Pupil identity as a site of competing ideologies: a tale of three classrooms
Julia Snell and Adam Lefstein
julia.snell@kcl.ac.uk
Extract 1
This extract is from a Year 5 lesson on the narrative poem, The Highwayman. In this lesson, the class work on
the first stanza of the poem, defining the meaning of new words, considering the use of metaphor and
translating their impressions of the opening of the poem to visual representations of the setting. In the minutes
leading up to this extract, the pupils have highlighted words that they don’t understand and, as a class, have
found and discussed dictionary definitions.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Mr Robbins:
Mr Robbins:
Hugh:
Mr Robbins:
Ashah:
Mr Robbins:
Ashah:
Mr Robbins:
do we think (1) ((walking to the whiteboard))
the wind was a torrent of darkness
bearing in mind torrent means
something that is fast flowing
do we think that it’s very windy
or just a gentle little breeze
hands up if you think very windy
((most pupils, including Hugh, raise their hands))
okay (1)
Hugh which word do you think
means it’s very windy
which word in this bit
the wind was a torrent of darkness
tells you that it’s very windy
(6)
((shrugs shoulders))
you’re not sure
((raises hand))
what do you think
erm
torrent
the word torrent
okay
so we think it’s very windy
Transcription notations include:
(text )
(xxxxxxx)
(.)
(1)
((
))
[
[
text
te:xt
sh>text<
TEXT
(.hhh)
-
Transcription uncertainty
Indistinguishable speech
Brief pause (under one second)
Longer pause (number indicates length to nearest whole second)
Description of prosody or non-verbal activity
Overlapping talk or action
-
Emphasised relative to surrounding talk (underlined words)
Stretched sounds
Word cut off
Speech delivered more rapidly than surrounding speech.
Shouting
Audible inhalation
1
Extract 2
The following extract is taken from a Year 6 SATs revision lesson on reading comprehension. At the
beginning of the lesson the pupils were given time to work individually to read and annotate a poem, Owl:
Owl
Owl
Was darker
Than ebony.
Flew through the night,
Eyes like amber searchlights,
Rested on a post,
Feathers wind-ruffled.
Stood stump still,
Talons ready to seize
And squeeze
Owl
Was death
That swamped the fields,
For it flew through the dark
That tightened its knot,
That bandaged the hills
In a blindfold of fear.
Owl flew – who – who – who
At the end of this task, the teacher, Ms Alexander, asks the pupils for their first impressions of the poem. A
pupil says that she didn’t like the poem because she couldn’t understand it. The teacher probes (“what did
you find difficult to understand”) and a discussion begins in which the teacher tries to
facilitate the pupils’ understanding. The transcript below begins towards the end of this discussion.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Ms Alexander:
Pupils:
Ms Alexander:
Aaron:
Ms Alexander:
Aaron:
Ms Alexander:
Aaron:
Ms Alexander:
Aaron:
Ms Alexander:
Ash:
Aaron:
Ms Alexander:
Ash:
Ms Alexander:
Ash:
erm guys how about the end
how about the end
[owl flew who who who
[owl flew who who
what might that mean
that- that’s a technique
a very clever technique
I know I know I know
a very clever technique
used
because it (xxx)
I know
Hayden do you have any idea
what that might mean
in any way
[anything
[(xxxxxx)
anything basic
shshsh ((to Aaron))
because it (xxx)
you like owls
you’re into animals
so what might it mean
owl flew [who who who
[((singing to Hayden))
because it (don’t tell you xxxx)
oo are you Hayden
((singing to Hayden))
give Hayden a chance
(2)
((to Hayden)) it wasn’t me
2
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Hayden:
Ms Alexander:
Hayden:
Ms Alexander:
Ash:
Daren:
Ms Alexander:
Hayden:
Daren:
Ms Alexander:
Ash:
Hayden:
Daren:
Ash:
Ms Alexander:
Ash:
((laughs))
nothing
you have no idea
no
Daren you said something earlier okay
you said something
what did you say about that last line
((looking at the camera)) I’m scared ((looks at Hayden))
noise the owl’s making
good
it’s like
doesn’t it sound likewhen you listen to it or
when you read it
doesn’t it sound like (.) the noise an owl makes
(no)
Hayden
[what does it sound like
[who who who
[it says who who who who who who ((directed to Hayden))
(xxxxxxxxxx)
Hayden says no
[Hayden says no
[(xxxxxxx the own)
it does because you’ve got twit twoo alright
that’s how[you would say that’s how an owl sounds
[twit (.) twoo not twit who ((directed to Hayden))
who’s a twit twoo
Extract 3
This extract occurs around 45 minutes into a Year 5 lesson on Charlotte’s Web in which pupils are exploring
the themes that have come out of the first five chapters. The pupils have been working in small groups to
discuss the events of the book and related themes and the teacher is now drawing their ideas together.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Ms Leigh:
Mark:
actually you’ve had a good idea here about (.) erm
what we thought of friends
but you came up with the word suspicion
and suspicion was a theme that kept on appearing in the text
do you want to tell us more Mark
erm
(1)
so it was like
Templeton yeah
just like wants to get the eggs and then eat them
