Analysis oral language (teacher talk)

Janice Fung, March 2012.

An Analysis of the Role of Oral Language in the Classroom: A self-reflection

On the 11th of March 2012, I taught a one-on-one lesson in a home setting. The

student was male, 26 years of age, and university educated. The purpose of the lesson was

to equip the student with the knowledge required to read musical scores. The lesson was

recorded and a five-minute segment was transcribed for the analyses of oral language use

in teaching, and the way in which oral language can be used to enhance learning for the

student (see appendix). The transcribed segment was extracted from the beginning of the

lesson, and reflected the ‘engagement’, ‘building knowledge’, and ‘transformation’ stages

of the ‘learning and teaching cycle’- whereby the teacher determines the learner’s existing

knowledge of the topic (engagement) as a platform on which the teacher explicitly builds

on new skills, knowledge, and interest (building knowledge); and the student engages in

exploratory talk to consolidate their understanding (transformation) (LASS, 2:2).

Communication is at the core of teaching, and it is through quality communication

that relationships can be built to enable learning (Metcalfe & Game, 2006). Teachers hold

a certain amount of authority; hence the communication between teacher and student

constantly establishes the teacher’s position (Groundwater-Smith, 2009) and baseline of

trust, respect, tolerance, and patience (Burbules, 1993, as cited in Groundwater-Smith,

2009). The choices of our words and gestures are an expression of our identity within a

cultural, familial, social, or institutional context (Poynton, 2000, as cited in Groundwater-

Smith, 2009 ). A teacher’s style of communication can either enthuse or bore students, and

teachers can come across as either approachable or untrustworthy (Hargreaves, 2001). I

noticed that in my role as a friend before the lesson commenced, my style of speech, or

tenor (Literacy Across the School Subjects, 3:5), was casual and relatively careless;

1


however, the tenor of interaction automatically became formalised, intentional, and more

polite upon teaching. It can be reasoned that my speech changed for the notion that the way

in which oral language is utilized will reflect on a teacher’s professional identity, and

consequently influence the relationships and learning culture within the class setting

(Groundwater-Smith, 2009). In the current study, the language was mainly monologic in

the beginning. I chose to begin with monological teaching because I diagnosed the student

as being unfamiliar with the field of text in the evaluation stage of the learning-teaching

cycle (lines 3-4, LASS, 3:5). As the lesson progressed, I then offered a more dialogic form

of interaction where I spoke in fragments to support the student’s verbalisation of his

understandings (LASS, 3:5).

The lesson was commenced with an open question (line 3) to evaluate the student’s

existing knowledge on the topic. I was then able to diagnose the student as a beginner of

music theory with no experience and structure the lesson accordingly. Throughout the

lesson, I continued to ask questions before introducing new concepts and allowed the

student to express his ideas (lines 18, 26, 53). For example, I initiated with a question “…

do you know what middle C is?” (line 30) The student expressed that he was feeling very

blank (line 31). The information that I gained through this dialogical process of ‘Initiation,

Response, and Evaluation’ (IRE) helped me form a basis from which I can implement the

process of scaffolding. Thus I was able to build upon the student’s existing knowledge

within his zone of proximal development (ZPD) with appropriately planned teaching

approaches to support his learning (LASS, 2:8). For example, the student asked me a

question that was beyond his ZPD (line 55); therefore I decided to provide a preface to the

question before elaborating on the answer (lines 56-58). Furthermore, not all three stages

of scaffolding- diagnosis, planning, and withdrawing (LASS, 2:5) - were implemented in

2


this lesson. I was unable to implement the ‘withdrawal’ stage as the stage of learning could

not be reached within the constraint amount of time.

After diagnosing the student’s ZPD, several questioning methods were used in the

Building Knowledge stage of the learning-teaching cycle. As the student was identified as

an absolute beginner in music theory, I focused on asking questions that involved ‘lower

order thinking’ within the framework of Bloom’s Taxonomy, with emphasis on naming

and defining the components of written music (lines 22, 30, 38, 74, 82; Workshop,

7/3/2012). Different oral techniques were also used throughout the lesson to emphasize

what I presumed as new knowledge to the student (LASS, 3:3), including ‘stress and

repetition’, ‘clarification’, and ‘inclusive language’. In lines 11, 15, and 18, I repeated the

term “staff”, and also stressed the word phonologically in line 15. I also repeated the same

content in lines 40, 42, and 50. Furthermore, I placed further emphasis on the content by

imperatively asking the student to orally repeat a word- “… say ‘staff’” (line 11) and take a

mental note, “… you need to remember this.” (line 21). I also attempted to clarify the

student’s grasp of the concepts by phrasing questions to cater to ‘lower order thinking’

(lines 9, 13, 22) in supporting the student’s knowledge acquisition (LASS, 3:3). Inclusive

language was also used in line 19 and 32. This allowed the class atmosphere to be more

dialogic than monologic (LASS, 3:5). It is through these oral language techniques that I

was able to initiate the topic more effectively, and build knowledge for the student to

enable an increased complexity of elaboration in their responses (lines 49 & 81, LASS

2:2).

