TALK AND WEB SEARCHING IN AN EARLY YEARS CLASSROOM · Talk and Web searching in an early years classroom xi To my family whose love brings joy and happiness into my life, particularly

TALK AND WEB SEARCHING IN AN

EARLY YEARS CLASSROOM

Sandra Houen

BTeach (EC), BEd

Submitted in [partial] fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Education (Research)

Centre for Learning Innovation

Faculty of Education

Queensland University of Technology

2012

Talk and Web searching in an early years classroom i

Keywords

Children, classroom talk, computers, competence, conversation analysis, early

childhood education, early years, ethnomethodology, information searching, social

interaction, social order, talk-in-interaction, Web searching, young children, teacher-

child interaction.

ii Talk and Web searching in an early years classroom

Abstract

Recent Australian early childhood policy and curriculum guidelines promoting

the use of technologies invite investigations of young children’s practices in

classrooms. This study examined the practices of one preparatory year classroom, to

show teacher and child interactions as they engaged in Web searching. The study

investigated the in situ practices of the teacher and children to show how they

accomplished the Web search. The data corpus consists of eight hours of

videorecorded interactions over three days where children and teachers engaged in

Web searching. One episode was selected that showed a teacher and two children

undertaking a Web search. The episode is shown to consist of four phases: deciding

on a new search subject, inputting the search query, considering the result options,

and exploring the selected result. The sociological perspectives of ethnomethodology

and conversation analysis were employed as the conceptual and methodological

frameworks of the study, to analyse the video-recorded teacher and child interactions

as they co-constructed a Web search. Ethnomethodology is concerned with how

people make ‘sense’ in everyday interactions, and conversation analysis focuses on

the sequential features of interaction to show how the interaction unfolds moment by

moment. This extended single case analysis showed how the Web search was

accomplished over multiple turns, and how the children and teacher collaboratively

engaged in talk.

There are four main findings. The first was that Web searching featured

sustained teacher-child interaction, requiring a particular sort of classroom

organisation to enable the teacher to work in this sustained way. The second finding

was that the teacher’s actions recognised the children’s interactional competence in

situ, orchestrating an interactional climate where everyone was heard. The third

finding was that the teacher drew upon a range of interactional resources designed to

progress the activity at hand, that of accomplishing the Web search. The teacher

drew upon the interactional resources of interrogatives, discourse markers, and multi-

unit turns during the Web search, and these assisted the teacher and children to co-

construct their discussion, decide upon and co-ordinate their future actions, and

accomplish the Web search in a timely way. The fourth finding explicates how

Talk and Web searching in an early years classroom iii

particular social and pedagogic orders are accomplished through talk, where children

collaborated with each other and with the teacher to complete the Web search.

The study makes three key recommendations for the field of early childhood

education. The study’s first recommendation is that fine-grained transcription and

analysis of interaction aids in understanding interactional practices of Web searching.

This study offers material for use in professional development, such as using

transcribed and videorecorded interactions to highlight how teachers strategically

engage with children, that is, how talk works in classroom settings. Another strategy

is to focus on the social interactions of members engaging in Web searches, which is

likely to be of interest to teachers as they work to engage with children in an

increasingly online environment. The second recommendation involves classroom

organisation; how teachers consider and plan for extended periods of time for Web

searching, and how teachers accommodate children’s prior knowledge of Web

searching in their classrooms. The third recommendation is in relation to future

empirical research, with suggested possible topics focusing on the social interactions

of children as they engage with peers as they Web search, as well as investigations of

techno-literacy skills as children use the Internet in the early years.

iv Talk and Web searching in an early years classroom

Table of Contents

Keywords ................................................................................................................................................. i

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... ii

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................... iv

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................ vi

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................ vii

List of Abbreviations .......................................................................................................................... viii

Statement of Original Authorship .......................................................................................................... ix

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. x

Preface .................................................................................................................................................. xii

CHAPTER 1: INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES AND

EDUCATION ............................................................................................................... 1

Information and communication technologies and school contexts ........................................................ 2

Rationale ................................................................................................................................................. 4

The Study ................................................................................................................................................ 4

Research Question................................................................................................................................... 5

Conceptual and Methodological Approaches and Research Design ....................................................... 5

Chapter Outline ....................................................................................................................................... 6

Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................................... 7

CHAPTER 2: WEB SEARCHING, COMPUTERS AND INTERACTION IN THE EARLY

YEARS .......................................................................................................................... 9

Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in early childhood education ............................ 9 Early childhood teacher practices and the use of new technologies .......................................... 11 ICTs and children’s experiences in the home context ............................................................... 12 Research into ICTS in early years classrooms ........................................................................... 14 ICTs and social interaction in early childhood education .......................................................... 16 Teacher and child interaction while engaging with ICTs .......................................................... 18

Social interactions, teacher-child interaction and classroom contexts .................................................. 19 How teachers manage the cohort ............................................................................................... 21 How teachers do the work of teaching ....................................................................................... 21

Web searching in early childhood ......................................................................................................... 23

Searching for information offline .......................................................................................................... 24

Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................................. 25

CHAPTER 3: THE STUDY OF CHILDREN IN THE INSTITUTIONAL SETTING OF THE

CLASSROOM ............................................................................................................ 27

Ethnomethodology ................................................................................................................................ 28

Conversation Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 30 Three underlying assumptions of conversation analysis ............................................................ 31 Turn taking, organisation of sequences and repair. .................................................................... 33

The Study of Children using Ethnomethodological and Conversation Analysis Approaches .............. 39

Ethnomethodology, conversation analysis and educational order ......................................................... 40 Turn taking in institutional contexts and the classroom. ............................................................ 40

Talk and Web searching in an early years classroom v

Chapter Summary.................................................................................................................................. 41

CHAPTER 4: THE RESEARCH DESIGN, THE ANALYTIC AND ETHICAL

CONSIDERATIONS OF THE STUDY ................................................................... 43

The study ............................................................................................................................................... 43 Data. ................................................................................................................................ 43 Participants and setting. ............................................................................................................. 43 Method of data collection: Video-recording. ............................................................................. 46 Data analysis .............................................................................................................................. 50

Reliability and validity .......................................................................................................................... 53

Researcher Reflections .......................................................................................................................... 53

Ethical considerations ........................................................................................................................... 54

Consent.................................................................................................................................................. 54

Chapter Summary.................................................................................................................................. 56

CHAPTER 5: ACCOMPLISHING WEB SEARCHING THROUGH SOCIAL INTERACTION

IN A PREPARATORY CLASSROOM.................................................................... 57

Phases of sequential organisation of Web searching ............................................................................. 57 Phase 1 – Finding a search subject ............................................................................................. 59 Phase 2 – Inputting the search query.......................................................................................... 64 Phase 3 – Considering the result options ................................................................................... 75 Phase 4 – Exploring the selected result ...................................................................................... 81

Discussion ............................................................................................................................................. 89 Interactional resources used to accomplish the Web search. ..................................................... 89 Children as competent participants in their everyday life. ......................................................... 92 Enabling extended periods of time for teacher-child interactions. ............................................. 95 Facilitating negotiation and collaboration between members. ................................................... 96 Progressing the search. ............................................................................................................... 97

Chapter Summary.................................................................................................................................. 98

CHAPTER 6: MANAGING WEB SEARCHING IN THE EARLY YEARS.............................. 101

Key Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 101

Theoretical and methodological significance of the study .................................................................. 104

Recommendations ............................................................................................................................... 105

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 109

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................... 125 Appendix A Data Files Catalogue............................................................................................ 126 Appendix B Initial Observations of Two Extracts ................................................................... 197 Appendix C Conversation Analysis Transcription Notation – Gail Jefferson ......................... 198 Appendix D University Human Ethics Committee Approval ................................................. 199 Appendix E Information and Consent Forms .......................................................................... 200

vi Talk and Web searching in an early years classroom

List of Figures

Figure 5.1. The search question typed into Google. ................................................ 74

Figure 5.2. The ‘did you mean?” screen. ................................................................. 76

Figure 5.3. Did you mean line referred to by Susie ................................................. 77

Figure 5.4. The search result choices. ...................................................................... 78

Figure 5.5. The selected results page. ...................................................................... 82

Talk and Web searching in an early years classroom vii

List of Tables

Table 5.1. Sequential organisation of Web searching in the classroom. .................. 58

viii Talk and Web searching in an early years classroom

List of Abbreviations

ICT Information and Communication Technologies

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development

ACDE Australian Council of Deans of Education

COAG Council of Australian Governments

QSA Queensland Schools Authority

IRE Initiation-Reply-Evaluation

IRF Initiation-Response-Feedback

IRDF Initiation-Response-Discussion-Feedback

ECYG Early Years Curriculum Guidelines

YNI Yes/No Interrogative

Talk and Web searching in an early years classroom ix

Statement of Original Authorship

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet

requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the

best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously

published or written by another person except where due reference is made.

Signature: _________________________

Date: _________________________

x Talk and Web searching in an early years classroom

Acknowledgements

There are many people to acknowledge for their support and never failing belief of

my ability to complete my Master’s Thesis. Their belief stayed strong when mine

faltered during an emotional roller coaster ride over the past year.

I would like to thank my supervisors Susan, Ann and Karen. Susan and Ann, you

have both been so generous with your time, professional expertise and emotional

support. Thank you for your patience and guidance during our many meetings and

for treating me like an expert when I realise how much of a novice I was. Karen, I

sincerely thank you for agreeing to be my supervisor and feel very fortunate to have

your wisdom, knowledge and support.

Special thanks are extended to the participants of the study - the teaching staff,

parents, and the children who agreed to participate. Without you, this study would

not have been possible.

Thank you to Professor Amanda Spink, Professor Susan Danby, Professor Kerry

Mallan, the Chief Investigators and Dr Carly Butler, the Research Assistant of

KNET, Kids and the Internet (2010) for your permission to use the data collected as

part of Kids and the Internet for my study. The detailed field notes have been

referred to many times and have informed me about the context of the classroom in

this study. I am very grateful that I have also had the opportunity to speak with

members of the research team who collected the data, and who have been so giving

of their time.

To my friends and colleagues, Maryanne, Lyndal, Jen, Lee, Helen and Heather,

thank you for offering shoulders to cry on in times of need. I am so appreciative of

your many supportive words of encouragement. Thank you to Ross and Janelle for

accommodating my study requirements during work hours.

Thank you to members of the Transcript Analysis Group who warmly welcomed me

into their data sessions and for immersing me in conversation analysis. I would also

like to express my gratitude to this dedicated group of professionals who spent time

looking at some of the data from my corpus and discussed some analytical aspects of

the data during a data session. Seeing data analysis in ‘action’ made it real for me.

Talk and Web searching in an early years classroom xi

To my family whose love brings joy and happiness into my life, particularly during

those times of need. To Mum, thank you for being there to look after Brooke and

Luke at the drop of a hat, and Kerry for taking care of our dinner arrangements on

many occasions, and for your emotional support. To Brooke, thank you for learning

how to make coffee so that you could deliver them so predictably at 6am in the

morning after I had spent the night writing. To Luke, thank you for reminding me to

leave the dishes, as you had them “covered”, so that I could keep working on my

thesis. Finally, to my husband Michael, thank you for EVERYTHING!

xii Talk and Web searching in an early years classroom

Preface

My interest in children’s social interactions when using computers developed

over my twelve years as an early childhood teacher. When I first began my teaching

career in the early 1990s, there was not a computer to be seen in the classroom.

However, during the early 2000s, computers featured increasingly in both preschool

and school settings, and in children’s homes.

Initially, I was determined to keep computers out of my classroom for as long

as possible. My view was that most teachers used computers in the classroom to

promote rote learning and recall, and to ‘up skill’ children in contrived learning

situations. My view of children using computers, in this way, was at odds with my

pedagogical approach, which was to value and extend children’s thinking, creating,

communicating, problem solving and interacting socially. My sense was that the

inclusion of computers in the classroom would have a negative impact on children’s

social interactions and, indeed, would lead to social isolation.

In 2007, I moved from a community kindergarten, teaching children aged three

to five years, to a state school, where I co-taught a class of 50 children in Year 2/3.

One teacher was full time and I job-shared with the second teacher. My job-sharing

partner taught the first three days of the week and I taught the remaining two days. I

was new to this school setting and the other two teachers had taught together for the

two years prior to my commencement. They had consolidated a structured routine

and authoritative approach to teaching and learning that was at odds with my

teaching philosophy and practices.

My teaching philosophy, at that time and to the present, is threefold:

Children’s positive self esteem is paramount to their ability to grow, learn,

and take risks.

Building an environment of inquiry using in-depth, short-term and long-

term projects (based on individual/ small group/ whole group interests)

requires children to investigate, form ideas, theorise and have ownership of

their learning.

Talk and Web searching in an early years classroom xiii

Documenting and displaying the sequence of children’s learning serve a

dual purpose. They allow children to construct, revisit and reconstruct their

thoughts and knowledge about the world, and they allow children to

communicate their thinking to parents and others.

As I worked only two days per week, and was new to the primary school

setting, I felt powerless to enact my beliefs about co-constructing the learning

environment with the children. I wanted to discover how the ‘system’ worked and to

develop a rapport with my teaching partners, before trying to implement changes to

the overall learning environment, and the delivery of the curriculum, including those

aspects that related to information and communication technologies. From the time I

entered the state school system, I felt a ‘push’ by school administration and

curriculum authorities to use information and communication technologies in all

aspects of my teaching. Yet, I felt at a loss as to how to do this in a way that aligned

with my teaching philosophy.

Not surprisingly, my approach to the implementation of information and

communication technologies in 2007 was prescriptive. The majority of the students

in my classroom only used the computer during a weekly scheduled visit to the

school’s computer laboratory, where they were taught how to use the software

programs PowerPoint and Word. In most schools, a specialist Information and

Communication Technologies Teacher would implement a computer lesson.

However, this school did not have an Information and Communication Technologies

Teacher, and so my teaching partner and I conducted the lessons. During this time,

we told the children exactly what they should be doing and with which computer

software program. The computer lessons were used, in effect, to explicitly teach

children how to use different programs. Rarely were students given the opportunity

to show us what they already knew, or to demonstrate their newly acquired skills in

purposeful and real life ways. Nor was there regard for the background knowledge or

prior experiences of individual children.

In addition to the timetabled computer lessons, the children had limited

opportunities to use the six computers in their classroom, at various times as dictated

by the teacher. At these times, the children mainly participated in ‘skill based games’

or drill prescribed by the teacher, usually as part of a literacy or mathematics activity.

Limited time, if any, within the classroom program was given to children for

xiv Talk and Web searching in an early years classroom

experimentation, exploration and research using the computer. In hindsight, this

exploration may have enhanced the children’s contribution and co-construction of

knowledge across all of the key learning areas. My pedagogical approach to

information and communication technologies was in stark contrast to my teaching

philosophy.

In 2008, I was allocated a preparatory year class and was teamed with a

teaching partner who aligned more closely with my personal teaching philosophy.

After reflecting on my beliefs about children and how they learn, and having created

a learning environment where the children were encouraged to explore their own

ideas, I decided to approach the use of information and communication technologies

in ways similar to other curriculum areas. In other words, I adopted an integrated

approach allowing children access to the three classroom computers at all times of

the school day. It was my intention to observe how the children used them and to use

these observations to inform the future use of computers in the classroom.

My observations led to my realization that children use computers in a range of

ways. Adopting a ‘one size fits all’ approach, such as access to the computer

laboratory to teach skills, was not going to support all children’s information and

communication technologies learning. Two classroom observations challenged my

understanding of computers in the classroom. The first observation was of a five-

year-old child who decided to ‘look up’ Movie World on the Internet to research the

fun rides. He challenged my views on what young children could do with the

computer. I allowed him to turn on the computer, but I suggested that he wait until I

finished organising the remainder of the class for ‘inside time’, so that I could ‘help’

him search for “Movie World.” Being waylaid, I looked over to see that this child,

along with two friends, had accessed the “Movie World” website and, after viewing

vignettes of the different rides at “Movie World”, were engaged in a discussion about

the rides. When I asked how he got ‘there’, the child replied, “I went to Google and

typed in the words”. I asked how he knew how to spell “Movie World” and he held

up a “Movie World” brochure, brought from home. This scenario challenged my

thinking about children’s use of computers as restricting opportunities for peer

interactions. This child, along with two friends, had managed to negotiate the

complex log-on procedures and had accessed the relevant website — all within the

context of highly engaged social interaction. His search demonstrated his computer

Talk and Web searching in an early years classroom xv

competence while also showing his interactional competence to draw on the support

of his peers.

In contrast to the child who initiated his own Web search, my second

observation was of preparatory-year children requiring long periods of assistance

when working on the computer. Some children needed help to log on, some needed

help formulating a search query and others needed help spelling the words for their

search. I also observed that children were happy to help others when needed. The

more I observed, the more I noticed the children’s curiosity and interest in

information and communication technologies. These observations challenged my

‘solitary isolation’ proposition of how children engaged with computers and with

each other while working on the computers. It also challenged a ‘timetabled’

information and communication technologies laboratory approach to information and

communication technologies learning.

These observations and reflections prompted questions about children’s social

interactions while engaged in Web searching. It became evident to me that, if I was

to integrate information and communication technologies into my classroom in a

holistic, meaningful and purposeful way, I needed to rethink the alignment of the

implementation of information and communication technologies learning with my

teaching philosophy and practice. In so doing, I felt it important to make informed

decisions based on research. Upon early exploration of the research, I found little

robust work on children’s social interactions as they engage in Web searching. Thus,

my professional experience gave further impetus to investigate the topic of children’s

social interactions during Web searching. In turn, my professional experience was

instrumental in framing the research question.

Chapter 1: Information and communication technologies and education 1

Chapter 1: Information and Communication Technologies and Education

Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) are changing the ways

we do things in everyday life and in everyday contexts such as schools and

classrooms. The use of ICTs is on the increase for children and adults alike. Young

children, in Australia, are using ICTs at an exponential rate. In 2009, 60% of children

in Australia aged five to eight years accessed the Internet, compared to 37.7% in

2006 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006b; 2009). These changes have

implications for teaching and learning in schools.

Claims of the benefits of ICTs are wide ranging. The Organisation for

Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) (2008a), for example, claims

that ICTs stand to make a positive impact on social wellbeing and economic growth.

In 2008 the OECD meeting on the ‘Future of the Internet Economy’ drew delegates

from 70 economies and provided a platform for 39 countries to adopt the Seoul

Declaration for the Future of the Internet Economy (Organisation for Economic Co-

Operation and Development, 2008b). The declaration is now used to guide priorities

in relation to the Internet and ICTs in a range of countries with governments in

various jurisdictions making access to ICTs a priority for the general population, in

business, home and school contexts. So too, the European Commission (2010)

advocates ICTs as the way of the future and recommends as priorities: a) access to

faster broadband; b) research and development in ICTs; and c) a focus on developing

digital literacy skills. These commitments are informing policies in countries such as

New Zealand, Sweden and Australia as they prioritise access to the Internet in

business, home and school contexts.

The New Zealand Government (2010), for example, is committed to providing

an ultra-fast broadband network, with first priority given to business, schools and

health services (New Zealand Ministry for Economic Development, 2010). The

Swedish Government (2009) has prioritised access to a “world-class” broadband

connection for up to 90% of homes and businesses by 2020 (Swedish Ministry of

Enterprise Energy and Communications, 2009). So too, in Australia, the

Commonwealth Government’s (2009) National Broadband Network initiative aims

2 Chapter 1: Information and communication technologies and education

to provide Australian homes and businesses with access to affordable high speed

broadband.

Providing such access is seen to be important for keeping in step with, or ahead

of, the future demands of globalised economies and for innovation, sustainable

growth and social wellbeing (Australian Government, 2009; European Commission,

2010; New Zealand Ministry for Economic Development, 2010; Organisation for

Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2008a; Swedish Ministry of Enterprise

Energy and Communications, 2009). Achieving such aims requires highly skilled

ICT users.

Information and communication technologies and school contexts

Because ICTs are seen to be important, now and in the future, an examination

of the contexts in which ICT users are being educated may provide new

understandings for how to use technologies in educational contexts. The Melbourne

Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (Ministerial Council on

Education Employment Training and Youth Affairs, 2008) details a vision for the

education of young Australians, in preparation for the future. The declaration

recognizes the importance of developing knowledge and skills for accessing,

distributing and processing information (Ministerial Council on Education

Employment Training and Youth Affairs, 2008). Schools, then, are positioned at the

forefront of ICT education, in achieving the goals of the Declaration.

If schools are to achieve such ambitions, they require access to the Internet and

provision for ICTs within the teaching and learning programs of schools. Australia’s

Digital Education Revolution (Australian Government, 2009, 2010a) aspires to

increase Australia’s education outcomes by ensuring that teachers and students have

access to a range of online curriculum resources and to high quality professional

development via super-fast broadband. Such access would provide opportunities for

teachers and children to become technologically savvy and to engage in meaningful

use of ICTs.

Government-sanctioned policy statements and curriculum frameworks now

include ICTs as an integral part of quality education. The Australian Council of

Deans of Education (ACDE) in their report New Teaching, New Learning. A vision

for Australian Education (2004), advocate that technology become central to all


learning. So too, the Council of Australian Governments’ (COAG) Early Years

Learning Framework (2009) prioritises the use of ICTs to access information, to

investigate ideas and to represent thinking (Australian Government Department of

Education Employment and Workplace Relations, 2009). In such documents, ICTs

have been identified as central to quality education.

A population highly skilled in ICTs is necessary for life in a globalised digital

world. The Australian Government’s Digital Strategy for Teachers and School

Leaders (2010) aims for systemic transformation of teachers and school leaders

(Australian Government, 2010b). The strategy is to support teachers and school

leaders to develop ICT skills to use them effectively in teaching and learning. The

corollary is that, if children are to be competent users of technology, teachers also

need to be confident and proficient users of technology, skilled in using ICTs within

the curriculum. In the context of the Australian Curriculum, ICT Educational Goals

for Young Australians identifies ICTs, as one of the ten general capabilities expected

of education and ICTs will be embedded across each learning area (Australian

Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2010).

In Queensland, the Smart Classroom’s Professional Development Framework

(2010) provides a three-level formal accreditation for teachers. This framework is for

teachers to reflect on their ICT pedagogical practice and to align their pedagogy with

contemporary learners (Queensland Government, 2010). It is anticipated that critical

reflection will influence and enhance future teaching practices and, therefore,

enhance the quality of education for students. As well, Queensland’s Smart

Classrooms Initiative (2009) details the ICT outcomes expected of Queensland

children at the end of Years 3, 5, and 7 (Queensland Government, 2009). The ICT

Essential Learning document published by the Queensland Studies Authority (QSA)

(2007) provides a detailed rationale for ICTs in education, noting ICTs as “integral to

everyday situations” (p. 1). Despite growing interest in ICTs in early childhood

classrooms, there is little research that investigates how teachers engage with young

children as they work with ICTs. Spink, Danby, Mallan and Butler (2010) argue that

the few empirical studies that have been conducted, to date, have focussed largely on

learning outcomes of children’s computer use and have overlooked children’s social

interactions with teachers and their peers. The study reported on in this thesis sought

to redress the lack of research evidence in this area by investigating the social


interactions of a teacher with two children in situ, as they performed a Web search.

The study sought to understand the co-constructed interactions of a Web search

between the teacher and children and focussed specifically on identifying the

interactional resources used by the teacher.

I now provide a rationale for the study, an overview of the research project,

including the research question, and a discussion of the conceptual and

methodological approaches. A summary of the chapters concludes the chapter.

Rationale

Web searches via search engines are conducted every day and are a gateway

for information retrieval (Spink & Jansen, 2004), leading to an unlimited supply of

information, both accurate and inaccurate. The importance of society, and therefore

education, to embrace Web searching has been evidenced by the focus of

government policies. Government policies prioritise access to the Internet for the

population including teachers and students. As well, mandated curriculum

documents expect teachers to adopt ICTs including Web searching into their

classrooms, therefore it goes without saying that teachers will be interacting with

children as they conduct Web searches in classrooms, opening up a new pedagogical

space for teachers. Limited research exists to inform teachers as to how to interact

with children as they engage in Web searching. This study aims to support early

childhood professionals when interacting with children, by explicating the everyday

practices of one teacher as she interacted with two children as they perform a Web

search.

The Study

The focus of the study is the social interactions between a teacher and two

children as they undertook a Web search. It drew on data collected within a larger

study entitled KNET, Kids and the Internet (2010) (Ethical clearance # 0700000725)

(Spink et al. 2010). The data set includes eight hours of video recorded data of 4 to 5

year olds interacting with peers and adults in a preparatory year classroom doing

Web searching. The video footage captured the moment-by-moment interactions

between teaching staff and children in the classroom. The analysis conducted for this

thesis investigated how the social interactions unfolded, what happened within the

interactions, and how the teacher and children shaped the Web search through


interaction, and how members engaged with each other as they searched for

information on the Web.

The episode chosen for this study shows two children and their teacher

discussing, planning and undertaking a Web search about ‘what tadpoles eat’. The

episode chosen for analysis is 12 minutes in duration and focuses on the interactions

between a teacher and two children who commence and complete a Web search

together, capturing an entire search about one topic, from discussion, to establish a

search topic, to a completion of the search about the chosen topic.

Research Question

The study was guided by the following research question:

How are social orders constructed through teacher-child talk when Web

searching in an early years classroom?

Conceptual and Methodological Approaches and Research Design

The study employed a sociological approach to investigate the interactional

features of a teacher with two children, as they engage in a Web search. More

specifically, conceptual understandings derived from the competence paradigm

(discussed further in chapter 3) support the study’s theoretical stance of childhood as

a social construction and children as social agents (Corsaro, 2005; Cromdal, 2006,

2009; Danby, 1997, 2002, 2009; James, Jenks, & Prout, 1998; James & Prout, 1997;

Mayall, 2002; Speier, 1973; Waksler, 1991). Described as the “competence

approach” (Danby, 2002; Hutchby & Moran-Ellis, 1998; Mackay, 1991), this

approach focuses on how children bring interactional competence to their social

interactions.

Conversation analysis and ethnomethodology informed the study’s

methodological approach, focussing on how classroom social order is constructed

through social interaction. The study used video recorded data to document the

children’s interactions and social order, allowing for detailed analysis of their social

interactions. Such an approach provides detailed description and interpretation of

children’s social interactions as they live their childhoods (Corsaro, 2005).


Chapter Outline

This first chapter introduced the study and its focus on the social interactions of

a teacher with two children as they completed a Web search. It has outlined the

study’s context, the main features of the study’s research design and methodological

approaches. Additionally this first chapter has positioned the study within the

national and international policy context, highlighting the emphasis being placed on

ICTs for future living and learning, thus providing a rationale for this study.

Chapter two examines ICTs in early childhood education and focuses on ICTs

and social interactions with peers, teacher-child interactions while members engage

with ICTs and teacher talk and classroom contexts. The review identifies that little is

known about the social order of teachers and children performing web searches and

builds a case for the study of how social orders are constructed through teacher-child

talk-in-interaction when Web searching in an early years classroom.

Chapter three outlines, in detail, the conceptual framework and research design

that informed the study. Ethnomethodology and conversation analysis are discussed

as a way to investigate social interactions in situ and to establish why an empirical

data set is necessary for understanding the social worlds of children and their teacher.

Prior studies using ethnomethodology and conversation analysis focussing on adult

and child interactions as well as social interactions in institutional settings are

discussed.

Chapter four details my methodological approach to data analysis using video

recorded data, issues of reliability and validity, and ethical considerations in the

study.

Chapter five details the analysis of data, within four phases of Web searching:

(a) finding a search subject; (b) inputting the search query; (c) considering the result

options; and (d) exploring the selected result. Included in this chapter is a discussion

of the interactional resources, such as interrogatives, discourse markers and multi

unit turns drawn on by the teacher to co-construct a Web search. The explication of

the interactional resources drawn on by the teacher reveals how she managed the

search using interactional resources that encouraged the children’s contribution to the

interaction and co-ordinated the actions of members regarding their Web search in an

early childhood classroom.


The final chapter of the thesis, chapter six, presents the key findings of the

study, implications for policy and practice and recommendations for future research.

Findings also stand to inform policy-makers and key educational stakeholders of

children’s competence to orient to the ‘interactional climate’ set by the teacher

through interactions as they perform information searches on the Internet. The

interactional resources used by the teacher show how she positioned the children as

competent and how she allowed for extended periods of time for exploration,

discussion and action.

Chapter Summary

This opening chapter has identified the emphasis placed on ICTs for everyday

life, both now and for the future. The chapter has discussed government initiatives

for ICTs in a range of countries and has drawn attention to the importance of ICTs in

school contexts. It has provided a summary of the study, the research question, the

research design and the methodological approach used in the study. The next chapter

reviews the literature related to: (a) ICT’s in early childhood, including early

childhood pedagogy, teacher practices, children’s prior to school experiences, (b) the

social interactions of teachers and children in classrooms, and (c) children searching

for information via online and offline modes, providing a case for the study.

Chapter 2: Web searching, computers and interaction in the early years 9

Chapter 2: Web Searching, Computers and Interaction in the Early Years

Web searching increasingly is becoming a portal where young children seek

information. Little is known, however, about how teachers interact with children

while undertaking Web searches in early years classrooms. As well, curriculum

guidelines are expecting teachers to engage with children in online contexts but with

few examples of how these interactions take place. This chapter first investigates the

broader topic of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in early

childhood education settings, then moves to consider teacher-child interactions

within classroom contexts. The chapter concludes with a discussion of children’s

Web searching in early years classrooms to show it as an emerging area of focus for

research. Particularly evident within these studies is that there has been little focus on

the interactions that occur between children and teachers as they engage in Web

searching.

Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in early childhood

education

There are differing views regarding the appropriateness of ICTs in early

childhood education. While there is little empirical evidence upon which

practitioners, parents and policy makers can draw to guide practice, there are distinct

and differing views about ICTs in early childhood classrooms. One view focuses on

the potential of ICTs on children’s lives and learning and embraces children’s

immersion in ICTs from birth to argue that the majority of children experience

mobile phones, remote controlled toys, electronic teller machines, computers and self

serve checkouts as part of everyday life, at home and in the wider community. This

view recognises that, due to their prior experience, children enter school with

knowledge of, and technological skills in, ICTs and that ICTs should be part of the

school experience (Marsh, 2004; Marsh & Hallet, 2008; Yelland, Neal, & Dakich,

2008). Another view is to do with the implications of ICTs, including how ICTs have

transformed how we do things, in the wider community and in everyday life

(Yelland, 2008). Yelland (2008) points out that “ICTs should be an integral part of

learning in schools today” (p. 5). These views highlight the need for our educational

systems to prepare students for everyday life both now and in the future. Aligning

with this view, Waller (2008) argues that there is “growing appreciation of the

10 Chapter 2: Web searching, computers and interaction in the early years

impact of digital technology on childhood and children’s lives” (p. 183). Despite

these calls for supporting technology in young children’s lives, education systems

have been slow to accommodate new technologies (Dakich, 2008; Romeo, 2008;

Yelland, 2008, 2011). This growing appreciation, yet slow uptake, implies that

research into ICTs in early childhood education is essential to promote educational

reform to this end. Yelland et.al (2008) reports that “it is generally recognised that

ICTs have reshaped the relationship between knowledge and the technological tools

that we use. We now need to be much more collaborative, multi-skilled and

flexible.” (p. 3). It is social interaction, which is the vehicle for collaboration that is

the focus of this thesis.

A counter view, unsubstantiated by research, is that ICTs impact negatively on

children’s learning. This view is typified by the National Alliance for Childhood

(2004), a not-for-profit organisation of community members, who argue against ICTs

being part of early childhood education because of their supposed detrimental effects

on children’s physical, social and intellectual development. They argue that children

need “real relationships, not virtual ones” (Alliance for Childhood, 2004, p.2),

claiming that ICTs have a negative impact on children’s social interactions. The two

perspectives, one for and one against ICTs, fall at opposite ends of the spectrum and

may influence teachers’ views on ICTs in early childhood.

That said, there is a push for early childhood teachers to integrate ICTs into

their classrooms. Queensland’s Smart Classrooms (2009) initiative for all

classrooms, for example, expects that, by the end of year three, children will:

use ICTs as part of research and investigation

choose and use ICTs as a way of creating and representing their thinking

explore a variety of digital media to communicate with others and work

together

apply generic structures when using ICTs to communicate with others

use safe protocols and ethical practices

effectively control ICTs

manipulate and manage software and online environments

effectively store information and data and be able to access this data when

needed

reflect on all aspects of ICTs in the learning process

(Queensland Government, 2009, p. 2-7).


The emphasis on ICT use in classrooms positions the population as competent

and/or aspiring users of ICTs, for both now and in the future. The rationale is that, in

order for Australia to be innovative and competitive in future world economies,

‘everyday situations’ will require skilled ICT users, and that ICT education should

begin as early as possible, that is, in early childhood classrooms, if not before. A

challenge for early childhood educators, then, is to provide ICT opportunities in

ways that align with early childhood curriculum and pedagogy. In other words, the

challenge for teachers is to implement the ICT curriculum using the teaching and

learning approaches that underpin early childhood pedagogy.

Early childhood teacher practices and the use of new technologies

Underpinning early childhood education is the importance of ‘connecting’

curriculum content to children’s everyday experiences. For example, the Crèche and

Kindergarten Association of Queensland (Moore & Crèche and Kindergarten

Association of Queensland, 2006), now known as C&K, refer to the sociocultural

perspectives of Vygotsky (1978), Bronfenbrenner (1998), and Rogoff (2003) to

highlight the importance of connecting children’s prior experiences with their

learning. This position recognises children’s social and cultural contexts and their

prior knowledge as shaping the curriculum (Moore & Creche and Kindergarten

Association of Queensland, 2006; Queensland Studies Authority, 2006). So too, the

Australian Early Years Learning Framework (2009) suggests that educators nurture

relationships with children and families in order to work together to implement a

curriculum that is relevant to children’s local contexts (Australian Government

Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations, 2009). In relation

to ICT education, and in line with these early childhood curriculum documents,

teachers are being challenged to draw upon children’s prior knowledge of ICTs as

they use ICT learning in everyday classroom experiences. Despite these initiatives,

little is known about the specific strategies and social practice used to embed ICTs

within the everyday practices of the classroom.

While teachers may see ICTs as accruing some benefits to children, the uptake

of ICTs in early childhood education has been slow. Some teachers are concerned

about their own relatively low ICT skills. When Chen and Chang (2006) researched

297 teachers’ views, abilities and practices using computers in early childhood

classrooms in the United States, fewer than half of the teachers surveyed felt


confident in using computers in their classroom. As well, of the 297 teachers

surveyed, only half reported that they could teach young children about them. Some

teachers believe that ICTs do not align with early childhood pedagogy, with their

reasons that ICTs are too abstract, do not afford concrete experimentation and limit

children’s ability to work co-operatively (Yelland, 2005).

Teachers’ beliefs about ICTs in their classrooms may not be grounded in robust

understandings of ICTs and their possibilities in the classroom. For example, Heft

and Swaminathan (2002) concluded that teachers only pair children at computers

when the number of computers is limited. Yet research suggests that pairing children

can promote children working and solving problems collaboratively at the computer.

Research by Spink, Danby, Mallan and Butler (2010), for example, investigated what

children did as they used the Google search engine in an early childhood preparatory

classroom, and they found that the children worked collaboratively when Web

searching. Other studies show that children participate in a range of social actions

while working at the computer (Brooker & Siraj-Blatchford, 2002; Clements &

Swaminathan, 1995; Heft & Swaminathan, 2002; Lou, 2004; Shahrimin &

Butterworth, 2001). A small, but growing, number of studies address the social

interactions of children, but few have looked at teacher and child interactions as they

use ICTs. The findings from this emerging field of study of ICTs and young children

point to the need for research regarding social interactions when using ICTs,

including interactions involving teachers and children.

ICTs and children’s experiences in the home context

Increasingly, children’s prior experiences with ICTs are a focus of research,

with studies focussing on what is happening in young children’s lives, predominantly

within home contexts. For example, Marsh (2004) investigated the techno-literacy

practices of 44 children who lived in the north of England, aged between two and a

half and four years of age, in their home settings. Parents were asked to complete

questionnaires and were invited to be interviewed. Using this questionnaire and

interview data, Marsh (2004) found that children engage with a range of multi modal

texts such as watching television and playing computer games. Another study by

Calvert, Rideout, Woolard, Barr and Strouse (2005) investigated early computer use

in children aged six months to six years by interviewing 1065 parents of young


children in the United States. The researchers were interested in young children’s

computer access, technical aspects of their computer use, the relationship between

reading and computer use, and parent attitudes to their children’s computer use.

Their study found that, as a result of increased access to computers and the Internet

at home, the number of children using these devices also had increased. However,

the studies by Marsh (2004) and Calvert et al. (2005) did not investigate the actual

practices of the children as they engaged with computers and the Internet.

Three studies that did investigate the actual practices of children are now

considered. A 2010 study by Marsh (2010) examined how children aged five to

eleven years engaged with online virtual worlds, such as Webkinz, Club Penguin and

Barbie Girls. Children completed an online survey and participated in group and

individual semi-structure interviews. Marsh found that 34% of children in the five to

seven age bracket had experience with virtual worlds. This study also found that

using online worlds is social, with children reporting that they often organise to meet

their school friends online. In her recommendations, Marsh advises that further

research into the affordances of virtual worlds and how they can be utilised in early

childhood settings is required. Verenikina and Kervin (2011) reported on three

interrelated studies that investigated access to technologies, including the use of

iPads and iPhones, parental views of such technologies and their affordances and

limitations for play for children aged three to five years of age. Their paper discussed

the researchers’ observations of children engaging with two applications on an iPad,

Pocket Pond and Puppet Pals, to investigate the affordances of play for the children.

Findings point to positive experiences between technologies and digital play, and

also highlighted the importance of parent-child interaction in nurturing and

supporting such play. An Australian study by Davidson (2009) investigated young

children’s interactions with their siblings and parents as they conducted Web

searches at home to explicate the actual practices of participants. Although the scale

of the study was small, with two children only, Davidson (2009) uncovered rich

evidence of children participating in a wide range of digital practices, including

controlling the mouse and the keyboard, and accessing “Google” and “You Tube”,

showing that children as young as three years have skills to use a computer and the

Internet. While these three studies investigated actual practices in the home context,


they did not investigate those young children’s experiences in other settings, such as

in preschool.

