Working Paper: From Difference to Disadvantage: Talking Posh

From Difference to Disadvantage: 'Talking Posh'

sociolinguistic perspectives on the context of schooling in Ireland

Dr Áine Cregan

Combat Poverty Agency

Working Paper Series 07/03 ISBN: 978-1-905-48545-1

June 2008

From Difference to Disadvantage Aine Cregan

From Difference to Disadvantage ‘Talking Posh’

Sociolinguistic Perspectives on the Context of

Schooling in Ireland

From Difference to Disadvantage Á. Cregan

2

Talk is the sea upon which

all else floats (Britton, 1970)


3

Acknowledgements

This report could not have been completed without the co-operation of the four

schools in which the study was undertaken. Sincerest gratitude to the principals,

teachers, staff and children, who welcomed me into their schools and facilitated the

research in every way possible. I would like to acknowledge also the support of both

the Centre for Educational Disadvantage Research, and management in Mary

Immaculate College, University of Limerick during this research process.

Áine Cregan

May, 2007

Disclaimer This Working Paper was funded by the Combat Poverty Agency under its Poverty Research Initiative. The views, opinions, findings, conclusions and/or recommendations expressed here are strictly those of the author(s). They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Combat Poverty Agency which takes no responsibility for any errors or omissions in, or for the accuracy of, the information contained in this Working Paper. It is presented to inform and stimulate wider debate among the policy community and among academics and practitioners in the field.


4

Contents

Abstract ……………………………………………………………………….. p. 5

Introduction ……………………………………………………………………..p. 7

Chapter One: Language Variation …………………………………………...p. 9

Chapter Two: Design of Study ………………………………………………..p. 36

Chapter Three: Findings – Profile of Schools ……………………………….p. 52

Chapter Four: Findings – Data Analysis ……………………………………..p. 67

Chapter Five: Conclusions and Recommendations ……………………… p. 175

References

Appendices A to J


5

ABSTRACT

Recent reports in Ireland present stark findings of serious underachievement in

literacy among children from disadvantaged backgrounds (Eivers et al. 2004; DES,

2005). This research explores whether variation in patterns of language use may

contribute to educational disadvantage.

Success in school is associated with facility in ‘literate’ style patterns of language use

(e.g. ability to adopt an impersonal and expert stance, use explicit vocabulary and

present ideas coherently, Watson, 2002). The ability to use these patterns of

language expected in school is related to membership of social class (Schleppegrell,

2004). Children from ‘working-class’ backgrounds, unlike their ‘middle-class’

counterparts, often experience a ‘discontinuity’ between patterns of language use at

home, and school expectations for language use (Edwards, 1997). Children from

middle-class backgrounds are enabled to engage in ‘synchronous interaction with the

teacher’ (Schleppegrell, 2001, p.433), thus enhancing their academic development.

Conversely, children from working-class backgrounds are sometimes evaluated by

teachers as being deficient because of their language variety, and may underachieve

in school (e.g. MacRuairc, 1997; Vernon-Feagans, 1996; Wolfram et al., 1999).

Using designated disadvantaged schools, this study explores the link between social

class, facility in ‘literate’ style language, and children’s literacy development. The

purpose of the study, uniquely investigating this question in the context of schools,

pupils and teachers in Ireland, is to:

investigate the prevalence of language variation by analysing the density of

‘literate’ style features in children’s oral language when engaged in school

talking tasks (e.g. narratives, definitions)

develop insights into awareness of language variation among children and

teachers

examine implications of the findings for academic and literacy success.

A case study of four schools (three designated as disadvantaged and one in a

middle-class setting) was undertaken. This generated a portfolio of oral language


6

proficiency for 46 children (aged 5-13 years) for analysis, and used focus groups to

explore awareness of language variation among children and teachers.

Findings indicate less frequent use of ‘literate’ style in children’s patterns of oral

language in disadvantaged schools in Ireland, low levels of literacy skills for many of

these children, and an acute awareness by children of the different patterns of

language use valued by school. The research highlights the need to raise teachers’

awareness of language variation and its implications for academic and literacy

success. It recommends that in relation to language variation difference need not

necessarily mean disadvantage.


7

INTRODUCTION

In language there are only differences (Ferdinand de Saussure)

The term language variation represents the fact that language is not uniform

(Wolfram et al., 1999). A close study of language quickly reveals that within any

language there is very considerable internal variation, and that as human beings we

exploit the many different possibilities offered to us within a language. No one speaks

in exactly the same way all the time. Our language use is remarkably varied. This

fundamentally reflects the fact that language is not simply an abstract construct but

something that real people use for real purposes in the real business of life. As a

consequence, language variation reflects differences in patterns of behaviour among

people.

There are constraints on variation, of course. For purposes of communication,

variation has limits. Patterns of language variation occur in accent – pronunciation of

words (dis/this; goin/going), vocabulary items (jumper, chemist, boot in Ireland

compared with sweater, drugstore, trunk in America), and grammatical patterns (two

year ago/two years ago; he didn’t do nothing/he didn’t do anything; she asked me

could she go/she asked me if she could go). There is also variation in patterns of

language use in social interaction. For example, in some speech communities

speakers overlap each other’s talk enthusiastically, whereas in others one speaker

will stop talking when another begins; one group may feel it appropriate to ask

questions openly about what may be considered personal or private matters by

another. Differences in language use are evident also in different settings, such as

the home, the community, and the school.

Language varies typically where people are either physically or socially separated.

Differences in language among groups of people (referred to as dialects) occur

predominantly on the basis of physical, social or cultural differences, or a

combination of these. The two most common forms of language difference are

regional and social. Regional language differences are manifest among people who


8

live in different settings, and social language differences occur between groups of

people who differ in status, with age or gender distinctions evident also.

This study is concerned with social language variation and its impact on the

education of children.

The report begins with a discussion of some of the issues of concern around the

question of social language variation and the school experience of children, setting a

theoretical framework and a rationale for the study undertaken. The design of the

study, outlining and justifying the data-gathering process is presented next. Findings

from the data generated by the study follow. Finally the report documents a summary

of findings, and the implications of these for the education of children in our schools.

The report concludes with some recommendations for educators, based on the

findings of the study.


9

Language Variation


10

Language Variation

The impact of language variation on the lives and experiences of people has already

been the subject of much research. This opening section explores findings and

questions raised by such research in relation to language variation as it interfaces

with the educational experiences of children. The ‘vast mosaic’ (Kantrowitz, 2000,

p.4) of diversity currently presenting in schools worldwide makes it opportune for

educators to consider how language variation (one source of diversity) and education

interact so that each child benefits to the maximum from his/her school experience.

The concept of language variation will be considered first, followed by an exploration

of the language demands of the institution of school on children, and the particular

language challenges of becoming literate.

‘Correctness’

… the way people speak, the way they think they should speak, and the way they think other people should speak regularly differ (Spolsky, 2004, p.217).

‘Corrrectness’ of language use is a concept that developed with the advent of literate

societies. While pre-literate societies admired a ‘good speaker’ as one who could

speak persuasively in public, the notion of ‘correct’ speech was not evident. With the

advent of printing and education, however, the notion of ‘correctness’ became

increasingly important, with dictionary and grammar book writers describing and

defining what they considered to be ‘standard’ or ‘correct’ usage of language and to

prescribe these standards as required (Spolsky, 1998). The dominant prevailing view

until a few decades ago was that all native speakers of a language are competent

speakers, and that one nation meant more or less one language, with mother tongue

education and standard language education assumed to be broadly equivalent

(Ongstad, 2003). However, the field of sociolinguistics identified that variation exists

among speakers of a language. Correctness in relation to language variety is a

judgement made, usually on the basis of social, as distinct from linguistic,

acceptability (Wolfram et al., 1999) – “when it comes to ways of saying things that


11

are not shared by all speakers of English … the notion of correct becomes … elusive

and, at the same time, controversial” (ibid., p.11).

Language and Social Class

Language variation can be associated with social class – ‘A whole body of

sociolinguistic research confirms that dialectal variation occurs according to a range

of largely socially constructed parameters’ (Carter, 1995, p.158), and ‘a social class

model based on conflict division and inequality best accounts for many of the

patterns of language variation uncovered by…sociologists’ (Milroy and Milroy, 1992,

p.3). The field of sociolinguistics has shown ‘systematic correlations between

variations in linguistic form (phonological, morphological, syntactic) and social

variables – the social strata to which speakers belong, social relationships between

participants in linguistic interactions …’ (Fairclough, 2001, p.6).

Learning to talk is an integral part of growing up for every child. Because using

language is the most common form of social behaviour (Fairclough, 2001, p.2),

linguistic competence is developed through use in social situations. Children learn

the language of those around them and within that language the child learns a

particular language variety which is linked to the speech community and embedded

in knowledge of how to engage in communicative practice (Eckert and McConnell-

Ginet, 2003). Ongstad (2003, p.78) reports the existence currently of over 6,000

spoken languages in the world, with approximately 140 standardised languages,

clearly signalling the extent of linguistic variation which prevails.

The value ascribed to certain patterns of language variation is closely aligned with

the social status of people. Standardised forms of language consist of a formal

variety derived in the main from the written form, and an informal variety, derived

from a composite of the spoken variety of professionals and others in the educated

middle-class. Such standardised forms are referred to as Standard English and have

gradually become the accepted norm for the oral variety of language. They have

been accorded prestige, and have been prescribed as the ‘correct’ form, vested with

high value, power and authority – ‘Standard English is a collection of the socially

preferred dialects from various parts of the United States and other English-speaking

countries’ (Wolfram et al., 1999, p.17). The standard form of language has been

appropriated by the upper- and middle-classes, bringing into existence by default


12

‘non-standard’ varieties of spoken languages and dialects which by implication have

become tacitly devalued.

Evaluation of Language Varieties

Countering the prevailing view that ‘non-standard’ varieties of language are inferior,

Labov (1966) demonstrated that they are highly structured and complex systems,

and not accumulations of errors caused by failure of the speakers to master Standard

English. Since the 1960s, researchers in the field of variationist sociolinguistics have

argued the inherent equality of the varieties of any language and that no variety can

be considered superior to another in terms of its structure (e.g. Baratz and Shuy,

1969; Bortoni-Ricardo, 1997; Wardhaugh, 2006). Gee (2002) articulates this point

cogently when he declares:

Barring quite serious disorders, all human children acquire the full core grammar of their native language. It just does not happen that Susie, a rich child, ends up having relative clauses in her grammar and Alice, a poor child, does not. Furthermore, although there are individual differences and dialect differences, from the point of view of core grammar, these are irrelevant. Every speaker/hearer of … English, regardless of dialect, has control of an equally complex and rule-governed grammar (p.32). (emphasis added)

Despite these findings over a number of decades, however, speakers of ‘non-

standard’ varieties of language continue to be negatively evaluated and judgements

made about them based on features of vocabulary, syntax, accent and style – ‘what

is acceptable according to the standards of the dominant group in society is

considered correct; what is not acceptable to them will be looked on as incorrect’

(Wolfram et al., 1999, p.12).

Language and Power

There are some forces within society which are stronger than others, the influences

of which produce real effects, including linguistic effects, that have consequences for

the lives of ordinary people (Wardhaugh, 2006, p. 6). Increasingly it is the case that

‘language has become perhaps the primary medium of social control and power’


13

(Fairclough, 2001, p.2). The construction of hierarchies between languages and

language varieties based on social differences was highlighted in the seminal work of

Bourdieu (1991) – ‘One must not forget that the relations of communication par

excellence – linguistic exchanges – are also relations of symbolic power in which the

power relations between speakers or their respective groups are actualized’ (p.37).

Bourdieu argues that the standard variety of the official national language becomes

the dominant language which is used as an instrument of power and functions as

‘cultural capital’. A strong theme in his work has been ‘the power of words to order

and command the world while concealing the material interests of those dominant

groups whose forms of spoken and written language have been made to count’

(Edwards, 1997, p.70).

Referring to how language is used in the give and take of social interaction as the

linguistic marketplace, Bourdieu (1991) highlights that language uses have symbolic

value – some uses of language are highly valued while others are not. Part of a

speaker’s linguistic competence is the capacity to know this and to produce

utterances that are valued in particular contexts. According to Bourdieu this

competence – linguistic capital – is unequally distributed among people from different

strata of society. The greater a speaker’s possession of linguistic capital, the more

that speaker can exploit the system of differences in linguistic terms to his/her

advantage. Equally, the less linguistic capital a speaker possesses, the greater

his/her disadvantage. Standard language use in English is more highly valued than

non-standard varieties – ‘high language forms are valued highly in diglossic

situations and low language forms are valued not at all’ (Wardhaugh, 2006, p.205).

Establishing a standard variety of language is a function of nation building (Ongstad,

2003) and is inevitably associated with institutions and with the global economy.

When the local meets the global a power struggle and conflict of interests ensues, an

opposition which is linked with socioeconomic class (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet,

2003). These researchers conclude:

While members of professional and elite classes are engaged in globalizsing institutions (e.g. education, non-local government, corporations), the lives of laborers, tradespeople, small business people, etc. are embedded in local communities. While the local language represents membership and loyalty to a local community, and to the practices and relationships that make up life in that community, the standard language represents


14

disengagement from the local (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet, 2003, p.276). (emphasis added)

The existence of language variety is inextricably bound up in issues of power, status

and equality. These issues associated with language variety come into sharp focus

when interacting with institutions of state. The school is an institution of state where

people who speak local dialects may be induced ‘to collaborate in the destruction of

their instruments of expression’ (Bourdieu, 1991, p.49). The education system has

been accused of being based on and committed to perpetuating inequality through

failure to recognize linguistic difference (MacRuairc, 1997).

Language and School

In terms of how languages are organised, no variety of a language is inherently better than another. No speakers have a disadvantage in their fundamental ability to function cognitively and expressively as a result of the variety of language that they acquire (Wolfram et al., 1999, p.19).

Discontinuity

School is an institution of the state which functions through the medium of standard

language and considers the teaching of the standard language to all as one of its first

and most fundamental tasks. For some children, this task may be complicated by the

fact that the spoken language of the home may not necessarily be the standard

language of the school (e.g. Schleppegrell, 2001, 2004; Spolsky, 1998; Vernon-

Feagans, 1996; Wolfram et al., 1999). A mismatch occurs for these children when

attempting to access the education system, sometimes explained in terms of ‘the

concept of discontinuity’ (Edwards, 1997; INTO, 1994; MacRuairc, 1997) where ‘the

culture of the school, predicated on middle class language style and behavioural

norms, makes it appear an inhospitable place’ (INTO, 1994, p.29).

Schleppegrell (2001) concurs, asserting that the discontinuities experienced by

speakers of non-standard varieties of language when engaged with the language


15

demands of the school system are significant. In a more recent publication she

develops this point:

Some children’s ways of making meaning with language enable them to readily respond to the school’s expectations, but the ways of using language of other students do not… many children lack experience in making the kinds of meanings that are expected at school, or with the kinds of written texts and spoken interaction that prepare some children for school-based language tasks. This lack of experience makes it difficult for these students to learn and to demonstrate their learning (Schleppegrell, 2004, pp21-22).

Not only is the research unequivocal in relation to the discontinuity experienced by

some children when attempting to access the school system due to a mismatch in

terms of language experience, but it is also clear from research that the language of

these children is judged negatively, and sometimes their cognitive abilities are

misjudged on the basis of their language variety, leading to feelings of inadequacy

and failure to achieve their potential. Research conducted in an Irish context by

MacRuairc (1997) strongly supports this view, highlighting that:

The school manages the linguistic norm by imposing the socially recognized criteria of linguistic correctness. The degree of harmony between the language variety valued by the school and the language variety of the child is central at this point. Children from dominant classes find education intelligible. A feeling of marginality develops among those whose culture and language variety are not in accordance with that of the dominant group (MacRuairc, 1997, p.70).

Sociolinguistic research which has focused on the language variety of minority

children and on differences in language use between home and school (notably

introduced by the research of Cazden, John and Hymes, 1972 and since then), has

identified schools as significant social institutions and classrooms as sites where

power and control of access are mediated through discursive practices (Pontecorvo,

1997). This research took a great interest from the outset in looking at cultural

differences in the school context on the premise that school as a social context

requires socialisation to its particular modus operandi.

The work of researchers such as Heath (1983), Duranti and Ochs (1986) and

Cazden (1988) concluded that the special register of classroom talk is very close to

what the Western-style caregivers use with young children during play, problem-


16

solving and book-reading activities. For this reason, it has been called the ‘hidden

curriculum’ (Cazden, 1988) because it consists of discourse which is expected but

not explicitly taught at school, since most middle-class children have been familiar

with it from the very first years of their life. It explains the ‘communication difficulties

between teachers and children coming from different social and linguistic

backgrounds’ (Pontecorvo, 1997, p.172).


17

Linguistic Variety and Educational Attainment We know that children’s differences in language ability, more than any other observable factor, affect their potential for success in schooling… that language is the central achievement necessary for success in schooling (Corson, 1985, p.1).

The link between a child’s language variety and his/her educational achievement has

been the subject of much research in the decades since the 1960s. High rates of

underachievement among ‘working-class’ children, in particular in relation to literacy

development, have been, and continue to be, a matter of serious concern for

educators. ‘Educational failure results from a mismatch between children’s language

and experience and the language and experience demanded by schools’ (Stubbs,

1980, p.143). Despite an awareness of this over a number of decades, the problem

prevails and to date there has been no clear solution identified which makes a

significant difference. Writing in 1999, Wolfram et al. express frustration at the

continuing situation:

The realities of the social situation … cannot be denied. Members of some cultural and linguistic groups are at a disadvantage because of their less favored or stigmatized status in society. They are viewed as deficient in certain areas by members of the social groups that have more power and authority in our society’s institutions and systems – education, government, health care, employment, and so on. Members of the powerful groups often believe that members of the stigmatized groups must change in order to be accepted. Success in school for children from these disenfranchised groups, for example, may depend on their changing aspects of their language and language use, and adapting to school norms – which are generally more like the norms of the powerful groups than those of the stigmatized groups. For members of a mainstream, powerful group, no change or adaptation is necessary. In this sense, children from some groups may be at risk for school failure although they are not intrinsically disadvantaged (Wolfram et al., 1999, p.19). (emphasis added)

The children characterised as disadvantaged and at risk of failure have been

variously referred to in the literature as: children from low-income families, culturally

deprived, culturally different, urban disadvantaged, inner-city children, children at

risk, children from low SES backgrounds, working-class/lower-class children, or

children with educationally disadvantaged parents. Essentially what all of these

children have in common is a background where parent(s) are


18

unemployed/uneducated, there is poverty/instability in the home, and cultural or

racial differences may be compounding the problem.

The linguistic skills of such children were seen in the first instance to be deficient

(Deficit Theory, e.g. Jensen, 1969) and reflective of an underlying cognitive

deficiency which impeded learning. This view was replaced by a Deprivation Theory

(e.g. Bereiter and Engelmann, 1966) which argued that such children were starved of

stimulation in the home and exposed to a poor linguistic model which resulted in an

inferior ability to express and communicate using language, thus resulting in massive

failure in the school system.

The social codes proposed by Basil Bernstein (1966; 1971) argued that the modes of

socialisation experienced in the home determined the form of language used, which

in turn impacted on school performance. Thus, homes where social control was

realised with little verbal detail were characterised as using ‘restricted’ codes. The

language of children using restricted codes was thought to be restricted in terms of

vocabulary, structure and style; to be context bound and particularistic; to assume

shared meaning inappropriately; and to lack explicitness beyond the context being

represented. Homes where social control was based on linguistically elaborated

meanings were characterised as using ‘elaborated’ codes. The language of

‘elaborated’ code was described as being explicit, universalistic, context-free and

comprehensible without inappropriate assumptions of shared understandings and

knowledge. Bernstein argued that an orientation to use elaborated codes was a

necessary prerequisite for educational achievement.

Theories such as these led to responses such as the Compensatory Approach to

language development being implemented in schools. This approach focused on

empowering the school to intervene in the life of the child in such a way that the

perceived deficits/deprivations experienced by the child could be redressed.

Led by the seminal work of Labov (1969; 1972) referring to the ‘myth of verbal

deprivation’ which ‘diverts attention from real defects of our education system to

imaginary defects of the child’ (1969, pp1-44), the modern consensus in relation to

the language of these children is that it is different – not inferior, not deficient, not

deprived and not restricted (e.g. Feagans and Farren, 1982; McGinness, 1982;

Schleppegrell, 2004; Snow et al., 1991; Tizard et al., 1988; Tough, 1982; Vernon-


19

Feagans, 1996; Wells, 1985; Wolfram et al., 1999). It is now generally accepted that

culturally and linguistically different children are not non-verbal, do not lack

experiences and are not culturally disadvantaged. They have language but it is not

standard, middle-class English. They come to school with perhaps as many

experiences as other children but not the experiences that appear to be critical in

achieving academic success. For them the major difficulty is learning how to handle

the scholastic demands of the dominant culture that is significantly different in many

respects from their own. Edwards (1997) argues that:

The effect of standardization is to legitimate the norms of formal registers rather than those of everyday language. Since working-class people have less experience of those formal registers, there is a greater distance between their language and that normally thought appropriate for schooling. They are then disadvantaged by a tendency to denigrate varieties of spoken language which depart markedly from the standard dialect even when these present few difficulties of mutual comprehensibility across social boundaries (p.69).

Thus he argues that what are in effect differences in terms of language variety lead

to disadvantage for these children in relation to accessing the education system,

resulting in underachievement. This is brought about essentially by the use of

monocultural schooling in multi-cultural societies (Edwards, 1997, p.71). Vernon-

Feagans et al. (2002) characterise the current situation in terms of a ‘poor fit’ (p.193),

which is for many of the children created by the schools and the larger society.

Where the results of research in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s led to the

establishment of such approaches as the Compensatory Approach to intervention in

schooling – attempting to have the school compensate for the perceived deficiencies

in the child and the home – the focus now is on the need for the institution of the

school to acknowledge and take responsibility for the different language varieties and

to ensure equality of access for all children. The main problem, ‘is not language

difference but institutional racism’ (Bortoni-Ricardo, 1997, p.64).

This view is echoed in the work of Lynch (1999) who talks of equality as respect for

difference and calls for equal respect to be shown to all groups and individuals within

the education system, requiring:

that the culture, lifestyle and values of minority and other groups are given full and equal recognition within a given education system and that systems for equalizing the distribution of power are also


20

introduced. The issue of equality is not just about getting working-class or other marginalized groups and individuals ‘in and out of the system’ successfully; it is about changing the nature of education itself in both its organization and its curricular substance (1999, pp302-3). (emphasis added)

What research has clearly articulated then can be summed up as follows:

There is a difference between the language variety of working-class children

and that of middle-class children

The language variety of middle-class children appears to match the language

variety used by the school system

Working-class children do not achieve academically as well as middle-class

children

This educational failure is linked critically with patterns of language use.

Given these findings, it is appropriate to focus on the question of the particular

language demands made of children in the school context, in an attempt to uncover

specifically where the source of difficulty in relation to language use in school may lie.

Language Demands of the School

The ability to operate institutionally… is something that has to be learnt; it does not follow automatically from the acquisition of the grammar and vocabulary of the mother tongue (Halliday, 1973, p.11).

Research findings are unequivocal in establishing that there is a difference between

the language of the home and the linguistic knowledge demanded by the school.

Evidence also points clearly to the link between this difference in language variety

and social class, indicating that the language demands of the school much more

closely approximate standard language use, the variety most familiar to middle-class

children. It has been identified that negative evaluations of children in relation to both

cognitive and linguistic ability are made on the basis of their language variety and

that children from some sectors of society fail to achieve at the same levels as other

children. This section looks at research that attempts to analyse the precise nature of

the difference in language use by children from different backgrounds and to outline

the particular challenges of the school system in terms of language for some children


21

which may militate against them when striving to reach their potential within that

system.

There are language challenges for all children when interacting in the school context

and these challenges are in place from the very earliest days of a child’s schooling.

Schooling is a context in which the kinds of meanings that are made are quite different from the meanings made in more informal contexts of everyday life (Schleppegrell, 2004, p.22).

In the school context children are required to engage in new and different kinds of

tasks, involving language use for new and different purposes, and interacting with

different types of audiences (e.g. Bearne et al., 2003). Expectations in relation to

language use in school are such that children are required to present information that

is structured in conventional ways (Schleppegrell, 2001). Teachers have

expectations in relation to typical speech events in school such as describing objects,

or ‘sharing time’ (news time), that objects will be named and described even when

these objects are plainly to be seen, that children’s talk will be explicit in terms of

time, space and location, that minimal shared background knowledge will be

assumed on the part of the child and that specific vocabulary, expanded

appropriately, will be used (e.g. Michaels and Collins, 1984, p.223).

A range of different language tasks typical of school interaction have been explored,

including, for example, sharing time narratives (Michaels and Collins, 1984), narrative

recounts (Heath, 1983), descriptions (Schleppegrell, 1998), definitions (Snow, 1990)

among others. Reviewing the findings of this research clarifies that school-based

language tasks share many common features which typically occur in the language

of school tasks but are less likely to occur in more informal uses of language.

Because language use in the classroom involves the sharing of ideas and knowledge

rather than the sharing of more personal experiences, activities and relationships, it

differs from language use in other situations (Schleppegrell, 2004, p.24). The

academic style of language expected in the classroom context is one that involves:

authoritative presentation of ideas

using apt vocabulary and

complex grammatical structures which are

expanded appropriately

with a high degree of organization


22

are high in new information and

adopt an impersonal stance with regard to both the speaker and listener (e.g.

Schleppegrell, 2001, 2004; Snow et al.,1989; Michaels, 1981; Halliday and

Hasan, 1989).

This style of language use has been referred to as a ‘literate style’ (Gumperz et al.,

1984) or as ‘academic language’ (Schleppegrell, 2004, p.25) and is characterised by

a high degree of condensation of information and relative abstractness of

presentation. The particular genre of language used for the purpose of teaching and

learning contrasts with talk used in interpersonal communication. It is described by

Wolfram et al. (1999, p.127) as less elliptical, less dependent on the surrounding talk

and other contextual factors. In academic talk meaning usually is made explicit

through words.

This genre of language may also serve different functions such as the display of

information in answering questions. Wolfram et al. (!999, p.127) conclude that ‘Some

explicit instruction about academic language conventions may be necessary,

especially in the early years and especially for children from non-mainstream

backgrounds’. Academic style of language more closely approximates written

language in style because:

It is the purpose of the text that most influences grammatical and lexical choices. School-based genres typically structure information so that it can be presented efficiently and arguments can be hierarchically constructed for a non-interacting audience. This is reflected in the grammatical features that typically occur in these genres, whether spoken or written (Schleppegrell, 2001, p.435). (emphasis added)

These features of language are expected from the earliest encounters of children at

school and are required to be present in both oral and written form throughout the

school years (Watson, 2002, p.49).

Given that there are particular expectations in relation to language use in the school

context which undoubtedly challenge all school-going children, it appears that some

children enter the school context more prepared for those challenges than others

(e.g. Cazden, 1972; Heath, 1983; Philips, 1972; Scollon and Scollon, 1981;

Schleppegrell, 2001; 2004; Vernon-Feagans, 1996; Watson-Gegeo and Boggs,

1977; Wolfram et al., 1999). This level of preparedness is a function of their prior


23

language experience – ‘some children’s ways of making meaning with language

enable them to readily respond to the school’s expectations, but the ways of using

language of other students do not’ (Schleppegrell, 2004, p.21) and ‘Children from

non-mainstream backgrounds have had different experiences and developed

different linguistic resources from those that are typically assumed in the school

setting’ (p.24). This lack of preparedness and inability to function readily in the

expected way may be critical for the learning of such children.

Language and Learning Language is central to the whole process of learning and teaching. Measures et al.

(1997) argue that ‘language, in its different modes and genres, is the principal means

developed by human beings both for co-ordinating joint activity and for co-

constructing knowledge about the world’ (p.21). Reviewing the theories of classroom

discourse of Vygotsky (1978, 1987), Bakhtin (1986), and Halliday (1978, 1993),

Measures et al. suggest that ‘all three place language at the heart of learning and

teaching’ (1997, p.21). In fact, Halliday (1993) believes that:

the distinctive characteristic of human learning is that it is a process of making meaning – a semiotic process; and the prototypical form of human semiotic is language. Hence the ontogenesis of language is at the same time the ontogenesis of learning (p.93).

All three theorists emphasise the social nature of language learning and language

use, highlighting the importance of creating in the classroom a community of learners

through joint, collaborative activity and a recognition of the value of diversity of

participation. This social constructivist perspective on learning with language at its

core is echoed again and again in the literature (e.g. Barnes and Todd, 1995; Brown

and Campione, 1994; Cazden, 1988; Lave and Wenger, 1991; Mercer, 2004; Tharp

and Gallimore, 1988; Wells, 2003). The importance of language as a teaching

mechanism and a learning tool, where the individual child constructs and co-

constructs understanding in a community of learners operating in the context of a

scaffolded and supportive environment is manifest. The Vygotskyan (1987) view of

learning is that much of what is learned in school is an articulation of everyday

experience of the world in structured ways that abstract from, develop new


24

perspectives on, and generalise from, that experience. This view requires learning to

develop through scaffolded interaction with more expert others (described by

Vygotsky as the zone of proximal development). A similar perspective on the role of

talk in learning is proposed by Mercer (2004) which suggests that:

for a teacher to teach and a learner to learn, they must use talk and joint activity to create a shared communicative space, an ‘intermental development zone’ (IDZ) on the contextual foundations of their common knowledge and aims. In this intermental zone, which is reconstituted constantly as the dialogue continues, the teacher and learner negotiate their way through the activity in which they are involved. If the quality of the zone is successfully maintained, the teacher can enable a learner to become able to operate just beyond their established capabilities, and to consolidate this experience as new ability and understandings. If the dialogue fails to keep minds mutually attuned, the IDZ collapses and the scaffolded learning grinds to a halt (p.128).

Through social interaction in the school context, children are challenged to learn,

grow and develop. Language plays a central and crucial role in this learning –

‘language is the primary means through which school activities are conducted and

students’ development is realised and evaluated’ (Schleppegrell, 2004, p.23). The

fact that for some children access to the patterns of school language use is

problematic, becomes a matter of grave concern.

As a result of their pre-school and out-of-school socialisation processes some

children even from the very earliest experiences of school display a competence with

language which closely approximates the expected ways of using language in a

school context. These children ‘are able to engage in synchronous interaction with

the teacher’ (Schleppegrell, 2001, p.433) while others who are unfamiliar with school

patterns of language use are not. Children who display the required register

appropriately in the school context are more likely to have constructive feedback and

elaborated interactions with the teacher as well as to be considered successful. The

quality of this interaction with the teacher has a profound impact on the nature and

effectiveness as well as the complexity and coherence of the language of the

students (Cazden, 1988).

For those children whose language use is different, unconscious but biased negative

judgements are made (e.g. Michaels and Cazden, 1986; Ramanathan-Abbott, 1993),

and these children are more likely to be considered disorganised by the teacher and

not as readily or easily guided forward in terms of their development of the requisite


25

patterns of language use (Schleppegrell, 2001; 2004). Not only are those children

who lack knowledge of the expected ways of using language in school less likely to

be engaged in expanded interactions with the teacher, it appears that the teacher

seldom if ever articulates expectations of patterns of language use in the school

context explicitly to the children. Teachers focus instead on the substance of talk

rather than on the linguistic choices (both lexical and grammatical) necessary to give

expression to that content (Michaels and Collins, 1984; Schleppegrell, 2001; 2004).

This finding is echoed in the work of MacRuairc (1997) who argues that the institution

of the school in effect demands what it does not teach.

The implications of these differences in children’s ability to use language effectively

to access the school system to their advantage, and teachers’ effectiveness to

provide the necessary scaffolding to facilitate learning, are stark indeed. This

becomes most evident in relation to the implications of patterns of language variation

in the acquisition of literacy skills.

Language and Literacy There is a strong correlation between membership of social class and reading

difficulties. Studies conducted in disadvantaged schools in Ireland have repeatedly

found that pupils attending these schools have significantly lower average reading

achievement scores than pupils in non-designated contexts (Cosgrove et al., 2000;

Hayes and Kernan, 2001; Weir et al., 2002). The likelihood of developing reading

problems is increased significantly when the learner uses a non-standard variety of

English (Wolfram et al., 1999; Schleppegrell, 2004). This does not indicate that

membership of social class causes reading difficulty, but it does suggest that it is

important to consider how language variation may relate to reading achievement.

Learning to read is a complex process for all children. Clearly, the more the language

variety of the learner matches that of the reading materials, the easier the process of

learning to read becomes. The language of most reading materials closely

approximates Standard English. Thus, speakers of that variety are more likely to

experience ease in the process of learning to read than are speakers of non-standard

varieties. (For example, where a speaker’s language variety involves the use of


26

multiple negatives – I didn’t do nothing – that speaker will have to overcome the

double obstacle of becoming familiar with the particular characteristics of the written

word, and in addition, with the contrasting grammatical form of standard negative – I

didn’t do anything.) The relationship between language variety and learning to read is

important and needs to be explored.

What is Literacy?

Not only is knowledge of particular ways of using language important to ensure

continuity of experience of discourse use between home and school but critically this

continuity has been argued to influence the ease with which children acquire

cognitive and literacy skills (e.g. Heath, 1983; Scollon and Scollon, 1981; Watson

and Shapiro, 1988; Wells, 1985). A conventional definition of literacy characterises it

as the ability to read and write (Wasik et al., 2002). A broader definition proposed in

the report of the National Academy of Science Preventing Reading Difficulties in

Young Children (1998) includes along with reading and writing a facility with other

creative or analytic acts, and knowledge and skill in specific subject matter (Snow et

al., 1998). Some researchers characterise literacy as a social practice, its

development influenced by such factors as socioeconomic status, beliefs,

relationships to organisations in the family environment, and social and political

relations (e.g. Delgado-Gaitan, 1994; Street, 1984).

Grainger (2004) suggests that current conceptions of schooled literacy as reflected in

modern curricula represent ‘an autonomous model of literacy’ (Street, 1984, in

Grainger, 2004, p.5) which conceives ‘of literacy as little more than a set of

unidirectional cognitive skills’ (p.5). Such limited models are, she suggests, quoting

Millard, 2003, p.4, ‘based on a re-affirmation of a standard, written national language,

transmitted largely through a print based linear pedagogy’. Challenging this unitary

view of literacy, Grainger (2004, p.5) references other theorists who argue for the

existence of many literacies, deriving from different sets of social practices which are

associated with the written language of a culture (e.g. Barton, 1994; Barton and

Hamilton, 1998; Gee, 1996; Lankshear, 1987). Hannon (2004) concludes that ‘what

counts as school literacy at any particular time is not a given but the result of social

processes’ (p.24). Current perspectives on literacy identify that it involves mastery of

complex, multidimensional sets of skills, built upon developmentally in the course of


27

the lifetime of the individual (Wasik et al., 2002). What is clear from the literature is

that the concept of literacy is not static but dynamic and evolving, changing and

being changed by literate individuals on an ongoing basis, mapping new and different

landscapes as we move into the future.

Social Influences on Literacy

There are many different forms of literacy and these forms appear to be influenced

by social context. School-based literacy, it is argued by some, is one particular

variety of literacy – intrinsically no better or worse than any other type of literacy. A

consistent finding in the literature regarding social influence on success in school is

that the socialisation contexts of children impact on their social behaviour, language

use, and academic success (e.g. Bernstein, 1960; 1971;1972; 1982; Heath, 1983;

Baumrind, 1989). The social context of school represents one particular type of

socialisation context in which one particular variety of language is used. As

discussed previously this variant of language is the one afforded high status in

society.

Children who have home literacy experiences which are similar in nature to school

literacy events are more likely to succeed in becoming literate (Cook-Gumperz, 1977;

Heath, 1983; Scollon and Scollon, 1981) since ‘the degree of similarity between

home and school literacy events predicts success in school-based literacy’

(Pellegrini, 2002, p.55) and ‘children are most successful in becoming literate when

their socialisation history is isomorphic to the socialisation practice of school’ (ibid.).

Mismatches in the definition of literacy between home and school often result in

compromising successful development of literacy skills and consequently academic

success in school (e.g. Heath, 1983; Au, 1993; Gee, 1996).

Just as there are different ways of working with oral language in different

sociocultural contexts, so also, according to Gee (2002), there is no such general

thing as ‘literacy’ but rather ‘ways with printed words’ which ‘vary within different

sociocultural practices for different purposes and functions’ (Gregory and Williams,

2004, p.30). Gee’s (2002) concept of literacy is based on the ‘New Literacy Studies’

(Gee, 1996, Street, 1995) which argue that literacy practices vary depending on who

you are – what Gee (2002, p.31) describes as socially situated identities (e.g. a Los


28

Angeles Latino gang member writing graffiti on a wall, a young child reading her own

story to her class written in invented spelling) and what the purpose of the literacy

activity is (e.g. literary criticism or explanations of physics). It is integrally and

inextricably linked to ‘ways of talking, thinking, believing, knowing, acting, interacting,

valuing and feeling’ (Gee, 2002, p.30). Gee concludes that:

If someone wants to know about the development of literacy, he or she should not ask how literacy and language develop. Rather, he or she should ask how a specific sociocultural practice (or related set of them) embedded in specific ways with printed words develops (Gee, 2002, p.31).

While all human beings acquire knowledge of the core grammar of a language, i.e.

that aspect of language acquisition which is biologically innate, how that language is

used in different social contexts varies from one situation to another, specific

varieties of English being customised to specific contexts. These ‘social languages’

as Gee calls them (2002, p.32) reflect socially situated identities (who is

talking/writing/acting) as well as specific socially situated activities (what is being

done).

Social languages differ from one another in terms of how they use the resources of a

language. For example, simple clauses may be used and relative clauses may not,

some aspects of the grammar of a language may be used more frequently than

others. Critically, the patterning of grammatical elements within a social language

helps to define that variety of language. In the context of social languages, oral and

written language are inextricably mixed:

Some social languages are written; some are spoken. Some have both spoken and written versions, and written and spoken versions are often mixed and integrated within specific social practices… what is important is not the distinction between written and oral language but specific sociocultural practices, social languages and genres. Within these there is a complex interplay of written language, oral language action, and interaction. In turn, the issue for early literacy is not ‘learning to read’ but how the child – at home, in the community and at school – does or does not acquire specific social practices, social languages, and genres that involve ‘ways with printed words, along with much else (Gee, 2002, p.35).


29

Importance of Literacy

Clearly, defining the concept of literacy is a complex process. Nevertheless,

identifying the signal importance of mastering literacy and becoming a literate

individual is in absolutely no doubt whatsoever.

Learning to read is a key milestone for children living in a literate society. Reading skills provide a critical part of the foundation for children’s academic success. Children who read well read more and, as a result, acquire more knowledge in numerous domains (Whitehurst and Lonigan, 2002, p.11).

Reviewing research on the development of literacy skills from prereaders to readers,

Whitehurst and Lonigan (2002, pp11,12) present the following findings:

Learning to read is linked to basic foundation skills of oral language,

phonological processing and print awareness

More than one in three children have serious difficulties in learning to read

Children from low-income backgrounds are at particular risk for reading

difficulties

Many children from low-income families are not prepared to receive the

reading instruction received in school as a result of fewer experiences with

books, book-reading, writing, stories, rhymes and other types of ‘emergent’

literacy activities

Children who experience difficulties in learning to read tend to develop

negative attitudes to reading

Children who fall behind when learning to read will read less, thus getting less

practice and missing opportunities to develop important literacy skills

Children with poor reading skills fall further and further behind other children

in both reading and academic development.

Referring to the development of literacy skills of low-income children, Whitehurst and

Lonigan (2002) believe that ‘they are likely to fail with catastrophic results. It is not an

exaggeration to say that the prevention of reading difficulties is a matter of survival

for many children’ (p.12).


30

Relationship between Oral Language and Literacy

Oral language may have a broad-based influence on the acquisition of the competence that is necessary to succeed in the institutions of a literate culture. It gives children an understanding of how to recruit their knowledge in ways that are relevant to text-based understanding (Watson, 2002, p.52).

Research findings have consistently shown that the development of reading skills

relies on oral language proficiency. Children’s knowledge of language but, more

importantly for this research, their ‘orientation towards particular kinds of language

(such as the language found in books) are major determinants of their ability to

achieve in school’ (Eivers et al., 2004, p.8). Grainger (2004) claims that ‘spoken

language is an integral dimension of literacy, since all societies are fundamentally

oral… and our understanding of literacy must encompass and recognize such orality’

(p.8).

