european journal of psychology of education

8/10/2019 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY OF EDUCATION

1/98

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY OF EDUCATION

2005, I.S.P.A. Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada

Vol. XX, n 1 ISSN 0256-2928 March 2005

The social mediation of learning in multiethnic schools: Introduction .......................................

Guida de Abreu & Ed Elbers

Discourse and learning in a Norwegian multiethnic classroom:Developing shared understanding through classroom discourse .................................................

Lutine de Wal Pastoor

The curriculum as a tool for inclusive participation:Students voices in a case study in a Portuguese multicultural school ........................................

Margarida Csar & Isolina Oliveira

The construction of word meaning in a multicultural classroom.Mediational tools in peer collaboration during mathematics lessons ..........................................

Ed Elbers & Maritte de Haan

Learning about learning identities in the school arithmetic practice:The experience of two young minority Gypsy girls in the Greek context of education ..............

Anna Chronaki

Parents past experiences as a mediational toolfor understanding their childs current mathematical learning ....................................................

Sarah OToole & Guida de Abreu

Social representations as mediators of mathematics learning in multiethnic classrooms ...........

Nria Gorgori & Nria Planas

3

13

29

45

61

75

91

Printed by Printipo Indstrias Grficas, Lda. Damaia 2005 (Dep. Legal n 10658/85)


2/98

The ethnic diversity within schools is a major challenge foreducation in most European countries. The diversity of culturalbackgrounds of students and parents leads to new transitions, enablesnew forms of participation, and demands the creation of new concepts,values and practices. Processes of mediation have a vital place in therequired developments. The contributions to this issue study therelationship between learning and social mediation on three levels: (1)the mediating role of cultural tools, in particular language and thecurriculum, (2) the role of peers and teachers in the appropriation ofcultural tools by minority students, and (3) the mediating role of socialrepresentations in the shaping of students identities at school.

The unprecedented levels of migration in most European countries have substantially

changed the ethnic composition of the school population. This ethnic diversity within schools

poses major challenges to systems of education in many European countries. Multiethnic

schools have to respond to the social, cultural and linguistic heterogeneity of their students.

Parents, teachers and educators who often have been educated in a relatively monolingual and

homogeneous culture have to engage with the development of their youngsters in a society

that is multilingual and culturally heterogeneous. The experience of being participant in a

multicultural classroom leads to new transitions, and demands the creation of new concepts,

values and practices. The current historical conditions with increasing opportunities in travel,

media and communication technologies bring possibilities of new, enriched and more

encompassing, conceptions and practices of education. Multicultural societies enable new

trajectories of development, appropriation and identification, which call for new ways of

understanding human development (see for instance, Suarez-Orozco, 2001; Hermans &

European Journal of Psychology of Education2005, Vol. XX, n 1, 3-11 2005, I.S.P.A.

The social mediation of learning in multiethnicschools: Introduction

Guida de Abreu

Oxford Brookes University, United Kingdom

Ed Elbers

Utrecht University, The Netherlands

We are grateful to Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, Roger Slj and Tony Cline for their support and very helpfulcomments on the development of this special issue. And, we would like to thank Myriam Bell, Nria Gorgori andSarah OToole for their help with translations.


3/98


4/98

THE SOCIAL MEDIATION OF LEARNING IN MULTIETHNIC SCHOOLS 5

These representations are often so obvious for the members of a particular culture, or socialgroup, that they do not pay much attention to the sociocultural processes involved in theirre-construction by new members. In the same vein, there is very limited understanding of theway these representations mediate learning processes.

Coles classification of cultural artefacts is particularly useful, because it shows thefundamental mutual dependence of the three levels of mediation. Schools and curricula forman institutional domain, a world on its own, designed especially to prepare children for adultlife in a modern and complex society. Without the overarching frame that constitutes and

legitimises formal education, there would be no testing, instruction or homework. Classroominteractions are the flesh and blood of education, but they borrow their meaning from thesocial function given to institutional education.

The specific contributions to this issue address complementary and interrelated aspects ofsocial mediation in relation to the schooling of children in multicultural classrooms. They arenot intended to cover all dimensions and possible ways of exploring social mediation. Instead,they reflect aspects, which were deemed important by colleagues using socioculturalapproaches to address issues of teaching and learning in European countries. This includedcolleagues researching in countries with some tradition of dealing with multiethnic schools(e.g., England, Netherlands) and countries that are experiencing it as a recent social

phenomenon (e.g., Portugal, Greece, Spain, Norway). These two distinctive types of contextinfluenced the current thinking and priorities for research in minority schooling found in thesecountries. As a whole, the set of articles included in this issue explored three complementaryaspects of social mediation of learning in multiethnic schools.

The mediating role of cultural tools

The first aspect examined in the studies presented is how cultural tools mediate forms ofparticipation in schooling which may be more or less inclusive of the linguistic and culturalheritages of both the school and the students. Lutine De Wal Pastoors article explores themediational role of classroom discourses in the acquisition of Norwegian in a multiethnicclassroom. During the last few decades, the Norwegian primary school population has becomeincreasingly ethnolinguistically diverse. A considerable number of linguistic minority pupilshave to acquire Norwegian as a language for school through classroom discourse. Pastoorsresearch carried out in a multicultural third grade class of a Norwegian primary school revealsthat linguistic minority children face a considerable challenge by being simultaneously

involved in processes of learning language and learning through language. Her findingsshow that successful participation in classroom discourse not only requires linguistic andcognitive competence, but also demands cultural knowledge, which often is taken forgranted. She shows that the discrepancy between teachers implicit assumptions of what iscommon knowledge and minority pupils lacking background knowledge may impede jointmeaning construction.

Margarida Csar and Isolina Oliveira examine the curriculum as a means of reorganizingschool practice, so that it is designed to foster inclusion where there is evidence of alienationof students with minority backgrounds. They describe an action-research project where analternative curriculum was developed in a class (5th and 6th grades) in a school in Lisbon. Thecurriculum was developed by teachers in close collaboration with parents and studentsthemselves. The authors analysis documents processes of change and their impact on thelearners participation in their school practices. A large part of Csar and Oliveirascontribution reports on a follow up study, carried out after most students had left school. It

consisted of interviews which showed how much the inclusive curriculum and the interactionsbetween teachers and students it involved had re-established relations of trust betweenteachers and students and provided these young people, considered at risk during theirschool time, with a positive view on the school and academic learning. As a cultural tool the


5/98

curriculum bridged between the students home cultures and the micro-social classroomcontext where the teachers and pupils engage in school learning. It connected students valuesand knowledge from their home communities with the demands of schooling as an institutionin Portuguese society.

What these two contributions have in common is evidence of the powerful impact ofinstitutions on the creation of cultural tools which can then mediate forms of participation in

practices. Both the curriculum and particular types of classroom discourse are examples ofinstitutional tools, which provide means for practices to be orchestrated in specific ways.

Thus, particular forms of classroom discourse can facilitate the learners access to culturaltools of new communities. As Pastoor demonstrates, this access can be jointly constructed ininteractions which recognise the cultural dimensions of language. An inclusive curriculumincorporates activities specially designed to facilitate the learners access and sharing ofcultura tools from their own communities. This in turn seems to promote a reflection back tothe broader social context in the sense that school is legitimating cultural tools and associatedidentities of the community of learners it serves.

The mediating role of the other

The second aspect addressed relates to how learners from minority cultures developaccess to the cultural tools of the majority culture in the context of classroom interaction. In

the studies reported in this section mediation is explored in terms of the mediating role ofother classroom peers and of teachers in circumstances where the learner has non-nativemastery of the principal language and the culture of the school.

Ed Elbers and Maritte de Haan examine the construction of word meaning by studentsduring collaborative activities in a multicultural mathematics classroom at a Dutch primaryschool. The study was conducted in a school, where collaborative work between students wasa central pedagogic feature, and students were accustomed to working in collaborative groups.Another specific feature of the school practices was their realistic approach to mathematicseducation. This created a particular context for students talk about common Dutch wordsunfamiliar to minority students, which very often reflected a lack of familiarity with Dutchculture. Thus, in agreement with Pastoors observation in the Norwegian class, Elbers andHaans study also illustrates how institutionalised uses of language at school take forgranted students access to the wider cultural dimension of school language. One wouldexpect that clarifying these cultural meanings was crucial for the students to overcome their

language problems, but the analysis of how they tried to solve these problems revealedsomething different. In the groups with both Dutch and minority children, the Dutch childrenhelped the minority children to overcome language problems. However, the Dutch childrendid not elucidate the meaning of the unfamiliar words in broad cultural terms but gaveminimal information, which was sufficient for minority students to solve the task. Theclarification of meaning was made part of the mathematical discourse, even in groups withDutch children who potentially did have access to the wider cultural discourse. Studentsseemed to have given priority to their identity as mathematical learners. In doing so theyevoked the mathematical discourse to mediate their interactions, thus enabling the minoritystudents access to identities as mathematical learners in a Dutch school.