Findings from studies previously mentioned show that children do engage with

ICTs in the home environment. They also provide evidence that young children’s

engagement with ICTs is done within a social context and warrants further research

into how ICTs can be incorporated into early childhood classrooms.

Research into ICTS in early years classrooms

While most research to date has investigated the educational outcomes related

to ICTs, findings point to the need for further research. For example, Li and Atkins

(2004) investigated the relationship between using computers in early childhood and

the cognitive development of 122 children in the USA Head Start program to find

that, on cognitive measures, children who used computers in early childhood out-

performed children who did not. A later 2007 study by McCarrick and Li (2007)

supported the finding that young children who use computers have improved

cognitive and language development, as did a study by Fish, Li, McCarrick, Butler,

Stanton, Brumitt, Peshotan Bhavnagri, Holtrop and Partridge (2008) investigating

computer use at home and the cognitive development of 200 preschool children in a

Headstart program in Detroit and Michigan. The 2008 study (Fish et al., 2008) found

that the children who used computers at home had increased cognitive development

in the verbal, perceptual-performance and general cognitive scales of the McCarthy

Scales of Children’s Abilities test. While these results indicate some positive effects

of ICTs on children’s cognitive development, the researchers call for further research

into how children actually use ICTs.

Researchers have also investigated the types of software used by children and

found that some ICT software promotes rote learning and recall, while other types of

software are more open ended, requiring children to think, communicate and create.

For example, Brooker and Siraj-Blatchford (2002), using a mixed method approach

to investigate 48 English nursery school children’s learning at a computer using four

software packages, concluded that software programs that nurtured collaborative

action and peer support kept children engaged for longer periods of time than

programs that did not afford collaboration. As well, Colbert (2006) discusses how

programs such as Kid Pix, Imovie and Garage Band were used to document the

stories of young preschool-aged children. She found their stories became more


complex by adding multimodal effects including “using images, voice and text” (p.

3). Clements and Sarama (2003) warn that clear distinctions between the various

types of software and uses of computers are necessary when considering the

educational merit of ICTs.

Both policy makers and teachers need to make informed decisions as to how

best to integrate ICTs in classrooms. Yelland (2006a) recommends that schools use

ICTs in ways that are real, purposeful and meaningful in order to “enhance the

production of knowledge and the communication and dissemination of ideas” (p.

122).

The need for further research is reiterated by studies with an emphasis on

literacy skills and ICTs. Such studies have found that, although children are entering

schools with prior experiences and skills of ICTs, there is little evidence of this

knowledge being incorporated into educational contexts (Davidson, 2009; Dede,

2000; Marsh, 2004; McTavish, 2009; Yelland, 2006a; Yelland et al., 2008). For

example, a recent study by McTavish (2009) of the literacy practices of an eight year

old child in a Canadian school found significant variation between in-school and out-

of-school contexts. She found that the home context allowed for integration of

information literacies including the use of email, msn messenger, digital games as

well as the Internet to research factual information for school projects. The child in

the study expressed that he found it easier to use the computer to search for facts for

his projects or for information about his current interests than researching in print

based texts. By comparison, the child’s in-school practices showed only rare use of

computers in an integrated way in the classroom. Instead there was a focus on print

based text, using highly structured reading programs.

Knobel and Lankshear (2003), reviewing new technologies in early childhood

research, point out that early childhood literacy regarding new technologies is an

under researched area. They argue that “overwhelming emphasis is on using these

resources to promote abilities to handle conventional alphabetic print texts rather

than to generate multi-modal texts and to understand principles of making multi-

modal meanings” (p. 77). Yelland (2005) reiterates this view, explaining that new

technologies are being used for "old learning" to emphasise traditional skill

acquisition and that sometimes new technologies were called on to reinforce

traditional skills.


Researchers such as Carrington (2001), and Marsh (2004) argue that the skills

required to read digital texts are different from traditional literacy skills required to

read print based texts, pointing to the need for learning additional skills associated

with ICTS. For example, Wohlwend (2010) highlights techno-literacy skills as the

skills required to read digital texts, including "knowledge of keyboard use, the

mouse-cursor relationship and screen navigation" and "browsing, viewing,

interpreting, navigating, interacting, and producing original texts" (p. 145).

Web searching involves going to different WebPages to find information, to

read, to follow additional links, to navigate the way back to already visited pages,

and to comprehend the information that has been read. As Carrington (2001) points

out, ICTs users “are no longer following a linear relationship with a text" (p. 95). So

too, Wohlwend (2010) explains that, in the past, the majority of meaning making

occurred via print on a page, whereas it now occurs via digital means. This process

has implications for the teaching of literacy in schools. Given what is known about

how to read digital texts, schools are continuing to emphasise traditional reading

based programs using print and print based texts, to read the page from left to right,

and from top to bottom (McTavish, 2009). Burnett’s (2010) recent review of

technology and literacy and early childhood education, for the period 2003 to 2009,

concluded that more research is needed to establish how digital texts promote the

literacy skills of young children. To date, this work emphasises the need for research

on the practices of literacy skills required to read multi modal texts. Such calls for

research also attend to how teachers use ICTs in early childhood classrooms. One

way to research ICTs in early years classrooms is to explicate actual practices in

which children and teachers engage. By explicating actual practices, research can

uncover what is happening in schools including the social aspects of using ICTs in

early childhood.

ICTs and social interaction in early childhood education

A number of studies conclude that children participate in positive social

interactions while using the computer with others. Clements and Swaminathan

(1995) found that, while interactions vary according to the computer software used,

working at the computer can be socially engaging, as children talk more to resolve

conflict, collaborate and problem solve. Shahrimin and Butterworth (2001)

investigated collaborative interactional patterns of five year olds, identifying 16


interactional patterns. These patterns included providing information, asking for

information/explanation, self-monitoring/repetition, declarative planning, disagreeing

with partner, showing pleasure, suggesting ideas, defending control, showing

displeasure, terminal response, defending competence, correcting each other,

accepting guidance and sharing control. Heft and Swaminathan (2002) found that

preschool children observed, over a two month period, participated in a wide range

of social interactions while at the computer; such as talking with each other, noticing

the actions of each other and making comment, sharing the computer and its

associated resources, and offering suggestions, help and advice. Plowman and

Stephen’s (2005) study of children’s interactions at the computer found that they

“negotiated access and taking turns, managed operations such as deciding where to

click and shared enjoyment of the action depicted on the screen” (p. 150).

So too, Brooker and Siraj-Blatchford (2002) concluded that computers can

engender a range of social interactions, including conversations within a small group,

assisting each other, engaging in collaboration, negotiation and discussion. Similarly,

Spink et al. (2010) identified that children participate in a range of collaborative

behaviours when Web searching. Moreover, Lou's (2004) meta-analysis investigated

the findings of 71 studies looking at small group versus individual learning with

ICTs. Findings indicated that students, who worked in small groups at the computer

attempted more and used additional learning strategies and to a greater extent, were

further engaged. However, they required additional amounts of time compared to

those children who were working at the computer on their own. Given such studies,

it can be argued that, contrary to the claims of groups such as the Alliance for

Childhood (2004), children have been found to participate in a wide range of

meaningful social interactions while at the computer.

While the above studies have identified that children participate in a range of

social interactions whilst working on the computer, Lomangino, Nicholson and

Sulzby (1999) point out that it is vital for teachers to be familiar with the social

interactions of children engaging with ICTs and for teachers to utilise this knowledge

when making decisions about ICT experiences in the classroom. While this point is

well made, few studies have actually focussed on social interactions between

teachers and children as they engage in ICT experiences.


Teacher and child interaction while engaging with ICTs

The studies discussed so far have suggested that teacher-child interactions are

important for successful ICT use in early childhood classrooms, although little

research has investigated the work of the teacher, to see what teachers do and how

they do it when working with young children using technologies in the classroom.

Lankshear and Knobel (2003), in relation to new literacies and early childhood

education, point out that there is little empirical evidence of actual practices, as

studies to date typically focus on gaining teacher’s accounts of what they do in the

classroom rather than by investigating the actual practices of the teachers and

children.

There are only a few studies that specifically examine the practices of teachers.

Masters (2008), for example, investigated a group of primary teachers scaffolding

children, aged eight to 11 years, while working on the computer on an animation

project. The qualitative study was informed by Vygotsky’s (1978) notion of social

constructivism. It found that teachers lacked confidence with ICTs and relied on

transmission of knowledge via direct instruction. While this study identified the

importance of interaction in computer use in the classroom, the children in the

Masters’ study were older than the children studied and reported on in the current

study. Plowman and Stephen (2005) found in their study of computer usage by

children aged three and four in seven Scotland pre-schooling services that adults

mainly interacted with children who were using the computer on a ‘needs’ basis, and

not for scaffolding or teaching purposes.

Another study, by Grieshaber (2010), investigated one teacher’s interaction

with children, aged five to eight years, in a multi age class as they worked on a set

computer task. In finding that children require teacher attention and support when

participating in the set task, Grieshaber advocates that it is more than just teacher

time that is important to ICT teaching and learning; it has to do with the "nature of

teacher-child talk" (p. 70). In this thesis, teacher-child talk is an important

consideration in my explication of the interactional resources used by members in an

early childhood classroom. The focus here is to explicate how the teacher-child talk

and interaction are accomplished in the context of Web searching.


Social interactions, teacher-child interaction and classroom contexts

There is little empirical evidence of teacher-child interactions as children

engage with ICTs, although more is known about the broader social interactions of

teachers and children in classrooms. We know that teachers and children use

language to pursue their goals in the classroom where the underlying curriculum goal

of the teacher is knowledge building. Within everyday interaction, Stivers et al.

(2011) point out that interactants hold each other accountable for what knowledge is

made relevant. They provide the example of “not tell[ing] others what [knowedge]

they already have access to” (p. 19). However, in classrooms teachers and students

employ interactional resources during interactions that routinely display already

known knowledge.

Teachers use interactional strategies to manage lessons and to position

themselves as “directors” (McHoul, 1978, p. 188) of the conversation. Mehan (1979)

was one of the first researchers to point out that all phases of classroom lessons are

accomplished through the co-ordinated social actions of classroom members through

talk, and question and answer sequences. Question and answer sequences are

predominantly initiated by teachers. Teacher questions, in instructional contexts, are

used to gauge students’ understanding of a particular subject (“Why do you think

those animals are endangered?”); to request an action (“Could you please turn the

computer on?”); as well as to assess students’ knowledge after an explicit lesson.

Schegloff (2007) points out that, more often than not, teachers ask questions for

which they already know the answer. Siraj-Blatchford and Manni (2008), in their

study titled Researching Effective Pedagogy in the Early Years, analysed questions

asked by adults in preschooling settings and found that adult questions were closed

questions 94.5% of the time, with only 5.5% of questions open questions. They relate

open ended questions with promoting “sustained shared thinking” (p. 5), a key

attribute for high quality early childhood education (Siraj-Blatchforrd & Manni,

2008). Koshik (2010) points out that the majority of research into teacher questioning

has focused on structured, teacher-led situations, not necessarily indicative of every

classroom interaction. Additionally, Koshik’s (2010) research on questions in

teacher-student conferences highlights that questions can be used to “convey rather

than elicit information” (p. 159), with the design of the question as well as the

response to the question affecting its function. This finding extends current


understanding of teacher questioning in classrooms and highlights the importance of

the pedagogical practices associated with asking questions in the classroom.

In addition to explicating question and answer sequences, Mehan’s (1979)

ground breaking research on classroom lessons contends that classroom lessons have

interactional sequences that are co-constructed by participants. He describes the

interactional sequences in classrooms as either “a) exchanging information; b) giving

information; or c) giving procedural instructions” (p. 84), showing that whole class

lessons are accomplished through talk-in-interaction. Mehan’s (1979) study found

that much of the interaction occurring within classrooms was attending to the

instructional phase of lessons. Mehan (1979) identified and labelled a three-part

instructional sequence as the Initiation-Reply-Evaluation sequence (IRE), an

extension of a question and answer sequence. The initiation (I) is usually a question

from the teacher, the reply (R) is the student’s answer and the evaluation (E) is the

teacher’s assessment of the student’s answer. Others have used alternative labels that

suggest the same sequence. These include Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF)

(Sinclair & Coulthard, 1992), and Initiation-Response-Comment (Baker, 1991).

Sinclair and Coulthard (1992) built on Mehan’s (1979) IRE sequence with the triadic

dialogue (Lemke, 1990), Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF), showing that feedback

actually involved more than just evaluation by the teacher. It may also involve a

comment. For example,

A teacher may initiate a question, “Where is Canberra?”

A student may respond, “In the Australian Capital Territory.”

The teacher’s feedback, “It gets very cold in Canberra”

Wegerif and Dawes (2004) added discussion to the formulation (IRDF) to the IRF

sequence, highlighting the importance of discussion in interactions for learning.

In addition to question and answer sequences and IRDF sequences (Wegerif &

Dawes, 2004), teachers also draw on the interactional resources of directives

(Mehan, 1979). Ervin-Tripp (1976) investigated directives in everyday interaction

and found that there are different types of directives. For example, hints such as

‘This class is too noisy’ can be treated as a directive to be quiet. Need statements,

such as ‘I need you all to listen carefully’ can also be considered a directive.

Directives are typically used by teachers to organise and manage the cohort in order

to create an environment conducive to the underlying classroom agenda of learning


(Mehan, 1979). I now turn to discuss studies that deal with other interactional

strategies used by teachers to manage a cohort of children.

How teachers manage the cohort

Payne and Hustler (1980) investigated how teachers manage a cohort or class

of students. They show how teachers treat students as a collective or category of

‘student’, not individually, as a way to “manage, coordinate, control and direct” (p.

50) the lesson. Macbeth (1991) investigated teacher authority in classrooms and

showed that, in addition to managing the class via a two party structure of teacher-

student, teachers also use named addresses and silence. Macbeth (1991) points out

that a named address identifies an individual student, however the cohort finds how

the individual address relates to themselves within the classroom. Similar to

Macbeth, Koole (2007) investigated classroom interactions and identified that

classroom interactions are implemented as if two interactants are participating; the

first falls within the category of student (regardless of the number of participants)

and the second, the category of teacher. Koole’s analysis, however, shows that

individual participants contribute to the interaction in individual ways and that

“student participation is interactionally constructed” (p. 492), pointing out that

during lessons, there are simultaneous and parallel activities for individual students

happening, which might include “content or non-content related activities that may

or may not be focussed on the teacher’s lesson” (p.492). The focus of the teacher’s

lesson is usually in the context of mandated curriculum documents, although Baker

(1991), Mercer (1995), Mercer and Hodgkinson (2008) and Church (2010) have

shown that curriculum content cannot be treated as separate from the interaction

between teacher and student. These studies will be discussed now.

How teachers do the work of teaching

It is through co-constructed interaction, the talk and actions of the teacher and

student/s, that teachers ‘do teaching’ and curriculum content has the opportunity to

‘get done’. Baker (1991) investigated how reading activities, in a first grade

classroom, were conducted within the context of the school and within the context of

interaction. She identified that reading instruction, in school, can be shown through

“procedural visibility” (p.164), and that there are institutionalised ways of reading

and talking about texts. Baker (1991) informs, “learning to read takes place

concurrently with, and as a crucial procedure in, acculturation to the social codes that


govern schooling” (p. 662). Baker (1991) showed that reading lessons consist of a

triadic dialogue, namely the IRF – Initiation (usually via a question from the

teacher), Response (from the student) and Feedback (from the teacher), and it is

through this dialogue that members co-construct their “institutional relations” (p.

169).

Church (2010) pointed out that most research about how teachers do the work

of teaching examines the types of questions teachers ask. In her 2010 study, Church

was interested in teacher-child interactions where a child initiated an interaction with

the teacher during story book reading. She found that typically most topics initiated

by the children were not taken up by the teacher. Church (2010) found that it was the

teacher who determines what topics get taken up, and that, more than likely, topics

which orient to the teachers’ pedagogic motivation are more likely to get expanded

upon. These two studies by Baker (1991) and Church (2010) show how teachers

acculturate students in classroom contexts to orient them to the teacher’s pedagogic

discourse.

The teacher’s pedagogic discourse is mostly influenced by the goals of their

lessons. However, Mercer (1995) points out that “knowledge is shaped by people’s

communicative actions” (p. 19) and can be nurtured through different kinds of

interactions. He asserts that teachers use talk in “goal directed ways” for three

purposes:

to elicit relevant knowledge from students, so that they can see what students

already know and understand and so that the knowledge is seen to be ‘owned’

by students as well as teachers;

to respond to things that students say, not only so that students get feedback

on their attempts but also so that the teacher can incorporate what students

say into the flow of the discourse and gather students’ contributions together

to construct more generalized meanings; and

to describe the classroom experiences that they share with students in such a

way that the educational significance of those joint experiences is revealed

and emphasised. (p. 25)

It is through talk and interaction that teachers and children accomplish action that can

lead to learning. According to Mercer and Hodgkinson (2008), talk in classroom


settings is the most influential educational resource for co-constructing knowledge

and understanding.

Co-construction is a term that can be understood broadly as the joint and co-

operative nature of interaction. As Jacoby and Ochs (1995) point out, co-

construction involves the “joint creation of a form, interpretation, stance, action,

activity, identify institution, skill, ideology, emotion, or other culturally meaningful

reality” (p. 171). Similarly, the Queensland Studies Authority (2006) defines co-

construction in education as “teachers and children construct their knowledges

through reciprocal interactions with people, objects and representations within social

and cultural contexts” (p101). In early childhood education, co-construction refers to

teachers and children collaboratively creating the educational environment and

implementing the curriculum (Queensland Studies Authority, 2006) in order to

facilitate learning.

Scaffolding is an interactional strategy used to promote learning and its use is

recommended as a resource for aiding learning. When a teacher scaffolds a learning

situation, teachers use carefully considered language to offer a child just enough

support to complete a task that would normally be beyond reach if they were

working at the task alone (Bruner, 1986; Mercer, 1995; Queensland Studies

Authority, 2006). This approach is also known as operating within the “zone of

proximal development” (Vygotsky, 1978). Given the value of co-construction and

scaffolding to teaching and learning, the significance of teacher-child interaction is

reiterated.

In sum, work on teacher-child interaction points to the importance of talk-in-

interaction for teaching and learning and gives weight to the focus of the current

study on talk-in-interaction in early childhood education, in particular talk and

interaction between children and their teacher while they engage in Web searching.

In light of the paucity of studies focussing on talk in interaction while Web

searching, this thesis is concerned with explicating how talk between teachers and

children while Web searching aids in the accomplishment of the search.

Web searching in early childhood

The research literature relating more specifically to the World Wide Web in

early childhood reveals only a small number of studies on Internet searching by


young children (Spink et al., 2010; Yelland, 2005). A study of children using

computers conducted by Calvert, Rideout, Woolard, Barr and Strouse (2005) found

that children with prior computer experience had utilized the Web for entertainment-

related searching (e.g., children’s television programs or popular culture). Their

study made no mention of children accessing the Web to find out information.

Livingstone (2003), in an article relating to research and children’s use of the

Internet, identifies that the current body of research is small, and has tended to

investigate the “supposed dangers of the internet” (p. 150) more than the

opportunities the Internet affords children.

Two empirical studies, mentioned previously, that show young children

engaging competently in Web searches using engines such as Google are those by

Davidson (2009) and Spink et al. (2010). As noted, Davidson (2009) researched

young children’s interactions with their siblings and parents as they conducted Web

searches at home and found that the children participated in a wide range of digital

practices with support through talk-in-interaction. So too, the study by Spink et al.

(2010), located in a preparatory classroom of a school, showed what children

actually did as they engaged in Web searching in an early years classroom. They

found that children participated in a range of actions associated with searching the

Web including “browsing and using keywords, creating and reformulating queries,

making relevance judgments, conducting successive (related) Web searches over

time and engaging in multitasking and collaborative behaviour” (p. 196). The

findings of these two studies show that some children as young as three years,

although needing adult support, have the skills to use a computer and the Internet

(Davidson, 2009), and that their searches are accomplished with either a teacher, a

parent or a more experienced other. These studies with a focus on social interaction

show that there are rich and complex interactions as an adult or teacher and children

collaboratively engage in Web searching. As such, they point to the need to

investigate further the social interactions of young children with their teachers as

they perform a Web search in early years classrooms.

Searching for information offline

Having established that there are only a few studies that investigate children’s

Web searching for information, research that addresses more traditional approaches


to children’s information searching such as, finding information in a book or in a

library, will now be considered.

There is limited research in relation to young children searching for

information in books and in the library, however researchers have found that

informational texts are rarely present in early childhood programs (Detken, Martinez,

& Schrader, 2009; Duke, 2000; Shenton & Dixon, 2004). Duke (2000) in her study

of informational texts in the Grade 1 classroom found that informational books in

classroom libraries, factual information displayed on classrooms walls, and as a

focus of classroom language experiences were rarely found. Duke warns that failure

to explicitly teach children about informational texts could impact on some

children’s connection with reading and may impact on their ability to interpret,

critique and read informational texts throughout their later school years. Shenton and

Dixon (2004) investigated the problems arising from information seeking by children

aged four to 18 years with a focus on the “information universes of youngsters” (p.

178). It sought to investigate how issues associated with finding information changed

as children got older. It found that for children aged four to nine years, the typical

resources or sources used to find out information were books at home, materials from

public libraries and other people. Shenton and Dixon point out that one main issue

identified for young children trying to find information in non-fiction books was the

small number of non-fiction books that target their information to young children.

Additionally, little research addressing young children finding information in

the library using catalogues has been undertaken. Detken, Martinez and Schrader

(2009) suggest that young children rarely use Online Public Access Catalogs, due to

the interface not being child friendly, relying on digital applications rather than

pictorial or spatial cues. The lack of research that focuses on children finding out

information from traditional and contemporary perspectives has been established

identifying the need to expand this research base given the imperative of ICT use in

early years classrooms.

Chapter Summary

Debates around using computers and ICTs in early childhood settings continue

to fuel discussion as to the appropriateness of ICTs in early childhood, yet often

without empirical substantiation. This chapter has investigated a range of studies


exploring the use of computers in early childhood education to show that there is

little known about young children using computers online with each other and with

their teachers. The chapter demonstrates this paucity as a justification for an

empirical study with such a focus. The next chapter discusses the research design of

the study.

Chapter 3: The study of children in the institutional setting of the classroom 27

Chapter 3: The Study of Children in the Institutional Setting of the Classroom

Informing this study is the theoretical perspective that children are competent

in managing in situ their social interactions. Children and childhood are studied from

the perspective that social interaction is a practical accomplishment (Hutchby &

Moran-Ellis, 1998), where children use and manipulate complex interactional tools

to manage social interaction. Described as the “competence approach” (Danby,

2002; Hutchby & Moran-Ellis, 2008; Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008), investigations

explicate the ways in which children manage their interactions as they unfold. The

“competence approach” acknowledges that children are social agents, competent and

capable of constructing and maintaining their own social worlds (Corsaro, 2005;

Cromdal, 2006, 2009; Danby, 1997, 2002, 2009; James et al., 1998; James & Prout,

1997; Mayall, 2002; Speier, 1973), utilizing their knowledge of their world (Butler,

2008), and are worthy of study (Prout & James, 1990).

Hutchby and Moran-Ellis (1998) recommend the use of empirical research in

order to understand and explicate how children make sense of interactions with

others insitu, and how they manage complex social worlds including “power , access,

and participation in joint activities” (p. 19). Two empirical approaches that underpin

this study are ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Ethnomethodology was

founded by Harold Garfinkel (1967) where he sought to “analyse everyday

activities” (p. vii), with a focus on “making members’ methods visible, rational and

reportable” (p. vii). Ethnomethodological studies explicate how participants orient to

social order by investigating how they go about “practical activities and practical

circumstances” (Garfinkel, 1967, p. 1). An ethnomethodological approach studies

how members use talk, action and interaction to create shared meaning and to

accomplish everyday social experiences. Central to this accomplishment is talk-in-

interaction, a focus of conversation analysis.

Conversation analysis focuses on the sequential features of talk-in-interaction

(Francis & Hester, 2004; Hester & Eglin, 1997; Sacks, 1995; Sacks, Schegloff, &

Jefferson, 1974) to show how talk is organized and produced as part of a social

process co-constructed by participants (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008). Harvey Sacks is

acknowledged as founding the field of conversation analysis during the 1960s and

28 Chapter 3: The study of children in the institutional setting of the classroom

1970s. He and his colleagues Schegloff and Jefferson (1974) noticed the observable

features of turn taking within conversation and found that turn taking was managed

by the participants and unfolded as the interaction progressed. His interest was in the

“rules of conversational sequence” (Sacks, 1995, p. 3), including structural properties

as well as the organisational features of language. Schegloff and Jefferson were

integral to the early development of conversation analysis and they continue to

influence the direction of conversation analysis after the sudden death of Harvey

Sacks (ten Have, 2004).

Together, ethnomethodology and conversation analysis provide analytic

resources, analytic structure and analytic “tools” (Baker, 1997, p. 43) to investigate

social interaction in micro-detail. Together they seek to understand how social order

is constructed by members’ actions including talk-in-interaction. In this study, we are

concerned with the social features of interaction as children interact with each other,

their teacher and the online environment as they engage in Web searching in the

classroom.

Ethnomethodology

Ethnomethodological interest is pursued using close observation of ‘natural’

everyday interactions (Garfinkel, 1967). Founded by Garfinkel (1967), this method

of social inquiry seeks to explicate how members construct and maintain social

interactions as part of everyday life. Ethnomethodology’s concern is with the

methods used by members as they accomplish everyday interactions, including how

they understand their immediate interactional surroundings and their consequential

actions.

Within an ethnomethodological perspective, Heritage (1984b) outlines three

assumptions about social interactions:

Interaction is structurally organized

Contributions to interaction are contextually oriented

These two properties inhere in the details so that no order of detail can be

dismissed, a priori, as disorderly, accidental or irrelevant. (p. 241)

These three assumptions are now discussed briefly. First, interaction is

structurally organised in that every aspect of social interaction features structural


components that are constant and repeated (Heritage, 1984b). For example, when one

member asks a question, they stop speaking, indicating to the participant that they are

waiting for a response. The participant then chooses their action, which could be to

answer the question, to ignore or to contribute to the conversation in a different way,

such as by gesture. The structural organisation of successful interaction usually is

taken for granted by participants.

Second, contributions to interaction are contextually oriented, suggesting that

members participate in an ongoing social action that is dependent upon the context.

Members orient to the existing context of the interaction while, at the same time, are

remaking the context through their moment-by-moment interactions. In other words,

members orient to the contexts in which they are interacting in order to construct

joint meaning and sense-making. The actions of participants cannot be understood

without referring to the context of the social interaction (Heritage, 1984b).

The first two assumptions are co-dependent, and cannot be separated or

isolated (Heritage, 1984b). The third assumption that “no order of detail can be

dismissed, a priori, as disorderly, accidental or irrelevant” (p. 241) is important

because analysis relies on empirical evidence of the actual actions of members rather

than on “premature theory constructions” (p. 242). No detail of the interaction can be

dismissed as unimportant, as each and every action has interactional meaning for

members and are significant in co-producing the conversation. What happens in the

immediate prior turn affects the next turn. Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974)

point out that members display their interpretations of the immediate prior turn, in

their following turn, highlighting the features of sequential organisation and the

relationship between turns as observable and reportable. As part of the analysis, the

relationship between turns is analysed rather than each turn separately (Church,

2007).

Three analytic features that analysts using an ethnomethodological approach

attend to are those of indexicality, reflexivity and accountability. These features are

observable, reportable and accountable, making the analysis transparent. First,

indexicality refers to the assumption that social accomplishments are achieved

through language and that the language can only be analysed as part of the context.

Much of the meaning that participants make of their interactions are context-

dependent (Garfinkel, 1967), such as who is speaking, where, when and for what


reason. For example, if a person telephones another to reply to a party invitation and

says, “that date is fine by me”, only the people who are familiar with ‘the date’, and

aware of the context of the specific invitation, would be able to make ‘sense’ of the

interaction. In other words, meaning is made by the context in which it was used

(Coulon, 1995). Coulon (1995) explains that “indexical expressions are expressions,

such as ‘that, I, you’ and so on, that draw their meanings from their context” (p. 17).

For example, in my data, the teacher says, “well we’ve typed it i:n what’s the next

step”. Here, she refers to the search question as ‘it’ and the next step as what the

participants need to do next to activate the search. Only participants would

understand what the teacher was referring to here. In summary, participants display

the meaning of the interaction by the actions displayed in their next turns.

Second, reflexivity refers to the traits of action that are reflexive in nature. A

reflexive account considers what the members themselves make of the situation

(Danby, 1997). Described by Garfinkel (1967) as “constitutive reflexivity”, this

understanding sees the activities being observed as texts to be examined.

Finally, accountability lies in the practical accomplishments of members’

situated practices. All interactions are viewed as “describable, intelligible, reportable

and analysable” (Coulon, 1995, p. 25). In other words, the actions of participants are

able to be described and reported by analysts in such a way as to make visible those

actions and members’ future actions which orient to their interpretations of the

meaning of the immediate prior action.

Conversation Analysis

Conversation analysis has its origins in ethnomethodology (Cuff, Sharrock, &

Francis, 1998; Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997; Psathas, 1995). Conversation analysis and

ethnomethodology each investigate social actions (Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997; Psathas,

1995), to find out how members produce their everyday activities and make sense of

their world. The concern of conversation analysis is how the production and

sequential/procedural organisation of members’ situated practices unfold during

interaction (ten Have, 2004).

The term ‘conversation’ in conversation analysis has caused some confusion,

as some interpret the word literally, based on the assumption that conversation

analysis is concerned with ‘talk’ only. However, conversation analysts, from the


outset, have been interested in the verbal, paralinguistic (including the sound quality,

pauses, gaps, and restarts) and non-verbal aspects or actions (such as gestures) of

members of a social group (Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997; Psathas, 1995).

Conversation analysis is not limited to a specific type of interaction. Any sort

of interaction, such as chats among friends, medical consultations and interviews,

can be studied using the conversation analysis approach (Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997).

Conversation analysis investigates everyday interactions with a focus on the

sequential features of interaction, which occur in formal institutional settings and

informal settings (Francis & Hester, 2004; Hester & Eglin, 1997). Institutional

settings might include talk happening in classrooms (cf. Baker, 1991; 1997; Bjork-

Willen, 2008; Butler, 2008; Church, 2010; Cobb-Moore, 2008; Danby, 1996; Danby

& Baker 1998; 2000; 2001; Theobald, 2009;2012), police interviews (Edwards,

2008), and medical consultations (cf. Clemente, 2009; Maynard, 1992). Informal

settings might be conversations in a café and family mealtimes (Hester & Hester,

2010). The analytic interest is in finding out how formal or informal talk is organised

(Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997), co-constructed by the participants and produced as part of

a social process (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008).

Three underlying assumptions of conversation analysis

As with ethnomethodology, conversation analysis investigates the order and

orderliness of social interaction, in situ, examining interactions as they unfold in real

time (Psathas, 1995). This approach is underpinned by three underlying assumptions:

interactions are orderly;

conversation is co-constructed by participants; and

talk evolves during the course of the conversation. (Psathas, 1995)

The first assumption is that interactions are orderly and have recurring features

that aim to produce social order. Members jointly construct the order as the

interaction unfolds, and the meaning is produced within the context of the

interaction. Members are most likely not overtly aware of the order, although they do

orient to it. Conversation analysts seek to discover, describe and analyse this order

(Psathas, 1995), including that of the institutional setting of the classroom.


Conversation analysis works from the view that ‘talk-in-interaction’ occurs in

units (Psathas, 1995). Units are exchanges of interaction that have recurring patterns

that are taken-for-granted by participants. For example, a greeting is conditional on a

return greeting (Sacks, 1995).

A = “Hello” B = “Hi”

If person A says, “hello”, it could be expected that person B would respond with an

action that falls within the recurrent pattern of greetings. That is, if someone says

hello, the reply would usually be a response to the greeting. If a response is not

forthcoming, person A would usually set about to repair this interactional trouble.

For example person A might treat a non-response as person B not hearing their initial

greeting and repeat the greeting.

A second assumption is that conversation is co-constructed by participants,

where members introduce topics for conversation, which may or may not be taken up

by others. To illustrate this assumption, an example from my data follows:

SUSIE Harry (1.0) look at the top li:ne 870 (5.6) 871

SUSIE What does it say 872 (1.8) 873

SUSIE hhh huh You were too quick874

In the above example, Susie initiates a topic of conversation about the top

line of the Google search, showing one possible link, returned after the activation of

a search. Harry’s next action could have oriented to Susie’s topic initiation. Instead

his action of ‘clicking’ to activate an additional search occurs and changes the focus

of the conversation. In this way, Harry has not taken up the topic initiated by Susie.

This shows that topics of conversation are co-constructed by participants through

their following actions. The topic of conversation then focussed on Harry’s ‘clicking’

action when Susie comments, “hhh huh you were too quick” (line 765).

A third assumption is that talk evolves during the course of the conversation,

and progresses in a “serial fashion” (Maynard & Peraklya, 2003, p. 246) in “an

ordered course, moving from openings through a middle phase to closings” (Cuff et

al., 1998, p.167). Openings refer to how interactions commence. This could simply

be done by saying, “Hi John!” This is an opening for John to either accept or decline

the ‘invitation to participate’ in the interaction. If John accepts, then participants,


based on their understanding of the interaction as it unfolds, would progress through

the middle phases of the interaction, and would take turns keeping the conversation

going until the interaction draws to a close. To signal the close of an interaction, one

might indicate their intention to finish the conversation by saying, “Thanks John, I

have to go.” The second member then responds to this closing turn. Depending on

the response or action from the second member, the interaction either finishes or

keeps going.

Turn taking, organisation of sequences and repair.

In conversation analysis, turn taking organisation, sequence organisation and

repair organisation are key analytic concerns (ten Have, 2008), and will now be

described.

Organisation of turn-taking in conversation.

Turn-taking in conversation forms the underlying organisation of interaction. It

is the taking of turns to talk between two or more people that makes a conversation a

social interaction. Once a conversation has commenced, participants follow matters

of conversational turn taking.

In their classic paper, Sacks et al. (1974) show a turn taking model that

documents the organisation of turn-taking in conversation, comprising 14 rules of

turn-taking. One fundamental rule of talk in interaction is that one party usually talks

at a time. Other rules oriented to by participants include (a) speaker’s exchange

turns; (b) the length of turns and the order of speakers vary however participants

utilize techniques for assigning turns; and (c) transitions between speakers mostly

occurs smoothly at turn transition relevance places, with little overlap and limited

gaps in talk. When overlaps occur, repair mechanisms such as one party terminating

their turn are implemented to ‘fix’ the interactional trouble encountered (Sacks et al.,

1974). Sacks noticed that what a speaker does in their next turn is related to what the

prior speaker did in the immediate prior turn (Psathas, 1995). This noticing by Sacks

contributed to the initial understanding of how turn taking helps to organise

sequences in interactions.

Organisation of sequences in conversations.

The organisation of sequences in conversation is most evident in adjacency

pairs. Adjacency pairs have structural or formal properties that 'go together'. They


usually consist of two turns (Sacks, 1995) and have rules that members either

consciously or unconsciously follow during turns. What is said by the first turn

speaker, known in conversation analysis as the first pair part, is relevant to the

second turn response (Schegloff, 2007), known as the second pair part.

On completion of a first pair part, the speaker stops and the next speaker starts

to complete the second pair of that unit, for example, a question may be a first pair

part and the answer is the second pair (Maynard & Peraklya, 2003). In both formal

and informal talk, adjacency pairs aid in the sequence of conversation, enabling

members to make sense of the orderliness of the interaction (Psathas, 1995). As well,

the respondent relates their turn to what is said in the first turn. Examples of

adjacency pairs include greeting-return greeting, question-answer, closing-return

closing (Schegloff & Sacks, 1973), invitation-accept/decline invitation, offer-

accept/decline offer, complaint-apology/justification (Maynard & Peraklya, 2003;

Psathas, 1999; Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson 1974). Question and answer adjacency

pairs are common in interaction and serve a range of purposes, including information

seeking (Schegloff, Jefferson, & Sacks, 1977), requesting (Curl & Drew, 2008) and

assessing (Heritage & Raymond, 2005). Questions ‘do asking’. Question and answer

sequences will now be discussed in more detail.

Question and Answer Sequences – A common adjacency pair

In conversation, questions are described as the questioner wishing to 'find out'

something that they do not know the answer to. Heritage and Raymond (in press)

point out that when members ask questions, they take a position of not knowing the

answer. Heritage and Raymond (in press) label this lack of knowledge a “k-”

position. The questioner places the receiver in a position of knowing labelled “k+”.

Heritage and Raymond show that there is an epistemic gradient between the

questioner having no knowledge of the answer to having some knowledge of the

answer and the question design can “establish a distinctive gap in knowledge, a

distinctive epistemic gradient between questioner and answerer”. Heritage and

Raymond provide the following four question designs as an example of the varying

levels of knowledge claimed by the questioner in the design of the question: (a) Who

did you talk to? (b) Did you talk to John (c) You talked to John didn’t you? (d) You

talked to John?


Enfield, Stivers and Levinson (2010) write that questions have the ability to

“repair (What did you say?), offer (Would you like a hand?), request (Do you have a

spare pencil?), challenge (Why are you doing that?) and so on” (p. 2615). Schegloff

(2007) points out that sometimes questioners ask questions to which they already

know the answer. These “known answer questions” (Schegloff, 2007, p. 223) are

sometimes referred to as “test questions” (Schegloff, 2007, p. 223), or “display

questions” (Long & Sato, 1983, p. 271). Both ‘known answer’ and ‘referential’

questions can be used to elicit information from the answerer. Stubbs (1983)

categorised information questions as X and yes/no questions. X questions require the

answerer to give more information or more detail than a yes/no question which

requires either an affirmative or negative response to the question. X and yes/no

questions can also be called open and closed questions (Wu, 1993).

Curl and Drew (2008) investigated two different types of requests to show that

speakers select how they frame the request based on their “entitlement” to make such

a request and the “contingencies” of the recipient being able to grant their request (p.