Clearly there are connections between facility with oral language and the

development of literacy skills on the basis that both use language as a medium of

expression, the purpose of which is to express and communicate meaning. The

precise nature of the relationship is complex but some consistent findings have been

reported in the literature. A strong relationship between vocabulary knowledge and

reading ability is in evidence such that, for example, in older readers the more

semantic knowledge children have the better they can comprehend text, while

children who read more frequently and more fluently are likely to have increased

vocabularies. In the case of younger children the relationship is between size of

vocabulary and phonological sensitivity. The larger a child’s vocabulary the more

developed that child’s phonological sensitivity will be, thus influencing the child’s

ability to decode text (for review of this literature see Whitehurst and Lonigan, 2002).

More important than just vocabulary knowledge, however, it appears that some

characteristics of oral language use are strongly correlated with higher levels of

literacy development:

The use of a specific oral language register… literate language, is fundamental to becoming literate in school (Pellegrini, 2002, p.55).

Features of ‘literate’ language use, also referred to in the literature as

‘decontextualised’ language (where meaning is conveyed linguistically, having

minimal reliance on contextual cues and shared assumptions – Pellegrini, 2002,


31

p.55) include, for example, a degree of detachment, represented by use of the

passive voice, avoidance of the first-person pronoun and the use of abstract subjects

(Chafe and Danielewicz, 1987). Literate style language requires that one treats one’s

self and one’s audience as generalised ‘others’ with minimal shared knowledge

(Scollon and Scollon 1981). Pellegrini (2002) argues that the implications of this are

that meaning must be ‘lexicalised’, stated explicitly in language leaving no room for

ambiguity or confusion. Such ‘literate’ style language use may also be characterised

by fewer use of deictics (such as ‘this’, ‘that’, ‘here’, ‘there’ – words that require

immediate context to be fully understood). The presence of relative clauses and

subordination are also features of literate style language use (e.g. Ong, 1982), using

linguistic devices for clarity in relation to foregrounding and backgrounding

information as is the presence of metaphors to make text more explicitly autonomous

(e.g. Halliday, 1987; Olson, 1977).

These features of ‘literate’ style language are strikingly similar to the features of

language identified earlier in relation to language style expectations in the school

context in general. While predominantly associated with written language, this

language style is not the exclusive domain of that medium of expression. Such

features are frequently found in more formal styles of oral language use (such as, for

example, delivering a lecture or a sermon) while the more interpersonal features of

oral language (characterised by the presence of more than one interlocuter and thus

not requiring the need to develop explicitness exclusively on the basis of language

but using in addition extralinguistic features to facilitate effective communication and

understanding) may be found in some circumstances of writing (such as writing a

personal letter to a friend, or using electronic mail or telephone texting).

Thus ‘it is not the modality that is used, oral or written, that determines the presence

or absence of these features. Rather, it is a pattern of language use, a kind of

discourse that can manifest in either oral or written modes of production’ (Watson,

2002, p.45, emphasis added). Facility with this particular pattern of language use

appears to be important in the development of literacy (Heath, 1983; Pellegrini, 2002;

Snow et al., 1998; Tough, 1977). Being familiar with and able to use literate style oral

language has been shown to be a developmental precursor to school-based literacy

learning (e.g. Pellegrini and Galda, 1998; Dickinson and Moreton, 1991; Olson, 1977;

Snow, 1983), as well as a strong predictor of early literacy development (Pellegrini et

al. 1998). Research reported by Dickinson and Sprague (2002) hypothesised that


32

enabling children to use extended discourse to construct meaning outside of the

immediate context being communicated is particularly important for the development

of literacy skills:

Available data provide evidence that vocabulary is central to later literacy, that growth in vocabulary is related to broader discourse skills, and that engagement in extended discourse that requires decontextualised language skills fosters literacy development (Dickinson and Sprague, 2002, p.276).

Dickinson and Sprague further contend on the basis of data generated by their

research that the foundations of necessary language skills for development of literacy

are laid early on in the life of the child and that the associations between these early-

emerging oral language abilities and print-based knowledge are mutually facilitative,

a link that remains strong throughout the school years. As reported earlier in this

chapter, the very features of language use which are essential for ease of acquisition

of literacy skills appear to be the features least likely to occur in the language variety

of non-standard speakers.

Summarising the main findings from the literature in relation to language and literacy

one can conclude that:

literacy development is a central and crucially important feature of all

schooling

multiple literacies are currently in existence (Gee, 2002; Gregory and

Williams, 2004)

these literacies have a social context

schooled literacy is one form of literacy (Gregory and Williams 2004; Luke

and Carrington, 2004)

facility with oral language is critically linked with the development of literacy

skills

facility with literate style patterns of oral language use is strongly linked with

ease of development of literacy skills

as with oral language use children from middle-class backgrounds experience

continuity in relation to literacy and literacy-related activities between the

home and school context (Grainger, 2004, p.6)

many children experience difficulty in developing literacy skills to a requisite

standard


33

these children are often from low-income backgrounds

difficulties with literacy development in the school context impacts on the

success with which the child negotiates his/her way through the system.

Goldenburg (2002, p.212) suggests that in attempting to ensure the greatest level of

success in relation to the development of literacy skills of the category of children

who would be defined as low-income or children of particular ethnic /cultural/linguistic

groups, a number of considerations need to be borne in mind. Among them are what

we see as the nature of literacy and how best it is promoted in the school context, the

impact of social status, language and culture on children’s experience of school, and

success of home-school relationships and co-operation. Despite the fact that much

research points to the fact that children from low SES backgrounds begin school less

ready to handle the development of literacy skills as a result of less experience with

book-reading, writing, hearing stories, rhymes etc. and seem to have less knowledge

of ‘emergent’ literacy skills, Goldenburg compellingly argues that family

socioeconomic effects on achievement are quite modest. The association is weak

when measured at individual family level. It only becomes a strong association when

measured at school or community level. This, he argues, is because of the variability

of family practices within any given social stratum.

Much research has outlined examples of situations where children from low-income

families experience relatively high levels of literacy experience in the home and how

these levels of experience increase when children begin school, suggesting a strong

parental interest in supporting the work of the school (see Goldenburg, 2002, p.217

for a list or relevant research). Goldenburg concludes that:

A low-SES child attending a low-income school and living in a low-income community is at far greater risk for reading difficulties than is the same child attending and living in a middle- or high-income school and community (2002, p.217).

What is also clear from the research is that effective school interventions can and do

make a difference to the literacy levels of the children (Grainger, 2004; Goldenburg,

2002; Dickinson and Sprague, 2002; Gregory and Williams, 2004; Luke and

Carrington, 2004). Effective school variables associated with improved reading

achievement have been identified as: a school-wide focus on improved pupil

learning, strong school leadership, strong collaboration among staff, consistent use


34

of data on pupil performance, a focus on professional development and innovation,

and strong links to parents (Taylor et al., 2002, in Eivers et al., 2004, p.13).

Conclusion

Findings from the studies reported in this chapter clearly establish that:

Different language varieties exist which are equally complex and require

similar cognitive abilities to acquire and use

Patterns of language use associated with language variety are linked to social

class

There are particular expectations for language use in the school context

These expectations are based on the standard variety of language, which is

valued, used and promoted by the institution of the school

This variety is most closely associated with the variety used by children from

professional and middle-class backgrounds

Some children enter the school system less familiar with the standard variety

than others

These children are most likely to come from lower-class backgrounds and to

use a non-standard variety of language

This may have implications for children’s ability to engage with the school

system in general and, in particular, to develop adequate literacy skills with

ease.

Given findings in international research as reported above in relation to the links

between patterns of language variation and success in school, this study sought to

investigate these links in the context of schools in Ireland. Studies of the reading

skills of children in Ireland reveal that children in schools in disadvantaged contexts

do less well on tests of reading achievement than other children, and these

differences are referred to as ‘substantial’ (Eivers et al., 2004; DES, 2005). Similarly,

teachers consistently report that children in disadvantaged contexts in Ireland come

to school with ‘a significant oral language deficit’ and that ‘the necessary oral skills

and competencies that are a prerequisite for the development of literacy skills have

not been developed by the pupils’ (DES, 2005, p.25; INTO, 1994).


35

The relationship between language variation and children’s experience of school in

Ireland is the focus of this study. The aim of the study was to investigate the links

between language variety, social class and literacy development in the context of

schools and pupils in Ireland. Specifically the study sought to determine whether

language variation is evident in the completion of school talking tasks, and if so to

what extent it prevails, and if there is a social class perspective in evidence.

Additionally, the study investigated the implications of language variation for literacy

development in children in schools in Ireland. Finally, the research sought to uncover

levels of awareness among children and teachers around school expectations of

language use and patterns of language variation in school.


36

Design of Study


37

DESIGN OF STUDY

Oral competence is strongly associated with success in school. Given the clear

findings concerning the relationship between facility with academic, literate style oral

language use and success in school, notably success in developing literacy skills, the

purpose of the study was to investigate style of oral language use by children when

in school, focusing particularly on whether patterns of children’s oral language use in

school vary by social class and the implications of such variation for success in

school.

Findings in relation to variation in patterns of language use by social class have

already been well documented in international literature but have not to date been

investigated in the context of children and schools in Ireland. This study aimed to

analyse oral language samples from children in schools in Ireland in an attempt to

uncover the extent to which features of school patterns of language use are present

in the language of children when engaged in typical school type talking tasks,

comparing the presence of such features in the language patterns of children by

social class.

A heightened sensitivity to the contribution of speaking competence to various kinds of effectiveness has increased the demand for oral communication assessment among educators (Rubin and Schramm, 1997, p.29).

Studies of oral competence predominantly focus on competence in second

language acquisition and development. However, the importance of linguistic

competence in the first language, oracy, is becoming recognised as ‘a skill domain’

worthy of consideration at both primary and post-primary level (Rubin and

Schramm, 1997, p.29). Studies of language in social context document the

emergence of a standard language ideology – an ideology which is reflected in

attitudes and behaviours biased against less ‘literate’ varieties of English (e.g.

Labov, 1994; Milroy, 1987; Wiley and Lukes, 1996). ‘Providing rigorous analyses of

language development in divided speech communities may help to bridge the

existing social abyss’ (Baugh, 1997, p.119).


38

This study is concerned with patterns of oral competence among primary school

children, how such competence varies across social class, and the implications of

that variation. Documenting and analysing oral competence in different speech

communities is the underpinning focus of the study.

Research Design

A case study approach was taken in compiling data for this study. Case study

research focuses on a particular interest in individual cases (Stake, 1994). The focus

of interest in this study was on patterns of variation in language use by children in

school and the impact of such variation on school success. The cases of particular

interest in the study were schools designated as disadvantaged in the context of the

Irish school system. Specifically, an interpretive case study design (Faltis, 1997) was

developed where analytical descriptions based on observation and reflection on

particular cases are presented. The main interest in an interpretive case study is the

case itself – no intervention is attempted. This case study was exploratory in nature,

seeking to explore variation in patterns of language use in terms of degree and

impact across different social settings.

In an exploratory, interpretive case study, data collection can take two forms. One

form involves observation in the natural setting and the other involves elicitation of

specific predetermined information (ibid). The latter was the preferred technique in

this study. The interpretive case study design has been used many times in

classroom language research (e.g. Cazden, 1989; Cicognani and Zani, 1992;

Corson, 1990; Pease-Alvarez and Winsler, 1994). More specifically, interpretive case

study design has been the preferred method of many studies investigating links

between social factors and language in schools (e.g. Escamilla, 1995; Shannon,

1995). Case study methods have also been used by researchers to investigate the

nature of academic language and students’ developing ability to become competent

in the use of such language (e.g. Benson et al., 1993). For these reasons, it was a

particularly suitable design for the current study.

A feature of the case study approach is that results may not be generalised beyond

the immediate cases that are examined. However, the goal of interpretive case study

research is not to generate knowledge which is easily generalisable, but to uncover


39

evidence which enables readers of the research to ‘make their own generalizations

based upon the particulars of the case’ (Faltis, 1997, p.149). The exploratory nature

of this study, where the focus was on the identification of issues and then raising

awareness of those issues among professionals in the field, meant that the goal of

interpretive case study research was particularly suitable as a research goal for the

study.

Internal validity in this study was established through triangulation. Results of a

nationwide survey of teachers in designated disadvantaged schools informed the

design of the study and the specific questions to be investigated. Quantitative data in

the form of standardised reading test results were used to underpin assumptions and

connections made. Data compilation involved using a range of elicitation techniques

to generate language samples from the children, seeking different perspectives

including those of the children, the teachers, the parents, and the principal,

documenting field notes to provide context for the data collected, and surveying

relevant international literature and national policy documents. Declaring

assumptions and orientations from the outset also contributed to the establishment of

internal validity.

Long-term observation is a feature of high-quality case studies and while long-term

observation was not an option in this research, intense submergence in the culture

and practice of the school over a period of time generated a wealth of anecdotal data

which supported the observations and scaffolded the reflections during the process.

Description of Data Collection

The objectives of the study were to investigate:

Whether variation in patterns of language use are manifest among children in

primary schools in Ireland

If so, to what extent such variation prevails

The impact, if any, of age, gender, social background on variation

The impact, if any, of variation on levels of literacy development


40

In order to generate language samples for analysis, elicited production techniques

as developed by Underhill (1987) were used. This technique has been devised to be

deployed in schools and classrooms for the purpose of small-scale research to

produce samples of talk for documentation and analysis. In eliciting the oral language

samples for analysis from the children, a number of impediments to the research

process needed consideration. The act of speaking in the presence of others who

may not be familiar to them may cause anxiety to children (Rubin and Schramm,

1997). To reduce this anxiety it was very important that the children felt relaxed,

supported, comfortable and secure when engaged in the elicited production tasks.

Inter-rater subjectivity is another obstacle to the valid and reliable assessment of

speaking, where the assessor may be vulnerable to extraneous factors such as

appearances, behaviours, or personality (ibid). It was important to reduce such

subjectivity as much as possible. These factors were taken into account in devising

the most effective data collection strategies.

Arising from the movement towards authentic assessment of language skills which is

increasingly promoting the use of ‘portfolio’ assessment (Cumming, 1997; Purves,

1997), standardised literacy test results and language profiles completed by the

teacher were also compiled for each child. A portfolio of linguistic proficiency was

thus generated for each child participating in the study.

As well as compiling samples of language and a language portfolio for each child, it

was also deemed important to hear children’s voices in this study. The voice of the

children and their parents was actively sought in order to bring perspective to the

research question being asked and to bring depth to the data compiled in the study.

Too often the voices of those most affected by the issues raised in educational

research remain unheard:

The failure to incorporate a working class perspective on educational inequalities experienced by working class people has led to the impoverishment of academic analysis…. The absence of a working class perspective has resulted in policies designed to manage rather than eliminate inequality in education (Lynch and O’Neill, 1994, p.303).

To redress this imbalance, focus group discussions were organised which

facilitated the articulation of a range of perspectives on the central question in this

study. The focus group discussions aimed to explore the experience of talk in the


41

context of school and included documenting pupils’ and teachers’ experiences and

perceptions of language in the context of school. Focus group methodology was

selected as a complementary technique to be used as a research strategy alongside

other means of data gathering. In this study the technique was used as a follow-up to

the elicited production technique which generated data on patterns of variation of

language use among children. Its purpose was to explore more fully some of the

findings uncovered through the technique of elicited production and identified in the

national and international literature.

The focus group technique was selected because it is ‘based on the assumption that

group members have information and can formulate and express their opinions,

feelings, and behaviour in words, but that they need the researcher and the group

context to extract this information’ (Flores and Alonso, 1995, p.86). An advantage of

the focus group discussion approach is that it is a ‘nondirective technique that results

in the controlled production of a discussion of a group of people’ (ibid, p.85). It seems

to be a technique that will facilitate giving a voice to the various players involved in

this study. Focus group discussions were conducted with children and teachers as

part of this study.

Particular consideration needed to be given to engaging in focus group discussions

with the children since this technique is used relatively infrequently with children

(Hoppe et al., 1995). The factors identified for consideration included:

Sample selection

Size and composition of groups

Moderators

Development of questions

Managing group discussions (ibid, p.113).

In as far as it was possible, recommendations of Flores and Alonso (1995) and

Hoppe et al. (1995) were followed in generating and conducting the focus group

discussions with the children and also with the adults.


42

Sampling Procedures

The study was carried out in four schools. Three of the schools were categorised as

disadvantaged and one school was a middle-class school. Schools designated as

disadvantaged were randomly selected from a list of disadvantaged schools

identified by the Department of Education and Science (DES) for inclusion in the

Action Plan for Educational Inclusion (Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools –

DEIS, 2005). This list of schools had been compiled by the DES in collaboration with

the Educational Research Centre, Drumcondra (ERC), using a standardised system

of ‘collection and analysis of data on levels of disadvantage in individual schools’

(DEIS, 2005, p.28). A stratified random sampling technique was used to identify

participating schools for this study. Variables taken into account in the process of

sampling included factors such as school location (urban/rural), gender

(boys/girls/mixed), and school size (number of teachers in the school). Accessibility

to the schools was also an important factor that needed to be considered.

The three participating disadvantaged schools were all designated as disadvantaged

and included by the DES in the Action Plan for Educational Inclusion. One school

was categorised as rural disadvantaged; two schools were designated as urban

disadvantaged. One school was a girls only school from first class to sixth class and

had a combination of boys and girls in the infant classes; one school was a boys only

school; and one school was a mixed school of boys and girls. One school had

sixteen teachers (eight class teachers, two learning support teachers, one language

teacher, three resource teachers, one home-school liaison teacher and one

principal); one school had fifteen teachers (eight class teachers, four resource

teachers, one learning support teacher, one home-school liaison teacher, one

principal); and one school had three teachers (two class teachers and one learning

support teacher).

The middle-class school was in an urban location, had a combination of boys and

girls and had 22 teachers (seventeen class teachers, three resource teachers, one

learning support teacher, one principal). This school was located in a predominantly

middle-class area where the majority of parents were highly educated and in

permanent employment (as indicated by the school principal).


43

All four schools were located in the south of Ireland, in the Munster region. A full

profile of each school is available in Appendix A. Henceforth the schools will be

referred to as School A, B, C (disadvantaged schools, status 1) and School D

(middle-class school, status 2).

Procedure

Each of the four randomly selected schools was contacted and an initial meeting with

the principal was sought. At the meeting with the principals the project was outlined,

its aims and modus operandi were presented. A one-page summary of the proposed

project was given in writing to each principal (see Appendix B for summary). All four

principals were immediately in favour of having the research undertaken in their

school. A letter was drafted and agreed with the principal to be presented for

consideration at the next Board of Management meeting of each school (see

Appendix B for a copy of the letter). In response to the letter, all four Boards of

Management agreed to allow the research to go ahead in the school.

A mutually suitable date for the research to be conducted in each school was agreed,

working around the many demands on schools, teachers, and principals, and a

schedule for collection of data was drafted. Data were gathered from children in

Senior Infants, Third Class and Sixth Class. A warm-up session with each of the

classes preceded the actual study. The purpose of this was to familiarise the children

with the researcher, to have lots of fun with the researcher, and to assure them that

the tasks to be completed at the next stage were also lots of fun and interesting. This

was designed to reduce any anxiety on the part of the children and to ensure as far

as possible that they responded well to the tasks set and were not afraid/reluctant to

talk. At the end of the warm-up session (which lasted approximately one hour to one

hour and a half in each class) a letter seeking parental permission for children to

participate in the research was distributed to each child in the class (see Appendix B

for a copy of the letter). The permission slip was to be returned the next day.

From those children whose parents agreed to have their children participate in the

research, four children were randomly selected from each class to participate in the

study. The children were taken in pairs from each class to complete the elicited

production tasks. The procedure and purpose of the tasks was explained to the

children and each child completed a form indicating his/her willingness to participate


44

in the paired elicitation tasks (see Appendix B for form completed by children). This

part of the data collection took place in a quiet room in the school, where the testing

process was uninterrupted.

The completion of the elicited production tasks took between 45 minutes and one

hour. During this phase of the data gathering a research assistant was in place,

operating the tape recording equipment and taking field notes observing the children

as they completed the tasks. The children were accompanied back to their classroom

when the tasks were completed. The warm-up session with lots of fun activities

familiarised the children with the researcher (known to the children as Áine) and

meant that no child displayed any anxiety when taken out to complete the elicited

production tasks. The children all appeared to be comfortable and relaxed and at

ease during the process. In fact, most children wanted to stay longer and didn’t want

to return to class! To reduce the possibility of being influenced by appearances,

personality or behaviour of the children, the research assistant participated fully in

the process of gathering data during this phase. The researcher and the research

assistant collaborated frequently during the process.

The focus group discussions were completed only with children from Third Class and

Sixth Class, following best practice guidelines as outlined in Hoppe et al. (1995).

Sampling children for participation in focus group discussions took the form of

involving the four randomly selected children from each of the two classes in the

school. Group size is recommended at between 3 and 8 to ensure that there are

sufficient children to generate a lively discussion but not so many that the chat

becomes chaotic. Each focus group with one exception had four children. One group

had just three children because there were only three children in the class in total.

Focus groups were organised by age, the third class children grouped together and

the sixth class children together. It was not possible to maintain the same gender in

the group where there was a mixed gender school but same age and gender groups

were formed in the other schools as recommended by Hoppe et al (1995).

The researcher moderated the focus group discussions, using a predetermined set of

questions based on data from the elicited production tasks, and information in the

literature. These questions were used as guidelines to facilitate the discussion. The

purpose of the discussion was outlined to the children at the outset and children were


45

encouraged throughout to respect each other, give everyone a chance, and

contribute as appropriate.

The procedure followed in each school was broadly similar. Availability of teachers,

parents and the principal as well as children necessitated minor amendments to the

plan and required going into another week in some schools to complete the process.

Data gathering took place in the months of May and June, 2006. The data gathering

took approximately one week in each school, following the plan below:

Monday a.m. and p.m.: Warm-up sessions in each of the three classes

(Senior Infants, Third Class, Sixth Class)

Tuesday a.m.: Paired Elicitation Sessions with Senior Infant Children

Tuesday p.m.: Focus group discussion with the teachers

Wednesday a.m.: Paired Elicitation Sessions with Third Class Children

Wednesday p.m.: Focus group discussions with Third Class Children

Thursday a.m.: Paired Elicitation Sessions with Sixth Class Children

Wednesday p.m.: Focus group discussions with Sixth Class Children

Friday a.m.: Compiling materials from each teacher to complete the profile of

language proficiency for each child

Friday p.m.: Interview with Principal

Warm-up sessions with each class grouping were thematic, the themes then feeding

in to the introductory discussion of the paired elicitation sessions and forming the

basis for some of the elicited production tasks (see Appendix C for an outline of the

warm-up sessions for each class grouping).

Elicited Production Tasks

Loosely based on the theme for each class grouping, a series of elicited production

tasks was devised. The aim of the tasks was to encourage children to talk in the first

instance and further, to elicit particular kinds of talk from them. Specifically school-

type talking tasks were devised, i.e. the kinds of tasks that one would typically expect

children to engage in on an ongoing basis in the school context. These tasks were

designed to elicit children’s responses using oral language to such tasks so as to

identify the extent to which features of the language of school were evident in their

talk.


46

Typical language tasks expected of children in school, identified by Schleppegrell

(2004) and Dickinson and Sprague (2002), include narratives as found in storytelling,

factual or expository type language use such as found in descriptions or definitions,

analytical talk as represented in explanations, and imaginative talk as used in

creative, open-ended imaginative school tasks. These categories of school-type talk

formed the basis for the development of the elicited production tasks.

The elicited production tasks were pilot-tested before being used in the study in a

pilot school where a dry run of the study was undertaken to test the efficacy of the

warm-up and elicited production procedures outlined above (see Appendix B for

letter to pilot school). Results of the pilot phase confirmed those warm-up tasks that

worked best with the different age groups and highlighted the most effective elicited

production tasks. The order in which the tasks were completed as well as the

directions given to the children were also amended based on findings from the pilot

phase of the study. A final list of tasks for each class was then compiled (see

Appendix D for Elicited Production Tasks used in the pilot phase and in the study).

Portfolio of Proficiency

In addition to the oral language samples generated by the elicited production tasks

and in order to get a full profile of the language proficiency of each child who

participated in the study it was necessary to compile a portfolio of language

competence for the children. Teachers contributed to this process by furnishing the

following data for each child:

Most recent standardised reading test results

Completed Drumcondra English Profiles

Pupil profile data were compiled to establish some contextual information in relation

to the children in respect of the following:

Parent(s)’ – one or two – level of education; employment status

Child’s date of birth

Number of siblings


47

Position in family

Attendance at pre-school/playgroup/Early Start

Out-of-school activities

Parental support/involvement

Attendance at homework clubs

School attendance rate/punctuality

Energy levels at school

Focus Group Discussion – Guideline Questions

Questions for the focus group discussions were generated from findings in the

literature as well as from issues raised through responses to the elicited production

tasks. The questions were for guideline purposes only. Thus, if and when the

discussion veered away from central questions, this was facilitated in so far as was

feasible. However, the central purpose was kept very much to the fore throughout the

discussion. The main areas of interest for development through discussion with the

children included:

children’s perceptions of talk as a learning medium

children’s experiences of talking in school

talking style in school

teacher talk and

literacy experiences in school and at home

Issues considered during the discussion with the teachers included:

Perceptions of the importance of oral language in the classroom

Pedagogic responses to developing oral language skills in the classroom

Awareness of variation of language patterns required in the school context

Opinions on the newly introduced Revised Curriculum and the accompanying

in-service education

Planning strategies

Home-school links

Developing children’s literacy skills

(See Appendix E for full list of Focus Group Questions for children and teachers.)


48

Framework for Linguistic Analysis

In order to assess the prevalence or otherwise of features of ‘literate’ style language

in the talk samples taken from the children, it was necessary to devise a framework

for linguistic analysis. This framework was based on the work of Schleppegrell

(2004), using a functional linguistic perspective drawn from the work of Halliday

(1985; 1994) and also based on work by Wolfram et al. (1999) and Bourne and Reid

(2003).

In schooling contexts, the overriding features of the situational context are that students display knowledge, authoritatively, in highly structured texts. (Schleppegrell, 2004, p.74; emphasis added).

This is realised through the processes of:

Presenting Ideas Taking a Stance Structuring Texts

The linguistic elements that are functional for these purposes are identified by

Schleppegrell (2004, p.74) and broadly form the basis of the framework which

follows. Each language sample was analysed for the child’s overall capacity to

present ideas clearly, taking a confident, authoritative stance and in an organised

and structured, coherent manner. Specifically the linguistic elements that scaffold this

type of presentation using academic style language in the context of the school are

as follows:

Lexical Features 1. Choice of generic vs specific lexis (everyday/specialist lexis) 2. Lexical subjects (focus on individual actions and personal viewpoints vs

presents new information and constructs new understandings) 3. Density of content words

Grammatical Features

1. Sentence structure – complexity of syntax, more frequent use of relational processes (relationships of description/identification)

2. Mood – declarative vs interrogative/imperative 3. Clause linkage – chaining vs embedding/conjunctions vs nouns, verbs,

prepositions 4. Organisational structure – emergent vs hierarchical


49

These linguistic features are explained in greater detail in the next section. Presenting Ideas

School-based texts typically select complex nominal syntax that draws on technical and abstract lexis and processes through which logical meanings are instantiated…texts need to be rich in information. (Schleppegrell, 2004, p.75; emphasis added)

Aspects of school-based registers which characterise effective presentation of ideas

as identified by Schleppegrell and which were used for the purposes of analysis in

this study include the following:

The degree of lexical explicitness as demonstrated through vocabulary

choice

The extent to which information is presented and understandings of the

physical world are facilitated through the use of relational process as distinct

from having a focus on individual actions and personal viewpoint

The inclusion of relationships of time, consequence, comparison and addition

The integration of conjunctive relationships into the clause

Specifically, language was analysed for evidence of a display of knowledge through the

use of complex nominal syntax with specialised technical and abstract lexis, clause internal reasoning with nouns, verbs, prepositions, instead of conjunctions relational processes of description/identification relationships of time, consequence, comparison and addition

This was accomplished by making comparisons across children in the study on the basis of

number of content words used – nouns, verbs, adjectives, prepositions quality of the word choice for explicitness number of utterances length of utterances complexity of utterances how conjunctions are used – integrated vs for chaining purposes relationships of time, consequence, comparison and addition focus on individual/personalised accounts vs accounts which present new

understandings about physical world


50

Taking a stance

In academic contexts, students are typically expected to project a noninteracting and distanced relationship with the listener/reader in their writing and formal speaking (Schleppegrell, 2004, p.58).

This is realised through choice of Mood (declarative, interrogative, imperative) and

through Modality, a resource which facilitates the expression of degrees of

probability, certainty and necessity.

the expert, authoritative role of the student is typically realized in the choice of declarative mood and use of modality and attitudinal resources instead of intonation to convey speaker/writer stance toward what is said (Schleppegrell, 2004, p.68)

Adopting an authoritative, distanced, expert stance is realised through mood and

modality patterns, and was analysed by:

Comparing the moods used – interrogative, declarative, imperative

Comparing the level of assuredness and confidence of the presentation

Comparing the levels of awareness of other in the presentation

Structuring a text

In academic texts the dense presentation of information means that more integrated logical relations are typically more highly valued (Schleppegrell, 2004, p.65).

Oral texts were analysed for evidence of the following to establish the internal

organisation of presentation according to the level of structure present:

internal conjunction and

other cohesive resources and

clause-combining strategies of condensation and

embedding along with

effective exploitation of thematic position in the clause to highlight the

organisational structure of the text through


51

expanded noun phrases, nominalisation.

Findings generated in the study will be presented in the next section.


52

Findings –

Profile of Schools


53

Findings – Profile of Schools and Children

The completion of this study was dependent on the good will of the four participating

schools. As ‘part of the establishment’ for the duration of the data collection in each

school, contextual information about the schools was acquired. This chapter will

begin with a pen picture of each school, garnered in this informal and incidental way,

with a view to helping situate the schools in terms of atmosphere and particular

characteristics.

School A: A Profile

As in all of the schools, we were welcomed into this school and facilitated in every

way possible during our stay. The staff in this school is predominantly female with a

good mix of age groups ranging from quite young to more experienced teachers. This

inner-city girls’ school was built about sixty years ago and although the building is in

very good condition and the rooms are large and bright, much of the furnishing is out-

dated. This makes it difficult to implement the revised primary curriculum to its

potential because the desks are large and cumbersome, taking up most of the

available floor space in the classroom and allowing for very little flexibility in terms of

small group work, drama, discussions and other oral activities. The school has a

large indoor hall that facilitates indoor play and physical education. There is a huge

play area for the children outside which allows for lots of games and is extremely

safe.

Despite the social problems in the lives of many of the children in this school, the

children were bright, enthusiastic, and for the most part appeared very happy.

Teachers displayed deep concern for and commitment to the children and their

families – much of the talk during lunch and coffee breaks revolved around the

children in one way or another. Of the two hundred and twenty children in this school,

thirty are foreign nationals, bringing with them a whole new set of challenges for the

principal and teachers in addition to those already in place. While the school is

technically quite well resourced with computers and broadband access, there is no

central library. In an area where many social problems are manifest and links with the

children’s homes and families are of paramount importance there is only a part-time,


54

shared home-school liaison teacher available to this school. There is widespread

evidence throughout the school of many extra-curricular activities, facilitated by the

teachers for the children, providing much needed expansion of experience for many

of these children.

As was the case in all of the schools, the principal and teachers are intensely

engaged in the work of this school – the interview with the principal taking place

during a ten-minute lunch-break where questions were answered while snatching a

bite to eat, and even then there were interruptions which needed attention. Life for

principals and teachers in these schools is hectic and intense, with little time for

thinking in the general course of the working day.

Table One: Profile of Children in School A

Children Parents Position in Family

Pre-SchoolAttendance

Activities Parental Support

Attendance Punctuality

Performance in School

AS1:1F Mother. At home

Youngest

Yes Dance Good V. Good Quite Good

AS1:2F - unemployed

Oldest (2)

Yes No Not good V. Good Fair

AS1:3M One parent. employed

Youngest (3)


AS1:4F Two. employed

Oldest (2)


A3 1:1F Two Middle (3)

Yes Soccer Art

Both involved

Excellent Able, confident, competent

A3 1:2F Mother. Employed

Youngest (3)

Yes Soccer Both involved

Excellent Easy-going, confident, secure

A3 !:3F Two. Both employed

Youngest (2)

Yes Dance swimming Athletics

Both Involved

Excellent Learning Support, confident, enthusiastic

A3 1:4F Two. Both employed

Youngest (3)

Yes Kickboxing

Both Involved

Excellent Learning Support, confident, enthusiastic

A6 1:1F Mother. Employed.

One brother

No No Both Involved

V. Good Reading problems. Well behaved


55

A6 1:2F Mother. Step-father unemployed

2 older srs. New baby

No Singing. School complet-ion prog.

Mother good

V. Poor Stressed and troubled

A6 1:3F Mother. employed

Oldest (2)

No No Mother good

Good Moderate ability – low confidence

A6 1:4F Dad. employed

Second of two

No Choir. Altar server. School comple-tion prog

Dad good V. Good Panic attacks. Frustrated. Cries a lot.

Interesting characteristics emerging from the profile of children in School A as

outlined in Table One include the following:

Eight out of the twelve children (66%) live in one-parent families

Four out of the twelve children (33%) are from families where there is no employment

Four out of the twelve children (33%) did not attend pre-school Five out of the twelve children (42%) are reported by the teachers as not

engaged in any out-of-school activity Three out of the twelve children (25%) have no parental involvement with the

school and another four (33%) have just one parent involved. Of those four only

one is a father.

Only one child (8%) was reported as having poor attendance and punctuality.

Children’s energy levels and performance rates in school are characterised by the

teachers in School A using terms such as: quite good, fair, easy-going, moderate

ability, reading problems, stressed and troubled, frustrated, cries a lot. Terms such as

confident, competent, enthusiastic are used less frequently to describe these

children.


56

School B: A Profile

This is an all boys’ school, located in an urban setting. The school building is modern

and bright with adequate resources, a large hall, and plenty of play space outside for

the children. The majority of the teachers are young, nine out of the fifteen teachers

being under the age of thirty. Unlike many schools located in disadvantaged contexts

the principal indicated that there is a low turnover of staff in this school and that

levels of absenteeism are low among teachers. There is a good mix of male and

female teachers on the staff. High levels of energy, enthusiasm, commitment and

motivation are very evident among the teachers.

Also manifest in this school is a caring ethos, where the needs of the children are

paramount. When an incident occurred during a coffee break, where a child was

thought to be at risk, every teacher ran from the staff-room and dashed outside to

see how they could help. It is clear that the families of the children are well-known to

the teachers who are aware of relevant background data on the children.

These teachers are under enormous strain when dealing with the children. Children

can be volatile and unpredictable, bringing with them the consequences of difficult

experiences at home into the school setting, often with little support from home to

help the teacher in the classroom. The children regularly throw furniture, refuse to

participate, and can be difficult and disrespectful in school. Simply containing the

children can be an all-consuming task for a teacher. Finding time without distraction

and a quiet space to engage with this research proved difficult for both the principal

and the class teachers involved, such were the demands being placed on them as

they worked to meet the needs of the children.

Table Two: Pupil Profile Data School B


Pre-School Attendance

Activities

Parental Support



BS1:1M Mother. At home

Youngest (2)

Yes No Fair V. good

BS1:2M Two Unemplo

Only child

Yes No V. involved Excellent


57

yed BS1:3M Two.

Unemployed

Youngest (4) Half twin

Yes Rugby Excellent Excellent

BS1:4M Mother. Employed

Only child

Yes No Good Excellent

B3 1:1M Mother. Part-time employed

Second. Half-twin (4)

- - Mother v. good

Good

B3 1:2M Grandmother Unemployed

Second youngest (11)

Yes - V. little Quite good

B3 !:3M Mother. Part-time employed

Second. Half-twin (4)

- - Mother v. good

Excellent

B3 1:4M Two. Father Employed

Oldest (3)

Yes Swimming

Mother v. good

Quite good

B6 1:1M Two. Mother works

Oldest (2)

- V. involved in lots of activities

Excellent Excellent Sober and relaxed. Asks many questions. is spoken to a lot at home

B6 1:2M Two. Father. Employed.

Second youngest (4)

- V. involved in lots of activities

Not v. supportive

Excellent

B6 1:3M Two 8 siblings - V. involved in lots of activities

V. little involvement

Excellent Tired, moody, afraid of failure. Lacks confidence

Pupil profile characteristics of note in School B as outlined in Table Two include the

following:

Five out of the eleven children in this school (55%) live in one-parent families,

one of these children living with a grandmother.


58

Four out of the eleven children (45%) are in families where there is no employment. For one child this information was not available.

While all of the younger children and two of the third class children (6) are

reported as having attended pre-school, there is no information available on five

of the other children.

All of the older boys are reported to engage in out-of-school structured activities,

three out of the eleven children (27%) do not and there is no information for

another three of the children. At least 27% of the children do not attend structured out-of-school activities and possibly 54% do not. Teachers cited

danger on the streets as one of the reasons why younger children would not be

able to engage in many out-of-school activities.

For four of the eleven children (45%), teachers reported fair or very little parental involvement.

Attendance and punctuality is good for all children in the school.

Only one of the teachers commented on children’s energy levels and performance at

school. One child was described as sober but interested and asking lots of questions,

showing evidence of experiencing lots of talk at home, while another was described

as tired, moody, afraid of failure and lacking in confidence.

School C: A Profile

This school is a mixed gender school, located in an idyllic rural setting. The school

building is both old and old-fashioned and much of the furniture is out-dated, leading

to cramped conditions in the two classrooms, with little space for either the teacher or

the children to move around. There is plenty of play space outside for the children.

One disused prefab acts as a multi-purpose room. The school population is small

and the teachers both male and female, who have been teaching in the school for

many years, all live locally. This means that the families are well known to the

teachers.

Despite the scenic location of the school, many social problems are evident amongst

the children and their families, including lone-parent families, parents in second

relationships with young children in the school and older step-children also in the

family, unemployment, and substance abuse. Children from a wide range of religious


59

backgrounds attend the school. Many of the children appear to have poor diets –

children were observed to have crisps, sweets and fizzy drinks for lunch, and

teachers report children as tired and lacking energy often, as a result of being up late

playing video games and watching TV.

A quarter (25%) of the children in the school attend either Learning Support or have

Resource hours and while all of the children reported having a wide range of up-to-

date technology at home in the form of playstations, gameboys, DVD players and so

on, some of the children don’t have money for school books. Many of the children

come to school by bus and so parental contact at the school is quite low apart from

incidental meetings with parents in an out-of-school context. Many children in the

infant classes remain an extra hour in school each day because they have to wait for

the bus to take them home.

Despite these problems, this was a warm, inviting, happy, friendly school. The

children were bright and pleasant and very eager to participate in the study.

Teachers were generous with their time and willingly shared their thoughts and

experiences.

Evidence from Table Three suggests a pupil profile for School C with the following

characteristics:

This rural population had just two out of the eleven children (15%) living in one-parent families. However, some of the children are living in families where there

is a second relationship and only one of the parents is a birth parent. Four out of the eleven children (45%) are from families with no employment. Ten of the eleven children (90%) did not attend any form of pre-school. Three out of the eleven children (22%) are not engaged in structured out-of-

school activities.

Six out of the eleven children (60%) do not receive adequate parental support. All of the children are good to attend school and are punctual.

Teachers report parental involvement in very negative terms for this school,

describing it as not good, minimal, don’t bother, slight interest, this despite the fact

that the majority of the children are living in two-parent families. Where there is

parental support for the children, in all cases but one that support is provided by the


60

mother. Teachers’ comments in relation to children’s energy levels and performance

in school are quite negative, describing children as being tired at school, lacking in

concentration, over-active, impatient, demanding attention, up late at night.

Table Three: Pupil Profile Data School C






CS 1:1F Father. Unemployed

Youngest No No Not good V. good Bubbly and happy. Poor concentration

CS1:2M Mother. Part-time employed

Youngest No Yes Mother good

Good Tired at school. Lacks concentration. Likes to read

CS1:3M Two parents

Only child

Yes No Mother good

V. good Overactive, impatient. Demands attention

C3 1:1F Two. employed

Only child

No no Don’t bother

Excellent

C31:2M Two. Both unemployed

Oldest. Half-twin (3)

No GAA Minimal Good Sometimes tired in school

C3 !:3M Two. Father employed

Youngest (3)

No GAA Father involved

Good Sometimes up late – lazy

C31:4M Two. Both unemployed

Oldest Half-twin (3)

No GAA Minimal Good Can be tired in school

C61:1M Two. Unemployed.

Oldest (2)

No GAA. Boxing

Minimal Excellent Can be tired in school

C61:2M Two. Employe

Youngest (2)

No GAA Mother slight

Excellent Up late at night


61

d interest C61:3 F Two.

