ENHANCING THE COMMUNICATION LEARNING
ENVIRONMENT OF AN EARLY YEARS UNIT
Melanie Nind
Centre for Curriculum and Teaching Studies
Faculty of Education and Language Studies
The Open University
Walton Hall
Milton Keynes
MK7 6AA
Email: M.A.E.Nind@open.ac.uk
Paper presented to the BERA Annual Conference
13-15 September 2001
University of Leeds
Abstract
The paper reports on an action research project in which an external consultant, special
educational needs co-ordinator and staff of the early years unit of a mainstream school
worked together to understand and enhance the communication learning environment
provided for 3-5 year old pupils. The project arose from concern about the number of
pupils with limited communication and language abilities. A transactional rather than
deficit model was adopted, such that bi-directional influences in communication
difficulties and communication learning were fully recognised. The focus was on the
communication environment and the verbal and interaction behaviour of the adults rather
than on individual problems. Concepts of optimal interactive styles from studies of
caregiver-infant interaction and interventions based on this were applied. Activity
included a mixture of observation, discussion and reflection on summaries of other
research projects. Changes in the thinking and practice in the unit are discussed.
Key words: early years, communication, action research
1
Background
Honilands school is a large, vibrant primary school in the London Borough of Enfield.
The Enfield statistical directory describes the population in school’s ward as being high
in the multiple deprivation rankings as well as child poverty indicators, scoring in the
highest category of social deprivation that the area has. There is high unemployment,
poor health, poor housing and little access to higher or further education. A considerable
proportion of the school’s children are on the special needs register. The Early Years Unit
(EYU) of the school comprises a nursery and two reception classes with 3 teachers, 2
nursery nurses and 2 classroom assistants and 120 children (not all of them full-time).
The environment is open plan, with baseroom areas, a small quiet room, and a well-used
outdoor play area. The project was instigated following concern felt by school staff, and
expressed by one of the school governors, about the number of pupils in the EYU who
were experiencing language or communication difficulties/delay.
I had already been involved with the local education authority (LEA) in an action
research project with the special schools aimed to enhance the diversity of pupils within
the teachers’ routine confidence and confidence (Nind & Cochrane, in press). My role
had been as consultant and critical friend using the approach of Intensive Interaction
(Nind and Hewett, 1994; 2001) as a vehicle for reflection, collaborative problem-solving
and skills and confidence boosting. Intensive Interaction makes use of the nurturing style
of interaction in caregiver-infant interaction found to be associated with communication,
social and other development, to inform the communication style of teachers working
with pre-verbal learners, usually with severe and complex learning difficulties.
Intensive Interaction can be seen as an inclusive approach, utilising a model of ‘good
teaching for all’ at the earliest stages of development (Nind & Cochrane, in press). The
interactive principles and transactional model were seen as equally relevant for the
mainstream early years environment. The staff in the EYU were already comfortable with
working in a collaborative problem-solving framework and were keen to use an action
research model to enhance their practice. They are proud for themselves and the school to
be named in the dissemination of the project to others. The anonymity of individual
children is protected.
Aims of the project
The aims of the project were initially negotiated by the LEA adviser, headteacher,
governor, SENCO, head of the early years unit and myself. They were then presented to
the staff of the Early Years Unit to shape as follows:
To enhance the communication abilities of the pupils by:
 enhancing our understanding and provision of the best possible communicative/
interactive environments for their learning
 working together to think about ideas and practice – creating space to reflect
 trying things out in a supportive and reflective environment.
The approach was outlined in terms of:
2
an ‘action research’ project, where we reflect, plan, do, reflect again, plan again and so
on. Much of what will happen, therefore, cannot be specified at this stage. This makes it
both uncertain and exciting. This initiative is not imposed on you with a closed agenda You can drive it and make it what you want it to be.
My role and expectations as the outside consultant were also made explicit:
I would see myself as a human resource for the project. I would see this, not as working
directly with pupils to remediate their difficulties, but in working with you to enhance your
power as communication partners and teachers.
My expertise is as a teacher and researcher focused on the earliest stages of
communication and social development. I will be contributing to our thinking through
together of the problems and of things to try to take us forward. This might take the form
of asking questions which help you reflect, answering questions based on my previous
experience, bringing in ideas from the journals and other schools, making observations,
and helping in the development and evaluation of strategies. I will not have all the
answers!
My experience of working with the special schools in the area had taught me that I had to
act as a catalyst and then hold back to enable the school staff to own the agenda and to
drive the action. The experienced school staff knew the importance of preparation. We
were, therefore, careful to invest time in the interpersonal relationships that would hold
the project together from the start. It was important that staff should feel comfortable
having me around and that I should get a feel for the children and for the working
practices of the unit if we were to have a shared understanding of the project and a shared
investment in making it work.
Shaping the agenda and approach
The first phase of the project involved us in negotiating on our agenda and approach. My
questions going into the project were:







What do we want to improve?
How will we get there?
What do we need to find out?
What do we need to do?
How will we know when we get there?
How do we sustain this?
How do we share this?
Questions and comments from team members were pragmatic and not that different:






What will actually happen?
Will we focus on whole classes or on individual children?
How will parents be involved?
Why are there more language problems now than before?
How can we improve our practice?
If we are doing good work it would re-energize us to be told so!
