GREEN - Repertorio Escolar - Sociolingüística

LINGUISTICSAND EDUCATION4, 13I- 172 (1992)
The Construction of Schooled

Discourse Repertoires: An
Interactional Sociolinguistic
Perspective on Learning to
Talk in Preschool
REBECCA KANTOR
The Ohio State Universig
JUDITH GREEN
MIMI BRADLEY
LICHU LIN
University oJ‘Cul[fimia, Santa Barbara
Analysis of the discourse demands across the school year within a recurrent event,
“Circle Time,” is presented to show how 3- and 4-year-old students learned to be
conversationally appropriate partners within a group setting, how the teacher’s
interactional patterns shifted as students learned to participate in socially and aca-
demically appropriate ways within this event, and how participation in the subevents
of Circle Time (Milling, Transition, Singing, Talking, and Dismissal) placed differing
social and communicative demands on both teacher and students. The overtime
analysis of one Circle Time subevent, Talking, is presented to illustrate how 3- and 4-
year-old students, in their first school experience, construct with their teachers a
schooled discourse repertoire for participating in large group discussions, and how
the discourse demands on the teacher shifted across time in the Talking subevent as
well as across all subevents.
The perspective developed in this article provides a framework for understanding

how participating in a particular classroom is socially, communicatively, and
academically consequential. From this perspective, as students and teachers
construct the events of everyday life, they are also constructing patterned ways of
interacting socially and communicating with others. These ways of communicat-
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Judith Green, Graduate School of
Education, University of California at Santa Barbara, CA 93106.
131
132 K. Kantor. .I. Green, hl. Bradley. and I,. Lin
ing and interacting support and constrain how activity among mctnbera is accon-
plishcd. what is appropriate to say and do, what is potcntial!y available to be
learned, and what is actually learned and accomplished. The discussion ot the
relationship between linguistics and education in this article, thus. l'oc~tsc~ on the
situated nature of communicative life-, the communicative demands on tcachcr
and students. the social and academic content that is available to be learned
through discourse, and the construction of’ discourse repertoires as ucadcmic
content. From this perspective, the nature of the social interactions in classrooms
distinguishes discourse demands in one classroom from those in others. WCII
when curriculum, content. and structure are the same.’

By participating in a particular classroom. children. in their roles associated
with being students, construct particular discourse repcrtoircs Car participating in
school and accessing academic content. The range of strategies within the dis-
course repertoires constructed in individual classrooms depends on children‘s
experiences with a range of communicutivc options in and out of school. and on
what count as socially. linguistically, and academically appropriate \r,ays 01
communicating within such events.- In other words, from participating in and
across the events ol’ everyday life in classrooms. students can be seen as con-
structing a distinctive “schooled”-discourse parallel to the schooled literacy
formulated by Cook-Gumpcrz ( 1986). These learned ways of parficipating have
consequences for students in both present and future momcn~s of lit’c within
schools (Bloome. Puro, & Theodorou. 1989: Davies. 1982: Golden. 1990:
Green. Kantor, & Rogers. 1991 ). Over time. the discourse repertoires con-
structed in individual classroon~s contribute to a tnorc general register. ;I school
discourse register that supports and constrains how students participate in event<
and what they intcrprct to be appropriate ways 01‘participating. interacting. .md
displaying knowlcdgc.
THE ARGlJMENT IN PERSPECTIVE: EXTENDING THE

CONCEPTUALIZATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP OP
LANG’CJAGE AND SCHOOLING
The perspective on classroom discourse presented in this article extends prcvioux

research on classroom discourse and contributes to a growing understanding 01‘
the nature of’ life in classrooms as socially constructed through the interactions
among teachers and students.
Much of the extant research on classroom dis-
course has focused on the match and mismatch between the language of school
and the language of the home.’ Exploration of this relationship has provided a
rich understanding ol‘ the linguistic experiences and linguistic resources that
students from culturally and linguistically tliversc backgrounds bring to <chool
and how such repertoires influcncc participation in school access to Icarning.
and assessment of‘ student ability.
This body of theory and research. grounded in paycholinpulstic and \o-
ciolinguistic theory, has I‘ocuscd on /ur7g~:,qc~ i77 KSC ' ant1 /tr/l,yfrtrgc~
IYlr./tr/ic//f
bllt
Schooled Discourse Repertoires 133
not on how social life is accomplished through discourse.4 Although it informs

the analysis presented here, it does not provide its primary theoretical frame-
work. Given our focus on the social construction of everyday life in schools and
its consequence for student participation and learning in schools, our work draws
on theory and research that views language as social action and social accom-
plishment.”
Our work is grounded in a particular approach to the study of the construction
of social life which is known as interactional sociolinguistics (Gumperz, 1986).”
This approach brings together sociolinguistic analysis and the ethnography of life
in schools. The integration of these two perspectives provides ways of identify-
ing key events in the life of a group, analyzing the interactional accomplishment
of these key events, and examining how local events relate to the patterns of
interaction across time within this group. In other words, the combination of
these two theoretical and analytic traditions provides a basis for understanding
the dynamic relationship of language use and social life.
The particular orientation to ethnography that frames this study is grounded in
cognitive anthropology (Goodenough. 198 1; Spradley, 1980). The ethnographer,
grounded in a cognitive anthropological approach, focuses on identifying the
meanings members hold for interactions within the everyday lifeworld and the
norms that members of a group develop for the patterned ways of acting, perceiv-
ing, believing, and evaluating everyday life. From this perspective, as people
affiliate over time, they form a group. This group. in turn, develops common
ways of interacting, beliefs about what is possible and appropriate to do in the
group, ways of interpreting and understanding the lifeworld (e.g., terms acquire
meaning specific to the group), and ways of defining who is and is not a member
and what membership means. Thus, members of the group can be seen as
constructing common knowledge (Edwards & Mercer, 1987) and common pat-
terns that may or may not reflect patterns associated with membership in other
groups in other settings.
The particular orientation to sociolinguistics used to study the class as a
culture has its roots in ethnography of communication (e.g., Gumperz, 1982,
1986; Gumperz & Hymes, 1985; Hymes, 1974, 1982). This perspective provides
a theoretical framework for examining the linguistic and social knowledge par-
ticipants use to interpret what is occurring and to participate within a particular
speech event. Within this perspective, speaking is viewed as interacting, and
interacting implies some sharing. What is not assumed, however, is that “sharing
at all levels of either grammatical or social rules is necessary” (Gumperz, 1982,
p. 30). What is commonly shared becomes visible in the actions and interactions
of members and in what they hold each other accountable to in their interactions.
In addition, when members do not share common interpretations or presupposi-
tions about appropriate action, a clash in frames of reference can be seen (e.g.,
Green & Harker, 1982; Mehan, 1979; Tannen & Gumperz, 1979). At the point of
a clash in the frames of reference of members, the discourse demands, interpreta-
134 K. Kantor, .I. Green, M. Bradley, and L. Lin
tions, and assumptions of participants become visible to members and outside