Employed

Oldest (2)

No Music Mother supportive

Excellent Lots of energy at school

C61:4F Two. Employed

Third of five

No Music. GAA

Mother interested

Excellent Plenty of energy


62

School D: A Profile

This is a large, bustling school in a modern building that continues to be developed

and modernised. The classrooms are bright, spacious and well equipped. The

children are very well-behaved, orderly, articulate and enthusiastic. There is a good

mix of both male and female staff in this school, spanning a wide age-range. Unlike

some of the other schools, most of the permission slips were returned, they were

returned promptly without reminders, and the vast majority of parents were aware of

the study and willing to allow their children participate. The school has a vibrant

nerve centre with a number of ancillary secretarial staff, a library and many

computers and other resources.

The teachers in this school, as in other schools, were most accommodating in

allowing their classes to be used for the study, and very meticulous in putting the

profiles of the individual children together. Out of a population of four hundred and

ninety-one pupils, only 2.5% have special needs or receive resource hours.

Table Four outlines the general pupil profile for this school and highlights the

following findings:

Three out of the twelve children (25%) in this school come from one-parent families.

None of the children (0%) is reported as being in a family where there is no employment.

One of the twelve children (8%) did not attend pre-school. There is no available

information on this for another three children.

One of the twelve children (8%) does not attend structured out-of-school activities.

Ten of the twelve children (85%) are reported as having supportive parents who

are committed, supportive, involved in their schooling.

All of the children are reported as being very good to attend school and punctual.

Just one child is described as being tired and a daydreamer in school. The other

children are characterised by the teachers as enthusiastic, participative, having

high energy levels, lively, focused, having good application and being normal.


63

Table Four: Pupil Profile Data School D






DS2:1M Two. Both employed

Oldest (2)

Yes No V. Supportive

Excellent Can be tired and tends to daydream

DS2:2M Two. Father employed

Youngest. (3)

- Rugby - Excellent Enthusiastic. Participative

DS2:3F Two Father employed

Oldest (2)

- Brownies V. Supportive parents

Excellent High energy levels. Enthusiastic

DS2:4F Mother. employed

Youngest (2)

No Ballet. Piano

- Excellent V. lively and enthusiastic

D3 2:1F Two Father employed

Oldest (2)

Yes After school club

Both involved

V. good Focused. Good application

D3 2:2F Two. Both Employed

Eldest (4)

Yes Harp. Basketball. Piano. Speech & Drama

V. supportive

Excellent

D32:3M Two. Both employed

Oldest (2)

- GAA. Soccer. Piano

Excellent Excellent

D32:4M Single Parent. Lives with grandparents

Oldest (one half-brother)

Yes Soccer V. committed

V. good

D62:1M Two. Both Employed.

Youngest. (4)

Yes Soccer. Tennis

Good support

Excellent Very high energy levels at school.

D62:2M Two. Both Employe

Middle. Two sisters

Yes Music. Soccer. GAA.

V. supportive

Excellent


64

d Reading D62:3F One

parent. Both parents employed

Youngest (2)

Yes Swimming. Music

Support there if needed

Excellent

D62:4F Two. Employed

Second of two

Yes Dancing. Music

V. good V. good

Observations while in the schools of most interest to this study include the fact that

the teachers and principals in the disadvantaged schools appear to be under severe

pressure while in school. Dealing with the problems the children bring with them into

the school context is intense, at times leaving little space to attend to the manifest

educational needs of the children. Children having poor diets, lacking energy due to

lack of sleep, and over stimulation of children due to unsupervised, over-use of

modern technical toys also emerged as issues of concern in these schools.

It is clear that in some of these disadvantaged schools the building in which the

school is housed is drab and old-fashioned when it should be colourful and attractive.

Sometimes conditions in the classrooms are cramped and often, adequate resources

are not in place to ensure a high-quality educational experience for the children.

Delivering the targets set in the Revised Primary School Curriculum can be

particularly challenging in some of these schools. Specifically, the lack of a central,

well-stocked library, a large classroom space with potential for working in different

areas with a range of designations, modern furniture which is easy to re-arrange,

classroom assistants to oversee group work and prepare materials, and an ample

supply of appropriate technology such as computers, interactive white boards, TV

and DVD player, make it difficult to deliver an oral language programme that would

appropriately enrich and meet the needs of children.

All of these inadequacies were observed to varying degrees in the disadvantaged

schools in this study. Significantly, none of these inadequacies was evident in the

school located in the middle-class setting, which owes much of its facilities to the

generosity of the local community.


65

Pupil Profiles

It is evident from the pupil profiles in this small sample of children that stark lifestyle

differences exist between the children from the schools designated as disadvantaged

and those in the middle-class setting. In the urban disadvantaged settings many

more children are likely to live in one-parent families. In all disadvantaged settings,

urban and rural, considerably more children live in families where there is no

employment. More children have not attended any form of pre-school and many

more children do not engage in structured out-of-school activities. Children in

disadvantaged schools can be more tired, have more learning problems, experience

more frustration, lack confidence, have poor concentration, be more troubled. These

children generally are less likely than the children in the middle-class context to have

adequate parental support in terms of their schooling.

All of these factors combine to militate against children maximising their potential for

development in school. Despite this, the overwhelming majority of children in the

disadvantaged schools attend school on a regular basis and are punctual.

Linking these findings with those of Oxley et al. (2001) as reported in Ending Child

Poverty (Combat Poverty Agency, 2005) that children most at risk of being in poverty

are those in ‘work poor’ (neither parent in employment), lone-parent households, it is

clear that five of the children in this sample fall into this category. Also at high risk of

poverty are children in ‘work poor’ dual parent households which accounts for

another five children in this sample –‘children whose parents are unemployed and/or

dependent on social welfare are at a far higher risk of poverty than other households’

(CPA, 2005, p.46). Data from the Central Statistics Office (2005) indicate that 32.6%

of lone-parent families are consistently poor and this is the group that demonstrates

the highest risk of poverty (CPA, 2005, p.46). Children from poor households are

found to be at increased risk of, among other things, ‘doing poorly at school’ (United

Nations, 2000, in CPA, 2005, p.49). Such findings suggest that in this sample, ten out

of the forty-six children, almost 20%, are at significantly increased risk of not fulfilling

their potential in school.

There is a strong link also between access to pre-school education and later success

in school – ‘pre-school education contributes to intellectual and social development in


66

childhood and consequently education and economic success in adulthood’ (CPA,

2006, p.10). This is corroborated by proposals to expand access to early childhood

education as set out by the National Economic and Social Forum (NESF, 2005). Yet,

despite these findings and proposals, 90% of the children sampled in the rural

disadvantaged context, 33% of the children in School A, and a possible 55% of the

children in School B did not have pre-school experience. And now all of these

children are in designated disadvantaged schools where teachers are faced with

huge challenges on a daily basis trying to contain and educate children in difficult and

unsupportive circumstances.

All of these characteristics highlight the fact that it is very difficult for these children to

engage fully with the school system and equally it is very difficult for the school to

deliver its targets in terms of child development. The children who most need strong

educational intervention appear least likely to get it.


67

Findings –

Data Analysis


68

Findings

The focus of this study was to investigate at first hand the situation in schools in relation

to one important aspect of children’s school experience – their experience of language.

The underlying purpose of this investigation was to gain information which would help

sharpen that experience so that the child’s engagement with the school system can be

as successful as possible. Because a child’s experience of school and the curriculum is

mediated predominantly through language, it is vital to ensure that children have the

required language facility to access that experience effectively. This study seeks to

investigate children’s language skills as manifested in the context of school and also

examines teachers’ attitudes to and pedagogic responses to perceived language needs

in school.

To that end this chapter will document and analyse actual samples of children’s oral

language use when engaged in school-type talking tasks – elicited production tasks –

and will compare them across social class for linguistic features of ‘academic’ or ‘literate’

style language, that style of language most important for success in school. The chapter

will then present findings from the focus group discussions with children and teachers,

probing perceptions of ‘school’ language. Finally, children’s language and literacy skills

as presented in a profile of linguistic competence to include results of standardised

tests will be examined and possible links across all three sets of results will be offered

for consideration.


As indicated previously, the elicited production tasks focused on generating oral

language samples from the children while completing school-type talking tasks, requiring

the use of ‘literate’ style language. This style of language is evident in the four main

types of language task typically required in the school context – Factual, Analytical,

Narrative and Imaginative (Schleppegrell, 2004). It is characterised (ibid.) as:

presenting ideas in a clear, explicit, unambiguous manner

taking an authoritative, expert, confident stance, realised through appropriate

mood and modality, and

structuring the presentation so that it is coherent, organised, and integrated.


69

Bearing these strands broadly in mind in the process of analysis (presenting ideas,

stance, structure), language samples will be presented and analysed according to

category of language style (factual, narrative, imaginative, analytical). Samples taken

from the youngest children will be presented and analysed first. Children are identified

by code. The code is made up as follows:

School: A, B, C, D

Class: S (Senior Infants), 3 (third class), 6 (sixth class)

School Status: 1 (disadvantaged), 2 (advantaged)

Child number: Each of the four children from a class group was given a number 1, 2, 3, 4

Gender: M (male), F (female)

AS1:2F – indicates a child from school A in senior infants, disadvantaged school, the

second of the four children selected from that class, female.

Senior Infants

Factual Language Samples

Odd-One-Out

A series of pictures was shown to the children in senior infants where one

picture was an odd-one-out. The instruction given to the children was:

Tell me which one is different and why

In all cases the odd-one-out was quite easy to identify. The purpose of the task

was to determine how well children could use language

1. to state explicitly which one was different, and

2. to explain precisely why it was different.

The children took turns to identify the odd-one-out. For this task the children

were asked not to point to the pictures but to tell, using words, which one was

different and to indicate why they thought it was different.


70

Sections in bold highlight where the children used lexically explicit and

appropriate language, typical of the kinds of descriptions expected in a school

context. Items in bold italics draw attention to particularly good vocabulary

choice or complex syntax being used for clarity by the children. Sections

underlined point to where there is a level of vagueness, lack of clarity or

inappropriate use of language evident in the children’s contributions.

Item One – Scarf

(Interjections in brackets are by Researcher) AS1:2F a scarf (and why do you think it is the odd one out) because am, because am you see that's supposed to, that that cos you see that that that's supposed to be there that is and that is and that is (The use of the indefinite article, along with the hesitations and repetitions in this contribution suggests a lack of confidence here – this lack of confidence is evident in contributions from all status 1 children but not evident in those of status 2 children) AS1:3M Am am am that one with the with the the with the am that ah this thing on it (Why do you think that one is the odd one out) cos it's because that's not the same (Obvious difficulty retrieving vocabulary to adequately express difference evident here) BS1:1M the two, them ones next to the hats (and why is it different) cos the scarf is different (Poor vocabulary, vague reference) DS2:2M the scarf (and why) cos it's ah every other one is a hat – one's a hat for a baby and one's a summer hat and one's a cowboy hat and a scarf is ah not shaped like a hat or it's not it's not a thing that you wear on your head but you wear around your neck.


71

(Strong, confident reference to the odd-one-out using definite article for clear reference. Clear, expanded, elaborate explanation of difference evident here. Wide vocabulary readily accessible, clear awareness of needs of listener in completing this task) DS2:4F The scarf because it has nothing to do with your head Only one child in this example followed the directions as given to tell which one is

different and why. All other children needed to be prompted to give the explanation

which was longer, more elaborate and used more explicit vocabulary in the case of the

status 2 children. Also worth noting here is the clarity of the language used by children in

the status 2 school (School D) as compared with the vague reference used by children in

the status 1 schools. One child (DS2:2M) gave a very elaborate explanation (when

prompted) as to the reason for the difference, in this expansion presenting a wide range

of very explicit vocabulary to make his point. No such clarity or elaboration is evident in

the examples of Status 1 children, who use deictics (that, this, there), characteristic of

informal, casual language use, much more frequently than status 2 children. While the

identification of the odd-one-out in this case presented no problem to any of the children

involved, it is possible that children’s experience of the particular types of hats in the

picture may have required specific prior knowledge on the part of the children, prior

knowledge which may have introduced a cultural/gender bias into the task, making it

more difficult for some children to give an elaborated explanation of the nature of the

difference in question in this task.

Item Two: Carrot

AS1:1F the carrot (and why do you think the carrot is the odd one out) cos they're all fruit and that's a vegetable (Clear, elaborate explanation given using precise and correct vocabulary to denote the classes in question. Appropriate use of pronoun to refer back to named object and maintain coherence in presentation. Explanation of difference made with reference to other items for clarity. Conjunction used to combine but not to integrate clause unlike the more complex use of integrated conjunction in DS2:1M below)


72

AS1:4F carrot (and why do you think the carrot is the odd one out) cos it has a thing on top of it (Reference to object excludes article – suggestive of lack of confidence. Vague reference using the word ‘thing’, because precise term not immediately available. Double use of ‘it’ resulting in confused reference) BS1:3M the carrot (why do you think it's different) cos the one beside it is roundy and that's pointy DS2:1M the carrot (because?) because it grows out of the ground but all the others grow in the trees (Use of co-ordinating conjunction ‘but’ evident here, suggestive of more complex syntax)

DS2:3F the carrot because it isn't a fruit (Clear, concise, accurate, using definite article for clarity, showing confidence, using ‘it’ to refer back to carrot later on, using class to explain difference, appropriate and precise. Could probably benefit from more elaborate expansion in explanation)

Again, here the need for intervention to clarify the explanation is evident among all the

children but one. However, when prompted, one status 1 child (AS1:1F) gives an

excellent explanation, clear, concise and correct using appropriate vocabulary with no

need for prompting to clarify. Strong use of appropriate vocabulary without hesitation is

notable also in status 2 children here. Noteworthy here also is the fact that one of the

status 1 children didn’t use an article of any kind to specify the object – just named the

object – ‘carrot’. The subsequent explanation given for the difference by this child is

vague and lacks the explicit vocabulary needed for clarification of his ideas.

Item Three: Frog

AS1:2F Am I think the odd one out is the frog. (Why?)


73

because you see them ones them ones are all flying but but frogs can't fly (This child shows confidence with the use of the phrase ‘I think’. She also gives a full statement in her answer to the question and a clear, elaborate explanation when prompted. Integrated use of the conjunction ‘but’ is also in evidence, suggestive of literate style language use. Vague and unclear reference to other items pictured – ‘them ones’. Her use of the phrase ‘you see’ also suggests that she is aware of her audience and conscious of communicating effectively) CS1:3M the frog (and why is the frog different) because it can't fly (Very same answer as status 2 below but needed prompting to give reason)

DS2:2M the frog is different to every other one cos it's it's am it's it can't it can't fly and it can only jump and it can't and it can am and it can swim but every other thing can't swim and … (Wide range of clear vocabulary evident here and no need for prompting to give full explanation. Conjunctions ‘and’ and ‘but’ used to combine clauses. Many relationships of comparison in evidence)

DS2:4F the frog because it can't fly (Concise, clear and to the point – no prompting or scaffolding needed. Clear, explicit vocabulary used, coherent anaphoric reference – ‘it’ referring clearly to the frog mentioned earlier in the sentence) Item Five: Third Dog

This item challenged the children a little more because naming the odd-one-out is not an

option here as all the pictures are of the same dog. It is necessary to use more explicit

references to identify which dog. This is done with varying degrees of success. Some

children can give explicit answers when prompted. Status 1 children bring the

vocabulary ‘collar’ and ‘medal’ better than status 2 children in this item. Clear differences

in specification are evident in this item, status 2 children being much more able to

specify clearly and unambiguously the item which is different.


74

AS1:2F that one (is it the first one, the second one, or the last one) the last one (and why do you think he's different) because the collar the collar is black and he has no circle there (Needs prompting to specify which dog is different – able to use the term ’last’ when scaffolded. Has the word ‘collar’ but not the word ‘medal’. Talks about ‘the’ collar when it would be more coherent to link with dog using the term ‘his’. Uses pronoun ‘he’ appropriately linking back to question asked. Conjunction used to combine but not integrated. Lots of use of deictics – ‘that’ ‘there’ leading to lack of explicitness in explanation) AS1:3M that one (pointing) (which one) the last one (why) cos he has no chain (This child is having difficulty using language instead of gesture to specify which dog is different. Has the term ‘last’ without scaffolding but needs prompting to use it. Vague use of pronoun ‘he’ when there is no antecedent to clarify who is being referred to. Uses the word ‘chain’ instead of collar and medal) BS1:1M the one with the black collar and no circle thing (Vague reference – the ‘one’, lacking the word ‘medal’) BS1:4M them two (which one) that one and that one (which one is different) the one with the black collar (why is he different) because he has no am (partner supplies word here – medal) medal (Lots of scaffolding needed here for vague response) CS1:2M that one there the last one (and why is he different) cos he has no he has no am medal DS2:2M the one at the left is different cos, it's ah, no the one at the right is different cos am it is it's a lead, it has no am circle thing for for its am neck and it's and the thing on its neck is black. (Explicit directional terms in use here. However, the word ‘lead’ is used instead of ‘collar’ and the word ‘medal’ is not evident either)


75

DS2:4F the last one because it doesn't have a little roundy thing on its lead (Missing the words collar and medal) This task was quite challenging linguistically for all of the children and some of the

status 1 children clearly had vocabulary at the tip of their tongues which was not as

readily available to the status 2 children. Status 2 children needed less prompting

and were much more at ease using language instead of gesture as well as clearly

specifying without intervention which dog was different.

Item Six: Middle Doll

AS1:1F her, because she has boots (which one is she. Tell me which one she is. Don't point, tell me which one she is) oh, because she has boots and the two of them have shoes (and which one is she) she's the odd one out (she's the one in the middle isn't she – no response). (No difficulty identifying which is the odd-one-out but great difficulty pinpointing in words which doll she is referring to – ‘her’. In her explanation she refers to the ‘two of them’ with no antecedents to clarify who she is referring to. Gives clear reason as to why this doll is different, and does this without prompting) AS1:4F the middle one (why is she different) because she has white shoes (Locates appropriately but uses the vague term ‘one’. Correct explanation but uses the term ‘shoes’ instead of the more correct term ‘boots’ for clarity) BS1:2M all the dolls with the shoes … two that ... with the shoes (Hand coming out to point) the girl with the shoes on and one is not different (It is clear that this child knows which one is different and why but is having enormous difficulty presenting that information in language. Vague and incoherent) BS1:3M the one with the black shoes … the … the one with … the two of em with black shoes (why)


76

cos she has wellies on and they have shoes on (Clear explanation given when prompted, but very vague reference to which doll is different) CS1:3M the wellingtons the middle (and why is she different) the Wellingtons (Short, staccato phrases used which are highly contextualised and need reference to the pictures for clarification – no expansion proffered) DS2:1M the one in the middle (because?) Because she's wearing boots and all the others aren't and the boots are taller (Needs prompting to give explanation and uses vague reference ‘one’ instead of more explicit reference ‘doll’. Explanation is clear and expanded. Conjunctions used to combine rather than to integrate. Explains difference in relation to other items in the series for clarity) DS2:3F the middle one because she has boots instead of shoes It is clear from these language samples that the status 1 children tend to use

language which is more context bound, relying on the presence of the pictures to

expand their contributions rather than using language alone for communication,

use less explicit vocabulary, less expansion in terms of explanation. This confirms

Wolfram et al.’s (1999) suggestion that in school children are often asked to display

information which is clearly known to the teacher. For some children this pattern of

language use is not familiar so where information is available through another form

(in this case the picture) language may not be used to display that information.

Children from middle-class backgrounds are more readily able to respond

linguistically to requests to display information because of their pre-school and out

of school experiences of language (p.107). The status 1 children needed a lot more

scaffolding and prompting during the process of elicitation and found it much more

difficult to refrain from using gestures and instead to use language to clarify which

was the odd-one-out. Explanations of status 1 children of why the odd-one-out was

different also proved problematic for some of these children. It was clear that the

children knew why each one was different, but sometimes it was difficult for the

children to explain the difference clearly or adequately. This corroborates findings

reported by Vernon-Feagans (1996) that some children find answering ‘why’

questions more difficult than other children because they have fewer experiences

of interactions requiring answers to such questions (p.25). Vernon-Feagans (1996)

suggests that this often poses problems for teachers who expect children to know


77

that a causal explanation is required as a response to such a question and are at a

loss as to how to respond to children for whom this is problematic. For the odd-

one-out task the following findings emerged:

Presenting Ideas – Clear differences are evident in terms of the children’s use of

clear, explicit, appropriate vocabulary to specify difference and to explain those

differences. Status 1 children required more intervention, prompting and

scaffolding to generate explanations and to specify differences. Status 2 children

were more inclined to give expanded explanations for differences using a wide

range of appropriate vocabulary and linking explanations with comparisons across

items in the series. However, there were instances when status 1 children

demonstrated vocabulary knowledge that was not immediately available to status 2

children and occasions when their explanations were more than adequate for the

purpose of the exercise.

Taking a Stance – status 1 children appeared less confident, more hesitant, used

more pausing and more repetition than was typical of status 2 children during this

exercise. Strong, confident declarative statements were much more likely to come

from the children in School D.

Structuring Text – The contributions of status 2 children were consistently more

complex, coherent, organised and clear than those of the status 1 children in this

task. More integrated use of conjunctions was evident, though again this was

evident at times among the status 1 children. More scaffolding and prompting was

required by the status 1 children to elaborate. Vague references using deictic terms

inappropriately with pronouns used to make reference where no obvious

antecedents were in place were often to be seen.

It is clear from this example that all children were challenged by this task but

differences in language skills to complete the task were manifestly obvious – the

need for prompting to expand and clarify, the urge to use gesture instead of words

at every opportunity, the lack of knowledge of explicit terms when needed, the lack

of awareness of the need to be explicit, clear, confident and coherent in expression

characterised the contributions of status 1 children during this task. It was clear

that many of the status 1 children had the ability to express effectively when

prompted for more, but this was not always the case.


78


Clown Clothes Description

Senior Infants

In this task a divider was placed between the two children so that one could not

see what the other was doing. Each child was given picture of a clown and three

different sets of paper clothes to put on the clown. The clothes consisted of three

each of the following items – jumpers, pants, shoes, hats, and ties. Each child in

turn dressed the clown, giving instructions to the other child who had to select the

same items of clothing and dress the clown following instructions. All pictures were

in black-and-white so that colour terms could not dominate the descriptions. The

descriptions instead needed to focus on pattern and design for each item so that

they could be clearly identified. (Copies of materials distributed to the children are

in Appendix F).

AS1:1F

This above his neck. (partner interjects saying – you have to tell me) This above his neck (partner – what above his neck – AS1:1F ignores this intervention) and the the big shoe and the small shoe the small one with triangles on and the big one with triangles on (referring to shoes with a diamond pattern) (what else are you going to put on) I'm going to put on (picks up a hat … tell her which hat) the hat with the flowers on it. Am I'm going to put on these stripy pants. (not really a stripy pants, what is it) A circle pants (referring to a pants with large spots on it). (what else are you going to put on) I'm going to put on (a jumper? which jumper will you put on). I'm going to put on the sparkle jumper (referring to a jumper with big stars on it). (Not showing much awareness of needs of partner here. Because AS1:1F can see what she is doing she is not able to put herself in her partner’s shoes to understand what information she needs to complete this task. Needs to be reminded to name items she is putting on and gives unclear, undiscriminating information about the items, making it difficult to identify which to select. However, it is clear that when scaffolded and prompted clearer vocabulary is readily available – ‘circle pants’)

AS1:3M (what clothes will you put on) Am a hat. (pick a hat) That one. (tell … which hat she's to put on her clown – don't show her, tell her) This one. (tell her what it looks like so that she knows which one to pick). It has feathers on it and it's black. (what are you going to put on next). Pants. (which pants will you pick) That one. (tell her which pants) It has circles on it and it's black. (what will you put on next). Shoes. Those ones (tell her which shoes you are going to put on) Am it's black and it's white. (has only one shoe) (diamond pattern shoes). (what will you put on next) A tie. (which tie) That one. (which tie are you going to put on) This one. (you tell her which tie you are using). Am it has loads of dots and ah it's am it has stripes on it. (you have to put on a jumper on him) That. (you tell her which jumper you're putting on) It has stars on it and it has triangles and the triangles are white and there's black on it and there's more triangles on it and there's black on it


79

and there's more stars on it. (none of the jumpers has triangles and stars on so it's not clear which jumper he is referring to) (Needs lots of scaffolding to complete this task. Clear difficulty using language to specify exactly which items are being referred to. Can elaborate when prompted but elaborations are often not sufficiently discriminating and are unclear)

BS1:2M (tell him what you are putting on) Shoes. (which shoes are you putting on) These shoes. (tell him which ones to pick – don't show him, tell him) Am… pick these shoes. (don't show him) Pick those shoes. (partner asks – what shoes) Those shoes up there. Trousers. (tell him which trousers to put on) trousers (tell him which trousers to put on) Pick spotted trousers. (picked a jumper – which jumper do you want him to put on – tell him which jumper) Pick square trousers (jumper). Hat. (which hat) This one. (you tell him which hat – don't show him just tell him) Am… pick a hat. (which hat should he pick – can you tell him) Pick a long hat. (what's next). (what are you going to do next) That (what's that) a thing with a ... (tell him what that is) am am pick this. (partner – what) (and you put it at the bottom of the jumper? – picked ruffle collar) (now the tie – tell him which tie to pick) (Very vague and unclear but uses the imperative appropriately throughout) BS1:4M (what are you picking first – what's that – 3 times asked to name it) A jumper. (tell him which jumper he is to pick – don't show him just tell him) The one with all the stars. (what are you going to pick next) The tie. (which tie are you picking) This one (tell him which tie to pick) The one with all the lines and the little ones. (what are you picking next – what's that) His pants. (tell him which pants to pick) The one with the circles. (the big circles) (and what will you pick next) This. (what's that ... no that's a tie – pick one of the hats) tell him which hat to pick) The white one. (two of the hats are white) (then you have to pick shoes – which shoes will you pick – you tell him which shoes to pick) The ones with the line – no actually them ones, they don't match. (tell him again – what shoes should he pick) The one with the line on the big one.

CS1:1F (what are you going to start with) Shoes. (tell him which shoes you are putting on) I'm putting on white shoes and there's black around the bottom. (What are you putting on him next) I'm putting on a jumper. (which jumper are you putting on) I'm putting on a jumper with kind of triangles and black ones and white and black. (what are you putting on next) Two flowers and a hat, a clown's hat. (and what are you putting on next) I'm putting on a tie. (which tie) It has circles and black things (referring to dots in the tie). It has circles and black stripes (when asked for clarification – no tie fits this description) (what trousers are you putting on). Black and white. (all the trousers are black and white) (Clear reference to items but descriptions are imprecise and at times unhelpful because they are not sufficiently discriminating). CS1:2M (tell her what you're doing) I'm putting on a stripy pants. (two pants have stripes) And I'm putting on black and white shoes. (all the shoes are black and white) And I'm putting on a jumper that has triangles and stripes. I'm putting on a tie, collar ruffle (this word was supplied) and I'm putting on a hat that has flowers at the top of it I don't know what it's called (hat has feathers). (Used clear descriptions when referring to each item and needed almost no prompting to do so. More aware than others of need for clarity and using confident declarative statements. Descriptions of items could have been more precise)


80

DS2:1M (what are you going to put on first) There's black shoes with with white on the bottom. (what are you going to put on him next) A jumper with stars. (what next) A pants with dots, big huge dots. (this pants has big white circles). (what next) A tie with stripes across em like a daddy's. (what have you left to put on him now) A hat with feathers. (Very little prompting required. Clearly aware of partner’s needs and has requisite vocabulary to describe effectively. Descriptions are clear, many items have expanded descriptions. There is evidence of clause internal reasoning using both the preposition ‘with’, and the preposition ‘across’ to express an area of distribution. Confusion is evident in the anaphoric reference ‘em’ referring to the tie but used in the plural form, no doubt distracted by the plural form ‘stripes’ which comes between ‘tie’ and its reference. Comparison is further expanded with reference to what a daddy’s tie would look like, and the more generic ‘a’ is used to make this appropriate to all listeners) DS2:2M (what are you going to put on him first) Shoes. (tell him which shoes to put on) They are black and they have white on them on the bottom of them. (what are you going to put on next) I'm going to put on a white, it's white, it's it's am it's kind of like (tell him first of all what it is) It's a hat. It's kind of like a policeman but it's a clown one and it's you can you can am it has white it has black white and black white (repeated a number of times) going across. (what are you going to put on him next) I'm going to put on him (what is it) a jumper (which jumper) it's ah it's it has triangles on it and it has stripes it has stripes on it. (what will you put on him next) I'm going to put on a tie. (tell him which tie to put on) It has circles and with dots in them and it has and it has lines and it has (what have you left to put on now) A pants. (tell him which pants you are putting on) They have stripes with dots on them DS2:3F (what are you going to put on the clown first) It's something like a collar but it's a bit different. (referring to a ruffle collar – so it's like a tie is it) Yeah though it isn't a tie – it's something it's something what you could put around your neck but isn't like a collar or tie. It's something like ... around the clown's neck you might see it not very often in a circus (what other one are you putting on) Well, it has it's a jumper and it has some little am and it has little am buckles on the sides little buckles on the sides and it has little white triangles on either side and it has a star stars on it. (what are you putting on next) I'm going to put on trousers. (which trousers) It has a a they are like they have some little you could find them green on a clown and they have little stuff, they're like dungarees. Am and in the Molly stories jack had them on. (so which pair should we be putting on) Am the one with the little squares and stripes and stuff. (what are you putting on next) Iit's a hat and it has flowers on it. (what's next) Shoes. (which pair of shoes will you put on) They are plain shoes. (two pairs fit this description) These examples demonstrate that status 2 children are much more readily able to

respond in expected ways to the demands of typical school type talking tasks than

the status 1 children. They show an awareness of partners’ needs, name items

readily and normally without being asked to do so. They have the requisite

language knowledge to describe items effectively, sometimes expanding the

descriptions with more than one adjective, sometimes comparing items using


81

similes, and at times embedding all of this information in quite complex structures

(‘a tie with stripes across ’em like a daddy’s’ – item named, integrated use of ‘with’,

descriptive term ‘stripes’ used and comparison made with ‘daddy’ who is referred

to in the generic sense – ‘a’, including all daddies, not just his own, with correct

reference to the daddy in the genitive case inferring the inclusion of tie – a daddy’s

(tie)).

Senior Infants

Analytical Language Samples

Word Definition

Asking children to give definitions is a task that teachers often request of children

during the course of lessons (Bloome, 1987; Snow et al., 1989). The task of giving

definitions is one that ‘reveals how expectations for linguistic performance are

different in the school setting from what they would be in ordinary language use

and how students’ different socialization experiences prepare them in different

ways to respond to the school’s expectations’ (Schleppegrell, 2004, p.36).

Research conducted by Snow (1990) found that all children are capable of giving

word meanings but that children vary in how they do so according to their social

experience. Prior experience with the definition genre dictates how a child will

respond linguistically to this task, children from middle-class backgrounds being

more inclined to give the highly valued formal definition which incorporates

‘autonomous, well-planned, lexically specific information about the word meaning’

(Snow, 1989, p.239). Other children, by contrast, ‘treat the request for a definition

as the introduction of a new conversational topic, and …provide information but no

definition in response’ (ibid.).

Watson (2002) suggests that the valued definitional form required in the school

context is one typically used by ‘literates’ (p.46). It includes taxonomic classification

(using a superordinate term followed by a restrictive complement), whereas

‘nonliterates’ (ibid.) define words according to functions (giving functional or

descriptive information about the word). While the communicative value of formal

and informal definitions is equivalent, it appears that their value in academic

contexts differs, the formal format being the more valued, and that expected by the

teacher (Schleppegrell, 2004, p.38). Some children can readily respond to these


82

expectations given their prior experience of using the genre, whereas other

children respond differently as a consequence of their previous experience.

In this study, all of the children were asked to define a word. In all cases the word

was associated with the theme of the warm-up session and the request to define

the word was woven casually into the conversation so that no pressure to perform

was felt by the children. In the case of the Senior Infant children, the main focus of

the warm-up session was a story called Harry’s Home (Catherine and Laurence

Anholt). In this story, Harry lived in a city, and went to visit his granddad on the

farm for a holiday. The children, in the course of re-visiting the story during the

elicited production session, were asked to say what a ‘city’ or a ‘farm’ was. All

children were able to define the word given. Below are their responses.

What is a CITY? AS1:2F A city it has has has all shops what you can go to and buy clothes and shoes AS1:1F It's bigger than all the world and it's bigger than this size of the world, it's bigger … BS1:1M It's a huge, it's huge, kind of like a country, a different country ‘cept that there's all buildings and windows BS1:3M It's a big town CS1:3M A city is a very busy city. There's fire engines, ambulances, there's am police cars, police cars and ah there's a lot of hotels and there's am a train station and am … DS2:1M It's a place with all ah noise where animals don't like it but a few people do What is a FARM? AS1:1F It's like am oh my god (began to sing Old McDonald had a farm together with great gusto!!) Oh am its am that takes care of the animals It's all there's all animals like pigs and sheep and cows AS1:4F There's lots of animals and a farmer


83

BS1:2M A farm is where you see all the animals BS1:4M A farm that can work with animals CS1:1F Ah there's cows in the farm and sheeps and lambs and DS2:2M It's where all animals are ah like cows, ah sheep and ah sheepdogs and lambs and horses and ah DS2:4F Where animals live and am there's a farmer on it that has to take care of the animals It is clear that the status 2 children in all cases begin the definition with a

superordinate, thematic fronting process – ‘it’s a place’; ‘it’s where animals live’;

‘where animals live’; followed by a complementary clause elaborating on the

explanation using lexically explicit vocabulary - ‘with all ah noise where animals

don't like it but a few people do’; ‘there's a farmer on it that has to take care of the

animals’. It is equally clear that this structure is only evident in the contribution of

one of the status 1 children, the rest of whom clearly demonstrate knowledge of the

word meaning but choose to define by describing, focusing on function, or viewing

the request as the introduction of a new topic of conversation ‘it has has has all

shops what you can go to and buy clothes and shoes’; ‘a farm that can work with

animals’; – ‘It's like am oh my god (began to sing Old McDonald had a farm

together with great gusto!!)’.

Senior Infants

Narrative Language Samples

The narrative form is familiar to children from a very early age. Children acquire the

ability to construct narratives at home during infancy and the pre-school years as

they engage with parents who discuss past events with/in front of their children

(McCabe, 1992). This familiar pre-school interactional process is exemplified in the

words of Mrs Rabbit (Beatrix Potter) who warns her children of the dangers of Mr

McGregor’s garden, ‘Now, my dears …you may go into the fields or down the lane,

but don’t go into Mr McGregor’s garden: your father had an accident there; he was

put in a pie by Mrs.McGregor.’


84

Narrative is an important part of the development of all children contributing in a

fundamental way to their capacity to organise their experiences and understand

their lives (Golden, 1997), as well as being a discourse genre in which children

learn from an early age to speak publicly (Michaels, 1981). Machado (2003)

suggests that for children storytelling is ‘a complex, cognitive endeavor that

involves a kind of “story sense” and “story grammar”’ (p.316). The linguistic

features of narrative storytelling are developed over time for children as they

experience storytelling around them, both oral and through stories read aloud

(ibid.). In the context of school, narrative takes on added importance since

‘because narratives involve decontextualised language they can facilitate students’

transition from oral to literate language’ (Westby et al., 2002, p.235).

That children vary in terms of their construction of narratives is well-established

(e.g. Heath, 1983; Westby et al., 2002) as is the finding that ‘narrative variations

may influence academic performance of children from non-mainstream

backgrounds’ (Westby et al., 2002, p.235). These researchers advocate that

‘understanding children’s development of mainstream narratives can be useful in

planning educational strategies to facilitate students’ literacy success’ (ibid.).

Narrative style typically conforms to six stages, according to Eggins and Slade

(1997) – Abstract, Orientation, Complication, Evaluation, Resolution, Coda (p.236).

Conventional expectations of a good story follow typical story grammar format as

proposed by Mandler and Johnson (1977) where there are six major story

elements: setting, beginning, reaction, attempt, outcome and ending (Lewis, 2005,

p.92). This structure is characterised by McCabe (1992) as children

1. beginning by orienting the listener in relation to the who, what, where and

when

2. followed by a build up of a series of events leading to a high point which

3. may sometimes be the solution to a problem

4. after which events are resolved (McCabe, 1992, p.15).

While children from different cultural backgrounds may produce excellent

narratives which differ in form from that outlined above, the conventional

expectations for narrative structure are those most valued by teachers (Michaels,

1981).


85

Two forms of narrative were taken from the senior infant children in this study. The

first was where children were given story sequences in picture format (four pictures

per story) and asked to tell the story. This resulted in the Teddy stories from some

children and the Doggy stories from others. In addition, the children were asked to

retell in pairs the familiar story of the Three Little Pigs again with pictures to help

them remember the details of the story.

TEDDY STORY

DS2:4F

1. It's Christmas time and Santa is at the house. 2. He comes up to the Bear's bedroom. The bear puts his stocking … his stocking is

... stocking onto the side of his bed. And then, since Santa go ... came, he poured them all out.

3. So so am he found all the toys. 4. This was at night and now it's morning.

Story Title: Christmas Time AS1:2F

1. A little teddy bear was going to sleep. 2. And when Santa came then he went in he went in to the Teddy Bear's room. 3. And then he put some toys in to into the stocking because he was fast asleep. 4. And then the next morning when the Teddy Bear woke up he found all the toys.

BS1:1M

1. Santa was coming to the Bear's house. 2. The bear was getting ready. 3. The bear had the socks, sock beside his bed and he fell asleep. 4. And Santa came and gave him presents.

Story Title: Santa Clause goes to the Little Bear's House


86

DS2:2M 1. Santa came in 2. and ah he put the toys in his in the so ... in his sock 3. and then he threw them out 4. and I think he played with them.

Story Title: Santa All of the above stories follow the conventional narrative structure as outlined in

McCabe (1992) and others. These children are clearly oriented in the ways of

structuring narratives in expected ways. However, as one reads down through

them it becomes apparent that in terms of clarity of expression following

Schleppegrell’s (2004) outline there is some difference between the stories. The

first story (status 2) presented uses clear, explicit vocabulary, introduces time,

place and characters early on in the story, has events unfolding clearly, uses

appropriate anaphoric reference – ‘Santa is at the house. He comes up’, shows an

ability to use the conjunction ‘since’ to integrate clauses, and uses the dramatic

present – ‘he comes up’ for effect. The second story (status 1), which is very well

constructed, shows evidence of complex syntax (‘when Santa came then he went

in he went in to the Teddy Bear's room; he put some toys in to into the stocking

because he was fast asleep; the next morning when the Teddy Bear woke up’) but

the clarity of reference and amount of expansion is not as developed as that of

story one. Other stories are less descriptive, use less complex syntax, and include

less expansion and elaboration. One of these stories is produced by a boy from a

status 2 school (DS2:2M), whose story is not as clearly constructed as that of the

girl from a status 1 school (AS1:2F).

Other stories didn’t quite follow the narrative format and were less explicit, used less

complex syntax and included less expansion of reference:

BS1:3M

1. Santa was in somebody's house. 2. And he went up to the bedroom. 3. And then he found the boot and he spilled all the things out and then he got a

sock then and he saw all the toys. Story Title: Santa in a House BS1:2M

1. Santa came in. 2. He was going to the Bear's house and the bear get ready ad then he got ready

and then he went to the bear's and he went to the Bear's house 3. and gave all the toys.


87

CS1:2M 1. Santa came one night 2. and he put toys into the stocking 3. and the next morning the Bear emptied the, he found the thing and he emptied it

open. Story Title: Nice Little Santa AS1:4F I don't know that one (use the pictures to help you make the story – who climbed into the house)

1. Santa (what's happening in this picture) 2. He's giving out the toys. 3. And now the Teddy Bear woke up to get the toys.

Similar findings emerge from the Doggy story, stories varying quite a bit in terms of

presentation of ideas and cohesive integrated structure.

DOGGY STORY DS2:3F

1. The dog was bouncing along 2. and he tripped over a can of black paint. 3. And then he got his paws all black 4. and he made pawprints all over the floor

Story Title: Mess CS1:3M

1. It's about a little dog. 2. He was looking at paint. He spilled all the paint. Then it was on the floor and then

he stands in the paint. 3. Then there's paw tracks.

Story Title: Little Doggy BS1:1M

1. The dog was running towards the am pot. 2. And then he knocked all the paint. 3. And then he then he didn't know what to do. 4. And then then he was very sad and then then he ran away.


88

Story Title: The Dog The Three Little Pigs

For this task a well-known familiar story was presented in picture format to the

children and they were asked in pairs to retell the story. No intervention was made

while the children were retelling the story except to encourage each child to

participate fully and to help children move on in one case where they were unable

to construct a story unscaffolded.

