This article was downloaded by: [Cornell University Library]On: 12 November 2014, At: 21:13Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Bilingual Educationand BilingualismPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbeb20
Centre-stage in the Instructional Register:Partnership Talk in Primary EALSheena Gardner aa CELTE, University of Warwick , CoventryPublished online: 22 Dec 2008.
To cite this article: Sheena Gardner (2006) Centre-stage in the Instructional Register: Partnership Talk inPrimary EAL, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9:4, 476-494, DOI: 10.2167/beb342.0
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2167/beb342.0
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in thispublication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsedby Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Centre-stage in the InstructionalRegister: Partnership Talk in Primary EAL
Sheena GardnerCELTE, University of Warwick, Coventry
Despite the potential benefits of partnership teaching, as distinct from collaborativeteaching and support teaching, evidence from the Midlands and West of Englandsuggests that full partnership teaching between a class teacher and language supportteacher of English as an Additional Language is rare, though collaboration isincreasing. Occasionally both teachers are centre-stage, and partnership talk, wheretwo teachers together teach the class, occurs. Drawing on Christie’s theory ofregulative and instructional registers in curriculum genres, this paper analyses partof a Year 1 social studies lesson where the language support teacher moves from asilent, scribing role, through responding, then nomination and feedback moves inthe regulative register, to initiating content and directing beautifully choreographedaction centre-stage in the instructional register. This analysis forms the basis of aframework of variables that characterise a proposed continuum from support talkthrough collaborative talk to partnership talk. The analysis and interpretation ofsuch teacher�teacher classroom talk when it does occur arguably constitutes anessential basis for understanding how language support relationships are realisedand develop for the adults and children involved.
doi: 10.2167/beb342.0
Keywords: instructional register, partnership talk, primary, English as anAdditional Language
IntroductionResearch internationally suggests that language support staff are margin-
alised in joint lesson planning (Arkoudis, 2003), in the classroom (Creese, 2000,2001) and by colleagues in general (Creese, 2002), but that more equalpartnerships can develop over time (Davison, this volume), though relatedissues persist (Davison & Williams, 2001) and the area is generally under-researched and undertheorised (Creese et al ., 2003).
This paper aims to contribute to the literature on partnerships in teachingby proposing a framework for analysing teacher�teacher talk in the classroom.The framework is developed from the analysis of part of one lesson thatdevelops unusually to the point where two teachers are centre-stage, teachingthe whole class together. The analysis draws on Christie’s theory ofinstructional and regulative registers, and is contextualised in an overviewof partnerships in primary English as an Additional Language (EAL).
Partnerships in Primary EALThe case for full partnership teaching, as distinct from collaborative teaching
and support teaching (Blair et al ., 1998; Bourne, 1997) is persuasive. As Clegg
1367-0050/06/04 476-19 $20.00/0 – 2006 S. GardnerThe International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism Vol. 9, No. 4, 2006
476
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 2
1:13
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
(1996: 27) points out, ‘In the UK, ‘‘partnership’’ has a specific meaning which isdefined by government guidelines (Bourne & McPake, 1991)’. Partnershipteaching ‘allows for the teachers to develop the curriculum and themselves,with an emphasis on reviewing practice, setting short-term goals, ‘‘experi-menting’’ (teacher action research), evaluating joint work and disseminatingthe results to the rest of the school’ (Bourne & McPake, 1991: 13). In practice,however, mainstream partnerships, including those described in Clegg’s book,tend to be more informal. School policies may identify the features of goodquality in-class support as including ‘genuine partnership teaching, jointplanning and shared roles’ (Blair et al ., 1998: 101), yet in the literature jointplanning is consistently prioritised, and perhaps appropriately so.
Joint planning can be successfully implemented, as in Vancouver whereteachers share Mohan’s (1986) explicit understanding of the relationshipbetween language and content (Tang, 1994), but studies suggest the main-stream teacher generally has the more powerful position and the expertise theEAL teacher1 brings to a partnership may not be appreciated initially by otherteachers (Arkoudis, 2003) or indeed by children (Creese, 2001). Arkoudis andCreese both focus on secondary schools, yet their findings resonate withprimary teachers in our studies2 of EAL across the curriculum in Years 1 and 2(ages 5�7). For example, in explaining that their main focus was languagedevelopment, through oracy work, and not literacy-related skills, twolanguage support teachers (LSTs) commented:
. We need to raise awareness of mainstream teachers as to the type ofassessments we carry out. i.e. punctuation, handwriting and spelling donot form part of an assessment of language acquisition. . . (Ph1,08,LST,3)
. She [the class teacher] assesses them from a NC [National Curriculum]Performance Level. I’ve [LST] got a good working knowledgeof it. But I’m not sufficiently and equally as expert. She can hear achild read and can say ‘2C’. Whereas I can talk to a child and usually, sayB�//C�/. (Ph3,C,R1,591�595)
(Gardner & Rea-Dickins, 1999: 17�18)
The LSTs in our research schools present themselves as experts, with their ownfocus, methods and benchmarks. While in extreme circumstances some haddifficulty accessing classrooms, most could be described as providing effectivesupport, with the mainstream teacher leading the planning and teaching.
