, governor, SENCO, head of the early years unit and myself. They were then presented to the staff of the Early Years Unit to shape as follows:

To enhance the communication abilities of the pupils by: enhancing our understanding and provision of the best possible communicative/

interactive environments for their learning working together to think about ideas and practice – creating space to reflect trying things out in a supportive and reflective environment.

The approach was outlined in terms of:

2

an ‘action research’ project, where we reflect, plan, do, reflect again, plan again and so on. Much of what will happen, therefore, cannot be specified at this stage. This makes it both uncertain and exciting. This initiative is not imposed on you with a closed agenda - You can drive it and make it what you want it to be.

My role and expectations as the outside consultant were also made explicit:

I would see myself as a human resource for the project. I would see this, not as working directly with pupils to remediate their difficulties, but in working with you to enhance your power as communication partners and teachers.

My expertise is as a teacher and researcher focused on the earliest stages of communication and social development. I will be contributing to our thinking through together of the problems and of things to try to take us forward. This might take the form of asking questions which help you reflect, answering questions based on my previous experience, bringing in ideas from the journals and other schools, making observations, and helping in the development and evaluation of strategies. I will not have all the answers!

My experience of working with the special schools in the area had taught me that I had to act as a catalyst and then hold back to enable the school staff to own the agenda and to drive the action. The experienced school staff knew the importance of preparation. We were, therefore, careful to invest time in the interpersonal relationships that would hold the project together from the start. It was important that staff should feel comfortable having me around and that I should get a feel for the children and for the working practices of the unit if we were to have a shared understanding of the project and a shared investment in making it work.

Shaping the agenda and approach

The first phase of the project involved us in negotiating on our agenda and approach. My questions going into the project were:

What do we want to improve? How will we get there? What do we need to find out? What do we need to do? How will we know when we get there? How do we sustain this? How do we share this?

Questions and comments from team members were pragmatic and not that different:

What will actually happen? Will we focus on whole classes or on individual children? How will parents be involved? Why are there more language problems now than before? How can we improve our practice? If we are doing good work it would re-energize us to be told so!

3

These formed the basis for discussion from which an agreed direction emerged:

i. We would concentrate on the social and communication environment for all the children in the EYU and not on individual children and their ‘deficits’. This was important both to the school ethos and to my approach. A key part of the environment was seen to be the communication partners within it, that is, the adults and the other children. We were guided by a transactional perspective in which we recognized the bi-directional influences in communication. We understood that just as the adults’ communication and interaction behaviour was influenced by the children, the adults had the potential to influence the children’s communication and interaction behaviour by altering their own communication style. It was here that we saw the potential to intervene (as demonstrated by Mirenda and Donellan, 1986; Sadler and Mogford-Bevan, 1997; and Nind, Kellett and Hopkins, 2001).

ii. This would be an ongoing project and not a quick fix. We were not looking for miracle pedagogies or inStevet solutions but to changes in practice that could be sustained.

iii. Through discussion, reading and observation we would clarify our thinking on what constitutes a good, rich, facilitative communication environment. This would be informed by literature on the foundations of communication learning in caregiver-infant interaction (e.g. Kaye and Charney, 1981; Moerk, 1992; Papousek, 1995) and by literature on good practice in the early years (e.g. Pugh, 1996; Anning, 1998; Early Childhood Forum, 1998).

iv. Through structured observation we would evaluate the current environment against this model. This was to be a constructive process conducted in a way that was not judgmental. Moving towards an ideal model was seen as a useful process, with the journey as important as the destination.

v. Using an action research model we would identify areas for action, and trial and evaluate areas of action or change. We would also identify, celebrate and enhance aspects of good practice already evident.

vi. I would act as an enabler, a stimulus and a ‘critical friend’ (Kemmis, 1982). I would carry out structured and unstructured observations and offer a different perspective on what was familiar to the EYU team.

vii. The challenge of involving parents in the project was enormous. School staff were concerned that the home environment for many of the children was not the rich communication learning environment described in much of the literature. We decided that in the early stages parents would be kept informed and drawn in where possible, but that the initial focus would be that which was within our sphere of influence - the school environment and the communications within it. There was always some discomfort with not having a more ambitious agenda of partnership with parents.

4

Phase one: Data collection and reflection

Unstructured observation

Observation and discussion were our key tools from the outset. The pressure on staff time from the everyday practice of their work meant that time to step back, look, think and talk were highly valued. I spent a first day observing the EYU in action, appreciating the pressures and realities of this real-life context. From this I was able to reflect back another perspective on everyday practice.

My first impressions were that this was a lively, child-centred environment with much activity and energy. With so many children and so much activity it was highly stimulating on the senses. Nonetheless, it felt purposeful and not frenzied. Staff were calm and sometimes playful; there was no shouting and plenty of negotiating and discussing. The communication learning opportunities appeared to be extensive.