AS1:1F/AS1:2F The Three Little Pigs A – Once upon a time there was three little pigs. K – Once upon a time there was three little pigs A – They had they made three houses. One full of straw, one full of wood and one full of bricks. (Clear opening showing familiarity with traditional tale format and an ability to work with it, time, place and character introduced) K – The wolf, the wolf came and he blowed down the house, the house of straws. A – No I will not let you in he said not by the hair of my chinny chin chin. (This contribution skipped a large part of the story getting on to what this child obviously felt was the more significant part of the story) K – The wolf couldn't blow down the house of, the wolf could blow down the house of sticks. A – He blowed down am the house of bricks and then he went down there and he couldn't so he went like that and then he went like that and then he jumped in there and then he got arrested. (Lots of vague use of deictic here leading to lack of clarity. Introduces an aspect of the story that she feels should be included at the end as punishment for the wolf)

AS1:3M/AS1:4F The Three Little Pigs E – The three little pigs. The wolf blowed down the house and ah (long pause) (Anthony, do you know what happened) A – The wolf blowed down the house and the pig was eatin food he and he went into the chimney. (now Erika you tell me another bit) E – They builded a house. (what were the houses made from) (needed help –straw and ) E – Timber. (and bricks; and who came along) A – The wolf. (and what did he try to do) A – He tried to blow down the house. (and was he able to blow down all the houses) A – No cos they were covered in bricks. (and what happened him in the end) A – He went away. (Needed lots of intervention and scaffolding to complete the story even with the support of pictures. These children demonstrated no confidence during this process. Clearly not


89

comfortable with the task. Lots of vague reference and lack of expansion and incoherence evident)

BS1:3M/BS1:4M The Three Little Pigs A – There was there was three little pigs and the wolf wanted to eat them and they made up the house. They made one with sticks and one with straw and one with bricks. (Strong opening, presenting clearly all the main points needed to follow the story) D – Am the wolf, the wolf blowed down and then the other pig he had a brick house so they couldn't blow it down. (Reference becomes vague and unclear and important sections of the story are omitted) A – Then he he goed mad he went down the chimney and he burnt himself. (Long pause here) (is that the end) No he could have just blowed the door down (introducing personal opinion).

CS1:1F The Three Little Pigs The mother said go and build your own house. The three little pigs went off to ... and built the houses. Then the fox came and blew down the house. Then the pig ran over to the other house and then they then they then they the fox went, tried to blow down the house. Then they went then he went down the chimney he jumped into the ah pot. (Clearly knows the story but is having difficulty organising it and retrieving the appropriate vocabulary to present it explicitly)

DS2:1M/DS2:2M The Three Little Pigs T – There was once three little pigs but one he did the, that one was the cleverest because he he builded his house out of bricks, he builded his house out of sticks and he builded his house out of straw. But then the the the the am the wolf could blow the sticks the sticks and the straws down but then he thought up of an idea that he wanted to that he that he put them on his plate and eat them up. P – He he ah he blew am the straw house down and ah ah stick. And the guy the pig who built the am house with brick – he kept on, he was knocking on the door and he and am the pig came out and he he said no more knocking on my door and then he got tired of it and T – He he jumped down the the ah thing to get the (chimney supplied by partner) to get the pig and then but then then he they builded a fire but they fell into the fire and then he went around howling with his bum bum and then and then the pigs had their supper. (Longer and more elaborate version of the story than is evident from the other children with clear organisation and structure apparent. However, reference is vague and unclear at times and necessary vocabulary is not always at the ready) Once again, the presence of ‘literate’ style language features is stronger and more

apparent in the recounts of the status 2 children. The stories of these children are

consistently more organised, coherent, complex, longer than those of the status 1


90

children. The reference is generally clearer and more explicit and there is greater

expansion of reference in evidence. The status 2 children consistently relish these tasks,

displaying a confidence and ease with the form of the challenge, whereas children from

status 1 schools can often feel overwhelmed by the request and begin by feeling unable

to complete the task. Status 1 children frequently responded to this task by saying, for

example, ‘I can’t make a story’; ‘I don’t know that one.’ Sometimes the child would sit

back and let the partner complete the task and would need encouragement to become

engaged. One child demonstrated a total unfamiliarity with the technique of storytelling

and needed a lot of support. These children also generally needed more prompting and

intervention to sustain the storytelling process right through to the end, which was

manifestly not the case with the status 2 children.

Senior Infants

Imaginative Language Samples

Telephone Conversation The world of the imagination as exemplified through children’s play is one where

appropriate use of language is of paramount importance, in that it is a world which

is mediated predominantly through language (Machado, 2003). In the imaginative

world things are rarely as they appear and need to be articulated clearly through

language so that the creator of that world can successfully embrace others in

his/her play. This need for clarity, organisation, coherence and explicitness means

that the language of the imagination used in play is similar to more formal, literate

uses of language required of children in school (Galda and Pellegrini, 1985).

Effective communication in the world of the imagination is dependent on choice of

words as well as skill in communicating effectively (Kempe, 2001). Setting up a

make-believe situation through drama, where children can interact naturally and

express themselves both intellectually and emotionally is a strategy that will not

only enable children to use language meaningfully and purposefully but also will

enhance children’s facility with language such that their ability to communicate

effectively in a range of situations is developed (Dyson, 1990).

The use of drama as a strategy to enhance and develop ‘literate’ language skills is

becoming increasingly recognised – ‘Drama is becoming a vital tool in the literate

classroom’ (Clipson-Boyles, 2005, p.180) since ‘drama is an ideal means of

providing experiences that contribute towards meaningful models of language


91

development and learning … and to empower children as decision makers and

users of language and literacy’ (Clipson-Boyles, 2005, p.178).

To elicit samples of children’s imaginative language use, a dramatic strategy,

dynamic duos (ibid., p.181) was used. Children were asked in pairs to have a

make-believe telephone conversation – the scenario was briefly described to the

children and roles were assigned and then the children improvised a telephone

conversation. In the case of the children in senior infants, they were asked to call

up a friend and invite the friend to a birthday party or to imagine that there was an

emergency in the house and to telephone a friend. The object of the exercise was

to ascertain the extent to which children would give details of the scenario in

question in an effort to clarify their intent to the listener and successfully establish

and sustain an imaginary situation through language.

Telephone Conversations (Birthday Party Invitation)

AS1:1F/AS1:2F A: Hello K K: Hello A A; Would you like to go to my birthday? K: Yeah A: Five o’clock now. It will be on now at seven K: OK A: Bye K: Bye (Good knowledge of the conventions of talking on the telephone. Greeted each other appropriately and identified who they were talking to. Question asked clearly and appropriately using the interrogative mood correctly. Details proffered in relation to the time of the party and related to current time for clarity. Each child responded well to the other, picking up accurately on the contingency pairs offered) AS1:4F/AS1:3M E: A, I'm having my birthday party today. Will you come? A: OK E: Bye (Not great at imaginative creative tasks. Very little elaboration and lots of scaffolding needed. These children did not engage in the formalities of talking on the phone to the same extent as other children – no initial greeting, and only one child said goodbye. No clarification details provided in relation to the party)


92

BS1:2M/BS1:1M M: ring, ring G: Hello M: Hello. It's me, M. It's my birthday today G: Yeah M: And will you give me some balloons G: Ok M: and then give me some cake G: Yeah M: and then give me some presents G: Yeah M; That's all (Reasonably good knowledge of convention of talking on telephone. M didn’t actually invite G to a party but did talk about the features of a party and asked if G would give them to him. No parting good bye from either boy). BS1:3M./BS1:4M D: Hello A: Hello D, do you want to come to my birthday party? D: OK A: K. Bye D: Bye (Followed brief to the letter with no expansion of reference at all. Were able to initiate and close conversation on the phone appropriately) CS1:2M/CS1:1F E: Hello G: Hello E: Are you coming to my birthday party? G: You didn't invite me E: Yes I did. I gave you a birthday card G: Yeah. But I lost it (This conversation opens appropriately but is closed down by remark in relation to not being invited instead of more appropriate response of acceptance followed by a request for more details) DS2:4F/DS2:3F J: Hello R: Hello J: Who is it? R: R R: Do you want to come … I called because Do you want to come to my party? J: Yes please R: Please wear fancy clothes, very fancy clothes, OK? J: OK R: Not too fancy but a bit am from whatever you like around the house J: OK R: Goodbye. It's at three o'clock J: Bye (Clear knowledge of telephone conventions. Request for clarification when identity not given – this child was able to suspend disbelief and pretend that she didn’t know who was calling and ask the necessary question for clarity; aware of the conventions even though she doesn’t require this information in reality. Some elaboration in relation to appropriate dress code for the party followed by advice on what to do. Detail of time also given)


93

Telephone Conversations (Emergency in the House)

AS1:3M/As1:4F A: E, there's an emergency in my house E: Ok. Bye (Tell her about it) A: It's … my house is on fire (Poor response with little elaboration) BS1:1M/BS1:2M G: M, I ... there's an emergency in my house. ‘Tis on fire M: Oh (sounds really shocked) I'll come right away. Bye (in a very cheery tone!!) G: Bye (No questions asked or details given to clarify the situation.Tone much too cheery when ringing off!!) BS1:3M/BS1:4M A: Hello D: Hello. There's an emergency in my house A: OK I'll be down there D: Bye A: Bye (Very little elaboration here) DS2:3F/DS2:4F R: Yes, what is it? J: There's an emergency at my house R: What is the emergency? J: Am, (is it a fire) J: Am There's a fire and ... and …it's ... in the garden and someone is in the garden and they didn't see it R: Are they OK J: I don't think so R: Why don't you come to my house until the fire goes away. It might be safer. J: OK (Lots of important details about the emergency emerge here both in terms of information given and questions asked for clarification. Consequently, the drama lasts longer and develops more using more explicit language and resolving the difficult situation) Very clear differences are evident in these conversations between status 1 and status 2

children, the status 2 children being more able to establish and sustain the make-believe

situation effectively through language. These children ask appropriate questions of each

other, ask questions to which they clearly know the answer but in the world of

imagination need to be asked and answered for the sake of the play, are able to develop

the situation giving important relevant details and to follow on from one another in a way


94

that keeps the play going and does not shut it down (e.g. ‘there’s a fire and … and … it’s

… in the garden and someone is in the garden and they didn’t see it; are they OK? Vs.

‘are you coming to my birthday party; You didn't invite me; Yes I did. I gave you a

birthday card; yeah, but I lost it). In this second example the responses shut down the

play and make it difficult to sustain and develop the make-believe situation.

Another interesting difference emerging from these samples is in relation to gender.

Many of the girls show a greater facility with language than boys when engaged in an

imaginary telephone call scenario in both status 1 and 2 contexts. Girls use language

more effectively to establish information, ask relevant questions, develop points and in

general communicate more successfully than the boys in a similar situation. It is

important to acknowledge that interactions on the phone may be culturally relative. The

function, tenor, and register of a phone call can differ for children as a function of their

cultural experience. This may account in part for the stark differences in response of the

children to this task.


95


Third Class Children Factual Language Samples

Odd-One-Out

As was the case with children in Senior Infants, these children were shown some series

of pictures where one picture was different in some way from the others. The children

were asked to say which one was different and to explain why it was different. It was

emphasised that pointing was not allowed and the children were encouraged to use

language to complete the task. Below are the children’s responses to this task. As

before, sections in bold highlight where the children used lexically explicit and

appropriate language, typical of the kinds of descriptions expected in a school context.

Items in bold italics draw attention to particularly good vocabulary choice or complex

syntax being used for clarity by the children. Sections underlined point to where there is

a level of vagueness, lack of clarity or inappropriate use of language evident in the

children’s contributions. Responses are grouped by item and listed for children by school

from school A to school D. (See Appendix G for pictures.)

1. Christmas Tree/Truck/Bauble/Santa’s Hat

1. The last one ... (pause) because on the second one there's a dot, there's two

dots on em but on that one there's only one

2. The last one has am only four and the rest of em have 5

3. The one with the four (and why is it different) cos all them has five and

he has four

4. Some of em are small and some are big

5. That one the last one because it has it has only am it only has four balls in it and

the other one has five

6. The last one is different because that only has one dot in the middle and the others have two dots in the middle

7. Probably the third one because it doesn' ... it only has one Christmas decoration on the third row

Two of the children failed to identify specifically which picture was being referred to in

their response. One child began with a vague reference (that one) but immediately

clarified which one was being referred to. Each of the first five responses (all from status


96

1 children) have quite a number of vague elements making it difficult to interpret without

reference to the picture and even then at times it is still not clear what the children may

be referring to (‘the one with the four, cos all of them has five and he has four’). The item

in question on the Christmas tree is a bauble, variously named by the children as a dot,

a ball, a Christmas decoration, or not named at all as is the case in three of the

responses. Responses 6 and 7 (from a status 2 school) are considerably clearer than

the others, the specific picture is identified and clearly named, the reason for the

difference is given without additional prompting, demonstrating that the children

understand the task and are familiar with this type of request to display knowledge

explicitly and formally, the item is named (dot and Christmas decoration), and elaborated

language is used to describe the differences (one dot in the middle, the others have two

dots; it only has one Christmas decoration on the third row). Similar results are apparent

from the other items in this task as presented below.

1. The second one because there's no bag with strings comin out of em

2. (Began by pointing – no don't do that, tell me). Middle one. (why?)

Because that's not a box, a square, like the top bits, and there's points

sticking out

3. They have loads of things in the back end of that one. They have more

than the last fella.

4. One of the trucks has a big bag in the back (can you tell me which one) the middle one

5. The middle one because there's am a big bag on the back of it 6. It's the middle one because the middle one has this ball thing sticking out of the

top

7. The middle one because it has a round sack in the middle and the rest of them only have square packages in them

8. The middle one because it has an extra box and extra bag

1. The second one because it had a black line on the thing underneath

the dot

2. That has two lines and that has white things

3. The second one has two black lines and the other one has white lines

4. The second (why is it different) because I think there's spots on the top of it

(correct one but wrong explanation)

5. It's the … it's the second one cos the two stripes are black


97

6. The one just after the first one because it has a black line instead of a white

line

7. The pattern is different – the second one has two black lines instead of a black line and a white line

1. The second one because it has a fluffy ball on his hat and the other ones don't

2. That one, the middle one (and why is it different) because there's stuff comin out

of it

3. (Which Santa is different – no… tell me which one) he has a spike on the back of

his suit

4. The middle one has all spikey things going up on the end of his hat

(where) the roundy thing on the end of his hat

5. The middle one because of the lines

6. The middle one (and why is the middle one different) he has fluff on his bell 7. The middle one cos am the ball thingy off his hat is furry and the rest of

them is just round 8. The second one because it has things sticking out of the bottom

2. Snowmen/Parcels

1. The third one cause he's looking that way instead of that way

2. The snowman's head one's that way and the rest of em are that way

3. That one there, the third one cos his nose is that way and the other ones are that

way (moving head to show different directions)

4. They're all looking that way and he's looking that way

5. The middle one,(there are four) The second (referring to the second last

but omits the word ‘last’ – and why is he different) because he's the one

that's pointing that way

6. The second last one because his head is turned the other way to the different

ones

7. The second last one because his head is turned to the left and all the other heads are turned to the right (other way round!!)

8. The second last one because it's turned the wrong way


98

1. The second one (needed to be prompted to explain why) because the other

ones have long ribbons but that one don't

2. That one there, the last one because it's fatter than the rest – the second one

(because?) because the bow is shorter 3. That ribbon is cut (which one is it) the, the second last (correct reference is the

second) no that one there

4. All the things are the same point except the second one

5. The second one cos it has one short and one

6. The second one after the first because the ribbon, the part of the ribbon at

the left is shorter

7. The second one because all the others are even bows, the shapes at the

end, and the second one is uneven

4. Churches/Policemen/Arrows 1. The third one because it has a flag instead of a cross

2. It's the third one (and the reason?) because that's a flag on the top of the church which there's not allowed be

3. The third one cos that has a thing like that (using the hand to show

direction of flag)

4. The flag and all the rest of em are a cross

5. The third one because it's a flag

6. It's the second last one because it has a flag on the top instead of a cross 7. The second last one because it has a flag instead of a cross 8. The second last one because it is a flag instead of a cross

1. I think there's something on his hat, yeah, the first one. (and what's the

difference). He has a diamond on his hat instead of a circle. (very

elaborate response given when prompted for it but not forthcoming without

prompting)

2. That ... the first one. There's a diamond on the top


99

3. He has a diamond hat and he has a circle one

4. They have circles on the head and the first one has a diamond 5. It's the first one (pause) the diamond on the top of his hat and all the others

are circles

6. The first one because it has a diamond instead of an oval on it

7. It's … am, the hats. It’s the first one – it's a diamond instead of a circle

1. The second one because it's pointing left instead of right

2. (Pointed to odd one out – why?) cos the rest that … one's facing left

and the others are facing right

3. That one (and why) …’cos that's going that way and the other one is

going that way

4. All the arrows are going left and the other one is going right (right idea but

opposite directions used!)

5. The second one (because?) they are all turned a different way

6. Second one because it's facing the other way

7. The second one after the first one because the arrow is pointing to the left Children from the status 2 school (responses 6 and 7) are consistently (though not

constantly) more explicit and coherent in their responses to this task. They use a wider

range of appropriate vocabulary to explain the differences (e.g. The pattern is different –

the second one has two black lines instead of a black line and a white line; all the others

are even bows, the shapes at the end, and the second one is uneven; it has a round

sack in the middle and the rest of them only have square packages in them). Their

explanation of the differences is made typically with reference to the other items in the

task (e.g. The middle one because it has an extra box and extra bag; because it has a

black line instead of a white line; because his head is turned to the left and all the other

heads are turned to the right; because the arrow is pointing to the left). They complete

the task without much intervention or prompting. They don’t hesitate as much as other

children, finding the words and structuring them effectively with ease.

Children from status 1 schools tend to be more vague and ambiguous in their

reference than those in the status 2 school (e.g. that one, that one there,

they’re all, the other one, all the rest of ‘em). These terms are used much less

frequently by status 2 children. Naming items is sometimes a problem also for

status one children (e.g. ‘loads of things, this ball thing, on the thing, there’s


100

stuff, spiky things, roundy thing, the different ones, one short and one, a thing

like that’). The status 1 children are less likely to expand their references by

using adjectives or other embellishing vocabulary in their descriptions (e.g.

where status 2 children say ‘round sack’ and ‘extra bag’, the status 1 children

either don’t identify it at all or call it a ‘bag’, or a ‘big bag’; where a status 2 child

says that ‘all the others are even bows, the shapes at the end, and the second

one is uneven’ status 1 children say things like ‘it's fatter than the rest’ or ‘the

bow is shorter’, and ‘all the things are the same point’). More complex syntactic

structures are in evidence in the responses of status 2 children with greater

frequency than in the case of status 1 children (e.g. ‘it has a diamond instead of

an oval’ where a status 1 child says ‘he has a diamond hat and he has a circle

one’; or status 2: ‘because the arrow is pointing to the left’ and status 1: ‘the

other one is going right’ or ’cos that's going that way and the other one is going

that way’). There are unquestionably examples from status 1 children where

more complex syntax and more elaborate vocabulary are in evidence (e.g. ‘the

two stripes are black’; ‘a fluffy ball’; ‘long ribbons’; ‘the bow is shorter’; ‘a

diamond hat’; ‘diamond on the top of his hat’) clearly signifying that this form of

language use is available to them, but these examples are considerably less

frequent than is the case for the status 2 children.

In eliciting these language samples from the children it was evident that the

status 1 children experienced considerably more frustration at not being

allowed to point and often attempted to use chins and foreheads and elbows to

indicate which was the odd one out. They also demonstrated difficulty retrieving

the best vocabulary to express themselves. It was necessary to remind the

children constantly about using language only in response to this task. This

was not the case with the status 2 children.


101

Third Class Factual Language Samples

Where are my Glasses? (Prepositions)

For this task, a divider was placed between each pair of children. They both received the

same picture of a living room (See Appendix H). Each picture was missing a different set

of items. Items missing from one picture were visible in the other picture and vice versa.

The missing items were drawn at the bottom of each picture. Each child in turn had to

ask his/her partner to indicate the location of the missing items.

Children’s responses are presented below. This task was designed to elicit a range of

prepositions from the children as they identified the location of the missing items in the

room. Children’s facility with language use to accurately and explicitly describe where

each item was located such that it could be readily identified and not confused with the

location of other items was the focus of the analysis. Responses are from each pair of

children, listed by item and presented by school.

School A A31:1F/A31:2F cup – on the ground near the table glasses – (confused with drinking glass) on the ground near the table purse – handbag (corrected by partner to purse) on the chair next to the table pipe – on the coffee table near the couch knitting – (had to be told what it is) next to the handbag on the chair radio – on the coffee table basket – on the floor next to the chair cushion – (called it a pillow) on the couch slippers – on the floor next to the table newspaper – on the floor near the bin, near the sofa teapot – down near the fire umbrella – on, next to the couch Three different prepositional terms are used throughout this task. Three of the responses

gave only one descriptor, eight gave two descriptors, one gave three descriptors. The

only embellishment evident is where the table is referred to as a coffee table.

A31:3F/A31:4F Cup – on the telly Glasses – on the table beside the lamp


102

Purse – (bag) on my am chair Pipe – (pipe needed to be explained to partner) oh there am it's on the table Knitting – on the couch Radio – on the table Basket – on the ground Cushion – (pillow) on the couch Slippers – (called slippers shoes) on, in front of the couch Newspaper – (called it paper) am in front of the one-seater couch Teapot – (called teapot kettle) by the fireplace Umbrella – beside the ball Four different prepositional terms are used here. Eleven of the responses give just one

descriptor to locate the items. One gives two descriptors. The descriptor for two items is

‘on the couch’ and ‘on the table’ is used for another two. The only embellishment evident

is where the couch is referred to as a one-seater couch.

B31:1:M/B31:2M comb – it's ... the comb? on the chair brush – on the chair (wrong) book – the book? on the ground pen – pen? on the table yoke (wrong – on TV) glass – (called it a jug, mug; had to be told glass) television (no preposition used at all here, correct answer is: in front of the coffee table) cigarettes – (fags) on top of the fire socks – on the chair soccer ball – over by the books hat – on the chair CD – by the ... coming out of the thing handbag – (called it a purse) (no preposition used here at all) couch Four different prepositional terms are used here. All of the responses give just one

descriptor to locate the item. Two items are described without any prepositional term.

The descriptor ‘on the chair’ is used four times without any attempt at differentiating for

different item locations. Minimal references used and in some cases no words are

available – ‘on the table yoke’, ‘coming out of the thing’.

B31:3M/B31:4M glasses – on top of ah ... table cup – on the telly basket – on the ground pipe – on top of the table knitting – (knitting things) on the chair radio – on the table teapot – down on the ground pillow – on the chair


103

slippers – on the ground paper – on the ground handbag – on the chair umbrella – it's standing up by the couch Four different prepositional terms used here. All items use only one descriptor. The

descriptor ‘on the ground’ is used for three items without differentiation. One

embellishment evident – ‘standing up by the couch’.

C31:1M/C31:2F Glasses – on the table next to the lamp Cup – on the television Pipe – on the table Purse – on the couch (handbag on the couch; purse on the armchair) radio – on the table pillow – on the couch knitting – (called sewing needles) on the couch basket – on the floor newspaper – on the floor slippers – on the floor umbrella – next to the couch teapot – on the floor next to the fire Two different prepositional terms used here. Ten of the items get one descriptor and two

get two descriptors. No items are embellished in any way. The descriptor ‘on the table’ is

used for two items, ‘on the couch’ three times, and ‘on the floor’ three times without

qualification or extension each time.

C31:3M/C31:4M Glasses – on the table next to the lamp cup – down on the floor near the table (this is where the glass is. Á says, that is the glass, where is the cup) on the television pipe – on the table beside the radio handbag – (self-corrects: no it's a little purse) on the on the what is it again oh the armchair (only child so far to use this term) radio – on the table next to the lamp knitting – on the couch pillow – on the couch basket – on the floor newspaper – on the floor under the ... in front of the chair slippers – under the ... in front of the couch umbrella – leaning against the couch Eight different prepositional terms used here – one of them incorrectly but the child self-

corrects and uses a more accurate preposition. Seven of the items have one descriptor


104

and five of the items have two descriptors. Two of the items are described as ‘on the

couch’. No differentiating qualification details are given. The final item is described as

‘leaning against the couch’.

D32:1F/D32:2F mug – on the top of the telly sunglasses – (sunglasses? or the glasses) next to the couch on the locker next to the lamp (embedded and elaborated information for clarity) purse – on the couch or on the on the on the armchair pipe – on the locker next to the lamp and the stereo (embedded and elaborated information for clarity) knitting stuff – on the couch radio – on the locker next to the lamp picnic basket – on the floor next to the books and the chair (embedded and elaborated information for clarity) pillow – on the couch slippers – under the couch newspaper – it's next to ... in front of the armchair teapot - beside the fireplace umbrella – it's leaning against the couch next to the bookshelf (embedded and elaborated information for clarity) Seven different prepositions are used here. Seven items use one descriptor, two items

use two descriptors and three items get three descriptors. Vocabulary use that is not

evident in other responses include: locker, stereo, bookshelf. The umbrella is described

as ‘leaning against the couch next to the bookshelf’.

D32:3M/D32:4M comb – on the chair beside the purse hairbrush – on the floor next to the basket and very close to a chair and a TV (embedded and elaborated information for clarity) book – in front of the couch pen – (qualifies by calling it an ink pen) on top of my television glass – near the coffee table chalk – on top of my mantelpiece pair of socks – on the chair close to the TV gloves – on top of the chair very near my purse (embedded and elaborated information for clarity) football – it's near the bookcase handbag – on top of my chair record – near my chair hat – on top of my chair Nine different prepositional terms are used here. Eight of the items get one descriptor,

three get two descriptors and one is described with three descriptors. Explicit vocabulary


105

choice evident here includes: mantelpiece, inkpen, bookcase, pair of socks. The terms

‘very close’ and ‘very near’ are used here also as discriminating qualifiers.

It is clear from the examples above that the status 2 children use a wider range of

prepositions to locate the items in this task than do the status 1 children with one

exception – the second pair of children from school C. It is noteworthy that one of the

children in this pair is very widely read and demonstrated a facility with literate style

language during many of the tasks. Status 2 children consistently describe the location

of the objects, not only with a wider range of prepositions but also with more information

and more explicit vocabulary than is evident from the descriptors of the status 1 children.

The descriptions given by status 2 children clearly differentiate between the location of

the objects in the picture and reduce any confusion on the part of the listener as a result.

This was not always the case in the responses of status 1 children who regularly used

the same descriptor without differentiation to locate different objects, thereby causing

confusion in relation to the exact location of the object.

Here again it is manifestly obvious that the status 2 children are more aware of the

expected ways of using language in the school context. Their language is more clear

and explicit, more varied, more complex; vocabulary choice is wider and more specific.

They are acutely aware of the needs of the listener and have the requisite language

skills at the ready to rise to the linguistic challenges of the task. While all of these

characteristics are apparent in the contributions of the status 1 children, they appear

more infrequently and sporadically than is the case with status 2 children.

Third Class Factual Language Samples

What’s Wrong with the Picture?

In this task the children were shown a picture with a number of deliberate errors. Each

child in turn was asked to identify an error and explain what was wrong. As before, it was

emphasised that children should not point to the errors but identify them using language

only. Responses from some of the pairs of children are included below for analysis. The

purpose of this exercise was to ascertain the extent to which children could clearly and

explicitly explain the deliberate errors in the picture, leaving one in no doubt as to what

they were talking about.


106


107

The instruction given to the children was to: Look at the picture and tell me what you see in the picture that's wrong and why it is

wrong.

A31:3F/A31:4F

1. The boy is feeding an apple to a cat or a dog, I don't know which

2. There's a woman out the window in a swimming suit and it's snowing

3. It's snowing there and it's sunny there

4. There's a boy with a pig, half a pigtail and one without there and a bit of a pigtail

5. The girl has a welly on and a shoe on

6. The cat doesn't look like a dog or a cat

7. The fish is on the table for a dinner

8. There's abc on the clock, half the clock

9. There's a chair, there's a chair there and there's a thing

10. There's a curtain half open and there's a curtain not open

11. There's a lamp on the table

There is evidence of quite a lot of vagueness in the children’s response to this task (‘It's

snowing there and its sunny there’; ‘The girl has a welly on and a shoe on’; ‘The cat

doesn't look like a dog or a cat’). Almost all of their expressions are vague and assume

shared knowledge (‘There's a curtain half open and there's a curtain not open’). The

children had great difficulty not using fingers to point out errors and relying on language

alone to express.

B31:1M/B31:2M

1. The snowman holding the girl outside the window

2. The fella is feeding the cat a apple (thought this was hilarious and laughed an

awful lot)

3. The sun outside the door

4. There's a kettle over there and there's a kettle over there

5. He has a pair of soccer boots on. He has one pair of soccer boots on and he has

a pair of slippers on

6. There's a plate on top of a cup

7. The woman look, the girl, she has a shoe and she has no shoe on

8. A bit of flower onto the carrots

9. That tap is going up like that and the other tap is going up like that


108

10. aba look at the numbers on the clock – different

11. That one has one like that the two of em has one like that and the other one has

a big circle one on the clock down there

12. A fish on the table

13. There's a biro, a fork. No, no, no, no that was wrong, that was wrong, ah I see

the chair has no back and the other one the other two, three of em has a back

14. There's a snowman and a girl out there

15. The curtains (what about the curtains?) One's small and one of em is knackered

…one of em is thick and one is skinny

16. The flowers (referring to the flowers growing outside the window)

17. The boy is wearing soccer boots and socks

18. He has on a short pants and a long pants

19. The woman has one, one, one one cut and the other and she has and she has

one straight

Lots of vague descriptions are given by the children in this example. These children

display poor ability to express themselves clearly. The tap description is very unclear

and contextualised. The children were very animated during this exercise – and

concentrated well. The children sometimes pointed out the error in a way that didn't

clarify the error – ‘the flowers’ but no elaboration given. At times the children found it

difficult to express the differences (‘The woman has one, one, one, one cut and she has

the other straight’ – referring to the length of the girl's hair in the picture).

D32:1F/D32:2F

1. The cat has mouse ears

2. The table has a wheel on one of its legs

3. The cat's eating an apple

4. The chair the top chair of the table doesn't have a top 5. The boy has a ponytail, a pigtail

6. Over there, in the door it's sunny but out the window it looks like it's winter 7. The little girl is playing outside in the snow with swimming togs on 8. The girl on in in the door is one one is wearing a shoe and the other one one

foot has a shoe and the other foot doesn't

9. One of the taps in the sink is facing in the opposite direction 10. The clock has letters and numbers (using superordinates – evident in some of

the status 1 children)


109

11. There's a fish bowl on the table

12. One leg on the girl is shorter than the other leg

13. One leg on the boy that's feeding the cat has am one leg has a soccer boot on and the other has a high heel on

14. The snowman's hat is upside-down

15. There's a furry chair under the sink 16. There's flowers in the winter

17. The curtains are upside-down

18. The girl has carrots with flowers on the top 19. There's curtains under the sink

20. Looks like she's floating with a piece of wood on a river

21. The chair has no top

22. The cup is upside down with a plate on it

23. The cooker has drawers on it

24. There's a teapot on the cooker

It is evident that these status 2 children are much clearer and more elaborate in their

labeling of the errors and their explanations in relation to the errors. Each error is clearly

named. They use a wider range of appropriate explicit vocabulary (e.g. opposite

direction, letters and numbers, fish bowl, floating like a piece of wood on a river,

drawers), more complex syntax (e.g. ‘one leg on the girl is shorter than the other’; ‘one

leg on the boy that’s feeding the cat…’; ‘the girl has carrots with flowers on the top’; ‘the

cup is upside-down with a plate on it’). The errors are clear to anyone even without

reference to the picture, which is not the case in the descriptions given by the status 1

children.

Third Class Analytic Language Samples

Word Definition

Cooking/Shopping

Words for definition at Third Class level were drawn from the story Cloudy with a Chance

of Meatballs (Judi Barrett) in which the townspeople never had to cook or shop for food

because food dropped from the sky already cooked. As a consequence, the people of

Chewandswallow didn’t know what cooking is. Children were asked to tell people in


110

Chewandswallow what Cooking is or to define Shopping, another concept that would

be unfamiliar to the townspeople. Cooking A31:2F

Cooking means like that you can make a dinner like if you have carrots and

they're not fre… if they're fresh you can put em into am a pot and you can boil

em.

A31:3F

Am, you ... I don't know how to explain. I don't know what to say. (imagine I have no idea

what cooking is – how would you help me to understand). You have to you have to you

hav… You have to make a nice dinner So (laughs). What do you want for dinner. (I'd like

spaghetti bolognese). Oh, I know how to get that. (so what's cooking). You hav… you

have to put the meat on the the you have to put the meat on the what's it called the pot

(this word is supplied for her by her partner) and then then ah then then you have to wait

you have to put it on the cooker and you have to go like that…

B31:1M

Cooking? Frying pan. (reminded again about the people of Chewandswallow when they

had to learn to cook. What did they have to learn?) with their hands – cook the food.

B31:3M

You'd be cooking food.

C31:1M

Cooking means you've to cook stuff, cook your food.

C31:4M

Am you put something in the oven you want to cook and you just you turn it on and leave

it for an hour or half an hour and then you put it on a plate and then you eat it.

D32:2F

You have food but you can't eat cos you have to stick it in the oven, put it on

put it on to the correct heat that it says on the package and leave it there for

maybe an hour or a few minutes.


111

D32:3M

Mainly involves turning a switch to put on what temperature you want and

cooking raw meat and pots and pans.

Most of the children once again gave a functional description of cooking in their

definitions. The definitions consisted predominantly of describing what one does when

one cooks. This varied in detail and specificity, status 2 children generally giving clearer

and more elaborate details in relation to the process of cooking. One status 2 child

began appropriately by saying that cooking is ‘where you have food but you can’t eat …’

The other status 2 child who completed this task made reference to raw food in his

definition (‘cooking raw meat’) but this came in the middle of the definition rather than at

the beginning. Thus broadly these definitions conformed to findings in the literature that

some children include a superordinate term followed by a restrictive complement. The

final two definitions are reasonably elaborate in terms of their expression. Some

definitions from status 1 children were vague and general, and all definitions from these

children are descriptive. All children appear to have struggled with this task.

Shopping A31:1F

Where you have to go into a market and you have to look around for what food you

want.

A31:4F

You just go to shops well you'd have to show them where the shops are first

(tell them what shops are) and you go in and there's loads of food. If you want

to go into a vegetable shop you can go into the vegetable shop and buy

whatever you want. If you prefer to go into a supermarket you can go into a

supermarket and buy stuff.

B31:2M

Lifestyle Sports out by …(named a nearby shopping centre).

B31:4M

Getting messages … getting food C31:2F

Am shopping is when you go shopping and you buy stuff. You can buy

clothes or you can buy jewellery or you can buy food.


112

C31:3M

Well you go into this big giant shopping store and you've all this kind of food and

bread, bread and all this cereal and you you buy stuff that you want and you have to get

money to buy it or else you can't buy anything.

D32:1F

You have to go to the supermarket. (and tell them what shopping is) Buying food off

the shelves and am bringing it home and cooking it.

D32:4M

Am shopping would be am picking … choosing the food of your variety that you'd

like and am they probably wouldn't understand but after a few years they'd probably

understand shopping and paying for food and understanding how to see the labels and if

they're in date.

Almost all of the children when defining ‘shopping’ began with the concept of going

somewhere to get something, which is a good way to begin. However, in all cases but

one the children included references that required an understanding of shopping to

begin with (go into a market, go to shops, get messages, go shopping, go into this big,

giant shopping store, go to a supermarket). One status 2 child understood this and

began the definition with the superordinate, setting the context – ‘shopping would be

picking, choosing the food’. What followed in some instances was a functional

description of shopping (you have to look around for what food you want; you go in and

there’s loads of food; you’ve all this kind of food and bread). Others defined the concept

more generically, distancing themselves appropriately from a purely functional way of

describing the task (buying food off the shelves and taking it home and cooking it; you

buy stuff … you can buy clothes or you can buy jewellery or you can buy food; you buy

stuff that you want; buy whatever you want). Status 2 children were more clear and

explicit in their definitions, including reference to the fact that food is on shelves, that

shopping involves paying for food and understanding labelling of food and ‘use by’ dates

for food. One status 1 child included appropriate reference to the need for money – ‘you

have to get money to buy it or else you can't buy anything’.

It is clear from this that unlike the children at Senior Infant level, there is very little

difference between children in terms of their ability to define common concepts. All

children were familiar with the concept of shopping and all included important references


113

in their definitions. However, some children in status 1 schools and some in status 2

schools gave clearer, more elaborate and more explicit definitions of the concept than

other children. Some status 1 children gave short, unexpanded and vague responses to

this task. The lack of difference here may be a function of the words being defined.

Unlike the words for definition in Senior Infants, these were action words and perhaps all

of the children found it difficult to define the action without reference to a functional

description which pervades the definitions given by the children here.

Third Class Narrative Language Samples

Picture Stories

For this task, the children were shown a series of pictures telling a story and were asked

to recount the story as presented in the pictures. Having recounted the story the children

were asked to give their story a title. Below are some of the children’s responses to this

challenge. (See Appendix I for pictures – Cat and Dog story.)

Cat up a Tree Story B31:4M

1. The dog was running after the cat

2. and the cat climbed up a tree and the boy went in to get a ladder

3. and the boy climbed up the ladder to get the cat

4. and the cat drank the milk.

Story Title: The Boy who Saved the Cat

(Note: characters are introduced using definite articles as if they were already known to us. When ‘tree’ is introduced it is correctly referred to using an indefinite article since the specific tree is not yet known to us; when ‘ladder’ is first introduced an indefinite article is again correctly used and the definite article is then used when referring to the ladder later on in the story. While this story has all the requisite stages of a narrative and shows evidence of some awareness of introducing unfamiliar objects in a story by using the indefinite article, the recount is short and unelaborated. No expansion of noun phrase is evident and there is no evidence of complex syntax, apart from the excellent title given to the story which uses an integrated structure in the form of a relative clause, and summarises the focus of the story succinctly) C31:4M

1. There's a dog chasing the cat

2. and the dog chased the cat up the tree and the boy seen the cat and the boy

went to the shed and got the ladder and ah put it up against the tree and climbed

up the ladder


114

3. and got the cat down, brang the cat down

4. and give the cat some milk.

Story Title: The Cat and the Dog

(Note: In this correctly constructed narrative the first character is introduced using an indefinite article, appropriately recognising the need to introduce the character before making reference using a definite article. However, this is not sustained with the introduction of the other characters who are referred to as if the listener already knew them. Some elaboration is evident in this story – ‘put it up against the tree’ but very little and there is no expansion of noun phrases or complex syntax used. The title is unimaginative and reveals very little of the focus of the story)

C31:3M

1. The dog was chasing the cat am around the garden

2. and the dog was chasing him and the cat climbed up the tree and the dog

couldn't get him because dogs can't climb trees. And then the boy came over

to the tree and the boy saw the cat in the tree and that he couldn't get down

and then the boy ran to the shed and he looked and he got the ladder and he

walked and he got the ladder and he walked over to the cat and he climbed up

the ladder and then ah

3. and then he saved the cat from the tree

4. and am then he and then he then he gave the cat am milk in a bowl.

Story Title: The Cat got Stuck in the Tree

(Note: Not only is this a well-constructed narrative but it uses clear, explicit and appropriate vocabulary and complex syntax to communicate effectively with the listener. This story shows evidence of having encountered and produced many narratives before. Use of indefinite articles to introduce characters is not yet evident in this recount. There is evidence, however, of appropriate anaphoric reference – in stage two the cat is first referred to as ‘him’ having already been introduced in stage one, and subsequently is renamed as ‘the cat’ to avoid confusion for the listener, demonstrating a keen awareness of the needs of the listener by this child. This is a child who reads widely)

D32:3M

1. There's a dog chasing a cat. 2. The cat is very smart so it runs up a tree. A boy comes along and sees it. He

runs into a shed, gets a ladder, puts it up against the tree, climbs up,

3. gets the cat, climbs down

4. and treats it to some milk.

Story Title: A Day in the Life/The Cat and the Dog

(Note: This correctly constructed narrative appropriately introduces all characters using indefinite articles and subsequently refers to characters, now familiar, with the definite article. There is evidence of coherence in the form of anaphoric reference, e.g. ‘a cat’…’the cat’; ‘a boy’…’He’; ‘gets the cat … treats it …’. Explicit and appropriate


115

vocabulary is used throughout – chasing, very smart, against the tree, treats, some milk. Complex syntax is evident – ‘the cat is very smart so it runs up a tree’) It is evident from this set of narratives that all the children are capable of producing

correctly constructed narratives, although the presence of the pictures as a scaffold may

have supported this. Their efforts to construct a narrative in an unsupported context are

not always as well structured, as will be seen in the next section. There is quite a

difference among the children, however, in terms of their effectiveness in presenting the

narratives with appropriate expansion and elaboration, use of appropriate vocabulary,

complexity of syntax and coherence of structure. Story three and story four are clearly

much more effective than the first two stories. Story four is told by a child in a status 2

setting. Story three is that of a status 1 child. This child has had great exposure to the

world of literature and clearly has absorbed a capacity to use literate style language in

his narratives.