In the second article in this section, Anna Chronaki further shows the closeinterrelationship between appropriation of mathematical tools and development of schoolidentities within the dominant culture. She examines the processes involved in two gipsychildren gaining access to mathematics through interaction with a Greek teacher. These

children have to make a transition from home to school arithmetic. This process involveslearning to value the use of school tools and learning to participate in school practices.Chronakis study illustrates how mastering new cultural tools and entering new discourses,such as mathematical tools and discourses of the Greek school, for the minority children are

6 G. DE ABREU & E. ELBERS


6/98


two processes that are found to be closely interrelated. The teacher, by encouraging thechildren to use mental and symbolic tools instead of, for instance, relying on counting withtheir fingers, at the same time introduced them to identities valued in the Greek mathematicsclassroom. The analysis of the two contrasting case studies reveals that the student wholearned more about relevant ways of behaving in the school mathematics lesson was also thestudent who engaged more with the specific mathematical tasks. This finding suggests that thestudents engagement with the mathematical discourse of the school was mediated by aconstruction of a learning identity. The Greek teacher had a crucial role in supporting her

minority students development of these new identities. However, the fact that the twostudents followed distinct trajectories implied that forms of participation in classroommathematics are also influenced by other mediators.

Though the two papers in this section focus on one aspect of social mediation that hasbeen widely researched, that is negotiation of cultural knowledge in face-to-face interactions,they provide new insights into the learning of minority children. The article by Ed Elbers andMaritte de Haan illustrates how the composition of groups may impact on the negotiation ofmeaning of words in mathematical classrooms. In some groups, minority students couldaddress their Dutch peers to help them clarify the meaning of unfamiliar words. There werealso groups with only minority children, who had to solve their language problems withouthelp from their Dutch classmates. However, this difference did not lead to the Dutch childrenfacilitating their minority peers access to the wider cultural meanings. This is an interestingfinding considering that the Realistic Mathematics Education curriculum is underpinned by a

philosophy in which it is believed that students learning will benefit from drawing on their

everyday knowledge. The Dutch students did not use this as a principle guiding theirexplanation of meaning of words to their minority colleagues. Instead, they seem to havefocused on their identity as mathematical learners and accordingly chose the mathematicaldiscourse to communicate with their peers. Chronaki also insists on the importance of gainingaccess to identities as school mathematical learners. However, her analysis places moreimportance on the cultural conflicts this involves and the problems of access to the culturalother. In fact, she argues that in her study the childrens motivation to engage in mathematical

practices was sustained by their interest in the Greek culture and the teachers wish to explorethe childrens culture. Chronaki further shows that in spite of this level of engagement one ofthe girls she studied found it difficult to assume the identity required from her as amathematical learner at school. She suggests that these difficulties might reflect the limits thatexist within the system of the school culture in shaping relevant contexts for interaction andlearning as far as the ethnic minority children are concerned.

The mediating role of social representations

The articles in the next section offer a contribution to exploring mediation at the interfaceof systems. They do so by examining ways in which representations of home culture mediatelearning of the school culture. We use the expression social representations to incorporatethe meanings, values, norms, beliefs, which colour the way a person or group makes sense ofcultural practices and cultural tools.

Rather than focussing on face-to-face interactions, Sarah OToole and Guida de Abreuexamine the mediating role of representations. In their article, these authors seek to understandthe ways in which parents draw on their own past experiences as a mediational tool forunderstanding and influencing their childs current school learning. This article is based oninterviews with parents of children in three multiethnic primary schools situated in a small

industrial town in the South East of England. Many of these parents had their education in adifferent country or under circumstances which differ considerably from the school of theirchildren. Focussing on the parents past experiences combined with their expectations for thechilds future, the authors examined how these representations mediated the parents reactions


7/98

to their childs school career and to the school. Some of these reactions are based on thedesirability to reproduce their own experiences in their childrens education (which the authorscall internalisation), other reactions are rooted in parents wishes to create experiences for theirchildren which differ from their own (externalisation). When the representation is used as ameans of internalisation, its main function is the reproduction of culture. On the other hand,when the representation is used as a means of externalisation, it is based on a vision of animagined world one is trying to make possible. The authors propose that two concepts may beuseful for this level of analysis. The first is the concept of heterochronicity, which looks at the

partially overlapping histories of the individual and society (Beach, 1995, 1999). The second isthe concept of prolepsis whereby the imagined future mediates and constrains the world of the

present (Cole, 1995). OToole and Abreu suggest that viewing representations through theselenses seem particularly relevant to exploring situations where minority parents culturalhistories may not overlap or overlap only partially with the mainstream culture.

N ri a Go rg or i an d N ri a Pl an as al so ex am in e th e me di at in g ro le of so ci alrepresentations. Drawing on empirical research carried out in three classrooms in urban high-schools in Barcelona, Spain, with students aged 15-16 years, they argue that the breakdown incommunication of minority students in multiethnic classrooms is mediated by representationsand identities students bring with them to school. These representations influence the waystudents make sense (or fail to make sense) of the mathematical practices and the norms forworking in the classroom. The authors examine how norms for participation regulatinginteractions in a mathematics classroom influence the transition process of immigrant studentsto the point of non-participation. These norms, intended to promote student participation,

sometimes lead to conflicts between minority students identities in different social contexts.When these conflicts are not positively solved, they may inhibit students participation andlead to exclusion. The authors original contribution resides in analysing how the widersociocultural background of the participants also mediates learning at the level of classroominteractions. They illustrate complementary layers of social mediation, showing that not onlyis the students construction of mathematical knowledge mediated by social processes in theclassroom, but also that the students perception of the immediate context is affected by theidentities they want to develop.

The two articles in this section together illustrate how social representations which aresimultaneously linked to past histories, experiences in the present and the imagined futuremediate minority childrens school learning. Both articles address issues related to the impactof the learners history and practices outside school on their school learning. In particular, theyillustrate that the way people draw on these representations to mediate participation inschooling practices is not a one-way or a purely reproductive process. For instance, breakdowns

in communication, as illustrated by Gorgori and Planas, are not an automatic product of therepresentations the minority ethnic children brought from their home culture, but they are alsoa response to asymmetrical social interactions, which they experienced as devaluing theirways of knowing and being. In addition, OToole and Abreus study illustrates that the waythe representations of the past are articulated to respond to new situations involves imaginedfutures. The social representations originated in the home context amount to a repertoire ofresources, which participants can borrow from for creating their reactions to the dominantculture and shaping their relationships with its institutions and representatives. There is a closeconnection between the use of cultural tools and processes of identity and identity development.

Some conclusions

Overall we see the major contribution of this issue to be the analysis of social mediationin multiethnic schools in terms of: (1) the innovation and the creation of new cultural tools; (2)the close association between processes of appropriation and development of cultural toolsand processes of identification.



8/98


Several examples of the need for innovation and development of new cultural tools werepresented in this issue. The diversity of languages and cultural backgrounds in a multiethnicclassroom requires that the dialogic function of discourse is reinforced, as Pastoor argues.Participating in dialogues will allow minority students a voice in the process of knowledgeconstruction. One example is the research in the Netherlands (see Elbers & Haan, this issue):the linguistic diversity in the classroom demands that native Dutch students help theirclassmates who do not speak Dutch as their first language to solve word problems. This is acompletely new challenge and task for the Dutch students, which challenges them to create

forms of interaction which were hitherto unfamiliar to them. Another example is the study byGorgori and Planas. We can see in their study that the teachers participated voluntarily andwere sensitive towards inclusion and equity issues. This, however, was not sufficient to helpthem orchestrate practices which prevented minority students experiencing breakdowns incommunication. The challenge would be to develop forms of interaction which are based onmutual assistance without bringing the minority children into a subordinate position (Elbers &Haan, 2004). Teachers, of course, should intervene and assist children to develop these newforms of interaction. Researchers can also be key players in this process by workingcollaboratively with educators in the design of new teaching environments and examining theimpact of this on the learning and development of students.