There were three types of session across the children’s school day. One was baseroom whole group time in which the children divided into their three base groups for a session led by the teacher. The content of these sessions varied but they each involved rehearsing some of the competences of being a pupil: sitting still, looking towards the front, listening, putting up a hand to speak, taking turns. The next type of session was free play in which the children mixed and were given considerable autonomy to choose their activity, location, playmates, and even when to pause for a drink and snack. This took the bulk of the time. Within this context there occurred the third type of session - small group or individual teaching and assessment in which children might be encouraged to draw and talk about their pictures, play a basic board game and so on.

Reflecting on the unstructured observation

This looked like the kind of learning environment an EYU should be providing. Much of what I saw endorsed what the team were trying to do. It was undoubtedly a rich context for early learning but was it a rich context for early language learning? A child could experience a range of communications with a range of communication partners but could they also avoid such communications?

Structured observation

We needed more structured observations to gather data to answer this question. In the unstructured, child-led time it was impossible to monitor all of the children but we agreed that I should observe

a) a series of child-child and child-adult communicationsb) one child for a whole session attempting to record all their communicative

exchanges.

5

To assist reflection and discussion the transcripts were transcribed and analysed for: adult or child agenda; open or closed questions; responses and directives; turnabouts; function and content.

Outside stimulus

Although the focus of the project was the practice within the EYU, we did not want to become too inward looking. Part of my role was to stimulate reflection by injecting ideas from other research projects and good practice. This took the form of leaving material with the EYU staff, suggesting texts to buy and providing them with accessible summaries of research papers (see Appendix X for an example). Practitioners at the chalkface often do not have time to engage with literature and keep up with research (Nind, 1997) and the accessible summaries were a way of bringing these into the project. There was also an expectation that anyone who came across any material of use should share it, and without pressure to do so, this happened very informally. Some of the accessible summaries of relevant research informed our discussions and proved to be invaluable stimuli for reflection and action.

Reflection and discussion

The combination of unstructured and structured observation, reading and heightened awareness of the issues gave rise to two key discussion points. Firstly, what would an optimum communication/language learning environment look like? Secondly, how did this environment match up?

What did we know about optimum communication learning environments from our knowledge of communication in the earliest stages and in home settings? What did we know about optimum communication learning environments from our knowledge of good early years practice? How could we combine these into an optimum model for us to work towards? This focus enabled a reciprocal sharing of expertise and a shared task of creating a picture of what we wanted to work towards.

The outcome can be summarised as:

Play that is child initiated, child maintained, mutually pleasurable and has familiar routines based on joint attention and turn-taking. Play that involves props to aid understanding and adults modeling, guiding, questioning, reminding.

Opportunities for children to talk to adults, peers, small and large groups and to use different types of communication.

Adult speech characterized by a conversation-eliciting style (Ogilvy et al, 1992): Speech that is slower than adult-adult speech, with simple sentence construction and vocabulary. Frequent open questions, with rising intonation and expectant pause. Modeling of appropriate speaking and listening. Lots of repetition, melodic intonation, exaggerated pitch and rhythm, and dialogue about activities, feelings, surroundings, and most importantly the child’s or a joint focus of interest. Short

6

speaking turns that do not attempt to direct the child’s response and that are not over-loaded with information.

An interactive style that is relaxed and child oriented, responsive rather than directive, sensitive to possible initiations and intentions and well matched with the child’s developmental level, learning style and interests. Use of eye contact, physical positioning, body language, facial expression, touch and children’s names to gain and hold their attention. Providing thinking time and giving positive responses whether or not answers are ‘correct’. Attempting to use children’s first language and checking their understanding, tuning in to individuals’ idiosyncratic communications.

We began an ongoing evaluation of the communications within the EYU in the light of our good practice model. A question arising from the data collected from the observation was whether the balance of time spent in adult-directed baseroom activities and child-directed free play provided the optimum communication environment. Related to this was the question of whether the communication styles in each should be so contrasting. In the free play sessions the communications were mostly child-led, following a child-agenda but influenced by the adult’s choice of materials and occasional prompt or intervention. In the baseroom sessions, in contrast, many of the communications were adult-led, often following an adult-agenda at the adult’s tempo. The children’s role here was often passive and the adult’s role was largely managerial.

The stimulus of other studies helped us to focus on the appropriateness of this. Hughes and Westgate (1997) looked at whether having a range of adults in early years classrooms resulted in the desired range of talk styles, but found an over-emphasis on ‘teacherly’ styles across roles. The teacherly role involved the adult in controlling and dominating the discourse, initiating and evaluating the pupil’s response in an initiation-response-evaluation format. This was typical of the baseroom sessions whichever adult led them.

Ogilvy et al (1992) discuss the relative merits of a directive or conversation-eliciting interaction style noting that the directive style can inhibit linguistic and intellectual development and limits the children’s opportunities to make contributions. A more controlling style has been repeatedly found to characterize parents’ (Hanzlik and Stephenson, 1986; Marfo, 1990) and teachers’ (Brophy & Hancock, 1985) interactions with children with special needs and Ogilvy et al found this was also the case with Asian compared to Scottish children in a Scottish nursery. We became conscious of a more directive style in the EYU both when the children were unresponsive communication partners and when staff were managing large groups.