130). The first type being a request with a modal verb (e.g., could/can you ... etc) and

the second type is a “declarative” (p. 130) request that begins with “I wonder if ...”

(p. 129). When referring to ‘could’ constructions in requests, Curl and Drew (2008)

point out that such requests are treated as "unproblematic" (p. 147) as speakers

assume recipients are in a position to fulfil their request. For example, the utterance

“Could you close the door please, Sophie?” said to a child sitting on the floor, is

mostly likely to be treated by the person requesting the action as unproblematic with

the expectation that it will be done. On the other hand, “I wonder if...” (p. 130)

requests are an indirect way of requesting, framed by the speaker who might believe

that their request could quite possibly ‘put the recipient out’. In this way, indirect

requests help the speaker to avoid rejection in a direct way and therefore orient to a

preferred response rather than a dispreferred one. Raymond (2006) uses the term

‘yes/no interrogatives’ for yes/no questions and ‘wh’ interrogatives for questions that

require more than just a yes/no response. Some types of questions expect particular

types of replies. Schegloff (2007) points out that ‘wh’ interrogatives make relevant

the following types of replies:

Questions that begin with (or include) 'Who' makes a person reference

relevant as their answer; "where"- interrogatives make a place reference


relevant in their answer; "when" -make a time reference relevant; "how

long" -interrogatives make a duration answer relevant, and so on. (p.78)

By making relevant particular types of replies, responses can be categorised as “type

conforming or non-type conforming” (Raymond, 2003, p. 946). Raymond (2003)

notes that “non- type conforming” responses do not align with the expected response

type based on the question asked, where as “type conforming” responses do.

Additionally, questions in conversation do not have to be in the traditional

literary form. Tone and pitch as well as grammatical structure can be used to identify

a question. Sacks (1995) states, “rising intonation, special grammar and inversions”

(p. 287) can be used to recognise a question. However, questions are not always

identifiable via their paralinguistic properties, and can be treated as questions by

members within the context of the unfolding interaction.

Sacks (1995) points out that the rule associated with the asking of questions is

that a “person who asks a question has a right to talk again afterwards” (p. 49). This

rule can provide a vehicle for an extended period of talk (e.g. question, response,

question, response) (Sacks & Jefferson, 1995). This form often is used by teachers.

The person asking the questions quite often has control of the conversation and can

choose to ask another question after the answerer has responded. Sacks (1995)

describes the questioner who continues to ask questions after each response as

implementing the “chaining rule” (p. 264). This means that the person who asks the

question can talk again after the other has answered, and has the right to ask another

question. In effect, the questioner has made a chain with no predefined set length

(Sacks, 1995). A sequence could be made up of QA QA QA and could continue for

longer or shorter durations. Sacks (1995) writes that the questioner has the right to

“draw a conclusion” (p. 54) once the answerer has responded to the question; that is,

to provide feedback, summarize or comment in order to conclude the sequence of

talk.

Pre-expansion, insertion and post expansion sequences.

Rarely does a sequence of talk involve only one adjacency pair. Sequences of

talk can be extended through the implementation of additional adjacency pairs

(Schegloff, 2007; ten Have, 2008). Talk can be extended using pre-expansions,

insertion sequences and post expansion sequences (Schegloff, 2007). These extended

sequences are themselves made up of adjacency pairs, and are discussed below.


Pre-expansions do preparatory work and can include “pre-invitations, pre-

requests and pre-announcements” (Schegloff, 2007, p. 39). Schegloff (2007) explains

that pre-expansions “serve as an alert to recipients that what is to follow is built to be

an informing or telling of news”, or as a “contingent next step” (p. 39). Insertion

sequences may be inserted between adjacency pair first pair-parts and second pair-

parts causing an extended sequence of talk. An insertion sequence may alter the

immediate response or answer to the first pair-part of an adjacency pair (Maynard &

Peraklya, 2003). This is usually the case where a participant requires more detail in

order to complete the second pair-part. For example,

Teacher: Where is your homework?

Child: Is it due today?

Teacher: Yes.

Child: Sorry, I left it at home.

Post expansion sequences extend the sequence of talk past a point of possible

completion. An example offered by ten Have (2008) is when an assessment is

provided after a response to a question. For example,

Teacher: Did you bring your homework today?

Child: Yes

Teacher: That’s great, thank you.

With such complex, co-ordinated actions involved in the organisation of talk

between members, it is to be expected that participants will encounter some

difficulties during interactions. I will now turn to discuss the concept of ‘repair’ in

interaction, used by participants to remedy interactional trouble.

Organisation of repair in conversations.

The third feature of talk-in-interaction is repair. In social interaction, repair

refers to the methods that members orient to in order to ‘fix’ interactional problems

(Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008). Maynard and Peryakla (2003) describe errors,

mishearings, glitches in turn transition, and problems of meaning as some of the

‘troubles’ encountered in the sequence of talk and turn taking. A repair must be

initiated by one of the members of the interaction (ten Have, 2008). Hutchby and

Wooffitt (2008) list four types of repair sequences (explained below):

Self-initiated self-repair

Other-initiated self-repair


Self-initiated other-repair

Other-initiated other repair (p. 60)

A self-initiated self-repair means that the problem is identified by the current

speaker and is repaired by the current speaker. Sidnell (2010, p. 111) provides the

following example of a self-initiated, self-repair:

(1) Self-initiated self-repair (YYZ.5.1:22–6, 24)

22 Bev: Okay wul listen ((smile voice))

23 .hh (.) >Are=you gonna be at my house at what time on

24 uh Fri:- on Sund [ay?

25 Ann: [What time am I (.) to be there at.

26 Bev: I think a little before se:ven.=

In line 24 Bev, cuts off the word “Fri”, to repair, correcting the day to “Sunday”.

Sidnell (2010) notes that self-initiated, self-repairs are most often “indicated by

perturbations, hitches and cut-offs in talk” (p. 111).

An other-initiated, self-repair means that the recipient has indentified

interactional trouble but the speaker issues the repair. Sidnell (2010, p. 111) gives the

following example of an other-initiated, self repair:

(2) Other-initiated self-repair (NB:1.1:6,18–27)

01 Jon: Well I’m s:↑ure we c’get on et San Juan ↑Hi:lls ↑that’s

02 ni:ce course ah only played it ↑o:nce.

03 Guy: °Uh huh?°

04 (0.6)

05 Guy: a→ .hhh °↑It’s not↑ too bad,°

06 (0.4)

07 Jon: b→ Hu:h?

08 Guy: c→ ’S not too ba:d,

09 (.)

10 Jon: No:.

In this other-initiated, self-repair, Jon initiates a repair in line 7, by saying “Hu:h? To

indicate he has not heard Guy. Guy corrects this in line 8 when he repeats, “S not too

ba:d,”.

A self-initiated, other-repair involves the speaker as identifying the trouble but

the repair is issued by the recipient. For example:

01 Luke: We go to grandma’s house on- what day?

02 Brooke: Friday


In this example, Luke initiates the repair by cutting off, then asking for help as to the

day they would be going to their grandma’s house. Brooke issues the repair when she

says, “Friday”, informing Luke of the day they would be going.

The final type of repair, other-initiated and other-repair, involves the recipient

both initiating and repairing the interactional trouble. For example:

01 Joshua Sara and I will be going to America in July next year.

02 Sara You mean June.

The importance of repair is documented by Schegloff (1992) who shows that

members use repair to construct joint meaning and to mutually orient to “common”

topics as the interaction unfolds, enhancing understanding between members.

It is on the basis of co-constructed understanding, using the three features of

talk discussed previously that provide the framework for conversations to be

analysed and for social life to be investigated using ethnomethodology and

conversation analysis.

The Study of Children using Ethnomethodological and Conversation Analysis

Approaches

Ethnomethodology is concerned with explicating how everyday social

practices such as classroom practices are accomplished. Speier (1973), whose

interest was in studying children and how their everyday social practices were

accomplished, argued that research, to that point, had failed to consider the

contributions that children make in interactions.

Speier (1973) points out that children “adapt to their social environment” (p.

138) and “learn to adapt themselves to its particular ways” (p.139). So too, Mackay

(1991) argued that if children are treated as “equally social beings” to adults, their

interactions are illuminated as being “rich and varied” (p. 23). Interactions have been

highlighted in studies using empirical data with a focus on children’s lives in the here

and now, rather than on a set course towards adulthood.

Adding to the work of Speier (1973) and Mackay (1991), other innovative

research has shown that children are capable of, and competent in, constructing and

managing their own social worlds (Cromdal, 2004, 2005; Danby & Baker, 1998,

2001; Hutchby & Moran-Ellis, 1998). For example, Danby and Baker’s (2000)


research, in the block area of a preschool setting, investigated the social order as an

accomplishment of in situ interactions between a small group of boys. Analysis

revealed that participants oriented to a social order that was managed through their

co-constructed interactions. In co-constructed interactions, members called on

additional interactional resources to manage their social order. Analysis showed that

conflict was sometimes used to test alignment between members, and that positions

of power and identity constantly evolved through interaction. This study explicated

the in situ competence of members to manage their own social order using a variety

of interactional resources.

Ethnomethodology, conversation analysis and educational order

Ethnomethodological studies of children also have investigated children’s

school life (Speier, 1973). Hester and Francis (2000) refer to six themes in

ethnomethodological studies of educational phenomena, including (a) educational

decision making, (b) standardised educational assessment and standardised testing,

(c) classroom order and management, (d) production of classroom activities and

events,(e) practical organisation and accomplishment of academic knowledge, and (f)

the child as practical actor (pp. 7-11). They show that this methodological approach

is successful in investigating members’ situated practices of everyday life in

educational settings.

Key studies drawing on ethnomethodology and conversation analysis to

investigate educational phenomena have examined turn taking in the institutional

context of the classroom, how teachers manage lessons, how teachers manage the

cohort and how teachers do the work of teaching. Such studies have been integral to

highlighting the “necessarily interactive ground of all (pedagogic) activities”

(Cromdal, 2002, p. 127). They will now be discussed.

Turn taking in institutional contexts and the classroom.

According to Speier (1976) and Sacks (1995), adults have a disproportionate

number of speaking turns in comparison to those of children. Speier (1976) identifies

asymmetry where the “child has restricted conversational rights” (p. 101) and where

adults manage children’s speaking rights. For example:

An adult can enforce silence upon a child or a group of children. For

example, parents can ask their children to be quiet at the dinner table.


An adult has the right to dismiss a child from his presence. For example, a

child in the classroom may be sent away from the whole group if the

teacher feels the behaviour is against what the adult would like. (Speier,

1976, p. 101)

Drew and Heritage (1992) point out that additional features of talk relate

specifically to institutional interactions. Institutional settings usually have specific

goals, as well as specific roles for participants. For example, participant roles within

a classroom may include teacher and student and the overarching goals associated

with this setting are those of teaching and learning. Participants’ interactions orient to

their institutional specific roles and goals. In addition, Heritage (2004) points out that

some special turn taking procedures underpin interactions in formal settings.

Interactions where there are special turn taking procedures include debates,

ceremonies, meetings, formal lessons and court hearings. Participants can be

sanctioned for not following 'correct' procedural order, such as when a child calls out

an answer in a classroom or speaks when the teacher is talking (Heritage, 2004).

These turn taking procedures include the pre-allocation of speaking turns, with one

party usually asking the questions and another answering. McHoul (1978) studied

turns to talk in the classroom and points out that teachers have more opportunities to

talk than do their students. He proposed additional turn taking rules for classroom

talk, to those proposed by Sacks et al. (1974) in relation to mundane conversation.

These additional rules are used to manage lessons and to position the teacher as

“director” (p. 188) of the conversation.

Chapter Summary

Underpinning this study is the competence paradigm where children are

competent to manage interactions in situ. Ethnomethodology and conversation

analysis form the conceptual framework of the study. Ethnomethodology and

conversation analysis have been discussed for their theoretical, methodological and

analytic merit for the study. Applications of ethnomethodology and conversation

analysis have investigated teacher-child interactions in classroom contexts. Of import

for this study is that the work of the teacher ‘gets done’ through interaction. The next

chapter addresses the research design of the study, and the analytic and ethical

considerations used to explicate how a teacher and two children accomplish a Web

search.

Chapter 4: Research design, the analytic and ethical considerations of the study 43

Chapter 4: The Research Design, the Analytic and Ethical Considerations of the Study

This chapter discusses the research design, methodology and methods of the

study. The first section of the chapter discusses data collection procedures, the

research site and participants. The next section of the chapter discusses the data

analysis approach, reliability, validity and the ethical considerations of the study.

The study

Data.

The study draws upon data collected within a larger study entitled KNET, Kids

and the Internet (2010) (University Human Research Ethics Committee, Approval

#0700000725). The data set consisted of eight hours of video-recorded observations

of a classroom of 17 children in a preparatory year classroom. Brooks-Gunn, Berlin,

Leventhal and Sidle Fuligni (2000) write about how secondary data analysis affords

opportunities for data sets to be analysed using a variety of analytical approaches

leading to additional findings. While KNET, Kids and the Internet (2010) sought to

investigate childrens’ Web searching and interactions with Google, this thesis reports

on a 12 minute episode from the data set focussing on the interactions between a

teacher and two children while engaged in a Web search. The selected episode

captured the interactions of a teacher and two children from the beginning of a new

search (including the discussion where members negotiated a new subject to search)

until the completion of the search using the Google search engine.

Participants and setting.

The setting was a preparatory classroom in an inner city state primary school.

There were 17 children in the class, and 12 children aged five and six years

participated in this study. In accordance with the ethical agreement, the five children

who did not participate were not video-recorded. In the classroom, there was one

teacher with a Masters of Education qualification and a teaching assistant who did

not have formal teaching qualifications. According to the Socio Economic Index for

Areas (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2008), 74.6% of those within the

demographic area in which the school was located had access to the Internet. The

2006 Census Quick Stats (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006a) showed the suburb

comprised of 74.9% Australian citizens and 23.2% born overseas. The main

44 Chapter 4: Research design, the analytic and ethical considerations of the study

language spoken at home was English, however other languages spoken at home

included Mandarin, Cantonese, Italian, Korean and German. In the 2006 Census, the

labour demographic mostly consisted of professionals making up 35.1% of this

suburb’s population. Additionally, clerical and administrative workers accounted for

14.5% of the work force, community and personal service workers represented

11.2%, sales workers 10.6% and managers 10.3%.

The preparatory classroom was equipped with two computers with Internet

access, located side by side on a table along the side wall at the entry to the room.

The room included a book and science area, a large mat where children sat for group

time, and trapezoidal tables positioned in groups but not allocated to individual

children. When logging on to the computer, children were required to navigate the

school’s complex log-on procedures in order to gain access to the school server and

therefore the Internet. They utilised the computers at various times during the school

day in order to research information relevant to their interests and to class projects.

The children were able to work independently, in pairs or in small groups at the

computer/s, with or without a teacher being present. The children chose who they

worked with as there were no predetermined partnerships or groups.

Children participated in ‘formal’ computer lessons in a computer laboratory in

a separate classroom of the school, with an information technology teacher who

explicitly taught the children about software. It was noted that, during these ‘formal’

lessons, children did not access Web search engines, as the focus was use of software

including Microsoft Word, PowerPoint and Paint.

At the time of the study, the Early Years Curriculum Guidelines (ECYG)

(Queensland Studies Authority, 2006) was the mandated curriculum implemented in

the preparatory year in Queensland. The ECYG provide learning statements for five

early learning areas such as (a) Social and personal learning (b) Health and physical

(c) Language learning and communication (d) Early mathematical understandings (e)

Active learning processes. The learning statements provided broad curriculum

expectations and suggestions for planning, interacting, reflecting, monitoring and

assessing. The following points, from the ECYG (Queensland Studies Authority,

2006) underpin the approach to literacy teaching and learning:


Children become readers and viewers by using emerging understandings to

predict and make meanings from a variety of written, visual and

multimodal texts. Teachers plan to teach children to use emerging

understandings of some symbols, language patterns, conventions, and

letter-sound relationships to predict, confirm or make meanings from a

variety of written, visual and multimodal texts. (p. 68)

Children become writers and shapers by experimenting with emerging

understandings of written, visual and multimodal texts to communicate meanings.

Teachers plan to develop children's understanding of the relationships between letters

and sounds/finger-spelling during experiences with writing. The ECYG suggests

teachers may look for evidence that the child:

experiments with letters, words, symbols and /or drawings

to write or shape simple texts

demonstrates an understanding of some sound-letter

relationships when writing for personal purposes identifies

a small number of letter names and sounds, in scaffolded

situations

writes from left to right

can point to where print begins when asked (p. 69)

The preparatory year classroom followed the well known plan-do-reflect

approach to learning (Queensland Studies Authority, 2006), which invited children to

initiate, implement and complete learning experiences based on their interests. These

experiences were completed individually, in small groups or in whole groups and

ideas for experiences were initiated by the children or teachers. A planning meeting

was timetabled into the program so that plans could be shared, discussed and

documented with the class before the commencement of ‘inside time.’ Inside time

allowed children time to implement their plans and lasted for approximately one and

a half hours most days during the week. At the completion of inside time, children

were encouraged to reflect on their experiences as a way of communicating their

learning, as well as providing the basis of future plans.

As this study was interested in the everyday practices of school life, there was

no intervention or alteration to the routine of the class. The school day followed the

‘typical’ routine of the whole school in relation to classroom work time and

playground access, including bell times, lunch and morning tea times and play times.

Teacher-led whole class planning meetings with the children were timetabled at the

beginning of this indoor session, so that collaborative plans could be shared and


discussed with the teacher and with each other. It was during this planning time that

the teacher organised individual and small groups of children; and also invited

students to use the Internet to search for information. The environment was organised

in such a way that children were able to self select materials and resources to support

topics of interest initiated by children and adults. Commercial materials including

games, educational toys and construction sets were also available for self selection,

and children could access additional materials as required.

During the period of data collection, the children had been discussing and

making posters about environmental issues, a focus initiated by the children. Many

children became involved and brought books about the topic from home. Some

children were designing and ‘publishing’ posters, while others were invited to use the

Internet to search for information for their posters. The stimulus for the episode

analysed in chapter five was a child who brought a book from home about what

animals ate. Ethan and Harry, the children reported on in the thesis, used the Google

search engine to find out information about what different species of animals ate.

Method of data collection: Video-recording.

The video recordings of the classroom were collected over three days during

the course of a week, between 12.00 noon and 1.30 pm, the time that the children

engaged in independent and small group work, and when they had access to the

computers in the classroom. Data comprised of eight hours of video-footage of

children as they searched for information online using the search engine, Google.

Two video cameras were used to record the data. One camera was placed on a tripod

behind the computer to capture the faces of participants. The second camera was

hand-held to record the on-screen activity and keyboard and mouse actions.

Ethnographic research methods, such as video observations, are especially

appropriate for documenting children’s interactions. Video recording interactions of

children in situ can enable data to be viewed and reviewed, allowing for repeated and

detailed analysis of social interactions (Atkinson & Heritage, 1984; Danby, 2009),

including verbal and visual aspects of communication. Video recorded data, in a

study of this kind, are appropriate for the following reasons:


Video data documents social interaction in real-time allowing talk, non verbal

actions and the contexts of the interaction to be recorded (Heath, 2010;

Silverman, 2000).

Video recordings capture much of the non verbal aspects of communication

not easily apparent when using field not observations alone (Silverman, 2000).

Video recordings provide a resource to examine the micro details of

interactional conduct (Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997).

Recordings enable the analyst to view and review the data allowing for

detailed transcription and developing an analysis (Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997).

Previously unnoticed aspects of ‘talk–in–interaction’ may be illuminated

during repeated viewings of the video recorded data (Psathas, 1999).

Video recordings allow the researcher to view multiple viewpoints of the data

and to investigate different issues (Heath, 2010).

Video recordings offer a public display of the empirical data that others may

observe (Perakyla, 1997). This contributes to the reliability of the study.

Examples of researchers using video and audio recorded data include Danby

(1996, 1998), Cromdal (2004), Goodwin (2006) and Butler (2008). Danby’s (Danby,

1996) study video-taped the social interactions of children aged three to five years

during their daily indoor play session at a child care centre. She analysed one episode

of her video recorded data from two perspectives. The first perspective was from a

traditional early childhood view and the second was from a perspective of children

creating their own social memberships through interaction. Cromdal (2004)

investigated disputes in bilingual children, aged 6 to 8.5 years of age, during play

experiences in Sweden. Over 10 hours of analysed video data showed that children

use strategies associated with bilingual practices as a way of fuelling arguments.

Goodwin (2006), over a number of years, has used audio and video data to explicate

the social organisation within children’s peer groups, seeking to understand how

children are rejected from peer groups based on children’s cultural backgrounds,

social demographic and gender stereotypes. Butler (2008) studied a group of six and

seven year old children during three lunch breaks, in a school playground, and

became particularly interested in a game the children created called ‘Fairy Club.

Butler’s (2008) analysis that focused on children’s talk and social interactions


showed children’s competence in co-constructing interaction, their intersubjectivity

and their associated social actions.

A number of studies use video recorded data and applied conversation analysis

to focus on social interactions within early childhood classrooms and playgrounds

more generally. Danby and Baker’s (1998) study focused on children’s social order

in the block area of a child care centre to show how the children used ‘talk’ to

manage their social order, regardless of the ‘rules’ of the classroom and how the

members built and constructed gender practices, in particular masculinity. A study by

Bjork-Willen (2008) utilized 37 hours of video recorded data to study the

organisation of social actions at a multilingual preschool in Sweden. She found that

children encountered interactional trouble when the routine of the classroom familiar

to the children was changed spontaneously. Cobb-Moore and colleagues (2009)

video recorded children’s free play over a one-month period. They identified that the

interactional resources employed by the children included “justification, category

work and the pretend formulation of place” (Cobb-Moore, 2008). Children employed

these interactional resources as a means to “organise, manage and participate” in

social interactions (Cobb-Moore, 2008). Theobald (2009) investigated children’s

social worlds within a preparatory school playground, using video stimulated recall.

Theobald (2009) asked participants, after watching a video recording of a particular

event that occurred in the school playground, to discuss their participation in the

event. Her analysis uncovered that children used ‘telling or dobbing’ as a way of

managing interactional problems and that children used ownership over their game

ideas as a way of controlling the game. Church (2009) investigated peer disputes of

children aged between three to five years in day care settings to show that children’s

arguments follow patterns. These patterns “may operate as a universal organisational

principle of sequences of adversative discourse” (p.43). Bateman (2010) researched

prosocial and antisocial behaviour of four year old children in the playground, to

show how social relationships are co-constructed. She found that all children

contribute in “co-constructing social relationships to create the immediate context”

(p. 14). These studies are part of a relatively small suite of studies to use video and

audio recorded data to examine the social interactions of children’s everyday

experiences. They highlight the interactional competence of children as they drew on

a range of strategies to manage their social order.


While studies employing conversation analysis to investigate the social

interactions of young children as they engage in Web searching are scarce, there are

some studies that focus on the social interactions of older children as they engage

with ICTs in situ. For example, Cromdal (2005) investigated the bilingual order of

two girls in grade 4, working collaboratively with a word processing program on a

school computer, to create a text based on Victorian living. The focus of his analysis

was how participants used a “local bilingual order” (p. 344) to create and edit their

text for their project in order to accomplish the collaborative task. His analysis

revealed the interactional resources used by participants, as well as the importance of

social interactions to complete a collaborative project. Birmingham, Davies and

Greiffenhagen (2002) investigated how teachers work to supervise pupils working

collaboratively using a specific computer program associated with their learning

around William Shakespeare's Macbeth. Conversation analysis was used to explicate

how the teacher intervened while two children worked on a specific program on a

computer during an English class. Cekaite's (2009) study investigated behaviours of

8th grade students in Sweden as they worked with spell check software embedded in

Microsoft Word and investigated how students used technological resources to meet

their needs. Analysis highlighted how social interactions incorporated the spell check

software into the interaction and how subsequent actions to correct spelling errors

were a result of collaborative efforts including the "co-ordination of actions, common

understandings and the alignment of student's perspectives" (p. 331). Greiffenhagen

and Watson's (2009) research investigated how students aged 13 to 14 years looked

at 'visual repair' focusing on instances "when participants have trouble in

understanding what someone has just witnessed and visibly done on a computer

screen" (p. 69). Results emphasise how participants co-create and co-produce mutual

understanding, including that of repair, when working with a partner on a specific

task using a computer program. To date, there are only a handful of studies

investigating members’ interactions as they search for information online in early

years classrooms - the focus of this study.

The third and final section of this chapter discusses the methods for

undertaking data analysis and the ethical considerations of the study.


Data analysis

In order to discover and analyse interactional phenomena, data analysis

occurred within various stages (Psathas, 1995). The initial stage of data analysis

involved “unmotivated looking” (Psathas, 1995, p. 45), repeated viewing and

reviewing of the video data, allowing analysis to commence with the data itself

rather than commencing with preconceived ideas about the data.

Repeated viewing and reviewing was crucial in my initial approach to data

analysis. After watching the video footage many times, I began documenting what I

noticed (Refer to appendix A). My noticings alerted me to how the teacher and

teacher aide initiated questions, and the topic of questioning became my initial focus.

As I investigated the data further to develop a corpus of interactions where

questions were used, it became apparent that there were many interactional resources

that ‘did questioning’. I documented initial observations of two extracts taken from

two episodes of interaction, one involving the assistant and the other involving the

teacher (See appendix B). From these observations, I became interested in the

decision making opportunities afforded by the teacher’s interactions with the

children. It was the teacher’s style that really intrigued me leading me to a new focus

on teacher-child interactions. I decided to focus on teacher-child interactions as they

searched for information using the Web. It was this focus that guided my decision as

to which episode was transcribed and analysed in greater detail. I chose an episode

where the teacher interacted with two children from the commencement of a Web

search through to completion, capturing the larger study’s intent of finding out about

young children Web searching, as well as my interest in teacher-child interactions.

The selection of this “single episode” (Schegloff, 1987a) enabled fine-grained

analysis of the organisational aspects of participant’s talk-in-interaction. The

underlying belief that talk-in-interaction is “organised and orderly not” (Schegloff,

1987a, p. 102) means that while it is not possible to predict what members will say

and do during interaction, we can analyse the talk for its organisation focusing on the

“conversational strategies and devices which inform and drive its production”

(Hutchby & Wooffitt, 1998, p. 121). This process allowed the empirical, rather than

conceptual, organisational details of the unfolding talk to be illuminated and used to

‘test’ past research on the phenomena of talk-in-interaction (Schegloff, 1987a).


Data were analysed for the production and management of sequential

organisation of members’ situated practices, to produce descriptions of recurrent

patterns of social interactions and language use (Perakyla, 1997). It followed

Pomerantz and Fehr’s (1997, pp. 71-74) suggested five steps for analysis. These are

explained now.

1. Sequence Selection. The first step involved selecting a sequence that interested the

researcher. The selected sequence was the process of Web searching, from finding a

search subject to the completion of a Web search.

Fine grained detailed analysis of the selected episode involved the transcription

of the data. Transcription is the process of documenting key features of talk

including intonation, pauses, sound stretches, emphasis and utterances as well as the

verbal language used within a co-constructed social interaction (Cuff et al., 1998;

Psathas, 1995). In order to document the details of talk, gestures and pauses, one

minute of video recorded data can take up to 30 hours to transcribe. While transcripts

cannot replicate what is captured on the video recording, they can serve as a way of

informing the reader of the member’s conduct that can be heard or seen on the

recording (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008; Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997). Transcription

conventions originally devised by Gail Jefferson were used to transcribe the data

(See Appendix C). In addition, decisions as to how to represent screen reading and

gesture when members oriented to the information displayed on the screen were

made by considering previous research. Church (2010), in her study investigating

opportunities for learning during storybook reading, used italics to represent the

teacher reading from a book. This worked to differentiate reading from conversation.

Like Church (2010), transcript notation here also used italics to represent reading

from the computer screen. For example, when the teacher read “what do crabs eat”

from the screen, it was italicized in the transcript:

SUSIE what do:: crabs ea::t (.) that’s that one but you

wanted-=

Non verbal gestures and gaze were represented by a comment in double

brackets. For example, ((Ethan points to ‘p’ on the keyboard line 715)). Double

brackets are commonly used in conversation analytic studies to represent non verbal

communication.


Transcribed data were examined to identify the openings and closings of

episodes, how members commenced talk about a topic and how they brought closure

to the topic. Sequences of talk guided analysis, rather than a focus on single

utterances of members. Pomerantz and Fehr (1997) recommend thinking about

sequences as “products of negotiation” (p. 71). Sequences are co-constructed by

members as members produce turns at talk based on their understanding of the

immediately prior turn to talk (Sacks, 1995).

2. Characterization of the actions within a sequence. In order to identify the actions

within sequences, I analysed the relationship between turns and corresponding

actions. Analysis focused on what speakers did in their next turns and how it related

to what prior speakers did in their immediate prior turns (Psathas, 1995). The

relationship between turns within sequences is fundamental in conversation analysis

as “a systematic consequence of the turn-taking organisation of conversation that it

obliges its participants to display to each other, in a turn’s talk, their understanding of

other turns’ talk” (Sacks et al., 1974, p. 728). In so doing, this displayed meaning is

also on show for the analyst.

3. Consideration of how the speakers’ package their actions. How speakers “form up

and deliver actions” (Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997, p. 72) was the focus of this step. This

step considered what the speakers were trying to accomplish in their turn, and how

the receiver interpreted the message received and their consequential action.

4. Consideration of the timing and the taking of turns. This step considered the turn

taking relevance points, transitions between turns and how the next speaker was

chosen.

5. Consideration of the implication of certain identities, roles and relationships for

the interactions. Pomerantz and Fehr (1997, p.74) ask, “Are the ways that these

interactants talked and acted appropriate across a wide range of relationships, roles,

statuses or do they implicate particular identities and/or relationships between

them?” (p. 74). The implication of the roles of teacher/student as well as those of the

adult/child was considered in the analysis.

These five steps make possible a process to investigate the interactional

resources used by members in ‘actual’ instances, and how they were used to show

the social and pedagogical order in the episode.


Reliability and validity

Reliability in qualitative research is concerned with the representation of data.

Research tapes and transcripts are considered “raw material” (p. 285) and the quality

of recordings and transcriptions have implications for the reliability of the research

(Perakyla, 1997). Audio and video recorded materials are “highly detailed and

publicly accessible representation of social interactions” (Perakyla, 1997, p. 203).

For this reason, selected transcripts, pertinent to analysis, have been included in the

thesis, thus giving the reader direct access to the data in order to make the analytic

process as transparent as possible.

To gain expertise in conversation analysis and transcription, I joined the

Transcript Analysis Group, a research interest group that operates across three

universities - Queensland University of Technology, Griffith University and the

University of Queensland. The Transcript Analysis Group met regularly to discuss

and analyse transcript data. Additionally, I attended workshops facilitated by

members of the Transcript Analysis Group, which helped me to develop and refine

my transcription and conversation analytic skills.

Talk-in-interaction is seen to have three recurrent features, those of sequential

organisation, turn taking and repair. Results can be ‘tested’ or validated to ensure

interpretations reflect these features (Heritage, 2004). Sacks et al. (1974) point out:

While understandings of other turns’ talk are displayed to co-participants,

they are available as well to professional analysts, who are thereby afforded

a proof criterion (and search procedure) for the analysis of what a turn’s talk

is occupied with. Since it is the parties’ understanding of prior turns’ talk

that is relevant to their construction of next turns, it is THEIR understanding

that are wanted for analysis. This display of those understandings in the talk

of subsequent turns affords both a resource for the analysis of prior turns and

a proof procedure for professional analyses of prior turns – resources

intrinsic to the data themselves. (p. 729)

As conversation analysis explicates the displayed meanings of members, their

confirmation of the analysis comes from the members’ talk and action made relevant

to each other as members of the interaction.

Researcher Reflections

My role as researcher required considerable reflection. I initially had difficulty

accepting the evolving process of the research project, but realise now that it was a


necessary part of the process and actually helped to shape my study. Additionally, it

was difficult to leave behind my 18 years of teaching experience. I found it almost

impossible, at first, to bring a scholarly distance to analysing the interactions

between the teacher and young children, but was reminded by my supervisors to

draw upon data to support my analytical claims. I could only explicate and analyse

what was evident in the data. As well, my analysis was open to analysis by others

because of the inclusion of the transcribed data extracts.

Ethical considerations

As noted earlier, this study draws on data already collected within a larger

study entitled KNET, (Spink et al., 2010). In line with the University’s adherence to

National Health and Medical Research Council Guidelines for Ethical Conduct of

Research with Humans (2007), an ethics application was submitted to and approved

by the University Human Ethics Committee, prior to commencement of data

collection (Approval #0700000725, see appendix D). Information sheets and consent

forms were provided to the school principal, teaching staff, parents and children (See

appendix E) and voluntary informed consent was obtained by participants.

Research with children can raise significant ethical concerns (Australian

Government, 2007; Danby & Farrell, 2004; Farrell, 2005). Recruitment, consent,

respecting the rights of participants, honouring research sites, risk management and

confidentiality (Creswell, 2005; Farrell, 2005; Marshall & Rossman, 1999) were all

important ethical considerations that underpinned the design, planning and

implementation of the study.

Consent

Information about the study was given to the school principal, teacher, teacher

assistant, parents, and children, through information sheets and face-to-face

meetings. Outside these meetings, the researchers were available for teachers,

children and parents to ask questions about the study. The researchers reassured

parents that their child’s participation in the research project was voluntary and that

consent could be withdrawn at any time. The principal, teaching staff, parents of

participating children, and the children themselves were asked to give informed

consent by signing a consent form after reading an information sheet. A separate

information sheet was written specifically for the children, using child-friendly


language. Seeking voluntary and informed consent from the children in this study

was a deliberate methodological decision and is an important consideration for

research with children. The view that children should have a ‘say’ in research about

themselves (Farrell, 2005) aligns with the ideas espoused in the United Nations

Conventions on the Rights of the Child (1989), which advocates that children be

consulted about matters that affect them. As well, the competence paradigm

advocates that children are competent participants in their everyday worlds and are

capable of participating in making decisions about their everyday lives. In this case,

children were asked to make a decision regarding participation or withdrawal from

the study. In addition, parents were asked to discuss the study with their child in

order for the children to be completely aware of the study and what was required of

them as participants.

Parents were given the option to have the visual records distorted to ensure

anonymity of the participants at the time of consent giving.

The collected data are stored securely in locked cabinets at the Queensland

University of Technology and on university and home computers, only accessible

with passwords. Access rights are restricted only to the research team.

Dissemination of findings is an ethical matter. It is my responsibility, as

researcher, to ensure that my written publications or oral presentations reflect the

consent given by the study’s participants as well as by their guardians. Ensuring

anonymity proved to be more difficult than originally expected as participants’ faces

were visible on the video recording. Also, the children who participated were

wearing a school uniform of a distinct colour, the shirt featuring the school logo. The

audio recordings of the data included references to children’s names, as well.

In order to ensure anonymity, pseudonyms were used when the interactions

were transcribed. Additionally, a sound was inserted into the audio recording to

cover the child’s name. I required some additional technical expertise and used a

commercially available software program, “Studio Plus”, to cover participants’ ‘real’

names in the audio recordings. Any dissemination of findings that involves the use of

the video recordings will involve blurring the faces and the school logo.

Alternatively, I may choose to use the video footage of the back of participants’

heads, therefore ensuring participants and the research site remain anonymous.


Chapter Summary

This chapter provided an overview of the study’s conceptual framework,

research design, data collection and analytic methods. Within the conceptual

framework, conversation anlaysis and ethnomethodoly have been discussed using

theoretical aspects as well as examples of previous studies. The research site and the

participants have been considered in the section on research design. As well my

approach to data collection and analysis have been reviewed in the final sections of

this chapter. The next chapter focuses on data analysis of the selected episode and is

concerned with the social interactions of two children and their teacher as they

perform a Web search.

Chapter 5: Accomplishing Web searching through social interaction 57

Chapter 5: Accomplishing Web Searching through Social Interaction in a Preparatory

Classroom

In seeking to understand how Web searching is accomplished within the

context of social interaction, this chapter examines the interactions of a teacher with

two children as they undertake a Web search. The focus is on a “single case”

(Schegloff, 1987a, p. 101) of an “extended sequence of talk” (Hutchby & Wooffitt,

1998, p. 120) of two children and their teacher in an early years classroom as they

search for information on the Internet. The episode shows their Web search,

commencing with a discussion about the next search topic and continuing until its

completion. As little is known about Web searching in early childhood classrooms,

this analysis seeks to explicate how the teacher, with two children, in a preparatory

years classroom manages a Web search through social interaction. Specifically,

analysis focuses on how the teacher uses interrogatives, discourse markers, and multi-

unit turns to guide and shape the interaction, and how she scaffolds the children to

complete a Web search. In so doing, Susie has managed to support the completion of

a Web search through her roles of “collaborator, facilitator, listener, problem solver,

provoker and questioner” (Queensland Studies Authority, 2006, p. 12). Analysis

identifies the teacher’s pedagogic order to show how the children were competent

participants in this Web search and how the teacher afforded time, in the interaction,

for children to contribute suggestions, try out ideas and complete actions.

Phases of sequential organisation of Web searching

The episode shows two children and their teacher discussing, planning and

undertaking a Web search about ‘what tadpoles eat’. At the time of videoing, the topic

of ‘endangered animals’ had emerged from the interests of the children and a small

group of children had chosen to work on the computer to research information about

this subject. After finishing their search about endangered animals, they continued

using the Internet to seek information about additional topics of interest.

Analysis of the episode identified four phases of Web searching, accomplished

through finely co-ordinated and co-constructed social interaction by the teacher and

the two children. A summary of each phase, including the phase description,

characteristics of the phase and how long each phase was, is presented in Table 5.1.

58 Chapter 5: Accomplishing Web searching through social interaction

Table 5.1. Sequential organisation of Web searching in the classroom

Underpinning each of the four phases are the social interactions of the children and

teacher as they undertake a Web search. During the episode, participants draw on a

range of interactional resources, such as question and answer sequences, humour and

discourse markers as they collaboratively co-construct the four phases. Phases

organise the chapter to show how participants approach the task collaboratively to (a)

find the search subject, (b) type the question into Google, (c) consider the result

options and select one and (d) explore the selected result. First, I present my analysis

of the social interactions employed during phase 1, then continue through phases 2, 3

and 4.