The second major contribution of this special issue is the examination of the closerelationships between processes of appropriation and development of cultural tools and

processes of identification. To some extent all the articles explore facets of these relationships.They show minority students and parents strategies to cope with the problem of accessing

the cultural meanings involved in the school practices. These transition processes lead totensions and conflicts because of the diverse cultural contexts of the participants and theirrelated identities. The connection between learning and identity development is especiallyexplored in the articles by Chronaki, Csar and Oliveira, OToole and Abreu, and Gorgoriand Planas. These authors explicitly address how participation in schooling practices of thehost culture is a developmental process in which the way learners engage with theconstruction of new cultural tools is associated with negotiation and construction of identities.Moreover, these papers illustrate that forms of engagement are socially mediated by culturaltools (such as the curriculum) and by significant others, such as parents and teachers. Thelongitudinal and interventional focus followed by Chronaki and by Cesar and Oliveira clearlyillustrated that sustaining engagement with the school practices over time is a complex issue.

To conclude, globalisation and migration processes lead to completely new socialcircumstances and challenges in multiethnic classrooms. Existing social and cultural tools areinsufficient and have to be adapted. The emergence of a multicultural society asks forcreativity and the development of new concepts, values and practices. Of course, these buildon those that already exist which, however, have to be adapted to allow people to cope withthe new circumstances. Processes of social mediation play a key role in the requireddevelopmens, but as illustrated in the six articles, the current scientific understanding of howthese processes operate is still limited. Some directions both theoretical and methodologicalare offered in the six studies examined. No doubt, there is urgency for further research andgreater collaboration in this area.

References

Abreu, G. de (1999). Learning mathematics in and outside school: Two views on situated learning. In J. Bliss, R. Slj,

& P. Light (Eds.), Learning sites: Social and technological resources for learning(pp. 17-31). Oxford: Elsevier

Science.

Abreu, G. de (2000). Relationships between macro and micro socio-cultural contexts: Implications for the study ofinteractions in the mathematics classroom.Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41(1), 1-29.

Abreu, G. de, & Cline, T. (2003). Schooled mathematics and cultural knowledge.Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 11(1),

11-30.


9/98

Beach, K. (1995). Sociocultural change, activity and individual development: Some methodological aspects. Mind,

Culture and Activity, 2(4), 277-284.

Beach, K. (1999). Consequential transitions: A sociocultural expedition beyond transfer in education. Review of

Research in Education, 24, 101-139.

Cole, M. (1995). Culture and cognitive development: From cross-cultural research to creating systems of cultural

mediation. Culture & Psychology, 1, 25-54.

Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Elbers, E., & Haan, M. de (2004). Dialogic learning in the multi-ethnic classroom. Cultural resources and modes of

collaboration. In J. Van der Linden & P. Renshaw (Eds.), Dialogical perspectives on learning, teaching and

instruction (pp. 17-43). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Elbers, E., Maier, R., Hoekstra, T., & Hoogsteder, M. (1992). Internalization and adult-child interaction. Learning and

Instruction, 2, 101-118.

Hermans, H.J.M., & Kempen, H.J.G. (1998). Moving cultures: The perilous problems of cultural dichotomies in a

globalised society.American Psychologist, 53(10), 1111-1120.

Nunes, T. (2003). The sociocultural construction of implicit knowledge. Cognitive Development, 18, 451-454.

Nunes, T., Light, P., & Mason, J. (1993). Tools for thought: The measurement of length and area. Learning and


Saxe, G. (1991). Culture and cognitive development: Studies in mathematical understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Schoultz, J., Slj, R., & Wyndhamn, J. (2001). Heavenly talk: Discourse, artifacts, and childrens understanding of

elementary astronomy.Human Development, 44, 103-118.

Suarez-Orozco, M. (2001). Globalization, immigration, and education: The research agenda. Harvard Educational

Review, 71(3), 345-365.

Van der Veer, R., & Valsiner, J. (1991). Understanding Vygotsky. A quest for synthesis. Oxford: Blackwell.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Wartofsky, M. (1979).Models. Representation and the scientific understanding. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Wertsch, J.V. (1991). Voices of the mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wertsch, J.V., del Rio, P., & Alvarez, A. (Eds.). (1995). Sociocultural studies of the mind. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Wyndhamn, J., & Slj, R. (1999). Quantifying time as a discursive practice: Arithmetics, calendards, fingers and group

discussions as structuring resources. In J. Bliss, P. Light, & R. Slj, (Eds.), Learning sites : Socia l and

technological resources for learning(pp. 80-96). Oxford: Elsevier Science.

La diversit ethnique dans les coles est un dfi majeur pourlducation dans la plupart des pays europens. La diversit des cadresculturels des lves et des parents amne de nouvelles transitions,

permet de nouvelles formes de participation, et demande la cration denouveaux concepts, valeurs et pratiques. Les processus de mdiationont une place vitale dans les dveloppements requis. Les contributions ce numro spcial examinent la relation entre lapprentissage et lamdiation sociale sur trois niveaux: (1) le rle mdiateur des outils

culturels, en particulier le langage et le curriculum, (2) le rle descamarades et des instituteurs dans lappropriation des outils culturels

par les lves minoritaires, et (3) le rle mdiateur des reprsentationssociales dans la formation des identits des lves lcole.



10/98


Key words: Cultural tools, Cultural diversity, Multiethnic schools, Multicultural classrooms,Social mediation.

Received: June 2004

Revision received:November 2004

Guida de Abreu. School of Social Sciences & Law, Department of Psychology, Oxford BrookesUniversity, Gipsy Lane Campus, Headington, Oxford, OX3 0BP, United Kingdom; E-mail:[email protected]

Current theme of research:

Childrens experience of the relationship between their home and school mathematics. Parents representations of theirchildrens learning and development. Schooling and cultural identity development of ethnic minority and immigrantchildren.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Abreu, G. de (1999). Learning mathematics in and outside school: Two views on situated learning. In J. Bliss, P. Light,

& R. Saljo (Eds.), Learning sites: Social and technological resources for learning(pp. 17-31). Oxford: Elsevier

Science.

Abreu, G. de (2002). Mathematics learning in out-of-school contexts: A cultural psychology perspective. In

L.D. English (Ed.),Handbook of international research in mathematics education: Directions for the 21st century

(pp. 323-353). USA: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Abreu, G. de, & Cline, T. (2003). Schooled mathematics and cultural knowledge. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 1(1),

11-30.

Abreu, G. de, Bishop, A., & Presmeg, N. (Eds.). (2002). Transitions between contexts of mathematical practices.

Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Abreu, G. de, Cline, T., & Shamsi, T. (2002). Exploring ways parents participate in their childrens school mathematical

learning: Case studies in a multi-ethnic primary school. In G. de Abreu, A. Bishop, & N. Presmeg (Eds.),

Transitions between contexts of mathematical practices (pp. 123-147). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Ed Elbers. Utrecht University, Faculty of Social Sciences, P.O. Box 80140, 3508 TC Utrecht, TheNetherlands; Tel. +31 30 2531408; Fax. +31 30 2534733; E-mail: [email protected]


Learning and interaction in multicultural classrooms. Communication in educational settings. Collaborative learning.


Elbers, E. (2003). Classroom interaction as reflection. Learning and teaching in a community of inquiry. Educational

Studies in Mathematics, 54, 77-99.

Elbers, E. (2004). Conversational asymmetry and the childs perspective in developmental and educational studies.

International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 51(2), 201-215.

Elbers, E., & De Haan, M. (2004). Dialogic learning in the multi-ethnic classroom. Cultural resources and modes of

collaboration. In J. van der Linden & P. Renshaw (Eds.), Dialogical perspectives on learning, teaching and

instruction (pp. 17-43). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Elbers, E., Hajer, M., Jonkers, M., & Prenger, J. (2005), Instructive dialogues: Participation in dyadic interactions in

multicultural classrooms. In R. Maier & W. Herrlitz (Eds.), Dialogues in and around multicultural schools

(pp. 249-264). Tbingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

Elbers, E., Maier, R., Hoekstra, T., & Hoogsteder, M. (1992). Internalization and adult-child interaction. Learning and



11/98

This article explores the mediational role of classroom discourse inthe development of shared understanding in the multiethnic classroom.Successful participation in classroom discourse not only requireslinguistic and cognitive competence, but also demands culturalknowledge, which often is taken for granted. Research carried out in amultiethnic third grade class in Norway reveals that a discrepancybetween teachers implicit assumptions of what is common knowledgeand minority pupils lack of background knowledge might impede jointmeaning construction. Discourse episodes, illustrating variousmisunderstandings, are analyzed and compared. The analysis of thediscourse focuses on how the topical content, the multiple reference

frames applied, and the particular forms of discourse used, jointly createthe framework within which development of shared understandingoccurs or fails to occur. It becomes apparent that various discourse

patterns, creating different premises for pupil participation, afford

different ways of dealing with the misunderstandings encountered. It isargued that disparities in understanding should not be looked upon astransmission errors, that are something to be avoided in classroomdialogue, but might be viewed as generators of new understandings.The article is based on qualitative analysis of discourse excerpts, usingtranscribed audio recordings, field notes and interviews.