An excerpt from the transcript of a teaching session involving Julia (reception teacher) and Mark (a child who spoke at home but rarely in school) illustrates the first scenario:

7

MARK activity adult communication

child communication

Julie & Mark at table with play-mobil kitchen.Mid free play pm

Looking at pieces together

Start looking through leaflet

J points to picturePuts blue box on dresserHolds up knifeOther child who’s joined us goes to answer

J: what goes in there?Is there a little blue box?You look in there I’ll look in hereI can’t see a blue boxIs it in there?We’ve got the castle one haven’t weWhat do you put in a kitchen?Its there, so it sits on thereWhat’s this?It’s a (pregnant pause)Let Mark say it

Looks at J, no attempt to answer

Shrugs shoulders

Looks at J, no attempt to answer

The idea of the session is to use the play materials to stimulate language and imagination, but when Mark does not play his part as communication partner Julia does his talking for him in a one-sided dialogue. She works harder and harder but her questions are contrived and she leaves few natural pauses and little developmental space. Shutting down communications with children when there are communication difficulties led to breakdown in reciprocal communication in Ogilvy et al’s study and this was something we were seeking to avoid. The challenge of how to communicate with non-communicating children was one the EYU staff were familiar with, but for which they had few ideas or answers. The Intensive Interaction approach and the research it is founded on illuminates helpful ways to understand and respond to this challenge. Before children can be effective communication partners they need to learn and rehearse what communication involves. We can help by structuring proto-conversations in which turns of a kind are created by our leaving pauses and treating behaviours as if they are communicative turns. Bombarding the child with more of our activity is far less effective than holding back whilst being available and ready to be responsive (Nind and hewett, 2001).

The following excerpt illustrates a similar adult-domination but in the second scenario of a large nursery group. This is a ‘show and tell’ session in which the intention is that the children lead. The children take it in turns to come to the front to talk about a toy they have brought in from home. Cathy, the teacher begins with a relaxed open question but none of her questions follow on from the child’s responses. She has over 20 children to manage making a contribution and she remains firmly in control of the direction of the

8

dialogue. The contingent responding of our ideal model was not achieved in this example.

Cathy: What have you got here? Steve: Max O’Steele.Cathy: What does he do?Steve: (Demonstrates by activating his voice, murmur of interest from the other

children, but Cathy moves on.)Cathy: Do his arms move?Steve: (demonstrates)Cathy: And where did you get this from?Steve: For my birthday.Cathy: Where does he live at home?Steve: In my toy box.

Observations and discuss also led us to reflect on the limited opportunities for more small group work in which both adult and child could adopt different communication styles. Again the research summaries stimulated self-evaluation. Cicognani and Zani (1992) had explored teacher-children interaction in a nursery school (and related literature) and found that the way in which an early years environment is organized influences the quality of teacher talk and in turn children’s language development. It was highly pertinent to our project that Cicognani and Zani (1992) highlighted a difference between establishments focusing on institutional needs and those focusing on children’s needs. In the former teachers’ language tends toward closed questions and guiding children’s behaviour, which does not stimulate children to spontaneously initiate an interaction, whilst in the latter teachers’ language tends toward a more responsive style, allowing for children’s free participation. Moreover, their study raised our awareness that when talking to a group teachers use a more directive style and the bigger the group the poorer the linguistic input and the greater the concern to keep to pre-set themes. With bigger groups children’s communicative intentions are also more likely to escape the teacher (Cicognani and Zani, 1992). In a big EYU with large numbers of children the scene was set for unresponsiveness despite efforts to create a child-focused environment. The extent to which large group work was helpful for communication and language learning was put into question.

Possibilities for action included amending the teachers’ interaction style in large groups and/or amending the proportion of time spent in the large groups. To try to understand whether the balance between teacher-led large group time and child-led free play time was as good as it might be we also needed to scrutinize the latter some more. We needed to know whether the children acted as good communication partners for each other and what the adult-child communications were like in this informal context. What communication learning opportunities did the free play provide and what were the implications for the organization of the day?

9

The excerpt below is taken from a transcript of the children’s communication in the dressing up and play shop area.

NATHAN activity adult communication

child communication

Near end of free-play pm.In dressing up corner

N is wearing batman costume

Dances around enjoying costume and comes across till on shop counter.Plays as if has customers.Another child, Sue comes to the shop counter

Another child, Debra arrives.

(to self) Batman kills jokers. If you press my shoulder I disappear. Press my belt, I’m human again.I got money.Do you want to buy something. You want that okay. That makes 50 dollars.S: what you doing there Batman?N: I’m making shopsS: I know you’re Batman but you don’t get Batman in Co-ops.N: It kills joker thing. You can be Robin.S: No I’m staying Sue.N: I got Robin costume at home. You can be Batgirl.S: No I don’t want to.M: Debra, you wanna buy?S: Me and Debra can buy that, both of us.

Nathan is not one of the children for whom there is concern about language development. His play is full of egocentric and imaginative language. His interactions with his peers focus on a joint agenda with good responsiveness. Other children are less communicative and I found Vincent often on the edge of child-child communications as in the following example.

activity adult communication

child communication

Mid free-play pm, Vincent joins the water-play area.