3
These formed the basis for discussion from which an agreed direction emerged:
i. We would concentrate on the social and communication environment for all the
children in the EYU and not on individual children and their ‘deficits’. This was
important both to the school ethos and to my approach. A key part of the
environment was seen to be the communication partners within it, that is, the adults
and the other children. We were guided by a transactional perspective in which we
recognized the bi-directional influences in communication. We understood that just
as the adults’ communication and interaction behaviour was influenced by the
children, the adults had the potential to influence the children’s communication and
interaction behaviour by altering their own communication style. It was here that we
saw the potential to intervene (as demonstrated by Mirenda and Donellan, 1986;
Sadler and Mogford-Bevan, 1997; and Nind, Kellett and Hopkins, 2001).
ii. This would be an ongoing project and not a quick fix. We were not looking for
miracle pedagogies or inStevet solutions but to changes in practice that could be
sustained.
iii. Through discussion, reading and observation we would clarify our thinking on what
constitutes a good, rich, facilitative communication environment. This would be
informed by literature on the foundations of communication learning in caregiverinfant interaction (e.g. Kaye and Charney, 1981; Moerk, 1992; Papousek, 1995) and
by literature on good practice in the early years (e.g. Pugh, 1996; Anning, 1998;
Early Childhood Forum, 1998).
iv. Through structured observation we would evaluate the current environment against
this model. This was to be a constructive process conducted in a way that was not
judgmental. Moving towards an ideal model was seen as a useful process, with the
journey as important as the destination.
v. Using an action research model we would identify areas for action, and trial and
evaluate areas of action or change. We would also identify, celebrate and enhance
aspects of good practice already evident.
vi. I would act as an enabler, a stimulus and a ‘critical friend’ (Kemmis, 1982). I would
carry out structured and unstructured observations and offer a different perspective
on what was familiar to the EYU team.
vii. The challenge of involving parents in the project was enormous. School staff were
concerned that the home environment for many of the children was not the rich
communication learning environment described in much of the literature. We
decided that in the early stages parents would be kept informed and drawn in where
possible, but that the initial focus would be that which was within our sphere of
influence - the school environment and the communications within it. There was
always some discomfort with not having a more ambitious agenda of partnership
with parents.
4
Phase one: Data collection and reflection
Unstructured observation
Observation and discussion were our key tools from the outset. The pressure on staff time
from the everyday practice of their work meant that time to step back, look, think and talk
were highly valued. I spent a first day observing the EYU in action, appreciating the
pressures and realities of this real-life context. From this I was able to reflect back
another perspective on everyday practice.
My first impressions were that this was a lively, child-centred environment with much
activity and energy. With so many children and so much activity it was highly
stimulating on the senses. Nonetheless, it felt purposeful and not frenzied. Staff were
calm and sometimes playful; there was no shouting and plenty of negotiating and
discussing. The communication learning opportunities appeared to be extensive.
There were three types of session across the children’s school day. One was baseroom
whole group time in which the children divided into their three base groups for a session
led by the teacher. The content of these sessions varied but they each involved rehearsing
some of the competences of being a pupil: sitting still, looking towards the front,
listening, putting up a hand to speak, taking turns. The next type of session was free play
in which the children mixed and were given considerable autonomy to choose their
activity, location, playmates, and even when to pause for a drink and snack. This took the
bulk of the time. Within this context there occurred the third type of session - small group
or individual teaching and assessment in which children might be encouraged to draw
and talk about their pictures, play a basic board game and so on.
Reflecting on the unstructured observation
This looked like the kind of learning environment an EYU should be providing. Much of
what I saw endorsed what the team were trying to do. It was undoubtedly a rich context
for early learning but was it a rich context for early language learning? A child could
experience a range of communications with a range of communication partners but could
they also avoid such communications?
Structured observation
We needed more structured observations to gather data to answer this question. In the
unstructured, child-led time it was impossible to monitor all of the children but we agreed
that I should observe
a) a series of child-child and child-adult communications
b) one child for a whole session attempting to record all their communicative
exchanges.
5
To assist reflection and discussion the transcripts were transcribed and analysed for:
adult or child agenda; open or closed questions; responses and directives; turnabouts;
function and content.
Outside stimulus
Although the focus of the project was the practice within the EYU, we did not want to
become too inward looking. Part of my role was to stimulate reflection by injecting ideas
from other research projects and good practice. This took the form of leaving material
with the EYU staff, suggesting texts to buy and providing them with accessible
summaries of research papers (see Appendix X for an example). Practitioners at the
chalkface often do not have time to engage with literature and keep up with research
(Nind, 1997) and the accessible summaries were a way of bringing these into the project.
There was also an expectation that anyone who came across any material of use should
share it, and without pressure to do so, this happened very informally. Some of the
accessible summaries of relevant research informed our discussions and proved to be
invaluable stimuli for reflection and action.
Reflection and discussion
The combination of unstructured and structured observation, reading and heightened
awareness of the issues gave rise to two key discussion points. Firstly, what would an
optimum communication/language learning environment look like? Secondly, how did
this environment match up?
What did we know about optimum communication learning environments from our
knowledge of communication in the earliest stages and in home settings? What did we
know about optimum communication learning environments from our knowledge of good
early years practice? How could we combine these into an optimum model for us to work
towards? This focus enabled a reciprocal sharing of expertise and a shared task of
creating a picture of what we wanted to work towards.
The outcome can be summarised as:



Play that is child initiated, child maintained, mutually pleasurable and has familiar
routines based on joint attention and turn-taking. Play that involves props to aid
understanding and adults modeling, guiding, questioning, reminding.
Opportunities for children to talk to adults, peers, small and large groups and to use
different types of communication.
Adult speech characterized by a conversation-eliciting style (Ogilvy et al, 1992):
Speech that is slower than adult-adult speech, with simple sentence construction and
vocabulary. Frequent open questions, with rising intonation and expectant pause.
