Languaging Their Learning: How Children Work Their Languages for Classroom Learning

Abstract

This study presents a linguistic analysis of an early years Maths lesson with children who speak an Australian Aboriginal language (Arrernte) as their first language. It describes how they use Arrernte, English and an Admixture of those codes for classroom learning. Despite their language background, schooling is delivered primarily through English, which places significant responsibility on these students for their own learning. Although the data provides evidence of successful learning in this lesson, it also demonstrates how the children’s first language is a necessary tool to achieve that and the potential for more targeted English language instruction when teaching mainstream curriculum content.

Appendix

The data was transcribed in ELAN, an annotation tool developed at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Conversational turns/clauses in the lesson recording were the unit of analysis in this study. Production of different turn/clause types is summarised in Tables 7.2 and 7.3.

Some turns were verbless and consisted of single words or short phrases in response to previous interlocutor turns, e.g. ‘um, in the cities’. Single-word utterances were counted only when they were substantial, formed part of a series of linked turns and showed comprehension of the interaction and ability to keep it going, e.g. ‘certain’ and ‘yeah’ and in (22).

(22)	T to C1 & C2:	What are the chances that you're gonna see Nick? Will happen, certain, or might happen, or impossible?
	C2 to T	Certain.
	T to C1 & C2:	Certain. You, do you always see Nick every day you come to school?
	C1 & C2 to T:	Yeah

Some turns included verbs. For turns with more than one verb, each clause was analysed separately, e.g. excerpt 3 turn 8. In this chapter, and the broader research project, each verb is of interest since research in similar remote communities, where children have created formally mixed languages, has found verb morphology to be an indicator of shift from traditional language production (e.g. McConvell and Meakins 2005; O’Shannessy 2008, 2011; Meakins 2008).

Some turns were analysed as ‘other’. Although non-verbal communication, back channelling, interjections and similar turns all make important contributions to effective communication, the focus of this investigation was children’s use of Arrernte and English. So ‘other’ was created as a separate category, to recognise and count:

• non-verbal responses, e.g. (nods)

• non-word turns, e.g. (squeal), shshsh (C2 to O who was interrupting C2’s conversation with T), uh-uh-uh-uh (C2 rhythmically bouncing body while sitting) and ba-be-ba-be-be (C1 blowing into microphone)

• um, mhm as stand-alone turns, where it wasn’t possible to determine whether they were Arrernte or English

• sing-song/chant turns, e.g. eleye-bele-be-were (C1 singing into microphone); class-chorus countdown to complete activity, i.e. 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0!

• turns which consisted only of names of people in photos, e.g. C2: Matthew! Spelling aloud to write name on worksheet, e.g. M-A-R-I-A.