observers.
By viewing classrooms as interactional settings in which a group of people
come together and affiliate over time, we are able to examine how the discourse
norms for this speech community are constructed and how these norms intluence
what can and will occur. The classroom, then. can be conceived of as a small
particular speech community for a group within a larger social community in
which varieties of language exist (c.f., Fishman. 1974). This approach does not
negate the importance of the discourse strategies individuals bring to the class-
room; it does, however, acknowledge and focus on the construction of communi-
ty norms for participating and communicating in classrooms that are co-
constructed by teachers and students.
Underlying this perspective is a series of premises about the nature of class-
rooms as social, communicative. and cultural settings. 7 First, classroom life is
composed of situated events constructed through moment-by-moment. social
interactions of teachers with students, students with each other, and teacher and
students with cultural artifacts (e.g.. texts, manipulatives. visual materials).
Second, the ways in which events are constructed atford students access to
particular opportunities for learning and participating, and afford teachers access
to particular aspects of student life and student display of learning (Santa Barbara
Classroom Discourse Group, 1992a, 1992b). Third, what members establish as
norms, expectations, roles, and relationships for conducting life together signal
what counts as learning, participating, and communicating in the classroom and
the subgroups of classroom life (Bloome et al., 1989; Cochran-Smith. 1984:
Heap, 1980, 1991, 1992; Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse Group, 1992a).
Fourth, within and across the situated events of group life. students must
attend to school culture and peer culture demands simultaneously (Bloome Kr
Theodorou, 1988: Fernie, Davies, Kantor, & McMurray, in press; Fernie, Kan-
tor, Klein, Meyer, & Elgas, 1988: McMurray. 1992). Fifth, roles and rela-
tionships among members are constructed in and through the social interactions
of members. including what it means to bc teacher and students in a particular
classroom (Collins & Green, 1992; Fernie et al., in press). In other words. across
time, activity, and actors, patterned ways of acting, interpreting. and commu-
nicating are constructed by members of a group.
Past research from this and related perspectives has shown that in constructing
a particular type of social and communicative environment, individual teachers
also construct with their students: a general orientation toward school (Marshall
& Weinstein, 1988); situated definitions of what it means to be a teacher and
student(s) within classrooms (Fernie et al., in press); particular types of literate
models (Baker & Luke, 1991; Bloome. 1987: Cochran-Smith. 1984; Kantor.
Miller, & Fernie, 1992; Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse Group. 1992a). the
curriculum of the classroom (Chandler, 1992; Kantor. 1988; Weadc, 1987,
1992). and differential access to knowledge tc.g.. Alton-Lee & Nuthall. 1992;
Carlson, 1992; Collins, 1987; Edwards & Furlong, 1978; Edwards & Mercer,
1987; Gilmore & Glatthom, 1982; Green, Harker. & Golden, 1987; Lemke,
1990). In addition, work conducted in classrooms over time has shown that the
events of classroom life are tied across time and content as well as within content
areas. Such ties form a history and an intertextual set of relationships that influ-
ences what can and will occur and how new events are interpreted (Barr, 1987;
Bloome & Bailey, 1992; Edwards & Mercer, 1987; Green & Meyer, 199 1; Kantor,
Elgas, & Femie, 1989; Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse Group, 1992a, 1992b).
This body of research makes visible the centrality of discourse in the construc-
tion of life. The study presented here contributes to this body of research by
illustrating how discourse in classrooms is a construction of the group. In the
discussion of this study we show that as members of the group affiliate over time
they construct classroom discourse strategies that are common to members.
These strategies not only define the requirements for communicating, they also
define what it means to be a member of the class, what roles and relationships are
possible, and what norms and expectations have been constructed by members.
CONSTRUCTING A SCHOOL REPERTOIRE: A VIEW FROM

THE BEGINNING OF SCHOOLING
We elected to focus on preschool data to examine the construction of a schooled

discourse repertoire because of its unique position in the life of children as well
as schooling. A preschoolX is the initial point of entry into a school experience
for most children and is one of their first experiences in a sustaining group of
peers and adults beyond the home. In studying preschool discourse, therefore,
we heighten the possibility of seeing the onset of classroom discourse construc-
tion, even though a prior analysis indicated that a similar process occurs across
levels of schooling (Green et al., 1991). In addition, the preschool curriculum
further heightens the visibility of a school discourse. Two of the primary academ-
ic goals of the preschool curriculum are to teach children how to communicate in
groups and how to become students. Thus, communication in the preschool is
both a process for accomplishing everyday life and an object of emphasis within
the curriculum.
To illustrate how schooled repertoires are constructed in the social interactions
within and across events of classroom life, we present an analysis of “Circle
Time,” a recurrent speech event in a preschool class. This event was selected for
five reasons: (1) the goal of this event is to help students learn how to talk in a
group situation, to become socially appropriate communicative partners; (2) it is
a common event across classrooms and grade levels (preschool, kindergarten,
first grade); (3) it has been examined in depth by a number of other researchers
(e.g., Cazden & Michaels, 1983; Dorr-Bremme, 1982; Michaels, 1981; Mi-
chaels & Cook-Gumperz, 1979; Stoffan, 1980; Wallat & Green, 1979); (4) it
involved students in a series of communicative subevents, each placing different
136 K. Kantor, J. Green, M. Bradley, and I,. Lin
communicative demands on both teacher and students: and (5) it is part of an

ongoing ethnographic research project in which this and other events have been
examined over the school year (Fernie et al., 198X).
The purpose of this analysis is twofold: to show the dift‘erential commu-
nicative requirements within and across the phases of this event. and to show
how participating in this event over time is marked by changes in the patterns ot
discourse among participants (i.e., teacher and students) both within a given day
and over the school year. These changes illustrate how discourse patterns are
constructed in the social interactions of daily life and how such patterns shift as
the group begins to develop a discourse repertoire for conducting everyday life
within and across particular events.” This repertoire becomes a potential resource
on which individual students can draw to help them interpret and participate in
the everyday events of group life. I0 Finally. by shifting the focus from teacher to
student to group and back to teacher across the different analyses of this study,
WC are able to make visible the dynamic and complex discourse and social
demands for participating in the sustaining social group called class.
The preschool class studied consisted of ?- and 4year-olds in their first school
experience. This particular preschool class has been the site of‘ an ongoing
ethnographic study of preschool lift (Fernie et al.. 1988). This longitudinal study
provided a depth of information about peer culture and school culture that \up-
ported the selection of the circle time as a key event in the life of this group.
Findings from these studies provided a grounding for analysis and interpretation
of data in this study. The analysis of the communicative nature of this event is
supported by prior examination of how 3-year-olds learn to be a group (Williams,
1988): how peer culture groups form and what it means to be a peer group
member (El&as. 1988; Elgas, Klein, Kantor. & Fernie. 1988; Kantor et al.. 1989;
Scott, I99 I). how “gender,” “student,” and “peer” arc constructed (Fcrnic.
19X8; Fcrnie et al., in press; Fernie et al., 1990. April; Kantor. 1988). and how
literacy is constructed within and across events of school of peer culture (Kantor,
Miller, & Fernie. 1992: Miller, 1991).
CIRCLE TIME: CONSTRUCTING A PATTERN