Modeling of appropriate speaking and listening. Lots of repetition, melodic
intonation, exaggerated pitch and rhythm, and dialogue about activities, feelings,
surroundings, and most importantly the child’s or a joint focus of interest. Short
6
speaking turns that do not attempt to direct the child’s response and that are not overloaded with information.
 An interactive style that is relaxed and child oriented, responsive rather than directive,
sensitive to possible initiations and intentions and well matched with the child’s
developmental level, learning style and interests. Use of eye contact, physical
positioning, body language, facial expression, touch and children’s names to gain and
hold their attention. Providing thinking time and giving positive responses whether or
not answers are ‘correct’. Attempting to use children’s first language and checking
their understanding, tuning in to individuals’ idiosyncratic communications.
We began an ongoing evaluation of the communications within the EYU in the light of
our good practice model. A question arising from the data collected from the observation
was whether the balance of time spent in adult-directed baseroom activities and childdirected free play provided the optimum communication environment. Related to this was
the question of whether the communication styles in each should be so contrasting. In the
free play sessions the communications were mostly child-led, following a child-agenda
but influenced by the adult’s choice of materials and occasional prompt or intervention.
In the baseroom sessions, in contrast, many of the communications were adult-led, often
following an adult-agenda at the adult’s tempo. The children’s role here was often
passive and the adult’s role was largely managerial.
The stimulus of other studies helped us to focus on the appropriateness of this. Hughes
and Westgate (1997) looked at whether having a range of adults in early years classrooms
resulted in the desired range of talk styles, but found an over-emphasis on ‘teacherly’
styles across roles. The teacherly role involved the adult in controlling and dominating
the discourse, initiating and evaluating the pupil’s response in an initiation-responseevaluation format. This was typical of the baseroom sessions whichever adult led them.
Ogilvy et al (1992) discuss the relative merits of a directive or conversation-eliciting
interaction style noting that the directive style can inhibit linguistic and intellectual
development and limits the children’s opportunities to make contributions. A more
controlling style has been repeatedly found to characterize parents’ (Hanzlik and
Stephenson, 1986; Marfo, 1990) and teachers’ (Brophy & Hancock, 1985) interactions
with children with special needs and Ogilvy et al found this was also the case with Asian
compared to Scottish children in a Scottish nursery. We became conscious of a more
directive style in the EYU both when the children were unresponsive communication
partners and when staff were managing large groups.
An excerpt from the transcript of a teaching session involving Julia (reception teacher)
and Mark (a child who spoke at home but rarely in school) illustrates the first scenario:
7
MARK
Julie &
Mark at
table
with
playmobil
kitchen.
Mid free
play pm
activity
Looking at pieces together
Start looking through leaflet
J points to picture
Puts blue box on dresser
Holds up knife
Other child who’s joined us goes
to answer
adult
communication
J: what goes in there?
Is there a little blue box?
You look in there
I’ll look in here
I can’t see a blue box
Is it in there?
We’ve got the castle one
haven’t we
What do you put in a
kitchen?
Its there, so it sits on there
What’s this?
It’s a (pregnant pause)
Let Mark say it
child
communication
Looks at J, no attempt to
answer
Shrugs shoulders
Looks at J, no attempt to
answer
The idea of the session is to use the play materials to stimulate language and imagination,
but when Mark does not play his part as communication partner Julia does his talking for
him in a one-sided dialogue. She works harder and harder but her questions are contrived
and she leaves few natural pauses and little developmental space. Shutting down
communications with children when there are communication difficulties led to
breakdown in reciprocal communication in Ogilvy et al’s study and this was something
we were seeking to avoid. The challenge of how to communicate with noncommunicating children was one the EYU staff were familiar with, but for which they
had few ideas or answers. The Intensive Interaction approach and the research it is
founded on illuminates helpful ways to understand and respond to this challenge. Before
children can be effective communication partners they need to learn and rehearse what
communication involves. We can help by structuring proto-conversations in which turns
of a kind are created by our leaving pauses and treating behaviours as if they are
communicative turns. Bombarding the child with more of our activity is far less effective
than holding back whilst being available and ready to be responsive (Nind and hewett,
2001).
The following excerpt illustrates a similar adult-domination but in the second scenario of
a large nursery group. This is a ‘show and tell’ session in which the intention is that the
children lead. The children take it in turns to come to the front to talk about a toy they
have brought in from home. Cathy, the teacher begins with a relaxed open question but
none of her questions follow on from the child’s responses. She has over 20 children to
manage making a contribution and she remains firmly in control of the direction of the
8
dialogue. The contingent responding of our ideal model was not achieved in this
example.
Cathy:
Steve:
Cathy:
Steve:
Cathy:
Steve:
Cathy:
Steve:
Cathy:
Steve:
What have you got here?
Max O’Steele.
What does he do?
(Demonstrates by activating his voice, murmur of interest from the other
children, but Cathy moves on.)
Do his arms move?
(demonstrates)
And where did you get this from?
For my birthday.
Where does he live at home?
In my toy box.
Observations and discuss also led us to reflect on the limited opportunities for more small
group work in which both adult and child could adopt different communication styles.
Again the research summaries stimulated self-evaluation. Cicognani and Zani (1992) had
explored teacher-children interaction in a nursery school (and related literature) and
found that the way in which an early years environment is organized influences the
quality of teacher talk and in turn children’s language development. It was highly
pertinent to our project that Cicognani and Zani (1992) highlighted a difference between
establishments focusing on institutional needs and those focusing on children’s needs. In
the former teachers’ language tends toward closed questions and guiding children’s
behaviour, which does not stimulate children to spontaneously initiate an interaction,
whilst in the latter teachers’ language tends toward a more responsive style, allowing for
children’s free participation. Moreover, their study raised our awareness that when
talking to a group teachers use a more directive style and the bigger the group the poorer
the linguistic input and the greater the concern to keep to pre-set themes. With bigger
groups children’s communicative intentions are also more likely to escape the teacher
(Cicognani and Zani, 1992). In a big EYU with large numbers of children the scene was
set for unresponsiveness despite efforts to create a child-focused environment. The extent
to which large group work was helpful for communication and language learning was put
into question.
