Preschool Math Conversations: An Ethnographic Study of One Classroom

ly about texts even before entering school. 73 Book-sharing time is one very important activity for socializing children into the use of abstract language. However, other researchers have examined parental modeling of abstract language during other activities, such as during mealtimes (Beals, 1993) or during play with play-doh (Sorsby & Martlew, 1991). van Kleeck and colleagues (1997) suggested that book-sharing is the most likely time that parents might scaffold (Wood et al., 1976) children’s development of abstract language because there was no motor activity to distract them. The research of van Kleeck and colleagues (1997, 2011, 2014) suggested that middle-class children enjoyed innumerable opportunities to develop abstract language before arriving at school, perhaps putting lower-income peers at a disadvantage. Academic Language and Literacy Some of the research on academic language has investigated how education professionals help the youngest children (preschoolers and kindergarteners) to learn this language in the context of literacy lessons (Cain & Oakhill, 2007; Cain, Oakhill, Barnes, & Bryant, 2001; Cain, Oakhill, & Elbro, 2003; van Kleeck, 2008). Many of these studies looked at how educators supported the development of academic language through teaching inferencing skills. While many of these studies suggested implications for mathematical language development, none of them addressed this development directly. There is a gap in the literature that must be filled in order to understand how academic language functions in the mathematics classroom. Although the work of van Kleeck (2011, 2014) focused on reading and book sharing, the ultimate focus was on school talk and reasoning, and thus there are clear implications for mathematical talk and reasoning. 74 Layers of Linguistic Difference Most research on linguistic differences in the classroom pertains to students who struggle because they are still learning the English language (DiCerbo, Anstrom, Baker, & Rivera, 2014; Moschkovich, 2007). Other researchers examined students who spoke dialects of English other than Standard American English (Edwards et al., 2014; Labov, 1972) and how this linguistic difference could pose a challenge for learning academic language. For example, speakers of African American English might find themselves left out of academic conversations because of their linguistic minority status. However, the concept of school talk adds a more nuanced layer to the problem of linguistic difference in the classroom. A student can be an English speaker, and even a speaker of Standard American English, and still lack fluency in the specific vocabulary, grammar, and other language conventions associated with mathematical (Halliday, 1978; Pimm, 1987). Because knowledge of this specific style of speech is necessary in order to comprehend and communicate academically (Cazden, 2001; Gee, 2009), teachers must teach it explicitly (Chapin & O’Connor, 2007) or teach in such a way that makes the workings of academic language explicit (Temple & Doerr, 2012). The following sections describe some of the characteristics of academic language. Features of Academic Language at the Preschool Level Very little research exists on educators’ use of mathematical language with preschoolers (Klibanoff et al., 2006). However, research on academic language use with preschoolers is growing (van Kleeck, 2014). It should be noted that much overlap exists between casual or everyday talk and academic talk. Other vocabulary words, 75 grammatical structures (Schleppegrell, 2004), as well as social-interactive and cognitive conventions (van Kleeck, 2014) are specific to academic talk. Here, I will outline the features researchers have identified as being particular to the academic language that teachers use with preschoolers. See Figure 1 for an illustration of how teacher conversation strategies assist students in the linguistic minority in improving their academic language skills within their ZPDs. This assistance occurs in the context of the classroom microculture. Figure 1. Theoretical framework of current research. It is important to note that the features particular to academic language are also often present in the home language of White, middleand upper-class students. Thus, academic language favors these students more than students from other demographics. in a synthesis of literature on preschool classrooms, van Kleeck (2014) described features of academic language, which are related in the following sections. Halliday (1978) and 76 Pimm (1987) described mathematics language in strictly linguistic terms. However, more research is required to describe the characteristics of mathematics language in terms that benefit early childhood teachers who do not have a background in linguistics. The language of school is quite similar to the language spoken in White, middleto upper-middle class homes (Barletta, 2008; Lagrander & Reid, 2000; van Kleeck, 2011). Thus, these students more easily join in on academic conversations. Teachers, for their part, rewarded and reinforce these students’ efforts. Conversely, they tend to dismiss student contributions when those students speaking are linguistic minorities (Heller, 2006). In order to scaffold (Wood et al., 1976) the development of students’ academic language, it is important to review some of the special features of this language. The features outlined below describe academic language. Many of them describe more specific mathematical language as well (Halliday, 1978; Pimm, 1987). Autonomy. Research suggests that U.S. teachers often expect even the youngest students to be autonomous thinkers and speakers (Degotardi & Torr, 2007). Students are expected to express novel opinions as opposed to simply repeating what has already been said. These school cultures value Western individualism over Eastern collectivism. Children are expected to possess unique interests and opinions and to verbalize them. Williams (1999, 2001) examined opening clauses of teacher speech and found that these teachers often modeled verbalization of states of consciousness, saying, “I wonder if . ” or “I hope that . ” In research summarized by Barletta (2008), teachers positively reinforced the speech of students whose speech resembled their own and often 77 dismissed students whose language did not. Thus, students from cultures that value collectivism more than individualism may have been at a disadvantage. Some refer to these marginalized students as linguistic minorities (O’Neal & Ringler, 2010). In this sense, and in others described in the following sections, students can become linguistic minorities in their classrooms. Verbal display. Another expectation that preschool teachers have demonstrated is for students to display their knowledge verbally (Scollon & Scollon, 1981). In some cultures, young children are expected to passively listen to those who possess more expertise than themselves. However, in U.S. schools, teachers deliberately ask questions they already know the answer to in order to elicit answers from young children. The purpose of this practice is for the asker to discover how much or how little the child has learned. Thus, those who supposedly know the least are often in the role of the exhibitionist rather than the spectator. Students from cultures in which young children are accustomed to being spectators may be at a disadvantage. Heath (1983) found that working-class, African-American children were not socialized into this practice. In fact, when adults asked questions children already knew the answer to, it was usually to chide them. However, verbal display was present in music like hip-hop and rap. The function in these forms of music are not to provide information to an authority figure. Unfortunately, Heath (1983) noted, these amazing performances were rarely examined or praised in the classroom setting. Heath also noted that known-answer questions were mostly absent from the socialization of MexicanAmerican children. These adults only asked known-answer questions to tease children. 78 Teachers may also expect preschoolers to verbally display not just their knowledge but also their thought processes. van Kleeck (2006) found that parents sharing books with preschoolers modeled discussion on known information 60% of the time and on making inferences 40% of the time. These two foci reflect the two goals of helping children feel successful and also building upon prior knowledge (van Kleeck et al., 1997). Researchers suggest that these two types of linguistic interaction be used judiciously and in balance (Cazden, 2001). Teachers often expect children to verbally display such thought processes while reading. Formality. It may go without saying that academic language is more formal than is casual language (van Kleeck, 2014). It is said to be more impersonal and more objective. The vocabulary of academic language is more literary and Latinate. Casual language draws from more Germanic lexicon (Bar-Ilan & Berman, 2007). Words and phrases like smart, land, huge, kid, and get are common in casual language. Words like relinquish, fidelity, sequence, inquire, and cognizant are likely to be found only in academic language. Further, contractions and personal pronouns are more likely to be found in casual language, especially the first person nominative, I. Casual language contains more appreciative markers that communicate personal interest (Gee, 2005). A variety of moods are found in casual language (declarative, interrogative, imperative), giving it a more informal sound. The declarative is the most common mood found in academic language (Schleppegrell, 2001). The active voice is most common in casual language, while the passive voice is most common in academic language (Biber, 2003). 79 Discreteness of objects. Once again drawing a distinction between Western (individualistic) and Eastern (collectivist) culture, Nisbett (2004) de