There were several notable instances of effective collaboration. In one schoolthe class teacher (who had previously taught EFL), LST and bilingual assistantmet regularly at lunchtimes for joint planning; in another school EAL oracyassessment practices were sufficiently valued by the head teacher to beextended to the whole school and the results served as a basis for jointplanning. One mode of collaborative teaching adopted in several schools wasthat shown in Table 1. Here both teachers plan the Literacy Hour together andthe class teacher’s expertise in literacy is realised in the Big Book reading,while the LST’s expertise in language is realised in the word work. She will
Partnership Talk in Primary EAL 477
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 2
1:13
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
also work with bilingual children in the group work and help them reportduring the plenary session. With the increase in effective collaboration hascome an awareness of the value now placed on developing partnerships, asthis remark from an experienced LST in our study suggests: ‘You’d better usethe word ‘‘partnership’’ there; that’s what they want us to be doing now.’
Davison’s analysis of teacher accounts in Taiwan (this volume) suggests thatpartnerships, if nurtured, may evolve to an ultimate stage where both teachersare, amongst others, appropriating each other’s technical or specialistlanguage. Although partnership teaching ‘may take place within the classroom,but not necessarily’ (Bourne, 1997: 83), the analysis of any classroomteacher�teacher talk must shed light on the nature of the collaboration, andthe ways the two teachers are perceived by the children and other adults in theclassroom (e.g. bilingual assistants). Creese (this volume) analyses the verydifferent kinds of talk that subject teacher and LST engage in, separately, withthe children, and clearly illustrates their different professional concerns andexpertise. In contrast, I wish to analyse talk where two teachers ‘teach’ together.From the dozens of partnerships I observed over six years in the schools, onestands out in terms of teacher�teacher talk in the classroom. In this partnershipthe mainstream and EAL teacher both unusually assumed the powerfulposition at the front of the class (Creese, 2001: 79) and both participated inthe teaching. In examining the talk in this lesson, I am not recommending it onits pedagogical value, but I would argue from what I have read and from myown research experience that it is rare, and worthy of investigation in that itillustrates at one extreme what might be called partnership talk in theinstructional register. It shows the LST’s progression from silent scribing todirecting beautifully choreographed action, and from a supporting role to equalparticipation in teaching. An analysis of the variation in register forms the basisfor a framework of support talk, collaborative talk and partnership talk.
Regulative and Instructional RegistersIn order to look more closely at this variation in register, I am drawing on
systemic functional linguistics and in particular Christie’s work, which in turnbuilds on Bernstein’s model of pedagogic practice and his interest in howinteraction reflects assumptions and power relations in the classroom.Bernstein’s regulative rules determine ‘the inner logic of a pedagogic practice. . . [and] are prior to the content to be relayed’ according to instructional rules
Table 1 Collaborative teaching in the Literacy Hour
Literacy Hour Component Teacher Responsible
1. Whole class Big Book Reading Class Teacher (CT)
2. Word work Language Support Teacher (LST)
3. Group work CT and LST with different groups
4. Plenary CT
478 The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 2
1:13
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
(Bernstein, 1990: 64, in Sadovnik, 1995: 12). Christie extends this to differ-entiate registers in classroom talk.
Operating within an instance of a curriculum genre will be two registers,a regulative and an instructional . . . The first order or regulative registerrefers to sets of language choices which are principally involved inestablishing goals for teaching�learning activities, and with fosteringand maintaining the direction of the activities until the achievement ofthe goals. The second order or instructional register refers to languagechoices in which the knowledge and associated skills being taught arerealized. . . . the two registers operate in such a way that the formerfundamentally determines the introduction, pacing and ordering of theother. (Christie, 1997: 136)
Following a systemic functional analysis according to the textual, experientialand interpersonal metafunctions (Halliday, 1994), Christie tracks the deve-lopment of these two registers in different contexts (e.g. 2000) with one teacherteaching, showing how the lesson starts essentially in the regulative registerwith the teacher telling the children what they will do, and then moves intothe instructional register as they engage with ‘content’. With two teachers inthe classroom, and potentially two instructional registers (e.g. the literacyregister of Big Book reading and the language register of the Word Work), thepossibilities multiply. The lesson analysed here allows us to track how the LSTmoves into sharing with the class teacher (CT) first the regulative register, thena convergence of both registers, and finally the instructional register.
The Two TeachersThe CT, or mainstream teacher, is a newly qualified teacher (NQT) who had
only been in the school for three weeks when this recording took place. NQTsare less experienced by definition than LSTs, who have previous experience asCTs. During training, NQTs move from support to centre-stage roles, workingtogether with a mentoring CT. Moreover, they become accustomed to beingobserved and being expected to change their teaching behaviours in responseto feedback and reflection. They are therefore used to working with anotherteacher, learning from colleagues, sharing responsibility for a class withanother teacher, and adjusting their teaching behaviours in response tochanging conditions. This makes them well disposed to partnership teaching,a point supported by the experiences of other researchers (Creese, personalcommunication) and LSTs. ‘I have a partnership with the geography teacher �so we can plan together. And she’s an NQT, so it helps � she’s glad of thesupport’ (discussion with LSTs, NASSEA Conference 2002).
The LST is an experienced teacher who knows the children, the school, theLocal Education Authority and the neighbourhood. Because she has been a CT,she understands mainstream teaching in ways that the CT does not usuallyunderstand EAL teaching. This is one area where primary must typically bedifferent from secondary where the LST may have little knowledge of thespecialist subject. From these different perspectives, the conditions for teamteaching between NQTs and LSTs at primary level are promising.
Partnership Talk in Primary EAL 479
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 2
1:13
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
A third factor that may have strengthened the LST’s position in the classroomwas the fact that we were in the class, as visiting researchers, to observe thebilingual children. Certainly in some partnerships it was only because weexpressed a research interest in the work of the LSTs that they were allowed amore prominent position and active role in the classroom. This was not the casewith the team examined here � they had just ‘clicked’ from the beginning.