Alien Story (See Appendix J for Alien Story Pictures.)

A31:3F/A31:4F

1. There was an alien and he was coming wherever they are and he was landing

2. and he comes out and then he comes out with boxes and they the hedgehog or

something like that (laughs) runs away and the alien is going over to them. And

then they're running up the tree and they broke the tree and then they were

hiding up in the tree. Then they were looking at the alien

3. And then they he goes like that the alien goes like that (makes a gesture) Stop.

And the robot whatever

4. And the robot goes and then he says 'Bye'.

Story Title: The Robot and the Scared Children

(Note: Good start, appropriately introducing one of the main characters and correctly referring back to this character with pronoun ‘he’. Other characters are introduced vaguely using pronoun ‘they’. Evidence in this narrative of difficulty retrieving appropriate vocabulary, no expansion or elaboration, no complex syntax evident. Good, effective story title given)

B31:3M/B31:4M

1. They they saw the ship landing and the the robot came out

2. and he said STOP and then they all scattered and they ran away cos they were

afraid of him. They all ran up the tree to hide on him and the robot walked


116

across it. The tree broke and they all fell and the robot saw them and then the robot came out with shock and they got afraid

3. He said don't be afraid I have presents for you

4. The spaceship took off.

Story Title: The Robot that brought the Present to the Mouse and Hedgehog

(Note: Poor introduction of characters, setting, context. Poor structure. Very little evidence of coherence in this narrative. Some evidence of explicit vocabulary and complex syntax) C31:1M/C31:2F

1. They see the spaceship coming and then the spaceship lands and the robot

comes off

2. and then they climb up on a tree and the branch they're up on the branch and the

branch snaps. They they're up on a tree and the thing, the robot's walking and

the tree breaks and then they fall off and the robot sees em and they run away

and then the robot says stop

3. He says why are you running away and then they all give him presents

4. and then he goes away.

Story Title: The Mad Bunch (Note: Very poor introduction of main characters, setting and context in this narrative but some evidence of appropriate vocabulary and some effective use of indefinite article and anaphoric reference as highlighted)

D32:1F/D32:2F

1. One time some creatures, a hedgehog, a mouse and a rabbit saw a spaceship

coming down

2. And then they saw a robot alien coming out (of the spaceship is implied). So

they got really scared and ran up a tree. While they were looking out of the tree the am branch broke and they fell and the robot spotted them and they

were scared. But then he said not to be scared. (all other children have used

direct speech for this) So he went inside (the spaceship implied)

3. He went inside and got a few boxes, some treats for them, and they were all

happy then

4. And he flew away then in his spaceship (referring to spaceship for effect and

clarity here).

Story Title: The Nice Alien

(Note: Very clear introduction, setting the time, the main characters and events appropriately, using general reference and assuming no familiarity on the part of the listener. Many examples of anaphoric reference giving coherence to the structure of the


117

presentation. Some examples of complex syntax, in particular the tactic of thematic fronting (stage 2: they …’ran up a tree’. Next sentence begins by fronting the location – ‘while they were looking out of the tree’. This form of integration condenses much information in a very short space – the creatures were up in a tree, they were looking down, during this time something happened. Indirect speech used instead of repeating the words of the robot – this is more complex to produce linguistically and this story is the only one showing evidence of this. Clear and explicit vocabulary used throughout, e.g. robot alien, really scared, spotted, he went inside, some treats, happy, flew away. Information which can be implied from the context is implied, resulting in no redundant language being used here)

This final story shows clear evidence of literate style in all aspects of its presentation as

indicated already. Stories from status 1 children, while following the format of narrative

style correctly, often are more inclined to describe what they see in the pictures than

actually tell the story, at times use local, colloquial language rather than literary style

language, demonstrate considerably less awareness of the needs of the listener, and

are more vague and incoherent, disorganised and lacking in clarity and explicitness.

Third Class


Open-Ended Stories

For this task the children were given a story title and asked to complete the story orally.

The title was The Sad Story of the Giraffe who had a Short Neck. Below are some

responses to the task. In some cases the children spontaneously opted to collaborate in

the telling of the story and in others children took on the task of completing the story

individually.

The Sad Story of the Giraffe who had a Short Neck

A31:3F/A31:4F

Right, the giraffe was born and he was teeny and he was the smallest and the most am

(argument about who will start and who will finish – getting stuck when trying to continue

the story).

There's am a little giraffe, right, a baby giraffe with a small neck and he's growing up, he

starts growing up and growing up and his mom and dad hates him

and his mam and dad wish he was going away

no his mam and dad are


118

died, one of them died and he was very sad and then his dad was working every day

and he had to stay with his granny and his granny had no time because she was

washing, making dinner for him and everything

and people slagging him over he had a small neck and am he started crying one day

and then am no his mam and dad didn't die

no his mam died over being very sick

over eatin something

no his mam was sick right

yeah his mam was sick in hospital

and am then he …one day he wakes up and his little neck gets longer and longer and

then he am goes out and people look at him and he says you can't make fun of me now

and then his mam and dad come over and he goes over to his granny's and then his

granny hugs him and then he goes down to his mammy and daddy and brings the two of

‘em together and the mammy got better and they all hugged each other. The End.

(Note:The story as presented displays characteristics of being rooted in children's own life experiences and is expressing their worldview as identified by Westby et al. (2002). It has little evidence of narrative style throughout or evidence of literary style language apart from the final phrase which clearly indicates that this ‘fictional’ story is at an end. The story lacks coherence, structure, organisation, awareness of audience, explicit vocabulary)

C31:1M

That's the story of the giraffe who had a short neck.

Ah…once upon a time there was this giraffe that was born and his mam never noticed

he had a short neck. And everybody laughed at him every day cos he had a short neck.

And then when he grew up he still had a short neck, and then ... (pause) I don't know

(what do you think happened in the end)

he got a big neck then.

(Note: This story has a good introduction, showing evidence of having experienced literary stories in the past, but having introduced the main character, the story doesn’t develop in the narrative style and includes no literate style language)

C31:4M

Am … well there was once a giraffe with a really short neck and he was really sad

because all the other ones mocked him because they had really big necks. And they

could reach up to higher trees and he could only reach down to you know little tiny trees. And he was really sad. And he got and he got so sad … ah and then am and

then one day am after he woke up from sleep his neck … his neck was really long.

(Note: Clear narrative structure in evidence here as is quite good vocabulary use in places and some evidence of complex syntax. The story could be developed much more


119

though but it is clear that this child has encountered literature and has absorbed some of its qualities such that he can produce a story that follows an organised format in a coherent manner using some explicit vocabulary)

D32:1F

There was a giraffe who was once … he was a happy giraffe until one day he saw more

giraffes and he then he got a bit upset because he realised he was being teased by

the other giraffes because …

Then he looked in a mirror one day of his cage and he saw that he had a shorter neck

than the other giraffes.

His mother said that he was just unique but he knew that he … it was wrong to have a short neck and he was very upset about it cause he couldn't reach the leaves on the high trees, he couldn't play with the other giraffes, he couldn't do anything the other giraffes could do because he had a short neck. And one day he was playing along on his own again when he … when he …ah … when

the older boys came over to him and said why are you on your own like this

and he said because I have a shorter neck than all the other giraffes and they don't want

to play with me because I'm different

and he said why, why are you different

and he said because I have a shorter neck

and he said but there's nothing wrong with having a shorter neck and just different than

the others doesn't mean … it’s not … you don't deserve to am be excluded from the games and he was very nice to the giraffe who had a short neck which made the giraffe feel less upset. The older giraffe went away and he went to his mother and said mom can I go play with

the others and his mom said yeah but she was quite unsure in case he came home upset again So he went over and played with the others. When they started teasing him he said I

should be … you shouldn't be teasing me

I could easily tease ye for having long necks but I won’t because it's wrong so why are

ye doing it to me

And then they started to realise that it was (emphatic was) wrong

and he started to get a little bit happier because he had taught a lesson to the

others to not be mean to him

and then for the rest of his life as he grew older he got a longer neck. (Slowed down for

dramatic effect to indicate that this was the end of the story)


120

(Note: Lots of evidence here of narrative structure and literate style language, in a very lengthy story – given that this is done orally and completely off the top of the head, coherence, organisation, awareness of audience, ability to readily retrieve a wide range of appropriate vocabulary, switching from direct to indirect speech seamlessly and without effort, use of a variety of techniques including pace and emphasis to add to the effectiveness of the storytelling)

It is clear from the children’s stories presented above that all children have knowledge of

the storytelling genre but some children are more familiar and comfortable with it than

others. The child in school C who has had a lot of exposure to literature and the status 2

child from school D present stories that are more organised and developed than the

other stories and the story of the status 2 child is much more elaborate and detailed in its

presentation than any of the other stories. The characters are well drawn and the scene

is set. The status 2 children demonstrated a facility with this task that was not evident in

the case of the other children.

Status 2 children were comfortable and relaxed and thrilled with this challenge, eager to

undertake the task and at times arguing over who should tell the first story!! When they

began the stories they continued uninterrupted with very few hesitations until they

reached the conclusion of the story. All of their stories were organised in a clear

narrative style. No intervention was needed. As with Senior Infant children, status 1

children found all creative and open-ended tasks more daunting, protesting that they

couldn’t do it, or that they didn’t know that story, and many needed some cajoling to

continue the task. When asked at the beginning of this task what they were like at telling

stories, one status 1 child sighed wearily and said, ’Bad!’

Third Class

Imaginative Language Samples Telephone Calls

The children were asked to make imaginary telephone calls as in the case of Senior

Infant children. One telephone call involved calling a friend in an emergency and the

other was calling a friend to invite him/her to a birthday party.

1. B31:4M calling B31:3M

There's an emergency in my house.

Wait there so and I'll call ... is it a fire?


121

Yeah.

Wait there so and don't panic and I'll call the fire brigade.

(Note: no greetings, farewells or introductions from either of the children. The nature of the emergency was not given by the caller until the listener asked the question and then the response just confirmed what the listener asked. The needs of the caller in relation to the emergency were not articulated. However, the appropriate question was asked in relation to the emergency and a good, elaborate response was given helping to sustain the make-believe situation)

2. C31:1M calling C31:2F

Hello.

There's an emergency at my house.

What's the emergency?

There's a fire.

Will I come over?

Yeah.

Right, Ill see you.

Bye.

Bye.

(Note: this is a much clearer conversation. There is a greeting to begin and farewells to conclude the exchange. The listener immediately asked the pertinent question in relation to the emergency, to ascertain the problem. The listener then asked how the caller could be helped. The success of this call rests with the listener who used language appropriately to establish the imaginative context successfully. However, very little elaboration is evident and the make-believe scenario is shut down pretty quickly)

3. D32:4M calling D32:3M

Hello.

Hello.

There's an emergency at my house.

I'll be back over in a minute. I'm just putting on my shoes.

Hurry, it's burning.

(Note: Even though these status 2 children began the call with a greeting, the imaginative scenario is not well established or developed during the brief conversation and irrelevant information is introduced into the conversation which doesn’t take it anywhere)

4. B31:3M calling B31:4M

Hello.

J… do you want to get invited to my birthday party and go out today … about two?

Yeah, I'll be over in about ten minutes.


122

(Note: some information needed to establish the imaginative scenario is proffered by the caller without needing to be asked. However, the listener fails to move the conversation beyond this point and shuts down the role-play) 5. C31:2F calling C31:1M

Hello.

Hello. I rang to say will you come to my birthday party?

OK.

It’s … it’s on at two o'clock to six at M…. We are going to … (named a fun play place)

and we're going to the cinema and we're going to MacDonalds after

OK. I'll be there.

6. D32:3M calling D32:4M

C… do you mind coming to my birthday party, please? I've no other guests. You're the

only one that's as desperate as I am to go to a party. Will you please come?

OK.

Thanks.

The most successful telephone calls in terms of clarity of format and purpose and use of

clear, direct language in the course of this task are those involving a girl who manifestly

demonstrates her ability to accurately build an imaginative scene by asking the right

questions and giving the appropriate information (calls 2 and 5). Telephone calls made

by status 2 children are no more elaborate or clear in their establishment and

development of the imaginative context than calls made by other status 1 children.

Very clear and significant differences in terms of use of literate style language are

evident at Third Class level between status 1 and status 2 children in relation to factual

language use and narrative style of language. Again and again status 2 children produce

language where ideas are presented clearly, using a wide range of vocabulary,

elaborating and expanding on information given, and using complex syntactical

structures appropriately. They approach tasks with great enthusiasm and confidence

and display this confidence in strong forms of expression, with few hesitations and

needing minimal intervention or support. Their presentations are organised and

coherent, following formal structures so that their communication is clear to the listener.

This is true far more frequently in the case of status 2 children than for status 1 children.

The language of the status 1 children is frequently more vague, disorganised, incoherent

and unelaborated and consequently more difficult to follow. They repeatedly indicate a


123

lack of confidence and a reluctance to engage with the tasks set, feeling that they will

not be able to complete them. Interestingly, however, at this level, responses to the word

definition task show only minor differences between the two groups of children. Even

though the definitions of the status 2 children include reference to superordinate

concepts, the status 2 children give definitions that are predominantly functional

descriptions of the words as do the status 1 children, but give more detail and

elaboration in their responses than typically found in the responses of the status 1

children. In the case of imaginative language use, the difference manifested between the

children is in terms of gender at this level, the response of the girl to this task shows

evidence of language being used to establish, develop and sustain the make-believe

context considerably more effectively than is the case of the boys either in a status 1 or

status 2 setting.


124



Sixth Class

Draw-a-Cat Instructions

One of the tasks designed to elicit factual language samples from Sixth Class

children was the ‘Draw-a-Cat’ task. For this, a divider was placed between each

pair of children. One child was given a blank sheet of paper and a pencil and was

asked to follow the directions given by the other child. The second child was given

a series of pictures illustrating how to draw a cat’s head. This child was asked to

instruct the other child to draw the picture, following the sequence in the diagram.

The focus of the task was on the children’s facility with language to give directions

clearly and unambiguously, taking the perspective of the listener into account.

Children were asked not to mention what the final picture was. Below is the

response of some of the children giving the instructions.

‘Draw-a-Cat’ Task


125

B61:3M

Circle face.

Pointy ears. Ah (needs to be reminded here to give partner time to do the drawing)

a kind of neck, roundy neck (what, a roundy neck? partner asks). (needs to be reminded

to give time again here – very poor awareness of other)

A square down between his eyes. (a square? down his eyes? or down between)

You've to tachk black on to the end of it.

pointy end.

am two eyes.

draw a line down, line down and then draw two things and they come out. (line down

where?)

A line down, the top of the nose down.

And draw squiggly things in between his mouth

and then you draw whiskers.

Presenting Ideas:

Clear lack of explicit vocabulary used here – kind of neck, roundy neck, square down

between his eyes, tach black on to the end, top of the nose down, squiggly things. No

new understandings constructed, no relationships of time, consequence, comparison.

Addition is included – then draw … and … No evidence of integrated, embedded

relationships.

Taking a Stance:

This child shows evidence of a distanced and non-interacting relationship with the

listener only in so far as he seems oblivious to the existence, let alone the needs, of his

partner who unsuccessfully seeks clarification more than once throughout the exercise.

While an imperative mood needs to be adopted, the mood is predominantly declarative,

describing, staccato style, what he sees resulting in a modality that expresses

uncertainty and lack of confidence, displayed through clipped expression, haste of

description, lack of concern for partner. Imperative mood is only in evidence some of the

time – ‘draw a line down’ – and only emerges halfway through the task.

Structuring Text:

There is no evidence of dense presentation of ideas and there is a distinct lack of

coherence – ‘square down between his eyes’ – what eyes, whose eyes? ‘You’ve to tach

black on to the end of it’ – of what?; ’line down’. There is very little evidence of expanded


126

phrase or elaboration of ideas, using only one or two adjectives throughout the task. Lots

more elaboration, coherence and clarity needed.

A61:4F

The first one you draw am a circle and there's two ears coming out of it.

And then you have a little kind of square at the bottom of the head and then there's a

triang… not a triangle, but a rectangle coming out.

And you draw the, you draw a triangle coming out of the rectangle. Then you draw two

eyes and then you draw two lines, three lines, three lines coming, one coming out of the

nose and then two down the square out the head. (asked to repeat by the other child;

repeats and then continues)

The line, there's a line coming out of the nose and then there’s two lines at the, do you

know the square at the bottom of the head, you draw two lines to that and then you draw

some teeth inside it

and then you draw whiskers.

Presentation of Ideas:

Here again there is a lack of clear, explicit vocabulary in evidence. There is evidence of

time relationships with the opening – ‘the first one you draw’, and the repeated ‘and

then’. No integrated, embedded relationships apparent.

Taking a Stance:

No imperative statements – all declarative – ‘you draw’ and ‘you have’ and ‘there’s ...’

Incomplete statements and self-correction suggest lack of confidence and uncertainty in

modality.

Structuring Text:

More expansion evident than in previous sample – ‘at the bottom of the head’, some

teeth’, ‘little square’. Some evidence of anaphoric reference – ‘the square at the bottom

of the head, you draw two lines to that and then you draw some teeth inside it’. First

reference to rectangle is correctly introduced with an indefinite article and subsequent

reference to it is using a definite article.


127

A61:2F Do a circle with points on the top.

Do a mouth and a jaw.

It has a rectangle coming down to the middle. (a rectangle, is it?) There's a triangle

underneath the rectangle.

There's a 6 and a backward 6 on the bottom of the line.

There's a line from the triangle to the other triangle. (request for clarification)

The triangle that's coming from the rectangle.

There's a line coming from that triangle and there's another triangle.

There's squiggly lines inside the mouth.

There's eight lines on each cheek.

Presenting Ideas:

Needs more use of explicit vocabulary. No relationships of time, consequence,

comparison and addition in evidence. Has used some prepositions indicating physical

position – ‘underneath’, ‘inside’.

Taking a Stance:

No imperative statements.

Structuring Text:

Reasonable evidence of clear organisation and appropriate referencing used but very

little expansion and elaboration for clarity. Connections are not made clearly from one

set of instructions to another so that confusion quickly arises in relation to which triangle

is being referred to and which line is being referred to and where the two sixes are

located. Need more coherence and more thematic fronting for clarity.

D62:4F

Draw a circle.

And do two triangles at am coming out at either side of the top of the circle.

And now at the bottom of the circle do a little ah it's kind of like a square coming out of it.

And now in between the two triangles at the top, inside the circle do a rectangle coming

down from the top.

Am at the bottom of the rectangle do another triangle coming pointing out from it.

and colour it in with the pencil.

On either side of the rectangle below the two triangles do two circles, small circles.


128

And do two smaller circles within those two circles.

Now you know the rectangle below, I mean the triangle below the rectangle, you have a

line coming down from it just a tiny one and then there’s two lines coming down

gradually on either side of the line coming down.

Now inside those two lines there are kind of squiggly things joining them together.

Like a zigzag.

And at either side of the lines you have some lines coming out with a bit of curl on them

curling up and down.

About four at either side.

Presenting Ideas:

Evidence of clear vocabulary – either side of, the top of, like a square, coming out of, in

between, inside the circle, small, smaller, colour it in, pointing out, within, just a tiny one,

coming down gradually, joining them together, bit of a curl …

New understandings constructed by expanding and clarifying instructions throughout the

exercise. Relationships of time – ‘and now’, ‘and then there’s’; comparison – ‘it’s kind of

like a square’, ‘like a zigzag’, ‘a bit of a curl’. Lots of evidence of addition ‘and colour it

in’. Integrated, embedded relationships are evident also – ‘in between the two triangles

at the top, inside the circle’, ‘on either side of the rectangle below the two triangles’,

‘smaller circles within those two circles, ‘at either side of the lines you have some lines

coming out with a bit of curl on them curling up and down’.

Taking a Stance:

Strong, confident opening using imperative mood – ‘Draw a circle’. Imperative mood

used many times throughout the presentation.

Structuring Text:

There are many examples of dense presentation of information in this text – e.g. ‘two

triangles coming out at either side of the top of the circle’, ‘on either side of the rectangle

below the two triangles do two circles, small circles’. The text is organised, clear and

coherent – appropriate use of definite and indefinite articles, anaphoric reference, clear

repetition of content words when needed and this within highly dense text with

embedded clauses. All references are clearly marked and expanded on appropriately.

This text repeatedly uses the strategy of thematic fronting for coherence and clarity –

beginning the sentence with reference to a previous sentence and moving on from there,

e.g. ‘at the bottom of the rectangle’, ‘inside those two lines’.


129

D62:2M First of all draw a circle.

Then draw two triangles coming out from the top of it.

Draw a small rectangle coming out of the bottom of it.

And draw another rectangle coming from the top on the inside of the circle.

Draw a triangle pointing downwards at the end of that.

Then draw two eyes at either side of the rectangle.

And from the triangle draw an upside down y that goes down to the bottom of the circle.

Ah, inside of the bottom of that Y, you know the kind of V part of it, am draw a squiggly

line coming across it.

And draw two straight lines coming out from the side of the circle. And then on the other

side as well.

And then on either side of those two squiggly lines, or those two straight lines draw two

curly ones.


Clear and explicit – ‘upside down Y’, ‘pointing downwards’, ‘two curly ones’ ‘coming from

the top on the inside of the circle’, ‘draw two eyes at either side of the rectangle’. New

understandings clearly constructed, introduced, explained and expanded on

appropriately. Relationship of time well established – ‘first, then, and then….’;

Relative pronouns – ‘draw an upside down Y that goes down to the bottom of the circle’

Taking a Stance:

Strong, confident use of the imperative mood, with clear expression of confidence

throughout.

Structuring Text:

Lots of evidence of density of information – e.g. ‘Draw another triangle coming from the

top on the inside of the circle’.

Clear organisation and coherence with appropriately expanded reference.

Evidence of integrated, embedded relationships – ‘Draw a triangle pointing downwards

at the end of that’. Evidence here also of the thematic fronting for clarity – ‘from the

triangle …’; ‘inside the bottom of that Y …’.


130

It is clear that the presentations from the children in the middle-class school much

more closely approximate ‘literate’ or ‘academic’ style language in terms of their

presentation of ideas, stance and structure. They are more explicit, choose more

appropriate vocabulary, clearly construct understanding on the part of the listener,

are strong and confident in stance and involve a dense presentation of ideas using

complex syntax, organised coherently and expanded appropriately. This is the

language style expected of children by teachers in the school context.

Analytical Language Samples

Sixth Class

Word Definitions

Hair Conditioner/Hair Stylist

The theme of the warm-up sessions with the sixth class children was broadly

based on topic of Hair. During the discussions with the children for the Elicited

Production Tasks they were asked to define the terms Hair Conditioner and

Hair Stylist. As with the younger children this task was woven casually into the

conversation so that children wouldn’t feel under pressure when completing the

task. As before, the criteria for analysis of children’s definitions followed

recommendations by Schleppegrell (2004, p.37) derived from findings of

studies by Snow (1987,1989,1990).

Definitions were judged on the basis of being formal or informal and on their

communicative adequacy. Formal definitions are those which draw on a

language use that has both lexical and grammatical expectations: expands and elaborates a noun phrase to incorporate information, and structures the

clause in such a way that the expanded noun phrase defines the target word. Informal definitions are those which contain mainly functional or

descriptive information (Schleppegrell, 2004, p.37). Below are children’s

responses to this task.


131

Hair Conditioner: Definition A61:2F

Conditioner is sort of … am it’s sort of …ah …ah a hair care product that helps your

hair better ‘cos conditioner is better than shampoo ... makes it softer and makes it

shinier.

A61:3F

Well conditioner is like …it's like white thing … you take it out of the bottle and it makes the knots come out of your hair, like when I'm using conditioner I'd use half a bottle to

get out the knots.

B61:1M

Keeps your hair … am soft.

C61:1M

It's to make your hair soft.

C61:4F

It's ... you put it on after shampoo

D62:1M

You put it in after you put in shampoo – it's kind of to make it softer.

D62:3F

Well, when you wash your hair you wash it with shampoo and then afterwards you wash

it with conditioner to make it go all nice and smooth and detangled.

Only one of these definitions contains a superordinate term to begin the definition (a hair

care product). This requirement of a formal definition is evident in the definition given by

a status 1 child. An expanded noun phrase defining the target word is in evidence in

almost all of the definitions but the lexical choices made by the children vary quite a bit in

terms of communicative adequacy. Effective choices include, e.g. ‘makes it softer and

shinier’; ‘to make it go all smooth and detangled’). More ordinary choices are ‘to make it

softer’; ‘to make your hair soft’; ‘it makes the knots come out of your hair’; ‘keeps your

hair soft’. One child gives a purely functional definition of the term: ‘you put it in after

shampoo’. This definition fails to express clearly what ‘it’ is and where you put ‘it’ after

shampoo. With the exception of this definition which clearly shows an understanding of


132

the term by the child but fails to present that understanding in a way expected in the

school context, all children present a definition that is at least moving towards what

might be categorised as a formal definition, but only one child fulfils all the requirements

of a formal definition and that is a status 1 child.

Hair Stylist: Definition

A61:3F

People who do hair and do it up whatever way they want and they can do twisters or

curls.

A61:4F

A hair stylist is what … you can talk to 'em whatever way you want your hair and they'll

do it for you and see what way it turns out.

B61:3M

Hair stylist? People who put their hair in different am different conditions is it?

C61:2M

You ask … if you ask him to do something like he'd be able to do it. Like … if you ask

him if you want something done like we'll say you want bits cut off here or bits there or

there.

C61:3F

Am someone who designs your hair or does your hair.

D62:2M

A person who styles your hair, like Conrad …(Names a famous stylist). A person who comes up with something like that ... (referring to picture of hairstyle designed by

children).

D62:4F

A hair stylist styles your hair. Can keep up to date with the new fashions for hair

and can do colour, or can, just through drying, can do a different style to it

without cutting it.


133

For the definition of this word, five of the children used superordinate terms to begin the

definition (people who do hair, people, someone, a person who styles your hair, a hair

stylist styles your hair). Three of these were status 1 children. Three children (one of

whom was a status 1 child) followed the superordinate in the introduction with an

expanded noun phrase which defines the target word, again with varying degrees of

communicative effectiveness. One definition with very good lexical choices and complex

grammatical structures is from a status 2 child: ‘can keep up to date with the new

fashions for hair and can do colour, or can just through drying, can do a different style to

it without cutting it’. Another definition with good lexical choices is: ‘someone who

designs your hair’.

Some of the status 1 children included superordinate terms and used expanded noun

phrases in the definitions. However, others showed evidence of neither and produced

definitions which were purely descriptive in nature: ‘they can do twisters or curls’; ‘you

can talk to ’em whatever way you want your hair and they’ll do it for you and see what

way it turns out’. And others made lexical choices that were vague and failed to

communicate adequately the definition of the target word: ‘different conditions’; you want

bits cut off here or bits there or there’.

There is a clear developmental difference apparent here in terms of children’s response

to the word definition task. Children in Senior Infants produced definitions which

indicated that they understood the terms, but the definitions of status 2 children more

closely approximated the formal definition structure. At Third Class level, very little

difference was evident between the definitions produced by status 1 and status 2

children, many of the children producing a more formal style of definition, with varying

degrees of expansion in the definition. At Sixth Class level there is more evidence than

at other levels across status 1 children of a greater facility to produce formal definitions,

the type of definition expected in the school context. Some responses from the status 1

children were superior to those produced by status 2 children in terms of formality and

lexical choice. Many of the children used superordinate terms to introduce their

definitions and many offered expanded noun phrases in defining the target words. Status

2 children generally made good lexical choices resulting in enhanced communication,

while this is true also of some status 1 children. There is evidence still, however, that

some of the status 1 children struggle to produce formal definitions and make lexical

choices that are communicatively inadequate. The difference across social class in

relation to producing formal definitions appears to be that while most of the children in

the advantaged setting can do so with relative ease and reasonably good lexical


134

choices, this is true for only some of the status 1 children who increase in ability to

produce the type of definition valued in the school context as they move up through the

school.


Sixth Class

Telephone Conversations

Complaint to the Hairdresser

Arising from the theme of the warm-up session and some of the introductory discussion

during the elicited production tasks, the imaginative telephone call for children at this

level took the form of a call to a hairdresser making a complaint. Below are some of the

children’s responses to this task. It is worth noting in these samples of imaginative talk

that:

Status 2 children appear to be able to develop and sustain the imaginary context

through language more effectively and their role-play lasts longer and is more

elaborate than is the case for status 1 children.

The language register used to make a complaint is more circumspect and more

deferential in the case of status 2 children than status 1 children (compare in

particular the responses of A61:2F/A61:1F with those of D62:3F/D62:4F). Status

1 children may be more inclined to make assertions without thought for the

implications or consequences of what they are saying.

The language skills of status 2 children appear to enable them more readily to

counter arguments and accusations made, such that the role-play is enabled to

move on, as compared with other children who find it more difficult to retrieve the

requisite language readily in order to make counter arguments, and as a

consequence cannot move the role-play forward in any meaningful way.(‘You did

something wrong to my hair’ – ‘I’m sorry’; and ‘I’ll do what I want’ – ‘Right, bye’;

as compared with – ‘Well, I'm very unhappy and I would like to have my

money back and I'll be coming in in two hours … I'm afraid we don't do refunds

… well you will not get my service ever again’).

Children in the status 2 school generally are more adept at using appropriate

language with complex syntactical structures to generate and sustain the


135

imaginative scenario in a way that is easily comprehensible to others (e.g. ‘Hi,

am I'm one of your am customers and I was in a few hours ago and I got a wash

and blow dry and colour and actually I'm not really satisfied’ as compared with

– ‘Yeah, it's my daughter, her hair isn't done and it's her communion day’).

Often in the case of the status 1 children, the complainant becomes passive as

the conversation unfolds, leaving it up to the person receiving the phone call to

lead the exchange.

When the children were asked to undertake this task, all of the status 2 children

without exception were excited by the challenge, felt confident that they could

complete it and entered into the make-believe context quickly and without

scaffolding. In the case of the status 1 children there was a palpably different

response to this task. Many felt unable to rise to the challenge, most were

reluctant to engage in the task when it was put to them initially, and many

needed support, encouragement and intervention to continue.

Role-Play – Imaginative Telephone Call – Complaint to Hairdresser

A61:2F/A61:1F

E – Ring, ring

L – Hello.

E – Yeah, it's my daughter, her hair isn't done and it's her communion day.

L – What?

E – Her hair isn't done and it's her communion day and we're five minutes late for the

church.

L – She told me that she didn't want anything done.

E – Yes, but it's her communion day. You should have known better.

L – I didn't know it was her communion.

E – Well just rush over and do her hair quick before I get thrown out of this house.

L – OK, I'll be over in ten minutes.

E – OK so, you'd better hurry up … and don't charge me.

L – Don't speak to me like that.

E – I'll do what I want.

L – All right. Bye.

E – Bye.


136

A61:3F/A614F

T – Hello. Hair salon down the road. Can I help you?

E – I was there a few minutes ago and you did something wrong to my hair.

T – I'm sorry. Can I just take your name there please? We are so busy today.

E – (Gives name)

T – Yeah. Go on. You were there at 12.

E – Yeah. You cut it SO short. You did it too short.

T – Oh, sorry about that. Would you like to come into the salon and I'll give you back

your money or a refund or a gift voucher. I'm so sorry about that now. But, anything we

can do for you we'll do it, I swear. I'll just … do you want to go on to the girl who cut your

hair?

E – Am no it's grand.

T – OK, so. Will you be back around one?

E – Yeah.

T – Right so. Bye.

E – Bye.

C61:1M/C61:2M

D – Hello.

I – Hello.

D – I've a serious complaint against your hairdressing even though I wouldn't call it that

because my hair is so bad after you.

I – Ah, can you tell me who did your hair?

D – You!

I – (Laughs). I did not do your hair.

D – You did.

I – am... (thinks for a second) your hair looks worse than what I made it.

D – I'm going to get my lawyers on to you and I'll make sure that I get my five euro back.

I – You do that so.

C61:3F/C614F

Ring, ring, ring, ring

Y – Hi K

K – Am … I went home and I looked in the mirror and my hair wasn't that nice. Ah, you

dyed it the wrong colour.

Y – Ah, which hairdresser did you go to?


137

K – Am, you.

Y – Oh, maybe I wasn't in that day. Am … Which assistant was it?

K – Am, Mary.

Y – Am, I'll have a word with Mary the next day. Come in … ah, come in to me tomorrow

and I'll give you a refund and I'll dye the hair colour that you want and if you … next time

you come in make sure that you make an appointment with myself, not anyone else.

K – OK

D62:1M/D62:2M

RING, RING, RING, RING

D – Hello (Italian accent and broken English used throughout this activity for effect!)

T – Hello, D?

D – Yes.

T – Is that you? … yeah you own the salon that I went to today? Do you remember me?

D – Yes. You were boy with terrible hair.

T – No, no I had BETTER hair actually before I went in.

D – No, no, no, no.

T – No, yeah listen.

D – No, I'm sorry. Okay, okay, okay, you let me explain. The roots? They coming out, so

I make it better, more noticeable.

T – I'm bald!!!!

D – At least you won't be alone. You will you will make friends who are also bald.

T – Yeah.

D – If… if… I like...

T – I'm twelve, they'll be 42!!!

D – But I like it this way. It …it makes you stand out from the crowd.

T – But I'm going to have to wear a hat.

D – I like hats!!!

T – Like I want ... people will be asking why I'm wearing a hat!

D – But you can explain that your hair is nice. It was not nice when you came. I make it

nice.

T – But you didn't.

D – But I deed!! Look at this from a money-making point of view. I don't care about your

hair. All I want is your money.

T – Yeah I see that but …

T – Do you have the number of the ah

D – No


138

T – wig place

D – Yes. It's 444-you're bald.

T – Thank you

D – Okey dokey.

T – Do you fit wigs for bald people?

D – No, we don't usually have bald 12-year-olds. You are a special exception because

your hair is so disgusting before.

T – But what was so disgusting about it?

D – It was a big mess not nice at all too greasy your roots were coming out.

T – Right. Goodbye.

D – Bye, bye.

D62:2F/D62:4F

Ring, ring, ring, ring

C – Hello?

F – Hi, am I'm one of your am customers and I was in a few hours ago and I got a wash

and blow dry and colour and actually I'm not really satisfied.

C – Oh, why not? (uppity tone used here – going on the defensive straight away)

F – Am well I was just brushing my hair … and I started scratching because ... and so I

started looking through my hair and I discovered lice in my hair and I did not have it

before I went so obviously it must be from your hair brush.

C – Well, you maybe have had them before you went. They are very common. Am,

someone from your work … they probably got passed on.

F – Am, well I'm nearly sure because I checked my children's hair yesterday because

we got a note home from school and I checked my own and I did not have lice before I

went.

C – well I, … thi … this is a top class (spoken slowly and with emphasis) hair styling

salon. I doubt we have lice (spoken in derisory fashion) on our brushes.

F – Well, I'm very unhappy and I would like to have my money back and I'll be coming

in in two hours.

C – I'm afraid we don't do refunds.

F – Well you will not get my service ever again.


139


Sixth Class

Devise a Catalogue

Hair-Care Products for a Witch! For this task, the children, collaborating in pairs, were asked to devise a catalogue of

hair-care products suitable for a witch. The focus of this task was to investigate the

extent to which children used appropriate language (in particular, lexical choice) to

generate novel ways of expression. The originality and communicative adequacy of the

responses was examined.

A61:1F/A61:2F

Green Dye, Hair Control, Hair Jewellery, Glitter Beads, Spider Clips, Hair Webs, Turn

Hair Wavy

A61:3F/A61:4F

The Dye is Black, Red Go-Gos, Longer Hair

C61:1M/C61:2M

Spider Shampoo, Snail Gel, Creepy Crawly Conditioner, Wicked Wart, Extra Dandruff

Shampoo, Flea Protector Shampoo

C61:3F/C61:4F

A Pike, Ghoulish Shampoo, Knot-Free Conditioner, Stay Smooth all day long Gel, Small

Iron for Damaged Hair

D62:1M/D62:2M

Wart-be-Gone; Moustache Wax (‘to get rid of that stubborn stubble’), Green Dye (‘spray

your cleanliness away!’), Black Cat Hair Spray, Dye, Dye, Dye!, On my way to a

Conditioned Hair Day!, Sticky and Sweet Conditioner, Growing, Growing, Gone (growth

enhancer), Brush up, Mess up Hair Brush, Brooming Big Hair Mirror, Scare Dryer

The responses as listed above are as the children presented them, with the spellings

corrected. It is clear that in most cases the children have a facility to play with language

and to use language creatively to generate novel ways of expressing themselves. The

status 2 children, once again, however, produce language that is strong, confident, bold,


140

and innovative, using a wider range of interesting vocabulary choice and organising that

vocabulary in exciting ways to enhance communicative adequacy (e.g. On my way to a

Conditioned Hair Day!; Growing, Growing, Gone!). Particularly noticeable is the

confidence of these children not just to organise language in novel ways, but to use their

knowledge of language to generate new words and phrases (e.g. Brooming Big Hair

Mirror; Scare Dryer). This type of word-play is not in evidence in the responses of the

status 1 children.


Sixth Class

Creative Storytelling

At Sixth Class level the narrative language samples were generated in two ways. The

first was having the children recount a story read to them during the warm-up phase –

The King with Dirty Feet (Pomme Clayton, in Tales for Telling from Around the World).

The second narrative task was creative storytelling. For this, the children were shown

pictures from a book called The Mysteries of Harris Burdick (Chris Van Allsburg) – a

book containing pictures accompanied by the title and the first line of the story going with

the picture. The children were asked to select one of the pictures and to tell the story as

they thought it might be. Some of the children opted to collaborate in the creative

storytelling while others told the story individually. Below are the responses of children to

two of the pictures in the book – Mr. Linden’s Library, and The Harp.

Mr. Linden’s Library ‘He had warned her about the book. Now it was too late.’ A61:3F/A61:4F

T – Well, I probably think like it was like a haunted book and she probably opened the book and something came out and killed her and he warned her like not to open the

book before he went away.

(Á – so tell us the story)

Both children react negatively to this request.

E – So start the story … and then...

T – Oh god.

T – Her husband, he had warned her about the book but now it’s too late. She had

opened it. She had died … like the book was haunted wasn’t it? Someone came out of

the book and strangled her while she was reading it and all.


141

(Á asks E to come in here – not showing any inclination to participate in this.)

E – And when he strangled her she was just lying … and when …when she was just

lying there and he was just stood …and but now … now it’s too late. I told you not to

open the book.

T – What was your last line again?

E – repeats last line

T – I told you not to open the book because you knew it was haunted. You knew I didn’t

want you to open it. I … I op … your mother opened it once. She’s gone. Now it’s you

gone and I’m all on my own at the moment.

(Long pause).

(Á – is that it?)

E – Yeah, that’s all we have now.

C61:4F

She might have left the book open and the leaves or something was inside. She fell

asleep and she never read anymore.

She left it there when she was sleeping and the light was on.

(Pause)

(Á – can you think of any more?)

Am …

(Long pause)

(Á – What do you think might have happened in the end?)

K – In the end someone might take the book.

D62:4F

Well, this little girl, she likes reading and she's always gone to this library and this old

man Mr. Linden owns it. And he's good friends with her. And… am he's really good

friends with her and …am she's read all the ... she said that ... One day, she said ‘Mr.

Linden, I've read all the books in … am the library, and I …I want to move up a level. I

want to read a more interesting book.’ And he said, ‘Well, I have one room full of more

enchanting kind of books.’ And she go ... she went, she went to a corner that's kind of

… he forbids most people to read the books. They are forbidden. And she says, ‘I

wouldn't ...’ She … she picked out this book cos she thought the cover was so … it was

all very kind of natural. It had all these leaves and bits of flowers and everything. He told

her not … ‘You're not allowed to read that book, Katherine.’ And she said, ‘Why?’ But he


142

would not tell her. And … am but am … she said, ‘Look, I'll just take this one.’ But she

really actually took the book she was so interested in it. And when she came home she

started reading it at night. Halfway through the book she opened the middle page and all

these kind of ivy started curling out, as if it was growing. But it was so fast … like a

mile a minute. And the next thing it choked her.