T sheds coat and puts on apronPresents his shirt cuffs to me

Joins R and 2 other boys in water-playOther children immersed in imaginative dialogue about a shower coming down as they

Me: What do you want me to do?Me: Undo them?

V: Can you do this for me (to me)V: No responseV: NodsV: Get me some water (to boys)

10

pour, V is on edge of their play.Looks at meAnother child approaches & greets, V doesn’t respond.Second child puts face in V’sOthers chatting quietly to each other in imaginative play as they walk plastic elephants around water’s edge. V plays apart, occasional glances at others.Haydn splashes and jiggles V’s elephants

Playful pushing and pulling of elephants

Me: Is the water cold?

Me: Can you un-mess them?

V: SmilesCh: hello Vince

Ch: helloV: smiles

H: you won’t get wet will you VinceV: yeahV: (to me) Haydn messed my elephants up

V: Know what HaydnKnow what RichieThis is a swimming pool.

Vincent does not have well-developed strategies for involving himself with the other children’s conversation and he seems to lack confidence. Nonetheless the relaxed, informal situation gives him plenty of time and scope to gradually get involved. The other children adapt their communications to involve him, one putting his face in Vincent’s to emphasize that a response to his greeting is required, another using physical play rather than language to involve Vincent. Eventually Vincent relaxes into the style of language of the other boys.

Another feature of this and many of the transcripts collected is that a near-by adult is often drawn in to the play or conversation – often as a helper or problem-solver. This highlighted for the EYU staff the power of quiet proximity. Without a task or conversation agenda the body language of the observer is very undemanding. Children are unpressured by this and often want to draw the adult in. The Intensive Interaction approach, based on an optimal model of caregiver-infant interaction, makes use of this adult proximity and pause – the need to hold back our behaviour and language to engage the active involvement of the child. EYU staff rarely took the time to sit closely and observe and so were not attuned to these benefits. The whole issue of the relationship between activities or type and amount of play equipment and the quality of communicative exchanges was under review.

The following excerpt was one of many that highlighted for us how much conversation was about finding materials.

activity adult communication

child communication

first free play of pmDragons

T cutting out pictures from birthdays cards and sticking on paperCutting out

I’m making a door (to nearby child – no response)I can draw on sellotape (to self)

11

room craft area

Colouring felt pen on sellotape

Cutting a fringe

Walks off to ask for tape, stops and shows older child her picture

Looks for scissors and findsPursues activity in silence Other child pulls off tapeT pushes Crystal away

Crystal goes off with tapeT goes in search of Crystal and tape

Me: Maybe Anne-Marie will know where to get more

AM: Sorry I was a long time, I went to the office but I couldn’t find any. I’ll put it here. M: Debra’s got some

There aint no more sellotape (to air)Will you look after my picture? (to Me) I’m making tassels.

Where are the scissors?No, here.Crystal, you’re wasting it (whine)Oh Crystal (exasperated)She’s taking it (to me)C: I need some sellotapeS: Crystal, where have you gone (to air)

One can argue that such contexts teach the children about some of the functions of language, but we were concerned that the impact of the lack of materials was restricting the richness of dialogue. Another concern was that the demands felt by staff to be managing multiple agenda and requests for attention meant that they were not as responsive in their communication style as they might be. Caroline, head of the EYU was not surprised but nonetheless concerned by the lack of pauses, open questions or other aspects of a conversation-eliciting style in the next extract.

activity adult communication

child communication

free play of pmMon 5 Feb

Finishes picture and hovers near teacher, CarolineC looks up

Distracted by computer noise, turns away to ask for it to be quietened

T goes in search of hole punch

They hole punch together, attending to task more than each other.

Looks up questioningly.T goes off with picture.

C: bring it round here, let me see

That’s lovely isn’t it. You could make a handle to hang it up, like we did to that one over there.

Do you know how it works (no pause). You really want the holes in the middle don’t you (no pause). Slide it in and I’ll push it. That’s it. Do you want more holes? Your mum can hang it up.

Caroline

Is this the thing?

12

The child-child communications were influenced by the culture of the EYU. The staff had a clear policy never to shout but always to talk through clashes and arguments. They modeled negotiating and articulated EYU rules on a frequent basis. In a structured observation in which I attempted to record all the communications of one child, Kieron, it was evident that this was concern with talking through good behaviour was pervasive. Analysis showed that of 58 child-communications 64% were about rules in some way. 29% of his communications were negotiating rules (I want to have a turn), 35% reporting rule breaking (I said excuse me please and he said no) or rule adherence (he said can I have it and I give it), 19% of communications had functions related to playing (this have to be a smoke, this have to be a fire) and 12 % showing (this is smoke, look). The amount of reporting of rule behaviour that went on was undoubtedly distorted by his always having an adult nearby (observing him) to report to! In shadowing Kieron, I also recorded 49 adult-child communications. Of these, 30% were negotiating rules (oh you want a turn, what do you think Brian?), 20% responding (what ones love?), 20% achievement oriented (do you think that’ll be big enough?) and only 8% directives (its time to tidy up). This implied that, as we had expected, the ratio of responsive to directive adult language was very different in the free play and teacher-led sessions.