The LessonThis is a social studies lesson on the Second World War. The previous week
the mother of the EAL teacher had talked to the class about her wartimeexperiences. The phase examined here starts with taking the register aftermorning break and finishes when the class divides up for group work. Bothteachers are seated on chairs at the front of the class, one on either side, withthe 24 children sitting in front of them on the carpet.
An overview of the lesson is given in Table 2 with illustrative examples inTable 3. The CT leads. She takes register, introduces the research team, tells thechildren to ignore us and proceeds to ask the children questions about foodrationing in the Second World War. Following a review of rationing (turns6�47), there is a comparison of what the children had eaten in the previousweek with what they could have eaten during the war, with visual promptsfrom charts the children were supposed to have completed for homework(48�98). Review continues with numeracy integrated (99�136). The next twotopics are both student initiated. The first is evacuation of children to Wales,which leads on to absent fathers, mothers working in factories (137�169) andthe second student-initiated topic developed, air raids (170�225). This phaseconcludes with a return to talking about food rationing (as this is the focus ofthe group work activity) and further efforts to get students to imagine what itmust have been like during WWII (226�266), after which the move into groupsbegins (267�270). From register to groups takes 25 minutes.
The instructional field (Christie, 2000) and knowledge structures (Mohan,1986) together give an overview of the knowledge and thinking skills thechildren are expected to develop. Christie proposes that curriculum genrestend to begin in the regulative register, which projects the instructional registerin such a way that the amount of talk in the regulative register decreases overthe genre, as the amount of talk in the instructional register increases. We seeevidence of this in the decreasing mentions of processes of desired behaviour(Christie, 2002: 69) such as remember and hands up as well as ‘explicit praise’through this lesson. This regulative talk is three times more frequent perminute in the first 10 minutes (98 turns) compared to the last 15 minutes (172turns), with twice as many remembers (12:6), hands up (6:3) and explicit praises(11:6). These serve to establish explicitly, or to regulate, the expectedbehaviours in the children, which become increasingly implicit as the lessondevelops. Indeed, in the Evacuation and Air Raid sections there are a fewinstances of more natural discussion in the instructional register that does notfollow the Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) exchange sequence (Sinclair &Coulthard, 1975) so typical of this, and most, classroom discourse.
480 The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 2
1:13
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Ta
ble
2O
ver
vie
wo
fsa
lien
tla
ng
uag
ein
ple
nar
yp
has
e
Tim
eT
urn
s
Inst
ruct
ion
al
regis
ter
Reg
ula
tive
regis
ter
Inst
ruct
ion
al
Fie
ld
Kn
ow
led
ge
Str
uct
ure
s
Info
rma
tio
n
Eli
cits
Hy
po
thet
ica
l
Eli
cits
Reg
ula
tive
Fie
ldE
xp
lici
t
No
min
ati
on
s
Men
tio
ns
Rem
emb
er
Ha
nd
su
pE
xp
lici
t
Pra
ise
11
1�
4R
egis
ter
2
21
5V
isit
ors
33
6�
47F
oo
dra
tio
nin
gR
eco
un
t15
06
63
4
45
48�
98F
oo
dra
tio
nin
gcf
.
chil
dre
n’s
rep
ort
s
Co
mp
aris
on
1612
86
35
53
99�
136
Wei
gh
tv
ersu
s
nu
mb
ero
fsw
eets
Ex
pla
nat
ion
151
40
03
62
137�
169
Ev
acu
atio
nIm
agin
atio
n/
emp
ath
y
101
52
11
76
170�
225
Air
raid
sIn
fere
nce
1915
91
11
83
226�
266
Fo
od
rati
on
ing
Imag
inat
ion
/
emp
ath
y
165
43
11
91
267�
270
Into
gro
up
s
25m
in27
0tu
rns
101
3436
189
15
Partnership Talk in Primary EAL 481
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 2
1:13
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Table 3 Class teacher talk illustrating salient language
3. Food Rationing
CT: Could you put your hands up if you remember what we were doing in ourtopic work.
P: World War 2CT: We were doing World War 2; and we were looking at one part of World
War 2 especially. What was that , Kayla?P: Food rationing! Do you remember . . . .
4. Comparing MenusCT: So, Farhana, you had . . .. McDonalds for tea on Friday. If you were in the
Second World War would Mummy be able to take you to McDonalds for tea?Well?
P: NoCT: Really? Why not?P: (***)CT: There wasn’t those types of restaurant. Good girl. We call them fast food
restaurants, don’t we.
5. SweetsCT: So, what did Mrs Wilson tell us? She had a bag of dolly mixtures and a bag of
smarties. Was one bag heavier? Did one bag have more sweets in it?
6. EvacuationCT: ‘E-vac-u-a-ted’. Where did they evacuate the children to? Ahmad?P: a trainCT: On a train, and where did they go?P: (***)CT: to Wales.P: (***)CT: They did have to wear a mask on the train. Why did they have to wear a
mask on the train?
7. Air RaidCT: Well done. So they used to go out to the garden and hide in the shelters
until they sounded another siren. What do you think the second sirenmeant? Put your hands up if you think you know.
P: (***)CT: No, They sounded one siren to say the planes were coming. What do you
think the second siren would have done?
8. Food RationingCT: Put your hands up. Why wouldn’t mum have given you banana for breakfast
in the second world war?