It is evident again at Sixth Class level that there is a great difference in the way children

produce narratives. The narrative of the status 2 child is longer, more organised, and

more coherent than the other narratives. This story follows a typical narrative structure

more closely than the other stories where structure is minimal. The characters in this

story are more clearly drawn, as is the relationship between the characters. The

vocabulary choices made are varied and interesting (e.g. ‘enchanting kind of books’;

‘they are forbidden’; ‘ivy started curling out’). No intervention or support or

encouragement was required to complete the story, unlike the other children who

needed much exhortation to continue and to complete the story. The same comments

can be made about the second story, The Harp, presented below.

The Harp

‘So it’s true he thought, it’s really true.’

C61:3M

He …he was in bed and he woke up. And he found that his dog was missing. So he

went to the woods … am to look for his dog. And he didn’t look. And he got caught in

bushes and all and got filthy. So he went to the stream and he found … am he spotted

… am a harp and he looked over at it.

D62:4F

Am it's about this boy and when he was young his grandfather used to tell him stories

about an enchanted place where you've a magic harp. And … am, he said the father

used to tell him it was all nonsense. ‘Don't believe any of it.’ But he always thought it

was true. And when his grandfather died … am he … he … they were like … going to

the house and he kind of found some clues. And he thought, what if this place were

really true. So he starts following all the clues and … am he comes to a place behind the

bookshelf – a magic secret passage like. He goes in and there's a portal or whatever.

And he goes through it and there's a magic place with the harp and everything and all

fairies and pixies. And he meets his grandfather there again.


143


Sixth Class

Story Retelling

The King with Dirty Feet

Considerably greater confidence is evident in the story retelling by one of the status 1

children, as can be seen from the samples below.

A61:2F

It was about a king and he wouldn't wash for a week, then it turned into a year, then a

month. And then the smell, then one day the … but then one day he got the bad smell and he went into the water and he washed himself with the royal soap but when he got out his feet got dirty. Went in again and he washed his feet and then when he came back out his feet was dirty. And then, and then he went up to the castle and

then he said (I can't remember his slave's name – a – Gabu) Gabu, and he said, ‘Gabu, I

want the land rid of dust.’ And then he started sweeping the land. But the dust was going

into the air causing black clouds. Then he tried water. Then he tried filling the land with

water but then it just ended up flooding. And then … then he tried … then he covered it

up with leather, but then, then an old man with a long white beard and a stick said how are we supposed to get food cause the land was covered in leather. And

nothing could be grown. Then the man, then the old man got some scissors. Then the old man cut two oval shapes round the King's feet and got two laces out of his pocket and made sort of slippers out of them.

A61:4F

The king was very fussy about his feet getting filthy after he got it washed. And … am

he said put a carpet over the whole world, well. And he's … and then a person came and

he goes, ‘My majesty, ... am you can't cover the whole world cause no crops or anything

can grow.’ And then the King, the King just put down … and he cut it with a scissors and

am the fella got am this piece of kinda leather and put it onto the King's fe.. feet. First the

king was fu ... furious about it but still after a while then he … he got used to it and

goes, ‘That was a good idea.’


144

B61:3M/B612M

Am he had an awful smell in his feet. And he went into the river to wash 'em. When he

came out I think there was all dust or something. And then he asked a fella to get rid of it

or something and then he did. Am so he said if he didn't do it he would kill him.

They put leather down first and then that no plants would grow and all the animals would

die over it on the grass they have no grass. So a man came and he just made shoes or

something for him.

D62:1M

This king, he was going down to a river and he was washing, he was getting washed. And then when he stood up on the ground dust went on his feet. So he got one

of his slaves to get rid of all the dust. So in the end they decided to cover it with leather but then this old guy with a long beard came up and he started saying that am

there'd be no food or water or anything because the plants couldn't grow through

the leather. So he made him a pair of shoes. He cut off bits of the leather so then the whole ground could still grow and his feet wouldn't get dusty.

While the story retelling of the first status 1 child in this sample is quite clear, well-

constructed and elaborate, those of the other two status 1 children are not. They are

vague, brief, unelaborated, and poorly constructed. The retelling of the status 2 child,

though brief, is clear, explicit and well-organised such that the gist of the story is very

clear to the reader without having reference to the actual text of the story. Again,

features of ‘literate’ language style are more clearly in evidence in the contributions of

the status 2 children.

It is evident from the oral language samples presented in this chapter that the language

patterns of status 1 children consistently display fewer features of the ‘literate’ language

style expected in the school context. In terms of presentation of ideas, taking a stance,

and structure of text, their talk is more vague, lacking in confidence, shows less

awareness of the needs of the listener, and is more disorganised and lacking in

elaboration than is the case in the talk of the status 2 children.


145

Findings

Focus Group Discussions – Children

As outlined previously, focus group discussions were undertaken with the children in

Third and Sixth Classes as a means of triangulating the data in this study. The purpose

of the discussions was to get an insight into:

children’s awareness of language in the school context, their

perceptions of language variation in school, and their

experiences of language (oral and literate) in an in-school and an out-of-

school context.

The discussions followed a semi-structured format where the children’s views and

perceptions were solicited on:

Talk as a Learning Medium

Talking Time in the Classroom

Talking Style in School

Teacher Talk

Experiences of Literacy

Findings from both Third and Sixth Class children were remarkably similar and will be

presented together under the headings outlined above. Excerpts from the children’s

contributions appear in italics.

Children Focus Group Discussions: Talk as a Learning Medium Children in all schools associated talking with illicit, covert, undercover behaviour, which

takes place without permission, and is not at all associated with learning or ‘work’ or the

business of school. Children’s responses to the question of when they talk in school, all

indicated a perception of talk as something done outside of the formal context of

schooling – before school, at break time, when the teacher leaves the classroom, when

the teacher is talking to someone who comes into the classroom, when the subject is

difficult/boring, out in the yard, at home-time, in the morning.


146

One child says that they talk in every subject pretty much, naming a long list of subjects

and finishing off with ‘novel’. Another child intervenes indignantly saying No, we don't

talk through novel - we love novel!! (i.e. one only talks in school for light relief during

those subjects that are dull and boring!!!). Another child sums up the prevailing attitude

in relation to the role of talk in school saying We’re not really meant to talk in school.

Asked when you talk if the teacher is in the classroom, another child responded We

never talk.

The status 1 children appear to have a very poor understanding of talk as a legitimate

and educationally valuable exercise. Having clarified the difference between informal

chatting in the classroom and more organised legitimate talking experiences, the

children found it difficult to identify examples of times when formal, organised, legitimate

talking activities or opportunities for learning through talk presented in the context of the

classroom. These children seemed to have absolutely no concept of such activities.

When asked to identify times in the classroom when the teacher would ask them to talk

as part of the learning that is going on, children suggested If you're asking the teacher

can you go to the toilet, when you are reading aloud, when you are doing Irish, when you

are saying the answer in maths, when you are answering questions, when you are doing

phonics activities. Some children identified talking activities where one person would talk

and everyone else would listen – e.g. soapbox talk on a topic, answering questions in a

quiz. Formal talking activities with one another as an important learning strategy were

not perceived to take place. Status 2 children were clearer in relation to this, citing the

following examples of legitimate talking activities for learning in the classroom context:

when you are talking about a topic, when you are doing chatterbox activities, when you

are doing drama, when you are doing creative activities, when you ask each other

questions.

Children’s perceptions of the importance of talk were revealing also. The question was

posed as follows: Talking, and reading and writing are all very important – would you say

that one is more important than the other. A clear difference between status 1 and status

2 children emerged here. While all children agreed that talking is important – about

300% (!!!) – children in disadvantaged schools almost all thought that reading and

writing are more important. The importance of literacy skills was linked directly to

employment – you can’t get a job if you can’t read and write. One status 1 child argued

that talking is more important because you can’t read if you can’t talk, linking the

importance of talk directly to the acquisition of literacy skills. Status 2 children, on the


147

other hand, all think that talking is very important and variously suggested that it is either

more important than or equally important to the acquisition of literacy skills.

Children Focus Group Discussions: Talking Time in the Classroom

In relation to time spent talking in the classroom, all children in Sixth Class and some of

the Third Class children expressed the view that they spend more time on reading and

writing activities than on talking activities in the classroom – a lot more. The majority of

children declared that they prefer to talk than to read and write in school. They preferred

to do talking activities because they are fun and creative and you are able to come up

with whatever you want, because your hand doesn’t get sore, because you can sit with

friends during these activities, because when you are talking you are not doing ‘work’,

because you don't have to do homework while you're talking, because it hurts your

hands when you have to write loads, because you get to hear the news people have,

you get more crack, it's enjoyable instead of doing work. Despite this expression of

preference for talking, however, the overall perception was that more time was spent on

reading and writing in school than on talking.

Children Focus Group Discussions: Talking Style in School

The following question was posed in order to elicit children’s level of awareness and

perceptions of variation in talking style in the school context:

Do you think the way you talk in school is different to the way you talk outside of school?

From their responses it is abundantly clear that children are acutely aware (particularly in

disadvantaged schools) that they need to change their language style quite significantly

in the school context. When asked if they thought how they speak in school is different to

how they speak outside of school, all status 1 children readily agreed that it was – both

in Third and in Sixth class. Focus groups in these schools at both class levels

immediately responded yeah or definitely in unison to this question. Encouraged to

articulate how they think their talk is different in the school context compared to outside

of school, the following views were offered by Third Class children:

We talk better at school

You kinda talk pure posh in school

I'm talking pure posh in school like (using high-pitched tone)


148

(and what does talking posh mean?)

You have a posh voice

You go like this – (puts on accent)

Sometimes at school we talk like tinkers and (principal) corrects us and says ‘talk

properly’

(what do you think (principal) means when (principal) says ‘talk properly’?)

Don't talk pure tinkers, just talk normal.

The views of Sixth Class children in relation to how they think their talk is different in the

school context compared to outside of school as presented by the children include the

following:

You have to pay more respect

You have to watch your mouth like ... (teacher would) get mad at you

You have to watch what you say in case it may get you in trouble

You couldn't curse, you know you couldn't say stuff like that's bad words like

You kind of calm down your voice

You wouldn't be as loud, or you wouldn't be shouting or you wouldn't talk as fast

It changes when we are outside school

When you are in like there is barely any air like and when you go out then it's full of it

Your voice changes because you have more energy out in the yard

When you get into a fight your voice changes – (indicated that this is more likely to

happen at home)

At home you'd be roaring

Your voice is quieter because you can't roar like because it's a rule of the class

When you go out to the yard, you leave out all your energy out there and when you go

back into school you're all right

Fundamentally these children were suggesting that they talk less, they talk more quietly,

more politely, and they talk more slowly and respectfully when they are in the classroom

context. They use the terms ‘knacker-talk’, ‘tinker talk’, and ‘normal’ talk to describe talk

in the out-of-school context as compared with ‘talking posh’ in an in-school context.

Focusing on talk in an out-of-school context to enable the children to articulate the

perceived differences in talking style more effectively, the children responded to the

question How is talking outside of school different to talking in school? – in the following

ways:


149

I don't talk posh at home

Same with me I talk more at home (all agree – except one who says I don't talk at home)

You can talk all you like at home

Cos you're learning inside school and you're not learning at home

Yeah because you can do more cos you're not allowed talk when you're doing your work

Use different words at home (can you give me an example) curses

Some of the Sixth Class children indicated that they don’t talk a lot at home.

We don't talk at home

I never talk – I'm always up in my room

I don't really talk – I'm sitting, watching telly, or on my bike

Sometimes I don't talk at home at all

Children recognised that when talking out of school they could talk about what they liked,

when they liked in any way they liked, to whom they liked, and for as long as they liked.

Many children indicated that they don’t talk a lot at home. Many children identified

shouting and fighting as ways that talking at home are different to talking at school.

Children indicated that they talk to mothers, parents, siblings, grandparents, family,

friends at home. Girls identified their mother as the person they talk most to at home,

and boys identified friends as the people they talk most to at home.

Responses from status 2 children to these questions were somewhat different to those

presented above.

Do you think the way you talk in school is different to the way you talk outside of school?

Third Class

Not really because you talk different I'm not really sure – you talk about the stuff in

school at home and the stuff at home in school

Like you wouldn't be complaining if you put too much sauce in your dinner or such and

such – you don't complain as much in school

It's like talking in school and outside because you talk different ways – like when you're

outside you shout and you would you'd call people names whereas inside you'd be not

trying to run around and being careful about stuff, keeping your mouth shut


150

Sixth Class

Different

In some contexts, I suppose, the same. If we're talking about ... like sometimes we just

start talking about something that's happening

If the teacher is out of the room or something. But if we're answering questions I

suppose it would be different really. (How?) Well like you only want to give the answer.

You're not exactly going to have a chat

It would be a bit the same because sometimes when you get home your parents or your

sister they ask you like what did you do at school and stuff like that and then you have to

get into the whole school thing

But you are more relaxed, you'd be more chatty with your parents and your family and

your friends than you would be with your teacher

(how do you change how you talk?)

You talk more slowly and properly about different subjects

Use more slang language when you are talking to your friends

Talk to your teacher is more respectable

When you're talking to the teachers at school you have to be kinda you have to

pronounce your words and be respectful. When you're talking to your friends at school

you don't have to do that

But then when you're at home talking to your parents if they kinda if you say something

but you mean another thing they kinda know what you're trying to say

They'd understand you but they'd still correct you again

Only have to speak properly at home when there are visitors

Difference in what you talk about at home

You talk about whatever you are told to talk about in school … you talk about anything at

home

While these children identify the differences in the content of their talk (you talk about

whatever you are told to talk about in school … you talk about anything at home), and

the level of formality of their talk (but you are more relaxed, you'd be more chatty with

your parents and your family and your friends than you would be with your teacher; you

talk more slowly and properly about different subjects), and the degree of respect in

their talk (when you're talking to the teachers at school you have to be kinda you have to

pronounce your words and be respectful. When you're talking to your friends at school

you don't have to do that) in the school context, they can readily identify situations where

these language styles cross over the home-school boundary, e.g.


151

It would be a bit the same because sometimes when you get home your parents

or your sister, they ask you like what did you do at school and stuff like that and

then you have to get into the whole school thing

You talk about the stuff in school at home and the stuff at home in school

They'd (parents) understand you but they'd still correct you again

Only have to speak properly at home when there are visitors

And one child very accurately articulated the formal/informal variation in talking style

evident in the home-school comparison saying But then when you're at home talking to

your parents if they kinda, if you say something but you mean another thing, they kinda

know what you're trying to say. The comfort of being understood and communicating

effectively in a context where you don’t need to articulate everything explicitly, coherently

and in an organised fashion is evident to this child. Compare these responses with those

of some children in status 1 schools for whom there appears to be little comparison

between the content, formality and style of talk in school and that at home, e.g.

What do you talk about in school that you don't talk about at home?

Maths, work

The work goes out of your head at home

Don't talk about work at home at all

Cos you're learning inside school and you're not learning at home

We don't talk at home

I don't talk posh at home

At home you'd be roaring

Use different words at home (can you give me an example) curses.

You couldn't curse, you know you couldn't say stuff like that's bad words like

Children Focus Group Discussions: Teacher Talk

When the children were asked the question Do you think how your teacher talks is

different compared to your talk? they responded as follows:


152

(Children often changed pitch and tone of voice when demonstrating how teacher talk is

different).

Yeah – ‘Nicely’ (in a high-pitched, hoity-toity tone)

Yeah, she doesn’t talk in a knacker voice, does she? No, she has a quiet, sweet voice

She talks quiet and gentle

Talks nicer

She talks more properly like she's got elocution lessons

(what does talking properly mean)

Try and pronounce your words more

Don't be going down and talking into your chest

The way she speaks … She speaks different to us

We speak different to her and she speaks different to us

She has a different voice

(how is her voice different?)

I think she's from a different country

(Others agree) – Probably, I'd say probably

She was born from a different family

All children were very much of the view that teachers’ talk is different to the way that they

talk. In the case of status 1 children, that difference was perceived to be much greater,

e.g. She doesn’t talk in a knacker voice; We speak different to her and she speaks

different to us; I think our teacher is from a different country; She was born from a

different family. While status 2 children perceive teacher talk to be different from theirs,

e.g. Teacher has a different accent, talks about things that happened in the ’50s, very

much different – boring, shouts at us, they also recognise that in an out-of-school

context there are similarities between teacher talk and how they talk, e.g. maybe not at

home but in school, yeah, and probably talks about the same things at home.

All children readily agreed that teacher decides who should talk in the classroom, what

they should talk about, how long they should talk for, and who they should talk to. It was

agreed that when they talk for legitimate learning purposes it is mainly with the teacher.

There was agreement all round also that teacher talks most in the classroom, talks about

different stuff, she talks about homework and maths and we talk about different stuff - we

talk about boys, and whenever the teacher is explaining she puts on a different voice.


153

Children Focus Group Discussions: Literacy Activities

The questions in relation to literacy activities sought to establish children’s perceptions of

their reading and writing ability, their feelings about/attitude to reading and writing, and

their experiences of reading and writing both in and out of school.

Children’s perceptions of their reading and writing ability

Status 1 children were not particularly confident in relation to their ability to read and

write. They used terms such as OK, all right, getting better, improving to describe their

ability to read and write. These children generally felt that their parents were happier with

their reading ability than their teachers. This was reflected in the animation with which

they described their parents’ feelings about their ability. One child said that her mother

was happy with how her reading was improving but (teacher) …always lets you down.

She says: ‘that writing is horrible!’ Some status 1 children said they found reading hard.

Other children indicated that they found writing hard. Almost none of the status 1

children indicated that they liked reading and writing.

By contrast status 2 children have a much more positive perception of their reading

ability – they all think they are good at reading and writing, and all without exception

indicated that they like reading.

Reading and writing at home

All children indicated that they like reading and writing better at home because they can

read what they like, as much of it as they like, they don’t need to write if they don’t want

to. One child indicated that the books at home are better because they are just one

story, which is more interesting than books at school which have lots of stories in them.

There was very little evidence of writing at home from children in disadvantaged schools.

Status 2 children indicated that they write at home using e-mail, texting, and on the

computer. All of these children have computer, internet, e-mail at home and suggested

that they preferred writing at home because often it involves using shorthand.


154

Books at home

While most status 1 children responded positively to the question Have you books at

home? some said I don’t know, or no, or I don’t like books. One child said he had five,

another said thousands, while another said he had to burn some he had so many!

Despite this declaration, when pushed to identify favourite authors or titles of interesting

books, children in disadvantaged schools were completely at a loss to name them, other

than novels being read at school. They suggested that they mainly read newspapers,

magazines, or sports books at home. It was evident that almost no reading takes place

at home for the majority of these children.

The vast majority of children in disadvantaged schools never get books as presents for

birthdays, or Christmas. None of the Sixth Class children got books or book tokens as

gifts or for their confirmation and indicated that they would not use any of their money to

purchase a book. When asked where the books at home come from children answered

Sometimes you might win a book and one child knew a book delivery person who gave

some books. Most children couldn't name a family member who would buy a book for

them other than their mother and then only on rare occasions. It was clear that many of

the children would neither value nor appreciate a gift of a book or a book token.

However, this would not be true of all status 1 children. One status 1 child in Third Class

indicated that he reads a lot at home, gets books regularly as presents, and prefers to

read at home because he can read long books with more than 100 pages!!

Status 2 children by contrast all indicated that they read at home as well as in school

and like reading because in reading you get to go to a different world pretty much

like if you're reading a star wars book you could be in a different galaxy or something. All have many books at home. When asked to describe their bedrooms at home the

majority of these children mentioned books and bookshelves and relatively few

mentioned technology such as TV or playstations. This contrasts radically with the status

1 children, only two of whom included a reference to books in the bedroom, but all of

whom mentioned technology in their bedrooms. The status 2 children all say that they

enjoy reading very much. All get presents of books and book tokens at Christmas and

birthdays. Sixth Class children got book tokens for confirmation and bought books and

read them.

Many children (both status 1 and status 2) see their parents reading at home – books,

newspapers, magazines. Children variously described parents reading mainly in bed, or


155

on holidays. One child suggested that his mother only liked to read thin books!! Children

seldom talked to their parents about what they are reading although one status 1 child

indicated that her mother pays her a fiver to tell her about the book she is reading in

school. This status 1 child produced quite good narratives in that task and was also good

on the word definition task.

It is clear that there are considerable differences in relation to children’s exposure to,

appreciation of, enjoyment of literature and engagement with literacy activities in an out-

of-school context. It is clear also that children’s perceptions of their literacy abilities are

very different across status 1 and status 2 schools in this study – the latter having far

more positive attitudes in relation to their abilities than the former.

Focus Group Discussions – Teachers

In each of the four participating schools, one afternoon was devoted to a discussion with

the teachers. In most cases focus group teachers were those from whose classes

children had been randomly selected for the study. In some, where it was not possible

for these teachers to be released for the discussion, other teachers who were available

participated in the discussion. In all cases teachers involved spanned the range of

classes from infants, through middle classes to senior classes, so that a representative

view of teaching all age groups could be generated. The purpose of these discussions

was to get a teacher perspective on language experience in the school context.

Given recent major curricular changes in terms of emphasis on developing oral language

skills at all levels in Irish primary schools – the introduction of a revised curriculum in

English (1999) which champions the centrality of oracy, in-service education in English,

the review of the revised English curriculum (2005), as well as other national policy

reports and research initiatives which address questions of language and literacy

development in Ireland, and in particular in the case of children in disadvantaged

schools in Ireland (e.g. DES, 2005; Eivers et al, 2004; Eivers et al. 2005), it was critical

that the experiences and practice of teachers would be documented and factored into

the discussion. As with the children, teacher focus group discussions followed a semi-

structured format focusing broadly on eliciting teacher perspectives and insights in

relation to the following:


156

Perceptions of the importance of oral language, with reference to children’s oral language abilities

Pedagogic responses to perceived oral language needs

Awareness of variation of language patterns in the school context

Opinions on the newly introduced Revised English Curriculum and the

accompanying in-service education and planning strategies in the school

Home-school links

Children’s literacy skills

Findings from teachers in status 1 schools will be presented first.

Teacher Focus Group Discussion: Importance of Oral Language in the

Classroom

All of the teachers in the status 1 schools readily agreed that oral language is a very

important aspect of what goes on in the classroom. While all teachers were in

agreement in relation to its importance in the infant classroom – one senior class teacher

expressed the view that oral work was of most importance in the infant classroom – its

importance beyond the early stages of schooling was identified predominantly in terms

of its contribution to the development of children’s literacy skills. Oral language was

viewed as important by many of the teachers because it is the basis of writing and

reading. This view was expressed again and again. Oral language was firmly seen as a

stepping-stone to developing reading and writing skills (e.g. oral language is very

important because if they can't speak and they haven't got the language they cannot

read. They need it orally before they can read it). This was the only value of oral

language articulated by teachers.

When asked to comment on the oral language abilities of the children in general, teacher

responses were quite negative. All teachers have a perception of children’s language

skills as being very poor due to their disadvantaged backgrounds. This perception

extends to the general ability of the children, which is often represented as weak. The

general perception of children’s oral language skills was that they are poor, very weak,

oral abilities are low. Very few of the children were characterised as having good

language skills and no children were perceived as having very good language skills.


157

Poor language skills are manifested in poor knowledge of language, limited vocabulary,

inadequate vocabulary, children lacking vocabulary, taking a while to express

themselves. Poor listening skills, lack of ability to co-operate with one another, and poor

knowledge of language structures were suggested also as signs of children’s weak

language skills. The out-of-school experiences of talk were cited by all teachers as the

major reason for the children’s poor language skills Many children are not spoken to at

home – all they hear is ‘go away’, ‘shut up’, ‘sit down’, ‘be quiet’; at home it’s shouting,

one word sentences, 'no', 'you'; children don't have much practice speaking orally at

home; Not being listened to at home enough; When children are going home many

parents don't talk to them – they are rushing off to somewhere else. Children at home

are told to shut up and watch television. One teacher suspects that the mother is talking

to someone and the child tries to get attention but is fobbed off quickly with a short

response and mother continues what she is doing – child is not getting much attention

and not getting a chance to say a big long story of what happened in school. Lack of

parental education was cited as a factor in the poor language experiences of many

children at home. In one of the schools, all the teachers agreed that the majority of the

children in the school don't come from homes where they have parents who listen to

them and talk to them and provide them with the kind of support that would facilitate

success in school.

Children whose language skills are better (none of the children was described as having

very good language skills) were those from supportive backgrounds, characterised as

stable, where parents are interested and stimulate children, broaden their experiences,

talk to and listen to the children, support them in relation to the work of the school, and

supervise homework. Children from these backgrounds are described as brighter than

other children. The perception of the general ability of the children in these schools is

that it is behind where it would be if they were reared in a middle-class context because

of lack of opportunity – teachers agreed that the priorities for these parents are different

They're not as able because they don't get the same opportunity – if these children were

compared with children in a similar class in a middle-class school they would be way

behind – lots of important development takes place before the child starts school – that's

all happened before they even come to school so they've missed out already; not as

able when they start school because they haven't had the same opportunities – they are

world's apart! And another teacher believes their general ability is weaker because they

are not surrounded by as many books or newspapers – 80% would have no experience

of books.


158

Teacher Focus Group Discussion: Pedagogic Responses

Teachers were asked to identify how they taught oral language in their classes. In

general, teachers appeared reluctant to respond to this question and largely were very

vague in relation to what they do to develop oral language in the classroom. While all

teachers are clear that oral work is done in the classroom, pin-pointing exactly the form

that oral language development takes was less clear. This vagueness is mirrored in the

children’s inability to give clear examples of formal talking activities done in class. In all

of these schools teachers indicated that they do not have formal, dedicated oral

language time but approach oral language development through other subjects (such as

English reading or SPHE) or use it as a precursor/preparatory work in other subjects

(such as creative writing). Teachers of infant classes cited circle time news and

integrating oral language into story time as approaches to oral language used. In some

cases oral language work takes the form of phonics lessons. Teachers source their

ideas for oral language development from the published English Language Schemes,

topics of interest to the children, and material for developing writing skills.

Difficulties in having formal, dedicated, targeted, focused time for oral language

development in the classroom would seem to arise from a number of different sources.

Teachers in general in these schools are extremely concerned with the development of

children’s literacy skills, and appear to work more towards the development of these

than developing oral language skills, perceiving oral language development as a means

to an end but not necessarily equally important, or meriting an equal amount of time.

Behavioural problems in classrooms in disadvantaged contexts make control of

paramount importance. One teacher remarked that literacy activities are much easier

because during these lessons they are quieter. Another teacher defined children with

good language skills as those who are good to listen to the teacher (mentioned twice)

when teacher is talking - they wouldn’t be out of control. Maintaining control is very

important in these classrooms and dealing with significant behavioural problems in a

classroom makes it very difficult to manage large numbers of children engaged in talking

activities. Teachers repeatedly expressed frustration with children’s inability to wait for,

respect or listen to one another, as well as children taking a long time to express

themselves and get to the point as factors which make engaging in talking activities


159

prohibitively difficult. One child, however, felt she had the solution to this problem, when

asked -

If you were the teacher in your classroom, is there anything you would change about

talking in your classroom? she replied indignantly:

Yeah, I would let them talk actually, and whenever the principal comes just say we are

doing work!

Teachers also suggested that children are often not interested in talking despite trying to

engage them in topics of interest – even though the children in the focus group

discussions all expressed a preference for talking rather than reading or writing in

school. Perhaps, teachers are picking up on children’s lack of awareness of the learning

potential of talking activities (clearly evident in the children’s contributions to the focus

group discussions) and therefore children may not value such activities to the same

extent as they value writing and reading activities in the process of learning. Dealing with

the challenge of multi-class teaching was also perceived as a huge difficulty. Attempting

to engage a large number of children with widely varying age profiles in talk activities in

the classroom context was thought to be nearly impossible, especially without the

assistance of classroom aides.

Teacher Focus Group Discussions: Variation in Language Style

Do you think the way the children use language in school is different to how they use

language outside of school?

When prompted, all teachers agree that there are school expectations for language use

that are different from language use in an out-of-school context. One teacher referred to

this as school language. All agree, on reflection, that children change how they use

language in the school context for this reason. Many teachers paused to reflect when

asked this question and their initial response in many cases was that children don’t in

fact change how they use language when in school. This is in stark contrast to the

response of the children who unanimously and spontaneously in every case responded

with an emphatic ‘Yes’ to this question. Clearly, since they are the people making the

major register shift, they are more aware of it. Though perhaps not initially, all teachers

on reflection demonstrated an awareness of how the children have to change register to

engage in classroom activities and many gave excellent examples of expectations in

relation to school language use.


160

One teacher suggested that children use more street language outside school,

describing their out-of-school language as so fluent they're almost rapping. A child

described as reticent to talk in class could be heard giving lip in the yard at playtime,

suggesting greater confidence in interacting with peers outside the classroom context.

Another teacher suggests that they probably use less bad language in school than they

would at home.

Asked to elaborate on expectations of what school language involves, one senior class

teacher suggested that in school when they talk, the more interesting they make their

sentences the better they are; whereas when they are with their friends at home it's the

cooler you are and the cooler your language is, and they won't use any descriptive

words because they would be laughed at. Getting attention at home to speak wouldn't

involve the use of the same kind of language. When children are at home language use

is much more to the point, just say what they want, not elaborated. Another teacher

expressed the view that the oral language we do with them in school is different to the

oral language they're hearing at home because the language they're hearing at home is

monosyllabic. Most of the parents lack further education and therefore don't have the

language skills. Another teacher characterises school language as flowery language but

some children are more adept at doing this than others. Such children are described as

coming from backgrounds where they are listened to and talked to.

In general, infant teachers were of the view that there was no difference in language use

between home and school but some teachers suggested that they acquire school

language as they go on; they know the things that are accepted in school. Teachers in

the boys’ only school, while acknowledging the existence of school language, were not

convinced that the children change how they use language in the school context – they

use less bad language in school but talk to their friends the same way: because children

are surrounded by 'their own' they don't feel the need to change how they talk in the

school context. Teachers in this school noted that when these children get angry they

revert back to how they talk at home. Teachers in this school indicated that there was

more evidence of change of language use when the children attend out-of-school

functions, such as playing away-matches, where they would encounter children from

other schools – when they go to the posher schools children say ‘I'm not going over

there, I'm not talking to them, they would be only laughing at me’! In these contexts

teachers feel that children are very aware that how they use language is different from

others. Interestingly, in the children focus group discussions the boys in this school,

while aware of the existence of differences between talk in school and out of school,

were less well able to articulate these differences in language style than other children.


161

This may be a function of gender where the degree of change is not as great for boys as

it is for girls, or it may reflect the fact that boys are not as aware of, or as able to

articulate, the differences as much as or as well as girls.

Teacher Focus Group Discussion: Revised Curriculum

The teachers were asked to comment on the recently introduced Revised English

Curriculum. A major shift from the previous iteration of the primary school curriculum in

Ireland evident in the revised curriculum is that oral language is seen as central in the

experience of the child throughout primary school. In the English curriculum, oral

language is represented as having equal importance as reading and writing at all levels

of the primary school (Primary School Curriculum, English, 1999, p.3). The focus at this

stage of the discussion was to elicit teachers’ views on this shift and to ascertain the

extent to which they find the curriculum as it is now presented supportive in their day-to-

day work.

Teachers were all au fait with the revised curriculum but many admitted to having

grappled with it or spent a lot of time trying to figure out the curriculum and found it

impossible, while some never look at it. All of the teachers agreed that the increased

emphasis on oral language in the curriculum is both necessary and desirable. Teachers

generally agreed that the revised curriculum is better than it was before revision.

However, many of the teachers expressed the view that the curriculum as presented is

difficult to follow, too wordy; uses ‘big language’, and some teachers found it generally

unhelpful and detached from the reality of the classroom; and not really connected to

work done in the classroom – whatever comes up often comes up spontaneously and

can’t be planned for. All of the teachers expressed the view that the English curriculum is

too broad, and many felt that the objectives are unrealistic for many children, or too

ambitious, particularly for children in disadvantaged schools. This view was expressed

particularly strongly by teachers of infant classes. Teachers in a multi-class,

disadvantaged context indicated that the curriculum is not an easy thing to implement in

the classroom – because of the multi-class challenges. Particular challenges for these

contexts cited include: different levels; too many children; not enough help. In one

school, teachers expressed the view that the curriculum does not adequately cater for

the needs of disadvantage.


162

Not all of the teachers were aware of the recent decision by the National Council for

Curriculum and Assessment to switch the framework of the English curriculum as

originally presented by flipping the strands and strand units, but where they were aware

of this change, teachers were supportive of it and felt that it made it easier to plan

following the curriculum.

In one school, none of the teachers had attended the in-service programme

accompanying the introduction of the revised curriculum. In another school, only one

teacher had attended but couldn’t remember it very well, recalling only that an awful lot

was just thrown at us and I'm only getting my head around it now. In a third school all of

the teachers had attended the in-service programme and while they found it good, it

didn't focus at all on disadvantage, which they felt it should have done.

Teachers were asked about their school plan for English, a requirement by the

Department of Education and Science. All of the schools reported having a plan as

required. However, many of the teachers had not been involved in devising the plan, and

many of the teachers have never seen the plan developed for their school. Some of

these teachers, particularly the younger teachers, indicated that they rely on the

curriculum when generating their own classroom schemes for English, using the

objectives to identify course content. Other teachers, responding to a question about the

connection between the school plan and classroom planning for English, indicated that

they don’t follow it literally.

Teacher Focus Group Discussion: Literacy

Teachers were asked to comment on the literacy skills of the children in their schools

and to indicate their perceptions of children’s out-of-school literacy experiences. Again,

as with the children’s oral language skills and experiences, teachers’ views were quite

negative in relation to these questions (e.g. there are particular problems with literacy in

this type of school). All agreed that many of the children experienced literacy difficulties

in school, and in particular literacy was most problematic for weaker students. Teachers

commented also that as children move up along the school, the gap widens and they

experience failure early on and for a long time. This was attributed to the fact that most

children are not read to at home – they don’t know the fairytales when they come into

school; they don’t have a love of reading instilled in them at home – reading becomes


163

part of what goes on in school because that’s the only time they ever do it; I don’t think

there are many books at home – all I ever hear about is playstation and games (all

teachers in the discussion agreed with this view as expressed by an infant teacher, for

all levels of the school). Teachers generally were of the opinion that most of the parents

would not read very much.

Another factor that contributes to children’s reading difficulties identified by teachers was

that children are starting school too early; being pushed to achieve things before they

are ready; children are coming into school in the middle of the school year when they

turn four years of age. Parents are thought to send children to school at an early age

because it’s longer than pre-school and parents are not in favour of children repeating a

class in school if they are not progressing because they think it is more important for

children to stay with their friends than that they would get the benefit of the extra year to

consolidate learning where that is needed.

Teacher Focus Group Discussion: Home-School Contact

Given the crucial importance of the home in the development of oral and literacy skills

necessary for success in school as perceived by teachers, it was important to establish

the nature and extent of teacher-parent liaison in relation to these developments

throughout the child’s experience in the primary school. For this reason, teachers were

asked about home-school contact practices and policies in their schools.

In all schools it was identified that contact with parents is most frequent at infant level

where informal contact occurs daily as parents drop and collect children, but diminishes

considerably as children move up along the school. The main form of formal contact with

parents in relation to children’s learning in school takes place during the parent-teacher

meetings, which are held either once or twice yearly in each of the schools, and where

again there is a higher attendance by parents of younger children than those of older

children. Teachers go to great lengths to encourage parents to attend these meetings,

with varying degrees of success. In the rural disadvantaged school, incidental

encounters with parents may occur from time to time, but these are unplanned, sporadic

and informal.

Teachers indicated that very few parents approach them to talk about the academic

progress of their child or about what the teacher is doing in the classroom, or about the

curriculum. On those occasions where a parent makes contact with a teacher, the issues


164

discussed are generally social or behavioural, rather than queries about a child’s

learning. Teachers expressed the view that parents are not particularly involved in their

children’s learning, having concern where they are concerned, only with children’s

written homework. All teachers agreed that parents are concerned for and interested in

their children’s success in school, but many can’t sustain interest due to unrest or

difficult circumstances at home, or because parents may feel ill-equipped to help their

children academically. The younger age profile of the parents, the prevalence of single-

parent families, and different priorities for parents were cited as reasons for poor

parental support for children’s learning – children are often missing books but always

have new pencil cases, nice communion dresses; money is being spent the wrong way,

prioritising different things.

Teachers expressed the opinion that many parents don’t share equal responsibility with

the teacher for the education of their children, as teachers feel they should. They agreed

that with support from the school, parents would be in a better position to take more

responsibility. However, while all teachers felt that it is important to reach out more to

parents in relation to children’s learning in the classroom, many difficulties were

identified in actually implementing this ideal. Many examples of home-school projects

were cited in each school, all of which had very positive results in terms of supporting

children’s learning at home, but all of which involved huge time and effort on the part of

the school, and most of which were unable to sustain parental involvement in the long

term.

Teacher Focus Group Discussion: Status 2 School Responses

The responses of the teachers in the status 2 school to the issues considered above

were somewhat different to those represented by the teachers in the status 1 schools.

As with the teachers in the status 1 schools, these teachers readily acknowledged the

vital importance of oral language for children, and while appropriately situating the

importance of oral language in terms of its contribution to the development of literacy

skills, also identified oral language development as important in its own right for the

development of the children. There was unanimous agreement among these teachers

that the oral language skills of the children were outstanding. Because of this it was

thought that oral language development for these children may be less important than

developing literacy skills. However, all teachers reported having focused, targeted time

for the development of the children’s oral abilities (70% of language time is oral in infant


165

classes, 50% in middle-classes. In senior classes more time is devoted to developing

literacy skills but discrete oral language time is also factored into children’s school

experience). Developing children’s oral language skills in this context was described as

the icing on the cake.

These teachers characterised the children’s talk as quite formal in both the school

context and the out-of-school context and were aware of the demands that school

expectations for language use place on children – in the classroom it would be textbook

stuff but at home it would be communicating in the language of the TV, the

Americanisation of our children. You know in a comprehension type question in school,

where in reality we would say yes, no in real life, but in school you must … full sentence

please … you know they're able to do that. But naturally they are able to do that.

The general feeling was that these children speak very well even outside school in terms

of the words that they choose to use. They speak very well in school and still carry that

outside school – they may speak in their own peer group language but if you were a

stranger standing beside them you would be impressed by the way they speak and the

language they use. One of these teachers who had previously taught in a disadvantaged

setting reflected on how surprisingly well status 1 children are able to express

themselves – with fluency and confidence – in an out-of-school context, but suggested

that the language used by such children would be predominantly slang words and music

terms. Teachers suggested that in the case of these status 2 children while the children

have to use a more descriptive type of language in the school they don't need to change

style as much as other children might.

As with the teachers in the status 1 schools, these teachers find the curriculum very

broad and too wordy and indicated that the main problem with curriculum is the way it is

presented. One of the teachers suggested that she would not use the curriculum book to

inform teaching. Another teacher considered that the curriculum makes what you are

doing anyway appear unwieldy. There was wide agreement that the flipping of the

strands and strand units in the English curriculum was a better approach. All of the

teachers were aware of the school plan for English, were involved in its development

and ongoing review, and all followed and consulted it regularly. Sources of ideas for oral

language planning included published materials, which are particularly targeted at oral

language development, as well as other language materials in use in the school.

Teachers were very clear on specific oral activities undertaken in the classrooms as

distinct from oral activities that arise as a consequence of teaching other subject areas.


166

All of these teachers participated in the in-service programme for English and found it

very helpful.

Teachers indicated that parents in this school regularly read to children, take them on

trips and broaden their experiences, talk to children, listen to children – that the general

lifestyle of children involves a broad range of experiences. A majority of children are

exposed to lots of books and reading outside of school and enjoy reading. The children

experience parents reading at home. The children have access to reference books at

home and bring them into school at appropriate times. A majority of children have

access to internet at home and are familiar and comfortable with exploring websites for

reference. The general feeling was that there is excellent home support for the

development of children’s oral and literacy skills.

Parental contact practices resembled those reported in the status 1 schools insofar as

contact is greater at infant level and less as the children get older. Formal teacher-parent

contact takes the form of parent-teacher meetings on a once yearly basis. Incidental

meetings may take place also as reported in some status 1 schools. Where informal

contact occurs, the focus is on procedural and social issues and less on academic

performance of the children, apart from the fact that if children have missed out on work

done in class, for whatever reason, these parents are very anxious to make sure that it is

made up so that the child does not fall behind.

Outreach practices to parents in relation to the work being done in the classroom take

the form of a homework diary, school reports, letters to parents explaining what is

expected in class, what to look out for, pointers for supporting children, ongoing

materials sent to parents of children in the infant classroom.

All teachers believed that the parents probably would like a lot more communication from

the school in terms of how they might support the work of the school, but teachers feel

there is enough communication already and the lines of communication are there where

necessary for extra support. The time factor involved in outreaching to parents any more

than is currently the case was thought to be prohibitive.