There was one major exception to this, however, in the form of a large group baseroom news sharing activity. This was a largely unplanned and spontaneous end of the afternoon session in which the children came to the front and reported on what they had been doing that afternoon before choosing their successor. The immediacy of the subject matter helped to make conversation flow and the power to choose who had the next turn was highly motivating. The following extracts from the transcript show how the teacher, Julia, resisted dominating and how, even in very short turns, the children successfully involved their peers. The agenda is usually a child or joint agenda and there is plenty of affirmation, support and responsiveness. The children in this session are learning about different uses of language and about their power as communicators to a large group.

What said, by whom

Type of contribution & function

Topic of conversation

Julie’s classShow & tell news timeend of p.m.

Child agenda (CA)Adult agenda (AA)Joint topic (J)

Ch: I been outside playing with Toby and Matthew. What was it again we were playing with, them things, the window cleaners.Teacher: Mmm, are you going to choose someone to swop with?Ch: No, I aint finished. I was with a boy and with Colin and Steve and when it was tidy up time I quickly got that time thing.T: Was that the sand timer?Ch: Yeah, were we quick yeah.T: Mmm. Have you finished telling your news?

Information giving

Involving others

Supporting; moving onClosed QuestionRespondingInformation giving

Clarifying; aiding vocabResponding, Involving othersResponing, moving on Closed Question

CA

AA

CA

J

13

Ch: Yeah, I choose BuddyBuddy: I been playing with… lists half a dozen names. [Pauses – hands go up from children wanting next turn; shakes head at several children, exaggerated expression to show difficulty choosing]VincentTeacher: So many to choose from. Okay Vincent, tell them your news.Vincent: I was sticking.I choose , er, Geoff.T: Thank you Vincent.[…]H: Yeah. I been… Geoff is talking. I been doing making a fire engine. A big one. Build and build and then Darren had a good idea. Put 2 wheels like… like… and attach them like.T: That was a big word you used then, attach. I bet if you asked them they wouldn’t know what that means.H: What does attach mean?[Hands go up]DarrenDarren: It means get lostH: No. SidSid: It means put together.

Responding, Info givingInfo giving

Involving others

Info giving

Affirming

Responding, Info giving

Responding, Praising

ElaboratingInvolving others, Open questionChoosingRespondingResponding. Choosing

J

J

CA

CA

J

JJ

JJ

Our enjoyment of the richness of the communication in this session was reinforced by our reading of Danielwicz, Rogers& Noblit’s (1996) study of children’s discourse patterns and power relations in teacher-led and child-led sharing time. Danielwicz et al looked at the language development opportunities offered by the common early years/ primary practice of sharing time/ show and tell. They analyzed one teacher’s sharing time as it evolved from a teacher-led to a child-led format. We could make connections with the description of traditional sharing time in which the teacher guides the children’s thinking and talk, keeping the children on task to her agenda and the children speak the language of school modeled by the teacher, responding to the her script and sometimes even speaking the words she insists upon. The meaningfulness of the speech is this context is limited. When the children in the Danielwicz et al study led the sharing time they retained some of the teacher’s ground rules, but introduced a new role for the sharer of not just choosing the topic, but also facilitating the group’s participation. They used language for social relationships and achieved greater participation and more collaborative dialogue than the teacher had They practiced getting and holding the floor, telling stories, playing with language (there were echoes of this in our session), hearing each other’s perspectives. The talk in this context was meaningful. The summary of this research, together with the transcript of the successful sharing time, acted a stimulus to for us to ask what role the teacher should adopt during sharing time and what would happen if we experimented with more child-led sharing time.

14

Phase Two: exploratory action

The outcome of the discussion of our ‘data’ was a range of actions to try out. These came from the EYU staff based on what they felt could and should be attempted in enhancing the communication learning environment. The actions included:

Action RationaleIncreased use of small group time To offer communication styles between the

managerial adult-led and the free child-led.To allow children more varied opportunities to communicate.To enhance the support for communication for children who were unable or unwilling to communicate in other contexts.To create opportunities for task-free time dedicated to quality communication and interaction.

Observation and review of which activities have communications closest to the optimum model

To gain a better understanding of the optimal communication learning environment in this real life context. To achieve a good balance of activities for communication and other learning.

Introduce more use of child-led ‘show and tell’ and sharing time. Create opportunities for communication about things that are very familiar/ from home culture e.g. comics, action man.

To provide very safe topics as vehicles for rehearsing communication skills.To make connections with the language of home.To change the dynamics of the large group baseroom sessions so not always adult-led and child-passive.

Structured observation of each other and sharing of critical feedback.

To give the EYU staff direct experience of observing communications within the unit. To help each other work towards the optimum model. To foster further insights from further observations.

Continuing reflection and discussion. To maintain the action research cycle.