Introduction

During the last few decades, the Norwegian primary school population has becomeincreasingly ethnically and linguistically diverse. A topic of major concern in Norway, as inmany other European countries today, is how to improve the educational situation of ethnic

European Journal of Psychology of Education2005, Vol. XX, n 1, 13-27 2005, I.S.P.A.

Discourse and learning in a Norwegian multiethnicclassroom: Developing shared understandingthrough classroom discourse

Lutine de Wal PastoorUniversity of Oslo, Norway

The research reported in this article was initially funded by The Norwegian Ministry of Education, Research andChurch Affairs and from 2000 by the Norwegian Board of Education.

I express my gratitude to the teachers and pupils featuring in the transcripts for welcoming me to their classrooms.Furthermore, I gratefully acknowledge the useful and inspiring comments of Guida de Abreu, Ed Elbers, Tony Cline,Karsten Hundeide and Roger Slj.


12/98

minority children. Although researchers agree that the educational problems regardingminority children are complex (Cummins, 1984), they stress that minority childrens secondlanguage proficiency is a decisive factor for their school success (Cazden, 1988; Thomas &Collier, 2002). Since most ethnic minority pupils speak their mother tongue at home1, theclassroom will be a central setting for their second language learning. A considerable numberof minority pupils rely on obtaining the required second language competence throughclassroom discourse. Some researchers indicate that one reason why minority pupils secondlanguage development is insufficient is due to the fact that in traditional, teacher-led

classroom discourse, pupils get too few opportunities to actively participate in good languagelearning situations (Ellis, 1984).

The language used in classroom discourse cannot just be considered in terms ofcommunication, as in everyday discourse. One also should reflect on how teachers and pupils useit in the teaching-learning process, that is classroom discourse as educational discourse (Mercer,1995). The oral and written language used in educational discourse serves a double function forminority pupils, it transmits thesubject matter to be learned and it provides an important sourceof linguistic input for their second language acquisition (Wong Fillmore, 1982). Classroomdiscourse is thus an essential mediator of minority childrens learning in school.

Observations and analyses of the classroom discourse in a multiethnic class in Oslo,reveal that being simultaneously involved in the processes of learning language andlearning through language (Halliday, 1993) may lead to minority pupils misunderstandings.Misunderstandings that turn out to be more than mere language problems, they are also theoutcome of misinterpretations of the various interpretive frames implied in the discourse.

As formal institutions of socialization and enculturation, schools play a decisive role intransmitting culture by means of semiotic tools, particularly language. Successful participationin classroom discourse as a medium for knowledge building depends on having access to thetool-kit of shared cultural knowledge, including rules of interpretation concerningeducational talk and practice, i.e., educational ground rules (Edwards & Mercer, 1987).Cultural knowledge is usually tacit knowledge, taken for granted, and therefore seldomcommunicated explicitly.

The linguistic, social, and cultural contexts of minority pupils everyday experiencesrepresent the frames of reference through which they interpret and respond to what is said inclassroom discourse. As the discourse episodes presented below will show, there might arisemisunderstandings, originating from a discrepancy between what is assumed to be commonknowledge (Edwards & Mercer, 1987) in the classroom discourse and the everydayknowledge and experiences minority pupils bring to the classroom.

The aim of the article is to explore the mediational role of discourse in the development

of knowledge and understanding in the multiethnic classroom. A central question concerns thenature of the classroom discourse that creates the framework within which the development ofshared knowledge occurs. In order to do so, the discussion will focus on what is taught, i.e.,the topical content and its implied reference frames, in relation to how it is taught, i.e., thesocial-interactional dimensions of the classroom discourse, how turn-taking shapes thediscourse (cf. participation structures) andhow the subject matter is presented, related andnegotiated to achieve intersubjective understanding. Particular attention will be paid tomisunderstandings between teachers and pupils, resulting from not sharing the same

background knowledge and applying different reference frames, and how they are dealt with.The data analysis will show that the occurrence of misunderstandings can be related to avariety of embedded levels of framing the discourse.

Theoretical framework

The interpretive framework adopted in this study is a sociocultural and dialogic one,based on the perspectives of Vygotsky (1987), Bakhtin (1981) and Rommetveit (1974). The

14 L. DE WAL PASTOOR


13/98

DISCOURSE AND LEARNING IN A MULTIETHNIC CLASSROOM 15

sociocultural approach treats human learning and cognitive development as originating from asocial-interactional rather than an individual process; and as a communicative process,whereby knowledge is shared and understandings are constructed in culturally formed settings(Mercer, 1994).

The process of establishing shared understanding between the interlocutors in a tasksetting, e.g., between the teacher and the pupils in classroom discourse, is referred to as theestablishment of intersubjectivity (Hundeide, 2002; Rommetveit, 1974). Intersubjectivity isestablished by means of semiotic mediation, especially through language, but also through

gaze and pointing, for instance. Achieving a certain level of intersubjective understanding is aprecondition for both knowledge construction and language acquisition (Wells, 1993). Ifintersubjectivity is not achieved, further misunderstandings are likely to develop.

In line with Vygotskys emphasis on learning through social interaction, Bakhtinemphasizes learning through dialogue, which involves both oral and written communication.According to Nystrand (1997), who applied Bakhtinian constructs to teaching in languageclassrooms, dialogic devices important for language learning are: authentic questions, that is,questions without prespecified answers, high-level evaluation, referring to an appreciativeand substantial response to pupils contributions, and uptake, i.e., following up pupilsresponses in the subsequent discourse.

Several researchers emphasize the importance of pupils active participation in classroominteraction to facilitate learning in general and second language learning in particular (Ellis,1999). Furthermore, educational researchers argue that social participation structures,

participants rights and responsibilities concerning whatto say, how to say and when to say it

during discourse, determine what learning opportunities become available to the participants(Mehan, 1979).

Even though the nature of classroom interaction seems to be decisive for the secondlanguage learning process, still little is known about processes of teaching and learning, that isthe educational practice, in multiethnic classrooms (Elbers & Haan, 2004). Furthermore, Ellis(1984, p. 10) claims that the few studies that directly explore second language classroominteraction fail to examine the actual discourse that classroom participants construct, alsoWatson-Gegeo (1997) calls for studies based on transcripts of the discourse in theseclassrooms. This article aims to examine educational practice in the multiethnic classroom,

based on observations and transcripts of authentic classroom discourse.

The study

Classroom discourse as a mediator of learning became the focus of my attention in thecontext of ethnographic research carried out in a Norwegian multiethnic classroom during theschool year 1999/2000. In the course of a joint research project (see Bezemer, Kroon, Pastoor,Ryen, & Wold, in press), case studies were carried out in Dutch and Norwegian primaryschool classrooms throughout a year. The aim of the project was to improve the understandingof how language minority children participate and perform in regular education and to gaininsight into the processes of language acquisition in multiethnic classrooms.

The collected data consist of field notes from non-participant observation, audio andvideo recordings of classroom interaction, interviews with all teachers and pupils involved,

pupils work, teaching materials and school documents. Significant classroom episodes wereselected for further analysis: the significance concerned either the main research question orwas based on sensitizing concepts (van den Hoonaard, 1997) emerging from the collecteddata.

The research school,Ekelund Skole2

, is an urban primary school, situated in the inner cityof Oslo, the capital of Norway. Class 3A3, the research class, is a third grade class with 24eight-year old pupils. With 13 of the 24 pupils being ethnic minority pupils and ten differentlanguages represented in the class, the class can deservedly be called a multiethnic, but not


14/98

so much a multilingual class since Norwegian is the sole language of instruction. The pupilshave not only diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds, their competence in the Norwegianlanguage differs a great deal too.

The minority pupils receive tuition together with the pupils having Norwegian as theirfirst language. Only during Norwegian lessons, the class is split into two groups, aNorwegian as a first language (NL1) and a Norwegian as a second language (NL2) group.The form teacher, Karin, with many years of teaching experience, teaches the NL2 pupils. Jon,the co-teacher, newly graduated from the Teacher Training College, takes the regular

Norwegian lessons.