Possibilities for action included amending the teachers’ interaction style in large groups
and/or amending the proportion of time spent in the large groups. To try to understand
whether the balance between teacher-led large group time and child-led free play time
was as good as it might be we also needed to scrutinize the latter some more. We needed
to know whether the children acted as good communication partners for each other and
what the adult-child communications were like in this informal context. What
communication learning opportunities did the free play provide and what were the
implications for the organization of the day?
9
The excerpt below is taken from a transcript of the children’s communication in the
dressing up and play shop area.
NATHAN
Near end
of freeplay pm.
In dressing
up corner
activity
adult
communication
child
communication
(to self) Batman kills jokers.
If you press my shoulder I
disappear. Press my belt,
I’m human again.
I got money.
Do you want to buy
something. You want that
okay. That makes 50
dollars.
S: what you doing there
Batman?
N: I’m making shops
S: I know you’re Batman
but you don’t get Batman
in Co-ops.
N: It kills joker thing. You
can be Robin.
S: No I’m staying Sue.
N: I got Robin costume at
home. You can be Batgirl.
S: No I don’t want to.
M: Debra, you wanna buy?
S: Me and Debra can buy
that, both of us.
N is wearing batman costume
Dances around enjoying
costume and comes across till
on shop counter.
Plays as if has customers.
Another child, Sue comes to the
shop counter
Another child, Debra arrives.
Nathan is not one of the children for whom there is concern about language development.
His play is full of egocentric and imaginative language. His interactions with his peers
focus on a joint agenda with good responsiveness. Other children are less communicative
and I found Vincent often on the edge of child-child communications as in the following
example.
activity
Mid
free-play
pm,
Vincent
joins the
waterplay
area.
T sheds coat and puts on apron
Presents his shirt cuffs to me
Joins R and 2 other boys in waterplay
Other children immersed in
imaginative dialogue about a
shower coming down as they
adult
communication
Me: What do you want me
to do?
Me: Undo them?
child
communication
V: Can you do this for me
(to me)
V: No response
V: Nods
V: Get me some water (to
boys)
10
pour, V is on edge of their play.
Looks at me
Another child approaches &
greets, V doesn’t respond.
Second child puts face in V’s
Others chatting quietly to each
other in imaginative play as they
walk plastic elephants around
water’s edge. V plays apart,
occasional glances at others.
Haydn splashes and jiggles V’s
elephants
Playful pushing and pulling of
elephants
Me: Is the water cold?
V: Smiles
Ch: hello Vince
Ch: hello
V: smiles
H: you won’t get wet will
you Vince
V: yeah
V: (to me) Haydn messed
my elephants up
Me: Can you un-mess
them?
V: Know what Haydn
Know what Richie
This is a swimming pool.
Vincent does not have well-developed strategies for involving himself with the other
children’s conversation and he seems to lack confidence. Nonetheless the relaxed,
informal situation gives him plenty of time and scope to gradually get involved. The
other children adapt their communications to involve him, one putting his face in
Vincent’s to emphasize that a response to his greeting is required, another using physical
play rather than language to involve Vincent. Eventually Vincent relaxes into the style of
language of the other boys.
Another feature of this and many of the transcripts collected is that a near-by adult is
often drawn in to the play or conversation – often as a helper or problem-solver. This
highlighted for the EYU staff the power of quiet proximity. Without a task or
conversation agenda the body language of the observer is very undemanding. Children
are unpressured by this and often want to draw the adult in. The Intensive Interaction
approach, based on an optimal model of caregiver-infant interaction, makes use of this
adult proximity and pause – the need to hold back our behaviour and language to engage
the active involvement of the child. EYU staff rarely took the time to sit closely and
observe and so were not attuned to these benefits. The whole issue of the relationship
between activities or type and amount of play equipment and the quality of
communicative exchanges was under review.
The following excerpt was one of many that highlighted for us how much conversation
was about finding materials.
activity
first free
play of
pm
Dragons
T cutting out pictures from
birthdays cards and sticking on
paper
Cutting out
adult
communication
child
communication
I’m making a door (to
nearby child – no response)
I can draw on sellotape (to
self)
11
room
craft
area
Colouring felt pen on sellotape
Me: Maybe Anne-Marie
will know where to get
more
Cutting a fringe
Walks off to ask for tape, stops
and shows older child her picture
Looks for scissors and finds
Pursues activity in silence
Other child pulls off tape
T pushes Crystal away
AM: Sorry I was a long
time, I went to the office
but I couldn’t find any. I’ll
put it here.
M: Debra’s got some
Crystal goes off with tape
T goes in search of Crystal and
tape
There aint no more sellotape
(to air)
Will you look after my
picture? (to Me) I’m making
tassels.
Where are the scissors?
No, here.
Crystal, you’re wasting it
(whine)
Oh Crystal (exasperated)
She’s taking it (to me)
C: I need some sellotape
S: Crystal, where have you
gone (to air)
One can argue that such contexts teach the children about some of the functions of
language, but we were concerned that the impact of the lack of materials was restricting
the richness of dialogue. Another concern was that the demands felt by staff to be
managing multiple agenda and requests for attention meant that they were not as
responsive in their communication style as they might be. Caroline, head of the EYU was
not surprised but nonetheless concerned by the lack of pauses, open questions or other
aspects of a conversation-eliciting style in the next extract.
activity
free play
of pm
Mon 5
Feb
Finishes picture and hovers near
teacher, Caroline
C looks up
Distracted by computer noise,
turns away to ask for it to be
quietened
adult
communication
Caroline
C: bring it round here, let
me see
That’s lovely isn’t it. You
could make a handle to
hang it up, like we did to
that one over there.