15

Phase Three: Evaluation of actions, reflection and planning again

After a term [check] of action I returned to ask what had changed in the EYU. The following changes were reported:

a) More opportunities had been created for small group work e.g. smaller circle times, small group outings, more use of the small quiet room.

b) All classes were using child-led ‘show and tell’/ sharing time sessions.c) Practical things had been done to eliminate the need for lots of interruptions and

basic communications of needs for equipment (they had ordered more sellotape!!).

d) They were more likely to engage in a conscious process of decision-making when there were competing agendas and interruptions. Sometimes they prioritized the quality of the communication over other needs.

e) They had carried out observations of adult-child dialogue

To evaluate these changes we had to reflect on whether they had enhanced practice. All staff enthused about the greater effectiveness of the smaller groups where the less communicative children were now talking. This had an accumulative effect in encouraging them to seek more opportunities for this. The need for quality language sessions in which the adult could respond to the communications of a small group had become increasing apparent and they were pursuing the need for more staff.

On a less positive note staff were still frustrated by how much conversation was getting interrupted as they played multiple, simultaneous roles (conversation partner, rule negotiator, keeping children on track, supplying equipment needs). They feel they had improved things with this a little by managing equipment availability and by being aware of the decisions they made about who or what to prioritize. Conducting the observations of each other had made them acutely aware of the problems with this. The observations had also indicated that outdoor play seemed to support particularly rich and child-led language.

The child-led ‘show and tell’/ sharing time sessions were also felt to have led to much more child language in the baseroom sessions. Staff reported that children with English as an additional language were taking turns in this and using all kinds of communication strategies to get their meaning across. Mark, a child whose reluctance to talk had caused considerable concern was taking his turn to tell his peers about things and to answer questions. The staff themselves reported that they were more aware of the need to mediate but not dominate these sessions.

I went back to observe some of these sessions. I saw the challenge for the youngest children in going to the front to talk and the importance of teacher, Cathy’s, close presence and warm body language in supporting their turns. I saw with the youngest children some use of imaginative language:

16

Theresa: (holding her doll brought in from home) She cries. Like going to the doctor. She’s got a headache. I kiss her.

Cathy: What’s your baby’s name? (this is a baby – not a dolly – is this Cathy joining the imaginative world Theresa has created?)

Moving on to observe a reception class session I found both a richness in the language and interaction and a multitude of questions I wanted to ask to continue to feed the reflective process. In my field diary I noted the ritual for the activity which is so important to human interaction and some of the dialogue:

The children’s things brought in from home for showing have already been gathered. The children are seated on the carpet and the teacher’s chair is vacant – Caroline is on the floor with the children. There is an atmosphere of anticipation that makes the children bubbly so establishing quiet before they begin takes a little while. Caroline chooses Benjamin to begin because of how helpful he has been – this is a privilege. She reminds them of the rules, when someone is speaking they must listen carefully, the person on the chair talking can choose two people to ask questions and is responsible for selecting the next person for the hand over of roles.

Benjamin takes the chair and begins:I got these two and I try to go and I put this on the floor and I got a taxi (holds up toy taxi) and I choose Charlie.

(His language is rushed and not easy to follow, but he is enjoying leading. He is concerned with the ritual.)

Charlie: Can I hold it?Benjamin: Yeah (hands it over)Charlie: Do the doors open? (Benjamin demonstrates)

And the boot? (they test)And the … (they look at the bonnet but don’t have the vocabulary, Caroline helps them out).

Caroline: Bonnet, it’s a bonnet.(There is genuine shared interest here. They are huddled over the taxi and focused; it’s hard for the other children to see. The questions are answered by showing rather than explaining. I saw this a lot in the nursery session too – is it because there is a concrete object that struggling with the language isn’t necessary?)

[…](The next child in the chair is more animated and has a stronger idea of how to tell a story about his object.)

H: Do you know what, when I got lots of smiley faces my mum bought me some bubbles and this, and I’m learning to do this…

(shows bat with small ball attached by elastic, demonstrates how to keep a sequence of bounces going. Looks around at all the eager hands up – they are interested in the toy – the focus is on the things not the language – is this a good or bad thing? will lively language come out of the interest in the toys? H is concerned with the rules)

H: You two had a go… I choose KirstyKirsty takes the chair in a confident manner and begins talking immediately:

K: I got one of these from Christmas, but I’m too old for them. (She takes the toy from H and there are hushed, slightly stressed negotiations about her playing with it. J holds the audience…

K: I like to choose Sid. (Sid comes forward but doesn’t get a chance to ask

17

a question) Shall I show you what to do Sid to play with it (barely pauses and demonstrates) You just do something with this. Then you can cut that bit off (elastic) and play tennis with it. Shall I show you how it can bounce. Sid shall I show you how it bounces.

(There is lively, ‘silly’ playing until J takes her own toy out and takes the chair again.)K: This is Fizz (holds up small Tweenies doll) and she can dance. (Makes her

dance and sings in giggly manner) wibble wobble wibble wobble fizzy on a plate. (appreciates all the gigglying then resumes more seriously) I gonna choose somebody else. You had a go. S. Shall I show you (demonstrates with fizz) Turn the body like that.

