Chapter 1: Developing Talk

W1.1

My Language Family tree

W1.2

Establishing a talk for learning pedagogy

Good practice in supporting talk for learning should begin at the earliest stages.

Lesley is a teacher in a Nursery School where the children are three to four years old, with some provision for two-year-olds. The school serves a highly diverse community and, on average, around 75% of children attending are English language learners. Central to their pedagogical approach is the development of spoken language and the use of conversations between adults and children to promote cognitive development. Strategies that the school policy promotes include:

• Using open-ended questions in the context of shared activities:
  What do you think will happen?
  Where might they be going?
  What would happen if you pour more water in there?
  rather than those that elicit one word answers: What colour is the car?
• Attention to the vocabulary that adults use when talking with children. Practitioners are encouraged to add words to what children might say, for example:
  Child: car
  Adult: Yes it is a very small blue car isn’t it?
  In addition, adults are encouraged to use noun phrases rather than pronouns: Please can you fetch those bright red scissors from the orange scissor pot? instead of: Please can you get one of these from over there?
• Playing alongside children and modelling language whilst engaging in the activity together, including the strategy of commenting:
  I can see you are making a lovely red and blue garage for your fire engine with those blocks.
• Getting down to the children’s physical level so that conversations are easier and all participants faces are broadly level.
• Paying close attention to children’s utterances so that conversations can be built based on child-initiated interests, including episodes of sustained shared thinking.
• Considering vocabulary that is appropriate for the planned activity.

Reference

Reedy, D. and Bearne, E. (2021) Talk for Teaching and Learning: the dialogic classroom.

W1.3

Perceptions survey – spoken language

W1.4

Background paper

The original research by Tizard and Hughes was carried out in the early 1980s but their findings have been considered relevant enough for their book to have been revised and republished several times since then.

In their chapter ‘Working-class verbal deprivation: myth or reality’ (see note about ‘class’ below), Tizard and Hughes point out that social class has a particular influence on education but they question the idea of verbal deprivation in lower socio-economic groups. They cite William Labov, an American linguist, who studied the language of black ghetto children and argues in his paper ‘The logic of non-standard English’ (Labov, 1969) that they grow up in a highly verbal culture and that their dialect has the same kind of complexity and potential for logical thinking as Standard English. So their relative lack of success in formal education cannot be to do with any perceived deficit in these children’s language. Labov explained that children from lower socio-economic groups ‘… tend to become monosyllabic in conversation with authority figures. This apparent verbal deficit … is in reality a response to a social situation which they perceive as threatening’ (Labov cited in Tizard and Hughes, 2007: 110) He illustrates his point by quoting from an interview transcript from one of his research team where one of the children in his study answered questions very briefly, often monosyllabically. When the same interviewer became less formal, sitting on the floor, offering crisps, and bringing another child into the discussion, the greater relaxation of the setting helped the previously reticent child to open up. Labov argued that the social situation ‘is the most important determinant of verbal behaviour’ (ibid.) and that in order to assess a child’s language capacity, the adult must enter into a more equivalent social relationship. Tizard and Hughes point out:

It should be noted that Labov did not claim that there were no social class differences in children’s language. He suggested that lower-class children might need help in learning to be explicit, and in extending their vocabulary, but not in conceptual and logical thinking. Some psychologists, however, have taken the view that there is no real social class difference in language ability. Deficits, they argue, appear only in test situations where working-class children may be less at ease or less well motivated than middle-class children.

Most of the theories we have outlined are based on remarkably little evidence. First, no one has shown exactly how working class children’s verbal deficits result in difficulties in the classroom. What precisely are the language demands which they cannot meet? Secondly, there have been very few first-hand studies of whether language usage does in fact differ in families of different social class. The evidence usually cited refers to very artificial situations, for example, mothers teaching their child a task or playing with them in a university laboratory, or to interviews where mothers were asked to talk about their children. Thirdly, those psychologists who argue that test scores under-estimate working-class children’s language skills have not demonstrated their case by showing that in more natural situations there is no social class difference in those skills. (Tizard and Hughes, 2007: 110)

By observing the mothers and children at home, the researchers could assess if there was evidence for the generalisations often made about language in ‘homes of different social class’ (ibid.). Further, they were able to observe any differences between the language used in school and in the home.

Tizard and Hughes began their analysis by seeing whether they could confirm a pervasive belief about social class and language that ‘no-one talks to children in working class homes’ (ibid. p. 112). (There are interesting parallels in some of the things people say today.) They found no evidence to support this view. There was no significant difference in the number or length of conversations or numbers of words used in the conversations between mothers and daughters. However, the middle-class mothers in the survey tended to make more frequent use of language for complex purposes, and used a wider vocabulary in talking to their children. They more often gave their children a wider range of information and answered more of their children’s ‘why’ questions, often engaging in their imaginative play. On the other hand, the working class mothers tended to give their daughters more family and domestic information and they more often played more exciting and physical games with them.