9. Into GroupsCT: So what we’re going to do now, going to split up into some groups and
you’re going to do some more work about the kinds of foods that wereand weren’t available.
italics : information elicit; underline: hypothetical elicit; bold: nominations, remember, hands up, orexplicit praise
482 The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 2
1:13
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
The Teacher�Teacher TalkThe CT assumed a leading role in this lesson, as evidenced in Table 3. It was
‘her’ lesson. Her most frequent move was an information-elicit; and she wasbasically reviewing the main ideas related to food rationing with the childrenin preparation for small group work on rationing. She maintained eye contactwith the class and used a lot of gesture and wide pitch range in her interactionwith the class.
The LST’s main role was language sampling. She sat at the front of the classwith her notebook and wrote down specific student responses. This was doneon a rotating basis, so she would focus on the responses of four children eachday, noting their behaviour and some of their spoken comments. Theselanguage samples might feed into the child’s language development recordportfolio, which would be shared with the CTs and passed on to subsequentLSTs. The samples might also feed more directly into daily or weekly planningof subsequent language development work (Gardner & Rea-Dickins, 2002).Initially, she did not maintain eye contact, and when she spoke had a narrowerpitch range and used less gesture in her interaction, being partly restricted byher notebook and pen.
Within the context of these complementary roles, the LST did participate inthe class. She said little in the first five minutes, but after that made an averageof two contributions each minute, and so sustained a presence in the talk.
There were occasions when the CT initiated talk addressed to the LST.
1. CT-initiated INFORM addressed to LST, functions to PRAISE class
Here the CT exploits the information gap between the teachers to inform theLST about attendance, and to praise the good attendance. The LST is with theclass only at certain times. This type of teacher�teacher talk is similar to thatdescribed between two teachers who overlap once a week in a job-share(Conteh, 2000).
2. CT-initiated ELICIT from LST embedded in information elicit to class
During registerCT: Do you know, Mrs Foster, that on Monday for the first time all the
children who weren’t on holiday were here?LST: My goodness!CT: Yeah
2’30CT: Could I just walk out of my house one morning, and. . . go to the
butcher’s on Foleshill Road, and then next week, I don’t wanna go tothat butcher’s again, ’cos his sausages weren’t very nice, so I’m goingto go to the butcher’s that’s. . .
LST: on Stony Stanton RoadCT: on Stony Stanton Road. Can I do that?
Partnership Talk in Primary EAL 483
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 2
1:13
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Here, during a question to the class, the CT uses a rising intonationand a questioning glance at the LST to ask for local information, whichis supplied and accepted. The CT is new to the area, whereas the LSTknows it well.
3. CT-initiated CONFIRMATION CHECK from LST in information elicitto class
There were several such confirmation checks in this phase of the lesson,showing where the teachers agreed on the information remembered.
4. CT Initiated TURN PASSING to LSC with class as audience
A common form of collaborative teaching involves each teacher leadinga different phase of the lesson. This explicit turn-passing marks thechange-over from the whole-class phase which the CT has led, to thegroup-work phase which the LST sets up, beginning with directions to thewhole class.
In Extracts 1�4 above, the CT has initiated exchanges addressed tothe LST with varying degrees of directness, the LST responds, and in1�3 the CT gives feedback, as she would to a learner to reassert herposition in control of the talk. Exchanges 2 and 3 are embedded in themain IRF exchanges with the class. Further exchanges similar to 1 couldwell be imagined, such as directives ‘Mrs Foster, could you pass me . . .’or opinion elicitations ‘What do you think, Mrs Foster, . . .’. This is onetype of teacher�teacher talk that positions the initiator of the exchangesin control of the talk, and the exchanges themselves as subordinate to themain exchanges between the CT and the class. There were occasionswhen control was more evenly distributed and when the CT and LST togethertalk to the class.
5’50CT: Mrs Wilson said, if I remember, . . . (looks to LST for confirmation )LST: YeahCT: (continues )
9’20CT: I think it was 50 grams (looks at LST )LST: (nods )
21’30CT: . . . Right, well done, you remembered that very very well. I think
you did enjoy having Mrs Wilson to talk to you. So what we’re goingto do now, going to split up into groups. So I think Mrs Foster hasgot your groups for you.
LST: be working in animal groups today because it’s topic. And thepeople who are monkeys and cheetahs, you are going to be with me.I want to tell you . . . And the rest of you are going to work withMiss Evans.
484 The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 2
1:13
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
5. LST nominates following CT’s elicitation
6. LST reiterates CT’s nomination
7. LST corrects CT’s slip
8. LST recasts CT’s elicitation
9. LST recasts CT’s cue
10. LST nominates and recasts CT’s question following CT’s elicitation, thenaccepts response
7’15CT: Would you have been able to have both of those?LST: Do you know, Parpinder?CT: Do you (to Parpinder ) remember how many. . .
14’50CT: . . . What did they mean?LST: Kumar?P: (**)CT: Think! If one siren means the planes are coming, the second siren
would mean � Kumar?
15’40CT: Luis?LST: Luis, what do you think?P: (*** to LST )
6’10CT: One of those had to last five daysLST: Three daysCT: Three days (accepts correction )
7’30CT: Can you remember how many were in it?LST: Did we all get one?
11’30CT: . . . I wonder if you remember the word? . . . Ahmad? It began with ‘e’
(as in egg )LST: Sounds like /i:/ (as in eat )P: EvilCT: Not evil (.) Eva. . . Evacu. . .
7’25CT: Do you remember how many sweets she brought in for us, to show us?LST: Do you know Kumar, how many sweets we had to share between all
of us? (leans to Kumar who is seated near her )K: (Kumar replies to LST, CT watches, rest of class cannot hear )CT: There was a little bag with sweets in it.