Previous studies have supported the notion that learning is most effective in student

talk. Therefore it is a useful strategy for teachers to provide opportunities for students to

engage in exploratory oral language by strategically and appropriately using prompts and

3


silences (Raban & Essex, 1999, as cited in Davies, 27/2/2012). This allows students to

rehearse the ideas that they would have to formulate in writing, whilst allowing the teacher

to evaluate the students’ understanding (LASS, 1:19). It is through these opportunities for

discussion that students can increase their use of more specific and sophisticated language

to express and clarify their understandings (Raban, 2001). Throughout the lesson, there

were a couple of occasions where I deliberately waited for the student to verbally

consolidate his understanding (lines 28 & 68), and provided questions to prompt the

student in establishing links between their ideas and what I had taught thus far (lines 45-49,

& 53). However, it would have been better practice if I could provide more wait time, as I

was only fortunate to have a student who actively expressed his knowledge (line 27 & 35),

whereas other students may have kept quiet and listened to me teach what they already

know. Furthermore, eeffective communication requires the listener to provide ‘contingent’

responses to the speaker. These are verbal responses that indicate active listening. Not only

do these responses keep conversations flowing, they are emotionally satisfying to the

speaker, allow topics to be extended, and keep the purpose of the conversation clear

(Raban, 2001). I feel that this lesson was highly engaging due to the dialogical approach

and evident flow of contingent responses from both myself and the student (lines 2, 6, 10,

14, & 28).

In the ‘evaluation’ phase of the IRE communication sequence, teachers can

encourage students to take risks in exploring their understandings by verbally providing

intentional rewards (LASS, 3:3). During the lesson, I strived not to use negative responses

such as “wrong” or “no”, but provided a few lines of encouragement despite the student

response being incorrect (lines 38, 48, 54, & 84). In addition to positive feedback, I

provided elaboration on the student’s response (lines 21, 40, 42, and 86) to add

4


significance to the student’s contribution whilst building upon their knowledge (LASS,

3:3). Furthermore, in evaluating the student’s learning, I questioned the student on the

content and provided clues and prompts to guide his response (lines 66-83). These methods

of evaluation allowed me to consolidate the student’s new ZPD, thus determine a

comfortable and engaging approach to the next initiation phase of the IRE teaching-

sequence for the student.

The main purpose of teacher talk is to structure opportunities for students to

actively engage in learning with guided student talk, with which most learning would occur

(Raban. B. & Essex, G., 1999, as cited in Davies, 27/2/2012). I felt that I did a good job in

engaging the student with a dialogical approach to teaching as there was much turn-taking

occurring throughout the lesson. However, I could improve my teaching skills by spending

more time to evaluate the student’s existing knowledge with more questions and waiting

time. Furthermore, I provided the student with a visual aid which supported my oral

language teaching (LASS, 3:3), yet a keyboard provided for practical experience would

have immensely supported the student’s learning.

5


References

Davies, L. M. (27/2/2012) Language and Teaching: Lecture 1 ‘Language and Teaching’.

Davies, L. M. (5/3/2012) Language and Teaching: Lecture 2 ‘Oral Language and

Learning’.

Groundwater-Smith, S. (2009). Communication and relationships. In Groundwater-Smith,

S., Secondary Schooling in a Changing World 2nd Ed. (pp. 95-115). South

Melbourne, Victoria: Cenage Learning.

Hargreaves, A. (2001). Emotional geographies of teaching. Teachers College Record,

103(6), pp. 1056-1080.

Love, K. et. al. (2008). Unit 1: Introduction- Language and Literacy. In Literacy Across the

School Subjects [DVD]. The University of Melbourne.

Love, K. et. al. (2008). Unit 2: Scaffolding Literacy. In Literacy Across the School Subjects

[DVD]. The University of Melbourne.

Love, K. et. al. (2008). Unit 3: Oral Language. In Literacy Across the School Subjects

[DVD]. The University of Melbourne.

Metcalfe, A. & Game, A. (2006). Teachers who change lives. Melbourne: Melbourne

University Press.

O’Neill, V. (7/3/2012). Language and Teaching: Workshop 3 ‘Untitled’.

Raban, B. (2001). Talking to think, learn, and teach. In Smith, P. G. (Ed.), Talking

Classrooms: Shaping Children’s Learning Through Oral Language Instruction.

(pp. 27-56). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.

6


Appendix

Transcript for one-on-one class (Beginner’s Music Theory)

1 Teacher: Okay, so today we’re going to talk about music theory.

2 Student: Okay.

3 Teacher: Can you tell me, what do you know about music theory? Can you read music?

4 Student: I can’t read music, unfortunately.

5 Teacher: That’s okay, ‘cos we’re gonna learn!

6 Student: Okay!

7 Teacher: So! Have you seen in the music scores, When they play piano, the music scores,

you will see lines like this, there’ll be five lines.