FOR GROUP CONVERSATION
The discussion of findings is presented in three parts. In the first part, a dcscrip-
tion of each subevent is presented to illustrate the differentiated nature of life
within events. This part of the analysis explores what the social action rules
across subevents makes visible about communicative requirements of classroom
life. Following this discussion, a detailed analysis of the core subevent of Circle
Time, the “Talking” subevent, will be presented to show how, in and through the
social interactions among members, Circle Time was constructed and how, in
turn, this construction supported particular ways of engaging in discourse across
the school year. In the third part. an analysis of “Milling,” the initiating subevent
of Circle Time, is presented to provide a basis for showing the diverse commu-
nicative requirements for teacher and students and the demands on the teacher to
be both an informal conversational partner for individual students and the person
guiding the social construction of group events. As a set, these analyses illustrate
how a schooled discourse register that entails particular ways of being students is
constructed. This analysis is illustrative and not all inclusive. It demonstrates
both what can be learned by adopting an interactive sociolinguistic perspective
and how this approach might be used to systematically examine the commu-
nicative requirements of life in schools.
Analysis of Part-Whole Relationships and Patterns of Interaction

As indicated previously, ethnographic analysis of how life was conducted led to
the identification of Circle Time as a key event. It showed that Circle Time was
marked by time, space, group organization, purpose, and expectations for par-
ticipating and communicating (Kantor et al., 1989). Analysis of location of this
event within the school day showed that it occurred in the middle of the preschool
day and was preceded by a play period on the playground and followed by a
small group activity time. Examination of the requirements for participation led
to the identification of five subevents within Circle Time: “Milling,” “Transition
to Circle,” “Talking,” “Singing,” and “Dismissal.” Each subevent served a
particular role in establishing, doing, sustaining, and suspending the event called
Circle Time in this group. Twelve Circle Time events were analyzed across the
school year, four each in Fall, Winter, and Spring.
Once the event and subevents had been identified, we engaged in a two-step
process to identify the social action rules constructed by members as they in-
teracted to accomplish this “bit” of classroom life. First, transcriptions or frozen
representations of each occurrence of Circle Time were constructed using an
approach to discourse analysis developed by Green and her colleagues (Green,
1977; Green & Harker, 1982, 1988; Green & Meyer, 1991; Green & Wallat,
198 I; Green, Weade, & Graham, 1988). Once the moment-by-moment interac-
tions were identified, a transcript that included a map of the ebb and flow of
interaction was constructed for each Circle Time (See Figure 4, pp. 158- 159, for
a sample transcript). This approach to transcription and mapping provides a
means of comparing the requirements of Circle Time in an equivalent manner
across time while permitting identification and examination of variations in the
context, content, and complex dynamics of the social and academic texts being
developed (Green, Weade, & Graham, 1988).
Once transcripts were constructed, they become texts to be interpreted. i I
Each transcript was read to examine who could do and say what to and with
whom, under what conditions, in what ways, for what purpose(s), when, where,
and with what outcome(s); and to identify factors past, present, and future that
supported and constrained what occurred. This analysis involved examination of
interactions on a moment-by-moment basis.
The 12 Circle Time events over the school year were examined to identify the
patterns of interaction and social demands. Patterns of discourse at the level of
138 H. Kantor, .I. Green, M. Bradley. and 1,. Lin
social interaction, discourse strategies. content, and points of frame-clash within

events were identified within each event (e.g., turn taking, topic initiation. social
demands, textual demands, questioning). Once patterns were identified for an
individual occurrence of the event, transcripts and videotapes of other days were
read and reread to identify recurrent themes across days. This process is called a
type-case analysis approach (Green & Harker. 1982). The outcome of this pro-
cess was the identification of stable and optional rules for social action associated
with Circle Time.
SOCIAL ACTION RULES: THE LOOK AND THE

SOUND OF THE CIRCLE
The comparative analysis led to the identification of expectations for social

interaction that were constructed by members across time. These expectations
formed “social action rules” that members of the Circle Time group needed to
know and use to participate appropriately in a particular event as well as in other
instances of Circle Time throughout the school year. Examination of the pattern
of social action rules indicated that the subevents could be grouped according to
purpose: three of the subevents were related to circle formation and helped to
create the Look of the Circle (Milling, Transition, and Dismissal), and two to
the Sound of the Circle (Singing and Talking) (Kantor et al., 1989). Figure I
provides a &raphic representation of the subevents and the social interaction rules
associated with the Look of the Circle throughout the year. Figure 2 provides a
graphic representation of the subevents and social interaction rules associated
with the Sound of the Circle.
The Look of the Circle

The subevents that form the look of the circle are ones that serve to bring people
to Circle and to move people from Circle. These subevents are marked by
particular ways of interacting that contributed to formation and ending of Circle
Time and served to establish the boundaries and physical structure of the event
called Circle Time. Figure 1 provides a taxonomy of the social interaction rules
constructed by teacher and students through their interactions for these sub-
events.
As represented in Figure I, there were two types of social interaction rules
across these subevents: stable and optional. Stable rules were the norms for
participation that were established or in place in each occurrence that was ob-
served throughout the year. Optional rules were those that were recurrent rules
but were not required in each circle. These two sets of rules, then, were estab-
lished by members as ways of guiding their interactions within and across the
specific occurrences of Circle Time. These rules, or norms for participation, may
also be viewed as social content of the Circle Time subevents and cultural
Put things in cubby before commg to arde

Find your name tag
Sit in cubby if you don? want to join circle
Stable Rules Meet at circle
Play near circle during Milling Time but not once
Grcle Time begms
Claim a seat on the tape
Sit m your own individual space on the Circle tape
Get teacher’s help to put things away

Optional Rules May leave nrcle during Millmg Time
t May swtch seats during Milling Time
Take turns sittmg on lead teacher’s lap

One child at a time on teacher’s lap
Everyone gets one turn to sit m teacher’s lap before
a second turn can be had
Stable Rules Don’t sat on a friend’s lap, only on the teacher’s
Don’t lie down at axle
Your seat is yours. you can’t get bumped
Circle can start without a song if everyone is seated
Students call you to Circle to begin
‘OptionalRules ‘;;; Circle starts with a song

Finish Circle when group is tired of listening
Ixi9mii Leave Circleone at a time
!hb+mmnt
- Stable Rules Teacher leaves Ctrcle first
t
Teacher waits in smaI1 group space to begin next event
FIGURE 1. The Look of the Circle: Social action rules guiding participation in Milling Transi-
tion, and Dismissal
knowledge that members of this preschool class needed to know, understand, and
use to guide their performance.
Milling: From Outside to Inside