(K is clearly much more confident with language. She knows it power, combined with her lively performance, to hold an audience. Yet she gives the other children little chance to speak. How can she be helped to move on with real dialogue?)

(Caroline asks one of the Turkish children to ask another Turkish child if she likes Fizz. There is a quick exchange in their home language and he reports back “she said yes”, the girl is smiling broadly. I am moved by this – the way peers are used to support each other – the way the girl is brought into the activity. Now I wonder – can this can grow into questions with more than single word answers?)

[…]Eleni: (holds doll) My cousin stayed two nights and hers played with the dollies

with me. Hers stayed another night but her had to go home. I like to choose Nikki.

(Confusion here with grammar, she doesn’t use ‘she’, it isn’t corrected, I think Caroline’s right to leave it – this isn’t the time or place.)

Ch: Nikki’s already had a go.Nikki: (whispers)Eleni: Do you want to hold it?Caroline: Remember to choose someone who hasn’t had a turn.Another ch: Where did you get it from?Eleni: My mum.Caroline: Who’s Eleni going to choose to go next. Right Eddie’s on the chair

(Caroline has kept a very low profile – her talk has not dominated at all – but now she is anxious about the time and so is intervening to move things along – this is the teacher’s need to use language to manage that we have talked about.)

[…]Evan: (in the chair) It’s a pencil and its got this on the top. You can take it off

and it’s got writing on and I can read it. I bought it in… I found it in a box of cereal.

Caroline: Do you want to ask a friend? Who do you want to choose Evan? Someone who hasn’t done any talking.

Evan: Anne-MarieAnne-Marie: What cereal did it come in?Evan: Jacket … (unsure)

(It becomes interesting here in that there is a collaborative endeavour between staff and children to clarify – offering ideas to Evan – “jacket potatoes”, “Sugarpuffs”. In the end they live with uncertainty, having established it came with cereals but not which sort.)

From the observed session in our final session together we discussed some complex issues, without necessarily finding the answers. Firstly, how does the set rule structure

18

help and how does it hinder? Does it mean that staff can speak less as the children are managing the activity for themselves – or do staff have to intervene to enforce the rules? Are the children rushing because of the pressure of handing over to the next child soon? Does the requirement of one-at-a-time interfere with natural, fluent dialogue between children? Secondly, are toys from home the best stimulus? They lead to a good deal of animation and interest, but they lead into demonstrations, holding and doing more than talking and explaining. Would this be the Side with all objects? What would happen with novel things found on a nature walk, for example, or gadgets they don’t immediately know the function of? Thirdly, what balance is needed between practice and challenge? Do the children need to ask the much used questions such as ‘where did you get it from?’ over and over before they gain the confidence to try new questions. Do they need to be able to ask a range of questions each time to build up to more complex ones? And once again, what is the adult’s role in the sessions? Part of the role is to hold back and let the children lead, but when is intervention helpful? Is there a role in modeling different kinds of questions or new vocabulary and grammatical structures or for encouraging deeper responses? It some ways it was important that we did not have the answers to all of these questions. This helped to keep everyone involved equally - all and none of use were experts. We had our good practice model as an anchor and we had our observations and our dialogue as our tools. There were more variations to try and more discussions to be had.

Further reflections

In the meeting in which we were evaluating the term’s actions I introduced the question of whether there was a need to blend in some special education practice. Our agreed approach, based on inclusive thinking, had been to work on the communication environment for all children. We had focused on giving children the best possible chance to do well without specific, individualized strategies. It was felt that the developmentally appropriate early years practice had been enhanced and that children were benefiting. I was now raising the possibility of unintrusively embedding, within the typical routines and activities, something more for children for whom there had been particular concern. (I was moved to do this having just read an excellent discussion of the differences and similarities between developmentally appropriate early years practice and early childhood special education (Atwater, Carta, Schwartz & McConell, 1994.) The response to this idea from EYU staff and SENCO was simply that it was not necessary.

The interactions of the children with more severe communication difficulties were seen as a useful indicator of how effectively the communication learning environment had been enhanced. That Mark and others had become willing and able communicators was reinforcing for staff who were feeling more effective. The importance of feelings of efficacy in maintaining reciprocity in communication/interaction is well-recognised in Intensive Interaction (Nind and Hewett, 1994) and in early caregiver-infant interaction (Goldberg, 1977). It is a lack of feelings of efficacy that contribute to a breakdown in reciprocity and ultimately to a more controlling style. The complex, transactional relationships that we know to impact on children’s development were in evidence here

19

(Guess and Sailor, 1993). The adults had altered their thinking and style, each maintaining the other, which in turn had led to children interacting and communicating differently which again informed the adults’ thinking and style and so on.

We revisited our original agenda and early concerns and asked where would we go from here? We resolved that the original plan to share what we did and learnt still felt important and that I would do this nationally and EYU staff locally. We knew that we had not tackled the issue of parent-child communication, but staff felt more ready to address this with their deeper insights. They decided to continue the project in a low key way, calling on me as and when they saw a need for a conversation.