Partnership Talk in Primary EAL 485
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 2
1:13
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
In Extracts 5�10 the LST nominates, corrects and recasts, but it is still the CTwho is in control. She initiates the exchanges, introduces the ideas discussedand provides the feedback. These are all content-focused exchanges except 9,where the focus is on content-related language. (This is different from wordwork in the Literacy Hour where the content is language.)In Extracts 11�13 we see how the LST initiates additional feedback, adding herown ideas to the end of an IRF exchange.
11. LST comments on CT’s feedback
12. LST adds positive feedback on CT’s feedback
13. LST adds positive feedback when CT has closed topic.
Here we see the LST beginning to comment herself, sometimes taggingsomething on at the end of an exchange, and in 13 interrupting the beginningof the next exchange.
. . . getting a topic raised successfully is a powerful discursive action . . .
the attempt to raise the topic is also a risky, potentially face-threateningaction for speakers to undertake, and people engage in a range ofstrategies in raising, ratifying, rejecting and withdrawing topics inconversation. (Thornborrow, 2002: 30)
Here in classroom talk the CT generally reclaims control of the talk byaccepting the LST’s comments. This is perhaps interpreted by the LST aspermission to not only comment following a CT feedback move, but also toadd to CT elicitations or even initiate exchanges. In Extract 14 she adds a newidea to an elicitation and in 15 she initiates a rather remarkable double act.
14. LST adds to CT’s elicitation in speech and gesture
8’45CT: The smartiesLST: We were surprised
10’30CT: They are heavier, aren’t they Ryan. They are heavier. (.) I always used
to do that when I would go for sweeties. . .and I didn’t get as manythen.
LST: You’ve been listening well this week, RyanCT: Yeah (agrees with LST )
11’00CT: Right (indicating imminent topic change)LST She enjoyed coming to talk to you as well. She said what good
children you were.CT: She did, didn’t she. (agrees with LST )
5’20CT: Why? Why could I not say to Farhana, if I was Farhana’s mummy in
the war. Here’s your breakfast Farhana � cereal, and pour the milk onthe top. Next morning. Pour the milk on the top again. Next morning,pour the milk on top (each time CT acts pouring milk onto cereal)
486 The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 2
1:13
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
15. LST initiates a double act elicitationThe CT has asked the children five times for the meaning of a second soundingof an air raid siren, after an air raid.
I was enormously impressed during this exchange at how well choreographedthe actions and the turns were. It couldn’t have been more effective if it hadbeen rehearsed. Both teachers were working together, through speech andaction, to help the children understand what was going on and what it meant.What is also noteworthy is that the LST not only initiates an extendedexchange sequence, but also directs the CT into a multimodal performance:‘Perhaps we have to show them, Miss Evans.’ Here, for the first time, we isused to refer to the two teachers, as a team. If raising a topic in conversationis risky, then directing a performance in public must be more so. The LST isperhaps more aware of the important role of visual reinforcement of abstractconcepts for bilingual children. The CT picks up her lead eliciting role to closethe exchange, but for seven turns the two develop their actions and talktogether to meet the same objective. I would suggest this illustrates in talk theequivalent of ‘shared roles’ in partnership teaching. Other instances of jointlydeveloped topics follow.
16. LST initiates return to original instructional field which is then jointlydeveloped
LST: and don’t forget the sugar (LST acts sprinkling sugar on cereal)CT: sugar, yeah (CT acts sprinkling sugar on cereal) lots of sugar. Could you
have that every day in the morning?
16’50LST: Perhaps we have to show them Miss Evans.CT: Here we go. (accepts LST’s suggestion without hesitation. Both teachers
move together to centre-stage and curl up in their chairs as if asleep. )LST: We’re curled up in our air raid shelter. All the noise is goingCT: Bang, crash! Make big bomb noises.PP: Bomb! (children make big bomb noises )LST: Quiet now (silence for a few seconds )CT: Now make an air raid siren noise.PP: (air raid siren noise )LST and CT: (stand up, in unison, raise hands to foreheads to look out of the door
of their shelter, move towards the door )CT: Where are we going? Where are we going? Farhana?P: Outside (.)CT: Why?P: (***)CT: Hurray! The airplanes have gone. Gone. They sounded the second
siren to say the airplanes have gone back . . .
18’30CT: . . . It’s safe to get up and go back into the house, go back to sleep. Oh
that was hard work!
Partnership Talk in Primary EAL 487
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 2
1:13
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
17. Joint development of topic through alternating elicitations or recasts
18. Topic initiation by LST and jointly developed
In 17 and 18 again we see the use of we to refer to the two teachers, here notinitiating joint action as in 15, but referring back to joint talk with a sharedpurpose (what we told you ). Thus they not only talk together to or with theclass, but explicitly refer to such talk, all of which reinforces a presentation tothe class of a team, or partnership. This is in stark contrast to support talk asfound in Creese (2001) where the LST explicitly defers to what the CT did orwants.
LST: Then what would you do for breakfast? (This change in field is markedby a relatively high initial pitch which re-introduces the topic of foodrationing bringing the class back to preparation for the group work )
CT: scrambled eggs made from dried eggs?PP: NO oooLST: dried toast?PP: yeughCT: butter? Not enough butter. . . .
19’30CT: Would you have banana for your breakfast?PP: NoLST: Why wouldn’t you have a banana?P: (**)CT: Put up your hands. Why wouldn’t mum have given you a banana for
breakfast in the second world war?P: (**)CT: Kumar?P: (**)CT: Why couldn’t I have a banana. . . I’m in the second world war now
and I’m seven years old. So I was born right at the beginning of thesecond world war.
LSC: Do you remember what we told you about bananas?