Analysis showed that Milling, the first of the five subevents, marked the reentry
of students into the room from the play yard. In this subevent, the students and
teacher were literally moving about the room in an unfocused manner and in-
teractions among students and between teacher and students were both informal
(more social and personal) and formal (school-culture oriented). As indicated in
140 K. Kantor. ,I. Green, M. Bradley, and L. I,in
Figure I. on a group level this was a transition period in which students were able
to remove their outdoor garments and put away theae garments and the play
objects used outdoors. During this time. individual students could interact with
others, could talk to the teacher. and could generally move about the area in
which Circle Time occurred. a rug area in the center of the preschool classroom.
Comparison across the year and events showed that at this time students were
not permitted to engage in activities that were permissible during small-group
time or other free playtime. The comparative analysis, theretore. showed that the
teacher used this recurrent subevent to move children to the circle from another
event and to begin to establish space within the circle for each student. Considcr-
ation of stable and optional rules guiding participation showed that students wcrc
able to move to and from the circle area during this phase of the formation 01‘ the
circle%. A more indcpth analysis of the social and communicative patterns ot
interaction within this event is presented in the section on “The Shifting Pattern\
of Discourac” that follows this overview of the Circle Time event. The latter
analysis illustrates the ways in which communicative repcrtoircs arc constructed
across time within an event.
‘I’ransition: Learning to Sit in a Circle

The milling phase contra\ted with the subevent that followed it. Transition. in
place. actions. an d purpose. Whereas Milling served to make students. Transi-
tion served to establish how students were to sit in the circle. In this subevent.
goneral discourse rules were established for turn-taking and use of physical
\pace. In addition. roles and relationships among participants were routinizcd:
Speak one at a time, sit in your own space. call others to circle. take your turn in
an orderly fashion, take your turn sitting on the teacher’s lap, and second turns
occur only after everyone has had a first turn to sit in the teacher’s lap. This
subevent. therefore, serves to solidify the physical aspects of the circle and to set
the conditions for the substance of the event. singing and talking.
Dismissal: Leaving the Circle-Going to the Next Event

The last s&event related to the look of the circle is the Dismissal subcvent. This
subcvent served to conclude Circle Time and to begin the transition to the next
event. In this \ubevent, co-construction of life by teacher and students is visible.
Dismissal from Circle was initiated by students. Through their actions. the
students indicated to the teacher that they were tired of participating. The teacher
rcspondcd to students’ actions and closed Circle Time by dismissing members.
Her movement to the next area. “Small-Group Space.” indicated the subevent
was both a closing and a transition to the next event.
Examination of the social action rules across these subevcnts made visible the
differential communicative demands on both teacher and students and the dy-
namic nature of teacher and student relationships. Each of these subevcnts was
marked by particular types of social interactions among members, by particular

communicative patterns, and by different purposes. Although each differed in
requirements, relationships among conversational partners, discourse demands,
and purpose were intertextually tied to each other.
The Sound of the Circle

The three subevents that formed the Look of the Circle cannot stand alone.
Although they brought the group together, they did not define what the group
would do once it was formed. Analysis of all five subevents showed that these
subevents served to frame the academic core of a larger entity called Circle Time.
This core is captured in Figure 2 in the two subevents associated with the Sound
of the Circle, Singing and Talking. As indicated in this figure, these two sub-
events are also marked by differences in social interactions and purpose. Unlike
the other subevents that constitute the Look of the Circle, those constituting the
Sound of the circle occurred in a single place, in a circle on the rug.
Singing: Interacting in a Group

The first subevent in the academic core was Singing. This subevent followed
Transition. It marked the beginning of formal whole-group interactions. Singing
began with students and teacher talking together to select the song for the group.
The teacher selected the songs at the beginning of the year, and students selected
the songs to be sung and contributed to the content of the songs as the year
developed. The selection phase of this subevent was followed by group singing.
Topic in this subevent was highly prescribed and related to the purpose-
engaging members of the group in a common communicative activity. To partici-
pate appropriately, then, students had to nominate candidate songs; once a song
was selected, they had to nominate candidate parts. Thus, as a discourse event,
the students were limited in what could be said and needed to coordinate their
actions with those of the others in the group. As illustrated in the following
section, this pattern of discourse differs from those in Tdlking, a subevent in
which individual members were able to nominate topics and contribute to topics
of others. Thus, by participating in the Singing subevent, students were provided
an opportunity to contribute to a group interaction and to form a group event.
Individual contributions served a group purpose rather than an individual pur-
pose.
Talking: Learning to Talk in a Group

Talking followed Singing and was the main subevent of’ the academic core. This
subevent focused on the central goal of Circle time: learning to talk in group.
This subevent dominated Circle Time in that most of the activity and time was
allocated to it. The patterns of interaction constructed by members of the class
for this subevent constituted one way of engaging in communication that became
142 R. Kantor, J. Green, M. Bradley, and L. Lin
Singing
SUbewnt
+c Gwe
Request
Ideas for ways to smg songs
songs but malonty
Group Tnes as many Ideas as possible
Make public announcements

rules
at Crcle
I law group c0nver5at10nsat Circle

Save side (Indtwdual) conversations for later
Look at help chart at Crcle
DISCUSS other classroom rules at crcle
Some topics are not appropriate for Crcle
Children Introduce topics
Teacher Introduces topics
Gwe an on topic remark when someone else has floor

Off~toplc remarks are Ignored
Certam bchawors disrupt the group
Walt pahently for a turn to talk
You can get the teacher’s attenhon for a turn at the floor
One person talks at a time
Use Inside voices for talking
Everyone gets one speaking turn before anyone gets
a second turn to speak
The Teacher wll help you get Ihe group’s attention
You cav claim the floor for a speakmg turn
lhe Teacher protects your turn
Rawng your hand may get you a turn, but not always
If there are many bids, the teacher ~111 dlstnbute turns
Line up ior turns If the teacher IS dlstnbuhng them by

lndlcatlng tr> the teacher that you want to speak
Don’t repeat someone’s Idea, have your own Idea
Can Intcnupt wth an Important personal need
FIGURE 2. The Sound of the Circle: Social action rules for participating in Talking and
Singing
a defined part of the schooled repertoire for conducting life in this particular
class-an individual has a right to be heard, to be the focus of the group
interactions, and to hold the floor during the group event.
The discussion of the subevents that comprise the Look and Sound of the
Circle made visible the differential demands for participating that were associ-
ated with the different subevents. This analysis also showed that an event is not a
unitary phenomenon; rather, an event like Circle Time consists of a variety of

intertextually tied subevents that work together to establish, sustain, extend, and
suspend participation. Each subevent serves a particular purpose and contributes
to the construction of the event in particular ways. This level of analysis, then,
provides a global picture of the event structure and those requirements for par-
ticipation that are common across instances of this recurrent event. This analysis
makes visible what members constructed and defined as Circle Time.
THE SHIFTING PATTERNS OF DISCOURSE