167

Portfolio of Linguistic Proficiency Teachers completed an outline of the linguistic proficiency of each child who participated

in the study. The purpose of this was to generate an overall picture of the children’s

linguistic profile, both oral and literate. The profile was compiled drawing on information

from the Drumcondra English Profiles and the most recent reading standardised test

scores available for the children. The data for each school are presented in the tables

below.

School A

Table Two: Drumcondra Profiles: Standardised Reading Scores – School A

Children Profiles Oral Language

Profiles Oral Pres.

Profiles Meaning Vocabulary

ST Score

ST Reading Age

ST Chron.Age

ST Percentile

Comments

AS1:1F Very keen to contribute to class discussion

Can tell story in sequence. Can combine simple sentences

Is confident in expressing herself

5.06 Is interested in picking up library book in free time

AS1:2F Has difficulty choosing words to describe

Can repeat sentences modelled by t

Average 5.10 Limited sight vocab

AS1:3M Can relate news

Can describe personal experiences

Needs encouragement with vocab

5.09 Enjoys reading. On target for age group

AS1:4F Reluctant to contribute

Lacks confidence

Needs to expand vocab

6 Is interested in reading

A31:1F Contributes easily

Confident Competent

Appropriate

Sten 6 8.08 50% Will read in free time – good comprehension

A31:2F Appropriate

Appropriate

Above average

98 –Sten 5

8.02 45% Good fluency and comprehension

A31:3F Contributes easily

Ideas not thought out

Needs to read more

80 Sten 3

8.07 12% Rarely reads in free time

A31:4F Contribut appropri Needs to 90 8.03 34% Rarely selects


168

es well ate read more

Sten 4 reading

A61:1F Contributes when asked

Can summarise, answer q’s, discuss books

Limited. 88 9:07 12.03 Reading difficulty

A61:2F Not keen to contribute

Can do oral reports

Struggles with vocab

83 Less than 9.0

11.09 Very low interest in reading

A61:3F Eager to voice opinion. Needs help to organise

Can present ideas well

Fair – needs to read more to extend

81 9.0 12.02 Needs to read more. Lack of talk at home

A61:4F Reluctant to participate

Needs a lot of time and support

Good 81 9.0 12 Would benefit from more reading

Six of the twelve children (50%) are identified as having some form of difficulty in engaging in informal classroom language. These difficulties include a reluctance to

contribute, difficulty in choosing words and problems with the organisation of ideas.

Three of the twelve children (25%) are described as having some difficulty with oral presentations in class, including a lack of confidence, poorly developed ideas, and

requiring more time and support.

Seven of the twelve children (58%) are thought to have some problems with meaning vocabulary, which is variously described as fair, limited, needing expansion, and a

struggle.

75% of the children in third class have standardised reading scores below the fiftieth percentile. All of the children in Sixth Class (100%) have a reading age below their

chronological age, standard scores that are in the Low-Average range.

Seven of the twelve children (58%) are commented on as being problematic readers in

one way or another, described as needing to read more, lacking interest in reading, or

having reading difficulties.


169

School B

Table Two: Drumcondra Profiles: Standardised Reading Scores – School B


Profiles Oral Pres.


ST Score

ST Reading Age

ST Chron.Age

ST Percentile

Comments

BS1:1M Well able to express

Loves newstelling

Good 6.7

BS1:2M Can find it hard to express

Enthusiastic but not great

OK – difficulty with comprehension

5.04 Has developmental problems

BS1:3M Very good

Can describe events and news well

Quite good

6.07

BS1:4M V. quiet Won’t speak in front of group

good 5.09

B31:1M Quite good

Good compared to peers

Below average

V. little reading outside school. Comprehension poor

B31:2M V. poor listening skills

Poor Poor vocab

Short concentration span. Weak reading skills

B31:3M Good Good compared to peers

Below average

No interest in reading. Weak reading and comprehension

B31:4M Quite good

Difficult to understand – speech problems

V. weak V. weak at reading

B61:1M Confident. Speaks in sober voice

Poor for his age

Sten 4

9.10 21 Experiences lots of talk at home. Likes to ask questions. Enjoys library books

B61:2M Uses lots of slang

Has confidence

Gets frustrated. Uses gestures to get meaning across

Sten 4

9.09 19 Not interested in reading. Needs lots of support

B61:3M Uses lots of slang.

Gets frustrated

Sometimes gets very

Sten 1 Less than 9.0

2 Lacks confidence. Afraid of failure


170

Gets confused in sentences

confused (didn’t register)

Five out of the eleven children in School B (44%) have some problem with informal classroom language use. These difficulties include poor listening skills, use of slang,

difficulties in expression, confusion with structures.

Five of the eleven children (44%) manifest difficulties in relation to oral presentation skills in the classroom, including a reluctance to speak in front of the group, poor

speech leading to difficulty understanding what the child is saying, frustration on the part

of the child when presenting.

Eight of the eleven (72%) children are thought to exhibit problems in terms of meaning vocabulary which is described as very weak, poor, below average, leading to

confusion, frustration and at times a need to resort to gestures on the part of some of the

children.

All of the Sixth Class children (100%) in this school have standardised reading scores well below average, the highest being in the 21st percentile. Standardised scores were

not available for the other children.

Seven of the eleven children (63%) are thought to have reading difficulties, or a lack of

interest in reading described by teachers in the following terms: poor comprehension,

weak reading and comprehension, not interested in reading, needs lots of support, lacks

confidence, afraid of failure.

School C Table Two: Drumcondra Profiles: Standardised Reading Scores – School C Children Profiles

Oral Language

Profiles Oral Pres.


ST Score

ST Reading Age

ST Chron.Age

Comments

CS1:1F Needs a lot of encouragement to contribute

Poor at presenting ideas

Needs more participation in oral language

76 5.09 6.02 Likes to read


171

CS1:2M Likes to talk. Has confidence

Good. Able to argue point of view

Good to Very good

73 5.06 6.01 Enjoys reading

CS1:3M Very confident

Good. Can present ideas well

Receptive vocab. Fair to good

74 5.06 7.03 Loves to read. Good comprehension

C31:1F Will contribute in class discussion. Limited vocab

Shy. Speaks only for a short time

Restricted vocab

94 9.00 9.11 Likes reading. Finds difficulty with new words.

C31:2M Well able to express

Willing to contribute

Reasonably wide vocab

95 8.11 9.01 Likes reading. Interest comes and goes

C31:3M Contributes to class discussions

Presentation skills excellent

Very strong

95 9.02 8.11 Very interested. Good skills

C31:4M Needs a lot of encouragement

Shy. Would not participate voluntarily

Limited 91 8.07 9.01 Poor reader. Weak skills

C61:1M Overpowering. At times dominating.

Tells stories with a keen awareness of plot and character

Use of general vocab. Is restricted

111 14.02. 13.04 Reads but doesn’t like it

C61:2M Well able to express

Excellent at oral presentation

Has a wide-ranging vocabulary

115 14.08 12.06 No reading problems

C61:3F Shy but well able to express Ideas

Very good if given time to prepare

Hasn’t an extensive vocab given that she reads a lot

104 13.02 12.03 Interested and reads well

C61:4F Slow to take part. Shy. Limited vocab

Doesn’t contribute unless asked

Limited Vocabulary

79 10.10 12.06 Poor comprehension. Reads a book a week.

Five out of the eleven (44%) children in this school have problems identified by teachers in relation to informal oral language in the classroom. These are

characterised as limited vocabulary, reluctance to participate, and needing lots of

encouragement.


172

Four of the children (36%) have problems presenting ideas orally, being reluctant to

present, speaking only for a short time, and described as ‘poor’ at presenting ideas.

Six of the eleven (54%) children are described in negative terms with regard to their

meaning vocabulary. Their difficulties are mainly described in terms of ‘restricted’ or

‘limited’ vocabulary.

In Senior Infants and Third Class, all of the children (88%) but one have reading ages below their chronological age. All of the senior infant children have standard reading

scores in the low range. Reading ages for three of the four Sixth Class children,

however, appear good, all above the chronological age and with standard scores in the

high average and average. One Sixth Class child has a reading score in the low range.

Three of the children are identified as exhibiting some reading difficulties and two others

are characterised as not having much interest in reading.

School D

Table Two: Drumcondra Profiles: Standardised Reading Scores – School D


Profiles Oral Pres.


ST Score

ST Reading Age

ST Chron.Age

ST Percentile

Comments

DS2:1M Good use of language

Clear speaker. Good sentence structure

Has extensive vocab

120 7.09 6.04 Loves to read. Excellent reader.

DS2:2M Good use of language

Good sentence structure

Wide vocab.

114 7.04 6.03 Enjoys reading Reads confidently and competently

DS2:3F Excellent use of vocabulary

Good sentence structure and use of grammar

100 6.10 6.11 Excellent, fluent reader

DS2:4F Good use of vocabulary

Can be slow to form sentence

Has wide ranging vocab.

122 7.11 5.10 Likes books. Reads beyond


173

s her age D32:1F Excellent

contribution

Excellent ability

V. Good 145 9.09 99 Very good reader

D32:2F Very Good

Very good

Very good

123 9.05 94 Avid Reader

D32:3M Excellent Confident at presenting to the class

Good store of vocab to draw from

122 9.06 93 Very high interest and v. good reader

D32:4M Very good

Very good

Very good

132 9.02 98 Reads with fluency and competence

D62:1M Very chatty, lively and enthusiastic

Enthusiastic and animated

Very good

107 13.02 68 Good reader. V. good comprehension

D62:2M Good, chatty, confident and clear

Loves oral language classes

Excellent 129 13.08 97 Loves books. Reads at home. Excellent comprehension

D62:3F Quiet but chats comfortably with friends

Very good. Clear. Lovely vocal expression

V. good 122 11.09 93 V. interested. Reads for pleasure at home. V. good reading skills

D62:4F Polite, clear, well-spoken

111 12.02 77 Reads for pleasure at home. Likes reading

As can be clearly seen at a glance from Table D, the linguistic profile for all of the

children in school D is overwhelmingly positive. Children are described as very good at

all aspects of oral language and reading, scoring in the high percentile ranks in the case

of all children. Interest in and ability to read are high for all children.

Clearly, once again, though perhaps not surprisingly, the profile of the children varies

quite substantially across social class. The status 1 children are more likely to be


174

described as exhibiting difficulties, problems, lack of confidence, lack of interest, lack of

ability in relation to oral language use in the classroom context, considerably more of

them manifest reading difficulties, or poor reading skills, and teachers make many more

negative comments in relation to their success in literacy than is the case for the status 2

children.

Findings generated in this study clearly indicate that in the case of children in these

designated disadvantaged schools in Ireland a number of common characteristics

prevail across the majority of the children. All of these status 1 children were eager and

willing to participate in talking activities. All enjoyed the opportunity of engaging in these

activities, although they perceived some of the activities to be more challenging for them

than others, and all of the children were able to complete the tasks set, with varying

degrees of success. In their responses to the tasks, however, they displayed different

patterns of language use to their middle-class counterparts, exhibiting fewer of the

characteristics of expected patterns of school language.

The awareness of variation in styles of language use in school and outside of school is

very acute among the status 1 children, more so than among their teachers. Their

exposure to formal, targeted oral language development in school appears to be less

than their experiences of literacy development. Teachers seem to focus more on the

development of literacy skills than oracy skills in these schools, and have predominantly

negative views of the oral and literacy skills of the children.

Results from the completion of the Drumcondra oral language profiles, and standardised

reading tests bear out teachers’ opinions in that a large number of the children have low

ratings and very low scores on these tests, where familiarity with and proficiency in the

use of ‘literate’ or ‘academic’ language use is a prerequisite for success. Given the link

between facility with ‘literate’ patterns of language use and the development of literacy

skills expressed consistently in international research findings, perhaps variation in style

of language use is a factor that needs consideration in enabling children such as these

to enhance their school experience and to improve their literacy skills.

A summary of all the findings generated by this research will be presented in the next

chapter, and implications of the findings for educators and policy-makers will be

considered.


175

CONCLUSION

The central questions of interest in this study were to investigate:

Whether variation in patterns of language use are exhibited among children in

primary schools in Ireland

If so, to what extent such variation prevails and in what form it is manifested

The impact, if any, of social background, age and gender, on variation

The impact, if any, of variation on levels of literacy development

The exploratory, interpretive case study design used in this research enabled the

investigation to explore issues in relation to patterns of language use in the school

context on site in four schools, but limits interpretation of findings to the particular

schools in which the case study was conducted. It is not possible, therefore, to

generalise findings from this study beyond the immediate schools in which the data

were generated. However, it is possible to use the data to raise issues of importance

concerning the questions of interest in the study, to make recommendations for

future research, and to identify possible implications of findings for policy-makers and

practitioners in the field of education. This concluding section will begin with a

summary of the findings from the data generated in the study. Implications of these

findings will then be considered. And finally the report will conclude with some

general recommendations suggested by the findings.

Summary of Findings – Elicited Production Tasks

In line with findings in international research, there is clear and compelling evidence

of variation in patterns of language use by children in the primary schools in this

study.

Variation in patterns of language use occurs according to social class, children in the

three designated disadvantaged schools exhibiting clear differences in language use

as compared to patterns of language use by children in the middle-class setting.


176

The differences in patterns of language use are related to children’s facility with

‘literate’ or ‘academic’ style of language, that style of language expected in the

school context.

Children in disadvantaged contexts consistently display fewer features of this style of

language use than their middle-class counterparts when engaged in school-type

talking tasks.

Differences in patterns of language use evident in the language of children emerge in

all categories of typical school-type talking tasks – factual, analytical, narrative, and

imaginative.

In interpreting the findings it is important to bear in mind that in school, children are

expected to ‘display knowledge, authoritatively in highly structured texts’

(Schleppegrell, 2004, p.74) and this is realised linguistically by:

Presenting ideas, choosing explicit vocabulary which constructs new

understandings and includes relationships such as time, consequence,

comparison or addition, and is organised using integrated, embedded

relationships

Taking a stance which projects a distanced relationship with the listener using

appropriate mood (declarative, interrogative, imperative) and modality

(expression of certainty and confidence) and

Structuring the text so that there is a dense presentation of information

organised in a coherent manner and expanded and elaborated on

appropriately.

Findings in this study indicate that the contributions of children in designated

disadvantaged contexts when engaged in school-type talking tasks requiring the

characteristics outlined above, instead display characteristics such as the following:


These children generally used reference that was more vague than that of status 2

children. They often displayed evidence of using a narrower range of vocabulary

than the status 2 children, whose lexical choices were more specific, more

appropriate, and more elaborate than those of the status 1 children. These children

were often stuck for words and unable to find the vocabulary necessary to express


177

explicitly what they wanted to convey. Often the presentations of status 1 children

were insufficiently elaborated or developed, making understanding more difficult for

their listeners. At times their presentations consisted more of personal reference

(requiring an intimate knowledge of the speaker on the part of the listener) than an

attempt to construct new understandings in a way that would be clear to the listener.

While relationships of addition were in evidence in the presentations, relationships of

time, consequence and comparison did not feature as often and when they did they

were often not sufficiently clear (see for example responses to the ‘odd-one-out’

tasks). Integrated, embedded relationships featured considerably less frequently

than in the presentations of the status 2 children.

Taking a Stance:

In the responses of the status 1 children to the tasks undertaken there was less

evidence of an ability to distance themselves in their presentations appropriately,

taking on an authoritative and expert stance. These children displayed considerably

less confidence in their expression than was evident in the presentations of the

status 2 children. They had more hesitations, more repetitions, more incomplete

statements, more clipped and unelaborated contributions. They were more reluctant

to complete some of the tasks, notably where they perceived they would encounter

difficulty. Their own perceptions of their ability to engage with the tasks was often

poor. This was particularly striking in their responses to imaginative, open-ended,

creative tasks. They were uncomfortable when asked to complete tasks of this

nature, perceiving that they lacked ability to do so. Where status 2 children

repeatedly produced strong, bold, confident responses to tasks set which they

undertook with delight, the contributions of status 1 children were often brief,

hesitant, reluctant and barely adequate or at times quite inadequate from a

communicative perspective. Awareness of the listener and the needs of the listener,

and the importance of communicating effectively with the listener was often poor in

the contributions of the status 1 children. Using the imperative mood was particularly

problematic for these children.

Structuring of Text:

Responses of status 1 children to the tasks set generally were more disorganised

and less coherent than that of the status 2 children. Their responses were usually

shorter and less well developed. Considerably less internal complexity was in

evidence in the responses of the status 1 children. There was less evidence of

facility to condense large amounts of information into short, dense, complex


178

constructions. Using superordinate terms was less in evidence in much of the talk of

the status 1 children as also was evidence of thematic positioning, where the focus

of the talk needed to be clearly fronted in the presentation.

An important and interesting finding in this study is that all of the features of ‘literate’

style language as outlined by Schleppegrell (2004) were present in the responses of

the status 1 children at times, sometimes spontaneously, more often when modelled

or when the children were scaffolded in their responses. However, these features

were used considerably less often than in the case of the status 2 children, and

generally required more intervention before the children displayed them.

Children in the status 1 schools required considerably more scaffolding and support

to complete the talking tasks than their status 2 counterparts.

They were not comfortable at all with the open-ended tasks, and with the tasks

requiring creative, imaginative language use.

All of these findings were evident across the whole range of language tasks set, across all age groups, across both genders, in single class groupings and in multi-class groupings, in both urban and rural schools, and in both large and small schools.

There was evidence, however, that age differences may exist in relation to facility

with ‘literate’ style language use in that differences became greater as children

became older. The differences in terms of presentation of ideas, taking a stance, and

structure of text were greater and more pronounced as children became older. There

was one exception, however, in the word definition task, where there appeared to be

some evidence that status 1 children improve in their ability to provide a more valued

form of word definition as they move up through the school.

Gender differences were evident in the imaginative language tasks set in the status 1

schools, with girls in those schools, at times, showing greater facility with language

use in the context of the imaginary telephone call than boys. This echoes the finding

of Cheshire (1978) whose research in Reading in England suggested that lower-

class boys use more non-standard syntax than girls in their quest to appear ‘tough’

and non-conformist. This certainly appeared to be the case for some of the status 1

boys when engaged in the telephone conversations. It was evident that they used


179

the opportunity to use language that was informal and at times indiscreet and giddy,

lacking elaboration and failing to contribute to the task in a way which would develop

the drama.

Summary of Findings – Focus Groups (Children)

Findings from the focus group discussions with the children revealed that, while the

intricacies of language variation were not available to the children, they displayed an

impressive awareness of the existence of language variation, the extent of that

variation, and the value placed on school language use (especially that of the

teacher) in terms of the content, level of formality, and style (expressed in terms of

levels of respect). All of the status 1 children were acutely aware that talk in school is

different to talk outside of school. The school talk was variously characterised as

‘posh’, ‘better’, ‘talking properly’, ‘quieter’, ‘calm’, and showing ‘respect’. While

awareness of difference between talk in school and talk outside of school was

displayed by also by the status 2 children, more evidence of a crossover in types of

talk between the home and school context was exhibited. This crossover was

expressed in terms of times when the content of the talk was similar, the level of

formality of talk required was similar, and the style of language used was similar in

both contexts. This was not expressed at all by the status 1 children, who saw a

clear divide between the content of talk in school and at home (no talk of ‘work’ or

‘learning’ takes place outside of the school context), levels of formality (you have to

‘watch your mouth’ and ‘pay more respect’ when talking in school), and style (at

home ‘you’d be roaring’ and you ‘use different words at home – curses’).

Clear differences between the talk of the teacher and that of the children were

perceived also by children in the status 1 schools – ‘we speak different to her, she

speaks different to us’. Again the status 2 children acknowledged differences in the

style of teacher talk in school, but were aware of times when teacher would use

language in a way that is similar to their language use. This was not expressed at all

by the status 1 children.

All of the children expressed the view that the teacher dominates and controls talking

time in the classroom and some indicated that most of the classroom talk they

engage in is with the teacher.


180

None of the status 1 children perceived talk as a legitimate learning medium in

school.

Status 1 children were completely unable to give meaningful examples of legitimate

talk as a learning medium in school, suggesting that either they don’t have such

experiences or, if they do, they are unaware of their value. Status 2 children were

readily able to identify a range of such experiences.

The majority of status 1 children valued literacy development more than the

development of talking skills. This value was expressed in terms of the need to be

literate in order to gain employment. Status 2 children recognised the importance of

developing talking skills and valued them either equally or more than the

development of literacy skills.

All children felt that more time was spent in school on development of literacy than

oracy skills.

The majority of children in both contexts expressed a preference for talking activities

in school.

The discussion around home and school literacy experiences revealed that status 1

children are not confident in relation to their literacy skills. They do not like reading

and writing, and many felt that their teachers had poor views of their literacy skills. All

of their reading and writing is done in school. There are very few books available to

them at home and very little or no reading/writing is done at home. There is no book

culture at home in the sense that books never feature as presents in their lives and it

would appear that for most of these children there aren’t very many books at home.

All of these children indicated, however, that popular forms of technological games

culture featured strongly in their lives. Most of the children said that they saw their

parents reading at home. This contrasts strongly with the responses of status 2

children to this discussion. They exhibited confidence and a very positive attitude to

reading, often read and write at home using a wide variety of tools to do so. There

was a strong culture of books at home and books often featured as presents in their

lives. They appear to have access to many books at home. They too indicated that

they saw parents reading at home.


181

Summary of Findings – Focus Groups (Teachers)

Findings from focus group discussions with the teachers revealed that variation in

language style and school expectations for language use don’t immediately spring to

teachers’ minds as potential language challenges for children in school.

On reflection, however, all teachers demonstrated an awareness of the existence of

school expectations for language use and many teachers articulated these

expectations with some precision.

It was clear from the discussions with the teachers that they were not as acutely

aware as the children of the shift in language register required of children in school.

This is hardly surprising, given that the change in language style is one which the

children have to make to a much greater extent than the teacher.

Teachers were unanimous in their agreement on the importance of oral language

development in the school context, but teachers in the designated disadvantaged

schools were of the view that it was most important in the infant classrooms and

characterised its importance only in terms of its contribution to the development of

children’s literacy skills.

Teachers’ perceptions of the oral language skills of the majority of children in the

status 1 schools were very negative, describing their language as ‘poor’ and ‘weak’.

This corroborates findings by the Department of Education and Science (DES) that

teachers often remark on ‘the fact that children come to school with a significant oral

language deficit’ (2005, p.25). The poor language skills of the children were

attributed to the types of language experiences in the home, parents’ lack of

education, and different priorities for parents.

No formal, dedicated, targeted, focused oral language lessons were taught by

teachers in the designated disadvantaged schools. Teachers in these schools all

indicated that oral language development takes place in their classes but not in the

form of discrete oral language lessons. The exact nature of the oral language


182

development that takes place was unclear. The lack of clarity was reflected in the

children’s lack of awareness of formal oral language activities in the classroom in the

status 1 schools. This contrasts with the practice in the school in a middle-class

setting where formal oral language teaching takes place at all levels of the primary

school and children are aware of this aspect of their school experience.

Teachers broadly welcomed the renewed emphasis on oral language development in

the Revised Curriculum (1999), but indicated that they found the English curriculum

difficult to follow. This was the case for teachers in both types of school. The recent

decision by the NCCA (National Council for Curriculum and Assessment) to switch

the framework of the English curriculum so that the strands and strand units are

flipped was welcomed by those teachers who were aware of it. Not all teachers were

aware of this change. There was a feeling among the status 1 teachers that the

curriculum for English does not sufficiently support teachers developing oral

language skills in disadvantaged contexts. Of the teachers who attended in-service

support for English, there was again a general feeling that the particular challenges

faced by teachers in disadvantaged contexts were not addressed.

Findings by the DES that ‘teachers experience a lack of engagement with the

planning process’ (2005, p.61) were evident in this study also. Teachers in the status

1 schools exhibited disengagement with the whole-school planning process. While all

of the schools had a school plan for English, many teachers in these schools were

not involved in developing that plan, many were not familiar with the contents of the

plan, and many did not refer to the school plan when planning classroom activities in

English. This was not the case in the status 2 school, where teachers were aware of

the plan, involved in its ongoing review and development, and regularly referred to it

in the course of classroom planning.

In the status 1 schools, teachers expressed negative views of the literacy skills of

many of the children and again cited poor home experiences as the source of the

difficulty for many children.

Home-school contact diminishes as children move through the school in both types

of school. Formal contact takes the form of parent-teacher meetings which only

occur once or twice yearly, and in the status 1 schools there is often difficulty

encouraging parents to attend, especially parents of older children and, as reported

by the rural disadvantaged school, parents of boys. Outside of this, contact with


183

parents is predominantly around social and behavioural issues that arise. Teachers

in status 1 schools reported that parents almost never ask about the academic

progress of their children outside of parent-teacher meetings and teachers don’t

contact parents to inform them of academic content in the classroom and how

parents might contribute to ongoing work in the classroom. All status 1 teachers

agreed that this type of communication with parents would be desirable. The DES

suggests that ‘schools should explore more actively ways of supporting parents in

becoming involved in the education of their children’ (2005, p.9). Time factors and

lack of sustainability on the part of the parents were cited as major difficulties in

status 1 schools in achieving this. There was evidence of more communication with

parents in the status 2 school and some communication outside of formal parent-

teacher meetings in relation to academic content of the classroom so that parents

would be aware of and able to contribute to ongoing work in the classroom. As with

the status 1 schools, however, teachers in the status 2 school agreed that increasing

levels of communication between the school and the parents would be welcomed by

parents, even though the teachers felt that there was sufficient communication in

place already. Time factors were again cited as obstacles to facilitating this process.

Summary of Findings – Portfolio of Language Proficiency

Teacher rating, using standardised oral language profiles, of the oral language ability

of many of the children in the classroom context was that language skills were poor.

Using the Drumcondra English Profiles of children’s oral language skills, teachers

reported that the classroom oral language skills of many of the children in the status

1 schools were poor, citing difficulties for many children in terms of informal

classroom language use, oral presentation of ideas, and meaning vocabulary. This

was not the case for any of the children in the status 2 school.

Many of these children who display lack of facility with ‘literate’ style language also

present with below average literacy scores on standardised reading tests. Many of

the children in the designated disadvantaged school scored poorly in standardised

reading tests, large numbers of them scoring below the average, and below their

chronological age. This was not the case for any of the children in the status 2

school.


184

Implications of Findings

In the case of the three designated disadvantaged schools in this study, it seems that

many children are entering our school system without having proficiency in the type

of language expected and required to engage effectively with that system.

The children in these schools place greater value on the importance of literacy skills

than on the importance of oral language skills, suggesting that oral language may not

be considered seriously as a legitimate and worthy learning medium.

There is a clear divide for these children between their home and school

experiences, particularly in relation to oral language use and the development of

literacy skills. The lack of crossover of experience between the two contexts for the

child may reduce the effectiveness of the child’s school experience.

The relatively low level of conscious awareness by teachers, of language variation as

a potential source of difficulty for some children in the school context suggests that

this perspective on language development may not receive sufficient emphasis in

school.

Teachers’ views of oral language in the designated disadvantaged contexts as

having importance only in relation to the development of literacy skills could imply

that the status of oral language in its own right as a significant foundational skill for

children may not be as high as it needs to be.

The lack of formal oral language classes in the designated disadvantaged schools is

concerning as it implies that these skills are not receiving the attention they should in

these contexts, contexts where such development is of paramount importance.

Teachers’ poor perceptions of children’s oral language and literacy skills may result

in lower expectations for these children.

The difficulties teachers reported in accessing the revised curriculum English

documents suggests that they are not being guided or supported sufficiently in their

understanding of how and what the teaching of oral language entails. This appears


185

to be particularly the case for the teachers in the more challenging disadvantaged

contexts. The lack of support has the knock-on effect of reducing the effectiveness of

teachers’ planning in relation to the development of oral language skills.

Citing difficulties in the home as sources of oracy and literacy problems may indicate

that teachers currently are not taking any responsibility where children experience

difficulty in the school context.

Inadequate teacher/parent contact, particularly in relation to the academic progress

of children, the academic content of classroom teaching, and the role of parents in

supporting the work of the teacher suggests that effective teacher/parent

collaboration for the benefit of the child is not featuring sufficiently for the maximum

development of oral and literacy skills.

Many of the children in these schools are already statistically at risk of school failure

by virtue of their background characteristics and experiences. Now they risk further

alienation, feelings of inadequacy, and potential failure perhaps due in part to their

patterns of language use in the school context. For many of them, development of

literacy skills is difficult and problematic. Poor reading skills are the norm for these

children as well as lack of confidence, enjoyment and interest in the process of

reading and writing. Given the established connection between proficiency in the use

of ‘literate’ language and ability to engage with the school system and to acquire

literacy skills, the implications of the findings of this study are clear.

Children will continue to fail to achieve their potential while in school unless the existence of language variation is highlighted and its implications for success in school addressed.

The situation presenting in the schools in this study suggests that teachers in the

disadvantaged schools have negative perceptions of children’s language skills – both

oral and literacy skills. These perceptions are based on children’s ability (or lack of

ability) to engage with school expectations of language use – ‘literate’ patterns of

language use. Despite these negative perceptions of children’s language skills, very

little formal, explicit teaching of oral language skills is in evidence in these schools,

with teachers concentrating more on the development of literacy skills. A teacher-

parent partnership approach to the academic development of the children is not well


186

developed as a consequence of poor parental support and the significant time factor

involved in establishing and sustaining such a partnership.

It has been well documented in research that children in disadvantaged contexts

generally have fewer opportunities to engage in the types of experiences (cognitive

and linguistic) that appear to be important for success in school (Vernon-Feagans,

1996, p.16). This does not imply that these children do not have experiences

requiring high levels of reasoning and language use. But when children fail in school,

that failure is attributed to such factors as ability, family background, or motivation

(Martin, 1993) and the ‘focus is often on “fixing” the child’ (Parsons, 2005, p.188). In

the case of language variation this has led to an ‘unequal burden [being] placed on

vernacular speakers in language accommodation’ (Wolfram et al., 1999, p.115). This

means that:

The need for linguistic adjustment is placed squarely on vernacular speakers when there should be an equally strong moral responsibility placed on the mainstream population to alter its prejudices and respect dialect differences for what they are – a natural manifestation of cultural and linguistic diversity (ibid.)

It is crucial that all involved in education take responsibility for the implications of language variation for children’s success in school.

Up to now, responsibility has fallen on children to alter their language style to replicate

that expected and valued by the school and to do so without any formal instruction or

support. It is clear that all involved in the education of children have a role to play in

dealing with this reality. Because the drive for standardisation marches on, it is

important to reach out to both children and their parents in an attempt to maximise the

success of their school experience and to enhance their chances of achieving their

potential while in school. On the basis of the findings in this study and the implications

for our children of these findings, the report makes the following recommendations.

Recommendations

Future research needs to take the form of a large-scale project to establish more

clearly and precisely the scale and significance of the link between variation in

language use and success in school, particularly in the development of literacy skills.


187

In the meantime, to reduce the impact of language variation on children in designated

disadvantaged contexts in Ireland these recommendations are made to all involved in the education of children. Because ‘consciousness is the first step towards

emancipation’ (Fairclough, 2001, p.193) it is necessary to:

Develop an awareness of the existence of language variation and

Establish clearly an understanding that language variation does not imply inferiority, either cognitive or linguistic

Embrace all children and their language variety equally as contributing to

the richness and diversity of the school community

Highlight the implications of language variation for success in school,

particularly in relation to the development of literacy skills, for children in

disadvantaged contexts

Reach out to children and their parents in a supportive manner to facilitate

the development of crucial language skills for success in the school context.

This means that:

All those involved in the preparation, induction and inspection of teachers

must focus attention on the existence of language variation and its impact on

the education of children.

Teachers need to plan more carefully and systematically for targeted, focused,

developmental oral language teaching in school, with particular emphasis on

those aspects of language knowledge which appear crucial for success, i.e.

‘literate’ style language.

More time than appears currently to be the case needs to be given to oral

language development in school at all levels, but particularly at middle and

senior class level.

Language learning time in school needs to be more equally balanced between

oral and literacy development


188

Teachers need to articulate clearly, model appropriately, and intervene and

scaffold effectively desired uses of language in school in an attempt to teach

such language skills where necessary.

Children need to have more opportunity to talk in school as part of legitimate,

purposeful learning tasks.

Teacher-parent partnership needs to be promoted so that parents are aware

of, take responsibility for, and become involved in the learning of their children.

Home-school partnership must focus on the need for parents to talk to and

listen to their children, particularly about what goes on in school, and to support

the development of literacy with more encouragement and facilitation of

reading and writing outside of the school context.

To implement these recommendations for inspectors, teachers, children, and parents,

the Department of Education and Science needs to work towards:

o Continued support for teachers in implementing the Revised English

Curriculum, with particular reference to the specific needs in terms of language

variation and all its concomitant challenges for teachers of children in

designated disadvantaged schools

o Reduced pupil-teacher ratio in these schools

o More classroom support in the form of teachers’ aides

o Greater access to resources to facilitate the development of oral language and

literacy skills

o More home-school liaison support and programmes designed to support these

parents in working in partnership with the school for the benefit of their children.

Only when all involved in the education of children become aware of, acknowledge

and celebrate the diversity of language variation and work together to support the

acquisition of requisite language skills for school success can all of our children move

towards achieving their potential in school.

Ignoring the difference that differences make, or pretending they do not exist, certainly

is not in the best interests of children (Wolfram et al., 1999, p.25)


189

To ‘ignore the difference that differences make’ can only compound disadvantage.

Difference, if acknowledged, accepted, celebrated, and incorporated into children’s

experience of school can only liberate.

REFERENCES

Au, K. (1993). Literacy Instruction in Multicultural Settings. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech Genres and Other Late Essays (Trans. Y. McGee). Austin TX:

University of Texas Press.

Baratz, J.C. and Shuy, R.W. (eds) (1969). Teaching Black Children to Read, Washington, DC:

Center for Applied Linguistics.

Barton, D. (1994). Literacy: An Introduction to the Ecology of Written Language. Oxford: Blackwell.

Barton, D. and Hamilton, M. (1998). Local Literacies: Reading and Writing in One Community.

London: Routledge.

Barnes, D. and Todd, F. (1995). Communication and Learning Revisited. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Baugh, J. (1997). Researching race and social class in language acquisition and use. In N.H.

Hornberger and D. Corson (eds), Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Volume 8:

Research Methods in Language and Education, 111-121.

Baumrind, D. (1989). Rearing Competent Children. In Damon, W. (ed.), Child Development today

and tomorrow, pp349-378. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bearne, E., Dombey, H. and Grainger, T. (2003). Classroom Interactions in Literacy. Open

University Press.

Benson, N., Gurney, S., Harrison, J. and Rimmershaw, R. (1993). The place of academic writing

in whole life writing: A case study of three university students, Language and Education 7, 1-

20.

Bereiter, C. and Engelmann, S. (1966). Teaching Disadvantaged Children in the Preschool.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bernstein, B. (1960). Language and Social Class. British Journal of Sociology, 2, 217-276.

Bernstein, B. (1966). Elaborated and Restricted Codes: Their social origins and some

consequences. American Anthropologist, 66(6)2.

Bernstein, B. (1971). Language and Socialisation. In Minnis, N. (ed.), Linguistics at Large, pp227-

245). New York: Viking.

Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, Codes and Control (vol. 1). London: Routledge and Keegan Paul.

Bernstein, B. (1972). Social Class, Language and Socialization. In Giglioli, P. (ed.), Language and

Social Context, pp157-178. Hammondsworth, UK: Penguin.

Bernstein, B. (1982). Codes, Modalities and the process of cultural reproduction: A model. In

Apple, M. (ed.), Cultural Reproduction in Education. Boston: Routledge.

Bloome, D. (1987). Reading as a Social Process in a middle-school classroom. In Bloome, D.

(ed.), Literacy and Schooling, pp123-149. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Bortoni-Ricardo, S.M. (1997). Variationist Sociolinguistics. In Hornberger, N.H. and Corson, D.

(eds) Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Vol.8: Research Methods in Language and

Education, 59-66. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. John B. Thompson (ed.). Cambridge: Polity

Press; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bourne, J. and Reid, E. (2003) (eds). Language Education. London: Kogan Page.

Britton, J. (1970). Language and Learning. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.

Brown, A.L. and Campione, J.C. (1994). Guided Discovery in a community of learners. In McGilly,

K. (ed.) Classroom Lessons: Integrating Cognitive Theory and Classroom Practice, pp229-

270. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.

Carter, R. (1995). Keywords in language and literacy. London, New York: Routledge.

Cazden, C. (1972). Child Language and Education. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning. Portsmouth,

NH: Heinemann.

Cazden, C. (1989). Richmond Road: A Multilingual/Multicultural Primary School in Auckland, New

Zealand, Language and Education 3, 143-166.

Cazden, C., John, V. and Hymes, D. (1972). Functions of Language in the Classroom. New York:

Teachers College Press.

Chafe, W. and Danielewicz, J. (1987). Properties of Spoken and Written Language. In Horowitz, R.

and Samuels, J. (eds), Comprehending Oral and Written Language, pp83-112. London and

San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Cheshire, J. (1978). Present Tense Verbs in Reading English. In Trudgill (1978) Sociolinguistic

Patterns in British English. London: Edward Arnold.

Christie, F. (2003). Initial Literacy: Extending the Horizon. In Bourne, J. and Reid, E. (eds),

Language Education. London: Kogan Page Ltd.

Cicognani, E. and Zani, B. (1992). Teacher-children interactions in a nursery school: An

exploratory study, Language and Education 6, 1-12.

Clipson-Boyles, S. (2005). The role of drama in the literate classroom. In Goodwin, P. (ed.) The

Literate Classroom. Pub. David Fulton.

Cook-Gumperz, J. (1977). Situated Instructions: Language Socialization of school aged children. In

S. Ervin-Tripp and Mitchell-Kernan C. (eds), Child Discourse, pp103-124. New York:

Academic Press.

Corson, D. (1985). The Lexical Bar. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Corson, D. (1990). Language Policy across the Curriculum. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.

Cosgrove, J., Kelleghan, T., Forde, P., and Morgan, M. (2000). The 1998 National Assessment of

English Reading. Dublin:Educational Research Centre.

CPA, (2005). Ending Child Poverty. Dublin: Combat Poverty Agency.

CPA, (2006). Tackling Child Poverty: A Dynamic Perspective. Dublin: Combat Poverty Agency.

Cumming, A. (1997). The Testing of Writing in a Second Language. In Clapham, C. and Corson, D.

(eds) Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Volume 7: Language Testing and

Assessment, pp51-64. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Delgado-Gaitin, C. (1994). Sociocultural Change through Literacy: Toward empowerment of

families. In Ferdman, B., Weber, R.M. and Ramirez, A. (eds), Literacy across Languages and

Cultures, pp143-170. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

DES (2005). An Evaluation of Curriculum Implementation in Primary Schools – English,

Mathematics, and Visual Arts. Department of Education and Science. Dublin: Government

Publications.

DES (2005). Chief Inspectors Report 2001-2004. Department of Education and Science. Dublin:

Government Publications.

DES (2005). Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools: An Action Plan for Educational

Inclusion. Department of Education and Science. Dublin: Government Publications.

DES (2005). Literacy and Numeracy in Disadvantaged Schools: Challenges for Teachers and

Learners. An Evaluation by the Inspectorate of the Department of Education and Science.

Department of Education and Science. Dublin: Government Publications.

Dickinson, D. and Moreton, J. (1991). Predicting Specific Kindergarten Literacy Skills from three-

year-olds’ preschool experience. Paper presented at the biennial meetings of the Society for

Research in Child Development, Seattle.

Dickinson, D.K. and Sprague, K.E. (2002). The Nature and Impact of Early Childhood Care

Environments on the Language and Early Literacy Development of Children from Low-Income

Families. In Neuman, S.B. and Dickinson, D.K. (eds), Handbook of Early Literacy Research.

London: The Guilford Press.

Duranti, A. and Ochs, E. (1986). Literacy instruction in a Samoan village. In Schieffelin, B.B. and

Gilmore, P. (eds), Acquisition of Literacy: Ethnographic Perspectives, pp213-232.Norwood,

NJ: Ablex.

Dyson, A.H. (1990). Symbol Makers, symbol weavers: How children link play, pictures, and print.

Young Children, 45(2), 50-57.

Eckert, P. and McConnell-Ginet, S. (2003). Language and Gender. Cambridge University Press.

Edwards, A.D. (1997). Oral Language, Culture and Class. In Davies, B. and Corson. D. (eds),

Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Vol. 13: Oral Discourse and Education: 65-73.

Kluwer Publishers.

Eggins, S. and Slade, D. (1997). Analysing Casual Conversation. London: Equinox.