20’30LST: Do you remember a very funny thing we told you that about the first
time he had a banana?CT: Who was that? That was my uncle wasn’t it? (i)P: (**)LST: What did he do?CT: What did my uncle do, Parpinder? (ii)P: (**)CT: He hadn’t seen one before. And his mummy would’ve said ‘Here you
go, Trevor,. . . Here’s a banana.’ It looks quite nice (mimes biting it)What do you think he would’ve thought?
PP: yeughLST: He didn’t know he had to take the skin off.CT: He hadn’t ever ever seen one before. (iii)
488 The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 2
1:13
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
In 18 the CT supports the LST’s initiations by (1) adding cues, by (2)recasting elicitations and nominating and by (3) commenting on feedback.These CT moves are similar to those given earlier by the LST (Extracts 8�10).In other words, the roles in talk are in certain respects reversed.
If we look at the IRF Exchange Structures, so typical of this type of teachingcontext, we see that in the course of this lesson phase, the LST has moved fromResponding to the CT, to providing Feedback to the Students, to finallyInitiating not only further Information Elicits, within the same phonologicalparagraph or sequence, but also initiating and developing new sequences withshifts in Field or Directives to the CT and the students. A similar progression isseen from talk in the regulative register such as ‘Hands up’ through talk wherethe regulative and instructional registers converge such as ‘Do you rememberwhat that’s called?’ to talk in the instructional register such as ‘Which bag hasmore sweets in it?’ An awareness of the variables associated with theseprogressions in talk is important, for they help us understand how the LST ispositioned in a support, collaborative or partnership role at different points inthe lesson.
Support Talk, Collaborative Talk and Partnership TalkThe language of the regulative register establishes a strong sense of what
constitutes pedagogically acceptable behaviour through, for instance, theelicitations, repetition of ‘hands up’, and nominations. These all direct thebehaviour of the children and strictly limit their opportunities to reciprocate.One of the roles of a support teacher might be to identify and support the CTin developing these behaviours. By doing this explicitly, the LST approves, forthe CT and the children, the behavioural norms being established.
I do not want to propose a direct relationship between the type ofteam teaching (support, collaborative or partnership) and the type ofteacher�teacher talk. It is quite possible that effective collaborative orpartnership teaching relationships employ an alternating pattern where eachin turn leads a different phase of the lesson, and thus in any given phase oneteacher may be performing a support role.
What I would like to suggest, however, is that there are different types ofteacher�teacher talk to characterise what I propose be generally calledsupport, collaborative and partnership talk, to reflect the participation at thattime in the talk.
Under support talk I would put talk
. where the regulative register and classroom management are fore-grounded,
. that is primarily responsive to or supportive of lead teacher initiations, and
. that develops rather than begins a new phonological paragraph orexchange sequence
Examples from the above lesson would include: (1) CT (attendance) inform toLST for class to overhear; LST’s reminders to children to put their hands up
Partnership Talk in Primary EAL 489
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 2
1:13
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
(echoing CT’s instructions); and (4) CT turn passing to LST and her subsequentorganisation of groups.
Here I would also include the responses to the request for local information(2), the confirmation checks (3) and the correction in (7), which came out verymuch like a self-correction of a CT slip of the tongue rather than the correctionof an error. There was no suggestion of disagreement. These three relate moreto the instructional field, but are fully responsive to and supportive of the CT’sinitiations.
Under collaborative talk I would put talk where each teacher contributesfrom her own professional perspective. Here for the LST this wouldinclude talk in her role as language sampler; her linguistic expertise inrecasting questions; and her ability to give specific praise from her languagedevelopment perspective. This reflects a convergence of the instructional andregulative registers; and a mix of nominations, explicit praise, recasts and cues.
Examples from the lesson include:
(5) LST nominations (motivated by her knowledge of the children, orher need to collect language samples from specific children).LST-specific praise of children (12). This was deliberate, suggesting shewas drawing on her knowledge of individual children, her under-standing of how well they have in fact remembered things, and herperception of the need for specific praise.LST recasts of CT’s utterances (8) (9) (10). Generally the effect of theserecasts is to simplify the question, make it more concrete, change froma wh- question to a yes�no question (making it simpler linguistically toanswer), prompt with sounds not letters, etc. � as LST she isexperienced in rephrasing questions or prompts to make them easierfor EAL children, and developing content-related language.
This type of teacher�teacher talk highlights the LST’s expertise vis-a-vis the CT.For instance, her correction of ‘e’ to /i/ reflects her focus on language and oracyrather than literacy, as mentioned by the teachers themselves (see p. 477).An analysis of this type of talk would shed light on the complementary roles ofLST and CT; or on the nature of linguistically aware teaching. When both talktogether to the students, with broadly the same intent, contrasting regulativeand instructional registers are possible (cf. Creese this volume, where clearcontrasts emerge when teachers separately talk to the students).
Under partnership talk I would put talk where the LST and CT togetherdevelop the instructional register(s), where each may initiate exchanges andtopics, and each may provide feedback on ‘content’. For example:
(14) LST adds to CT’s elicitation,(15) LST initiates a double act elicitation,(16) LST initiates a topic shift,(17) LST jointly with CT develops topics and subtopics.
This partnership talk, or shared roles, is, in my experience, unusual. It shows aclose team of two teachers positioned centre-stage, sufficiently in tune in termsof their talk and accompanying movement about the classroom in their
490 The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 2
1:13
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
development of the instructional register. Their performance appears to thechildren as that of two people working together to achieve the same sharedgoals, through, for instance, the explicit use of we (15, 17, 18) to refer to the twoteachers. Similar effects are achieved where teachers negotiate meaning witheach other in front of the class, as they do in Tang’s study (1994) of an ESL andComputer Studies teacher as well as Conteh’s previously mentioned study(2000). Negotiation in teacher�teacher talk serves not only to present the twoteachers as more ‘equal’ in the classroom, but also to model such talk for thechildren, a valuable lesson for EAL and native speaker alike. As such it is instark contrast to the support talk where one teacher is centre-stage, and theother has an essentially reactive role.