AND RELATIONSHIPS
The series of analyses that follow were designed to explore the discourse de-
mands and processes associated with the Talking subevent. Analyses are
presented that illustrate how members interacted across time, and how patterns
of interaction and relationship shifted across time. The comparisons across time
and participants made visible changes in direction and in the formation of group
norms for what it means to talk in a group and talk as a group. As we illustrate,
the changes in direction shifted from dependence on the adult to introduce topics,
maintain group structure, and take most of the conversational turns to more
shared responsibility; that is, from less group-like interactions to more group-like
interactions. Thus, across the year, students learned to be conversational partici-
pants in that group.
Table 1 (p. 144) provides a summary of the shifts in patterns across time.
Included is info~ation about: (a) conversational turns. (b) distribution of teach-
er and student talk by turns, (c) introduction of topics, (d) coherence of topic
(i.e., the on-topic and off-topic remarks by students), and (e) the direction of
conversational engagement between teacher and students and among students.
Analysis of this data illustrates how students moved from social interactions that
were “nongroup-like” to those that reflected a sense of “groupness.” As teacher
and students interacted over time, they constructed patterned ways of interacting
that supported particular ways of communicating in the group. In addition, as
student members of the group acquired common ways of interacting, the teacher
member of the group shifted her pattern of interaction to support student engage-
ment in communication in particular ways.
To interpret the data in Table I, it was necessary to consider the information in
individual categories and across categories given the interrelated nature of dis-
course and social actions. The discussion begins, therefore, with an examination
of general patterns across time and moves to a more fine-grained analysis of
aspects of the interactions. To examine the general pattern of talk, we computed
the average number of turns for Circles by season (n = 4 per season) and then
determined the percentage of change across the three seasons of the school year
(fall, winter, and spring). The figures in Table 1 include both teacher and student
responsibility for turn-taking. As indicated in this table, the number of turns
144 K. Kantor, J. Green, M. Bradley, and L. Lin
TABLE I
Development of Conversation: Talking Event
Fall Winter Spring
Conversational turns (fz).l 44 I Oh I s-3

Overall talk by turns (%)
Teacher 63 51 is
Students 37 19 .‘I
Introduction of topic tn).’
Teacher 7 3 1
Individual student\ .I5 3 7.5
On-topic and Off-topic remarks by student\
in a single circle 01)
On-topic 6 3 45
Off-topic 0 19 II
Direction of convcrstional exchange (II).’
Teacher-individual student 30 xc) 63
TcacherPgroup I4 16 I0
Individual student-group I 3
Student-student I6
Group-individual student
Group-teacher I
aI-$ures are based on an average of four circle\ per seawn
taken by teacher and students increased 140% from fall to winter (from 44 to
106) and 247% from fall to spring (from 44 to 153). Observation across the year
indicated that the increase in number of turns was accompanied by an increase in
the length of Circle Time from an average of IO minutes per Circle Time in the
fall to an average of 20 mm per Circle Time in the spring. As indicated pre-
viously, actual length of a given Circle related to both student initiation and
participation and to teacher’s responsiveness to indications that students wcrc
losing interest and getting restless.
The percentage of turn-taking data provided a broad picture of what occurred,
and a general grounding for the more fine-graincd analyses of the interactions
among participants and the roles and responsibilities of members. To understand
how students learned to “Talk Circle Time,” that is. acquired a schooled reper-
toire for participating in everyday events of life in this classroom, WC examined
shifts in social interactions among participants. To examine the shift in participa-
tion, we engaged in a two-step process. First, we computed the average perccnt-
age of turns taken by teacher and students for Circles by season (n = 4 per
season). Second, to make visible the growth in student participation. vve exam-
ined the change in student and teacher contributions by calculating the ratio of
student to teacher talk. The ratio was used to make visible the shifting rula-
tionship between students and teacher talk across the school year. This analysis
indicated that in fall the student to teacher talk ratio was .Sc): I (37% for students
and 63% for teacher). In winter it shifted to approximately a 1: 1 ratio (51% to

49%), and in spring to a 1.2: 1 ratio (55% to 45%). In other words, as the students
engaged in greater amounts of turn-taking, the teacher talked proportionally less.
This indicates that as students became more conversationally active and appro-
priate, the teacher shifted her role as a conversational partner.
A similar shift was observed when the question of who introduced topics was
examined. To examine the changes in contributions of the teacher and the stu-
dents, we compared the change in contribution of each over the three collection
periods. The teacher’s average number of topic contributions remained stable
over the year (2, 3, 2). Students contributions, however, increased tenfold, from
.75 to 7.5 across the year. This change in contributions supports the previous
pattern of increased participation and indicates that one of the major areas that
contributed to this increase was the increase in the number of topics initiated by
students. Thus, this pattern further illustrates how the conversational roles and
relationships between teacher and students changed as students became more
conversationally appropriate over time. Analysis of the qualitative aspects of the
social interactions indicates that the teacher also shifted her roles from introduc-
ing and maintaining topics for the students to supporting and interacting with the
topics students introduced.
The growth in conversational appropriateness and participation of students is
also reflected in the number of contributions that were on-topic or off-topic in a
single Circle Time in each season. As indicated in Table 1, in the fall no students
were off-topic. This figure is problematic if considered by itself. When consid-
ered in the context of what occurred and how students changed their interactions
across time, the lack of off-topic actions in fall can be understood. As indicated
previously, few students talked in fall and the teacher initiated and maintained
topics, thus accounting for the lack of off-topic initiations.
On- and off-topic remarks by students became important to consider once
students were spontaneously contributing to construction of the group conversa-
tion. Off-topic remarks were viewed as an indication that an individual had
something to contribute but did not interpret the topic on the floor or the rules for
getting the floor appropriately. In contrast, on-topic remarks were viewed as
indications that students were interpreting appropriately both the topic on the
floor and the rules for turn-taking. These remarks, therefore, were taken as
indications that the students were acting in concert and had formed an under-
standing of what was involved in communicating as a group as well as commu-
nicating in group. The following example illustrates both on-topic and off-topic
remarks:
Teacher: You know we need to decide what we’re going to see when we go to the zoo
next week. Does anybody have any ideas for us.
Sarah: Elephants.
Michael: I want to ring the clean-up bell.
146 K. Kantor, J. Green, M. Bradley. and I.. Lin
As indicated here. topic definition depends on what a member initiates and what
others accept. In this instance, the teacher has introduced a topic, the trip to the
zoo, and has asked a question. One student answers with an item related to
the topic. Michael’s response does not relate to this topic and was defined in the
analysis as being “off-topic.” Rather than responding in an appropriate manner.
then. Michael’s response indicates that hc is serving his own goals and not
contributing to the development of topic by the group.
To examine on- and oft-topic interactions, we focused on the winter-spring
period. the period in which the students were participating more independently
and had acquired a broad range of ways of being in group. What is evident in this
comparison is that in winter the ratio of on-topic to off-topic contributions was
1:3.X (5 on-topic and I9 oft-topic). By spring, this ratio was inverted (45 on-
topic and I4 off-topic). In spring. then. there was only one oft-topic contribution
for every 3.2 on-topic contributions. This shift further illustrates that the increase
in interactions was not merely an increase in amount of talk. It also included an
increase in socially appropriate contributions by students and in the kind 01.
student contributions.
To further develop our argument that the Circle Time event enabled students to
learn how to engage in conversation within a group, we examined the range of
ways students engaged in conversation within the circle; that is, we considered
the direction of interactions and the various combinations of participants: teach-
cr-individual student, teacher-group. individual student-group, individual stu-
dent-individual student, grouppindividual student, and group-teacher. In this
analysis of the vectors of conversational participation, two sets of patterns be-
came evident-teacher oriented and student-student oriented patterns.
Two patterns identified in Table I provide a profile of the role of the teacher as
a conversational partner and a conversational maintenance worker. First, teacher
exchanges with the group remained constant across the school year ( 14, 16, 14)
even in the face of increased student participation. Second, the teacher-indi-
vidual student interactions increased in winter (from 30 to 89) and then decreased
in spring (from 89 to 63). To understand what these figures mean. we had to
consider the nature of student interactions to partners other than the teacher
(student to student; student to group. group to student). By considering the
change in teacher-student talk simultaneously with the increase in student initia-
tion to other partners, we were able to identify the shifting nature of conversa-
tional organization. The shift in these two patterns supports the argument that
students had learned to be members of a group and to converse within a group.
The increase in teacher-student interactions from fall to winter suggests that
students focused their talk on the teacher as a partner during this period. The
decrease in teacher-student talk from winter to spring, along with the increase in
student-student and student-group interactions suggest that by spring the stu-
dents had broadened their focus to include other possible partners.
By considering the relationship among observed patterns. we were able to see
ties between patterns and to contextualize individual patterns. This process re-
flects the ethnographer’s concern for understanding part-whole relationships and
illustrates the need to examine interrelationship among patterns. Throughout our
analysis, we used an approach that involved comparing parts and examining the
relationship of part-to-whole-to-parts. This approach provided a basis for exam-
ining the complex and dynamic aspects of classroom communication and for
identifying stable and variable elements of classroom life.
The analyses just discussed show a shift in the range and types of conversa-
tional actions by members that reflect a shift in organization, in direction of the
conversation, and in strategies used by students. The data also show that as
students became more conversationally active and appropriate, the teacher shift-
ed her role from one of initiator to one of maintainer of the patterns of interac-
tion. Finally, these data show that as students acquired the “sound of the group”
the teacher shifted her role but did not shift her absolute level of participation
across time.
The observed shift can be understood as an instructional pattern, a pattern that
makes visible what the teacher valued as interactions and what became accept-
able. The overall instructional pattern we identified can be characterized by an
interactive and reciprocal relationship between student interaction and teacher
interaction. In other words, when students’ participation associated with the
sound of the group changed and students began to participate in ways the teacher
deemed more socially and academically appropriate, she changed her way of
participating and acting. This shifting relationship reflects her pedagogical
goal-have students learn to contribute to group in particular ways, not merely
increase the amount of talk.
Getting the Floor