In inclusive terms, the learning opportunities the children in Honilands EYU experienced had been altered to better match both their needs and desires. Pressures to engage in activities that were not developmentally appropriate were increasingly resisted by the staff who were willing to use models of communication learning at the earliest stages, as well as models of good early years practice, to inform their teaching. Children whose communication competence was causing concern were helped without any action to pathologize them. A ‘transformative’ rather than ‘normative’ lens (Ainscow, 1999) on their difficulties led to enhancement of the communication learning environment for all children.

In action research terms, this was a project in which talking was a crucial tool. The observations, the research summaries and the everyday experiences of the EYU staff provided the subject matter. From here conversation and action were integrally linked. As Feldman (1999, p.133) has argued conversation is not a prelude or postscript to action, conversation can lead to action, follow action or be a part of action. Feldman’s conclusion that in action research projects, however informal, conversation is a process of inquiry and meaning making was true of this project. For us the reflections on practice were every bit as important and inseparable from the activity of trying out new things.

References

Anning, A. (1998) Appropriateness or effectiveness in the early childhood curriculum in the UK: some research evidence, International Journal of Early Years Education, 6(3), 299-314.

Atwater, J.B., Carta, J.J., Schwartz, I.S. & McConnell, S.R. (1994) ‘Blending developmentally appropriate practice and early childhood special education: redefining best practice to meet the needs of all children’, in: B.L. Mallory & R.S. New (Eds) Diversity and Developmentally Appropriate Practices: Challenges for Early Childhood Education. New York: Teachers College Press.

20

Brophy, K. & Hancock, S. (1985) Adult-child interaction in an integrated preschool programme: implications for teacher training, Early Child Development and Care, 22, 275-294.

Cicognani, E. & Zani, B. (1992) Teacher-children interactions in a nursery school: an exploratory study, Language and Education, 6(1), 1-12.

Early Childhood Forum (1998) Quality in Diversity: A framework for Early Childhood Practitioners. London: NCB.

Goldberg, S. (1977) Social competence in infancy: a model of parent-infant interaction, Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 23, 163-177.

Guess, D & Sailor, W. (1993) Chaos theory and the study of human behaviour: implications for special education and developmental disabilities, The Journal of Special Education, 27(1), 16-34.

Hanzlik, J.R. and Stevenson, M.B. (1986) Interaction of mothers with their infants who are mentally retarded, retarded with cerebral palsy, or nonretarded, American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 90, 513-520.

Hughes, M. and Westgate, D. (1997) Assistants as talk partners in early-years classrooms: some issues of support and development. Educational Review, 49, 5-12.

Kaye, K. and Charney, R. (1981) ‘How mothers maintain dialogue with two year olds’. In D. Olson (Ed) Social Foundations of Language and Thought. London: Norton Press.

Kemmis, S. (1982) ‘Action research’ In T. Husen and T. Poselthwaite (eds) International Encyclopaedia of Research. Pergamon.

Mahoney, G. & Wheelden, C.A. (1999) The effect of teacher style on interactive engagement of pre-school-aged children with special learning needs, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 14(1), 51-68.

Marfo, K. (1990) Maternal directiveness in interactions with mentally handicapped children: an analytical commentary, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 31(4), 531-549.

Mirenda, P.L. and Donnellan, A.M. (1986) Effects of adult interaction style in conversational behaviour in students with severe communication problems, Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 17, 126-141.

Moerk, E.L. (1992) A First Language: Taught and Learned. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Nind, M. (1997) The potential role of teacher-researchers in in-service education, British Journal of In-Service Education, 23(2), 231-40.

21

Nind, M. & Hewett, D. (1994) Access to Communication: Developing the Basics of Communication with People with Severe Learning Difficulties through Intensive Interaction. London: David Fulton.

Nind, M. & Hewett, D. (2001) A Practical Guide to Intensive Interaction. Kidderminster: British Institute of Learning Disabilities.

Nind, M., Kellett, M. & Hopkins, V. (2001) Teachers’ talk styles: communication with learners with severe learning difficulties, Child Language, Teaching and Therapy, 17(2), 143-159.

Nind, M. & Cochrance, S. (in press) Inclusive curricula? Pupils on the margins of special schools, International Journal of Inclusive Education.

Ogilvy, C.M., Boath, E.H., Cheyne, W.M., Jahoda, G. & Schaffer, H.R. (1992) Staff-child interaction styles in multi-ethnic nursery schools, British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10, 85-97.

Papousek, M. (1995) ‘Origins of reciprocity and mutuality in prelinguistic parent-infant ‘dialogues’’. In I. Markova, C.F. Grauman and K. Foppa (eds) Mutualities in Dialogue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pugh, G. (Ed.) Contemporary Issues in the Early Years: Working Collaboratively for Children. London: Paul Chapman.

Sadler, J. and Mogford-Bevan, K. (1997) Teacher talk’ with children with language disorders: four case studies II, Child language, Teaching and Therapy, 13, 37-58.

22