because it’s like
it’s like this
because- because thebecause Templeton told the goose that erm
that fern has like the collection of like stuff
yeah
and then
goose said it to Fern
3
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Ms Leigh:
Mark:
Ms Leigh:
Mark:
Ms Leigh:
Mark:
Ms Leigh:
Mark:
Ms Leigh:
Mark:
Ms Leigh:
and then Fern like says that ain’t tru:e
and then
Templeton is trying to get the goose attention (xxxx friend)
and then
and so the rat
and so Templeton can get the egg and then eat it
okay
so how was that suspicious
erm
(5)
because
(5)
would you trust a friend who tries t- to [steal your toys
[no
maybe your baby brother
yeah [((laughing)) I would
[or- you wouldn’t mind
((laughs))
okay does that appear anywhere else
because somebody else earlier mentioned on somanother character was suspicious as well
Charlotte
okay
because
she couldso it could be like
Wilbur is out walking
and then
without Wilbur noticing
Charlotte could just jump on her back
and just start rapping her up (xxxxxx)
okay so we’ve got the dilemma in both characters now
like you were saying
actually can we trust them a hundred percent
even though they’re trying to make friends with other people
and trying to be around other people
can we give them our hundred percent trust
or are they going to do something terrible
4
Select references
Alexander, R. J. (2005). Towards dialogic teaching: rethinking classroom talk (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Dialogos.
Black, L. (2004). Differential participation in whole-class discussion and the construction of marginalised identities.
Journal of Educational Enquiry 5(1), 34-54.
Boaler, J., Wiliam, D., & Brown, M. (2000). Students Experiences of Ability Grouping-disaffection, polarisation and the
construction of failure. British Educational Research Journal, 26(5), 631-648.
Davies, B. & R. Hunt. Classroom Competencies and Marginal Positionings. British Journal of Sociology of Education
5(3), 389-408.
Foster, M. (1989). “It’s cookin’ now”: A performance analysis of the speech events of a Black teacher in an urban
community college. Language in Society 18, 1-29.
Gould, S. J. (1981). The Mismeasure of Man. New York: Norton.
Graff, N. (2009). Classroom talk: Co constructing a 'difficult student'. Educational Research. 51(4), 439-454.
Ireson, J. & Hallam, S (2009). Academic self-concepts in adolescence: Relations with achievement and ability grouping
in schools. Learning and Instruction, 19 (3), 201-213.
McDermott, R. P. and Kenneth Gospodinoff. (1979). Social Contexts for ethnic borders and school failure. In A.
Wolfgang (ed). Nonverbal bevaiour: Applications and cultural implications. New York: Academic Press, 175195.
Mehan, H. (1996). The construction of an LD student: A case study in the politics of representation. In M. Silverstein &
G. Urban (Eds.), Natural histories of discourse (pp. 253-276). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Reay, D. (2006). I'm not seen as one of the clever children': consulting primary school pupils about the social conditions
of learning. Educational review, 58(2), 171-181.
Varenne, H., & McDermott, R. (1998). Successful failure: the school America builds. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wortham, S. (2004). The interdependence of social identification and learning. American Educational Research Journal,
41(3), 715-750.
Wortham, S. (2006). Learning identity: The joint emergence of social identification and academic learning. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Towards Dialogue project publications
Lefstein, A. (2010) “More Helpful as Problem than Solution: Some Implications of Situating Dialogue in Classrooms” in
Littleton, K. & C. Howe (Eds.), Educational dialogues: Understanding and promoting productive interaction.
Taylor and Francis.
Lefstein, A. & J. Snell (2011) “Classroom discourse: the Promise and Complexity of Dialogic Practice”. In Ellis, S.
McCartney, E. & J. Bourne, Eds., Insight and Impact: Applied Linguistics and the Primary School. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lefstein, A., & Snell, J. (2011). Professional vision and the politics of teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education,
27(3), 505-514.
Lefstein, A. & J. Snell (2011). Promises and Problems of Teaching with Popular Culture: A Linguistic Ethnographic
Analysis of Discourse Genre Mixing. Reading Research Quarterly, 46 (1), 40-69.
Lefstein, A., & Snell, J. (in press). Beyond a unitary conception of pedagogic pace. British Educational Research
Journal.
Lefstein, A. & J. Snell (forthcoming in 2013). Better than “Best Practice”: Developing Dialogic Pedagogy. Routledge.
Snell, J. (2011). Interrogating video-data: Systematic quantitative analysis versus micro-ethnographic analysis.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology 14(3), 253–258.
Snell, J. & A. Lefstein (2011) Computer-assisted systematic observation of classroom discourse & interaction: Technical
report on the systematic discourse analysis component of the Towards Dialogue study. Working papers in
Urban Language & Literacies, #77. London: King’s College London.
5