The focus of the analysis

Classroom discourse is dynamic and complex. The language used in discourse draws onmultiple, e.g., cultural, ethnic, and discursive frames of reference, based on our earlierexperiences and background knowledge (Rommetveit, 1974). The challenge of school learning,

par ticularly for minori ty pupils , is to frame, i.e., to interpret, apply, create and shareappropriate contextual frames to the typical language used in classrooms (Edwards & Mercer,1987). The various reference frames, which share characteristics with Batesons (1972) andGoffmans (1974) metacommunicative frames, function as interpretive scaffolds,

producing meaning by contextualizing, that is, constructing temporary frames for the languageused in discourse. Framing is a meaning-making device that allows a fixation of referencesin relation to the ongoing discourse.

By means of a frame analysis, that is an exploration of some of the multiple embeddedframes applied in the classroom discourse episodes presented, I wish to propose certainframing levels as relevant in relation to the misunderstandings that arise. These framing levelscan be analyzed hierarchically, that is, not implying a ranking but referring to focus or

scope, i.e., the extent of what is being studied. Each level might comprise a variety ofmisunderstandings. For the purpose of presenting and analyzing the language in the discourseepisodes, I choose to focus on the following, hierarchically inclusive,framing levels:

1) cultural grammar level (e.g., background knowledge, various ground rules),

2) discourse level (e.g., everyday/academic discourse),

3) genre level (e.g., fictional/non-fictional essay, everyday/science register),

4) word level (e.g., multiple word meanings, everyday/schooled concepts).

The different levels are analytical, allowing us to focus our attention temporarily on oneframing level and its corresponding misunderstandings at a time. When presenting thediscourse episodes below, a closer examination will show that in actual classroom discoursemisunderstandings relate to several embedded and intertwined levels of framing. An everydayconcept, for example, does not only relate to the word level, but is also inextricably linked withlevels of every day discourse and cultural knowledge. The notion of word meaning is thusreally complex and something to be taken into consideration in classroom communication.

Four levels of framing classroom discourse

For the purpose of analysis, four episodes of classroom discourse are presented and eachepisode will be discussed in relation to one or more of the four framing levels referred to

above. Each section starts with the introduction of an excerpt of classroom discourse, wherethere arises some kind of misunderstanding resulting from a discrepancy in framing thediscourse topic. The subsequent analysis focuses on the framing levels corresponding with themisunderstanding that occurs.



15/98


The first two episodes are of subject matter lessons, that is, lessons with an emphasis onlearning through language, and the last two are of a Norwegian as a second language lesson,emphasizing learning language. This particular selection of episodes is made in order toillustrate and typify both the levels and the kinds of misunderstandings that might arise inclassroom discourse, resulting from a discrepancy between the teachers and the pupils framing.

The misunderstandings discussed entail the same two minority pupils, a boy and a girlwith different cultural backgrounds. Each of them is involved in two discourse episodes withdifferent teachers, to illustrate that the teachers different ways of shaping the discourse afford

various types of teacher-pupil interaction. The analysis, will therefore also deal with the natureof the classroom discourse that creates the framework within which the development of sharedknowledge occurs or fails to occur, and how the participants deal with the misunderstandingsthat arise.

Cultural background knowledge

The first episode deals with a discrepancy between a teachers implicit assumption ofcommon knowledge and a minority pupils lack of cultural background knowledge, and howthis impedes the creation of shared meaning. It also illustrates the interrelatedness of framingcontexts, by linking different types of cultural knowledge to everyday concepts and scientificconcepts on the word level.

Episode 1: John the Baptist

For centuries, Norway has had a state religion, the Lutheran Church of Norway.Religious ceremonies, such as baptism and confirmation, are established parts of NorwaysLutheran culture and Christian Studies has a long tradition in Norwegian public schools.

In 1997, as part of an educational reform, Christian Knowledge and Religious andEthical Education (CRE) was introduced as a new school subject. The subject has to be taken

by all pupils; besides Christianity it includes an orientation to other world religions and lifephilosophies as well. The timetable for class 3A shows two periods of CRE per week, that isjust as many periods as Social Studies and Science and the Environment, for instance, togive an indication of the valorisation (Abreu, 1999, p. 17) of the subject.

The episode below is from a CRE lesson in October 1999. Niklas, a young substituteteacher, has decided to read the story of John the Baptist for the class. Afterwards the pupilswill have to draw a picture related to the story, one of the usual activities in the CRE lessons.The teacher tells the children to open their CRE book,Broene [The Bridges] (Bakken, & Haug

1998), and then he starts reading. It is a long and difficult text, containing many rare, i.e., lowfrequency, words and the teacher stops reading after every paragraph to ask the pupils whetherthey understand what he reads.

Teacher: (reads)John baptizes people (paragraph heading).In The New Testament a story is toldabout a man called John. // John preached that people should convert to God. Theyshould get baptized in order to get forgiveness of their sins. //

Teacher: Do you understand what I am talking about?

Pupils: Yes.

Teacher: Do you understand everything I say?

Pupils: Yes.

Teacher: There were no difficult words, or?

Pupils: No.

Teacher: (reads) /.../ As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. Suddenly,heaven was opened. Jesus saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove. A voice fromheaven said: This is my son, whom I love, with him I am well pleased.

Teacher: Do you know what to baptize means?


16/98

Pupil: Yes.

Teacher: Can you explain to me what to baptize means? Can you tell me what it means tobaptize somebody? (Silje and Michael raise their hands) Silje.

Silje: Somebody gets water on the head... so they will believe in God and so on... and will goto heaven.

Teacher: Very good!

Teacher: (reads)John is captured by Herod (the teacher is interrupted).

Silje: Not everybody gets baptized. There are many who just get infant blessed.Pupil: I have not been baptized.

Teacher: There are probably many here who have not been baptized.

Pupils: Not me. Not me either.

Pupil: I am infant blessed.

The teacher carries on reading, when finished he asks some more questions.

Teacher: Do you remember something of what I said about John? What I read about John? Whatdid John do? (no pupil response).

What was Johns job in a way? Not exactly his job, but what he did.

Silje: He baptized people and told other people about God.

Teacher: Quite right!

The teacher continues asking questions, it turns out that the pupils have difficultiesanswering them. Silje, Ida and Stian, all ethnic Norwegian pupils, manage to answer onequestion each. Eventually, the teacher asks the pupils to make a drawing of what he has read.The pupils get their exercise books. On the way back to their desks, some children discusswhat to draw. The teacher and Nimrat, a minority pupil, overhear the conversation and join in.

Pupil: What do we draw?

Pupil: I will draw that he gets baptized [dpt].

Pupils: Me too, xx me too.

Teacher: xxx very good.

Nimrat: When he was killed [drept]?

Pupil: Baptized [dpt].

Teacher: Baptized [dpt] xxx not e:, but :.Nimrat: Baptized [dpt]?

Teacher: Yes.

Nimrat: Baptized? I dont know what baptized means, I!

The teacher explains to Nimrat, To baptize xxx small drops of water xxx, and he pointsto one of the pictures in her CRE-book that shows the baptism of Jesus, a picture made by amedieval Italian painter. Nimrat starts drawing, trying to copy the picture in the book.

Discussion

The term baptize and the related expressions baptism and baptist were used ten times inthe text the teacher read, and eighteen times during the spoken discourse. To understand the

meaning of the subject matter presented, it is crucial to understand these words. It provedinsufficient to create an understanding of the subject, by just being exposed to these topicallyrelated words during classroom discourse, even if it was nearly thirty times. Nimrat apparentlylacked the background knowledge that gives meaning to the topic discussed. As mentioned,



17/98


pupils individual life histories and background will influence what they know and whetherthey will be able to make sense of what is said during classroom discourse. Consequently, itmight be appropriate to have a closer look at Nimrats biography.

Nimrat is an 8-year-old girl of Indian Sikh descent. Her mother tongue is Panjabi. Shelived in India with her mother and grandparents until she was five, and she has lived in

Norway for only three years. Nimrat is one of the highest achieving minority pupils in herclass, often asking for clarification. However, this time Nimrat did not indicate that she did notunderstand until she was asked to make a drawing of the story, and both she and her teacher

became aware that she had misunderstood.The observed classroom discourse had much in common with traditional teacher-led

instruction, emphasizing transmission (cf. Slj, 2001) of subject matter. It was dominated byInitiation-Response-Evaluation (IRE) sequences (Mehan, 1979), in which the teacher asks aquestion the pupils respond and the teacher evaluates the responses. Discourse dominated

by IRE sequences offers limited opportunities for active participation and pupils rarely get achance to come with extended responses.