T goes in search of hole punch
They hole punch together,
attending to task more than each
other.
Looks up questioningly.
T goes off with picture.
child
communication
Is this the thing?
Do you know how it works
(no pause). You really
want the holes in the
middle don’t you (no
pause). Slide it in and I’ll
push it. That’s it. Do you
want more holes?
Your mum can hang it up.
12
The child-child communications were influenced by the culture of the EYU. The staff
had a clear policy never to shout but always to talk through clashes and arguments. They
modeled negotiating and articulated EYU rules on a frequent basis. In a structured
observation in which I attempted to record all the communications of one child, Kieron,
it was evident that this was concern with talking through good behaviour was pervasive.
Analysis showed that of 58 child-communications 64% were about rules in some way.
29% of his communications were negotiating rules (I want to have a turn), 35% reporting
rule breaking (I said excuse me please and he said no) or rule adherence (he said can I
have it and I give it), 19% of communications had functions related to playing (this have
to be a smoke, this have to be a fire) and 12 % showing (this is smoke, look). The amount
of reporting of rule behaviour that went on was undoubtedly distorted by his always
having an adult nearby (observing him) to report to! In shadowing Kieron, I also recorded
49 adult-child communications. Of these, 30% were negotiating rules (oh you want a
turn, what do you think Brian?), 20% responding (what ones love?), 20% achievement
oriented (do you think that’ll be big enough?) and only 8% directives (its time to tidy up).
This implied that, as we had expected, the ratio of responsive to directive adult language
was very different in the free play and teacher-led sessions.
There was one major exception to this, however, in the form of a large group baseroom
news sharing activity. This was a largely unplanned and spontaneous end of the afternoon
session in which the children came to the front and reported on what they had been doing
that afternoon before choosing their successor. The immediacy of the subject matter
helped to make conversation flow and the power to choose who had the next turn was
highly motivating. The following extracts from the transcript show how the teacher, Julia,
resisted dominating and how, even in very short turns, the children successfully involved
their peers. The agenda is usually a child or joint agenda and there is plenty of
affirmation, support and responsiveness. The children in this session are learning about
different uses of language and about their power as communicators to a large group.
What said,
by whom
Type of contribution &
function
Topic of
conversation
Child agenda (CA)
Adult agenda (AA)
Joint topic (J)
Information giving
CA
Julie’s class
Show & tell news time
end of p.m.
Ch: I been outside playing with Toby
and Matthew. What was it again we
were playing with, them things, the
window cleaners.
Teacher: Mmm, are you going to choose
someone to swop with?
Ch: No, I aint finished. I was with a boy
and with Colin and Steve and when it
was tidy up time I quickly got that time
thing.
T: Was that the sand timer?
Ch: Yeah, were we quick yeah.
T: Mmm. Have you finished telling your
news?
Involving others
Supporting; moving on
Closed Question
Responding
Information giving
AA
Clarifying; aiding vocab
Responding, Involving others
Responing, moving on
Closed Question
J
CA
13
Ch: Yeah, I choose Buddy
Buddy: I been playing with… lists half a
dozen names.
[Pauses – hands go up from children
wanting next turn; shakes head at several
children, exaggerated expression to
show difficulty choosing]
Vincent
Teacher: So many to choose from. Okay
Vincent, tell them your news.
Vincent: I was sticking.
I choose , er, Geoff.
T: Thank you Vincent.
[…]
H: Yeah. I been… Geoff is talking. I
been doing making a fire engine. A big
one. Build and build and then Darren
had a good idea. Put 2 wheels like…
like… and attach them like.
T: That was a big word you used then,
attach. I bet if you asked them they
wouldn’t know what that means.
H: What does attach mean?
[Hands go up]
Darren
Darren: It means get lost
H: No. Sid
Sid: It means put together.
Responding, Info giving
Info giving
J
Involving others
J
Info giving
CA
Affirming
Responding, Info giving
CA
Responding, Praising
J
Elaborating
Involving others, Open
question
Choosing
Responding
Responding. Choosing
J
J
J
J
Our enjoyment of the richness of the communication in this session was reinforced by our
reading of Danielwicz, Rogers& Noblit’s (1996) study of children’s discourse patterns
and power relations in teacher-led and child-led sharing time. Danielwicz et al looked at
the language development opportunities offered by the common early years/ primary
practice of sharing time/ show and tell. They analyzed one teacher’s sharing time as it
evolved from a teacher-led to a child-led format. We could make connections with the
description of traditional sharing time in which the teacher guides the children’s thinking
and talk, keeping the children on task to her agenda and the children speak the language
of school modeled by the teacher, responding to the her script and sometimes even
speaking the words she insists upon. The meaningfulness of the speech is this context is
limited. When the children in the Danielwicz et al study led the sharing time they retained
some of the teacher’s ground rules, but introduced a new role for the sharer of not just
choosing the topic, but also facilitating the group’s participation. They used language for
social relationships and achieved greater participation and more collaborative dialogue
than the teacher had They practiced getting and holding the floor, telling stories, playing
with language (there were echoes of this in our session), hearing each other’s
perspectives. The talk in this context was meaningful. The summary of this research,
together with the transcript of the successful sharing time, acted a stimulus to for us to
ask what role the teacher should adopt during sharing time and what would happen if we
experimented with more child-led sharing time.