Phase description Characteristics

of phase

Phase

length of

time

Phase 1: Finding a search subject

Discussion and negotiation between teacher and children as they decide on a new search subject

1 minute 46

seconds

Phase 2: Inputting the search query

Typing the search query into the search engine by a child who is supported by a peer and also the teacher

3 minutes 49

seconds

Phase 3: Considering the result options

The teacher facilitates the perusal and exploration of the returned results and the children make the decision as to which result option will be selected

2 minutes 14

seconds

Phase 4: Exploring the selected result

The teacher reads the information from the screen with the children. The teacher facilitates a discussion about the information read from the selected result

3 minutes 34

seconds


The episode chosen for analysis features children and a teacher performing a Web

search about ‘what tadpoles eat’ in an early years classroom. The actual episode

chosen for analysis is 12 minutes in duration and focuses on the interactions between

a teacher and two children who commence and complete a Web search together.

The episode begins with two children, Ethan and Harry and the teacher (Susie)

initially discussing ‘what eats whales’. Prior to this, the children had raised concerns

about whales being hunted and eaten.

Phase 1 – Finding a search subject

Following the topic closure on whales, this extract begins with Susie closing

the topic about whales and endangered animals, and asking what the next search will

be. This phase finishes when the search subject “what do tadpoles eat” is decided

upon, and is ready to be inputted into the search engine.

Extract 1

SUSIE Exactly. that was endangered, now¿ what are we going to 607 sea:rch no:w what did you deci:de you wanted to look for? 608

(1.4) 609 Ethan Um (.) what eats a crocodile¿ 610 (0.8) 611 SUSIE A crocodi:le (.) interesting question (.) I see up here 612

though um what did you search here 613 Ethan Um wha:t do:: hermit crabs eat and what and what does um 614

(0.4) (dolphins) eat 615 SUSIE Well did you find out, 616 Ethan Um ye:s (.) we found out. ((Ethan nods yes)) 617 SUSIE Yeah but I wanna know because I was (speaking and) 618

helping with the other children= 619 Ethan =I do:nt remember, 620 (2.0) 621 SUSIE Well there’s a lot of words lo::t of wo:rds up here that 622

say dolphin could we click onto some of tho:se and have a 623 look 624

Harry Susie I’d like to 625 Ethan ((Ethan stands up and points at the screen)) 626 SUSIE Which one 627 Ethan That one 628 SUSIE [Okay] 629 Harry [Susie I’d like] to find out what would um what eats what 630

do tadpoles eat (cause I don’t really know) 631 SUSIE What do tadpoles eat (.) good questio:n= 632 Ethan tadpoles we don’t know 633 SUSIE Well do you want to do a search for tadpoles (food) 634 Ethan Oh what(.) if we sear:ch what do blue whales eat= 635 Harry =Oh:[::::] 636 SUSIE [We:ll] you’ve got [at the top ] 637 Harry [blue whales eat ]sharks 638 SUSIE what eats dolphins 639 Harry Blue Whales eat sharks 640 SUSIE Which one are we going to go:: with 641


(0.6) 642 Harry Tadpoles I’m wanna do tadpoles (Ethan (.)) 643 Ethan What (.) do (0.4) >what do< puppies eat 644 SUSIE Puppies 645 Harry (um no puppies don’t)= 646 SUSIE =Smelly socks, (0.4) slippers,(.) all so::rts of things 647

okay Harry you sta::rt648

Susie starts with two ‘what’ interrogatives (Raymond, 2006), “now¿ what are

we going to sea:rch” and “no:w what did you deci:de you wanted to look for?” (line

607 – 608), designed to find out the children’s preferred subject for a new search.

Here, Susie’s turn includes the pronouns “we” and “you”. Sacks (1995) points out the

pronouns can indicate membership of participants. Susie’s use of “we” suggests that

this is going to be a shared activity (involving the teacher and children) and “you”

implies that Ethan and Harry have already made the decision regarding the next

search topic.

As a way of marking the end of the previous topic on whales and co-ordinating

the focus of future actions, Susie uses the temporal marker ‘now’ (line 607- 608).

Hilmisdottir’s (2011) research on ‘nu’ (Icelandish for ‘now’) shows that, when ‘nu’ is

used at the beginning of an utterance, it mostly “indexes the present moment" (p.

267). In this way, Susie indicates to participants that there is a shift from the previous

topic of endangered animals and whales to a new search. Susie manages the

interactional order through introducing a new activity, the task of deciding on a new

subject to search. In response, Ethan suggests, “Um (.) what eats a crocodile¿” (line

610). However, his suggestion gains the conversational floor for only a short time.

Susie repeats Ethan’s search question, “A crocodi:le”, then adds “interesting

question,” an insertion that ‘does assessing’ (line 612) (Schegloff, 2007). There is no

corresponding move to enter Ethan’s search question into the Google search engine.

Instead of accepting Ethan’s suggested search question of ‘what eats a

crocodile’, Susie’s “multi unit turn” (Schegloff, 2007, p. 104) works to change or

divert the focus of the conversation from a search subject proposal to a recall of a

prior search focussing on Ethan’s search history. She asks, “I see up here though um

what did you search here” (line 612). As Sacks’ (1987) notes in question and answer

sequences, “it takes an independent activity of a questioner (to put the question at the

end) and an answerer (to put the answer at the beginning) to get continuity of question

and answer across their respective turns” (p.58). Susie has positioned her question at


the end of her turn, and Ethan responds to Susie’s question at the beginning of his

turn, aiding in conversational flow. He responds with his previous search subject,

“Um wha:t do:: hermit crabs eat and what and what does um (0.4) (dolphins) eat”

(lines 614-615). Susie next initiates a sequence of talk that focuses on finding out

about his search history, and not on his new search question. She asks, “Well did you

find out,” (line 616), which continues talk about his previous search. Schegloff and

Lerner (2009) write that “‘well’ prefaces operate as general alerts that indicate

nonstraight forwardness in responding" (p. 1), which could indicate disagreement

(Drew, Raymond, & Weinberg, 2006), or an issue or problem with the talk. In asking,

“did you find out” (line 616), which is designed for a Yes/No interrogative (YNI)

(Raymond, 2006), the question is designed to constrain the recipient’s response to

either a yes or a no. Ethan proffers a type conforming response, “Um ye:s (.) we

found out.” (line 617), prefaced with the thinking token ‘Um’ (M. Goodwin &

Goodwin, 1986), which might indicate that the speaker needs help in responding or

wishes to bide some time or to defer answering. Susie acknowledges Ethan’s response

with “Yeah”, and then seeks additional information, “Yeah but I wanna know because

I was (speaking and) helping with the other children=” (line 618 – 619). In extending

her turn with ‘but’ (line 618), she signals a contrasting idea. As Maynard (1992)

shows in his research about clinicians and recipients’ perspectives, ‘but’ is a contrast

marker that takes a position of disagreement or disalignment. Ethan’s response, a

latched, “I do:nt remember,” (line 620) may be trying to shut down the topic of

conversation, as Hutchby (2005) shows in child counselling sessions where ‘I don’t

know’ can “close down a line of questioning” (p. 153) and “strategically avoid

answering certain questions” (p. 152).

At this point, Susie uses a combination of questions and directives as she

introduces a pedagogic focus on literacy, “Well there’s a lot of words lo::t of wo:rds

up here that say dolphin could we click onto some of tho:se and have a look” (line

622-624). Via a “hint ” (Evin-Tripp, 1976, p. 42), Susie alerts participants to Ethan’s

search history, saying, “Well there’s a lot of words lo::t of wo:rds up here that say

dolphin” (line 622). She uses specific early literacy terms such as ‘words’ and techno-

literacy strategies such as “click onto some of those” (Spink, Danby, Mallan, Butler,

2010). In asking, “could we click onto some of tho:se and have a look” (line 624),

Susie completes her turn with an “interrogative with a modal verb” (Curl & Drew,


2008, p. 130). When referring to ‘could’ constructions in requests, Curl and Drew

(2008) point out that such requests are treated as "unproblematic" (p. 147) as speakers

assume recipients are in a position to fulfil their request. In this way, Susie’s request

is treated as unproblematic, and she scaffolds the children’s activities by requesting

future action. Her suggestion to look at Ethan’s search history, therefore “proposing

action” (Butler, Potter, Danby, Emmison, & Hepburn, 2010, p. 280), presents a

futures-oriented course of action. Her use of the pronoun “we” suggests a shared

collaborative action. Here, Susie is ‘doing teaching’ by focusing on a displaying of

literacy and techno-literacy concepts done within the context of the interaction, rather

than in a contrived manner taught independent of context.

Ethan then points at the search history displayed on the screen. Susie asks Ethan

to clarify which item he is pointing to on the screen with, “Which one” (line 627). He

chooses, “That one” (line 628), pointing to the second option on the search history

page. Susie nods and says, “[Okay]” (line 629), a response token to acknowledge

(Beach, 1993) Ethan’s choice. At this point, Harry initiates a turn in overlap with

Susie. He says, “Susie I’d like to” (line 625), and then issues a repeat plus an

extended turn, “[Susie I’d like] to find out what would um what eats what do tadpoles

eat (cause I don’t really know)” (line 630). His use of a “recycled turn beginning”

(Schegloff, 1987b, p. 70) helps Harry to repair a prior turn initiation. Schegloff

(1987b) points out that “turn beginnings are important resources for interactants as

they help project a ‘shape’ for the turn” and are “critical elements for a speaker’s

recipients, who, in having to analyse the turn as it develops, may need the turn

beginnings resources as part of the materials for their analysis” (p. 74). Here, Harry’s

repeated talk “achieves a restart” (Schegloff, 1987b, p. 75), and helps him to gain the

conversational floor, allowing recipients to re-hear the beginning of his turn. After

Harry proffers his idea for a search question, which refocusses participants back to

addressing a new topic of search, he offers a justification, “(cause I don’t really

know)” (line 631), proposing that he does not know the answer to his query about

what tadpoles eat. His justification based on knowledge claims may have priority due

to a classroom agenda of knowledge building.

Harry twice initiates his request to search for what tadpoles eat (lines 625,630).

In each request, he refers to Susie by name to get her attention, which had been

directed towards Ethan’s pointing to the screen, through first securing the


conversational floor and then by proposing a new search subject. Harry’s turn moves

to change the focus back to a new search subject, that of what tadpoles eat, and

becomes the new focus for all three members.

At this point, both Susie and Ethan are orienting to Harry’s new search question.

Susie’s says, “good question” (line 632), an assessment of Harry’s question, and

Ethan supports Harry’s stance that they do not know about tadpoles; he says,

“tadpoles we don’t know” (line 633). In a classroom context with an underlying

agenda of learning, both Harry and Ethan agree that the topic of ‘what tadpoles eat’ is

something that they do not know about. Susie searches for agreement by asking,

“Well do you want to do a search for tadpoles (food)” (line 634), using a Yes/No

interrogative (YNI). Ethan, however, suggests a new search question, “Oh what (.) if

we sear:ch what do blue whales eat=” (line 635). Harry starts to respond with a

latched “=oh: [::::]” (line 636) however he was in overlap with Susie. Harry’s latched

‘oh’ signifies a “change of state” (Heritage, 1984a) displaying that a previously

agreed upon search topic has now been questioned by the introduction of a possible

new topic. Susie continues after the overlap, “[We:ll] you’ve got [at the top

(unheard))]” (line 637) . Harry, again in overlap with Susie, says “[blue whales eat

sharks]” (line 638). Susie finishes her turn started in line 637, with, “what eats

dolphins” referring to the search question already typed in at the top of the screen.

Harry repeats, “Blue Whales eat sharks” (line 640), answering again Ethan’s question

from line 635. The overlaps in this sequence show the children’s “restricted” speaking

rights. Speier (1973) and Sacks (1995) both emphasise that children have

“asymmetrical” and “restricted” rights to speak when interacting with adults. Two

overlaps occurred between Harry and Susie and, both times, it was Susie who gained

the conversational floor.

The ‘toing and froing’ nature of this sequence shows Ethan and Harry vying to

proffer the search subject. Consequently, Susie’s following turn is aimed at managing

two possible suggestions, when she asks, “Which one are we going to go:: with” (line

641). Harry repeats the subject that both he and Ethan had agreed that they didn’t

know about, “Tadpoles I’m wanna do tadpoles (Ethan ?)” (line 643). His naming of

Ethan works to solicit Ethan’s support. Ethan, at this point, suggests a completely new

research question, “What (.) do (0.4) >what do< puppies eat.” (line 644). Harry rejects

this topic, “(um no puppies don’t)=” (line 646) and Susie quickly answers Ethan’s


question, via a latched response, with “=Smelly socks, (0.4) slippers,(.) all so::rts of

things” (line 647). Ethan looks at Susie during this turn, shaking his head and

grinning, showing his appreciation of Susie’s response. Susie may have used humour

here as a softening device where a negative response could result in a threatening of

‘face’ (Holmes, 2000). Goffman conceptualised the idea of ‘face’ work in social

interaction (Goffman, 1993) explaining that during social interaction, people

communicate their view, either intentionally or unintentionally, using verbal and non-

verbal means. Brown and Levinson (1987) show how people use ‘face work’ and

most often aim for ‘positive face’ in social interactions. As Heritage and Raymond

(2005) point out, a “positive face” refers to “the desire for approval, appreciation, or

ratification” (p. 15). Through the collaborative actions of Susie’s humour in

answering the question, and Ethan displaying his appreciation, the upshot is that this

query is designed not to be taken seriously. At the same time, Susie’s response shows

that the answer to this query is already known, and thus discounted as being a serious

search query. In her same turn, she directs Harry to start.

Susie announces, “okay Harry you sta::rt” (line 648) referring to the previously

agreed search topic on what tadpoles eat. This “okay (+ a fuller turn)” (p. 325) works

first as a topic closer and then places emphasis on a new focus (Beach, 1993). Susie’s

directive to Harry shows that it was his search question, and not Ethan’s, that has

become the next search query. In this sequence, the search query was one that both

Harry and Ethan had agreed that they did not know the answer. In this way, there was

an orientation by the teacher to finding a search query that might provide new

information and therefore possibly new learning. Additionally Susie’s turn closes the

discussion, indicates which query will be entered, showing the social order of the

classroom, that she (as the teacher) has the right to direct when to, and who will, start

typing the search query. In so doing, Susie’s turn progresses the search to the next

phase.

Phase 2 – Inputting the search query

In this phase, Susie and the two children work collaboratively to type the search

question into Google. It begins with Harry responding to Susie’s directive, “okay

Harry you sta::rt” (line 648) by sitting upright and looking at the keyboard (line 649).


Extract 2

SUSIE =Smelly socks, (0.4) slippers,(.) all so::rts of things 647 okay Harry you sta::rt648

Harry (1.6)((Harry sits upright and looks at keyboard)) 649 Harry (?) 650 SUSIE Now (.) if you click on (one of tho:se) they’re all the 651

ones to do with (dolphins) where you going to wri- where 652 you going to ty:pe in? 653

Harry U::m >I don’t know< I could (press it the:re) 654 SUSIE Yeah= 655 Ethan =(you have to get rid of it) 656 SUSIE Beg your pa:rdon Ethan 657 Ethan have to get rid of those words 658 SUSIE Ri:ght 659 (3.0)((Harry manipulating mouse)) 660 Harry Trying to get (rid of that)((pointing at screen)) 661 SUSIE Aa::h= 662 Harry =We can (.) we can do something else (I’ll show you what) 663

we can do:: 664 SUSIE what 665 Harry You you there’s actually a button you can pre:ss which 666

(.) which u:m (.) which which you can ty:pe different 667 wo::rds 668

SUSIE (Well how?) (.) come o::n 669 Harry U:m= 670 SUSIE =Mister clever beans I wanna see how you do: this 671 (3.0)(Harry gazes at Susie who is smiling at him)) 672 SUSIE I (could see) Harry looking to do some backspacing 673

befo::re (see where the cursor is) it’s up at the front 674 of the words (2.0) would you like a clue? 675

(1.0) 676 Harry ((nods head)) 677 Harry We could pre:ss (.) we could press the (letters) and 678

they’d come up here and we what (.) >what does that< sa:y 679 SUSIE what do:: crabs ea::t (.) that’s that one but you wanted-680

= 681 Harry (yeah we wanted)-= 682 SUSIE = so 683 Harry we wanted to do tadpole 684 SUSIE O:ka::y (.) so (sort it out) >what shall we do<=685

This phase begins with Susie focusing on future action, “Now (.) if you click on

(one of tho:se) they’re all the ones to do with (dolphins)” (line 651-653). Following

‘now’, Susie points to the search history list “(one of tho:se)”, and directs Harry and

Ethan to focus on the previous Google search. This direction to a previous Web

search works as a template for typing the new search question for future searches.

However, this focus is shifted when Susie finishes with the interrogative, “where you

going to wri- where you going to ty:pe in?”.

The ‘where’ interrogative marks an initiation act, in first position, of an

instructional sequence and serves as a “process elicitation” (Mehan, 1979) that calls

for Harry to indicate where he will type the query. Harry responds to Susie’s question


with “u:::m” (line 654), which indicates that he may be having trouble in responding,

or be may be displaying a thinking token (M. Goodwin & Goodwin, 1986). He then

quickly says, “>I don’t know<”, and then extends his turn to make a suggestion, “I

could (press) (it the:re) ((pointing to the screen))” (line 654). While this initial turn

suggests that he may need help as he doesn’t know what to do, he quickly proposes a

contingent strategy. Using the “less certain modal ‘could’” (Edwards, 2008) suggests

that he is unsure that his suggestion is right, however makes the suggestion anyway.

In this way, he presents himself as someone who is willing to have a go at a solution,

that is, to use a trial and error approach that might work. His efforts might be

something that is recognised, rather than a focus on not getting it right. In response to

Harry’s suggested possible action of, “I could (press it the:re)” (line 654), Susie

provides a minimal agreement, “Yeah=” (line 655). Before Harry can implement his

proposed action, Ethan makes the suggestion, “=(you have to get rid of it)” (line 656).

The indexical expression ‘it’ refers to his past search query that is still typed into

Google and visible on the screen. In her next turn, Susie’s response, “Beg your

pa:rdon Ethan” (line 657) is an “other initiated, self repair” (Schegloff, 2007) calling

for Ethan to repair his previous utterance. He does, with an elaboration of “it”: “have

to get rid of those words.” Susie accepts this strategy with “Right” (line 659), and by

Harry who begins manipulating the mouse. Here, Susie has made strategic use of

Ethan’s peer intervention. While Mehan (1979) points out that teachers often invite

other students to help “supply a correct reply” (p. 57), the guidance in this case was

initiated by Ethan, and then further supported by the teacher.

Harry then provides a hearable account of what he is doing, “trying to get (rid of

that) ((pointing at screen))” (line 661). Here, his hand action indicates a backward

motion (three times) as he indicates what he’s trying to get rid of. By accounting for

his action, Harry displays that he knows that his action is different to the action

suggested by Ethan. Firth (1995) shows that people provide accounts or explanations

as to their behaviour when it could be viewed that their action is unexpected or

different to the action expected by members. Susie’s “Aa::h=” (line 662)

acknowledges Harry’s account. Harry’s next turn continues with an account, this time

of what he is about to do. In his pre-expansion sequence, “=We can (.) we can do

something else (I’ll show you what) we can do::” (line 663), he does ‘build up’ work,

offering to show what else they can do to adjust the search question. Schegloff (2007)


explains that pre-expansions “serve as an alert to recipients that what is to follow is

built to be an informing or telling of news” (p. 39), which is a “contingent next step

(p. 39). Pre-expansions can be analysed by looking at how recipients treat them, with

the second pair part of an offer making relevant either an acceptance or a decline in

response (Schegloff, 2007). Susie accepts Harry’s offer by asking, “what” (line 665),

indicating that he proceed or to ‘go ahead’ with his offer of showing an alternative

solution. Harry looks at the screen pointing at the words in the Google search box at

the beginning of his turn, and then completes his turn looking at Susie and says, “You

you there’s actually a button you can pre:ss which (.) which u:m (.) which which you

can ty:pe different wo::rds” (lines 666-668). At this point, while he has introduced the

idea of a button to press, he has not shown Susie the specific button. He has adjusted

his previous offer to now suggest that there is a button that can be pressed. Harry’s

general statement about a strategy of pushing a button suggests that he is aware of ‘a’

strategy, although he may not know the specific button to push. At this point, he may

be ‘fishing’ for someone to provide some guidance or to tell ‘their side’ as to the

specific button. Pomerantz (1980) investigated the indirect ways that people ask for

help. She shows how sometimes ‘tellings’ can be elicitations for help, as a way of

drawing from the recipient what they know regarding the speaker’s telling. Pomerantz

(1980) shows that if the recipient treats the speaker’s telling as ‘fishing’ for

information, the recipient can tell their side. In this case, members did not tell ‘their

side’.

Susie’s response “(Well how?) (.) come o::n” (line 669) serves as an

interrogative that ‘does challenging” and it does not provide guidance as to which

button to press. In this instance, the mitigation device “well” is offered as a challenge

to Harry, rather than a device that indicates disagreement (Drew et al., 2006;

Schegloff & Lerner, 2009). In issuing a challenge to Harry in this way, Susie may be

‘doing pedagogical work’ of encouraging him to have a go, that is, to take a chance.

This form of risk-taking to enhance thinking processes is a strategy often used by

early childhood teachers. For example, the Queensland Studies Authority (2006)

directs teachers to create a learning environment that supports the development of,

and also extends, children’s thinking processes. Susie’s challenge prompts Harry to

explore alternative ways of altering the search question, to which he orients.


Harry hearably plans his next action through the use of a thinking token,“um”

(line 670), that works both to delay action and mark time. 'Um' can indicate that a

speaker is having trouble remembering what he wanted to say or it may show that

speakers need help to complete their turn (C. Goodwin, 1987; M. Goodwin &

Goodwin, 1986). Susie treats Harry’s “U:m” as having trouble in answering (or

remembering), and continues with a latched response, “=Mister clever beans I wanna

see how you do: this” (line 671). At first, this turn might be considered somewhat

confrontational and challenging. However Sidnell (2010) points out that address terms

indicate relationship status and Susie’s use of “Mister clever beans” could display

familiarisation and a sense of belonging. Harry turns to look at Susie who is smiling at

him. This action of smiling in conversation can indicate friendliness (Haakana, 2010).

In this way Susie displays that the context of her challenge (line 671) to Harry is done

within a context of friendliness rather than confrontation. After a pause of 3 seconds

during which time Harry looks at the keyboard, Susie continues with a formulation of

her previous observation – that Harry had been observed by her doing “some

backspacing befo::re (see where the cursor is) it’s up at the front of the words” (lines

673-674). After Susie’s formulation, there is a two second pause, during which Harry

looks at the computer screen possibly orienting to the cursor’s location. While this

formulation has worked as an indirect clue for what Harry could do, she now asks

explicitly, “would you like a clue? (line 675), now offering to provide a clue as to

where the keyboard button might be. Following the challenge, Susie has provided

support to Harry, and displayed her pedagogical work, through the offer of two clues.

The first clue is implicit and indirect, the second is an upgrade that asks Harry

explicitly. The pedagogical work of scaffolding displayed by Susie throughout this

sequence begins by affording Harry with high knowledge. Seeing that Harry needed

some help, Susie then provides an implicit clue. With Harry requiring additional help,

she then gives a very direct instruction which afforded him to complete his initial

action.

Harry accepts Susie’s offer by nodding but then self selects another turn, before

her help can be given. Harry suggests that they could “press the (letters)” (line 678).

His suggestion works to show, again, a display of his knowledge about the next steps

in the search. He is constructing himself as someone who has some understanding of

aspects of techno-literacy, such as pressing letters. He then asks, “>what does that<


sa:y” (pointing at the computer screen) (line 679). Susie responds, reading from the

screen, “what do:: crabs ea::t” (line 680) and then does a formulation, “ (.) that’s that

one but you wanted-=” (line 680). After agreeing that they have found the right

search text (what do crabs eat) Susie completes her next turn with a question designed

to prompt thoughts about next actions (line 685), which is about how to change a

search query about crabs to one about tadpoles? Harry agrees, “(yeah we wanted)-=

(line 682), “we wanted to do tadpole.” (line 684). In this way, Susie scaffolds Harry,

in an indirect way, to modify a search by drawing on Harry’s knowledge and building

on it. In his next turn, Harry displays his knowledge of recognising the search format,

and that he needs to change the stem, in order to modify a previously entered search.

Extract 3

SUSIE O:ka::y (.) so (sort it out) >what shall we do<= 685 Harry =We can move the cursor forward= 686 SUSIE =Okay (look for) the arrow, 687 Ethan No (.) I know= 688 SUSIE =>see here< 689 (2.6) 690 Ethan I know 691 SUSIE And we wanted to keep the ‘what’ and the ‘do’ 692 (1.0) 693 SUSIE Yep 694 Harry What [do] 695 SUSIE [Har]ry its a bit like when you’re doing your 696

writing with a finger spa:ce, (.) you need to use the 697 space ba:r, (2.0 698

Harry ((Harry presses space bar)) 699 Susie tadpo:les 700 (2.6) 701 SUSIE wo:::: (1.8) what do you reckon 702 Ethan tee:::: 703 SUSIE (.) Ye:::::::S 704 Harry Ay 705 SUSIE Ye::::S (0.4)tad 706 Harry Dee 707 SUSIE Ye:as 708 (1.0) 709 Harry (tad:::) (0.8) puh puh 710 (8.0) 711 SUSIE Can he find it (.) ca:::n he fi:nd the pee? 712 (1.0) 713 SUSIE do [you think he can]((touched Ethan’s arm)) 714 Ethan [I know where it is] ((points to ‘p’ on keyboard)) 715 Harry [(there)] 716 SUSIE [ye:p ] 717 SUSIE ((to other children who have come to show her their 718

posters)) Good on you (.) I love thi::s ((reading a 719 poster the child had made))get some wa:ter (ta:nks) and 720 sa:ve water (they are fabulous tanks) would you like to 721 show them to Julie?Yes because she hasn’t see:n them yet722


Susie asks a “process elicitation” (Mehan, 1979), when she says, “oka::y (.) so

(sort it out) >what shall we do<=” (line 685).” The discourse markers ‘so’ and ‘okay’

(line 685) connect the previous search inquiry about crabs with the forward action of

typing the new search subject into Google by adjusting the existing query currently on

the screen. Knowledge about adapting an existing search query is a techno-literacy

skill that is relevant for literacy curriculum. While Susie could have directed or

instructed Harry at this point, she instead offers Harry decision-making rights by

asking this open question about the next step in the search process. Susie’s open

question is ‘doing scaffolding’ to direct him to consider the next step, done in such a

way that it affords him high epistemics. In Susie’s question, she places Harry in a

position of K+ and herself in a position of K- by asking the question with an open

question design.

Harry proposes, “=We can move the cursor forward=” (line 686), suggesting a

next possible step. Susie follows up with a “hint”, “(look for) the arrow,” (line 687).

The “hint” (Evin-Tripp, 1976) does not explicitly tell Harry what he needs to do to

move the cursor forward, but does hint at what he needs to look for giving a clue as to

the direction Harry could proceed. When he does not find the arrow key, Susie issues

a further hint through a directive, “=>see here<” ((pointing at the arrow key on the

keyboard)) (line 689), but does not specifically name the suggested action.

Harry’s previously suggested action of moving the cursor forward can now be

enacted, as he has now located the arrow key. Susie then issues another “hint”, “And

we wanted to keep the ‘what’ and the ‘do’” (line 692), further scaffolding the action

by reminding him of what had been decided earlier (to use the previous search query

as a template), and her use of “we” treats the action as a collaborative activity in

which all participants are involved. Harry reads, “What [do]” (line 695) from the

screen, overlapping with Susie’s turn where she reminds him, “[Har]ry its a bit like

when you’re doing your writing with a finger spa:ce, (.) you need to use the space

ba:r, (2.0 (lines 696-698), prompting him to leave a ‘finger space’ between written

words. Harry then locates the space bar and presses it. In this scaffolding, Susie

connects his prior learning to a new situation and new medium, the typed words on

the screen. She has taken the traditional pencil and paper activity of writing words to


transfer this knowledge into the conduct of writing a search query within a Web

searching context.

After Harry presses the space bar, Susie says “tadpoles” (line 700), emphasising

the initial syllable (or onset) of the word. She then asks, “what do you reckon” (line

702), a prompt to begin spelling out the letters of the word. Segmenting words into

syllables or phonemes, or onset and rimes, is a practice typically used in early years’

classrooms to develop and extend children’s phonological awareness, phonics (Marsh,

2006; Wohlwend, 2010) and letter recognition (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003), when

learning to read and write (Queensland Studies Authority, 2006). The sequence

focuses on naming the phonemes in the word ‘tadpole’ (lines 703-711), and Ethan,

Harry and Susie show that they are familiar with this style of activity. Ethan and

Harry each offer the phonemes they can hear as they isolate the sounds t-a-d-p. Susie

completes the second pair of the adjacency pairs by responding to immediately

confirm their offers. In line 710, Harry proffers the sound “puh puh” without

naming the letter. In line 711, there is an 8 second pause while Harry moves his index

finger across the keyboard, just above the letters as if he is searching for the letter ‘p’.

This pause could indicate that Harry has difficulty identifying the letter that makes the

sound “puh puh” or has difficulty finding the letter ‘p’ on the keyboard. Instead of

showing Harry where the ‘p’ button is on the computer, Susie’s question, “Can he

find it (.) ca:::n he fi:nd the pee?” (line 712), may confirm that ‘p’ is the letter that

makes the sound ‘puh’. Susie’s turn may also inform Harry of the letter he is looking

for. Susie’s question adds an additional 1.0 second search time before she touches

Ethan on the arm and asks, “do [you think he can]” (line 714). She does not show

Harry the button and she invites Ethan into the activity. By inviting Ethan’s

participation at this point, the teacher has initiated a peer-support strategy that has

worked to focus all members’ attention on finding the letter ‘p’ and progressed the

search forward. In overlap with Susie (line 715), Ethan’s responds with “[I know

where it is]” and he points to ‘p’ on keyboard (line 715). In the next turn, Harry

announces, “there” (line 716), as he presses the ‘p’ button on the keyboard. He then

presses the ‘o’, ‘l’, and ‘z’ buttons on the keyboard, phonetically spelling ‘tadpoles’,

while Susie interacts with some other children in the class who have come to show

her some of their posters (lines 718–722).


Extract 4

Harry What eats [(tadpoles)] 723 SUSIE [Tadpo::les]now what are you going to do::: 724

with the wo:rds that you don’t need, (what do you think?) 725 to get rid of the::m 726

Harry (backspace)= 727 SUSIE =Mmm (.) Bu:t are you gunna be able to spell wo:::::h 728 Harry Might not be a:ble to, 729 Ethan I know= 730 SUSIE What could you mo:ve 731 Harry >oh yeah yeah yeah<= 732 Ethan =(What do you have to mo:ve) 733 SUSIE [good on you] (.) ri::ght now he’s at 734

the E:nd 735 (6.8)((Harry continues pressing the cursor on keyboard)) 736 SUSIE “What do tadpo::::↑les” 737 (0.4) 738 Harry eat 739 (2.0) 740 SUSIE >wheres the bit< Where’s the bit that says eat, 741 (4.0) 742 Harry i:↑: 743 (4.0) 744 Harry E:at oh ((Harry looks at SUSIE)) 745 SUSIE ((nods yes)) 746 (1.0) 747 Harry (i:::tee) 748 (0.8) 749 Harry Oh tee tee (?) 750 SUSIE (Righto) 751 Ethan (?) 752 SUSIE Now what’s the next step Ethan? 753 (2.0) 754 Harry What do tadpoles eat 755 SUSIE Well we’ve typed it i:n what’s the next step 756 Harry ((pointing at screen)) Click tha:t 757 (1.4) 758 Ethan Tha:t ((presses the enter button)) 759 Harry (yeah ?)760

After typing in the word ‘tadplz’, Harry reads aloud the question typed into

Google, “What eats [(tadpoles)]” (line 723), overlapping the word [tadpo::les] with

Susie who says, “[Tadpo::les] now what are you going to do::: with the wo:rds that

you don’t need, (what do you think?) to get rid of the::m” (line 724-726). Her overlap

and focus of the next action moves the search process along by highlighting what

Harry needs to think about next for the search. Susie’s ‘what’ interrogatives shape the

direction of the conversation, and enable the participants to contribute to decisions

regarding future action. Harry suggests using the “backspace)=” button (line 727),

which Susie receipts with a minimal receipt token, “Mmm” (line 728), and then asks,

“(.) Bu:t are you gunna be able to spell wo:::::h” (line 728). The contrasting marker

‘but’ (Maynard, 1992), in this utterance, is used to signal disparity. As Susie asks her


question, Harry holds the backspace arrow down, which backspaces continuously. He

lifts his finger off the back space button when he hears Susie’s “Wo:::::h” suggesting

to Harry to slow down or stop the backspacing.

Harry, in response to Susie’s earlier question about how to remove a word from

the search query, says that he “might not be a:ble to,” (line 729). At this point, Ethan

asserts, “I know=” (line 730), but stops without completing the utterance. Susie does

not pick up on Ethan’s assertion but asks Harry, “What could you mo:ve” (line 731),

narrowing the possibilities for Harry of what might be suitable actions works to

prompt, or offer a hint to Harry about what he could do next. He displays his

understanding with, “>oh yeah yeah yeah<=” (line 732) and presses the arrow key to

move the cursor forward. While he has not verbally answered the prompt, his use of

“oh” works to communicate a change of knowledge state (Heritage, 1998). Harry’s

own assessment that he “might not be ab:le” to move the word (line 729) has now

moved to having a strategy that reflects his changed state of knowing the right

strategy. Susie proffers an assessment, “[good on you]” (line 734), bringing closure to

this sequence.

Susie then pushes forward with getting the search query typed as she reads what

Harry had typed in so far, “What do tadpo::::↑les” (line 737). After a slight pause,

Harry says ‘eat’ (line 739), completing the question. A two second pause follows, and

then Susie asks, “>wheres the bit< Where’s the bit that says eat,” (line 741). She

points out that the word “eat” is missing in the typed query. Harry commences a self

correction sequence, sounding out the word ‘e-a-t’ saying “i:↑:” (line 743), and then

there is an additional four second pause as he types in the letter ‘i’. Harry says, “Oh

tee tee (?)” (line 750), and makes the suggestion of the sound ‘t’ as the letter he

should type in next. Again, Harry’s “oh” followed by his self correction shows a

changed state of knowledge, signalling that he now ‘gets’ what he is being asked to

do. Susie issues a go ahead’, with “(Righto)” (line 751).

The search question that Harry actually entered into Google reads, “What do

tadpolz it?” (Notice that Harry spelled the word ‘eat’ phonetically so typed in “i” and

“t”.) Refer to Figure 5.1.


Figure 5.1. The search question typed into Google.

The approximated phonetic spelling used by Harry was not corrected by the

teacher. The Queensland Studies Authority (2006) writes that teachers should plan for

“children to become writers and shapers by developing an understanding of the

relationship between letters and sound, and using writing approximations” (p. 69).

Additionally, research by Rabin, Scull, Nolan and Paatsch (2010) that investigated

literacy beliefs and practices of early childhood teachers found a “close pedagogical

alignment between teachers’ views of literacy and the activities enacted” (p. 22).

When typing the search question into Google, Harry experimented with letters and

sounds, with Susie’s support showing the ‘pedagogical work’ being done by Susie.

Here, Susie embeds literacy learning within meaningful and purposeful contexts for

Ethan and Harry, supporting the relevant literacy learning espoused in curriculum

documents through social interaction.

As Harry typed the question into Google, Ethan focussed on the screen and

looked at Harry’s keyboard. Occasionally, he would point to the letters that Harry

needed to press. Once the question had been typed into Google, Susie asks, “Now

what’s the next step Ethan?” (line 753), naming Ethan as the recipient of her

interrogative, and using the temporal marker ‘now’ to focus on the next step. At this

point, she explicitly brings Ethan back into the collaborative effort. Macbeth (1991, p.

288) writes that “named addresses are embedded in the teacher’s work of assembling

the cohort”. While Susie’s address to Ethan could be seen as a teaching strategy

employed to include him in the activity at hand, Ethan does not respond verbally or

with gesture. He continues to look at the keyboard that Harry is working on. After a

two second pause, Harry self selects as next speaker, saying, “What do tadpoles eat”

(line 755). Susie says, “well” and announces, “we’ve typed it i:n what’s the next step”


(line 756). Her utterance announces that this phase of the activity, which is inputting

the search query, is now complete. Susie repeats, “what’s the next step” (line 756),

but this time does not select next speaker. Harry points to the screen, and initiates an

instruction, “click tha:t” (line 757). At this point, Ethan leans across Harry to reach

the mouse, saying ‘tha:t’ as he clicks the mouse button to start the Google search (line

759). At this point, Ethan is actively engaged in activating the search. The search

query has now been typed into Google as a result of the collaborative efforts of all

three members.

Phase 3 – Considering the result options

After activating the search, participants move their interactional focus to discuss

the search result options.

Extract 5

SUSIE Harry (1.0) look at the top li:ne 761 (5.6) 762 SUSIE What does it say 763 (1.8) 764 SUSIE . hhh huh You were too quick 765 Ethan (?) 766 SUSIE Harry Ye::s Harry look what we’ve got (for choices) (0.4) 767

how to raise tadpoles, (.) what kind of ca:re do tadpoles 768 need a:nd what do they eat and this one 769

[says ] 770 Harry [What] do they eat? 771 SUSIE Ye::s but look at this one Harry, (.) tadpo:les for 772

children inclu:ding how to ca:re for tadpoles (1.0) and 773 he:re’s another one that sa:ys (.) what do tadpoles eat, 774 which (.) which one do you wa:nt to try. 775

Ethan This o:ne ((Ethan points at the screen to indicate his 776 choice)) 777

SUSIE Alright, ((Harry clicks on Ethan’s choice)) 778 (6.4) ((waiting for the selected results page to load)) 779 Ethan Why do (?) 780 (5.0) 781 SUSIE You know what it says do:wn the bottom, it’s waiting (.) 782

it’s waiting to er upload that one 783 (3.0) 784 SUSIE (Must be that si:te) 785 (3.0) 786 SUSIE Did you double click it Harry 787 Harry Yes 788 (11.0) 789 Ethan (I think it (?) tired) 790 SUSIE Do you (.) do you want to try again, 791 (5.5) 792 SUSIE (The message do:wn) (.) >the bottom< says it’s sti:ll 793

waiting 794 (25.0) 795 Harry Oh 796


After clicking the ‘mouse’ to activate the search, the ‘did you mean?’ screen was

displayed, in response to the misspelled words. Refer to Figure 5.2.