The pupils were asked several times whether they understood the story, and none of themindicated that they did not understand. The teacher asked the pupils what to baptize meant,

but they had difficulties explaining it even though several pupils probably had an implicitunderstanding. When Silje finally came up with an explicit statement of baptizing, the teacherassumed that or at least acted as if the rest of the class also knew what baptizing stood for.Pupils hidden misunderstandings can be difficult to discover for the teacher, but they might

be disclosed by follow-up questions or through executive tasks, such as making a drawing as

in Nimrats case, or by means of pointing out, retelling or role-play.Baptism is an essential part of Norways Lutheran culture, and for most Norwegian

children the act of baptizing is part of their cultural knowledge, meaning an implicitunderstanding of culture as knowledge. It is relevant to distinguish between two types ofcultural knowledge (Gullbekk, 2002) in this context.

First there is culture as knowledge, which comprises what the child directlyexperiences and learns in his or her life world and which is the basis of situated, experience-

based, internal notions. These notions are similar to what Vygotsky (1987) refers to aseveryday concepts. And then there is knowledge about culture, which consists of explicitstatements and definitions, taught by teachers or learned from written texts, leading to a moregeneralized knowledge of Christianity or Islam, for example. These statements are similar toVygotskys scientific or schooled concepts (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988), which are moreabstract concepts, primarily mediated in formal educational contexts, that is, outside theoriginal learning context. However, schooled concepts often build on spontaneous concepts.

While to baptize for most ethnic Norwegian children is a concept learned by personalexperience, for non-Christian minority children, such as Nimrat, it might be a concept onlyencountered in a school setting. Since the teacher did not check any further whether the other

pupils understood the term, it might have gone unnoticed that not all shared the assumedcommon knowledge.

Academic discourse

In order to illustrate a misunderstanding on the discourse level, I will call attention to theterm bell-shaped [klokkeformet] in an episode during a Science and the Environmentlesson, where the harebell [blklokken, litt. bluebell] is presented. The misunderstanding isthe result of misinterpreting a word in the lessons academic discourse, associated with thediscourse level, but it can be related to the word level as well.

Episode 2: The harebell

The harebell, a wild plant with blue flowers shaped like bells, is frequently depicted inNorwegian schoolbooks. In this lesson, the Norwegian word klokke, which is polysemic,


18/98

having the different but related meanings clock, watch and bell, brings aboutcomprehension problems when used as bell-shaped [klokkeformet].

In a Science lesson by Jon, May 2000, the pupils are given a work sheet with a handwritten text on the harebell, comprising much factual knowledge and several scientific concepts,such as perennial, for instance. Ivan, a minority pupil, volunteers to read the text aloud, butfinds that it is not an easy text to read. He falters repeatedly and even skips a line withoutnoticing it. Some pupils say they cannot follow Ivans reading. Jon, the teacher, reads the textonce more and gives additional information. One of the sentences reads as follows The flowers

are bell-shaped, blue, and are 2 cm long, the teacher stops and comes with an explanation.

Figure 1. The harebell

Teacher: There is a picture of them at the top of the paper. A few flowers, long shafts and theflowers are klokkeformet [bell-shaped], thats why they are called blklokker[harebells].

Ivan: Are they klokker [clocks/bells]?

Teacher: Yes, they look like klokker, you see the ones hanging here (pointing at the black andwhite drawing on the paper).

Ivan: I dont think so! (firmly expressing disagreement, while simultaneously casting aglance at the round, colourful clock on the classroom wall).

Teacher: (the teacher ignores Ivans comment and continues) xxx and they are blue and abouttwo centimeters long about this long (showing with his fingers).

When finished, the teacher asks the class to answer the questions on the work sheet.

Teacher: There are four questions here and these you can answer, when you read what is writtenhere. Actually, I have already given you all the answers. You write the answers on thework sheet and if you still have questions, you can read more or ask me.

The class is rather restless. Several of the minority pupils tell their desk mates that theydo not understand the text. When Ivan answers the question about what the flowers look like,he only writes blue.

Discussion

The excerpt showed that Ivan disagreed with the teachers explanation of the termklokkeformet. As mentioned, the word klokke has various meanings. Clock and watch areeveryday objects and probably none of the pupils will have problems in understanding thesecore meanings. The third meaning, bell, is less common and thus more difficult to interpret,

especially when used figuratively as bell-shaped.Ivan disagreed with the teachers explanation that the harebell flower resembles a bell,

since he apparently misinterpreted the word klokke as clock. When words have multiplemeanings, pupils and especially minority pupils might fail to interpret the words as teachers



19/98


intend. Ellis (1999) indicates that second language learners find it difficult to infer the correctmeaning of polysemous words and that they often are reluctant to discard the meaning they arefamiliar with even if it does not fit the particular context they encounter the word in.

Ivan is an eight-year-old boy of Croatian descent, born in Norway. Croatian is his homelanguage. During the interview, he tells that he does not bother the teacher when he does notunderstand, because he does not want to disturb. However, classroom observations reveal thatIvan frequently asks for help when working on individual tasks. He probably does not like tointerrupt the teacher during whole-class discourse.

The classroom discourse observed during this lesson was characterized by traditionaltransmission teaching. The teachers response to Ivans contributions to the discourse was notvery substantial. Obviously, he did not realize that Ivan was misinterpreting klokkeformet asclock-shaped4, assuming bell-shaped to be common knowledge.

Learning Science involves learning the particular vocabulary related to the subjectmatter and the conventions of interpretation, as well as mastering the discursive practice ofacademic discourse. Academic discourse involves ways of reasoning and talking that(Vygotsky, 1987) has termed non spontaneous.

The emphasis in the two subject matter lessons was on learning through languagerather than on learning language, though the episodes revealed that in practice thesedimensions are interdependent. The next two episodes, taken from a Norwegian as a secondlanguage lesson, both deal with essay writing but the emerging misunderstandings relate todifferent framing levels, that is the genre and the word level.

Fictional and non-fictional genre

The Norwegian as a second language (NL2) classroom is situated next to 3As regularclassroom. Twelve of the thirteen minority pupils participate in the NL2 lessons, which aretaught by Karin, the form teacher, who has taught the class since second grade.

Episode 3 deals with essay writing, which is associated with the genre level, but thecultural background level is also involved. In this episode we again meet Nimrat, the pupil wemet in episode 1.

Episode 3: A fishing trip

August 2000, the NL2 pupils work on a chapter called The Sea. The homework fortodays lesson is to draw a salmon and a shell, and to write a story about their life in the sea.On entering the classroom, Flora tells the teacher, that she could not do her homework sinceshe did not remember what a salmon was.

The teacher, Karin, says that she first wants to discuss the homework tasks of last week,which were, writing about a holiday trip [ferietur] and a fishing trip [fisketur], the latter basedon a picture of a boy in a rowing boat. She tells the pupils that before returning their exercise

books, she will read aloud one of the two essays they wrote. Before reading, the teacher askseach pupil which of the two essays they want her to read. After a while it is Nimrats turn tochoose the essay to be read.

Teacher: Nimrat, which one do we take, the holiday trip or the fishing trip?

Nimrat: Fishing trip

Teacher: (reading) Once upon a time there was a boy who lived in a rowing boat. He lived all onhis own. One day it was very boring in the rowing boat and he turned on the television(teacher skips possible spelling mistakes).

Pupils: xx the television? (surprise and laughter).

Teacher: (reading) Then the telephone rang. He answered the telephone. It was... his boss! Hehad to go to... and then you wrote?Planet Three.

Nimrat: Yes.

Teacher: What do you mean with that?


20/98

Nimrat: I wrote as if it was in heaven.

Teacher: Yes, yes! Yes, thats what it is. Another planet?

Nimrat: Yes.

Teacher: Yes. This boy has to go to another planet, Planet Three.

Teacher: (reading) At Planet Three, there was a cat, which had run away from the house. Hewent to Planet Three (Ahmed laughing).He talked to the cat. Then the cat accompanied him home. When he came home, he

received a gold medal of his bossand thats the end of the story!Ahmed: You cannot fly.

Teacher: Everything is allowed, when one tells stories. Then one can find cats on Planet Threefor example

Discussion

The topics a fishing trip and a holiday trip presuppose narrative essays of pupilspersonal experiences. Nimrat had not been on holiday that year, nor was she familiar withfishing. Her limited experiences concerning the essay topics could easily have excluded Nimratfrom participating in the discourse, as Flora felt resigned to doing when she could not rememberwhat a salmon was. Nimrat, on the contrary, wrote an essay grounded in fiction by transforminga fishing trip into a space trip. By using the topic fishing trip as a thinking device (Lotman,1988), she converted the interpretive frame of the genre non-fiction intofiction. Nimrats strategy

is in accordance with the emphasis Elbers and Haan (2004) put on minority childrens rangeof cultural skills and resources to respond to the educational demands they encounter.