14
Phase Two: exploratory action
The outcome of the discussion of our ‘data’ was a range of actions to try out. These came
from the EYU staff based on what they felt could and should be attempted in enhancing
the communication learning environment. The actions included:
Action
Increased use of small group time
Rationale
To offer communication styles between the
managerial adult-led and the free child-led.
To allow children more varied
opportunities to communicate.
To enhance the support for communication
for children who were unable or unwilling
to communicate in other contexts.
To create opportunities for task-free time
dedicated to quality communication and
interaction.
Observation and review of which activities
have communications closest to the
optimum model
To gain a better understanding of the
optimal communication learning
environment in this real life context.
To achieve a good balance of activities for
communication and other learning.
Introduce more use of child-led ‘show and
tell’ and sharing time.
Create opportunities for communication
about things that are very familiar/ from
home culture e.g. comics, action man.
To provide very safe topics as vehicles for
rehearsing communication skills.
To make connections with the language of
home.
To change the dynamics of the large group
baseroom sessions so not always adult-led
and child-passive.
Structured observation of each other and
sharing of critical feedback.
To give the EYU staff direct experience of
observing communications within the unit.
To help each other work towards the
optimum model.
To foster further insights from further
observations.
Continuing reflection and discussion.
To maintain the action research cycle.
15
Phase Three: Evaluation of actions, reflection and planning again
After a term [check] of action I returned to ask what had changed in the EYU. The
following changes were reported:
a) More opportunities had been created for small group work e.g. smaller circle
times, small group outings, more use of the small quiet room.
b) All classes were using child-led ‘show and tell’/ sharing time sessions.
c) Practical things had been done to eliminate the need for lots of interruptions and
basic communications of needs for equipment (they had ordered more
sellotape!!).
d) They were more likely to engage in a conscious process of decision-making when
there were competing agendas and interruptions. Sometimes they prioritized the
quality of the communication over other needs.
e) They had carried out observations of adult-child dialogue
To evaluate these changes we had to reflect on whether they had enhanced practice. All
staff enthused about the greater effectiveness of the smaller groups where the less
communicative children were now talking. This had an accumulative effect in
encouraging them to seek more opportunities for this. The need for quality language
sessions in which the adult could respond to the communications of a small group had
become increasing apparent and they were pursuing the need for more staff.
On a less positive note staff were still frustrated by how much conversation was getting
interrupted as they played multiple, simultaneous roles (conversation partner, rule
negotiator, keeping children on track, supplying equipment needs). They feel they had
improved things with this a little by managing equipment availability and by being aware
of the decisions they made about who or what to prioritize. Conducting the observations
of each other had made them acutely aware of the problems with this. The observations
had also indicated that outdoor play seemed to support particularly rich and child-led
language.
The child-led ‘show and tell’/ sharing time sessions were also felt to have led to much
more child language in the baseroom sessions. Staff reported that children with English
as an additional language were taking turns in this and using all kinds of communication
strategies to get their meaning across. Mark, a child whose reluctance to talk had caused
considerable concern was taking his turn to tell his peers about things and to answer
questions. The staff themselves reported that they were more aware of the need to
mediate but not dominate these sessions.
I went back to observe some of these sessions. I saw the challenge for the youngest
children in going to the front to talk and the importance of teacher, Cathy’s, close
presence and warm body language in supporting their turns. I saw with the youngest
children some use of imaginative language:
16
Theresa:
Cathy:
(holding her doll brought in from home) She cries. Like going to the
doctor. She’s got a headache. I kiss her.
What’s your baby’s name?
(this is a baby – not a dolly – is this Cathy joining the imaginative world Theresa has
created?)
Moving on to observe a reception class session I found both a richness in the language
and interaction and a multitude of questions I wanted to ask to continue to feed the
reflective process. In my field diary I noted the ritual for the activity which is so
important to human interaction and some of the dialogue:
The children’s things brought in from home for showing have already been gathered. The
children are seated on the carpet and the teacher’s chair is vacant – Caroline is on the
floor with the children. There is an atmosphere of anticipation that makes the children
bubbly so establishing quiet before they begin takes a little while. Caroline chooses
Benjamin to begin because of how helpful he has been – this is a privilege. She reminds
them of the rules, when someone is speaking they must listen carefully, the person on
the chair talking can choose two people to ask questions and is responsible for selecting
the next person for the hand over of roles.
Benjamin takes the chair and begins:
I got these two and I try to go and I put this on the floor and I got a taxi
(holds up toy taxi) and I choose Charlie.
(His language is rushed and not easy to follow, but he is enjoying leading. He is
concerned with the ritual.)
Charlie:
Benjamin:
Charlie:
Caroline:
Can I hold it?
Yeah (hands it over)
Do the doors open? (Benjamin demonstrates)
And the boot? (they test)
And the … (they look at the bonnet but don’t have the vocabulary,
Caroline helps them out).
Bonnet, it’s a bonnet.
(There is genuine shared interest here. They are huddled over the taxi and focused; it’s
hard for the other children to see. The questions are answered by showing rather than
explaining. I saw this a lot in the nursery session too – is it because there is a concrete
object that struggling with the language isn’t necessary?)
[…]
(The next child in the chair is more animated and has a stronger idea of how to tell a
story about his object.)
H:
H:
K:
K:
Do you know what, when I got lots of smiley faces my mum bought me
some bubbles and this, and I’m learning to do this…
(shows bat with small ball attached by elastic, demonstrates how to keep a sequence of
bounces going. Looks around at all the eager hands up – they are interested in the toy –
the focus is on the things not the language – is this a good or bad thing? will lively
language come out of the interest in the toys? H is concerned with the rules)
You two had a go… I choose Kirsty
Kirsty takes the chair in a confident manner and begins talking immediately:
I got one of these from Christmas, but I’m too old for them.