Figure 5.2. The ‘did you mean?” screen.

Initiating the first turn of a new topic sequence, Susie says, “Harry (1.0) look at

the top li:ne” (line 761). Here, her use of the address term works as an attention

gaining device and Harry looks at the screen. The search engine Google displays ‘Did

you mean’ and shows an alternative search question, “what do tadpoles eat”. The

search program typically proposes an alternate query when the spelling, or aspects of

the spelling, of the entered search query are incorrect. Google then proposes

alternative search queries to maximise the search results. The ‘did you mean’ line

referred to by Susie, in line 763, is shown in Figure 5.3.


Figure 5.3. Did you mean line referred to by Susie.

A pause of 5.6 seconds occurs, while participants focus on ‘the line’, in

response to Susie’s directive. Susie issues a “what” interrogative, asking “what does

it say” (line 763). While this interrogative may have lead to a discussion about

alternative search suggestions via the ‘Did you mean’ Google search results, this

topic did not gain the conversational floor. Instead, Harry moves the mouse to

activate the ‘new’ search based on a ‘Did you mean “what do tadpoles it”’

suggestion from Google. The activated hyperlink prompts from Susie, “hhh huh You

were too quick”, maybe suggesting that Susie had wanted to discuss the ‘top line’,

the ‘did you mean’ line.

When the results page of the ‘new’ search is displayed, Susie brings Harry’s

attention to the choices they have in relation to the search results (Refer to Figure

5.4). Here Susie uses Harry’s address term twice at the beginning of her utterance.

She issues a directive, “look what we’ve got (for choices)” (line 767), and then reads

from the screen the different possible search queries, “how to raise tadpoles,” (.)

“what kind of ca:re do tadpoles need” a:nd “what do they eat” (lines 768-770).

Through the use of the pronoun “we”, the choices are presented as a decision that

should be made together and, in so doing, will be a shared accomplishment.

Line referred to by Susie


Figure 5.4. The search result choices.

Upon hearing the original question that he typed into Google, Harry says with

heightened pitch “[What] do they eat?” (line 771). As Bolinger (1983) shows,

heightened pitch can indicate excitement. Goodwin (2007) has researched

participation stance and affect and showed that participants build meaning and

corresponding action by making use of talk and other sign systems, such as gesture

or other non verbal interactions, in interaction. These sign systems are interpreted by

participants and influence the “affective tone” (p. 69) displayed by participants in the

interaction. Harry’s affective stance is one of excitement.

Susie acknowledges Harry’s utterance with “Ye::s but look at this one Harry,”

(line 772), commencing with the receipt token, “ye::s” and then ‘but’ as a way of

signalling a contrasting idea. When the contrasting marker is used post agreement,

the formulation of the disalignment is packaged in such a way that commences with

agreement, followed by disagreement (Maynard, 1992). In this way, Susie has agreed

with Harry about the question they wish to find out, and then she uses the contrasting

marker as a way of pointing out disalignment by getting Harry to focus on the other

‘result choices’ displayed. Here, she has used the contrastive marker to show Harry

and Ethan that there is a bigger list of possible search results than the one that they

focused on, which is about what tadpoles eat. By bringing to the attention of Harry

the consideration of all of the “choices”, she shows that he will need to decide, from

a number of options which choice may best suit the information he requires.


As a result, Susie incidentally teaches Harry and Ethan about critical literacy

skills associated with Web searching, when they need to make a decision about

which search result would be suitable for the question they asked and also

themselves as the audience who would be interpreting the information. Susie

continues reading from the screen, “tadpo:les for children inclu:ding how to ca:re

for tadpoles” (1.0) and he:re’s another one that sa:ys (.) “what do tadpoles eat,”

which (.) which one do you wa:nt to try.” (line 772-775). In her final utterance,

“which one do you want to try” (line 775), Susie’s interrogative suggests that the

decision making rests with both Harry and Ethan. She speaks to the category,

‘students’, rather than individuals, when using the pronoun ‘you’. Macbeth (1991),

investigating teacher authority, notes that “when teachers speak, they speak to

everyone as the cohort” (p.285). Members of the ‘cohort’ then reflect or decide on

the relevance of the teacher’s talk to themselves, as Macbeth points out, “their work

of finding the relevance of the teacher’s remarks within their own affairs is routinely

unspoken, although not always” (p. 286”). Susie’s offer of choice to Ethan and Harry

requires them to find the relevance of Susie’s question for themselves. In finding the

“the relevance for me” (Macbeth, 1991, p. 286), Ethan self selects as next speaker in

line 776, using both verbal and non verbal communication, when he says, “This

o:ne” (line 776) and points to the screen to indicate his choice. Susie responds with,

“Alright” (line 778), and Harry clicks on Ethan’s choice, indicating his acceptance

also.

While participants wait for the selected results page to load, Susie’s interaction

offers a commentary as to what is happening using technical language associated

with Web searching and accounts for what is happening. This account is the

beginning of a sequence (lines 782-794) of very directed interaction aimed at

explaining what was going on. Here, Susie orients to the learning agenda of the

classroom.

During this sequence (lines 782-794) Susie makes the most of a teachable

moment when she says, “You know what it says do:wn the bottom, it’s waiting (.)

it’s waiting to er upload that one” (line 782-783). This account does not require a

response from the Ethan and Harry. Susie then implements a series of trouble-

shooting possibilities as the upload seems to be slow. She offers an account, “(must

be that site)” (line 785). She then asks two YNIs directed to Harry, “Did you double


click it Harry” (line 787), to check that the action was done correctly and “Do you (.)

do you want to try again,” (line 791), a strategy that could be used when there is a

slow upload. The design of a YNI works to restrict the response from Ethan and

Harry and therefore restrict open discussion other than answering the interrogative

issued with a one word response. Cromdal, Osvaldsson, and Persson-Thunqvist

(2008) show how emergency call operators orient to their institutional agenda of

emergency help by managing the interactions, using minimal acknowledgement

tokens and specific types of interactions to restrict the caller’s response, to draw out

the information required, in order to establish whether (and what type of) emergency

help is needed. Susie has managed the interaction, in a similar way, such that her

pursuit of (teaching and) learning relating to problems of Web searching are oriented

to. Susie reads aloud the message on the screen, “(The message do:wn) (.) >the

bottom< says it’s sti:ll waiting” (lines 793–794). Through conversation, Susie has

stepped the children through some possible problems that they might encounter when

Web searching and suggested some strategies for how to combat these problems.

Teachers in early childhood settings often use the strategy where they ‘think

aloud’ as a way of modelling the metacognition of problem solving. Wilhelm (2001)

writes that “the most powerful thing we can teach is strategic knowledge, a

knowledge of the procedures people use to learn, to think, to read, and to write” (p.

7). Susie has provided the children with some possible problems that they may face

when doing a Web search, such as forgetting to double click to activate the command

and recognising sometimes Internet sites can have technical issues. In this instance, it

seems that the upload to the selected results page was slow and not as a result of user

errors or technical glitches. The ‘selected results page’ now becomes displayed on

the screen, bringing phase 3 to a close.


Phase 4 – Exploring the selected result

Phase 4 moves from the ‘search result options’ via the ‘results pages’ to a focus on

the information contained within a selected ‘results page’.

Extract 6

(4.5) 797 SUSIE Well would you like me to read what it says, 798 Harry Yes 799 (2.5) 800 SUSIE Where shall I sta::rt (ºdo you thinkº) 801 Harry Where (the tadpole word what do tadpoles eat) 802 SUSIE Well where can I see that on the screen 803 (3.0) 804 Harry You have to type it in there, 805 SUSIE I actually do::n’t (.) you don’t even need to do any 806

more typing just at the minu:te (.) where can you see 807 that wo:rd tadpole I know it’s up there on the screen 808 somewhere, (.) you have a sea:rch (2.0) just with your 809 e::yes (Harry), (.) can you find tadpoles, 810

(3.0) 811 SUSIE (Whoops that’s okay=) 812 Ethan =Okay 813 (2.8) 814 SUSIE Can you((at Ethan))find tadpo:les on this page(.)the wo:rd 815 (2.0) 816 Harry ((points at screen))(The’s at the bottom) 817 SUSIE Ye::s (good on you) 818 Ethan I I saw I sa:w it (down there) ‘the’(.) there 819 SUSIE Heythere’s another one,I can see another onethat you know 820 Harry Ah (.) in 821 Ethan Ee: 822 SUSIE Ee yes what else can you (tell me)/(find) 823 Ethan The 824 SUSIE (Ye:::s) 825 Harry The 826 SUSIE Oh my goodness (.) there’s loads of them 827 (1.0) 828 Harry mmmmm Tadpoles, ((pointing at bottom of screen)) 829 (0.8) 830 SUSIE Ah that’s o:ne tadpo:le 831 Ethan There’s a a ‘the’ with a ‘wy’ on the end 832 SUSIE A ‘the’ with a ‘wy’ on the end says the::y that’s 833

really clever cause you found a wo:rd (within a word) 834 (.) have a look ((pointing at screen to indicate place 835 to start reading)) keep tadpo:les (as well as)=836

When the selected results page is displayed on the screen (see Figure 5.5),

Susie makes an offer, “Well would you like me to read what it says,” (line 798), via a

YNI, which Harry accepts (line 799).


Figure 5.5. The selected results page.

Susie uses a display (known answer) question (Long & Sato, 1983), also

described by Schegloff (2007) as a test question, to elicit information about where

she should start reading. She asks, “Where shall I sta::rt (ºdo you thinkº)” (line 801).

This question is a “where” interrogative that “makes a place reference relevant in

their answer” (Schegloff, 2007, p. 78) and may have been used to ‘test’ Harry’s

knowledge about the conventions of print such as his knowledge of where to

commence reading from. The Early Years Curriculum Guidelines (2006) provides

monitoring and assessing suggestions for teachers regarding children’s writing and

shaping skills including evidence that the child “can point to where print begins

when asked” (p. 69).

Harry follows up with an other-initiated self-repair with, “Where (the tadpole

word what do tadpoles eat” (line 802). Susie repairs her prior turn by asking more

explicitly where she should start reading from the screen (line 803). Harry replies,

“You have to type it in there,” (line 805), as he points to a box on the screen where

questions can be typed in. To this suggestion of Harry’s, Susie offers an account of

why she is not going to type more: “I actually do::n’t (.) you don’t even need to do

any more typing just at the minu:te (.) where can you see that wo:rd tadpole I know

it’s up there on the screen somewhere, (.) you have a sea:rch (2.0) just with your

e::yes (Harry), (.) can you find tadpoles,” (lines 809-810). In her justification for not

following Harry’s suggested action, Susie provides specific information about how to

‘read’ the text on the screen. She issues a partial repeat of her question from line 803,

reformulating it to include part of Harry’s previous suggestion, “Where (the tadpole

word what do tadpoles eat) (line 802). She scaffolds for Harry how to do this activity


by offering a clue, “you have a sea:rch (2.0) just with your e::yes (Harry).” She then

asks him if he can locate the word, tadpoles: “(.) can you find tadpoles,” (line 809-

810). This request proposes action in that it asks Harry to now search for the

requested word.

During the next 5.8 seconds, Harry and Susie look at the screen in search of the

word ‘tadpoles’. At this point, Susie uses the strategy of calling on a peer to help and

she asks Ethan, “Can you find tadpo:les on this page(.) the wo:rd” (line 815). Harry

and Ethan look at the screen for 2 seconds and then Harry points at the screen and

says, “(The’s at the bottom)” (line 817) as he finds the word ‘the’ towards the bottom

of the screen. Susie’s, “Ye::s (good on you)”(line 818) acknowledges and positively

assesses Harry’s find. Harry’s action of finding ‘the’ on the screen orchestrates a

shift for all members who now search for familiar words on the screen, during lines

819 – 828. Susie’s, “Hey there’s another one, I can see another one that you know”

(line 820) serves as a “pre-announcement” (Terasaki, 2004) and an announcement

hinting at the possible future action of finding another familiar word. In picking up

the hint, Ethan and Harry identify additional words recognisable to them (lines 821 –

826). In line 827, Susie registers the surprise of how many words they can find by

saying, “Oh my goodness”, followed by an announcement of what caused her

surprise, “there’s loads of them”. While Susie had initiated an activity of finding a

word on the screen (looking for the word ‘tadpoles’), Harry attends to the word

search game, finding a different word (the word ‘the’) to the one originally requested

by Susie. This action by Harry prompts the continuation of the word search game by

Susie, Harry and Ethan and shows how Susie works with what Harry and Ethan offer

up as displayed knowledge. In this way, the action of finding a known word is

celebrated, at a time that the children display is relevant to them, rather than there

being a focus on the identification of a specific word. This is a positive endorsement

by Susie of a search activity, that of word searching, highly valued when beginning

to read.

Participants then return to the earlier topic of searching for the word ‘tadpoles’,

when Harry uses ‘mmmmm’ (line 829) before identifying and announcing,

“Tadpoles” (line 829), and pointing towards the bottom of the screen. Gardner

(2001) points out that ‘Mm’ as a hesitation marker, “is a kind of placeholder, filling

what would otherwise be a silence” (p. 66) indicating that “I may not be saying


anything topical at this point in my turn, but I am still in my turn” (p. 66). Harry’s

‘mmmmm’ works as a hesitation marker to bide time, and marking his turn until he

finds the word ‘tadpoles’ on the screen. Once he finds the word ‘tadpoles’, Susie

responds with, “Ah that’s o:ne tadpo:le” (line 831). “Ah” in this utterance shows

appreciation even though the tadpole word identified by Harry, found towards the

bottom of the page, was not the ‘one’ that indicated to Susie where to start reading –

the reason why members started searching for the word tadpoles in the first instance.

Ethan continues with the previous search game, with an insertion sequence “There’s

a a ‘the’ with a ‘wy’ on the end” (line 832), noticing within the word ‘they’, a

familiar word, ‘the’ with a ‘y’. Susie offers an assessment with a justification,

“that’s really clever cause you found a wo:rd (within a word)” (lines 833-834). This

assessment marks a pedagogic move by Susie as she highlights again the literacy

skill - finding words within words – relevant to the early childhood literacy

curriculum. Additionally, it shows how Susie considers Ethan’s continued agenda as

she does not refocus Ethan to the new action at hand immediately.

Susie’s continued turn works to redirect Harry and Ethan’s attention back to

reading the information from the screen when She continues with “(.) have a look

((pointing at screen to indicate place to start reading)) “keep tadpo:les (as well as)”

(line 833-836), showing the children where to start reading from the screen.

Extract 7

SUSIE A ‘the’ with a ‘wy’ on the end says the::y that’s 833 really clever cause you found a wo:rd (within a word) 834 (.) have a look ((pointing at screen to indicate place 835 to start reading)) keep tadpo:les (as well as)= 836

Harry (tadpole)((pointing at word on screen)) 837 SUSIE It says keep tadpoles as well as frogs eggs in wa:ter 838

all the ti:me= 839 Ethan =(Oh I [wanna] see that) 840 SUSIE [Cha:n]ge 841 Harry (>Yeah but I’m looking [for ] what tadpoles eat<) 842 SUSIE [>Harry<] 843 =it tells us there so just (hang o:n) cha- I I’ll rea:d 844

the rest (.) change ha:lf the water no more than once a 845 week” o::h “the best di:et and diet is another name for 846 f:: food source (.) the be:st foo::d is probably baby 847 cere:↑al, (0.6) fresh gree::n leafy veggies and a bit of 848 egg yo:lk (0.4) from and it sa::ys provide a rock 849 islands when the legs of the tadpo:les appear, what do 850 you think that means? What are rock islands? 851

Harry (I’ve done that) 852 Ethan I kno::w (0.6) put put put some ro:ck and make an island 853

in some water) on top 854 SUSIE Putting rocks on each other 855


Ethan Yes to make a island 856 SUSIE Will the island have to be under the water or above the 857

water 858 Harry Under 859 Ethan Under 860 Harry (I’ve already done that) 861 Ethan Under 862 SUSIE No::: no: it’s not under, 863 Ethan Up 864 SUSIE Mmm 865 Ethan Oh (?) 866 SUSIE Do you know why the rock has to be out of the top once 867

(.)because once the tadpo:les got le::gs (.) starting to 868 develop le:gs it’s going to need somewhere where it can 869 get ou::t of the water, 870

(2.0) 871 Harry I’ve got tadpoles at my house (?) 872 SUSIE You know I’ve I’ve kept tadpoles before too and I’ve 873

never given them baby cereal, you know what I’ve given 874 the:m? 875

Harry What 876 SUSIE Boiled lettuce (0.6) but I have to tell you boiled 877

lettuce looks really awful and it’s very sli:my but 878 tadpoles just think it’s gorgeous879

Gloss of the subsequent interaction:

It is at this point that the learning experience focusing on finding

out about tadpoles is concluded. Susie brings Harry and Ethan’s

attention to the hyperlinks listed on the right hand side of the

computer screen, adjacent to the information they have just read.

Susie explains that the links offer information about other animal

life. Susie reads aloud two of the options, “how are coral reefs

formed? And “How fast can a crocodile run on land”. After hearing

the second option, Ethan announces very quickly his preference for

choosing the second option. Susie and Harry excitedly agree and this

is the link that was activated. Susie, Ethan and Harry then

discussed the information on the screen regarding the speed of

crocodiles. Harry suggested that he could run as fast as a

crocodile, and using Harry’s statement as a catalyst to co-create a

future investigation, the conversation turned to discuss how they

could measure how fast they could run.

In pointing at the screen and saying “have a look” (line 834 – 835), Susie

signals and informs the children where she will commence reading from, marking a

shift of topic back to her earlier question, “Where shall I sta::rt (ºdo you thinkº) (line

801). She begins reading the information concerning the research question, “What do

tadpoles eat?”

As Susie commences reading information about keeping tadpoles (lines 838-

839), Harry’s latched and quickly spoken response, “(>Yeah but I’m looking [for

] what tadpoles eat<)=” (line 842), indicates that Susie has not found the information

that they originally sought, which was ‘what do tadpoles eat?’. In this way, Harry has

directed the teacher back to the previously agreed search query. His action suggests a


social order where the children can remind the teacher to return to their original

shared agenda, that he has the interactional space to direct the focus of the search

query. Susie then proffers a justification for why she is reading what she is reading.

She suggests to Harry to wait and hear all of the information when she says, via a

latched response, “=it tells us there” as she issues a directive, “so just (hang o:n) cha-

I I’ll rea:d the rest (.)” (line 844) Susie’s turn here instructs Harry to ‘hang on’,

demonstrating how Susie manages the search. Susie has moved to the information

regarding what tadpoles eat, through a topic on keeping tadpoles showing that she

did address their original search query but done through a broader topic. This could

possibly be an implicit pedagogical strategy used to teach about how to do a search.

Susie continues reading from the screen, providing explanations for specific words

that might be difficult for the students to understand, and may aid in comprehension.

For example, “the best di:et” and diet is another name for f:: food source” (line 846-

847). At the end of her turn, Susie asks, “what do you think that means? What are

rock islands?” (line 850-851), a “test question” (Schegloff, 2007) designed to find

out the children’s existing knowledge about rock islands that was prompted from the

screen information.

Both Ethan and Harry respond to Susie’s question, but it is Ethan who gains

the conversational floor. He gains the floor by first declaring, “I kno::w” (line 853),

and then explains what is needed to make a rock island, “put put put some ro:ck and

make an island in some water) on top” (line 854). Susie’s next turn is an “other

initiated repair” (Schegloff, 2007), “Putting rocks on each other” (line 855), that

offers a more clear explanation. Following Ethan’s confirmation (line 856), Susie

elicits information from Ethan through a “choice elicitation” (Mehan, 1979) when

she builds on his previous turn, looks at him and asks , “Will the island have to be

under the water or above the water” (lines 857-858). Harry and Ethan reply, “under”

(lines 859 and 860 respectively), which is treated by Susie as incorrect when she

corrects them, “No::: no: it’s not under,” (line 863). This is an example of a question

that does not work due to its formulation by Susie.

Here, it was Ethan and Harry’s response that was treated as incorrect. As Baker

(1991) points out during “instructional activities it is the students’ answers which are

potentially right or wrong, the teacher’s question is never heard as wrong or

incompetent, although it might be unclear or otherwise flawed in its delivery”


(p.178). The question asked the children to choose whether the rock island would be

under or above the water. Both choices are in fact ‘correct’ answers. Obviously, part

of the rock has to be under the water. The slight rise in intonation by Susie works to

prompt Ethan to choose the alternative answer when he repairs his answer by saying

“up” (line 864). Instead of justifying his original ‘correct’ response, he orients to

finding the response that Susie displayed she wanted, through the rise of intonation,

and changes his answer. Baker (1991) studied the social practices of children

learning to read in classrooms and showed that, “‘learning to read’ takes place

concurrently with, and as a crucial procedure in, acculturation to the social codes that

govern school” (p. 162). Two of the social codes that Baker (1991) refers to include

knowing how conversations work within the classroom and an understanding of the

“knowledge, power, and authority” (p. 162) in the classroom context. Like the

findings of Baker (1991), Ethan answers the question within the interactional

relationship of Susie as the teacher, who is considered more knowledgeable than

Ethan, the student. In his response, Ethan found the answer Susie displayed she was

looking for without questioning whether the question was in fact ‘wrong’.

Susie continues with a YNI (Raymond, 2006), “Do you know why the rock has

to be out of the top once (.)” and continues with an explanation, “because once the

tadpo:les got le::gs (.) starting to develop le:gs it’s going to need somewhere where it

can get ou::t of the water,” (lines 867-870) This continued turn shows Susie’s initial

YNI is a pre-announcement sequence (Schegloff, 2007) that pre-empts the ‘go

ahead’ response and explains why the rock has to be out of the water. In this

sequence, Susie’s response shows the decisions that are often made by teachers about

how to proceed in their moment-by-moment interactions with children. Here, Susie

used questions to explicate the children’s current knowledge about tadpoles, and

orients to a curriculum focus of knowledge building.

Harry justified his search choice by claiming he did not know what tadpoles eat

(line 631). The information he now offers through the telling of a story, “I’ve got

tadpoles at my house (?)” (line 872), after trying to gain the conversation floor twice

previously (lines 852, 861), about having tadpoles at his house, suggests that he

probably has some prior knowledge of what tadpoles eat and yet previously he had

justified wanting to search for what tadpoles ate due to lack of knowledge. This


claim provides additional evidence that Harry is orienting to the classroom agenda of

knowledge building, using a lack of knowledge as a justifiable reason to do a search.

Susie offers a second story picking up on Harry’s account that he has had

tadpoles at home by making reference to keeping tadpoles before. She marks a

sideways topic shift when she tells, “I’ve never given them baby cereal,” (line 874),

referring to the information read from the screen, implying that she too has learnt

something about what tadpoles eat. She continues with a story preface, “you know

what I’ve given the:m?” (line 875) made by way of an offer - the first pair part of an

offer/acceptance adjacency pair. The acceptance, indicating the ‘go ahead’, is

delivered by Harry when he responds with “what” (line 876). Susie follows telling

her story, “Boiled lettuce (0.6) but I have to tell you boiled lettuce looks really awful

and it’s very sli:my but tadpoles just think it’s gorgeous” (lines 877-879). Indicative

of stories in conversation, Susie’s turn is built on a multi-unit turn to talk (Sidnell,

2010). During this turn, she tells her ‘story’ that was offered in line 874 and

completes the sequence closer with an assessment that closes the topic, “tadpoles just

think it’s gorgeous”. Schegloff (2007) writes about how sequence closers often refer

back, in some way, to the original topic of talk. In closing, Susie does refer back to

this original question typed into Google, “what do tadpoles eat?” when she speaks

about what she has fed tadpoles in the past.

It is at this point that the experience, which included a detailed discussion

about the information read on the results page, focusing on finding out about

tadpoles is concluded. Susie brings Harry and Ethan’s attention to the hyperlinks

listed on the right hand side of the computer screen, adjacent to the information they

have just read. Susie explains that the links offer information about other animal life.

Susie reads aloud two of the options, “how are coral reefs formed?” and “how fast

can a crocodile run on land?” After hearing the second option, Ethan announces very

quickly his preference for choosing the crocodile one. Susie and Harry affirm this

choice. This is the link that was activated. Susie, Ethan and Harry then discuss the

information on the screen regarding the speed of crocodiles. Harry suggests that he

could run as fast as a crocodile, and Susie uses this statement as a catalyst to co-

create a future investigation about how they could measure how fast they can run.

Here, another pedagogic display of Susie’s may have been illuminated when she


picks up on a prior interest of Ethan’s, the topic of crocodiles (extract 1 line 610).

This new activation brings the conversation to a close.

Discussion

This investigation of how a teacher and two children co-constructed a Web

search in an early years classroom highlights the interactional resources used by

Susie, the teacher. During the interaction Susie uses interrogatives, discourse markers

and multi-unit turns, to progress the Web search. Such resources show an orientation

to pedagogical work designed to promote “sustained shared thinking” (Siraj-

Blatchford & Sylva, 2004, p. 727), where teachers demonstrate awareness of

learners’ capabilities about particular topics or learning experiences, and work

towards jointly constructing knowledge during an interaction. Susie’s interactions

show how she positions the children as competent participants in their everyday life,

facilitates negotiation and collaboration among members and enables extended

periods of time for teacher-child interactions. This section first discusses the

interactional resources used by Susie and how they were used to scaffold the Web

search to completion, accomplished in a way that fostered collaboration and afforded

time for intensive adult and child interaction.

Interactional resources used to accomplish the Web search.

Analysis highlighted aspects of interactions that helped to accomplish the Web

search. Interrogatives, discourse markers and multi-unit turns were mainly used by

Susie during the interaction and will be the focus of the following section

Interrogatives.

Mehan (1979) found that classroom lessons were built on question and answer

sequences. He described, “lessons in classrooms have often been characterized as

sequences of question and answer sequences, questions asked by the teacher, answers

provided by the students” (p. 41). Aligning with the findings of Mehan (1979), Susie

employed interrogatives frequently during this interaction. Her questions guided and

shaped the conversation, co-ordinated the interactional actions of members, elicited

the children’s knowledge, found out the children’s search interests and promoted

opportunities for “sustained shared thinking” (Siraj-Blatchford & Sylva, 2004).

Rarely did the children initiate questions during the interaction, Susie’s continued

use of question and answer sequences implemented the “chaining rule” (Sacks 1995).


Sacks (1995) explains this rule as the person who asks the question has the ‘right’ to

ask another question after their first question has been answered, if they so choose.

The question, answer, question, answer sequence may continue for as long or as

short a duration as the questioner continues to ask questions. Susie’s questions

formed the first pair parts of adjacency pairs. Ethan and Harry’s responses were the

expected second pair parts.

Susie’s questions co-ordinated the interactional actions of members in

strategic ways. She used open questions at the beginning of topic sequences, which

facilitated the negotiation of future topics. She then modified or employed more

narrowly focused question designs during topic sequences, which restricted the

possible responses in a way that still afforded decision making but worked to prompt

future action. For example, at the start of phase 1, Susie asked, “what are we going to

sea:rch no:w what did you deci:de you wanted to look for?” (lines 607 – 608). This

question opened the floor for endless possibilities in terms of subjects for the next

search. On the other hand, the narrower question asked by Susie, “Well do you want

to do a search for tadpoles (food),” worked to constrain the set of possible responses

by participants. Susie’s questions elicited information in relation to prior knowledge

and enabled the children to contribute suggestions relating to the organisation of the

search. Susie then modified her interaction and provided opportunities built on the

displayed prior knowledge and displayed interests of Ethan and Harry (Extract 7,

lines 851-871). Susie’s approach, the shared action of entering a question into

Google and finding out information about the search topic, aligns with Stremmel’s

(1993) notion of “responsive teaching,” as well as the teaching principles and

practices recommended in the Early Years Learning Framework (2009) and the

Queensland Kindergarten Learning Framework (2010). Responsive teaching is only

possible when a teacher utilises the learner’s demonstrated knowledge (Siraj-

Blatchford & Sylva, 2004). Siraj-Blatchford (2004) explains that, in order to actively

construct knowledge, “young children require direct and immediate experiences that

will enable them to derive meaning from these experiences based on previous ones”

(p. 726). In this way, the teacher’s interrogatives afforded the children the

opportunity to display their knowledge in relation to Web searching and also to the

search topic of “tadpoles”.


Discourse markers to move the Web search along.

A second strategy implemented by Susie that helped to move the Web search

along was her use of discourse markers, most evident in her us of the temporal

markers, ‘now’, and ‘okay’. Discourse markers are structural markers (Schleef,

2008) that have procedural meaning (Fraser, 1999). As Payne and Hustler (1980)

showed teachers use ‘now’ to move the class to the next focus. While allowing time

for children to think about future actions and experiment with ideas, Susie’s use of

the discourse marker, “now” (607, 608, 651 and 753) progressed the Web search, and

managed to focus participants on the next steps for completing a Web search. As

well, “Okay” was used by Susie to close down discussion and prompt the next step,

therefore progressing the search. This finding aligns with Beach (1993) who showed

that “okay” (+ a fuller turn) works first as a topic closer and then places emphasis on

a new focus. For example, in extract 1 Susie’s “okay Harry you sta::rt” (line 648),

closed the conversation about topics to search and worked to progress the search to

the new focus of typing the search query into Google.

Multi-unit turns to link ideas and move the search forward.

The third interactional resource employed by Susie was “multi-unit turns”

(Schegloff, 2007). “Multi-unit turns” linked ideas for participants and scaffolded the

activity in order to press on with the Web search. For example, in line 806, in

response to Harry’s suggestion of some additional typing when he was indicating to

Susie where to start reading from, Susie said, “I actually do::n’t (.) you don’t even

need to do any more typing just at the minu:te (.) where can you see that wo:rd

tadpole I know it’s up there on the screen somewhere, (.) you have a sea:rch (2.0)

just with your e::yes (Harry), (.) can you find tadpoles,” in response to Harry who

had suggested she type into a box on the screen. In this turn (line 806), Susie

responded to Harry’s idea, incorporated a prior suggestion from Harry about finding

the word ‘tadpole’ and then suggested future action, which members oriented to.

Some of Susie’s “multi-unit” turns included discourse markers, in combination

with directives which achieved shutting down further discussion and prompted future

action. For example “okay Harry you sta::rt” (line 648). Before this turn, participants

had spent a number of turns discussing a new subject to search. Susie’s “okay”

displayed her acknowledgement of the proffered ideas. The directive “Harry, you


sta::rt” instructs action. This interaction moved the Web search along but provided an

opportunity for Harry to decide on the action.

Having identified through analysis the interactional resources of interrogatives,

discourse markers and multiunit turns used by Susie, it is now necessary to consider

the effects of these resources on the interaction. The interactional resources used by

Susie enabled the children to participate as competent members of the interaction,

afforded intensive teacher-child interactions and promoted negotiation and

collaboration between members, yet her actions achieved progressing the Web

search, in a timely manner. They are now considered in this discussion.

Children as competent participants in their everyday life.

The teacher’s interactions aligned with the competence paradigm’s view of

children. Under the competence paradigm, children are viewed as social agents,

competent and capable of constructing and maintaining their own social worlds

(Corsaro, 2005; Cromdal, 2006, 2009; Danby, 1997, 2002, 2009; James et al., 1998;

James & Prout, 1997; Mayall, 2002; Prout, 1990; Speier, 1973), utilizing the

resources that they already know about their world (Butler, 2008). The teacher’s

interactions were presented in a way that indicated to the children that they were

knowledgeable and competent. The teacher did this by affording them decision

making opportunities, handing over physical control of the keyboard and mouse, co-

constructing an interactional classroom context where the children were able to

propose alternative positions to hers.

First, the teacher afforded the children decision making opportunities by

inviting them to contribute their ideas for future actions. Providing decision making

opportunities is espoused in the Early Years Learning Framework (2009),

Queensland Kindergarten Learning Framework (2010) and the Early Years

Curriculum Guidelines (Queensland Studies Authority, 2006), as a way that

“children learn best” (p. 10). For example, in extract 1 line 641, Susie asked, “Which

one are we going to go:: with”. In another example, Susie asked, “>what shall we

do<=” (Extract 2, line 685). Contributions to decisions regarding future action have

afforded the children aspects of ownership and choice regarding ‘where to next’.

Second, the teacher designed her questions in such a way as to place the

children in a position of high epistemics. Heritage and Raymond (in press) point out


that there is an epistemic gradient between the questioner having no knowledge of

the answer to having some knowledge of the answer and the question design can

“establish a distinctive gap in knowledge, a distinctive epistemic gradient between

questioner and answerer”. The teacher gave the children opportunities to demonstrate

their knowledge. For example, when Susie directed Harry to start typing the question

into the search engine (Extract 2, line 648), he had the opportunity to demonstrate

what he knew about how to start. In another example, Susie displayed an awareness

that Ethan and Harry, quite possibly, had prior experiences with Web searching by

using technical language associated with computer use without explanation or

explicit teaching, such as “click” and “search” in lines 651, “now if you click”, and

in line 634, “do you want to search for tadpoles”.

Third, the teacher did not manipulate the mouse, nor did she do any typing

during the episode. While typing in the question may have been accomplished in a

shorter time frame, had the teacher issued directives or had she taken over typing, her

interactional strategies illuminated her pedagogy of Ethan and Harry as being

competent to take ownership of the search process. As well, the ownership of the

mouse and keyboard may have promoted an interactional space where the children

felt in control, thus affirming their position of interactional competence.

Finally, the teacher promoted a social and pedagogic order in the classroom

where participants used question formats and other strategies to shape the direction

of the search. For example, in extract 1, Harry diverted the teacher’s and Ethan’s

attention away from the history of the search currently being undertaken by

proffering a new search topic (line 630). Another illustration is in extract 7, when

Susie began reading the information from the screen about where to keep tadpoles

(line 838). In Harry’s next turn, he challenged her action with, "“(>Yeah but I’m

looking [for ] what tadpoles eat<)” (line 842). Here, he informed Susie that she

appeared to be off target with the information she read from the screen that this was

not the information that matched the search initially typed into Google. The

questioning of the teacher by children is considered unusual (Baker, 1991) as talk in

educational settings is often teacher dominated, providing few opportunities for

children to express their ideas (Theobald & Kultti, In press). Other research found

that children’s input and contribution of ideas in classroom is rare (Cook & Teachers

from the Early Assistance Research Project in South Australia, 2009). The


interaction shows that, although much of the interaction was guided by the teacher’s

interrogatives, the children did initiate sequences of talk. They contributed their

ideas, participated in making decisions, made choices and engaged actively in the

Web searching experience.

The children were oriented to the teacher’s pedagogic agenda. For example, in

Extract 1 (line 607), Susie asked the children about what they had decided to look for

next. After Ethan proffered a topic of “what eats crocodiles?”, Susie diverted his

attention to his prior search, which was about dolphins. Her diversion suggests that

this topic may not have been the teacher’s preferred search topic. As a result of

Susie’s questioning about his prior search, Ethan shifted his focus from a new search

topic about crocodiles back to his search history. There was one instance in this

extract where the teacher’s and child’s agendas did not align, and this was managed

by the teacher through humour. When Ethan proffered the search topic, “What do

puppies eat?” (line 647), the teacher suggested, with raised voice pitch, “smelly

socks, all sorts of things,” to which Ethan grins. In each instance, the children

aligned their responses to Susie’s focus, demonstrating their orientation to the

teacher’s pedagogic agenda.

So too, the children were oriented to the institutional setting of the classroom

as a place where new knowledge is learned. This understanding was shown when the

children reported being ‘non-knowers’ in extract lines 631 and 633. The search

query, “what do tadpoles eat” was a topic that Ethan and Harry both claimed that

they did not know about. Their reference to their lack of knowledge served as a

justification for the search that followed, even though it became apparent (Extract 7,

line 872) that Harry had previously kept tadpoles at home, and it could be assumed

therefore that he already knew what tadpoles did eat.

Perhaps it was Harry’s knowledge of the classroom agenda of learning that

assisted him to have his preferred search topic about tadpoles entered into Google,

after he claimed that he did not know what tadpoles ate. Mackay (1991) notes that

children’s (like adults’) interactional proficiency is related to their “interpretive

competence” (p. 27), that is, their understanding of social behaviours and acting

accordingly when interacting with others. Cicoural (1970) explains that there are

underlying structures of interaction that are interpreted to inform how social actions

are enacted and are labelled by Cicoural as “basic”. These basic rules inform future


actions, known as “normative” rules. Within adult-child interactions, Mackay points

out that “interpretive competence of the child is both simultaneously assumed and

interactionally denied” (Mackay, 1991, p. 27). One example is when Susie offered

the children decision making rights as to their new search subject (Extract 1, line

607), but then withdrew this opportunity by referring to a previous search about

dolphins. In this discussion, we see how the children orient to the practices of the

classroom as a place where finding about something that is not known is the

normative order, and one to which they, and the teacher, orient. In this way, the

children and teacher both build and maintain this social and pedagogic order.

Enabling extended periods of time for teacher-child interactions.

The importance of Susie being present for an extended duration was

highlighted during this episode. Susie focused her attention within the interaction and

was rarely interrupted by other children or adults. This extended interaction allowed

the three participants to engage in a high level of detailed and focused activity for 12

minutes, a long sustained period of time for a teacher to work intensively with a

couple of children in one area. Susie’s presence and her interactional approach

helped to progress the Web search in a timely manner, such that it supported the

achievement of the children’s negotiated Web search and offered space for the

children to implement their suggestions and complete actions. There were many

gaps, silences, and pauses experienced by the participants. For example, in line 672 a

pause of three seconds was evident as Harry had time to think about how he was

going to type different words. Although it was Susie who initiated a turn after the

pause, this turn was to ask if he would like a clue. An additional 3 seconds (lines 675

– 676) was then allowed. While ten Have (2007) highlights gaps and pauses as signs

of interactional trouble, in this interaction it is evident that participants oriented to

the context. Sometimes the pauses and gaps meant interactional trouble, sometimes

they meant that members needed more time to complete their actions. This was

reflected in the next turns of participants. When participants detected interactional

trouble, a repair was instigated. When more time was needed to complete a task,

more time was afforded. For example,

708 Harry (tad:::) (0.8) puh puh

709 (8.0)

710 SUSIE Can he find it (.) ca:::n he fi:nd the pee?


Here, Harry used an 8 second space as he actively sought to find the letter ‘p’. The

affordance of this time is a display of the participants’ orientation to the context of

the interaction.