To provide a more comprehensive picture of what students were learning about
talking in group and about the role of the teacher in this process, we examined
strategies students used to gain the floor during the Talking subevent of Circle
Time (Erickson, Florio, & Shultz, 1979). Table 2 (p. 148) presents a summary of
these strategies. As indicated in this table, four types of strategies were identified
for gaining the floor: physical strategies, verbal claims, verbal attention devices,
and verbal distribution of turn by the teacher. By examining the patterns of
occurrence across the three periods of the school year, we were again able to
identify changes in the roles and relationships among members that indicated a
growing awareness by students of the discourse norms and expectations for
participating in socially appropriate ways that they were constructing with the
teacher. In other words, this analysis identified ways in which the schooled
repertoire of students for Circle Time was being constructed in and through the
moment-by-moment interactions of members.
The shifts observed previously are also present in the data in Table 2. As
indicated, students began the year by using physical or nonverbal strategies.
148 K. Kantor, J. (keen, M. Bradley, and I,. Lin
‘I-ABLE 2
Student Strategies for Gaining the Floor (n by Season)
Strategy for Gaining the Floor Fall Winter Spring
These strategies, however. were not observed in either winter or spring. This
decrease in the use of physical bids for gaining the floor also parallels an increase
in the number of verbal claims for the floor by students. attention getting de-
vices. and the need for the teacher to distribute turns. One way to interpret this
shift is to see that, as students acquired verbal repertoire\ for gaining the floor.
the nonverbal repertoires were no longer used. Thus. from the fall to the spring.
there is a shift from nonverbal to verbal ways of participating and gaining the
floor.
By examining the various types of verbal claims we saw additional shifts and
atratcgiea. Across the year. there was a constant increase in the claims for the
floor; that is, the students called out. made statements. or asked questions. Along
with this increase. there was an increase in the use of attention getting devices--
“Hey! Guess what!” This increase occurred from fall to winter and remained
stable over the remainder of the year. This strategy suggests that students learned
that they can obtain a turn not tnerely by <aging something or asking something.
but also by focusing attention by themselves.
These data indicate that the students had increasing awareness that there was
something called “a turn” to be had. The increase in the teacher’s use of turn
distribution further support this interpretation. In winter and spring. she begins to
distribute turns to students as competition for turn increased. Thus, \he main-
tained her role as supporter of student conversation by imposing a new routine on
the pattern of interaction. To understand further how students came to understand
and acquire the attention getting strategies, we engaged in an examination 01
what was said, what ways students gained attention. and who used these strat-
egies.
To understand why this shift occurred. we needed to revisit the issue of the
Look of the Circle. An examination of the student’s strategies for getting the
floor in the early days of Circle Time indicated that students’ initial attempts to
gain the floor did not maintain the Look of the Circle. That is, as students used
physical ways of bidding for the floor (c.g.. touching the teacher. moving to
stand in front of her, turning her face toward their own), the teacher responded by
consistently denying a speaking turn to those students. thus reemphasir.ing an
implicit rule: You must be seated to participate (see the social action rules for the
transition subevents in Figure 1 and for the social action rules for the Sound of
the Circle subevent in Figure 2). By Day 6 of the school year, however, this
strategy was rarely used. Instead, students shifted from physical ways of bidding
for the floor to making claims for it (c.f., Dot-r-Bremme, 1982, p. 148); that is,
by speaking out with a statement, question. or answer to the teacher’s open-
ended question to the group. In addition, analysis of the fall interactions showed
that competition among the children for a turn at talk was not great; rather, they
waited for a pause in the stream of talk and verbally “grabbed” the floor in these
moments.
Overtime students had more to say collectively and more actual talk was
accomplished overall during Circle time. By winter, there was an increase in talk
of 140% over fall circles and by spring another increase of 45% over winter
circles. The consequences for the teacher of this increased activity is visible in
Table 2 in the teacher’s use of a turn-distribution process in the spring. By spring
the teacher no longer permitted students to call for a turn at will; rather, when
discussion became more competitive, she began to give turns to students and to
create metatalk-talk about how to talk. This strategy is visible in the following
interactions:
Teacher: Okay, wait Too many people arc talking at once. WC can’t hear anybody.
Let’s give Stephanie a turn.
and then Mike,
and then June.
Laura: And then 1 want a turn.
Jess: And then me.
John: And me.
Adlai: And I want a turn too.
Teacher: Okay. Let’s also give Laura, Jess, John, and Adlai a turn. We’ll hear as many
turns as you want. But let’s hear them one at a time.
This strategy was not used in either fall or winter circles. Analysis of the tran-
scripts and interactions showed one additional pattern: When the ordering of
turns became unmanageable, the teacher initiated a group song. In addition,
when it became apparent that attention for both singing and talking had “run
out,” the teacher initiated a dismissal routine. Because there was no set amount
of time for Circle Time, this latter routine served to end the circle and close
conversation.
Negotiating and Renegotiating Conversational Rules