(She takes the toy from H and there are hushed, slightly stressed negotiations about her
playing with it. J holds the audience…
I like to choose Sid. (Sid comes forward but doesn’t get a chance to ask
17
K:
a question) Shall I show you what to do Sid to play with it (barely pauses and
demonstrates) You just do something with this. Then you can cut that bit off
(elastic) and play tennis with it. Shall I show you how it can bounce. Sid shall I
show you how it bounces.
(There is lively, ‘silly’ playing until J takes her own toy out and takes the chair again.)
This is Fizz (holds up small Tweenies doll) and she can dance. (Makes her
dance and sings in giggly manner) wibble wobble wibble wobble fizzy on a plate.
(appreciates all the gigglying then resumes more seriously) I gonna choose
somebody else. You had a go. S. Shall I show you (demonstrates with fizz) Turn
the body like that.
(K is clearly much more confident with language. She knows it power, combined with her
lively performance, to hold an audience. Yet she gives the other children little chance to
speak. How can she be helped to move on with real dialogue?)
(Caroline asks one of the Turkish children to ask another Turkish child if she likes Fizz.
There is a quick exchange in their home language and he reports back “she said yes”,
the girl is smiling broadly. I am moved by this – the way peers are used to support each
other – the way the girl is brought into the activity. Now I wonder – can this can grow into
questions with more than single word answers?)
[…]
Eleni:
(holds doll) My cousin stayed two nights and hers played with the dollies
with me. Hers stayed another night but her had to go home. I like to
choose Nikki.
(Confusion here with grammar, she doesn’t use ‘she’, it isn’t corrected, I think Caroline’s
right to leave it – this isn’t the time or place.)
Ch:
Nikki’s already had a go.
Nikki:
(whispers)
Eleni:
Do you want to hold it?
Caroline:
Remember to choose someone who hasn’t had a turn.
Another ch: Where did you get it from?
Eleni: My mum.
Caroline:
Who’s Eleni going to choose to go next. Right Eddie’s on the chair
(Caroline has kept a very low profile – her talk has not dominated at all – but now she is
anxious about the time and so is intervening to move things along – this is the teacher’s
need to use language to manage that we have talked about.)
[…]
Evan:
(in the chair) It’s a pencil and its got this on the top. You can take it off
and it’s got writing on and I can read it. I bought it in… I found it in a box
of cereal.
Caroline:
Do you want to ask a friend? Who do you want to choose Evan? Someone
who hasn’t done any talking.
Evan:
Anne-Marie
Anne-Marie: What cereal did it come in?
Evan:
Jacket … (unsure)
(It becomes interesting here in that there is a collaborative endeavour between staff and
children to clarify – offering ideas to Evan – “jacket potatoes”, “Sugarpuffs”. In the end
they live with uncertainty, having established it came with cereals but not which sort.)
From the observed session in our final session together we discussed some complex
issues, without necessarily finding the answers. Firstly, how does the set rule structure
18
help and how does it hinder? Does it mean that staff can speak less as the children are
managing the activity for themselves – or do staff have to intervene to enforce the rules?
Are the children rushing because of the pressure of handing over to the next child soon?
Does the requirement of one-at-a-time interfere with natural, fluent dialogue between
children? Secondly, are toys from home the best stimulus? They lead to a good deal of
animation and interest, but they lead into demonstrations, holding and doing more than
talking and explaining. Would this be the Side with all objects? What would happen with
novel things found on a nature walk, for example, or gadgets they don’t immediately
know the function of? Thirdly, what balance is needed between practice and challenge?
Do the children need to ask the much used questions such as ‘where did you get it from?’
over and over before they gain the confidence to try new questions. Do they need to be
able to ask a range of questions each time to build up to more complex ones? And once
again, what is the adult’s role in the sessions? Part of the role is to hold back and let the
children lead, but when is intervention helpful? Is there a role in modeling different kinds
of questions or new vocabulary and grammatical structures or for encouraging deeper
responses?
It some ways it was important that we did not have the answers to all of these questions.
This helped to keep everyone involved equally - all and none of use were experts. We
had our good practice model as an anchor and we had our observations and our dialogue
as our tools. There were more variations to try and more discussions to be had.
Further reflections
In the meeting in which we were evaluating the term’s actions I introduced the question
of whether there was a need to blend in some special education practice. Our agreed
approach, based on inclusive thinking, had been to work on the communication
environment for all children. We had focused on giving children the best possible chance
to do well without specific, individualized strategies. It was felt that the developmentally
appropriate early years practice had been enhanced and that children were benefiting. I
was now raising the possibility of unintrusively embedding, within the typical routines
and activities, something more for children for whom there had been particular concern.
(I was moved to do this having just read an excellent discussion of the differences and
similarities between developmentally appropriate early years practice and early childhood
special education (Atwater, Carta, Schwartz & McConell, 1994.) The response to this
idea from EYU staff and SENCO was simply that it was not necessary.
The interactions of the children with more severe communication difficulties were seen
as a useful indicator of how effectively the communication learning environment had
been enhanced. That Mark and others had become willing and able communicators was
reinforcing for staff who were feeling more effective. The importance of feelings of
efficacy in maintaining reciprocity in communication/interaction is well-recognised in
Intensive Interaction (Nind and Hewett, 1994) and in early caregiver-infant interaction
(Goldberg, 1977). It is a lack of feelings of efficacy that contribute to a breakdown in
reciprocity and ultimately to a more controlling style. The complex, transactional
relationships that we know to impact on children’s development were in evidence here
19
(Guess and Sailor, 1993). The adults had altered their thinking and style, each
maintaining the other, which in turn had led to children interacting and communicating
differently which again informed the adults’ thinking and style and so on.