Shown in studies of teacher interaction in early childhood settings, sustained shared

conversation between a teacher and a child supports a child’s thinking ability, and is

associated with high quality teaching and learning in early childhood (Siraj-

Blatchford & Great Britain. Dept. for Education and, 2002). So too, research has

found that children actively construct their knowledge within a social context and

teachers can contribute to this knowledge construction by affording time to engage in

conversation using open ended questioning, scaffolding and by building on activities

that have been initiated by children (Siraj-Blatchford & Sylva, 2004).

Facilitating negotiation and collaboration between members.

During the interaction, Susie used interactional resources to facilitate

negotiation and collaboration between members. The Web search was implemented

in a small group where members were able to contribute their ideas to how the search

would be undertaken. When ideas differed, Susie used interactional resources to

support negotiation and collaboration so as to progress the search along. Particularly

evident in phase 1 was Susie’s pedagogy when the focus of the interaction was to

decide on a new search topic/query. During this phase, Susie asked the opinion of

Ethan and Harry as to what they would like to search next. She then worked to gain

agreement on the search subject. Both children gave their suggestions, with Harry

suggesting the topic of tadpoles, and Ethan suggesting crocodiles, hermit crabs and

puppies. During this phase, Susie facilitated negotiation and collaboration through

talk, as the children continued to have differing ideas as to the next search subject.

While Ethan and Harry did not initially agree about the search topic, Susie looked for

agreement. When Harry and Ethan expressed that the topic of what tadpoles ate

would be new learning, Susie picked up on their level of agreement. By the end of

the episode, both children indicated that they had found out something about what

tadpoles ate - knowledge that both acknowledged they had not known. In order to

promote collaboration between members, Susie chose interactional resources to

prompt Ethan and Harry’s displayed difficulties in such a way that solutions were

found through collaboration.


Mehan (1979) found that teachers use the strategies of “prompting incorrect or

incomplete replies, repeating, or simplifying initiation actions” (p. 55), when

children encountered difficulties in answering the teacher’s questions. Susie used two

strategies to hint at solutions to problems including calling on a peer to help and the

modification of elicitations from open to more narrow forms. First, Susie called for a

peer to repeat a correct response. For example, Susie called on Ethan to repeat a

correct answer (Extract line 657) when Harry displayed that he was having technical

difficulties. As well, Susie modified her elicitations to scaffold solutions to problems

rather than direct or instruct members on how to solve problems. Susie used

strategies such as open questions at the beginning of sequences -What shall we do

(Extract 2, line 685) and open directives - Okay Harry you sta::rt (Extract 2, line 648)

which allowed Ethan and Harry to display, through talk or non verbal action, what

they knew. She then made adjustments to her interactions and was more specific in

her questioning or hints to scaffold the children if they displayed that help was

required. For example, in extract 2, Susie began with the open question, “>what

shall we do<=” (line 685), in her next turn she narrowed the open question and

directed Harry to “(look for) the arrow, (line 687) without actually showing him, and

when Harry displayed his difficulty in finding the arrow, Susie showed Harry where

the arrow was located, “ =>see here< (line 689)”. The interactions between Susie and

Harry were to find out what Harry knew and what he found difficult. Susie then

modified her interactions in order to build on his displayed prior knowledge (or lack

of it) to afford new learning. This prompting work supports the ideas espoused in the

Early Years Curriculum Guidelines (Queensland Schools Authority, 2006) and the

Early Years Learning Framework (Australian Government Department of Education

Employment and Workplace Relations, 2009) for providing opportunities for

children to think of alternative ways of solving problems, and building on the prior

knowledge of children to promote new learning.

Progressing the search.

Susie’s actions achieved progressing the Web search in a timely manner.

Researchers have investigated progressivity, in interaction, relating to question

sequences (Clemente, 2009; Lee, 2011; Stivers & Robinson, 2006). Stivers and

Robinson (2006) show that answers to questions are preferred over non-answer

responses, as answers contribute to the progress of the interaction. So too, Clemente


(2009) considered progressivity in relation to how children, aged between 10 – 14

years, answered their doctor’s questions about chronic pain. He found that patients

utilized strategies that aid in the progressivity of the interaction. For example, if

children had difficulty in answering the doctor’s question, they looked to their

parents to indicate they needed help to provide an answer. Lee (2011) investigated

customer service at an airline’s service centre where customers were asked to

identify themselves in the opening part of the conversation, noticing that instead of

giving their name, customers sometimes gave their membership number, which

served to take their personal identification to a higher level. In this way, customers

answered to a higher level as the service attendant was able to find out the

customer’s name, and also additional information about the customer, and progress

the activity (Lee, 2011).

Susie’s actions demonstrated a preference for progressivity in three ways.

First, she modified her interrogatives from open to relatively narrow framing to close

down a range of possible responses and press on with future action. Second, she

used temporal markers, such as “okay” and “now”, to progress the search. Finally,

she employed multi-unit turns within a single utterance that assisted in the sequential

progression, linking previous ideas with the focus of future ideas or action.

This discussion section of the chapter has highlighted the interactional

resources used by participants to create the social order of the interaction to which

members oriented. The discussion shows how through interaction the teacher

provided opportunities for learning by promoting negotiation and collaboration and

by affording extended periods of time for teacher-child interaction. The interactional

resources were used within an interactional context where Susie progressed the

search, in a timely manner, towards completion of the search, while also allowing

time for Ethan and Harry to try out their ideas and to complete actions.

Chapter Summary

Analysis provided a fine-grain description of Susie’s talk-in-action as well as

the interactional resources she used during a Web search, with two children, in an

early years classroom. Four phases of the sequential organisation of Web searching

were identified during analysis: (a) Finding a search subject (b) Inputting the search

query (c) Considering the result options, and (d) Exploring the selected result. In


phase 1, participants focussed their interaction on discussing possible search topics,

negotiating ideas when differing suggestions were proffered, and deciding on the

actual subject of search, including the search question. In phase 2, participants edited

a prior search query. While phase 1 showed an open discussion about a subject to

search, phase 2 was a more process-oriented activity. Evident were opportunities for

discussion concerning specific search result features, including literacy and techno-

literacy knowledge. During Phase 3, the interaction focussed on making decisions as

to which search result would be investigated further. In phase 4, the interaction

concentrated on the information displayed on the screen. This phase provided

opportunities to recall prior knowledge and learn new knowledge. During this phase,

opportunities to develop the techno-literacy skills of navigating the screen, as well as

the traditional literacy skills of talking about the concepts of print, identifying ‘sight’

words (or familiar words to the children), and finding words within words were

oriented to by Susie with Ethan and Harry. While the children needed the teacher to

read the information on the screen to them, the conversation focussed on interpreting

that information. Participants also drew on prior experiences and knowledge to help

make sense of the information read from the screen.

This chapter has explicated the interactional strategies used by participants as

they co-constructed a Web search. Fine grained analysis has shown how these

resources were used to position the children as competent participants in their

everyday life and to facilitate negotiation and collaboration between members. It has

shown that using these resources enabled time for members to suggest and try out

ideas in a way that provided opportunities for learning. The key findings of the study,

along with the implications for teachers, policy makers and other key early childhood

stakeholders, will be discussed in the following concluding chapter.

Chapter 6: Managing Web searching in the early years 101

Chapter 6: Managing Web Searching in the Early Years

This concluding chapter discusses the study’s key findings to support a

growing body of research investigating the social interactions of young children and

their teacher as they engaged in a Web search. The chapter outlines the theoretical

and methodological contributions of the study, and discusses the key findings and

recommendations for research and practice in the area of Web searching in the early

years.

The study investigated the social interactions of the children and their teacher,

in situ, as they undertook Web searching in an early childhood classroom. The

following research question guided the study:

How are social orders constructed through teacher-child talk when Web

searching in an early years classroom?

By explicating how social interaction unfolds, moment-by-moment, the study

contributes empirical data to the relatively unresearched yet important area of Web

searching in early years classrooms.

Key Findings

Analysis yielded four main findings to show how social orders were

constructed through the teacher-child talk while Web searching showing how

classroom members, through their talk-in-interaction, co-constructed and completed

the Web search. The members’ interactions set the ‘interactional climate’ of the Web

search and contributed to the construction of the social order of the classroom. The

four findings are discussed now.

The first finding was that Web searching in this early years classroom featured

sustained teacher-child interaction. The episode was 12 minutes in duration and was

only interrupted for a minimal period of time when two children approached the

teacher to show her some of their work. The teacher acknowledged the work, and

then suggested that they show the teacher aide. The teacher returned and remained

focussed, without interruption, on the Web search until its completion.

The teacher’s intensive interactions with the children showed evidence that she

supported the completion of the search, although she did not take over or dominate

102 Chapter 6: Managing Web searching in the early years

the search. The teacher offered the children time to explore their ideas for web

searches, and did so by reading information directly from the screen and asking

interrogatives that prompted prolonged sequences of talk with the children. Sustained

and receptive adult-child interactions are important elements for social and cognitive

learning (Bowman, Donovan, & Burns, 2001; Mashburn et al., 2008), and the

analysis of the episode illuminated the work of the teacher in organising and

managing such interactions with the children.

Second, the study found that the teacher’s interactional strategies recognised

the children’s interactional competence in situ. Through interaction, the teacher

situated the children as competent classroom participants, providing them with

opportunities to control the computer hardware, such as the keyboard and mouse, and

to make decisions about the trajectory of the search. The teacher treated the children

as being in a position of “high epistemics” (Heritage & Raymond, in press), a

position of having knowledge about Web searching. The teacher strategically used

interrogatives to consult the children about the search, shaping her interactions to

enable them to demonstrate their knowledge. These aspects of the teacher’s

interactions will be discussed now.

The teacher did not manipulate the mouse, nor did she type on the keyboard

during the episode, even though the search may have been expedited if she had

issued directives or typed the text. The children controlled the mouse and keyboard,

taking action to type text or click buttons during the search. The teacher invited the

children to contribute their ideas on future actions and to exercise choice regarding

‘where to next’. At the time of the study, this practice aligned with the intent of the

Early Years Curriculum Guidelines (Queensland Studies Authority, 2006), which

advocates that “children learn best” (p. 10) when they are provided opportunities for

meaningful decision making. The practice of affording children decision making

opportunities is also espoused in Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the

Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989), which states, “States Parties shall assure

to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those

views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due

weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child” (p. 4). Through co-

constructed decision-making with the children, the teacher’s practice was seen to


align with recommended practices in early childhood curriculum documents and

international child participatory agendas.

Additionally, the teacher designed her questions to recognise the children’s

working knowledge of Web searching. For example, when Susie directed Harry to

start typing the research question into the search engine (Extract 2, line 648), he had

the opportunity to demonstrate what he knew about how to start the search. In

another example, Susie positioned the children as knowledgeable when she displayed

an awareness that Ethan and Harry, quite possibly, had prior experience of

information searching, by using technical language associated with computer use

without explanation or explicit teaching (such as “click” and “search,” lines 651;

“now if you click”; “do you want to search for tadpoles,” line 634). In constructing

the children as having knowledge about Web searching, the teacher provided them

with opportunities to demonstrate their knowledge. As a consequence, the

interactional resources used by the teacher during the unfolding interaction then

worked to accommodate the children’s displayed knowledge.

A third finding was that the teacher drew upon a range of interactional

resources, such as interrogatives, discourse markers, and multi-unit turns, in the

accomplishment of the Web search. These interactional resources aided in the co-

construction of discussions, and assisted in co-ordinating future actions, moving the

search along and completing the Web search. It was the teacher who mostly initiated

discussion, by asking an interrogative to which the children responded. She used

open ended questions when new topics were introduced as a way to open the floor

for discussion. Subsequently, she drew on more narrowly focused question designs

that prompted the children to identify their decisions and prompt future actions. As a

way of acknowledging the contributions of members and orienting to progressing the

Web search, the teacher used discourse markers, such as ‘okay’, ‘now’ and ‘so’, to

draw to a close a particular discussion topic. This achieved an orientation to next

action, prompting a progression of the search and its ultimate completion. Like

discourse markers, multi-unit turns helped participants to link ideas by connecting

previous turns with next turns in such a way as to co-ordinate the contributions made

by members and to progress the search towards next actions. During analysis these

interactional resources were found to aid in the co-construction and completion of

the search.


The fourth and final finding was that the teacher and children oriented to a

social and pedagogic order in the classroom, undertaken in situ, that supported

children’s decision-making and active participation in the Web search. Much of the

interaction was managed by the teacher using interrogatives, but there was

interactional space where the children contributed their ideas, participated in making

decisions, and engaged actively in the Web search. The social and pedagogical order

was made evident as members coordinated their turns to jointly construct the

‘interactional climate’ of the classroom where both the teacher and children oriented

to the classroom as a space for displaying prior knowledge and learning new

knowledge.

Knowledge about Web searching and literacy skills were made relevant while

undertaking the search topic of tadpoles. An example of the teacher’s focus on

knowledge about Web searching was evident when she asked a question about

where, on the screen, the search query was going to be typed (Extract 2, line 653).

This interrogative prompted a display of knowledge by the children regarding Web

searching and focused the unfolding interaction, when the teacher scaffolded the

typing of the search question into Google. A focus on literacy skills was evident

when the teacher asked, “are you gunna be able to spell” (Extract 4, line 728), which

led to an extended discussion with the children about displaying, or learning about,

phonetic knowledge about the word ‘eat’ (Extract 4, lines 743 – 750). In another

example relating to the search topic, a search subject was discounted due to the boys

showing that they already knew the answer to the query (Extract 1, line 647). The

study revealed the social and pedagogical space of the classroom was one of active

participation where members collaboratively displayed their prior and existing

knowledge.

Theoretical and methodological significance of the study

The study’s theoretical understandings and methodological approach came

together as a framework for analysing in fine grained detail the social interaction

involving the teacher and children as they engaged in a Web search. The theoretical

significance is its contribution to understanding children’s interactional competence

contributing to previous studies drawing on the competence paradigm. This study

was framed within a set of theoretical understandings underpinning the competence

paradigm, of children as social agents, competent and capable of constructing and


maintaining their own social worlds (Corsaro, 2005; Cromdal, 2006, 2009; Danby,

1997, 2002, 2009; James et al., 1998; James & Prout, 1997; Mayall, 2002; Speier,

1973). The study was particularly interested in investigating how the social orders of

Web searching were jointly constructed between the teacher and children. Analysis

showed how they used interactional resources to collaboratively conduct the search.

The children had physical control of the keyboard and mouse and were able to

propose alternative positions to those of the teacher. These accomplishments show

the children as competent participants who oriented to, and constituted the social

order of the classroom.

While educational research has applied ethnomethodological and conversation

analysis methodologies (Bateman, 2010; Bjork-Willen, 2008; Butler, 2008; Church,

2010; Cobb-Moore, 2008; Cromdal, 2004; Danby & Baker, 1998, 2000; Heritage,

2004; McHoul, 1978; Theobald, 2009; Theobald & Kultti, In press), investigations

focussing on social interactions using ICTs in classroom contexts have mainly

focused on older children, that is, middle primary and secondary school aged

children (Birmingham et al., 2002; Cekaite, 2009; Cromdal, 2005; Greffenhagen &

Watson, 2009). The significance of this study is that the methodological and

analytical approach was brought to a new context, that of young children engaged in

Web searching in an early years classroom.

The methodological approach afforded close observation of the moment-by-

moment interactional work of members in situ in order to explicate actual practices.

Teachers in their daily work do not have the time to examine their own interactions

in such a fine-grained way, and rarely do they have opportunities to see other

teachers at work. Analysis of this kind can illuminate for teachers, in fine detail, what

happens in classrooms, prompt critical reflection and inform future practice.

Recommendations

The findings of the study and its theoretical and methodological significance

point to three major recommendations for the field. The study’s first

recommendation is that fine-grained transcription and analysis of interactions aids in

understanding interactional practices. Such analysis can be drawn upon as a resource

for teachers in early years classrooms to see how using specific interactional

resources with children constructs the social interaction. As ten Have (2008)


explains, such understanding “might be useful in producing bits of knowledge that

may help one to make choices among courses of action” (p.195). For example,

explication of such analyses can provide empirical evidence of how an interaction

unfolds differently depending upon whether an interrogative or directive is used. An

open ended question encourages discussion, whereas a directive may close a

discussion.

Professional development opportunities for teachers might focus on specific

interactional resources used in teacher-child interactions. Workshops for teachers

might incorporate Stokoe’s (2001) Conversation Analysis Role-play Method

(CARM) which uses actual recordings in role play, so that professionals can enact

possible responses, and undertake discussion and reflection on the experience.

Stokoe (2011) points out that using actual recordings of interactions, rather than

invented scenarios, has the potential to authenticate the learning for the participant.

Professional development that focuses on the social interactions of members

engaging in Web searches is likely to be of interest to teachers as they work to

engage with children in an increasingly online environment.

The second recommendation is that teachers have the chance to observe how

other teachers introduce and manage new learning opportunities in the classroom,

such as the use of technologies. The study showed how observing teachers at work

can open up ways to investigate how to interact with children. Examining transcripts

and video excerpts of other teacher practices makes this possible. While some

children commence school with knowledge of Web searching, there is little evidence

of children’s prior ICT knowledge being incorporated into educational contexts

(Davidson, 2009; Dede, 2000; McTavish, 2009; Yelland, 2006a). This study shows

how, through the unfolding social interaction, the teacher accommodated the

children’s prior knowledge of information searching and experience with ICTs. By

recognising and drawing upon the children’s knowledge and experiences the children

were afforded opportunities to show their competencies, and allowed the teacher to

build on the children’s demonstrated knowledge and experience in Web searching.

Analysis of the episode showed that Web searching in the classroom requires

teachers to consider and plan for extended periods of time. From the analysis, the

four phases of sequential organisation of information searching were identified and

included (a) finding a search subject; (b) inputting the search query; (c) considering


the result options; and (d) exploring the selected result. In each phase, the teacher’s

scaffolding and prompting were integral to the completion of the search requiring

planned, intensive and sustained time for teacher-child interaction. It is

recommended that the multifaceted organisational matters, with respect to space,

time and sequence in planning Web searching in the early childhood classroom, be

considered.

The third recommendation is for future empirical research that investigates

peer interaction, when children Web search. This study contributes to an emerging

field of empirical work that focuses on the social interactions of children with peers

as they undertake Web searching. Within the data corpus, a number of videorecorded

episodes show the children interacting with each other as they undertake Web

searches without the teacher present. An initial analysis of the video recordings

suggests that there was a different interactional order happening without an adult

present, one where the children talked more with each other and experimented more

with the tools of the Web.

Close analysis revealed that the children had opportunities to use traditional

and techno-literacy skills during the Web search. The teacher reworked traditional

pencil and paper activities within a context of new media in the classroom, and drew

on this knowledge based on traditional literacy skills such as:

letter/sound awareness or phonological awareness when typing in the

research question (extract 3),

finding familiar words on the screen, as well as a word within a word

(refer to extract (extract 6),

putting spaces between words when writing (or typing) (extract 3),

re-reading as a way to proof read and identify mistakes in writing (extract

4 – line 741).

The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia (Australian Government

Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations, 2009) suggests that

children should “begin to understand key literacy and numeracy concepts such as the

sounds of language, letter-sound relationships, concepts of print and the ways texts

are structured” (p. 41). The teacher immersed the children in techno-literacy skills by

following hyperlinks, reformulating a question based on a prior search query and


selecting a search result based on what the children had indicated they wanted to find

out about. Information and communication technology skills are identified in the

Early Years Curriculum Guidelines (Queensland Schools Authority, 2006) and in the

Australian Curriculum (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority,

2009), as important learning experiences for young children. As shown in previous

research, teachers tend to rely on computers to upskill the traditional literacy skills of

children (Knobel & Lankshear, 2003; McTavish, 2009; Yelland, 2006a, 2006b). This

study showed how literacy concepts were fostered, step by step, as the children

engaged in an activity that interested them rather than being told what computer

program to use to practice these skills. This approach to techno-literacy in early

childhood classrooms shows how it can be embedded, not as something to be

‘taught’ in isolation, but as a resource for accomplishing the task at hand. Further

research could explore the relationship between curriculum texts and how teachers’

use these documents in planning learning experiences that bring together new

literacy technologies and traditional literacy technologies. A timely focus of future

research is how Web searching can contribute as a context for literacy learning,

including the development of techno-literacy skills.

In conclusion, the study shows the importance of social interaction and the

explicit unfolding of interactions when accomplishing a Web search. The study

reveals the interactional competence of young children engaged in Web searching

with their teacher and highlights how the interactional resources used by the teacher

and by the children helped to manage and shape the Web search. The study

contributes to understandings of social interaction during Web searching in the early

years.

References 109

References

Alliance for Childhood. (2004). Tech Tonic: Towards a New Literacy of Technology

[Electronic Version]. Alliance for Childhood from

http://www.allianceforchildhood.org/sites/allianceforchildhood.org/files/file/pdf/proje

cts/computers/pdf_files/tech_tonic.pdf.

Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1984). Structures of social action: Studies in

conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2006a). 2006 Census Quick Stats. Retrieved. from

http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ABSNavigation/prenav/ProductSelect?newproductt

ype=QuickStats&btnSelectProduct=Select+Location+%3E&collection=Census&peri

od=2006&areacode=&geography=&method=&productlabel=&producttype=&topic=

&navmapdisplayed=true&javascript=true&breadcrumb=P&topholder=0&leftholder=

0&currentaction=201&action=104&textversion=false.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2006b). Household Use of Information Technology.

Retrieved. from

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/B1A7C67456AE9A09CA25

724400780071/$File/81460_2005-06.pdf.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2008). Socio Economic Index for Areas. Retrieved 27th

October, 2010, from

http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/home/Seifa_entry_page

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2009). Household Use of Information Technology (No.

8146.0). Retrieved. from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/8146.0.

Australian Council of Deans of Education. (2004). New teaching, new learning: A vision for

Australian education.

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2009). The Shape of the

Australian Curriculum. Retrieved. from

http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Shape_of_the_Australian_Curriculum.pdf.

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2010). Australian Curriculum

Overview. Retrieved 26th October 2010, from

http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Learn

Australian Government. (2007). National statement on ethical conduct in research involving

humans. from http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/e35syn.htm

Australian Government. (2009). 21st Century Broadband. from

http://www.dbcde.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/110012/National_Broadband_N

etwork_policy_brochure.pdf

http://www.allianceforchildhood.org/sites/allianceforchildhood.org/files/file/pdf/projects/computers/pdf_files/tech_tonic.pdf

http://www.allianceforchildhood.org/sites/allianceforchildhood.org/files/file/pdf/projects/computers/pdf_files/tech_tonic.pdf

http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ABSNavigation/prenav/ProductSelect?newproducttype=QuickStats&btnSelectProduct=Select+Location+%3E&collection=Census&period=2006&areacode=&geography=&method=&productlabel=&producttype=&topic=&navmapdisplayed=true&javascript=true&breadcrumb=P&topholder=0&leftholder=0&currentaction=201&action=104&textversion=false





http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/B1A7C67456AE9A09CA25724400780071/$File/81460_2005-06.pdf

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/B1A7C67456AE9A09CA25724400780071/$File/81460_2005-06.pdf

http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/home/Seifa_entry_page

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/8146.0

http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Shape_of_the_Australian_Curriculum.pdf

http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Learn

http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/e35syn.htm

http://www.dbcde.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/110012/National_Broadband_Network_policy_brochure.pdf

http://www.dbcde.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/110012/National_Broadband_Network_policy_brochure.pdf

110 References

Australian Government. (2010a). Digital Education Revolution - Overview. Retrieved

20.08.2010, from

http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/DigitalEducationRevolution/Pages/default.aspx

Australian Government. (2010b). Digital Strategy for Teachers and School Leaders.

Retrieved 27th August, 2010, from

http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/DigitalEducationRevolution/DigitalStrategyforT

eachers/Documents/FactSheet.pdf

Australian Government Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations.

(2009). Belonging, being and becoming - The early years learning framework for

Australia: Commonwealth of Australia.

Baker, C. (1991). Literacy practices and social relations in classroom reading events. In C.

Baker & A. Luke (Eds.), Towards a critical sociology of reading pedagogy : papers

of the XII World Congress on Reading. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Baker, C. (1997). Ethnomethodological studies of talk in educational settings. In B. Davies &

D. Corson (Eds.), Oral Discourse in Education. Volume 3, Encyclopedia of

Language and Education (Vol. 3, pp. 43-52). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Bateman, A. (2010). Children’s co-construction of context: prosocial and antisocial

behaviour revisited. Unpublished Thesis (PHD), Swansea University.

Beach, W. (1993). Transitional regularities for 'casual' "Okay" usages. Journal of

Pragmatics, 19(4), 325-352.

Birmingham, P., Davies, C., & Greiffenhagen, C. (2002). Turn to Face the Bard: making

sense of three-way interactions between teacher, pupils and technology in the

classroom. Education, Communication & Information, 2(2), 139-161.

Bjork-Willen, P. (2008). Routine trouble: How preschool children participate in Multilingual

Instruction. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 555-577.

Bolinger, D. (1983). Intonation and gesture. American Speech, 58(2), 156-174.

Bowman, B. T., Donovan, S., & Burns, M. S. (2001). Eager to learn : educating our

preschoolers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Brooker, L., & Siraj-Blatchford, J. (2002). "Click on Miaow": How children of three and four

years experience the nursery computer. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood,

3(2), 251-273.

Brooks-Gunn, J., Berlin, L., Leventhal, T., & Sidle Fuligni, A. (2000). Depending on the

kindness of strangers: Current national data initiatives and developmental research.

Child Development, 71(1), 257 - 268.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/DigitalEducationRevolution/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/DigitalEducationRevolution/DigitalStrategyforTeachers/Documents/FactSheet.pdf

http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/DigitalEducationRevolution/DigitalStrategyforTeachers/Documents/FactSheet.pdf

References 111

Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge: MA: Harvard University Press.

Burnett, C. (2010). Technology and literacy in early childhood educational settings: A review

of research. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 10(3), 247-270.

Butler, C. (2008). Talk and social interaction in the playground. Hampshire, England:

Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Butler, C., Potter, J., Danby, S., Emmison, M., & Hepburn, A. (2010). Advice-implicative

Interrogatives. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(3), 265-287.

Calvert, S. L., Rideout, V.J., Woolard, J.L., Barr, R. F. and Strouse, G.A. (2005). Age,

ethnicity and socioeconomic patters in early computer use. American Behavioral

Scientist, 48(5), 590-607.

Carrington, V. (2001). Emergent home literacies: A challenge for educators. Australian

Journal of Language and Literacy, 24(2), 88-100.

Cekaite, A. (2009). Collaborative corrections with spelling control: Digital resources and peer

assistance. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,

4(3), 319.

Chen, C., & Chang, C. (2006). Using computers in early childhood classrooms: teacher's

attitudes, skills and practices. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 4(2), 169-188.

Church, A. (2007). Conversation analysis in early childhood research. Journal of Australian

Research in Early Childhood Education, 14(2), 1-10.

Church, A. (2009). Preference organisation and peer disputes: How young children resolve

conflict. Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

Church, A. (2010). Opportunities for learning during storybook reading. In L. Wei (Ed.),

Applied Linguistics Review : Applied Linguistics Review 2010 (pp. 221-247). Berlin, ,

DEU: Walter de Gruyter.

Cicourel, A. (1970). Basic and normative rules in negotiation of status and role. In J. Douglas

(Ed.), Recent Sociology No. 2: Macmillan.

Clemente, I. (2009). Progressivity and participation: children's management of parental

assistance in pediatric chronic pain encounters. Sociology of Health & Illness, 31(6),

872.

Clements, D., & Sarama, J. (2003). Strip mining for gold: research and policy in educational

technology' a response to "Fool's Gold". AACE Journal, 11(1), 7-69.

Clements, D., & Swaminathan, S. (1995). Technology and school change: New lamps for

old? Childhood Education, 71(5), 275.

Cobb-Moore, C. (2008). Young children's social organisation of peer interactions.

Unpublished Dissertation/Thesis, Queensland University of Technology.

112 References

Colbert, J. (2006). New formsof an old art - children's storytelling and ICT. Early Childhood

Folio, 10, 2-5.

Cook, P., & Teachers from the Early Assistance Research Project in South Australia. (2009).

Whose language is group time anyway? In G. MacNaughton, P. Hughes & K. Smith

(Eds.), Young Children as active citizens; Principles, policies and pedagogies (pp.

193-209). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars.

Corsaro, W. A. (2005). The sociology of childhood (2nd ed.). California: Pine Forge.

Coulon, A. (1995). Ethnomethodology. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research : planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill.

Cromdal, J. (2002). Review of S. Hester & D. Francis (eds.): Local educational order. QSE.

International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 15, 127-128.

Cromdal, J. (2004). Building bilingual oppositions: Code-switching in children's disputes.

Language in Society, 33(1), 33-58.

Cromdal, J. (2005). Bilingual order in collaborative word processing: on creating an English

text in Swedish. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(3), 329-353.

Cromdal, J. (2006). Socialization. In Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (pp. 462-465).

Oxford: Elsevier.

Cromdal, J. (2009). Childhood and social interaction in everyday life: Introduction to the

special issue. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(8), 1473-1476.

Cromdal, J., Osvaldsson, K., & Persson-Thunqvist, D. (2008). Context matters: Producing

"thick-enough descriptions" in initial emergency reports. Journal of Pragmatics,

40(5), 927-959.

Cuff, E. C., Sharrock, W. W., & Francis, D. W. (1998). Perspectives in sociology (4th ed.).

New York: Routledge.

Curl, T. S., & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and Action: A Comparison of Two Forms of

Requesting. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 41(2), 129-153.

Dakich, E. (2008). Toward the social practice of digital pedagogies. In N. Yelland, G. A.

Neal & E. Dakich (Eds.), Rethinking education with ICT: new directions for effective

practices (pp. 13-31). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Danby, S. (1996). Constituting social membership: Two readings of talk in an early

childhood classroom. Language and Education, 10(2-3), 151-170.

Danby, S. (1997). The observer observed, the researcher researched: The reflexive nature of

phenomena. Paper presented at the AARE Conference, Australian Association for

References 113

Researching Education Annual Conference Researching Education in New Times,

Brisbane, 30 Nov - 4 Dec, 1997.

Danby, S. (2002). The communicative competence of young children. Australian Journal of

Early Childhood, 27(3), 25-30.

Danby, S. (2009). Childhood and social interaction in everyday life: An epilogue. Journal of

Pragmatics, 41(8), 1596-1599.

Danby, S., & Baker, C. (1998). How to be masculine in the block area. Childhood: A global

journal of child research, 5(2), 151-175.

Danby, S., & Baker, C. (2000). Unravelling the fabric of social order in block area. In S.

Hester & D. Francis (Eds.), Local Educational Order (pp. 91-141). Amsterdam ;

Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Publishing.

Danby, S., & Baker, C. (2001). Escalating Terror: Communicative Strategies in a Preschool

Classroom Dispute.

Danby, S., & Farrell, A. (2004). Accounting for young children's competence in educational

research: New perspectives in research ethics. Australian Educational Researcher,

31(3), 35-49.

Davidson, C. (2009). Young children's engagement with digital texts and literacies in the

home: Pressing matters for the teaching of English in the early years of schooling.

English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 8(3), 36-54.

Dede, C. (2000). Commentary. Looking to the future. The Future of Children, 10(2), 178-

180.

Detken, K., Martinez, C., & Schrader, A. (2009). The search wall: tangible information

searching for children in public libraries. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the

3rd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction.

Drew, P., Raymond, G., & Weinberg, D. (2006). Talk and interaction in social research

methods. London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings.


Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 Minutes per Day: The Scarcity of Informational Texts in First Grade.

Reading Research Quarterly, 35(2), 202-224.

Edwards, D. (2008). Intentionality and mens rea in police interrogations: The production of

action crimes. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(2), 177-199.

Enfield, N. J., Stivers, T., & Levinson, S. C. (2010). Question-response sequences in

conversation across ten languages: An introduction. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(10),

2615-2619.

114 References

European Commission. (2010). Europe 2020 A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive

growth. Retrieved. from

http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%20007

%20-%20Europe%202020%20-%20EN%20version.pdf.

Evin-Tripp, S. (1976). Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English Directives.

Language in Society, 5, 25-66.

Farrell, A. (2005). Ethical research with children. Maidenhead, England ; New York: Open

University Press.

Firth, A. (1995). Accounts' in negotiation discourse: A single-case analysis. Journal of

Pragmatics, 23(2), 199-226.

Fish, A., Li, X., McCarrick, K., Bulter, S., Stanton, B., Brumitt, G., et al. (2008). Early

childhood computer experience and cognitive develoment among urban low-income

preschoolers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(1), 97-113.

Francis, D., & Hester, S. (2004). An invitation to ethnomethodology : language, society, and

social interaction. London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931-952.

Gardner, R. (2001). When Listeners Talk: Response Tokens and Listener Stance. Poole: John

Benjamins Publishing Company.

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.

Goffman, E. (1993). On face-work. In C. C. Lemert (Ed.), Social theory : the multicultural

and classic readings (pp. xi, 672 p.). Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.

Goodwin, C. (1987). Forgetfulness as an interactive resource. Social Psychology Quarterly,

50, 115-131.

Goodwin, C. (2007). Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities.

Discourse & Society, 18(1), 53-73.

Goodwin, M. (2006). The hidden life of girls. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Goodwin, M., & Goodwin, C. (1986). Gesture and coparticipation in the activity of searching

for a word. Semiotica(62), 51-75.

Greffenhagen, C., & Watson, R. (2009). Visual repairables: anlaysing the work of repair in

human-computer interaction. Visual Communication, 8(1), 65-90.

Grieshaber, S. (2010). Beyond discovery: a case study of teacher interaction, young children

and computer tasks. Cambridge, 40(1), 69-85.

Haakana, M. (2010). Laughter and smiling: Notes on co-occurrences. Journal of Pragmatics,

42(6), 1499-1512.

http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%20007%20-%20Europe%202020%20-%20EN%20version.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%20007%20-%20Europe%202020%20-%20EN%20version.pdf

References 115

Heath, C., Hindmarsh, Jon., and Luff, P. (2010). Analysing Video: Developing Preliminary

Observations. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Heft, T. M., & Swaminathan, S. (2002). The effects of computers on the social behavior of

preschoolers. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 16(2), 162.

Heritage, J. (1984a). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J.

Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation

analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Heritage, J. (1984b). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge; New York: Polity Press.

Heritage, J. (1998). Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society, 27(3), 291-334.

Heritage, J. (2004). Conversation analysis and institutional talk In D. Silverman (Ed.),

Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (2nd ed). London: Sage

Publications.

Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority

and Subordination in Talk-in-Interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 15-38.

Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (in press). Navigating epistemic landscapes. In J.-P. d. Ruiter

(Ed.), Questions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Hester, S., & Eglin, P. (1997). Culture in action : studies in membership categorization

analysis. Washington, D.C.: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and

Conversation Analysis & University Press of America.

Hester, S., & Francis, D. (2000). Local educational order : ethnomethodological studies of

knowledge in action. Amsterdam ; Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Pub. Co.

Hester, S., & Hester, S. (2010). Conversational actions and category relations: An analysis of

a children’s argument. Discourse Studies, 12(1), 33-48.

Hilmisdottir, H. (2011). Giving a tone of determination: The interactional functions of nu as a

tone particle in Icelandic conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 261-287.

Holmes, J. (2000). Politeness, Power and Provocation: How Humour Functions in the

Workplace. Discourse Studies, 2(2), 159-185.

Hutchby, I. (2005). "Active Listening": Formulations and the elicitation of feelings-talk in

child counselling. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(3), 303-329.

Hutchby, I., & Moran-Ellis, J. (1998). Children and social competence: Arenas of action.

London: Falmer Press.

Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis: principles, practices and

applications. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

116 References

Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK:

Polity Press

Jacoby, S., & Ochs, E. (1995). Co-Construction: An introduction. Research on Language &

Social Interaction, 28(3), 171-183.

James, A., Jenks, C., & Prout, A. (1998). Theorizing childhood. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press

in association with Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

James, A., & Prout, A. (1997). Constructing and reconstructing childhood: Contemporary

issues in the sociological study of childhood (2nd ed.). London: Falmer Press.

Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2003). New Technologies in Early Childhood Literacy

Research: A Review of Research. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 3(1), 59-82.

Koole, T. (2007). Parallel Activities in the Classroom. Language and Education, 21(6), 487-

501.

Koshik, I. (2010). Questions that convey information in teacher-student conferences. In A.

Freed & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), Why Do You Ask? The Function of Questions in

Institutional Discourse (pp. 159-186). Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New technologies in early childhood literacy research:

A review of research. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 3(1), 59-82.

Lee, S. H. (2011). Responding at a higher level: Activity progressivity in calls for service.

Journal of Pragmatics, 43(3), 904-917.

Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex

Pub. Corp.

Li, X., & Atkins, M. (2004). Early childhood computer experience and cognitive and motor

development. Pediatrics, 113(6), 1715-1722.

Livingstone, S. (2003). Children's Use of the Internet: Reflections on the Emerging Research

Agenda. New Media & Society, 5(2), 147.

Lomangino, A., Nicholson, J., & Sulzby, E. (1999). The influence of power relations and

social goals on children's collaborative interactions while composing on computer.

Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 14(2), 197-228.

Long, M., & Sato, C. (1983). Classroom foreigner talk discourse; forms and functions of

teachers' questions. In H. Seliger & M. Long (Eds.), Classroom oriented research in

second language acquisition (pp. 268-285). Rowley: Newbury House.

Lou, Y. (2004). Understanding process and affective factors in small group versus individual

learning with technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(4), 337-

369.