The children’s talk showed similar, but smaller, social class differences. The working-class girls asked fewer ‘why’ questions overall but their questions were more challenging. They used less extensive vocabulary and were less likely to use language for complex purposes. They spent more time playing than the middle-class children. However, Tizard and Hughes are at pains to point out that the differences were very small and that all mothers used language for complex purposes and at times were very explicit in their explanations. Similarly, all the children at some time asked ‘why’ questions and used language for complex purposes, giving explanations or making comparisons. Tizard and Hughes conclude that their observations showed a difference in frequency of certain kinds of talk. Their findings suggest a difference in style of talk according to differences in values and attitudes.

Transcript examples of conversations

Acknowledging that some teachers are incredulous of their findings, commenting that some children arrive in their schools ‘hardly able to talk’, Tizard and Hughes give extensive transcript examples to explain how some of these perceptions come to be formed. For example, Joyce had been given the opportunity to make a necklace by threading beads on to elastic which she found difficult and after many attempts, she needed help from the teacher to thread each bead. As there were other children to help, the teacher decided to tie off the beads and make them into a bracelet. The nursery assistant, not knowing about Joyce’s previous attempts, tried to get her to thread the beads herself. Joyce eventually gave up trying and put the beads away. Tizard and Hughes transcribe the following conversations:

Joyce drank her milk, played in the playground and went inside. She approached two other members of staff, each time showing her bracelet and commenting that ‘I didn’t do it’, or ‘I didn’t make a necklace’. Each time the staff responded by asking her for colour names, or suggesting that she now make a necklace. (ibid. pp. 170–171)
Joyce could not explain adequately what for her was the most important part of her experience of trying to thread the beads – her disappointment and frustration that she had only made a bracelet, not a necklace.
As none of the adults had been there while Joyce was making numerous attempts to thread the beads, they were unaware of her feelings so could not help her explain them. This is, of course, no-one’s fault, but Tizard and Hughes identify other telling examples of children’s confusion or difficulty in explaining to adults who have a different view of where the conversation should go. June was a child who had been observed playing Knockout Whist with her mother at home. In this extract, she approaches her teacher with a piece of paper:

The teacher tries to use the situation to introduce the mathematical idea that if you cut a piece of paper into two equal pieces, then you have cut in in ‘half’.
These, and other examples, are not intended to denigrate the teacher, but to show how easy it can be not to hear what the child is saying when pursuing a particular trajectory. This teacher wanted, quite understandably, to introduce June to the mathematical concept, but didn’t notice that June had already used this terminology herself when she first asked for the paper to be cut in two – or half!
There are numerous transcript examples in the book, which give detailed examples of children’s talk at home and at school. It is worth delving into more deeply if you are interested in the topic of home and school language, and questions of ‘language deprivation’.

A note about definitions of ‘class’ and ‘poverty’

Definitions of class are very tricky to pin down. For their study, Tizard and Hughes used what were then the Registrar General’s classifications of occupations (now known as ‘Social Class based on Occupation’ classification) so that they had some kind of ‘standard measure’. They selected children from what they describe as ‘middle-class homes’ those where the fathers held professional, managerial and technical occupations and the mothers had either attended college or university and children from ‘working-class’ families where the father was skilled or semi-skilled and the mothers had left school at the minimal school leaving age (Tizard and Hughes, 2007: 111).

Current work on deprivation focuses more on household income than occupation. The Government’s interventions are often based on children receiving the pupil premium and formulate their policies on the report of what has come to be known as the Field review (2010) properly titled The Foundation Years: Preventing Poor Children Becoming Poor Adults (see https://www.poverty.ac.uk/report-poverty-measurement-life-chances-children-parenting-uk-government-policy/field-review). The Ofsted publication Are You Ready? uses these measures of financial status as indicators of levels of deprivation, but also ‘social background’ stating:

For too many children, especially those living in the most deprived areas, educational failure starts early. Gaps in achievement between the poorest children and their better-off counterparts are clearly established by the age of five. There are strong associations between a child’s social background and their readiness for school as measured by their scores on entry into Year 1. Too many children, especially those that are poor, lack a firm grounding in the key skills of communication, language, literacy and mathematics.

(Ofsted, 2014: 4)

References

Labov, W. (1969) Contraction, Deletion, and Inherent Variability of the English Copula. Language,45 (4) pp. 715–762. 
Ofsted (2014) Are you ready? Good practice in school readiness. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/418819/Are_you_ready_Good_practice_in_school_readiness.pdf.
Tizard , B. and Hughes, M. (2007) Young Children Learning. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
(Copyright material from [Bearne, Eve & Reedy, David (2024), Teaching Primary English, imprint])