Escamilla, K. (1995). The sociolinguistic environment of a bilingual school: A case study

introduction, Bilingual Research Journal, 18, 21-48.

Eivers, E., Shiel, G. and Shortt, F. (2004). Reading Literacy in Disadvantaged Primary Schools.

Dublin: Educational Research Centre.

Eivers, E., Shiel, G., Perkins, R. and Cosgrove, J. (2005). The 2004 National Assessment of

English Reading. Dublin: Educational Research Centre.

Eivers, E., Shiel, G., Perkins, R. and Cosgrove, J. (2005). Succeeding in Reading? Reading

Standards in Irish Primary Schools. Department of Education and Science.

Dublin:Government Publications.

Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and Power (second edition). Pearson Education Ltd. London:

Longman.

Faltis, C. (1997). Case Study Methods in Researching Language and Education. In Hornberger,

N.H. and Corson, D. (eds) Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Vol. 8: Research

Methods in Language and Education, 145-152.

Feagans, L. and Farren, D.C. (eds) (1982). The language of children reared in poverty:

Implications for evaluation and intervention. New York: Academic Press.

Flores, J.G. and Alonso, C.G. (1995). Using Focus Groups in Educational Research. Evaluation

Review, 19(1): 84-101.

Galda, L. (1989). Children and Poetry. The Reading Teacher, 43(1), 66-71.

Galda, L. (1990). Children’s Literature as a Language Experience. The Advocate, 3(4), 247-259.

Galda, L. and Pellegrini. A.D. (1985). Play, Language and Stories (eds). Norwood, NJ: Ablex

Publishing Corporation.

Gee, P. (1996). Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourse (second edition). London:

Taylor & Francis.

Gee, J. (2002). A Sociocultural Perspective on Early Literacy Development. In Neuman, S.B. and

Dickinson, D. (eds), Handbook of Early Literacy Research, pp30-42. New York: Guilford

Press.

Golden, J. (1997). Narrative and the Shaping of Identity. In Davies, B. and Corson, D. (eds)

Encyclopedia of Language and Education Vol. 4: Oral Discourse and Education, pp137-145.

Goldenburg, C. (2002). Making Schools Work for Low-Income Families in the 21st Century. In

Neuman, S.B. and Dickinson, D. (eds), Handbook of Early Literacy Research, pp211-231.

New York: Guilford Press.

Gregory, E. and Williams, A. (2004). Living Literacies in Homes and Communities. In T.Grainger

(ed.), The Routledge Falmer Reader in Language and Literacy, pp33-51. London: Routledge

Falmer.

Grainger, T. (2004). Introduction: Travelling Across the Terrain. In Grainger, T. (ed.), The

Routledge Falmer Reader in Language and Literacy. London: Routledge Falmer.

Gumperz, J., Kaltman, H. and O’Connor, M. (1984). Cohesion in Spoken and Written Discourse. In

Tannen, D. (ed.) Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse. Advances in Discourse

Processes, 12, 3-19. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1973). Explorations in the Functions of Language. New York: Elsevier.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and

Meaning. London: Arnold.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. First Edition, London: Edward

Arnold.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1987). Spoken and Written Modes of Meaning. In Horowitz, R. and Samuels, J.

(eds) Comprehending Oral and Written Language, pp55-82. New York: Academic Press.

Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R. (1989). Language, Context and Text: A Social Semiotic

Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1993). Towards a Language-Based Theory of Learning, Linguistics and

Education 5, 93-116.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (second edition). London: Edward

Arnold.

Hannon, P. (2004). The History and Future of Literacy. In Grainger, T. (ed.) The Routledge Falmer

Reader in Language and Literacy, pp19-32. London: Routledge Falmer.

Hayes, N. and Kernan, M. (2001). Seven Years Old: School Experience in Ireland. National Report

of the IEA preprimary project. Dublin: Centre for Social and Educational Research, Dublin

Institute of Technology.

Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with Words: Language, Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hoppe, M.J., Wells, E.A., Morrison, D.M., Gillmore, M.R. and Wilsdon, A. (1995), Using Focus

Groups to Discuss Sensitive Topics with Children. Evaluation Review, 19(1):102-114.

INTO (1994). Poverty and Educational Disadvantage. Breaking the Cycle. Dublin: INTO

Publication. Jensen, A.R. (1969). How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement?

Harvard Educational Review, 30, 1-123.

Kantrowitz, B. (2000, Fall/Winter). 21st Century Babies (special edition). Newsweek, 4-7.

Kempe, A. (2001). Choose your words carefully. In Goodwin, P. (ed.)The Articulate Classroom:

Talking and Learning in the Primary School, pp101-108. London: Fulton.

Labov, W. (1966). The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington DC: Center for

Applied Linguistics.

Labov, W. (1969). The logic of non-standard English. In Alatis, J. (ed.) Georgetown monograph

series on language and linguistics, 22, 1-44.

Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English Vernacular.

Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania Press.

Labov, W. (1994). Principles of Linguistic Change. Oxford: Blackwell.

Lankshear, C. (1987). Changing Literacies. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Lareau, A. (2000). Home Advantage – Social Class and Parental Intervention in Elementary

Education, New York: Rowman and Littlefield Pubs.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Lewis, M. (2005). Developing Children’s narrative writing using story structures. In Goodwin, P.

(ed.) The Literate Classroom. Pub. David Fulton.

Luke, A. and Carrington, V. (2004). Globalisation, literacy, curriculum practice. In Grainger, T. (ed.)

The Routledge Falmer Reader in Language and Literacy. London: Routledge Falmer.

Lynch, K. (1999). Equality in Education. Dublin: Gill & Macmillan.

Lynch, K. and O’Neill, C. (1994). The Colonisation of Social Class in Education. British Journal of

Sociology of Education, 15(3):307-324.

Machado, J.M. (2003). Early Childhood Experiences in Language Arts – Emerging Literacy. United

States: Thomson Delmar Learning.

MacRuairc, G. (1997). ‘Big Mad Words’. Perceptions of Language Variation in Schools: A

Sociological Analysis. M.Ed. Thesis. University College Dublin.

Mandler, J.M. and Johnson, N.S. (1977). Remembrance of things parsed: story structures and

recall, Cognitive Psychology, 9, 111-51.

Martin, J.R. (1993). Genre and Literacy – Modeling Context in Educational Linguistics. Annual

Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 141-172.

McGinness, G.D. (1982). The language of the poverty child: Implications for intervention and

evaluation derived from center-based programs. In Feagans, L. and Farran, D.C (eds) The

language of children reared in poverty. New York: Academic Press.

Measures, E., Quell, C., and Wells, G. (1997). A Sociocultural Perspective on Classroom

Discourse. In Davies, B. and Corson, D. (eds) Encyclopedia of Language and Education,

Volume 3: Oral Discourse and Education, pp21-29. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Mercer, N. (2004). Development through Dialogue. In Grainger, T. (ed.) The Routledge Falmer

Reader in Language and Literacy, pp121-137. London, New York: Routledge Falmer.

Michaels, S. (1981). Sharing Time: Children’s Narrative Styles and Differential Access to Literacy.

Language in Society, 10, 423-442.

Michaels, S. and Cazden, C. (1986). Teacher/child collaboration as oral preparation for literacy. In

Schiefflin, B.B. and Gilmore, P. (eds), The Acquisition of Literacy: Ethnographic

Perspectives, pp 132-154. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Michaels, S. and Collins, J. (1984). Oral Discourse Styles: Classroom interaction and the

acquisition of literacy. In Tannen, D. (ed.) Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse

(pp219-244). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Millard, E. (2003). Towards a Literacy of Fusion: New times, new teaching and learning? Reading,

Literacy and Language, 37:1, pp3-8.

Milroy, L. (1987). Observing and Analysing Natural Language. Oxford: Blackwell.

Milroy, L. and Milroy, J. (1992). Social Network and Social Class: Towards an Integrated

Sociolinguistic Model. In Language in Society, V21, pp1-26.

McCabe, A. (1992). All Kinds of Good Stories. Report based on a paper presented at the Annual

Meeting of the National Reading conference (42nd, San Antonio, TX, December 205,1992).

NESF (2005). Early Childhood Care and Education, NESF Report 31.

Olson, D.R. (1977). From Utterance to Text: The bias of Language in Speech and Writing. Harvard

Educational Review, 47(3), 257-281.

Ong, W. (1982). Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London: Methuen.

Ongstad, S. (2003). Standard language education in transition. In Bourne, J. and Reid E. (eds.)

Language and Education, Pub. Kogan Page Ltd.

Oxley,H., Thai-Thanh, D., Forster, M.F. and Pellizzari, M. (2001). Income inequalities and Poverty

among Children and Households in Selected OECD Countries. In Vleminckx and Smeeding

(eds) Child Well-Being, Child Poverty and Child Policy in Modern Nations, Bristol: The Policy

Press.

Parsons, C. (2005). School Exclusion: The Will to Punish. British Journal of Educational Studies,

53(2),187-211.

Pease-Alvarez, L. and Winsler, A. (1994). Cuandon El Maestro No Hablo Espanol: Children’s

bilingual language practices in the classroom, TESOL Quarterly 28, 507-535.

Pellegriini, A.D. (2002). Some Theoretical and Methodological Considerations in Studying Literacy

in Social Context. In Neuman, S.B. and Dickinson, D.K. (eds) Handbook of Early Literacy

Research, pp54-65. London: The Guilford Press.

Pellegrini, A.D. and Galda, L. (1998). The Development of School-Based Literacy: A Social

Ecological Perspective. London: Routledge.

Pellegrini, A.D., Galda, L., Bartini, M. and Charak, D. (1998). Oral Language and Literacy Learning

in Context: The Role of Social Relationships. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 44, 38-54.

Philips, S.U. (1972). Participant Structures and communicative competence: Warm Springs

Children in community and classroom. In Cazden, C.B., John, V.P. and Hymes, D. (eds)

Functions of Language in the Classroom, pp 370-394. New York: Teachers College Press.

Pontecorvo, C. (1997). Classroom Discourse for the Making of Learning. In Davies, B. Corson, D.

(eds) Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Vol. 3: Oral Discourse and Education, 169-

178. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Purves, A.C. (1997). The Assessment of Writing in the Mother Tongue. In Clapham, C. and

Corson, D. (eds) Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Volume 7: Language Testing

and Assessment, pp11-20. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Ramanathan-Abbott, V. (1993). An examination of the relationship between social practices and

the comprehension of narratives. Text, 13(1), pp117-141.

Revised Primary Curriculum (1999). Dublin: Stationery Office, Government of Ireland.

Rubin, D.R. and Schramm, G. (1997). The Testing of First Language Speaking Skills. In Clapham,

C. and Corson, D. (eds) Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Vol.7: Language Testing

and Assessment, pp29-38.

Schleppegrell, M.J. (1998). Grammar as Resource: Writing a Description. In Research in the

Teaching of English, 32( 2), 182-211.

Schleppegrell, M.J. (2001). Linguistic Features of the Language of Schooling. Linguistics and

Education, 12(4), 431-459.

Schleppegrell, M.J. (2004). The Language of Schooling: A Functional Linguistics Perspective. New

Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Scollon, R. and Scollon, S. (1981). Narrative, Literacy and face in interethnic communication.

Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Shannon, S. (1995). The hegemony of English: A case study of one bilingual classroom,

Linguistics and Education 7, 175-200.

Snow, C.E. (1983). Literacy and Language. Harvard Educational Review, 53, 165-189.

Snow, C.E. (1990). The Development of Definitional Skill. Journal of Child Language, 17, 697-710.

Snow, C.E., Cancini, H., Gonzalez, P. and Schriberg, E. (1989). Giving Formal Definitions: An Oral

Language Correlate of School Literacy. In Bloome, D. (ed.) Classroom and Literacy, pp233-

249. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Snow, C.E., Barnes, W.S., Chandler, J., Goodman, I.F., and Hemphill, L. (1991). Unfulfilled

Expectations: Home and school influences on literacy. New York: Cambridge University

Press.

Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., and Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children.

Washington DC: National Academy Press.

Spolsky, B. (1998). Sociolinguistics. Oxford Introductions to Language Study. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy, Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Stake, R. (1994). Case Studies. In Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (eds) Handbook of Qualitative

Research, Sage, 236-247, CA: Thousand Oaks.

Street, B. (1984). Literacy in Theory and Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Street, B. (1995). Social Literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development, ethnography

and education. London: Longman.

Stubbs, M. (1980). Language and Literacy: The Sociolinguistics of Reading and Writing. London:

Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Tharp, R. and Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing Minds to Life: Teaching and Learning in Social

Contexts. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, B.M., Pearson, P.D., Clark, K. and Walpole, S. (2002). Effective schools and accomplished

teachers: Lessons about primary-grade reading instruction in low-income schools. In Taylor,

B.M. and Pearson, P.D. (eds) Teaching reading, effective schools, accomplished teachers,

pp3-72. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Tizard, B., Blatchford, P., Burke, J., Farquhar, C. and Plewis, I. (1988). Young Children at School

in the Inner City. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Tough, J. (1977). The Development of Meaning. London: Unwin Education Books.

Tough, J. (1982). Language, Poverty, and Disadvantage in School. In The Language of Children

Reared in Poverty, pp3-18. New York: Academic Press.

Trudgill, P. (1986). Dialects in Contact. Oxford: Blackwell.

Underhill, N. (1987). Testing Spoken Language: A Handbook of Oral Testing Techniques.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

United Nations (2000). A League Table of Child Poverty in Rich Nations, Innocenti Report Card

No.1. Florence: United Nations Children’s Fund.

Vernon-Feagans, L. (1996). Children’s Talk in Communities and Classrooms. Oxford: Blackwell

Publishers.

Vernon-Feagans, L., Scheffner Hammer, C., Miccio, A. and Manlove, E. (2002). Early Language

and Literacy Skills in Low-Income African American and Hispanic Children. In Handbook of

Early Literacy Research, pp192-210. London: The Guildford Press.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.

Cole, M., Steiner, V.J., Scribner, S. and Souberman, E. (eds). Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1987). Thinking and Speech. In Rieber, R.W. and Carton, A.S. (eds) The Collected

Works of L.S. Vygotsky, Volume 1: Problems of General Psychology (trans. N. Minick). New

York: Plenum.

Wardhaugh, R. (2006). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (fifth edition). Oxford: Blackwell

Publishing.

Wasik, B.H., Dobbins, D.R. and Herrmann, S. (2002). Intergenerational Family Literacy: Concepts,

Research, and Practice. In Neuman, S.B. and Dickinson, D.K. (eds) Handbook of Early

Literacy Research. New York: Guilford Press.

Watson, R. (2002). Literacy and Oral Language: Implications for Early Literacy Acquisition. In

Neuman, S.B. and Dickinson, D.K. (eds) Handbook of Early Literacy Research. London: The

Guilford Press.

Watson, R. and Shapiro, J. (1988). Discourse from Home to School. Applied Psychology: An

International Review, 37, 395-409.

Watson-Gegeo, K. and Boggs, S. (1977). From Verbal Play to Talk Story: The Role of Routines in

speech events among Hawaiian children. In Ervin-Tripp, S. and Mitchell-Kernan, C. (eds),

Child Discourse, pp67-90. New York: Academic Press.

Weir, S., Milis, L. and Ryan, C. (2002). The Breaking the Cycle scheme in urban schools. Final

evaluation report. Report to the Department of Education and Science. Dublin: Educational

Research Centre.

Wells, G. (1981). Learning through Interaction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wells, G. (1985). Pre-School Literacy-Related Activities and Success in School. In Olsen, D.R.,

Torrance, N. and Hildyard, A. (eds), Literacy, Language and Learning, pp229-255. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Wells, G. (2003). Action, Talk and text: Integrating literacy with other modes of making meaning. In

Bearne, E., Dombey, H. and Grainger, T. (eds), Classroom Interactions in Literacy. Open

University Press.

Westby, C., Moore, C. and Roman, R. (2002). Narrative Analysis in a Multicultural Society:

Reinventing the Enemy’s Language: Developing Narratives in Native American

Children.Linguistics and Education 13, 2, pp235-269.

Whitehurst, G.J. and Lonigan, C.J. (2002). Emergent Literacy: Development from Prereaders to

Readers. In Neuman, S.B. and Dickinson, D. (eds), Handbook of Early Literacy Research.

London: Guilford Press.

Wiley, T.G. and Lukes, M. (1996). English-only and standard English ideologies in the US, TESOL

Quarterly 30(3), pp511-535.

Wolfram, W., Adger, C.T. and Christian, D. (1999). Dialects in Schools and Communities, New

Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

APPENDIX A

SCHOOL PROFILES (Data and comments provided by the principal of each school)

School A

Status: Disadvantaged (1)

Location: Urban

Gender: Mixed in the Infant Classes, Girls only from First Class to Sixth

Size: Sixteen teachers (eight class teachers, three resource teachers, two

learning support teachers, one language teacher, one home-school liaison

teacher, one principal)

Ancillary personnel: Five Special Needs Assistants, one secretary

Number of children: Two hundred and twenty, of whom thirty are foreign

nationals

Programmes in place in the school: Home-School Liaison; Delivering Equality

of Opportunity in Schools (DEIS)

Facilities in school: Computers, Broadband. The school has no library and

has very old and old-fashioned furniture in the classrooms

Extent of Home-School Interaction: Quite low

Level of Parental Support throughout the school: Described by the principal

as poor – parents display a poor commitment to the children’s learning.

Degree to which recognition and support for schools with disadvantaged

status have changed over time: Principal believes that this is improving, most

notably with the reduction of class size

School B


Location: Urban

Gender: Boys only

Size: Fifteen teachers (eight class teachers, four resource teachers, one

learning support teacher, one home-school teacher, one principal). Ancillary

personnel: Eight Special Needs Assistants, one secretary

Number of Children: One hundred and nineteen

Programmes in place in the school: Home-School Liaison; Delivering Equality

of Opportunity in Schools (DEIS). The Principal indicated that being part of

DEIS has as yet had no impact on the school – the First Steps writing

programme has been introduced and the teachers are looking forward to

introducing the oral language programme this year. Would like to have a

Reading Recovery teacher on board

Facilities in School: Each classroom has two computers

Extent of Home-School interaction: Described by the Principal as low,

sporadic and only in connection with behavioural issues

Level of Parental Support throughout the School: Poor


status have changed over time: Principal indicates that the main change over

time is that now all the children have literacy skills when they leave the school

and all the children go on to secondary school

School C


Location: Rural

Gender: Mixed

Size: Three teachers (two class teachers, one learning support teacher)

Ancillary Personnel: One Special Needs Assistant

Facilities in School: Computers in each classroom. Small, crowded

classrooms, old-fashioned furniture

Programmes in place in the School: Delivering Equality of Opportunity in

Schools (DEIS)

Extent of Home-School Interaction: Limited – most of the children come to

school by bus so many parents rarely come to the school

Level of Parental Support throughout the School: Poor, due to lack of interest


status have changed over time: Apart from the Disadvantaged grant nothing

has changed – no improved staffing as in urban schools, no other supports in

place

School D

Status: Advantaged (2)

Location: Urban

Size: Twenty-two teachers (seventeen class teachers, three resource

teachers, one learning support teacher, one principal)

Number of Children: Four hundred and ninety-one

Ancillary Personnel: Seven Special Needs Assistants, one secretary

Facilities: Computers in the classrooms, school library, no gymnasium, bright,

modern building

Programmes in place in the School: None

Extent of Home-School Interaction: Constant communication between the

school and the parents. Parents are encouraged to contact the school when

they need to and are always made to feel welcome. There is a very strong

interest on the part of the parents in the academic progress of the children.

Teachers communicated to parents about the children’s learning in school

Level of Parental Support throughout the School: Very high

Degree to which things have changed in the school over time: Facilities and

resources have improved greatly. Reduction in class sizes would be

welcomed.

APPENDIX B Project Summary for Schools

Linguistic Difference and Educational Disadvantage: The Irish Context

This study proposes to explore the relationship between linguistic difference and educational disadvantage and to begin to identify how the school might respond to the language needs of children in disadvantaged settings. Previous research highlights the fact that children in disadvantaged contexts experience a discontinuity on entry to the school system in terms of language experience, a factor that may adversely affect literacy attainment for some of these children. This study aims to identify the language needs of children from disadvantaged backgrounds when engaging with the school system and particularly when developing literacy skills, and to begin to examine ways in which the school can respond to these needs. Knowledge of language is crucial for success in teaching and learning. Oral language knowledge is particularly important for success in school and has been shown in research to be strongly linked with successful literacy development. The language demands of the school and the curriculum require knowledge of one specific type of language, sometimes referred to as ‘decontextualised’ language knowledge, to ensure success. It appears that this patterning and use of language is more familiar to and used more frequently by children from advantaged backgrounds, making their experience of school more congruent with their pre-school experience. Bourne (2003) suggests that ‘the special register of classroom talk is very close to what the Western style caregivers use with young children during play, problem-solving, and book-reading activities.’ The use of Standard English in school can disadvantage those whose language variation is different from this type of language use. Edwards (1997) indicates that ‘the existence of systematic social class differences both in the patterning of speech and in what speech is used to do has been thoroughly documented as has the very uneven distribution of those modes of communication which seem strategic for educational success’. Knowledge of this decontextualised language appears to be critical for successful development of literacy skills. Goldenburg (2002) finds that ‘children from low-income families are more dependent on school experiences for their academic literacy development than are middle-class children’. He concludes that the children who most need school support for the development of academic literacy skills are least likely to get it. The purpose of this research is to investigate the extent to which children from disadvantaged backgrounds may be further disadvantaged in school by virtue of their linguistic knowledge and how that knowledge prepares them for the language demands of the

classroom. The research will focus also on teachers’ response to this in terms of pedagogy with a view to informing best practice.

Letter to Principal and Board of Management

Dear Principal, I am currently on research leave from my academic post in Mary Immaculate College to carry out research on the language needs of children in disadvantaged contexts in Ireland. This research is being funded by the Combat Poverty Agency. The focus of the research is to identify the language needs of children in disadvantaged contexts with particular reference to how this impacts on literacy development. The research involves an analysis of some language samples from the children in order to identify specifically what language skills they have and what skills they need to acquire in order to engage successfully with the school system and to improve literacy levels. The research will also involve having an opportunity to chat with children, parents and teachers about the experience of talking in the context of school. The research will take approximately three days to conduct. Three other schools will also participate in this case study. Results of the study (where complete confidentiality and anonymity is guaranteed) will be published in the form of a report by the Combat Poverty Agency. I would appreciate if I could have permission from you and your staff, and from your Board of Management, to use your school to generate data for this research. I would need to random sample approximately four children each from senior infants, third class and sixth class. I will have a research assistant working with me and we will take the children in pairs outside the classroom (to facilitate tape-recording) to complete a number of oral tasks. An example of the kind of tasks the children will be asked to do could be to construct a piece of lego, to retell a story, to make an imaginary telephone call. The children’s talk will be tape recorded as they complete each task. The purpose of this exercise is to use a number of elicitation techniques so as to generate an oral response from the children. These samples of talk will then be used for analysis in the study. With the permission of the relevant teachers, I would take each of these classes for a warm-up session of about one hour to get to know the children and to enable them to become familiar with me. This warm-up session will take place on a separate day prior to the paired elicitation session. Having compiled samples of talk from the children, a focus group approach will then be used involving open-ended questions to gain insight into the perceptions of children, parents and teachers as to the experience of talk in the context of schooling. Each group will be interviewed separately. If you agree to allow this project to go ahead in your school, I will draft a letter to the parents of each child selected to participate, seeking parental permission and explaining the purpose of the activities and the procedure involved. If you have any queries in relation to this I will be more than happy to talk it through with you at a time that is convenient for you. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Is mise, le meas Áine Cregan

Letter to Parents (Printed on school headed notepaper and signed by the Principal)

Dear Parent, Dr Áine Cregan, lecturer in Education in Mary Immaculate College, University of Limerick, has been granted permission by the Board of Management of our school to carry out some talking activities with the children as part of a research project. The project is looking at children using language when talking, reading and writing. The aim of the project is to identify ways in which schools can best respond to children’s language needs so as to ensure the development of successful literacy skills for all children. For this study, a language profile of some randomly selected children will be developed focusing on oral and written language. These data will help to identify children’s language strengths as well as those aspects of language development that need to be emphasised. The children selected will be taped in pairs (in a separate room outside the classroom to facilitate recording) as they complete a number of talking tasks, such as telling a story based on a picture, or making an imaginary telephone call, or constructing a piece of lego. Dr Cregan and her research assistant will lead these activities. It is anticipated that the activities will take approximately 45 minutes. Samples of the children’s writing completed in class, as well as their most recent reading test scores will be taken also. This will enable the research to generate information about the language skills as well as the language needs of each of the children. All information will remain completely confidential at all times. Neither the school nor the children will be identified in the research. If you are willing to allow your child to participate in this project, please complete the form at the bottom of this page and return it to the teacher by tomorrow morning. Children will be randomly selected (names drawn from a hat) from those who wish to take part and whose parents have sent back this consent form. Any child who is selected to participate will be assured that they don’t have to take part if they don’t want to and can leave at any time if they so wish. The class teacher has undertaken to ensure that any work they miss while out of the classroom will be made up. As always, thank you for your continued support and co-operation. Is mise, le meas Please complete: I am willing to allow my child to take part in the research project led by Dr Cregan. I am not willing to allow my child to take part in the research project

led by Dr Cregan Signed:

Date:

Permission Form for Children (Completed by each child before undertaking the paired elicitation activities)

Name: Class:

I would like to take part in more fun talking games with Áine.

I would not like to take part in more fun talking games with Áine.

Letter to School for Pilot Test Dear Principal, I am currently on research leave from my academic post in Mary Immaculate College to carry out research on the language needs of children in disadvantaged contexts in Ireland. This research has been approved by and is being funded by the Combat Poverty Agency. The focus of the research is to identify the language needs of children in disadvantaged contexts with particular reference to how this impacts on literacy development. It is necessary as part of the research to analyse some language samples from the children in order to identify specifically what language skills they have and what skills they need to acquire in order to successfully engage with the school system and to improve literacy levels. As my research is in the very early stages, I need to pilot some approaches to ascertain which will work best to elicit talk from the children. I would appreciate if I could have permission from you and your staff, and from your Board of Management, to use your school to pilot test approaches for this research. I would need to random sample approximately four children each (some from advantaged and some from disadvantaged backgrounds) from senior infants, third class and sixth class. I will have a research assistant working with me and we would take the children in pairs outside the classroom (to facilitate tape-recording) to complete a number of oral tasks. An example of the kind of tasks the children would be asked to do would be to construct a piece of lego, to retell a story, to make an imaginary telephone call. The children’s talk will be tape recorded as they complete each task. The purpose of this exercise is to use a number of elicitation techniques so as to select those which generate the best response from the children. These techniques will then be used in the study later on. This pilot phase is designed to determine what strategies will be used to generate data later on in the study. The talk produced by the children in this phase will not form part of the study. The children’s talk will remain completely confidential and will be analysed only to decide what elicitation techniques will be used. If you agree to allow this pilot test in your school, I will draft a letter to the parents asking permission for their child to participate. If you have any queries in relation to this I will be more than happy to talk it through with you at a time that is convenient for you. Go raibh míle maith agat. Is mise, le meas ______________ Áine Cregan

Appendix C WARM-UP LANGUAGE SESSIONS

Senior Infants Theme: Houses and Homes

CIRCLE TIME

My name is … and I am … years old One sentence about the person sitting beside you I like … Granny went to the market and bought … The postman’s cat is a … cat If I were a toy, I’d like to be … because … Rhyme – Mrs. Magee

Mrs. Magee Climbed into a tree,

And she only came down to go shopping. A branch was her bed, With a leaf on her head

And whenever it rained, she got sopping (Dennis Lee)

There was an old woman who lived in a shoe, Which wasn’t too bad when the winter winds blew. But the strong summer sun was too hot to handle,

So she packed up her things and moved into a sandal

Story – ‘Harry’s Home’ Questions and activities based on the story Poem – ‘The Poor Snail’; ‘The Postman’ Story – ‘Please don’t chat to the Bus Driver’ Questions and activities based on the story Storytime – ‘Laura’s Star’; ‘Let’s go Home Little Bear’;

‘Lullabyehullabulloo’; ‘The Jolly Postman’

Third Class Theme: Food

Remembered experience – share with partner (who with, purpose, where, atmosphere, things on table, menu, describe the food, drink, identify items on menu, most positive/negative thing)

I like … food in alphabetical order (add adjective) Food word chain – chocolate, egg, gulp, potatoes … Word web – eating/drinking words Word association – restaurant Metaphor game – If I were a food, I’d like to be … because ... Favourite food – ask your friend what is his/her favourite food; tell the class

what you discovered; what is winnie the pooh/three bears/teletubbies favourite food; what is a baby’s favourite food; name the favourite food of a mouse/rabbit/horse/squirrel/cow. Where does your favourite food come from? When do you eat your favourite food? What would happen if we only ate our favourite food?

Name a food that you crunch/peel/must cook before you eat it/you eat with a spoon/that you can spread on bread/that grows on a tree or in the ground/that humans and animal like to eat (cheese, carrot, nut)

Finish the sentence – a loaf/can/cake/glass/bottle/tube/pot/jar/abox/tin/packet/carton of

A …of beans/cornflakes/sugar Tongue twister – ‘yellow butter’ pick a pea, betty bought a bit of butter Rhyme – the peanut, mix a pancake Circle time game – identify items that would be found in the kitchen and

describe each item using one adjective, a sharp scissors, a wooden table, a hot cooker, a whistling kettle …

Pair work – think of things/food we find in the kitchen that come in pairs Silly sentences – make one up Kitchen kreature Poem – ‘Here is the Nose’, ‘The Sandwich’, ‘Sounds Good’ Story – ‘Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs’ Group Work – Make up a menu for your new

restaurant/crossword/advertisement for new food or drink/role-play a problem in a restaurant.

Sixth Class Theme: Hair

Story: People; Hairy Fairy

Discussion on Difference

Back-to-Back descriptions of Hair

20-Questions Guessing Game based on hair of a celebrity

Label the Hairstyle

Class brainstorming of vocabulary on topic of Hair – focusing on:

Length Colour Texture Style Treatment Decorating Problems Getting hair done Elements of Hair

Compound words and idioms associated with hair

Poems: A Tragic Story (W. Thackeray); My Inside Self (R.

Field)

Class discussion on stereotyping based on hair – image and

stereotyping

Group Work Make up a price list for a new hairdressing

establishment to include the name of the salon

Appendix D

ELICITED PRODUCTION TASKS (PILOT PHASE)

SENIOR INFANTS

Introduction: talk about your friend – name, a few interesting things about him/her

Tell me about a TV programme/movie that you like

Tell me about your favourite toy

Recap on Harry’s Home and Lullabyhullabulloo – Describe your house on the

outside/inside/bedroom

20 questions – think of a room; they ask questions

The woman who lived in a shoe/the crooked man

Give instructions to draw the crooked house

Spot the difference and explain why

Dress the clown – barrier game

Telephone call – emergency in the house/birthday party invitation

Retell the story of The three little pigs

Stories from a series of pictures

Construct a Lego house together. Explain how they did it

Word definition – CITY; FARM

THIRD CLASS

Introduction – pair discussions

Elementary Communication Activities:

Where are my Glasses?

Wallflowers

Feelings

How does it feel?

What’s wrong with the picture?

Re-tell a story – Goldilocks and the Three Bears/Hansel and Gretel

Storytelling from a sequence of pictures

Tell a sad story about a giraffe with a short neck/a monkey who was allergic to nuts

Construct something from a set of Lego. Explain how to do it

Word definition: COOKING. SHOPPING

SIXTH CLASS

Introduction – pair discussion (holiday destination)

Draw a Cat activity

Draw the Park activity

Show Hair styles – design a new hair style, name it and give instructions on how to achieve it

Make a catalogue of hair care products designed for a witch

Make a TV advertisement for a new hair product

Re-tell the story of Rapunzel

Tell an angry story of a girl and her hair

Storytelling using a picture stimulus

Role-play conflict situation involving hair

Word definition: CONDITIONER; HAIR STYLIST

ELICITED PRODUCTION TASKS (STUDY)

SENIOR INFANTS

Recap on Harry’s Home and Lullabyhullabulloo (Narrative)

Word definition – CITY; FARM (Definition – Factual)

Tell me about a TV programme/movie that you like (Description – Factual)

Tell me about your favourite toy (Description – Factual)

Describe your house on the outside/inside/bedroom (Description – Factual)

Naming Objects and Homes (Naming – Factual)

Spot the difference and explain why (Description and Explanation –

Analytical)

Locate the object in the picture (Description – Factual)

Narrate a story from a series of pictures (Narrative)

Retell the story of The three little pigs (Narrative)

Dress the clown – barrier game (Giving instructions – Factual)

Telephone call – emergency in the house/birthday party invitation

(Imaginative)

Name the Shoes (Naming – Factual)

Construct a Lego house together. Explain how they did it (Imaginative; Descriptive)

THIRD CLASS

Retell the story: Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (Narrative)

Word definition: COOKING. SHOPPING (Definition – Factual)

How to Make: Food (Description/Instruction – Factual/Analytical)

Describe your home – outside/bedroom (Description – Factual)

Where are my Glasses? (Giving specific locations – Factual)

Wallflowers (Making specific descriptions – Factual)

Feelings (Using Adjectives – Factual)

How does it feel? (Using Adjectives – Factual)

What’s wrong with the picture? (Spotting mistakes – Factual/Analytical)

Find the Tool (Describing location – Factual)

Label the Shoes (Naming – Factual)

Tell a sad story about a giraffe with a short neck/a monkey who was allergic to nuts (Narrative/Imaginative)

Emergency Telephone Call (Imaginative)

Construct something from a set of Lego. Explain how to do it

(Imaginative/Analytical)

SIXTH CLASS

Retelling a story (Narrative)

Description of TV/Movie (Description – Factual)

Tell the story of a favourite book (Narrative)

How to make…Food (Instructions/Description – Factual/Analytical)

Description of Home – Location, Outside, Bedroom (Description, Directions –

Factual)

Bingo Game (Adjectives – Factual)

Draw a Cat activity (Instructions – Factual)

Draw the Park activity (Instructions – Factual)

Show Hair styles – design a new hair style, name it and give instructions on how to achieve it (Imaginative/Factual)

Make a catalogue of hair care products designed for a witch (Imaginative)

Make a TV advertisement for a new hair product (Imaginative)

Storytelling using a picture stimulus (Narrative)

Name the Shoes (Naming – Factual)

Role-play conflict situation involving hair (Imaginative)

Word Definition: CONDITIONER; HAIR STYLIST (Definition – Factual)

APPENDIX E

Focus Group Discussion – Questions for Children I’m interested in finding out about talking in school. What questions do you think I should ask to find out more about this? What information do you think I should know in order to know more about talking in school? A. Feelings about school

• Do they like school • What do they like most/least about school • If they could change anything about school what would that be and why

B. Talking in school

• When do they talk in school • Where do they talk most • What do they talk about • Who do they talk to

C. Talking in the classroom

• How often do they talk in the classroom • Are there different kinds of talk in the classroom – describe • What do they talk about • When do they talk • Who do they talk to • Who decides who should talk • How long do they talk for • Who talks most in the classroom • Tell me about the teacher talking in the classroom • Is there anything different about how the teacher talks and how they talk • If you were the teacher would you change anything about the way talk

happens in your classroom – explain • Do they like talking in the classroom – why • What kinds of talking activities do they like to do best – why • Does the teacher help them when doing talking activities – how • Are they ever unsure about what they should do during a talking activity –

explain • How important do they think it is to be able to talk – why • How good do they think they are at talking • How good does their teacher think they are • How good do their parents think they are • Is talking at school different from talking at home – how

D. Talking at home

• When do they talk at home

• Where do they talk most at home • What do they talk about • Who do they talk to • When do they talk • Do they ever change how they talk – when and how and why

E. Literacy in the Classroom

• How important do they think it is to be able to read and write • Describe some of the reading/writing activities they do in the classroom • What kinds of reading/writing activities do they like to do best – why • How much of school time do they spend at reading/writing • How good do they think they are at reading/writing • How good does their teacher think they are • How good do their parents think they are • Which is more important – to be good at reading/writing or to be good at

talking – why F. Literacy at Home

• Do they read/write at home – describe – what they read; when; where; how many books at home; when they get books; who/where they get books from; if they had money to spend would they buy a book or what would they buy

• Do they ever talk about the books that they read at home – describe • Do they think that reading books helps them to talk – how • Do other people in their family read/write – describe • Have they favourite books/types of books – explain • Is reading/writing different from reading/writing at home – how • Which do they like to do best – talk, or write or read – why

Focus Group Discussion – Teacher Questions

A. Oral Language Development

• Your views on the importance of oral language for success in school • Comment on the language abilities of the children in your school – expand as

much as possible in relation to expressive, receptive; comprehension, range of vocabulary, complexity of syntax, ability to change style, use different registers, present ideas cogently and coherently, use explicit vocabulary, communicate effectively to different audiences

• What specifically do you think are the language needs of the children in this school

• What do you perceive as the role of the school in addressing children’s oral language needs

• What do you do in your classroom to enhance children’s oral language skills • What aspects of oral language do you think are particularly important for

children to develop/in order to succeed in school • Have you a school plan for oral language – describe • How was this plan devised • Where do you source your ideas for the school plan • To what extent do you implement this plan in your classroom • Where do you source your ideas for oral language development in your

classroom • What resources do you use to develop oral language skills in the children • What strategies do you use • What difficulties do you find in developing oral language skills in the

classroom • How useful are the published materials in the reading schemes for developing

oral language skills • How much of your teaching time is devoted to developing oral language skills • Does this change as children move up along the school • How often would you speak to your colleagues/the principal about work on

oral language in your class • Have you a classroom assistant and if so do you ever use that person to

develop the children’s language skills • Most common patterns of conversation in your classroom – topics (varied and

challenging), vocabulary development, teacher-child/child-child, visitors, excursions, first-hand experiences, intentional introduction of new vocabulary, exposure to high quality literature/poetry

• Is language development confined to the classroom • Have you had experience of teaching in another school and how does the

language of the children in this school compare • What are your goals for the children in your class in relation to oral language

development • How useful is the Revised English Curriculum in helping you develop the

children’s oral language skills • What other forms of support have you received in developing a plan and

implementing it in relation to oral language development – curriculum/in-service/pcsp/sdps/pre-service education

• How useful have these supports been • What supports do you feel you would need in order to help you accomplish

this task more effectively

• Do you think the curriculum could be modified in any way • What are your feelings in relation to the strands and strand units in the

English curriculum and the recent flipping of these • How do you think the children’s language use in school is similar to/different

from their language outside of school • Do you think the children are aware of these differences • What do you think are the children’s view on these differences/the

significance, importance of these differences. • How important is it that the children would be able to use language in

appropriate ways in school • How important do you think oral language skills are in the development of

literacy skills/achieving potential/succeeding in school – expand B. Role of the Home in Oral Language Development

• Do you see parents having a role in the oral language development of the children – how

• What types of oral language experiences do you think the children have at home

• How does this influence their ability to function effectively in the school context

• How does this influence their ability to succeed in the world at large C. Developing Home-School Links

• How often do you meet/communicate with parents • For what purpose • Have you difficulties in establishing partnerships with some parents – explain • What steps do you take to communicate with parents – prior to children

starting school, during the school year, as children progress through the school

• Have you ever talked to parents specifically about developing children’s oral language skills – expand – when, how, at what level, what was communicated

• How important do you think it is to establish partnership with parents • What steps has the school taken to encourage parents to become actively

involved in the education of the children, and has oral language ever been the focus of such steps

• What do you perceive as the parents’ strengths/weaknesses in terms of developing children’s oral language skills

D. Developing Literacy Skills at School

• Define what you mean by the term ‘literacy’ • Do you think there are any problems in developing literacy skills in this school

– explain • How do you approach the teaching of literacy • What are your goals for the children in relation to the acquisition of literacy

skills • What supports have you received and what supports do you feel you need • Do you think the curriculum/in-service etc. has offered you adequate support

in developing literacy skills

• Number of books in the classroom/location/accessibility/school • Amount/nature of book reading in school (shared, independent, silent, reading

aloud) • Conversation/activities related to book reading • Writing area in classroom • Environmental supports for writing – alphabet/word cards/dictionaries • Genres • Audiences • Teacher support for the development of children’s writing skills • Classroom resources for the development of literacy skills

E. Developing Literacy Skills at Home

• Do you see the home as having a role in the development of the child’s literacy skills – explain

• What role is played by the parents in this school • Has their role ever been explicitly outlined – when and in what way – what

information were they given • How supportive are parents

Appendix G Odd-One-Out 3rd Class

Appendix H

Prepositions – 3rd Class

Appendix I Cat and Dog Story

Appendix J Alien Story Pictures

Documents

Working Paper: From Difference to Disadvantage: Talking Posh