When the teacher asked Nimrat to clarify what she meant by Planet Three, Nimratreferred to heaven. The teacher showed herself to be an open-minded interpreter, taking thechilds perspective, by interpreting heaven as space. She responded enthusiastically to

Nimrats genre transformation and explained to the class Everything is allowed, when onetells stories.

Pupils do not just learn language and learn through language at school, they alsolearn about language (Halliday, 1993), i.e., learn specific ways of using language, such asgenre and discourse. Nimrat showed that she had appropriated the cultural genre of writing afictional narrative. As in fairy tales she started her story with Once upon a time... andfinished with Thats the end of the story. Ahmeds comment You cannot fly might meanthat he conceived Nimrats essay as a non-fictional narrative. It might also be a flippantcomment, which is another genre.

The dialogic function of the discourse, where the teacher appropriates the perspective ofthe pupil and vice versa, facilitates the generation of new meanings (Wertsch & Smolka, 1993).

Multiple word meanings

The episode below is taken from the same NL2 lesson and deals with a non-fictionalessay. The misunderstanding here concerns primarily the word level of framing.

Episode 4: A holiday trip

In this episode we meet again Ivan, the pupil we met in episode 2, who has written anessay on his holiday trip to Croatia.

Teacher: Ivan? Then it is holiday or fish what do we take?

Ivan: HolidayTeacher: (reads) I travelled by plane to Croatia. I was at my grandfather and grandmothers. I

was at the wedding of my aunt. That was fun. Afterwards we went to a park and then Idrove a car.



21/98


Teacher: Then I ask, as I asked Noora, that cannot be a real car you drove?

Ivan: I drove.

Teacher: You had a lift? You did not drive?

Ivan: Yes!

Teacher: What kind of car then?

Ivan: xx there I sat xx in such cars my sister and I drove and afterwards we crashed intosomeone.

Teacher: Exactly. But was this in a kind of amusement park then?

Pupil: I have been in one like that.

Teacher: Was it in Croatia? (Nimrat raises her hand) Yes, Nimrat?

Nimrat: That is like the kind of cars they have at Tusenfryd(an amusement park near Oslo). Ihave driven there as well.

Pupil: Me too.

Nimrat: They are sort of play cars you can sit in and drive.

Pupils: There I have been xxx (several pupils talk at the same time).

Ahmed: Me too, both at Tusenfryd and in Syria.

Teacher: Do you call it a radio car?

Pupil: Yes, it is a radio car xx with a long

Teacher: With a long rod which goes up to the roof?Pupil: Yes.

Teacher: That is a radio car, a radio controlled car thus, that rod at the back of the car goes upto the roof and gets electricity it is a lot of fun, isnt it?

Pupils: xxx (speaking all at once).

Discussion

Ivan did not differentiate what kind of car he drove in Croatia. He just wrote car,maybe due to his limited second language vocabulary or may be because he believed it wasobvious what kind of car he referred to, taking the framing for granted, that is, a kind ofcontextual egocentrism. Karin, lacking the appropriate background knowledge, wonderedwhether Ivan drove a real car in Croatia. By asking What kind of car then? she asked him to

be more explicit. Then, by means of a framing cue, was this in a kind of amusement parkthen? the teacher helped Ivan to frame the word car.

The teachers contingent responses to Ivans contributions lead to extended turns of talk,and several other pupils joined the discourse. It became apparent that several pupils had beenvisiting amusement parks and thus shared common background knowledge.

In order to achieve intersubjectivity, it is essential to attend and refer to the same topicalframe, and then negotiate its meaning. By joint negotiation, the teacher and pupils achieved ashared understanding that the car Ivan drove was a radio controlled car. Intersubjectiveunderstanding not only facilitates knowledge construction but also language acquisition(Wells, 1993). That is why processes of learning language and learning through languageare mutually interdependent.

General discussion

The analysis of the discourse, which took place in various settings of the multiethnicclassroom, revealed that classroom discourse is a complex mediator, implying several levels


22/98

of framing the subject matter. This makes processes of teaching and learning not only multi-layered and multi-faceted (Linell, 1995, p. 183), but also entails that something might gowrong at different levels of the mediating process.

The educational discourse found in Western schools is generally supposed to be abstractand formal, involving appropriation of specific norms of argumentation and presentation, asdistinct from experience-based and informal, everyday discourse. To be able to participatesuccessfully in classroom discourse requires mastering multiple levels of framing the language,which again presupposes having appropriate background knowledge, appreciating the ground

rules for classroom talk, and having access to the toolkit of academic discourse andschooled concepts.

Ethnic Norwegian pupils will often learn schooled concepts based on their backgroundknowledge and everyday concepts in an experience-based transformation, an abstraction ofeveryday experiences. Ethnic minority pupils, on the contrary, are quite often forced to learnthe schooled concepts by formal instruction only without anchorage in their everydayexperiences. This kind of learning is much more cognitively demanding and requires a goodcommand of the second language. Otherwise, it might lead to what Piaget refers to asverbalism, i.e., using the terms without having knowledge of the experiential meaning base.

When we compare the first two discourse episodes with the next two, we notice that thenature of the discourse in these episodes is different. Whereas the emphasis in the first twoepisodes is on transmission of information, the emphasis in the two following episodes is ondialogue and generation of new meanings. According to Lotman (1988), most texts fulfill two

basic functions, though in a certain discursive activity one often dominates. This functional

dualism refers to a univocal function of texts, characterized by the transmission metaphor(Slj, 2001) of communication, aiming at conveying meanings effectively, and a dialogicfunction of texts, involving multiple voices, where the texts function is seen as a generator ofnew meanings.

Classroom discourse dominated by IRE-sequences is grounded in the univocal function oftexts, which is fulfilled best when the codes of the speaker and the listener most completelycoincide, and, consequently, when the text has the maximum degree of univocality (Lotman,1988, p. 34). In the multiethnic classroom, where pupils have divergent backgrounds, thedialogic function of discourse, with difference as the very essence of a texts function as athinking device, will more likely provide a space or a voice for the minority pupils in the

process of knowledge construction. In the first two discourse episodes, of a CRE and aScience lesson, where the discourse was dominated by information transmission, the

pa rt ic ip an ts di ff er en t ba ck gr ou nd kn owle dg e re su lt ed in mi su nd er st an di ng s an dcommunication breakdown. While in the two episodes from the Norwegian as a second

language lesson, disparities in pupils and teachers understandings were used as thought-generators in a classroom dialogue leading to the generation of new meanings. Ivans use ofthe term car, for instance, was not treated as a misunderstanding, but became a thinkingdevice, raw materialto be appropriated, transformed, and so forth in the generation of related,

but new ideas (Wertsch & Toma, 1995, p. 170). An inquiring teacher, asking authentic,clarifying questions promotes a dialogic discourse, and facilitates the identification of mutualmisunderstandings.

Identification of misunderstandings, both by teachers and pupils themselves, is veryimportant, not for the sake of diagnosing deficiencies, but in order to create an awareness ofthe need for clarification and explanation. Assistance seeking has been shown to be a decisivequality for successful achievement in school (Nelson-Le Gall & Resnick, 1998). In theresearch class, high achieving minority pupils, such as Nimrat and Ivan, participate in theclassroom discourse and ask for clarifications and assistance. In other words they are pupilswho dare to expose themselves. Silent pupils, neither participating in the discourse nor

asking for clarification, will be excluded and their misunderstandings will not be identified.The challenge for teachers will be to give silent pupils in the multiethnic classroom a

voice, by accommodating to a teaching-learning approach that facilitates all pupils, despitedifferences in cultural and linguistic backgrounds, access to the resources that classroom



23/98


discourse mediates. Mercer (1995, p. 72), referring to Vygotsky, underlines that a learnersactual achievement is never just a reflection of that learners inherent ability, but is also ameasure of the effectiveness of the communication between a teacher and a learner (myemphasis).

The multiple reference frames embedded in classroom discourse make complexcommunicative demands on both teachers and pupils, especially minority pupils. Emphasizingthe dialogic function of classroom discourse as a mediational tool in overcoming differencesin understanding, by opening up for renegotiation and reinterpretation, might contribute to the

development of shared knowledge and understanding in multiethnic classrooms. Makingclassroom discourse a mediator of all minority pupils learning will be crucial for theireducational achievement (Cazden, 1988).