References 117

Macbeth, D. (1991). Teacher authority as practical action. Linguistics and Education, 3, 281-

313.

Mackay, R. (1991). Conceptions of children and models of socialization. In F. Waksler (Ed.),

Studying the social worlds of children: Sociological readings. (pp. 23 – 28) London:

Falmer Press.

Marsh, J. (2004). The techno-literacy practices of young children. Journal of Early

Childhood Research, 2(1), 51-66.

Marsh, J. (2006). Global, local/public, private: Young children's engagement in digital

literacy practices in the home Paper presented at the American Educational Research

Association.

Marsh, J. (2010). Young children's play in online virtual worlds. Journal of Early Childhood

Research, 8(23), 23-39.

Marsh, J., & Hallet, E. (2008). Desirable Literacies: Approaches to Language and Literacy

in the Early Years. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. (UK).

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Mashburn, A. J., Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., Downer, J. T., Barbarin, O. A., Bryant, D., et

al. (2008). Measures of classroom quality in prekindergarten and children’s

development of academic, language, and social skills. Child Development, 79(3), 732-

749.

Masters, J. (2008). Teachers scaffolding children working with computers. In N. Yelland, G.

A. Neal & E. Dakich (Eds.), Rethinking education with ICT: new directions for

effective practices (pp. 121-139). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Mayall, B. (2002). Towards a sociology for childhood: Thinking from children's lives.

Buckingham: Open University Press.

Maynard, D. W. (1992). On clinicians co-implicating recipients' perspective in the delivery of

diagnostic news. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work (pp. 331-359).


Maynard, D. W., & Peraklya, A. (2003). Language and Social Interaction. In J. DeLamater

(Ed.), Handbook of Social Pschology. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

McCarrick, K., & Li, X. (2007). Buried treasure: The impact of computer use on young

children’s social, cognitive, language development and motivation. AACE Journal,

15(1), 73-95.

McHoul, A. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in

Society, 7, 183-213.

118 References

McTavish, M. (2009). I get my facts from the Internet': A case study of the teaching and

learning of information literacy in in-school and out-of-school contexts. Journal of

Early Childhood Literacy, 9(1), 3-28.

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons : social organization in the classroom. Cambridge,

Mass.: Harvard University Press.

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

learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Mercer, N., & Hodgkinson, S. (2008). Exploring talk in schools : inspired by the work of

Douglas Barnes (1st ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.

Ministerial Council on Education Employment Training and Youth Affairs. (2008).

Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australians. Retrieved. from

http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educat

ional_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf.

Moore, L., & Creche and Kindergarten Association of Queensland. (2006). Building

Waterfalls a living and learning curriculum framework for adults and children (birth

to school age). Newmarket, Qld.: Creche and Kindergarten Association of

Queensland.

New Zealand Ministry for Economic Development. (2010). Broadband in New Zealand.

Retrieved 20th August 2010, from

http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/StandardSummary____40551.aspx

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2008a). The future of the

internet economy. Retrieved 19th October 2010, from

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/20/41/40789235.pdf

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2008b). OECD Ministerial

Meeting on the future of the INTERNET Economy Summary of the Chair of the

Meeting Retrieved 19th October 2010, from


Payne, G., & Hustler, D. (1980). Teaching the class: The practical management of a cohort.

British Journal of Sociology of Education, 1(1), 49-66.

Perakyla, A. (1997). Reliability and validity in research based on tapes and transcripts. In D.

Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: theory, method and practice (2nd ed., pp. 201-

220). London: Sage.

Plowman, L., & Stephen, C. (2005). Children, play and computers in pre-school education.

British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 145-157.

Pomerantz, A. (1980). Telling My Side: "Limited Access' as a "Fishing" Device. Sociological

Inquiry, 50(3-4), 186-198.

http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf

http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf

http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/StandardSummary____40551.aspx



References 119

Pomerantz, A., & Fehr, B. (1997). Conversation analysis: An approach to the study of social

action as sense making practices. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social

interaction (pp. 64-92). London: Sage.

Prout, A., & James, A. (1990). A new paradigm for the sociology of childhood? In A. J. A.

Prout. (Ed.), Constructing and reconstructing childhood: Contemporary issues in the

sociological study of childhood (pp. 7-33). London: Falmer Press.

Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis : the study of talk-in-interaction. Thousand Oaks,

Calif.: Sage.

Psathas, G. (1999). Studying the organization in action: Membership categorization and

interaction analysis. Human Studies, 22(2), 139.

Queensland Government. (2009). Smart Classrooms Student ICT Expectations. Retrieved.

from http://education.qld.gov.au/smartclassrooms/pdf/student-expectations-p-3.pdf.

Queensland Government. (2010). Smart Classrooms Professional Development Framework -

What is it? Retrieved 27th August 2010, from

http://education.qld.gov.au/smartclassrooms/pdframework/what.html

Queensland Studies Authority. (2006). Early Years Curriculum Guidelines. Spring Hill, Qld.:

Queensland Studies Authority.

Queensland Studies Authority. (2007). Essential Learning - Information and Communication

Technologies: Cross Curriculum priority by the end of year 3. Retrieved 20/08/2010,

2010, from http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/downloads/early_middle/qcar_ccp_ict_yr3.pdf

Queensland Studies Authority. (2010). Queensland kindergarten learning guideline.

Retrieved. from http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/downloads/early_middle/qklg.pdf.

Raban, B., Scull, J., Nolan, A., & Paatsch, L. (2010). Young learners: Teaching that supports

learning about literacy in the preschool Invited publication in the School of

Continuing Education, Hong Kong Baptist University, 35th Anniversary Anthology of

Educational Research.

Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the

Structure of Responding. American Sociological Review, 68(6), 939-967.

Raymond, G. (2006). Questions at work: yes/no type interrogatives in institutional contexts.

In P. Drew, G. Raymond & D. Weinberg (Eds.), Talk and interaction in social

research methods (pp. 115-135). London: Sage

Romeo, G. (2008). Information and communication technologies in education. In N. Yelland,

G. A. Neal & E. Dakich (Eds.), Rethinking education with ICT: new directions for

effective practices (pp. 203-223). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Sacks, H. (1987). On the preference for agreement and continguity in sequences in

conversation. In G. Button & J. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (Vol. 54-69).

Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

http://education.qld.gov.au/smartclassrooms/pdf/student-expectations-p-3.pdf

http://education.qld.gov.au/smartclassrooms/pdframework/what.html

http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/downloads/early_middle/qcar_ccp_ict_yr3.pdf

http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/downloads/early_middle/qklg.pdf

120 References

Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on conversation, volumes I and II. Oxford, UK ; Cambridge, MA:

Blackwell.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the

organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735.

Schegloff, E. (1987a). Analyzing single episodes of interaction: An exercise in conversation

analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(2), 101-114.

Schegloff, E. (1987b). Recycled turn beginnings: A precise repair mechanism in

conversation's turn-taking organisation. In G. Button & J. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social

organisation (pp. 70-85). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Schegloff, E. (1992). Repair after next turn; the last structurally provided defense of

intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97(1), 295 - 345.

Schegloff, E. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The Preference for Self-Correction in the

Organization of Repair in Conversation. Language, 53(2), 361-382.

Schegloff, E., & Lerner, G. H. (2009). Beginning to respond: Well prefaced responses to

"Wh" questions (Vol. 42, pp. 91 - 115): Routledge.

Schegloff, E., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289-327.

Schleef, E. (2008). "The Lecturer's OK" revisited: changing discourse conventions and the

influence of academic division. American Speech, 83(1), 62-84.

Shahrimin, M. I., & Butterworth, D. M. (2001). Young children's collaborative interactions in

a multimedia computer environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 4(3-4), 203-

215.

Shenton, A. K., & Dixon, P. (2004). Issues arising from youngsters information-seeking

behavior. Library & Information Science Research, 26(2), 177-200.

Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation Analysis: An Introduction. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons,

Ltd.

Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. London, Thousand

Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Silverman, D. (2009). Doing qualitative research a practical handbook. from

http://www.qut.eblib.com.au/EBLWeb/patron?target=patron&extendedid=P_459252_

0&.

Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1992). Towards an analysis of discourse. In M. Coulthard (Ed.),

Advances in spoken discourse analysis. London: Routledge.

http://www.qut.eblib.com.au/EBLWeb/patron?target=patron&extendedid=P_459252_0&

http://www.qut.eblib.com.au/EBLWeb/patron?target=patron&extendedid=P_459252_0&

References 121

Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Great Britain. Dept. for Education and, S. (2002). Researching

effective pedagogy in the early years (Report). Nottingham, England: Dept. for

Education and Skills.

Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Manni, L. (2008). 'Would you like to tidy up now?' An analysis of

adult questioning in the English Foundation Stage. Early Years, 28(1), 5-22.

Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Sylva, K. (2004). Researching pedagogy in English preschools. British

Educational Research Journal, 30(5), 713-730.

Speier, M. (1973). How to observe face-to-face communication: A sociological introduction.

Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear Pub. Co.

Speier, M. (1976). The child as conversationalist: some culture contact features of

conversational interactions between adults and children. In M. Hammersley & P.

Woods (Eds.), The process of schooling: A sociological reader (pp. 98-103). London:

Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.

Spink, A., Danby, S., Mallan, K., & Butler, C. (2010). Exploring young children's web

searching and technoliteracy. Journal of Documentation, 66(2), 191-206.

Spink, A., & Jansen, B. J. (2004). A study of Web search trends. Webology, 1(2), 4-4.

Stivers, T., Mondada, L., & Steensig, J. (2011). Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social

interaction. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in

conversation (pp. 3–26). Cambridge University Press.

Stivers, T., & Robinson, J. D. (2006). A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language

in Society, 35(3), 367-392.

Stokoe, E. (2011). Conversation Analytic Role-play Method Retrieved 14th September, 2011,

from http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/~ssehs/CARM%20page.htm

Stremmel, A. (1993). Responsive teaching: a culturally appropriate approach. In V. Fu, A.

Stremmel & C. Treppe (Eds.), Papers from the European Forum for Child Welfare

and NAEYC conferences. Hamburger and Denver 1991 and 1992.

Stubbs, M. (1993). Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis - Coulthard,M. Linguistics,

31(6), 1195-1197.

Swedish Ministry of Enterprise Energy and Communications. (2009, 6/10/2010). Broadband

strategy for Sweden. Retrieved 19th October, 2010, from

http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/12103/a/134543

ten Have, P. (2004). Understanding qualitative research and ethnomethodology. London:

Sage.

ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide (2nd ed.). London;

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/~ssehs/CARM%20page.htm

http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/12103/a/134543

122 References

ten Have, P. (2008). Doing conversation analysis. European Journal of Communication,

23(2), 259.

Terasaki, A. (2004). Pre-announcement sequences in conversation. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.),

Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 171-225). Philadelphia:

John Benjamins

Theobald, M. A. (2009). Participation and social order in the playground. Unpublished

Thesis (PhD), Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, 2009.

Theobald, M. A., & Kultti, A. (2012 In press). Investigating child participation in the

everyday talk of a teacher and children in a preparatory year. Contemporary Issues in

Early Childhood.

United Nations. (1989). Convention on the rights of the child, 20th November 1989, Treaty

Series, vol. 1577, p.3. from http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b38f0.html

[accessed 29 July 2011]

Verenikina, I., & Kervin, L. (2011). iPads, digital play and pre-schoolers. He Kupu, 2(5), 4-

19.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: the Development of Higher Psychological

Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Waksler, F. C. (1991). Studying the social worlds of children : sociological readings. London

; New York: Falmer Press.

Waller, T. (2008). ICT and literacy. In J. Marsh & E. Hallet (Eds.), Desirable Literacies:

Approaches to Language and Literacy in the Early Years. London: SAGE

Publications Ltd. (UK).

Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (2004). Thinking and learning with ICT: Raising achievement in

primary classrooms. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Wilhelm, J. (2001). Improving comprehension with think-aloud. New York: Scholastic.

Wohlwend, K. E. (2010). A Is for Avatar: Young Children in Literacy 2.0 Worlds and

Literacy 1.0 Schools. Language Arts, 88(2), 144-152.

Wu, K. (1993). Classroom Interaction and Teacher Questions Revisited. RELC Journal,

24(2), 49-68.

Yelland, N. (2005). The Future Is Now: A Review of the Literature on the Use of Computers

in Early Childhood Education (1994 - 2004). AACE Journal, 13(3), 201-232.

Yelland, N. (2006a). Changing worlds and new curricula in the knowledge era. Educational

Media International, 43(2), 121.

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b38f0.html

References 123

Yelland, N. (2006b). New technologies and young children: Technology in early childhood

education. Teacher Learning Network, 13(3), 10-13.

Yelland, N. (2008). New times, new learning, new pedagogies: ICT and education in the 21st

Century. In N. Yelland, G. A. Neal & E. Dakich (Eds.), Rethinking education with

ICT: new directions for effective practices (pp. 1-13). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Yelland, N. (2011). Knowledge building with ICT in the early years of schooling. He Kupu,

2(5), 33-44.

Yelland, N., Neal, G. A., & Dakich, E. (2008). Rethinking education with ICT. Rotterdam:

Sense Publishers.

Appendices 125

Appendices

Appendix A – Data Files Catalogue

Appendix B – Initial Observations of Two Extracts

Appendix C – Conversation Analysis Transcription Notations

Appendix D – University Human Ethics Committee Approval

Appendix E – Information and Consent Forms

126 Appendices

Appendix A

Data Files Catalogue

Data – DVD Kids Net (Endangered Animals 12.11.07) Disk 1 and Disk 2 – (two cameras positioned in different positions – one face on

and the other computer on)

Participants – G or T – Tich, A – Penny (Assistant), B2 - Harry

Timing Observation of data Interestings? Observation of data

.00 – 1.34 ****Teacher aide present at start of recording**** 2.49

G and A Penny (teacher aide help) go through log on process and talk about the icons on desktop (very hard to hear conversation) A offers instructions G in charge of mouse and keyboard. A instructs on password.

Although a questions, not very much take up time was given for child to answer. Closed questions Direct Instructions

1.06 A asked Tich what she wanted to do but then answered her own question. Tich followed instructions, looking at the A for confirmation. 3.10 T awaits for confirmation before actioning.

Child agency????

3.26

Finished the log on procedure and A prompts G to think of a question to type into google. G (hard to hear) decides to look up endangered animals. A scaffolds and asks does she want to look up pictures or ask a question. A closed question – do you want to

Did the closed question move the decision time frame along?

3.25 A confirms ‘arrival’ at google and then instructs we can ask it a question now” 3.32 Arrive at google – A “Great we’re there we can

Appendices 127

3.43

see pictures? A – nods yes. ask it a question now. A gives limited chooses – look at images, make it from Australia

3.48 A – explicitly informs G about the google choices and how to search for pictures and then instructs Tich to try and type question into google.

Direct instruction by A

– 4.07 G sounds out word endangered animals with A support. G uses her phonetic knowledge. A allows risk taking and didn’t correct her . A supported g when g was looking to her for answers. Explicitly taught about how to put a space between word. Once complete spelling phonetically, A explains that the computer might not understand but affirms the child’s try. A explains that the computer might say that we didn’t quite spell in properly and it might say try again. Directs G to press the search button.

4.00 This is really hard, but you try it. 5.43 T phonetically spelling ‘endangered animals’ Supported by A. 7.14 A refers to spelling endangered animals as really tricky.

A often refers to items as ‘tricky or hard’ – why?

7.34 Explains that the computer didn’t quite know that it wants these words but it thinks we might want to know what we want. A reads the words… did you mean endangered animals.

8.27 A points at different pictures. G notices one picture and asks what it is. A asks G, What do you think it is?

128 Appendices

8.47 G says “Whale” A says “yes it is a whale. Do you want to press on the picture and see if we get a bigger picture”

Adult direct instruction

9.12 A recalls experience of seeing whale. And then notices information on the picture.

9.10 A initiates conversation about personal experience about seeing whales

9.43 A instructs – scroll down to see if there are any more pictures hidden down here G follows instructions (A helps by placing hand G’s hand controlling mouse.)

10.56 A offers child choice about reading more information re –whales, look at more whale pictures or returning to google results to look at different pictures

11.07 G decides to return to the google results. A asks, How will you get back to all those photo’s?” G shrugs. A gives solution. G follows instructions.

Not very much take up time or prompting of risk taking by A Offering answers when G does not know.

11.30 A then asks which picture G would like to look at next…. A notices a map that details endangered animals in the world and tells Tich that she isnot meant to know about this and then seems to take over next part of investigation asking

Agency???? A offered but then reneged on offer

12.03

12.08 – 12.40 *****A attention leaves computer to interact with another child******

Another child enters with magnets and A directs attention to that child. G waiting for A didn’t touch screen.

G didn’t touch computer until instructed to do so once A’s attention returned. Passive learning when

Tich didn’t touch the computer while A interacts with another child. Tich turns to look at A with another children... seemingly waiting for further instructions.

Appendices 129

12.42 12.47

Magnet child leaves and A attention returns to Tich. Tich waits for further instructions A instructs,” You can click.”

children interacting with A at computer????

13.07 13.17

Waited for page to load ... long silence Waited until page had loaded with a variety of photos. G recalls a trip to Currumbin Bird Sanctuary.

13.24 13.29 13.52

Tich answers questions asked by A A instructs “Scroll Down” and asks did you see that sort of bird at Currumbin? A tells T to pick up mouse while placing hand over Tich’s

Closed questions and direct instructions

13.38 Tich recalls own currimbin experience

14.16 14.19 14.39

A instructs “do you want to go back” G returned to google results unaided. T follows instructions back to other photos on google search results A instructs T which picture to click. A notices posters that somehow link to the classes curriculum content (making posters about endangered animals)

15.16 15.25 – 16.40

A gives explicit instructions re – phonics and reading sounding out ‘HELP’ and explains the exclamation mark A – helps G to sound out title of next web site. Instructs on strategies to read – string sounds

15.10 A instructs Tich to sound out ‘Help Us’ on a poster that they clicked on

130 Appendices

together. Discussed generic structure of a poster – title etc

16.47 – 18.54 A reads information on this website and explained the meanings of some challenging/difficult words. Instructs about hyperlink in text (blue and hand symbol) A also discusses posters that the prep class is thinking about making. A offers child time to look on her own for a while by saying, “Do you want me to let you have a look at pictures by yourselft. G accepts. A instructs, you can look at the pictures, do you know where to go? “click on any A said, “? will be able to help you, he’ll show you the pages.” A leaves.

Explicit teaching re literacy posters, Hyperlinks, hand symbol. Adult agenda re – planned curriculum??? Offered a question about looking on own but was there a response from child????

Problems are dealt with differently when working at a computer with a teacher, peer or alone

18.56 – 19.06 A exits

T looks around, runs fingers through hair but doesn’t touch computer.

19.06 G Places hand on mouse and manipulates mouse. Moves mouse around screen and clicked on a button. Nothing happened. G looks around room.

19.41 – 19.48 *****A enters******

A returns, “did anything else come?” Shows G that there are some words. That says error in the corner of the screen. When the page loads, A says, “here it comes, it must have been with me.”

19.48 – 20.44 Experiments looking at different sites – with approval from A eg Try that after g points at

Appendices 131

picture.

21.04 – 21.20 A reads an article that talks about why animals are becoming extinct and interprets some of the challenging words for G. A instructs child to try this quiz. A also highlights how people are impacting on endangered animals lives

Direct instruction A 21.15 A try this quiz. A – Might be a bit hard. 21.28 This is a bit hard for us.

REfering to task as hard for us This is a bit hard for us

22.23 23.06 – 23.56

Waiting for page to load. A comments its taking a while A brings G attention to the timer symbol and asks G the meaning. A reminds G of the fact that it means you need to wait. A takes mouse saying, “it says there’s a problem.” And takes it back to the previous page.

A solving probs for T

23.21 A asked T if she knew what the sand timer symbol on the computer meant.

24.22 G clicks on mouse. A instructs to go back again.

24.51 25.27 26.00 – 27.38

A instructs G to go to the picture that someone has drawn. After explaining about red font making things stand out, A asks T to recall what the red font does. A talks about posters that they might draw. A askes G if she can remember how to paint somethings on the computer A access second computer and seeks the paint program. A leads discussion about illustration, drawing/ photograph and ask G to interpret what the picture is telling us. A asked T if she would like

Adult agenda preplanned learning experience? Closed question

25.36 A explained that red font makes it stand out. (The word ‘HELP’ was in red.)

132 Appendices

A – attention diverted to second computer.

to paint some things on the computer. T says No. A – manipulates 2nd computer beside T. While A is manipulating the 2nd computer, T sits without touching her computer 26.18 Tich points at the screen as selected picture is loaded and initiaties interaction with A. However A dominates interaction questioning, “What does the picture tell us?” A says, “it tells us about endangered animals.” A asks – do you want to go back to the other pictures. G nods yes. Just as she returns, A points to a picture and says, “oh, this one says colour your world” I wonder if you click. G clicks on it.

27.00 Tich answers questions regarding endangered animals. If

27.38 – 28.00 29.30 – 32.33

This one is one that you print out so that you can colour them in. “We probably won’t colour them in because we don’t just colour in here, if we click on it we may see something it shows us.” G clicked on bat and as the bat picture loaded, G recalled her experience with bats. “they make a funny noise” A reads information about bats after loading. A instructs G to scroll down. A “do you want to go and look at more.” Continued experimentation with this site.

Closed discussion A lot of interpretation by

Appendices 133

31.00 32.34

A reads text to G and interprets words like ‘habitat’. A instructs G to go back. Closed question – do you want to go back to all the pictures now? A reads and interprets information about Grizzly Bear. A instructs T to go back to all of the little pictures. T scrolls down to other pictures. A explicitly teachers about the numbers of pages at the bottom of the google search results page.

A here Closed question without take up time… adult takes over anyway.

33.02 A explicitly instructs G about the number of pages in results and how to access additional pages. A suggests child clicks on the numbers underneath the google words to get some additional pages. A instructs – “Tell me which number you are going to click on first” G responds, “5” Looks at the results on page 5. A dominated choices by directing G attention and asking, “Do you know what type of animal that one is?”

Explicit instruction

34.59

A draws attention to hole page of posters drawn by children about endangered animals A says, “I bet Sandy (teacher) would like to see

134 Appendices

35.16

this page” A – Have a look at ..... A How did you know it said Leopard T – it starts with an ‘l’

A dominated choices. Literacy instruction

35.30 A what other clues? A We might do

No take up time for child a asks a question immediately after her first question

35.56 36.00

A Do you want to show Jazz who is trying to draw her poster picture? T – nods and looks around the classroom. A – go and get her. T – hops up and leaves to get Jazz Adult also leaves. (talking in background)

A making links to curriculum content other children involved in and perhaps the purpose of this google session???

36.26

T returns with Jazz A returns with more instructions, “Now remember how to scroll down... Instructs Tich to let Jazz have a turn. A asks Jazz if she wants to have a turn. Jazz turns hands over. A concludes “Oh you have

Instructions

Appendices 135

37.07

durty hands... Go and wash them. Jazz watches. A sends Jazz back to drawing her own picture.

37.15 Adult exits 37.31 37.36 37.50 38.31

A exists by walking away (to see Sandy T) T looks around to see. A plus Teacher talking. Teachers asks T if she could have a look? Teacher – where did you go for the search? Tich explains how (muffled) Teacher asks open ended questions. Teacher probed, “Who typed in endangered animals? How did you work out how to spell. Teacher delved deeper into google search

Did T touch the computer at all here? Is there a difference between the teacher and the assistant asking questions re take up time etc??? Open ended questions – there was alot more talking by Tich

39.34

Another child joins. Teacher explains what Tich has been doing. Teacher also connects

Teacher makes links to curriculum goals and

136 Appendices

39.50 40.00 40.45 41.15 41.28 41.35 41.90 42.07

what Tich has been doing to poster making in the class. Teacher asks another child to get Harry and asks Tich if they could have a look at the whale picture because Harry is drawing a whale for the posters. Tich clicks on whale. Teacher draws Harry in by explaining. Tich manipulated the mouse independently. Teacher reads information about whales to Harry. Teacher asks Tich , “where did the picture go?” Tich scrolled down and found the picture. Harry watches and Tich explores. Teacher initiates conversation, “I like the posters, can you scroll down?” Tich scrolled down.

projects currently on the go in the classroom Children tend to view questions asked by teacher or assistant as an instruction??? Did Tich respond to teacher question here or did she just follow what Tich interpreted as an instruction? Teachers own agendas??

Appendices 137

42.10 42.30

Teacher highlights technique used to make one of the posters mainly talking to Harry. Teacher asks Tich to click on it please. Teacher to Harry, “Would you like to have a look? You can have my seat. (Teacher Leaves) Tich says something to Harry here but it is inaudible. Interaction continues but inaudible

43.20 Harry instructs and demonstrates, “Click on that... inaudible section follows.

43.28 44.22 45.00

Harry and Tich ended up at a blocked site. Tich points at corner of screen to go back This took them back to the whale pictures. Harry noticed the words tail and whale rhyme. Harry experimented with up and arrows and then announced “See what I did” as the screen went down.

Much more experimental and conversational without teacher presence. Active exploration when children are paired rather than working with teacher or alone

45.45 46.00

Tich explains what the page numbers from google search results means. Tich instructs, “go to 10.” Harry follows and clicks.

Instructions seem to be given by different

138 Appendices

47.52 48.40 49.00 49.17

Harry and Tich explored google results using google page numbers at the bottom of the screen. Harry suggests, “Hey lets go down to the bottom again and see whats there. Tich turns to researcher videoing to tell her about a game she has at home. Harry’s exploring results page scrolling down.

members when children are interacting with children. Children seem to wait for instructions and directions when interacting with adults. “Hey” used to capture attention????

49.34 49.38 50.29

Tich returns attention to the computer instructing Harry, “Go on that one.” “That’s a good one, that’s a really good one.” Harry – Choose a different picture to click (Interaction about coloured eyes follows) Tich Leaves – Harry stays.

Appendices 139

50.40 50.45 50.55 51.00 51.25

Harry kept clicking back arrow until he got all the way back to the desk top. Harry, “What happened, Oh I know!” Harry sat without touching and looked at the researcher. Researcher joins and asks, “Are you right?” Tich re-enters “I know where to go.” Researcher “I think it’s been closed. Tich, “No, it hasn’t been closed, you’ve been pressing the wrong thing. “ Researcher – “Do you remember what you had to type in? Tich – um endangered animals Researcher – I think before that you ahd to do a password, I think it begain with ‘l’ I don’t remember. Researcher – Do you think you could ask someone? Harry pressed the key and held it down on the keyboard. Tich – It was ‘L’ (looked at what Harry had done and said, “Harry! “ Harry continued to press down on one key.

140 Appendices

51.42 51.50 51.59 52.04

Harry backspaced to get rid of password. Research “Shall we find out what the password is for it?” Once Harry finished erasing password, Tich took over. She types “L” and looked aroud. Harry leaned over and began pressing keys. Tich looked around the room. Tich told Harry that that says nothing. Tich looked at research and hopped up and left. Harry continued experimenting with pushing keys.

52.11 52.53 53.09

A enters What have you done there? Harry points at screen. A “It wants to download something does it?” Researcher responds, “The browser was closed so they want to access the internet. A instructs, “You’ll have to get rid of all of those one Harry (random letters) There is far too many. Tich starts with ‘l’ A prompts, “what’s next?” Tich, “A” A – excellent Tich, “p’

53.22 Harry moves onto the second computer. Both 54.15 Even though Tich

Appendices 141

54.40

Tich and Harry type password Tich remembered username. A – “Remember how you go to google? I know NaTicha knows, do you know Harry?” A finished instructions.

knows password, she still looks to assistant for confirmation.

55.20 55.33 56.54 57.20 57.40

Tich decided to go to games instead of pictures at google this time. A instructs on google homepage – “type in endangered again. Tich suggests letters she typed originally ‘n’ A questions – “what do you think Harry?” A takes over keyboard and types it. Tich and Harry look around the room. A reads search results Tich chooses animal quiz and announces (looking for A) “I want to go to that one.” A – “What do we click on, what do we see?” A has trouble finding the hyperlink. Tich points at screen. A says yes click.

142 Appendices

57.59 58.57

A reads page and announces, “Might be a bit tricky for us.” A interprets game. “We have to read some facts first Harry....(read info re tigers.) A interprets complicated questions and then states, “These are really tricky questions for us, we’ll have to wait until big school to answer.

59.10 A – Go back, Click on this one.

59.37 Blocked site.

Appendices 143

Data – DVD Kids Net (Endangered Animals 2 13.11.07) Disk 3 and Disk 4 – (two cameras positioned in different positions – one face on

and the other computer on)

Participants – G or T– Tich, Boy -B2 – Harry, Penny A –

Timing Observation of data Interestings? Observation of data

0.00 1.18 1.30 1.37 – 1.47 1.47 2.05

Log on process – Tich independent Boy looked and commented on the video camera and then commented on what was happening. Tich, looks around for A. “Where do I go? Where’s Penny?” Boy instructs Tich to wait. Boy looks around and leaves computers, Tich follows No one at the computers Boy and Tich return. Tich looks and calls out, “Penny, where is Penny?” Tich tells Boy the log on password 1 letter at a time. Boy types in as Tich spells it. Tich corrects Boy after he forgets to type the 1 in the password. Tich instructs him, No, No, No. She leans over to point to the keyboard.

144 Appendices

2.18 2.34 2.34-2.57 2.57 5.22 5.22-5.46 5.49

Penny, A enters and instructs children to go to the ‘yellow one’. Instructs and stays as children follow instructions. A Moves to computer no. 2 with boy. A asks boy if thats how you spell ‘prep’ and then instructs Boy to have another try. Boy spells out letters individually. As Tich needs to type a 2nd password A informs her of password. Tich sound it out and announces 1 letters at a time turning to look at A for confirmation. A instructs boy of 2nd username and password L_______2. A sits behind boy as he follows instructions. Tich asks A “Where do I go next?” A instructs. Tich (keeping track of what is happeing on both computers.) instructs boy to click ok. A moves around and asks Tich, “What are you going to searach on the internet?” Tich replies, “same as we had yesterday. A “Did you want to put in pictures? A instructs images and points at screen and instructs typing in big word endangered animals

Appendices 145

5.58 6.00 6.05 6.20 6.30 6.53

Tich spells phonetically and starts with ‘A’. A stretches word out and said, “No, ‘A’” A interacts with Boy as his computer is now ready to go and asks, “Now what are you going to look up?” Boy says, “the same one.” A undersattnd this to mean endangered animals and prompts him to have a think of the letters he can hear in the word. A instructs Boy not to look at Tich’s as she may not be right either. Boy says word and announces, ‘E’. A works with both children as each child calls out the letters they think and wait for confirmation from A. A corrects Tich when she says ‘j’ instead of ‘g’ and instructs Tich to backspace and put in a ‘g’. Harry (Boy 2) enters to the side and asks if he can join the computer. A informs him of the fact that there are two people on the computers already so he asks if he can watch? Harry returns with a chair to join in. (And watch? Harry sits down. A instructs him to have a think how he would spell endangered animals. Tich is still sounding out the words. Harry says to Boy “It would be ‘a’. Boy presses on key pad. Boy stretches out the word. Conversation about the sounds with both boys. Harry then suggests, ‘r’. A

When adult present, children wait for confirmation???

146 Appendices

7.51 8.01 8.22 8.30 9.00 9.19

confirms his thoughts. A gives ‘ered’ to the children and they type the letters in. Tich once complete looks to A who asks, “What do we have to put between our words” A conversation about spaces between our words follows. Boy now moves on to type the word animals into the search query. Boy sussges ‘an’. Once confirmed by A Boy looks to the keyboard. Harry locates ‘n’ and points to show boy where it is on the keyboard. Boy press Boy continues sound out ‘animals’. Harry add, “thats a hard word.” Completes sounding out ‘animals’ but awaits confirmation from A. Tich leans over and points to the letters on Boys keyboard. Boy announces “I did it. A instructs, “Now search!” “Do you know which button to search?” Boy replies, “yes” A “Let’s see what happens.” A asks, “Do you think you’ve spelt it quite right? (referring to the Did you mean prompt on google search results page) A – say ‘ No’ Tich getting to the same stage as Boy inputs, ‘say no’ and clicks on the screen. A reminds Tich of what happened yesterday when she didn’t spell the words correctly. It says, Did you mean

Is Harry seen as an expert speller as A skips Boy and asks Harry what he thinks might be next? Explicit literacy instruction

Appendices 147

9.32 10.00 10.12 10.36 10.36 10.39 10.42 10.50

A instructs, “click on that” A “Some pictures, you can start to have a look at. (A stands up to leave) A “I’ll be back in a minute. Tich – “Hey look at this one guys!” Harry – “we’ve seen these haven’t we NaTicha? “ Tich – yes Harry informs if you want to go on to different levels you just go down to the bottom. (Boy says something inaudible) Tich says, “Click on these numbers I’ll go to no. 6 this time. “I meant to number 6 Boy “I went to no. 2” Tich “you can click on one of those numbers.” (interaction about observations eg “oooh look at that one) Harry “Do you want to go down to the bottom again?” Boy “Hey look at this photo” Tich – Hey look I have....

Is Harry accounting for not knowing?

148 Appendices

10.58 11.06 11.12 11.19 11.23 11.25 11.30 11.35 11.47 12.00

Harry leans over to press button Boy says, “My Turn on puter.” Harry responds, “it is not your computer. (Boy respons but inaudible – check it out on disk 4) Boy interacts with Tich and presses her keypboard and says, “what’s that as he’s doing it?” Tich, “Hey look guys. See a picture of here Boy What is that? What level is that?” Boy continued asking, “What level is that?” “What level is that? What level is that?” Tich responds, “I do’t know” Boy “You go back” Tich, “I know, I know, it is not a level, I got it from there, pointing at the screen.” Boy “what level, go down. (while Boy was interacting with Tich about levels, Harry touched the key board of Boy)

Members seem to understand ‘levels’ by shifting the conversation to fit. Experiementing with visiting different pages from the google search results using the numbers at the bottom of the page Tich continues to manage other computer glancing ata the screen. Altercation between two boys here – how is it managed?

Appendices 149

12.18 12.39 12.40 12.52 12.57 13.00 13.11

Upon returning to own computer, and seeing what Harry had done, Boy “Hey” and nudges Harry with elbow. Don’t do ..... and then gasps. Boy number 1 A returns “Did you look at something?” “Where have you been?” Did you find out anything interesting?” “Have you clicked on some to have a look at?” Tich looking at A. “It’s not coming up. A “wait” It tells me cause I can read the words. It’s still coming.” A to boy “Pick a different one for you and Harry to talk about than NaTicha maybe.” There are great drawings in it though, I haven’t seen this on yet, I was really interested in that one. “That looks like a poster that someone has made.” A interpreting website, “Have played the card game Fish?” Go play card game A exits Boy “Hey look at this” Boy “Hey Harry look at his one

Here the boy is actually referring to the google search page number. This seems to be understood by members.

150 Appendices

13.27 13.31 13.36 13.52 14.19

A instructs look on the screen... whales Boy and Harry look back on screen Hey this is too large Boy to Tich and her computer “Hey what is that?” Harry on his... “This is too large” Harry You can also click that. Boy I can also do this, look at the large, hey it’s turning small.” Boy “That’s magic” Harry “ if you click that it will turn small.” A “show me how it happens. Boy “You know how it happens, cause that is like that. It’s small. A – “what’s it a picture of? What does it look like? What shape is it? Boy – A lion. Tich “Boys name, Look Boys name” A to Boy – “what other things do we see that look like that?” Boy – “A magnifying glass” A “yes” “A magnifying glass so it ells us whether we can make it bigger or smaller. A teachers about + sign if you want to make it bigger. “What do you

Linking to curriculum intent here???

Appendices 151

14.25 14.36 14.53 15.38 15.50 15.53 16.05 16.12 16.24

think the plus sign mieans?: Harry – “make it bigger.” A “You can go back to the beginning go back further “It had lots of definitions about Endangered animals there. Harry – “Can we go onto no. ... A “what number are you going to pick?” Boy “7” A – “7” A “Remember on the internet though it offers the best things and the best pictures mostly at the beginning. A “They might not have very many pictures of endangered animals.” A “Have a look there and see what’s there” Children look around. Boy “This is boring” Harry “ ?????? inaudible” Boy “Hey look Australia” Tich – Hey guys look. That’s um the whale. Boy to Harry “You are doing something.

Children very interested in finding out how the compute works, adult very interested in redirecting children to task at hand.

152 Appendices

16.27 16.30 16.35 16.45 16.50 17.02 17.07 17.11 17.14 17.18

Tich “And that’s a picture and (Tich speaks to researcher???) Boy “You’re breaking the computer Harry look. You broke it I’m telling. Tich “I like that picture. See that picture Boy. Boy, Do you like that picture?” Harry correct Tich on pronounciation of Boys name. “It’s Doooom “ Tich, “That’s a leopard” “A leopard” Harry points finger at Boy and waves it in front of his face. Boy “Stop” Harry “Smell it” Harry “Smell it: Boy “Don’t” (shaking his head) Boy “I’m on no. 4” Tich “ I’m on no. 4” (repeated) You have the same Boy “Hey look at that!” Tich ????? Harry does something to the computer. Boy covers mouth with gasp and says “Stop”.

Explicit teaching about google search engine

Appendices 153

17.41 17.47 18.00 18.10 18.15 A leaves 18.22 18.27 18.30

Tich instructs, “no go back there, go back, go back.” Boy “uh oh.” Harry – “??? Hasn’t been well.” Tich “Go down Harry “Hey look” Tich “You’re not, you’re not allowed there. Boy “i want to see a foot print, there is a foot print. Harry stop it, I don’t like it. Hey look at that. Tich – “I’m going to no.12” Tich “He he he he he he Two boys giggling at ... Tich, “oh look what i have. “i’m up to 20. I’m on 20, I’m on 20” Tich “I’m trying ot find some kookaburras Boy lagus and points at Tich’s screen “This is a kookaburra.” Boy “Hey look, everytime...” Harry presses keyboard. Boy “you can’t do that, and nudges Harry

Repair situations here

154 Appendices

18.35 14.47 18.52 18.56 19.07 19.18 19.28 19.31 19.40 19.50

Harry – “Do you want ot go to 40” Tich noticed something on her screen, “Oh we went on this yesterday.” Harry “We’ve been on that” Tich – “Let’s click on this one. Boy “Is that a game?” Tich – “No it’s pictures.” Boy “I want to do a game” Tich – “go down go down go down, if you go down – huh. There’s a picture Boy – “Card game. Let’s go to a card game” Harry – “14” Boy – “card game” Boy trying to locate a card game Harry to Boy – “Let’s click and click and click and click until we get up to 100 Harry “go down to the bottom” Harry tries to control mouse. Boy pushes Harry’s hand away “Wait I can do it.” Boy clicks and clicks and clicks on mouse as well as verbalising the clicks. “Wait, whats the picture?” Harry – “Now you go down to the bottom again and click” Boy says something about 100.