We revisited our original agenda and early concerns and asked where would we go from
here? We resolved that the original plan to share what we did and learnt still felt
important and that I would do this nationally and EYU staff locally. We knew that we
had not tackled the issue of parent-child communication, but staff felt more ready to
address this with their deeper insights. They decided to continue the project in a low key
way, calling on me as and when they saw a need for a conversation.
In inclusive terms, the learning opportunities the children in Honilands EYU experienced
had been altered to better match both their needs and desires. Pressures to engage in
activities that were not developmentally appropriate were increasingly resisted by the
staff who were willing to use models of communication learning at the earliest stages, as
well as models of good early years practice, to inform their teaching. Children whose
communication competence was causing concern were helped without any action to
pathologize them. A ‘transformative’ rather than ‘normative’ lens (Ainscow, 1999) on
their difficulties led to enhancement of the communication learning environment for all
children.
In action research terms, this was a project in which talking was a crucial tool. The
observations, the research summaries and the everyday experiences of the EYU staff
provided the subject matter. From here conversation and action were integrally linked. As
Feldman (1999, p.133) has argued conversation is not a prelude or postscript to action,
conversation can lead to action, follow action or be a part of action. Feldman’s
conclusion that in action research projects, however informal, conversation is a process of
inquiry and meaning making was true of this project. For us the reflections on practice
were every bit as important and inseparable from the activity of trying out new things.
References
Anning, A. (1998) Appropriateness or effectiveness in the early childhood curriculum in
the UK: some research evidence, International Journal of Early Years Education, 6(3),
299-314.
Atwater, J.B., Carta, J.J., Schwartz, I.S. & McConnell, S.R. (1994) ‘Blending
developmentally appropriate practice and early childhood special education: redefining
best practice to meet the needs of all children’, in: B.L. Mallory & R.S. New (Eds)
Diversity and Developmentally Appropriate Practices: Challenges for Early Childhood
Education. New York: Teachers College Press.
20
Brophy, K. & Hancock, S. (1985) Adult-child interaction in an integrated preschool
programme: implications for teacher training, Early Child Development and Care, 22,
275-294.
Cicognani, E. & Zani, B. (1992) Teacher-children interactions in a nursery school: an
exploratory study, Language and Education, 6(1), 1-12.
Early Childhood Forum (1998) Quality in Diversity: A framework for Early Childhood
Practitioners. London: NCB.
Goldberg, S. (1977) Social competence in infancy: a model of parent-infant interaction,
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 23, 163-177.
Guess, D & Sailor, W. (1993) Chaos theory and the study of human behaviour:
implications for special education and developmental disabilities, The Journal of Special
Education, 27(1), 16-34.
Hanzlik, J.R. and Stevenson, M.B. (1986) Interaction of mothers with their infants who
are mentally retarded, retarded with cerebral palsy, or nonretarded, American Journal of
Mental Deficiency, 90, 513-520.
Hughes, M. and Westgate, D. (1997) Assistants as talk partners in early-years
classrooms: some issues of support and development. Educational Review, 49, 5-12.
Kaye, K. and Charney, R. (1981) ‘How mothers maintain dialogue with two year olds’.
In D. Olson (Ed) Social Foundations of Language and Thought. London: Norton Press.
Kemmis, S. (1982) ‘Action research’ In T. Husen and T. Poselthwaite (eds) International
Encyclopaedia of Research. Pergamon.
Mahoney, G. & Wheelden, C.A. (1999) The effect of teacher style on interactive
engagement of pre-school-aged children with special learning needs, Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 14(1), 51-68.
Marfo, K. (1990) Maternal directiveness in interactions with mentally handicapped
children: an analytical commentary, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 31(4),
531-549.
Mirenda, P.L. and Donnellan, A.M. (1986) Effects of adult interaction style in
conversational behaviour in students with severe communication problems, Language,
Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 17, 126-141.
Moerk, E.L. (1992) A First Language: Taught and Learned. Baltimore, MD: Paul H.
Brookes.
Nind, M. (1997) The potential role of teacher-researchers in in-service education, British
Journal of In-Service Education, 23(2), 231-40.
21
Nind, M. & Hewett, D. (1994) Access to Communication: Developing the Basics of
Communication with People with Severe Learning Difficulties through Intensive
Interaction. London: David Fulton.
Nind, M. & Hewett, D. (2001) A Practical Guide to Intensive Interaction. Kidderminster:
British Institute of Learning Disabilities.
Nind, M., Kellett, M. & Hopkins, V. (2001) Teachers’ talk styles: communication with
learners with severe learning difficulties, Child Language, Teaching and Therapy, 17(2),
143-159.
Nind, M. & Cochrance, S. (in press) Inclusive curricula? Pupils on the margins of special
schools, International Journal of Inclusive Education.
Ogilvy, C.M., Boath, E.H., Cheyne, W.M., Jahoda, G. & Schaffer, H.R. (1992) Staffchild interaction styles in multi-ethnic nursery schools, British Journal of Developmental
Psychology, 10, 85-97.
Papousek, M. (1995) ‘Origins of reciprocity and mutuality in prelinguistic parent-infant
‘dialogues’’. In I. Markova, C.F. Grauman and K. Foppa (eds) Mutualities in Dialogue.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pugh, G. (Ed.) Contemporary Issues in the Early Years: Working Collaboratively for
Children. London: Paul Chapman.
Sadler, J. and Mogford-Bevan, K. (1997) Teacher talk’ with children with language
disorders: four case studies II, Child language, Teaching and Therapy, 13, 37-58.
22