8 Student: Oh five!

9 Teacher: Like that, right?

10 Student: MmHm.

11 Teacher: This is called a ‘staff’ (3 second pause) Say ‘staff’,

12 Student: Staff.

13 Teacher: Yah?

14 Student: Yes.

15 Teacher: Now a staff-

16 Student: Mmhm,

17 Teacher: - is where all the music notes are read.

18 Student: Soo, if it goes over… any of those lines it’s not music.

19 Teacher: Uhh, that would make sense, But it- it is still music, and we will learn that later,

20 Student: Okay, okay.

21 Teacher: So, usually you will find in piano, there would be two sets of staff like this… and

the one on top is used for the right hand. The right hand will play the notes that are written on top,

the left hand will play the notes on the bottom. You need to remember this.

22 Teacher: So when you see piano music like this, right hand will play?

23 Student: The one on top,

24 Teacher: and,

25 Student: Left hand will play the one on bottom.

26 Teacher: Good, that’s correct! … Now, do you know what this is called?

27 Student: I’ve seen that before!

28 Teacher: Uhuh, yah! Seen that before! (4 second wait)

29 Student: Mmhm,

30 Teacher: That’s called a treble clef, and that tells us that the notes here are played above

middle C. Do you know what middle C is?

31 Student: I’m feeling very blank.

7


32 Teacher: That’s okay, well… Let’s start again. On a keyboard… I wish we had a keyboard

to show you right now,

33 Student: We have Alphy’s keyboard, but he would he would kill us if we went into his

room,

34 Teacher: Hahaha… you’ll find notes like this…

35 Student: I... I…

36 Teacher: Three black notes, then two black notes… Sorry, what were you gonna say?

37 Student: I was gonna say there are black notes and there are white notes,

38 Teacher: Yep, you’re right! Do you know which note is C?

39 Student: Uuuhh no…

40 Teacher: Now for every two black notes, the one under is C, and the one in the middle of

the whole keyboard, that’s middle C.

41 Student: Wait, so that’s a C, and the one in the middle of the keyboard…

42 Teacher: That’s middle C, and the treble clef tells us that the notes written on the staff are

played above middle C.

43 Student: Oh that’s middle C, okay.

44 Teacher: Uhuh, and the notes go like this, C.. D.. E.. F.. G… then it goes back to A.. B..

C…

45 Student: Ooh, so C, D, E, F, G…

46 Teacher: A, B, C…

47 Student: Oh so from here we go back so it’s gonna be B, and A, G,

48 Teacher: Yep, you got it!

49 Student: Ooh so it’s repetitive… A, B, C, D, E, F, G, then it starts repeating, okay…

50 Teacher: Yep, and can you see from two (black) notes down, that’s C?

51 Student: Mmhm.

52 Teacher: Yeh, okay.. so Just say that’s middle C… This note would be middle C. and the

reason why we put a line through it, can you figure out why?

53 Student: Because that’s the centre of the keyboard, so that means… I dunno. The right

hand plays on the other side and the left hand plays on the other side, so you don’t cross hands over

the middle C.

54 Teacher: Uh, sometimes… the- it does make sense what you’re saying… sometimes the left

hand also plays middle C. The reason why we draw a line through it is because the staff, there are

only five lines. And we need a, we need more lines. So we put a line there as if, as if these lines are

continuing.

55 Student: Why do we need a line for?

56 Teacher: Okay, um… okay, let’s go through the names of… the lines and spaces,

57 Student: Okay,

58 Teacher: and then that would make sense afterwards,

59 Student: Okay,

8


60 Teacher: So, the way we remember this is… E, G, B, D, F… Every Good Boy Deserves

Fruit. That’s a good way of remember it, yeh?

61 Student: Every good boy deserves food.

62 Teacher: Food, hahaha,

63 Student: Okay, or, or fruit haha okay,

64 Teacher: Okay, so this line is E,

65 Student: Mmhm,

66 Teacher: So that means this space is F,

67 Student: Mmhm,

68 Teacher: Because this line is G (3 second wait) Can you see?

69 Student: Oooohh!!

70 Teacher: That’s A, that’s B,

71 Student: C, D, E… (4 second pause)

72 Teacher: That’s F, and then up here would be G.

73 Student: Yes.

74 Teacher: So if that’s E, what would this space be?

75 Student: That, that would be the D space.

76 Teacher: Uhuh, that-

77 Student: so that’s the C space.

78 Teacher: C, exactly, so that would be middle C (2 second pause)

79 Student: Mmhm.

80 Teacher: Yeh?

81 Student: So middle C has its own line.

82 Teacher: Yes. And if you go down lower, what would this be?

83 Student: That would be… B space?

84 Teacher: Uhuh,

85 Student: and… B space?

86 Teacher: Yep, so we draw a line on the bottom to show that it’s above the line.

87 Student: Oooh okay!

9

Analysis oral language (teacher talk)

Education

Transcript of Analysis oral language (teacher talk)