As this discussion suggests, the continuum from support to partnership talkoccurs along several dimensions simultaneously. Developed from the analysisof this particular lesson, and grouped under the register variables of Field,Tenor (Audience and Speech Function) and Mode (Channel, Action andLocation), Table 4 presents the main parameters identified along whichteacher�teacher talk can be usefully analysed, and characterised as essentiallyno talk, support talk, collaborative talk or partnership talk. These build on andexpand Christie’s progression from regulative register, through a convergenceof the two registers, to instructional register. Thus where two teachers are inclass, and both are centre-stage, move about freely, interact with the wholeclass, initiate, develop and provide feedback within elicit sequences, relatingto the instructional content, this is characterised as partnership talk.Where one teacher works with specific learners, in the mainstream context,facilitating content-related language development through probing andreinitiation, and talk in the regulative register that reinforces languagedevelopment expectations (e.g. specific praise), this is characterised ascollaborative talk. Where one teacher sits alongside the class, scribinglanguage samples, responding to the other teacher, and helping with class-room management (e.g. hands up , or nonverbally stopping children fidgeting),this is characterised as support talk. These categories are by no means fixed orpermanent. As we saw, in the course of a 25-minute session, talk can shift fromsupport through collaborative to partnership. Similarly, there is no relation-ship of mutual implication across categories, and one could easily imaginetalk on ‘content’ with the LST ‘responding’ only from ‘behind the class’.Nevertheless, I would argue that the framework can be used to further ourunderstanding and awareness not only of teacher�teacher talk, but also ofteaching partnerships in general.
ConclusionWhen LST and mainstream teachers talk together outside class, they may
begin to take on each other’s specialist language (Davison, this volume) andappreciate the aims and expertise of the other (Arkoudis, 2003). The lessonanalysed here suggests that when teachers talk together to a class, they maynaturally take on some of the classroom linguistic behaviour of the other. Thisis not to suggest that LSTs should be able to teach content as subject teachersdo, nor that CTs should be able to teach language as LSTs do, but rather that
Partnership Talk in Primary EAL 491
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 2
1:13
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Ta
ble
4V
aria
ble
sin
teac
her
�te
ach
erta
lkin
wh
ole
clas
sse
ttin
gs
Fie
ldA
ud
ien
ceIn
tera
ctio
nC
ha
nn
elA
ctio
nL
oca
tio
n
Wh
atis
T2
talk
abou
t?W
ho
talk
sto
T2
;w
ho
doe
sT
2ta
lkto
?
Wh
ich
are
key
T2
IRF
spee
chfu
nct
ion
s?W
hic
hch
ann
els
are
use
dby
T2
?W
hat
doe
sT
2d
o?W
her
eis
T2
?
No
talk
Sam
pli
ng
No
-on
eN
on
ver
bal
resp
on
se,
ifan
yW
riti
ng
(scr
ibin
g)
Sam
ple
sL
L’s
lan
gu
age;
hea
dd
ow
n,
avo
ids
eye
con
tact
Beh
ind
the
clas
s
Su
pp
ort
talk
Gen
eral
;cl
ass
man
agem
ent
T1
toL
Lan
dT
1to
T2;
occ
asio
nal
T2
inp
rivat
eto
L
Res
po
nd
ing
Sp
eak
ing
,g
estu
reS
amp
les;
gaz
efo
llo
ws
T1
toL
Lta
lk;
enco
ura
ges
LL
tod
osa
me
Alo
ng
sid
eth
ecl
ass
Co
lla
bo
rati
veta
lkC
on
ten
t-re
late
dla
ng
uag
eT
1to
LL
and
T2
toso
me
or
all
LL
for
lim
ited
tim
e
Fee
db
ack
:p
rais
e,re
init
iati
ng
,n
om
inat
ing
Sp
eak
ing�
/
ges
ture
Co
ntr
ibu
tes
top
arti
cula
ras
pec
tso
fth
ete
ach
ing
Fac
ing
par
to
fth
ecl
ass,
or
the
wh
ole
clas
sfr
om
the
sid
e
Pa
rtn
ersh
ipta
lkIn
stru
ctio
nal
con
ten
tT
1an
dT
2to
get
her
toL
LIn
itia
tin
gan
dd
evel
op
ing
elic
its
and
dir
ects
Sp
eak
ing�
/
ges
ture
�/ac
tio
nT
each
esw
ith
T1
Cen
tre-
stag
ew
ith
T1
faci
ng
the
wh
ole
clas
s
T1
and
T2
are
teac
her
s.L
Lar
ele
arn
ers.
‘�/’
mea
ns
occ
ur
tog
eth
er
492 The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 2
1:13
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
through partnership talk both teachers develop an understanding andappreciation of the roles, skills and linguistic behaviour of the other. Thismay well in turn have rewards in terms of easier joint planning (cf. Arkoudis,2003) and more egalitarian perceptions of EAL in schools by children and staffgenerally (cf. Creese, 2000). A word of caution is needed here, however.Partnership talk is rare, though this may change with increasing awareness ofpartnership guidelines and increasing access to mainstream classes by EALteachers. It worked in this class because the teachers ‘clicked’, and because theCT was an NQT whereas the LST was experienced and familiar with thechildren and school. When these conditions are reversed, as in the experienceof a newly qualified LOTE teacher, and experienced CT (Hirst, 2003),the outcomes could be very different. While the proposed frameworkshould be useful in analysing teacher�teacher talk, and drawing insightsfrom this analysis for the nature of the partnership between the two teachers,partnership talk per se is not the goal for all.