Appendices 155

19.57 19.59 20.03 20.05 20.08 20.10 20.16 20.18 20.21 20.24 20.59 21.08

Harry counts, “28, 29.” Tich – “Now I’m nearly all the way back. Harry to Boy “Go down to the bottom again” Harry – “Now go down to the bottome again” Harry – “now 48” Boy – “Look at that.” Tich “What this...about frogs” A enters to Tich “Why would that one be endangered do you think?” “There are lots of animals there, do you want to click on that one? Does it tell us lots or have we been there before? Harry – “um, um, um, 84” A – “This one has lots of questions. It says, Have you every wondered about endangered animals? How many are there and what makes them endangered. What do you think mostly makes them endangered? Tich “mmm, when they are in trees and they knock the trees down” Boy “ Hey we’ve got this book” (pointing to a book on his computer screen) A – (managing two conversations one with Tich and the other with Boy “ How did the knocking the trees down (inaudible)” A to Boy 1 – “We do have that book. Harry – “oh I’m scared.”

156 Appendices

21.12 21.21 21.44 22.11 22.14 22.19 22.40 22.40 22.45 22.50 22.58

A – “Have a look at when you go to that book. We might be able to get the book off the shelf and play it. A – “Click on that book there, the one you think we have.” Boy – “Harry’s going to find it on the shelf” A – “You click on the book and see what it says about it.” Harry returns without the book. Boy to A – “That’s very good because another class childrens can question about what and what’s not. (Tich leaves) what’s how we make the animals danger. A – “It does tell us lots of information about that book doesn’t it?” Altercation over computer Harry and Boy. Tich returns with a book. A – “Oh look” Boy – “That’s the same book” Adults attention elsewhere talking to another child, who was making a poster, about keeping plastic bags out of the ocean. Boy – “I want to go to no. 0. I want to go to 0. “ (Boy makes up a musical chant) Boy and Harry make funny sounds and giggle. A – “I thought it said that there were some games at that one Harry. You might want to look at.”

Did Tich answer adults question here? Check data.

Appendices 157

23.04 23.26 24.00 24.14 24.18 24.26 24.41 24.43 24.47 25.07

Boy – “ I like to play some games. A “Trying to see if there is some. We got one yesterday but we didn’t go very far.? “What happened when we went to that site and asked for games back at Google?” A to Tich – “This one, do you want to see what it says about the elephant. A reads the African elephant information and then toTich, “I wonder why the elephant is endangered?” A continues reading info, without Tich entering into conversation. A interprests the information for Tich eg. Habitat endangered. This means that they are cutting down trees etc Boy and Harry laughing and giggling. A draws in Boy 1 into conversation referring him to what the information says, “This one says the elephant is endangered because... A then tries to draw Harry in, “Harry, do you know what the tusks are made of?” Boy – inputs, “blood” Harry – “rubbery plastic” A – “Rubbery plastic? Have you ever seen an animal with rubbery plastic parts...mm??? Harry – “I have an elephant.” A – “How would you grow rubbery, plastic parts?” “Do you think they are rubbery plastic? Harry “I think they feel it? A – “Do you? I think they might feel really hard” Boy – changes topic and discusses games on the computer. Conversation with adult and Boy about game they played yesterday on the computer.

158 Appendices

25.18 25.34 25.40 25.45 25.45 25.55

Tich joins in and informs A how do find game using Google. A instructs – “ok well lets go back up there and put in games. Where will we need to go to, will we need to go back to Google? How do we get back there?” Tich informs how to get back....”You press that.” A – takes over... then we need to go up the top where we give it those instructions don’t we. A – We need to go back to the window... and then we need to write the word games after. Tich does this. During this process, A gives more explicit literacy instruction re – spaces between words, capital letters. Tich continues spelling out the word ‘Games’ phonetically. A – scaffolds “what did you need to press next.” A - Explains Did you mean.... to Boy. Continue finding games. A explains, “we’ll have to find out if they are games for us” Boy announces, “this don’t have any games on it” A to Tich – ‘go back’ A Instructions – Let’s scroll down to see if there are games down the bottom. A instructs – “click on this one” and points to the screen. Game across the stop sign on EQ portal.

A tries to bring the two boys back on to ‘perceived task’

Appendices 159

26.05 26.10 26.25 26.40 26.40 26.54

A – ‘Go back and we’ll pick a different one and we’ll try there.’ Boy exists as he leaves, “Don’t step on my chair!” Harry repeats, “Step on it, I won’t step on it, I’ll sit on it. “ (He then sits on the chair) Tich inputs, “He said, Do not sit on it” Harry –“ Step on it” A – “what do you think he meant by that Harry?” Harry “Do not step on it.” A – “Is that what you really think he meant?” Tich – “No” Harry “Well I wouldn’t do that.” A – What do you really think Boy meant?” Harry – “Don’t step on it” Boy returns Harry moves off seat and says, “you said don’t step on it.” A – “This one says the animal game, I wonder what that is?” Boy – “What did you press?” A – “you press something else and have a look.” Tich – “that one?” A – “Yeh see what it says.” Tich clicked something and then she looks around at adult saying, “I clicked it” A –points at something on the screen saying, “yep its clicked, what does that tell us?” Tich – “waiting” A takes control of mouse and says, “let’s go back to the search one and see” A types something on the computer (refer to Disk 4 for more information.

160 Appendices

27.15 27.42 27.45 27.56 28.22

Harry and Boy discuss turn takings. Harry, “Please I want to find out some stuff.” Boy does not respond. Boy continues with his agenda saying, “I need to find the game, oh me silly. How do you spell game Harry?” Tich calls out, “g” and fills in other letters. Boy announcing, “I did it after typing each letter.” Harry is pulling at Boys arm. A continues working on Tich’s computer. Boy directs conversation to A. A then helps him to find games search by explaining the “did you mean?” Boy – “Oh, I didn’t see that.” A returns to the computer Tich is working on. Three children have a giggle and laugh at each other while Adult is working on Tich’s computer. A turns to researcher laughing saying, “I’ve ended up at ebay.” When A attention is fixed on something else, the three children seem to laugh and giggle and ‘muck’around. Boy asks, “why are you laughing?” Harry, “Because you are lost in the computer.” Boy clicks on another site. Harry laughs and says, “Oh stop again.” Boy laughs. Harry to Tich, “He’s found stop again.” Tich looks over and laughs.

Appendices 161

28.30 28.49 29.18 29.26 29.54

Boy, “I can’t believe it, I don’t know what to do.” Conversation about not knowing what ot press and that A is doing something else follow. A informs the children, “I’m trying to find a web game for you where you might be able to play it.” Children in laughing, begin pressing different buttons. A - “Did you open anything up to see what you can find?” Boy, “I can’t.” A – “You’ll just have to take a guess I think. Look on those ones and have a look and see. You tried that one, is there anything on that one. A matching card game, show me that one. Oh it won’t let us go. WE’ve been there that was too hard. Go down and see if there is another one.” Tich instructs as she is pointing at the screen, “go there.” “Go there, go there” “Press” Boy “Are you trying to trick me?” Harry laughs. Boy, “Yeh I got it Penny.” (Penny was telling another child where to find an icecream container, unrelated to the interaction at the computer.” Boy waits and upon Penny’s completion of her conversation he repeats, “I got it Penny.” Boy, “Look Penny I got it.” Harry – “Do you want tt play a trophy game?” Harry repeats, “Do you want to play a trophy game?”

162 Appendices

30.25 31.07 31.52 32.24 32.35 32.55

A – “where did you go to then that says ‘stop’?” Boy (announced) “Hard to believe it.” A – “Where did you click?””No, don’t do that press the games one?” A – Inaudible. “No go back to where you were ____________boys name___________. The site you were at. Boy – Hey, Luna BBC. Harry giggles. A – “Now I’m gunna read it, it says click here for our animated endangered animal guide. Boy – Here? A – No over here Boy – “That’s not games” Tich A – Do you think there’ll be any games?” Boy – No A – Oy, one uses flash. Boy – What’s that? A – Remember you play with some flash up at the computer room . Boy reached EQ stop page again, “Stop” A – “um, which one did you click on?” Boy – “I clicked on the video game here.” A – “Click on that, click on this one (pointing to the screen) Boy – inaudible “Penny can’t find the game????” Harry takes mouse – “You’ve got to press that” Boy – inaudible. A – Go to games ___boys name____ although I don’t know whether TEAS is going to let you. I might have to look up some games overnight for tomorrow”

Appendices 163

33.08 33.24 33.34 33.41

Boy – “Find some more games so I can play” A – commences looking on other computer not interacting with the children. Boy, T and H have a conversation about laptop, money and then Boy announces, “I’ll just wait for Penny” A exits Harry exits. Tich , “I got a different one.” Tich exists – “i’m not going back where I was” Boy – “Hey, I’ll be on your computer.” Boy alone at computers. Turns to talk to researcher about microphone. Tich returns, “No get out of my seat!” As Boy hops up, Tich repeats, “get out of my seat.” Boy – “what is going on? Tich – I’ve got a different one, Hey look, mines not going on. Boy exits. Tich giggles. Computers are not touched when children were sitting at the computer alone. Tich pretended the seat she was sitting on at the computer was a bus and said, “need seat belts, and then driving the bus”. She dramatised driving a bus. Boy returns. Harry returns. tEacher enters , “Can I have a look and see what you’ve been doing?”

164 Appendices

33.59 34.39 34.59 35.12 35.53 35.58 36.22

Boy “we’ve been trying to play games.”” play games” Teacher sits behind Tich, “Well how do you find them?” Boy – “You have to type in endangered games but inaudible....” Teacher – “So who typed it in.” Tich and Boy – “Penny” Teacher – “Yeh, I can see some words over there.(pointing) what do they say?” (Teacher notices children moving closer to the screen to try and determin what she was talking about” Teacher – “near the search button” Tich – points at screen. “Here” Teacher – “that’s exactly right, what do they say?” Tich – “um” Harry and Boy – “endangered animals” Teacher – “so what’s the next step? You’ve got to type the words in.” Teacher – “Would you like me to read what that bit says?” Boy – “yes” Teacher – “Games for kids about endangered animals. Um here, Boys name there’s here a bit further down that says welcome. So what does welcome start with, you’ll be able to find it.” Boy – pointing at screen, “here” Teacher – “How did you know?” Boy – “Because it’s got a ‘w’” Teacher – “exactly cmon” Waiting, Tich exits and enters again. Teacher – “there are ______ down the side Boys name. There is one that says, ‘The animal game” Teacher – “I think you could find i (Boy clicks), you found it. Good looking, well done.”

Appendices 165

36.32 36.50 37.16 37.26 37.39 38.19 38.25

Teacher “aaaargh Connor, and its turtles like Connor had on his poster. Boy “??????” Teacher – “ it says ---boys name--- you’ve just come across a green sea turtle in its natural habitat, which is a lagoon, you notice that the sea turtle .... quickly answer the questions below so that the rest of your fellow explorers can help you save the animal. Teacher, “Can you scroll down ---boys name----? Boy follows instruction. Teacher – “laughs, ----boys name ---- this says, this is what you have decide, which one’s true, green sea turtles are long distance runners” Harry and Boy – “No” Teacher “No” Teacher – “are they amphibians?” Boy – what does amphibian mean? Teacher to Harry, “Do you know what amphibian means?” Teacher to Boy – “what do you think it means?” Boy – “that they can run fast” Teacher – “run very fast, no. It doesn’t mean that.” Harry – “endangered?” Teacher – “no” Boy – “they move very slow.” Teacher – “moves slowly, no, its not about how they move. ________ it describes about the kinds of animals and where they live and the kind of species that they are” Boy – “oh I know” Teacher – “where” Boy “ at the beach or in the sand” Teacher – “you try it and see what happens”.

No take up time between question and instruction

166 Appendices

38.59 39.06 39.10

Teacher – “you think it means at the beach in the sand. Amphibians is that one (pointing), click on and see what happens. Hey that’s the wrong one, that’s the long distance runner. Click off that one. Will it come off, no. Boy – shakes head. Teacher – “ aahh, you’ve said that they are long distance runners. Let’s see what happens. “ Teacher reads, “you gave the wrong answer, try again. Do you need to try again” Boy – “yes” Teacher – “can you see where the word is at the top that might say ‘try again, there is two little words together.” Boy – “this one” tEacher – “yes, now this is the one that says fast runner, this is the one that says amphibian.” Boy cicks Teacher ‘what happened” Teacher reads, “you gave the wrong answer, try again.” Boy clicks on another button. Boy “I got it” Teacher – “ which one do you think it is gonna be, long distance migrants.’ Teacher – “congratulations.’ Boy –“oh yes” Teacher, “what do you suppose that means?” Harry – “good” Boy – “Well done” Teacher – “well done, I reackon it could.” Boy –“that was a hard game” TEAcher – “It is a hard game, do you want to try a different one” Boy “yes” Teacher – “um, search for the animal? That’s the top one ____boys

Seeking attention or trying to entice Tich to stay???

Appendices 167

39.40 40.02 40.23

name_____. What animal do we want to search for? Boy “um” Teacher “what’s an endangered animal?” Harry – “whales” Boy – “yeh I like whales” Teacher – “well ok, who’s going to type that word in? I’m not.” Harry stands up to commence typing. Harry sounds out the word whales. Boy notices a problem. Teacher – “what’s the problem?” Boy – “ he didn’t type in the box” Teacher – “youre right, he didn’t click on the box.” Harry commences sounding out with boys help. He typed in ‘w’ and then went to type in ‘a.’ Teacher suggests that there is something missing in between the ‘w’ and the ‘a’. Teacher says that it is tricky and that she will just tell them but before she had a chance, Harry calls out, ‘h’. tEacher then asked Harry how he knew that and Harry recalled ‘pooh’ as in Winnie the Pooh. They continue typing the letters and skipped over the ‘e’ in whales. They went straight to the ‘s’. The teacher suggests they see what happens when they type it. They get 0 search results. The teacher explains why there were no search results for the word ‘whals’. She explained that whales was spent incorrectly and asks the children if they would like to go back and we’ll do it again and I’ll help you. Boy instructs, “the top one, yeh that’s the one.” Boy “I think the why is not right.” Teacher “you are right. Search for animal Harry, Boy “now type whale again” Teacher – “ok”

tEAcher allows much more take up time when she questions the children

168 Appendices

40.58 – 41.48 41.54 42.00 42.06 – 42.27 42.27 42.31

Teacher’s attention around the room. Two boys work together to re-write whale. The boys get ‘whal’ and then they look to the teacher. Teacher – “and it needs an ‘e’ in it. You don’t hear it but it is in there.” Harry – ‘y?” Teacher – “ no that would be whaley” Teacher – “whales” Boy – “wrong” Teacher – “hang on, maybe it was a type of whale that you had to say. Harry – “blue whales” Teacher –“let’s go back again ----boys name___ we don’t have to get rid of the whales. If you use this little button here, click in the box, watch this.” Boy – “yeh I know that” Teacher – now you could type in blue Teacher informs another child (who approached) about the issue of searching for whales via google. tEacher exits A enters “So how do you think you might spell blue?” Harry – “well we’ve already done ‘b’ ‘l’ A – “what would be next? Blue” A – “it’s a really tricky one, I’ll have to help you. The ‘oo’ sound .... A tells the children – it is ue.. Its a tricky thing that you just have to remember. Find me the ‘e’. What do we have to put between, I wonder if blue whale is one word or two words?” Harry – “one word” A – “bluewhale” Boy – “two words”

No take up time here

Appendices 169

42.39 42.39 – 43.16 43.16 43.21 43.36

A –“ Two words, so what do we have to do. What do we need in between it?” Harry – “no we’ve already done whales.” A – “But I can see it looks like one word. Is it one word or two words?” Boy and Harry – “Two words” A –So how will the computer know it’s two words, cause what’s up there now.? There’s one word isn’t there. What do you need to put between the two?” Harry – “No there’s two, ooh a space.” A – “can you do that? Click on it gently. Now find the animal.” Boy – “that’s wrong” A – looking at another computer. “That’s wrong?” Harry – “yeh look it hasn’t come up there. It’s wrong. A –“what happened when you just put whale in?” Boy – “it odn’t come, it don’t come.” Harry exits A – “it didn’t come, what came?” A – “So go back, we’ll have another look. Just click on this one it says search for animals. Boy – “Yeh that’s what we clicked” A – “Did you try this animal game? Did we go to that or not?” Harry returns - “Yeh we’ve already done that one.” A – “what was it like?” Harry – “well, we’ve already finished it” A – “Ok, have you searched for an animal up here?” Boy – “we’ve already did that” A – “But if you want to search for the animals you might have to try again.”

Teacher allowed a number of seconds here for children to take up question, think etc Teacher encouraging risk taking and exploration...

170 Appendices

43.49 44.02 44.23 44.23- 44.56 45.03 45.11

Boy – “ what do I search for?” A – “well what happened when you just put in whale?” Harry and Boy “no” A –“no whale?” A – “Hump back whale? What happens when you type in hump back whale. Try the hump back whale.H U m p b. Harry – “lions” A – “ Lions – do you think lions are endangered?” Boy – “yes” A – “lots of animals are endangered, mostly because of the things that we do.” Boy – “what about polar bears?” A – “Polar bears, do you want to type in polar bear?” Harry “oh, whales, no no not whales, turtles.” A – “Do you want to type in turtles, that’s a very tricky word. How would you start turtles off?” Harry – “’t’” Boy – “You type them.” (A manipulates adjacent computer again) Harry has a go at spelling, ‘T, u, e’ Harry types, Boy looks around and announces, “not playing on the computer”. A - “who is not playing on the computer?” Boy – “NaTicha, she is gone.” A _”She’s gone off to do something else. What’s Harry written up there?” Harry – “Does that spell turtles?” A – “It doesn’t really but try it. I don’t think it is going to come up but try it, I could hear you sounding it out... t u r t l s z so you have to press the ‘find now button’.”

Appendices 171

45.40 46.01 46.13

A –“No it doesn’t recognise it, go back though, go back and we’ll type it in the right way.” A – Sometimes it helps us and sometimes it doesn’t. Can you just highlight that for me? Can you do that? Boy exits Boy returns Adult spells turtles one letter at a time for Harry to type in. A then instructs – “now press find animals.” Harry – “oh it hasn’t found either” A – “I think we’ll go back, go back here. This one is a funny site that is not giving us much. No do it back here (at screen).” Instructions from a as to how to get back. Boy – mentions something about getting off this computer. Harry finds a game on the computer and asks A about it. A informs – “It’s a pc game. It’s telling us about the game, I don’t think we can really play it. Can you go back and try another site.” A exits” Harry and Boy continue exploring having a few altercations about the computer.

Teaching modelling persistence

172 Appendices

46.50 46.56 47.12 47.23 47.33 47.42 48.00

A returns onto adjacent computer. Two boys continue experiementing. A returns to the interaction with the boys asking, “what did you do?” Before boys answered something happened on the computer that A was working on. She said “ah now this is where I was.” Harry – “ ----boys name----- click on that.” Boy looks over at adults computer and says, “that’s cool.” A –“it’s starting to look a bit cool isn’t it” a looks at researcher giggling. “I just don’t know how... Harry leaves computer to join a and asks if he can see... A says “we have to wait to see, it might be a game and if it is going to let us.” A – “ It’s a puzzle game. Have a look at the picture. This might be one of our endangered animals because this is from the wildlife conservation society – so they do have fun things – and if we click that button the puzzle pieces will get mixed up and then how do you think you’ll be able to get it back together.” Harry/ Boy keen to have a turn. Harry “you click it” A – “ok let’s see, do you want to click that to shuffle?” A – “Ok now how are we gunna do this?” Harry – “click in the corner”

Appendices 173

48.19 48.46 49.11

A – “Ok what if I try to get the same site on this computer and I can pick a different game out.” A – “ --- Boys name ----- you move to this chair” Boy talks to the computer as the screen was turned a little to the side, “hey naughty computer, you need to face my way.” A and Harry getting the second computer to the same website. Boy – “How can I do it?” A instructs, “Now you might have to drag them into the spot.” Boy leaves puzzle without doing it. A notices this and asks if he did the puzzle and why he didnt’. She then instructs him to click on the puzzle again. Boy commences doing the puzzle. Boy says, “I don’t want to play this game.” A –“ Let Harry have a turn.” Boy continues without giving the computer to Harry. A notices and says, “ Look Harry” Harry experiements with the page that they have visited. A stands up and asks, “How are you going with that puzzle? Are you clicking and dragging, are you looking for a side piece? Harry at Boy – “There’s a corner piece”(pointing a screen) A exits

174 Appendices

50.38 50.55 51.29

Boy looks over at Harry, “do you want to have a turn?” Boy repeats, “do you want to have a turn Harry?” Harry and Boy swap seats so that Harry can have a turn at the puzzle. Harry very focussed on computer. Boy asking questions and making statements about his own computer. “what is going on?” Harry not really entering into discussion. Boy tries to initiate interaction with Harry, “what are you playing?” Harry does not respond. Harry – “look at me, look at me, look what happened.” A noticed that Harry had a problem from other side of room. “what happened to our site, you closed it? What did you press to close it Harry, what do you think?” Boy ‘the ‘x’” A – “-----Boy’s name------- has just given you a clud, what do you think?” Boy – ‘x’ A conversation about x follows. And how else could Harry get back to the internet dominated by the adult. Harry found the game software that they use during technology lessons. The boys then discuss the different games and Harry asks if he can play the icecream game? A “no we are not going to play the maths games now as it is nearly tidy up time.

Boy didn’t answer question and no repair from adult who was typing on the adjacent computer.

Appendices 175

51.47 52.08 52.57 53.06 53.06

Boy tells Harry to “log off Harry, Harry log off it. You play some games when the teacher said no?” Boy “are you playing the ice cream game?” Boy then seems to navigate his own way to the ice cream game. Playing ice cream game. Harry not interactional.... Boy using commentary as he is experimenting with game. Turning it off. Boy helps Harry to log off. They both hop and leave.

176 Appendices

54.18 54.34 54.49 – 54.54 54.54

Appendices 177

55.12 55.20 55.42

Adult seems preoccupied trying to solve her own ict probs.

178 Appendices

56.29 56.33

Appendices 179

57.16 – 57.54

- 58.50 59.30 - 1.00.23

Explicit instruction from a as to how to do a normal puzzle choosing edge pieces etc. No take up time

180 Appendices

1.00.23 1.00.36 1.01.19

Appendices 181

1.01.40 1.02.00 1.02.22 1.02.50

182 Appendices

103.17 105.02 105.45 1.06.07 1.06.17

Appendices 183

1.07.25 1.07.42 1.07.56

184 Appendices

Data – DVD Kids Net (Food Chain Infinity) 15.11.07 Disk Number 5 and 6

Participants – G – Girl, B1 – boy at computer with G, B2 – boy at computer on his own

Timing Observation of data Interestings?

:32 2 computers – 3 children at log on screen

:38 B2 leans over to press something on G&B1 computer. B1 making gibberish sounds

:42 B1 holds arm of B2 up and pushes it away B2 “No” but stops

:48 G – “Stop or I will Tell”

:53 B1 continues typing random letters on log on screen G – “I’m getting up to tell”

Using “telling” as power broker Refer Maryanne’s telling tales info

:57 :58

G – stands up smiling B1 – “what are you going to tell her G – sits down and looks around

1:04 B2 – “what are you going to tell” B1 – “him” pointing at B2 B2 – “what no me no he started it” Conversation over who started it continues

1:24 Talking with other class members

1:34 ****Assistant enters****

Adult enters to ask how they are oging and whether they have logged on

When adult enters playfulness disappears and

Appendices 185

all children become quite focussed again

2:02 2:24

Adult scaffolds logging on process – “what do you type in at the computer room Instructs children to take turns Directs children – get rid of that B2 looks over to watch other screen

B

2:53 B1 consulted G to ask what letter came next. B1 accepts help from B2 who leant across him to press button

Is this because adult was present and is deemed socially appropriate?

3:05 A issues instructions about caring for mouse.

3:31 Children laugh and return to playfulness while waiting for the computer to load.

4:16 4:30

Discussion about how to access the internet with giggles. A “Do you know how to get onto the internet?” Children experiment pointing at different icons on desk top. A instructs how to go onto by explaining about E for internet explorer.

4:38 - 8:30 Explicit instructions from adult very direct _”Both of you I want you to follow what I’m saying.” And then futher instructions of how to get to ‘google’. Support – Try again Within 1 sec. adult placed hand over childs on mouse and manipulated. “l – a - gave children password to access EQ

186 Appendices

portal. A – spoke about upper and lowercase in password. A - B1 are you helping G?

8:30 9.09

At google web page? A – What were the questions we needed to ask the computer? A – just try it offering support G tries to spell what A – takes over Continues

9.43 B2 wants to type his own A informs b2 that he would get the same answer so why not work on 1 computer B2 said no A offers solutions by saying “ask it another question….. what do dolphins eat?

10.07 10.17 10.50 13.30

A working with G and B1 instructs, “go back to the top so we can see what they eat. We might need to get pen and paper. A reads question and answer while pointing at words B1 is told ‘no’ when he wanted to pick another …..and told you can do that later by a While B2 gets paper and pen, playfulness returns with humour about writing on hand. B 1 is spoken too about ‘silly behaviour’. A reads answer again after asking B1 about the answer and getting no response. During reading A highlights word that may be new – Detravires to ‘us’

Appendices 187

13.34 14.01

Discussion about what it might mean B2 offers theory - “A dead thing that eats crabs” B1 begins laughing and throwing head (putting his hands in his lap) back and is cautioned that if he wants to stay working at computers, he will need to do some listening B1 told to go and wash his hands with soap to clean them to continue working at computer

14.32

A –continues reading answer and interprets for the children. A asks B2 and G what they could remember. G – “I said small fish and it said that they eat small fish”

Looking to clarify own theories when finding out answers?

14.43 – ****Assistant leaves**** 15.29

A attention taken elsewhere B1 on Second computer – manipulates dial on top of mouse to move page up and down G on first computer waits for A to return

15.29 ****Assistant enters**** 15.43

A returns – asks “What did we find out they eat? G – small fish B2 and plants that go in the ocean A and planktten B2 and I know because hermit crabs eat those

15.49 16.24

B 1 returns from washing hands B2 recalls his knowledge about hermit crabs and discusses a game on the computer that helped him to ‘know this’ B1 asks, when are we going to be finished

188 Appendices

this? I want to leave it now

16.40 16.47

A instructs – go back to google and ask it another question B1 asks to leave and A says yes (B1 leaves) G asks what eats dolphins?

17.05 B2 computer 2 having difficulties going back (with arrows) to google. Asks A

17.22 A goes to computer 2 and points at screen to instruct B2 to type question in ‘this’ box (g looking on computer 2 while working on computer 1)

17.37 18.40

G waits for further instruction. A returns and instructs –“ you can type the same thing that I typed before” A types – what eats dolphins? A instructs G to press ok G questions OK? But A clarifies and says, “sorry search” A scans google results and then tells children that tells us what dolphins eat … oh here we go this one tells us who eats the dolphin? B2 offers ideas – “Other dolphins eat dolphins.”

Timing Observation of data Interestings?

19.11 As computer goes to site G asks’ what happened A answers question – “gone to another site”

19.18 B2 don’t know what to type now Twice A instructed B2 to wait and we’ll have a look

Appendices 189

together at this one (computer 1)

19:20 - A scans information and selected only some information to share with children Shares information as children make reference to pictures

22.45 Made reference to speed of some dolphins Sleeping dolphins They don’t drink water A – great information site about dolphin 23.19 – back here Sharks and killer whales eat dolphins – dolphin stay together to avoid danger If there is a whole lot work together

24.35 B2 talks about food chain

24.52 ****Assistant leaves****

A offers children to continue or play somewhere else. G opts to play else where B2 wants to work on the computer . A reminds him that we are just going to work on the internet and asks if there is something else he would like to look up?

25.01 ****Teacher enters*****

B2 What do whales eat? I want to know… We found out about …. (T enters) What eats whales?

26.34 26.54

T scaffolds – what could eat a whale? Is there anything in the ocean as big as a whale? B2 – no but a great white can bite it and kill it and eat it all up B3 enters and t includes B3 by explaining the

190 Appendices

27.15 28.29

current conversation – “B1 wants to know what could eat a whale” B3 – “nothing eats a whale” T - “I’ve just remembered something that does. It is not a sea creature. B3 Do we eat whales? T – yes but I don’t in some countries. They hunt and eat them. B2 sometimes they shoot them. T – what do you think about that? B2 and B3 – sad T – in what way B3 – the way they are wasted Imagine if someone went under the water to look at whales and there were no whales left and there were no sea creatures T – so if whales get taken and shot, how you said there would be none left. There would be a word for that wouldn’t there? B2 – drowning T can happen as part of the process. What do they call when there aren’t very many of the animals left? There in danger of being …. B3 end of them? T –yes if all of them disappear it is the end of them but remember we were talking about animals ….discussion continued.

29.31 T – what did you decide you wanted to look for? B2 – what eats a crocodile?

30.19 Discussion around new question

T - Delegated b3 to start

31.32 B3 actually a button you can press which you T – asks plenty

Appendices 191

can type different words T – How….. looking to do some backspacing

of open ended questions. Children to pose solutions and possible ideas.

32.25 36.03 37.15 – 38.55 39.11 40.11 41.14 41.30

B3 asked t – what do those words say? T read “ What do dolphins eat?” B3 says We want to ask what to tadpoles eat? T supports b3 to sound out word tadpole (tadplz) T what are you going to do with the words you don’t need? B3 deleted words T –scaffolded next step? Focussed on Did you mean…..? B3 clicked on did you mean tadpoles? T reads google search return T – which one do you think? B3 clicks on. Search for word tadpole in loaded text. Then identified other familiar words to B2 and B3. T – reads information and helps to deconstruct some of the unfamiliar words T – what do you think that means? Further discussion B3 experiements with navigating side menu. T – follows and offers to read other links Investigate speed of crocs. T – reads

192 Appendices

42:35 43.35\Discussion about time recording how fast etc. not on computer though 45:57 46:33 46:53

B3 – I could run 20 km per hour T ????? T – That gives me an idea for a really good investigation T – How could we measure that do you think? B2 talks about a speed gun T – what’s another way, we don’t have a speed gun? B2 – buy one T – B3 what do you think? B2 put a piece of paper down and see how fast and then T suggests we go back to google to research speed cameras. B2 suggests to B3 going back and offers advice as to how to get back to google. (This may have been learnt from previous episode with B1 and a) B3 with different screen asks, How do I get mine off? T – you could ask a question here (pointing to box) giving question “What is a speed gun?” B2 suggests question “How does a speed gun work?”

Appendices 193

47.03 47.15 48.03 50.09 50.55 52.29 53.26 54.14 55.11 57.15

T – great question, you’ll need to get rid of what…. How do you think you’ll write ‘how’ B2 sounds out how – and offers first sound ‘h’ then breaks ow sound up and suggests ‘ a’ T – no ….ow B2 – HOW? Types into the computer. Verbalises next work needed does…. ‘d’ T – “Ethan does is a word that doesn’t’ look like it sounds. I’ll give you that one…..’ does’ B2 and B3 working on two computers typing same question. B3 ‘had a go’ at typing does and did so. B2 continued sounding out ‘speed’ and did so with scaffolding support from t. read out question so far… “how does a speed B2 got stuck sounding out gun and t asked B3 for ideas. Scaffolding followed by t and when B3 answered ‘u’ for the middle sound of ‘gun’, t asked How did you know that? B3 recalled prior learning and alphabet chart. B2 then spells speed out to B3 to help him type onto his computer. T scaffolds extra word ‘is’ in B3. Continues scaffold with word ‘work’. B3 changes question How many zeros does infinity have B2 continues exploration but comes to a dead end with question as the google results have centred around the word ‘gun’ B2 suggests altering question because they didn’t get the answer to “How does a speed

194 Appendices

58.04 58.18 59.03 - 1.01.03 ****Teacher leaves**** 1.02.58 1.03.50 ***Assistant enters*** 1.04.04 1.05.58

gun work?” T suggests B2 draws a speed gun while she helps B3 with infinity question. Teacher reads googles interpretation of infinity question. How many rooz does ssss have? T explains – this is not really the question you were saying. T explains some of the words are not spelt the way B3 spelt them. She then corrects the spelling allowing B3 to make the alterations. T leaves to help others and suggests B3 continue the google search and let her know. B 3 Views google results pointing at screen Looks around room, “Look at this” when other children walk past. Looking at numbers. “Look at these huge numbers.” B3 left computer. B3 returned with a. A interprets google results. Discussion about years (and birthdates in comparison to ages)follows. A suggests follow this one. Dr maths A looks at answers. And concludes…. It didn’t tell us any answers B3 remembers prior experience of just adding

Seemed like B3 wanted another child to work with to take risks…. Tried to make connections by showing others walking past the computer screen.

Appendices 195

1.07.30 1.07.44 1.07.59 1.08.30 1.09.08 1.10.00 1.11.02 1.13.14 1.13.27 1.14.032

000000 to 1 at the front. A instructs B3 to “go back here to find a better answer” A peruses google answers and reads out headings B3 mimicks her reading and looks closer to the screen. A finds a google response that may answer B3 question re infinity (B3 in control of mouse) A offers provocation re – why we used 0 in infinity - comparison between 0 and 9. A and B3 use second computer to compare numbers. B3 offers theory about you can’t have a bigger number than infinity B4 enters and asks “what is that?” A responds, “we are trying to find infinity?” A instructs – can you go back to google page and points to the screen to show child A checks other search results and concludes B3 (Harry) I don’t know whether it is going to give us a real answer. (pressing and repeating 9’s over the whole page. Continued discussion using 9’s or 0 and which would make a bigger number.

196 Appendices

1.14.54 1.15.19 1.15.25 1.16.13 1.16.19

A – I don’t know that we’re going to find out how many zeros do you? A – I’m not sure how you’re going to find out ( B3 What comes after infinity? (A suggested infinity and 1. B3 “I think if it says nothing you’d be wrong and if it says infinity and one you’d be right.” A – we can stop now, we are going over to sit with Susie. B3 stops and goes to sit on the carpet with remainder of class. In whole class discussion, teacher prompts children to recall what they found out about crabs

I think the child is reformulating his question for google here

Appendix B

Initial Observations of Two Extracts

Initial notes re Assistant and Teacher interactions

Extract 20a _- Penny (Assistant)

Conversation moved quickly

Types of questions asked were product elicitations, known answer questions or questions

that implied procedural instructions.

Children responded with short answers to product elicitations or to YNI

Children didn’t respond to questions that implied procedural instructions

The teacher aide shaped the conversation and began reading from the results page after

being interrupted without actually answering the question that she had proposed. “what’s a

detrivore”

There were a limited number of pauses between turns and they were only short when there

was a pause.

IRE infrequently used

Made links to prior knowledge – not sure if this was expected knowledge or learning that the

class had focused on.

Extract 23 – Susie (Teacher)

Teacher didn’t seem to select speaker roles as much as Penny (the process seemed much

more casual with participants self selecting the speakers role more often than not)

Teacher actually co-constructed with the participants the answer to the question

Allowed for additional discussion and in fact prompted it by using different strategies to

encourage children to elaborate eg: mmm, ye::s, leaving large pauses, drew another child

into the discussion by asking him Ethan’s question, repeating responses with a questioning

tone (rising intonation)

Susie stopped speaking when there was an overlap allowing the child to continue even

though the overlap occurred after Susie commenced her turn (according to turntaking rules,

the person who speaks first when there is an overlap has the right to continue)

Types of questions varied including YNI, what could (doesn’t actually imply that he needs to

have a correct answer but asks opinion?special type of product elicitation??? ), repeating

responses with a questioning tone (rising intonation, ) process elicitation line 83 what do

you think about that and meta process??? In line 88 in what way.

Elaborated on her own responses after a pause (see line 72)

Used formulation line 103

Used ‘oral clozes’ as a way of encouraging children to answer

IRE was infrequently used (only used when drawing the sequence to a close)

Made links to prior learning done in class explicitly line 128

198 Appendices

Appendix C

Conversation Analysis Transcription Notation – Gail Jefferson

The following transcription notation symbols, developed by Gail Jefferson will be used to

transcribe the data.

( ) word(s) spoken but not audible

(play) transcriber’s best guess for talk

‘hello’ volume of talk is much quieter than surrounding talk

Jump emphasis or increased volume

JUMP greater emphasis and loud

[ two speakers’ turns overlap at this point

[[ multiple speakers’ turns overlap

(( )) transcriber’s description of the talk-in-interaction

Sto:op sound extended – multiple colons display a longer sound

(.) paused time in micro tenths of a second

(2.0) paused time in seconds

↑Really the arrow shows an intonation spike

= indicates a latched response running on from a previous response

<...> spoken slowly

>...< spoken quickly

Punctuation marks describe characteristics of speech production. They do not refer to

conventions of grammar.

but- a dash represents an abrupt cut-off of the prior word

cat. a full stop indicates a fall in tone

now? a question mark indicates a sharp rise in tone

now¿ an upside down question mark indicates a slight rise in tone

stop! an exclamation mark indicates an animated tone

hi::: the colon shows elongation of the sound

NB - For the purposes of this study, reading from the screen needed to be represented in the

transcript and is represented as follows:

Text in italics text in italics represents members reading from the computer screen

Appendix D

University Human Ethics Committee Approval

200 Appendices

Appendix E Information and Consent Forms

1. Principal

2. Teaching staff

3. Parent Information

4. Child Information

202 Appendices

204 Appendices

206 Appendices

208 Appendices

210 Appendices

212 Appendices

214 Appendices