There are still many significant issues to be resolved in the field of minority pupils andschooling. The social and cultural dimensions of learning and teaching are important themesto be addressed in future research on communicative interaction in classrooms withheterogeneous pupil populations. Another concern should be how we as researchers canimpart a voice to silent minority pupils.

Transcription conventions:

Teacher indicates teachers utterances

Pupil/pupils indicate(s) unidentified pupil(s) utterances

.., ... indicate short pauses

xxx indicate unintelligible speech item(s)/.../ slashes indicate that some talk has been left out from the excerpt

[text] brackets indicate the translation of the preceding term(s)

: colons indicate lengthening of the preceding sound

text the use of italics in excerpts indicate texts the teacher is reading

(text) parentheses indicate additional information

Notes

1 All the ethnic minority pupils involved in this study had other languages than Norwegian as their home language.

2 For reasons of anonymity, the names of the school, the teachers and the pupils are fictional.

3 A few lessons were recorded August 2000 and Class 3A had then become Class 4A.4 If I had not been sitting so close to Ivan, I would have missed his quick glance at the wall clock too.

References

Abreu, G. de (1999). Learning mathematics in and outside school: Two views on situated learning. In J. Bliss, P. Light,

& R. Slj (Eds.), Learning sites. Social and technological resources for learning (pp. 17-31). Amsterdam:

Elsevier.

Bakhtin, M.M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Four essays (edited by M. Holquist). Austin, TX: University of Texas

Press.

Bakken, E., Bakken, P.K., & Haug, P.A. (1998). Broene [The Bridges]. Kristendomskunnskap med religions- og

livssynsorientering for 3. klasse. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Bateson, G. (1972). A theory of play and fantasy. In G. Bateson (Ed.), Steps to an ecology of mind (pp. 177-193).NewYork: Ballantine Books.

Bezemer, J., Kroon, S., Pastoor, L. de Wal, Ryen E., & Wold, A. Heen (in press). Language teaching and learning in a

multicultural context. Case studies from primary schools in Norway and the Netherlands. Oslo: Novus.


24/98

Cazden, C.B. (1988). Classroom discourse. The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Clevedon, England:

Multilingual Matters.

Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge. The development of understanding in the classroom. London:

Methuen.

Elbers, E., & Haan, M. de (2004). Dialogic learning in the multi-ethnic classroom. In J. van der Linden & P. Renshaw

(Eds.),Dialogic learning. Shifting perspectives to learning, instruction, and teaching (pp. 17-43). Dordrecht, The

Netherlands: Kluwer.

Ellis, R. (1984). Classroom second language development. Oxford, England: Pergamon.

Ellis, R. (1999).Learning a second language through interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Goffman, E. (1974).Frame analysis. An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper & Row.

Gullbekk, E. (2002, May). Lessons in dialogical dilemmas in Norway and England. Paper presented at the Current

Issues in Classroom Research Conference, Oslo, Norway.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning.Linguistics and Education, 5, 93-116.

Hoonaard, W.C. van den (1997). Working with sensitizing concepts. Analytical field research. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Hundeide, K. (2002). The mind between us.Nordisk Psykologi, 54(1), 69-90.

Lotman, Yu. M. (1988). Text within a text. Soviet Psychology, 26(3), 32-51.

Linell, P. (1995). Troubles with mutualities: Towards a dialogical theory of misunderstanding and miscommunication.

In I. Markov, C.F. Graumann, & K. Foppa (Eds.), Mutualities in dialogue (pp. 176-213). Cambridge, MA:

Cambridge University Press.

Mehan, H. (1979).Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Mercer, N. (1994). Neo-Vygotskian theory and classroom education. In B. Stierer & J. Maybin (Eds.), Language,

literacy and learning in educational practice (pp. 92-110). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge. Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon, England:

Multilingual Matters.

Nelson-Le Gall, S., & Resnick, L. (1998). Help seeking, achievement motivation, and the social practice of intelligence

in school. In S.A. Karabenick (Ed.), Strategic help seeking. Implications for learning and teaching (pp. 39-60).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Nystrand, M. (with Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendergast, C.). (1997). Opening dialogue. Understanding the

dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom.New York: Teachers College Press.

Rommetveit, R. (1974). On message structure. A framework for the study of language and communication. London:

Wiley.

Slj, R. (2001). Lring i praksis. Et sosiokulturelt perspektiv [Learning in practices. A sociocultural perspective].

Oslo: Cappelen.

Tharp, R.G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context.

Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Thomas, W.P., & V.P. Collier (2002).A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students long-term

academic achievement. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence, University

of California Santa Cruz.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1987). Thinking and speech (N. Minick, Trans.). New York: Plenum.

Watson-Gegeo, K.A. (1997). Classroom ethnography. In N.H. Hornberger & D. Corson (Eds.), Research methods in

language and education (pp. 135-144). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Wells, G. (1993). Inters ubject ivi ty and the constr uct ion of kno wle dge . Retrieved December 12, 2003, from

http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/~gwells/intersubjectivity.txt

Wertsch, J.V., & Bustamante Smolka, A.L. (1993). Continuing the dialogue. Vygotsky, Bakhtin, and Lotman. In

H. Daniels (Ed.), Charting the agenda. Educational activity after Vygotsky (pp. 69-92). London: Routledge.

Wertsch, J.V., & Toma, C. (1995). Discourse and learning in the classroom: A sociocultural approach. In L.P. Steffe &J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 159-174). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wong Fillmore, L. (1982). Instructional language as linguistic input: Second-language learning in classrooms (pp. 283-296).

In L.C. Wilkinson (Ed.), Communicating in the classroom.New York: Academic Press.



25/98


Cet article explore le rle mdiateur du discours dans ledveloppement de la comprhension partage dans la classemultiethnique. Une participation russie au discours en classe demandenon seulement de comptence linguistique et cognitive, mais aussi de laconnaissance culturelle, qui est souvent considre comme djacquise. La recherche, dveloppe dans une classe multiethnique detroisime anne en Norvge, montre quune divergence entre les

suppositions implicites des professeurs sur ce qui est connaissancecommune et labsence de connaissances de fond des lves

minoritaires peut empcher la construction collective du sens. Despisodes du discours, illustrant plusieurs malentendus, sont analyss etcompars. Lanalyse du discours se concentre sur comment le contenudu sujet, les cadres multiples de rfrence, et les formes de discours

pa rt ic ul i re s ut il is e s, cr e nt de s ca dr es da ns le sq ue ls ledveloppement de la comprhension partage se produit ou ne se

produit pas. Il devient apparent que les diffrents genres de discours,crant des prmisses diffrentes pour la participation des lves,offrent des possibilits diffrentes pour faire face aux malentendusrencontrs. On argumente que les discordances de comprhension nedevraient pas tre perues comme erreurs de transmission, qui sontdes choses viter dans le dialogue en classe, mais quelles peuventtre perues comme des gnratrices de nouvelles comprhensions.

Larticle se base sur lanalyse qualitative dextraits du discours, enutilisant des enregistrements audio, notes sur terrain et entrevues.

Key words: Classroom discourse, Cultural background knowledge, Ethnic minority pupils,Everyday and schooled concepts, Shared understanding.

Received: June 2004

Revision received:November 2004

Lutine de Wal Pastoor. University of Oslo, Department of Psychology, P.O. Box 1094, Blindern,NO-0317 Oslo, Norway; E-mail: [email protected], Web site: www.psykologi.uio.no


The mediational role of classroom discourse in the development of shared understanding in the multiethnic classroom.


Bezemer, J., Kroon, S., Pastoor, L. de Wal, Ryen E., & Wold, A. Heen (in press). Language and learning in a

multicultural context. Case studies from primary schools in Norway and the Netherlands. Oslo: Novus.

Pastoor, L. de Wal (1998). De leker s merkelig. Mangfold og samspill i et flerkulturelt skolemilj. Hovedoppgave i

sosialantropologi [They play so strangely. Diversity and interaction in a multicultural school environment.

M.Ph. Thesis in Social Anthropology]. Oslo: Institutt og museum for antropologi, Universitetet i Oslo.

Pastoor, L. de Wal (forthcoming). Classroom discourse as educational practice in first and second language lessons:

Multiple dimensions of educational discourse. Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Norway.


26/98

Portuguese schools in urban areas became multicultural duringthe 90s. Some students are quite distanced from the school culture.

Man y re p

european journal of psychology of education

Documents