Correspondence
Any correspondence should be directed to Dr Sheena Gardner, Centre forEnglish Language Teacher Education, The University of Warwick, CoventryCV4 7AL, UK ([email protected]).
Notes1. The term EAL is used in UK primary and secondary schools in preference to ESL
or ESOL. Both EAL Teacher and Language Support Teacher are currently used.With increased access nationally to specialist qualifications, a move towards theterm Language Specialist is envisaged.
2. The lesson analysed in this paper was recorded in 2002 as part of the ESRC MajorResearch Grant R000238196 Study of Classroom Assessment of English as anAdditional Language: Key Stage 1 Contexts 1999�2003. I am most grateful to theproject research team for sustained interest in EAL, to the staff and children forwelcoming us into their classrooms, and to R. Nitta for assistance with transcrip-tion. This project was one of several EAL studies conducted by myself and PaulineRea-Dickins between 1997 and 2003.
References
Arkoudis, S. (2003) Teaching English as a Second Language in science classes:Incommensurate epistemologies? Language and Education 17 (3), 161�173.
Bernstein, B. (1990) Class, Codes and Control: Vol. 4. The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse .London: Routledge
Blair, M. and Bourne, J. with Coffin, C., Creese, A. and Kenner, C. (1998) Making theDifference: Teaching and Learning Strategies in Successful Multi-ethnic Schools . The OpenUniversity. Research Report No. 59. Norwich: Department for Education andEmployment (DfEE).
Bourne, J. (1997) The continuing revolution: Teaching as learning in the MainstreamMultilingual Classroom. In C. Leung and C. Cable (eds) English as an AdditionalLanguage: Changing Perspectives (pp. 77�88). York: NALDIC.
Bourne, J. and McPake, J. (1991) Partnership Teaching: Co-operative Teaching Strategies forLanguage Support in Multi-Lingual Classrooms . London: HMSO.
Christie, F. (1997) Curriculum macrogenres as initiation into a culture. In F. Christie andJ.R. Martin (eds) Genres and Institutions: Social Processes in the Workplace and School(pp. 134�160). London: Continuum.
Partnership Talk in Primary EAL 493
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 2
1:13
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Christie, F. (2000) The language of classroom interaction and learning. In L. Unsworth(ed.) Researching Language in Schools and Communities: Functional Linguistic Perspec-tives (pp. 184�203). London: Cassell.
Christie, F. (2002) Classroom Discourse Analysis: A Functional Perspective . London:Continuum.
Clegg, J. (ed.) (1996) Mainstreaming ESL: Case Studies in Integrating ESL Students into theMainstream Curriculum . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Conteh, J. (2000) Multilingual classrooms, standards and quality: Three children and alot of bouncing balls. Language and Education 14 (1), 1�17.
Creese, A. (2000) The role of language specialists in disciplinary teaching: In search of asubject? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 21 (6), 451�470.
Creese, A. (2001) Teachers talking: Communication in professional partnerships.In C. Jones and C. Wallace (eds) Making EMAG Work . Stoke-on-Trent: TrenthamBooks.
Creese, A. (2002) EAL and ethnicity issues in teacher professional and institutionaldiscourses. In C. Leung (ed.) Language and Additional/Second Language Issues for SchoolEducation: A reader for teachers (pp. 14�24). Watford: NALDIC.
Creese, A., Arkoudis, S., Davison, C., Gardner, S. and Hornberger, N. (2003) Teacherteacher talk: The discourses of collaborating teachers. Colloquium Presentation atthe Language, Education and Diversity Conference, November 2003, University ofWaikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Davison, C. and Williams, A. (2001) Integrating language and content: Unresolvedissues. In B. Mohan, C. Leung and C. Davison (eds) English as a Second Language inthe Mainstream: Teaching, Learning and Identity. Harlow: Longman.
Gardner, S. and Rea-Dickins, P. (1999) Literacy and oracy assessment in an early yearsintervention project: The roles of English language stages. BAAL British Studies inApplied Linguistics 14, 14�25.
Gardner, S. and Rea-Dickins, P. (2002) Focus on language sampling: A key issue in EALassessment. NALDIC Occasional Paper, No. 15.
Hirst, E. (2003) Diverse voices in a second language classroom: Burlesque, parody andmimicry. Language and Education 17 (3), 174�191.
Mohan, B. (1986) Language and Content . Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Sadovnik, A.R. (ed.) (1995) Knowledge and Pedagogy: The Sociology of Basil Bernstein . New
Jersey: Ablex.Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, M. (1975) Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by
Teachers and Pupils . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Tang, G. (1994) Teacher collaboration in integrating language and content. TESL Canada
Journal 11 (2), 100�116.Thornborrow, J. (2002) Power Talk: Language and Interaction in Institutional Discourse .
London: Longman Pearson Education.
Transcription ConventionsCT class teacherLST language support teacherP unidentified pupilPP more than one pupil speaking at once2’30 two minutes 30 secondsItalics ‘stage directions’(**) inaudible(.) pause. . . a few seconds of transcript omittedtwe- false start, stutter or incomplete word; interrupted word.,?! used to suggest intonationsbold key section of transcript
494 The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 2
1:13
12
Nov
embe
r 20
14