As conversations became more productive, Circle Time took longer to accom-
plish, became more interactionally complex, and became more group-like. Circle
Time moved from an average of 10 min in the fall to 20 min in the spring. In
addition, as Circle Time events became more interactive and multispeaker di-
rected, the number of social action rules were increased and renegotiated to build
a support structure for the conversation. The number of rules generated by the
group for having conversation in the Talking subevent increased from 14 in the
fall to 28 in the spring (see Figure 2 for a taxonomy of social action rules for this
subevent). The need for this increase is reflected in the following example of a
social action rule being negotiated explicitly by the teacher:
‘Teacher: You know what? I know you are really interested in having us hear your idea.
But remember yesterday when we talked about once you give an idea you have
to be patient and let other children give an idea. I think its your turn to wait a
few minutes. Okay’? Let’s hear from Adlai.
In this example, we see the teacher explicitly stating a rule, negotiating its
meaning, acting to keep the floor open and shared, and supporting individual
students in their bids for the floor. Thus, with the emergence of more student
initiated talk and with the increase in competition for the floor, rules for bidding
had to be renegotiated so that students could “share” the floor.
This example shows negotiation and renegotiation of explicit rules. The teach-
er, however, was not the only one to renegotiate social action rules or to initiate
new rules. Students themselves often brought about changes in implicit rules for
bidding. For example, as indicated in Table 2, students increasingly used the
strategy of shouting out phrases that served to capture someone’s attention: “I
know .” “I have an idea . ,” “You know what! .” The increased use
and development of this strategy was not entirely gratuitous. This strategy was
modeled by the teacher who frequently used this device herself for getting the
group’s attention: “Hey everybody, guess what’?” or ‘$1have something impor-
tant to tell you.” It was part of the interactional context that students observed
and co-opted for themselves. Observations over time indicated that such strat-
egies were often used by the students at other points in time to gain their own turn
at talk.
The identification of explicit and implicit rules for participating in this sub-
event provides further support for the growth of student knowledge about and
construction of a schooled-discourse process. In Table 3, we present data that
show the amount of explicitly stated and implicitly adhered to rules that were
observed at each point in time (each season). The numbers reflect the total
number of instances across Circle Time occurrences of a rule related to both the
Look of the Circle and the Sound of the Circle. For example, in spring, 28 rules
were identified for the two subevents defined as the Sound of the Circle (see
Figure 2).
In each occurrence of Circle Time, the implicit adherence to a rule was
recorded if the majority of the group was adhering to a rule. The figures in Table
3 represent the total number of rules adhered to across circles by season and by
subevent. Thus, in spring, social interactions by students showed that the major-
TABLE 3
Number of Explicitly and Implicitly Operating Social Action Rules for Guiding
Participation Over The Year
Social Action Rules
Explicit Implicit
Subevents Fall Winter Spring Fall Winter Spring
The Look of the Circle

Milling 23 8 II 15 IX
Transition IO 9 7 2 8
Dismissal I I 4 3 3
The Sound of the Circle
Singing 7 20 8
Talking 5 46 2x 35 x5 II6
ity of students adhered to the social action rules for Circle Time events. Given the
dynamic and interactive nature of the Talking subevent, some students and some
situations required explicit statement of the rules. The teacher, therefore, in her
role of maintainer of the subevent, had to restate or renegotiate some of the rules
with students across the year. Rules. therefore, were guides.
The pattern of rule adherence reflects the students’ growing understanding and
acceptance of the norms and expectations for participating in group and for
conversing as a group (Implicit rules). The data in Table 3 reflect the shift from
teacher direction (Explicit statements of rules) to a common, shared view of the
participation in group; the relationship among these rules, however, is complex.
For Milling and Transition, there is a decline in the number of explicit statements
of rules by the teacher over the year. Thus. in spring the teacher makes no
explicit statements of rules for the four Circle Time events observed. This drop in
explicit statement of rules is accompanied by a concurrent increase in the ad-
herence to an implicit set of rules for Milling time. The fact that there is not a
one-to-one correspondence between decrease in explicit and increase in implicit
adherence supports the view of social interaction as dynamic and negotiated.
One way to interpret the data under the Look of the Circle is that the Milling
subevent became routine and students did not need to be reminded of what to do.
The Transition and Dismissal subevents, however, required more intervention by
the teacher on some days. When we considered the nature of these events, we
were able to propose candidate reasons why these events might require explicit
comments throughout the year: (a) These events served to structure or unstructure
the circle; (b) students could sit where they pleased during the Transition sub-
event, therefore, this event was fluid and the teacher had to assist students in
finding a place and forming circle periodically throughout the year; and (c) the
ending of circle was also fluid, the exact moment depended on when the teacher
152 K. Kantor. .J. Green, M. Bradley, and I,. Lin
saw student attention “drop off.” The end of circle, therefore. was contingent on
student participation and could not be predicted. Another way to view these
subevents. is that more elements were negotiable and therefore more fluid than
other subevents.
The examination of these rules within the subevents that constitute the Sound
of the Circle also reflects a complex pattern of adherence and invocation. No
explicit statement for singing were made. One possible explanation for this
apparent omission of overt statements can hc found in the nature of singing itself.
Singing is a culturally patterned invitation to participate that students often
experience outside of the classroom and import into the classroom. If the teach-
er’s nonverbal actions are considered. we can see that explicit invitations to sing
arc not needed if a common set of discourse norms for singing exists. Thus. the
teacher did not need to invoke an explicit rule to sing. These hypotheses suggest
that the statements in the earlier instances of these events (the first 3 days ot
school) were sufficient to construct a norm for participation. Thus. the lack of
explicit statement is an indication that students and teacher had a common
understanding of what was involved in participating in the Singing subevent.
Examination of the implicit rules also supports the interpretation of the con-
struction of a common frame of reference for this subevent. There is an increase
in implicit rules from fall to winter. The spring data. however, show a drop in
implicit rules and no increase in explicit rules. Analysis of the pattern of social
interactions of group members indicated that singing was shorter in spring and
less problematic. This observed shift indicates a subtle change in Circle Time. At
the beginning of the year. this subevent was used by the teacher to bring indi-
viduals to group activity. It provided a way to engage in rulking-as-a-Krou~. or in
this instance. sirzging-crs-u-gvol, and to help students be a group. By the end of
the year, the need for this type of activity decreased as the students became a
group during the Talking subevent of Circle Time. Thus. as students constructed
and acquired the discourse norms for talking in group and talking as a group. the
need for a way to “practice” this aspect of the discourse repertoire became less.
Examination of the patterns within the Talking subevent supports this in-
terpretation. In this event. the adherence to a common set of implicit rules is
visible in the increase in the number of instances of observed rule adherence
across the year. Analysis of the videotapes indicated that by spring, all 28 rules
for participating wcrc used in each of the circles (n = 4). Thus, I I6 instances of
rule adherence were possible. The need to combine the rules from the Singing
and Talking subevents in the spring comes from the fact that the teacher incorpo-
rated song in the Talking time just before dismissal to give students additional
time to think about what they wanted to say. This use of song was in addition to
the formal subevent called Singing. Thus, rather than 100 rules (25 rules for
talking over 4 Circles), there was a possibility of 1I6 instances of rule adherence.
Examination of the implicit and explicit rules or norms for participation that
were constructed supports the existence in spring of a group of people called a
class who shared a common set of expectations for everyday life. The analysis
also made visible the existence of a patterned set of roles and relationships that
shifted as students became more active participants in the events of Circle Time.
Across these analyses, a picture was presented of the dynamic and adaptive
nature of classroom life. As indicated previously, rules guiding participation and
conversation in this class were not fixed or “set in cement.” Rather, they were
initiated and sustained, adapted and modified, and suspended and renegotiated as
needed and as student learned to talk in ways that were socially and academically
productive; that is, they supported conversation in the group during Circle Time.
This analysis also made visible the role of the teacher in constructing with the
students the conditions for participating-ways of interacting, sharing the floor,
and obtaining turns at talk. In other words, the teacher supported interaction in
particular ways; ways that defined what counts as socially appropriate and pro-
ductive to group and individual conversation. Thus, appropriate participation
was defined by a series of reciprocal relationships between student and teacher
and among students with teacher support.
This analysis also showed that the teacher used a pedagogical style that both
guided and responded to changes in student participation. This pedagogical style
supported and encouraged active student participation in decision making and
content initiation. These actions suggest that the teacher viewed students as co-
constructors of the events and handed over but did not give away (Edwards &
Mercer, 1987) the right to “share” responsibility for the nature and direction of
classroom life.
Finally, it showed that discourse patterns were constructed at the group level
and that individuals may or may not have adhered to the group norms. Although
individual participation was not investigated, such analysis has been undertaken
in other parts of the ethnography from which this study was drawn; see, for
example, Scott (1991). Scott’s analysis showed that individual students were
invited to participate in the circle but were given certain rights to sit outside of
the circle. Thus, participation was valued and desired, but individual students
had the right not to participate in a given circle if they could do so without
disturbing the group. Analysis also showed that only a very few students elected
not to participate and that these actions occurred early in the school year. As the
year proceeded, all students moved to group and participated in ways that were
socially and academically appropriate within this group.
EXPANDING UNDERSTANDING OF SCHOOLED DISCOURSE:

AN ANALYSIS OF MILLING
The analysis of the social interactions of teacher and students within and across
the five subevents of Circle Time made visible the nature of Circle Time as a
school event with differentiated subevents, each serving a particular purpose
while contributing to the construction of the event called Circle Time. The
154 R. Kantor, J. Green. M. Bradley, and L. Lin
analysis also made visible the discourse repertoire constructed by both students
and teacher across time.
The in-depth analysis of the patterns of social interaction across the year in the
Talking subevent provided an understanding of the roles and relationships among
participants and the ways in which these roles and relationships shifted across
time as the group constructed common knowledge about ways of interacting.
This analysis also made visible the interrelationship of teacher actions and stu-
dent actions and the ways in which students learned to participate in particular
ways. ways that supported a particular view of being a student and of commu-
nicating in and as a group in formal instructional events.
Formal instructional events or subevents are not the only types of events that
occur in classrooms. As indicated in the analysis of the subevents, one subevent
was a transitional event with both formal, school-oriented elements and infor-
mal, social and personal elements. This subevent. therefore. provides a rich
ground for exploring the ways in which teachers achieve school goals: to move
students from outside to inside to circle, while simultaneously being informal
partners with students. By analyzing the discourse patterns in Milling, then. we
expand our understanding of the nature of classroom discourse and add to our
knowledge of the personal and schooled discourse repertoires of both teacher and
students.
By comparing what occurred during Milling with the patterns identified for
Talking, we gain further understanding of the situated nature of discourse and
build a need for identifying the range of discourse requirements for both students
and teachers that are constructed over time in the classroom. Additionally, by
comparing the range of demands of teacher and students within the Milling
event, we gain an appreciation for the complexity of the communicative tasks
facing both teachers and students.
Milling: An Informal Student Event and a Formal Teacher Event

As indicated previously, Milling was an event that occurred as the students
entered the classroom from the playground. This subevent was unfocused in
terms of discourse requirements but focused in terms of the teacher’s purposc-
to move students from outside to Circle Time. Thus, the teacher’s role in this
aubevent was to move individual members to circle while simultaneously helping
them to put away their belongings. For the teacher. then. the group was the major
focus and individual teacher-student interactions were minor foci. For students,
however, Milling was a time in which they could engage the teacher in transitory
(brief exchanges) or in longer exchanges.
Two different analyses are presented in this section. The first provides a
general picture of the types of discourse patterns that occurred. The second
provides a close examination of one pattern that was unexpected. the co-occur-
rence of a group-level conversation and a series of diverse conversations between
the teacher and individual students. The\e analyses illustrate the diKerence in
demands on teacher and students in this acgment and across segments. As will bc
illustrated during Milling, the students had the right to engage the teacher in
personal dialogues, while simultaneously engaging in a social process that began
Circle Time. The existence of this right place an obligation on the teacher to
interact socially with students, while she was simultaneously interacting with the
whole group.
A single Milling subevent was transcribed and analyzed as a basis of com-
parison with the Talking subevent analysis presented earlier. This Milling sub-
event occurred in the fall on the first day of Circle Time analysis and lasted 3 min
32 s. This period was transcribed (Green & Wallat, 1979, 198 1) and 129 message
units, minimal units of conversational meaning, were identified.
Ties across message units that show chains of completed interaction were also
identified (e.g., question-response sequences, initiation-response sequences,
and elaboration sequences). These chains of completed interaction were called
interactional units. To locate the boundary of longer sequences of social interac-
tions, sequences of interaction units that shared a common topic (e.g., a series of
question-response interactions about a page in the book) were identified. These
units were called information sequence units. See Figure 4 for a graphic repre-
sentation of these units and a map of the ebb and flow of such interactions. rZ
Analysis of these longer segments of interaction led to the identification of
three major themes. These themes are represented in Figure 3 (p. 156). As
indicated in this figure, themes could be major, school-oriented themes initiated
and sustained by the teacher with the group; minor, themes initiated by individual
students to the teacher or the teacher to individual; or transient, brief and fleeting
interactions initiated by students by students to the teacher. The frequency of
occurrence for these themes is exemplified in Table 4 ( p. 157).
The major themes identified across the Milling time period (3 min 32 s)
involved verbal and nonverbal interactions and focused on moving students to
group and establishing ways of sitting in group. We grouped all such conversa-
tional segments under a general theme: instrumental actions. Examples of this
general theme can be seen in the invitation to Michael to come to the circle in
Figure 3 and in transcript lines 076-102 in Figure 4. The theme represented in
Figure 4 is a teacher theme focusing on negotiating ways of sitting in circle. In
this example, one student is sitting in another student’s lap. The teacher indicates
that this is not appropriate “because it’s hard,for you to participate in our circle
when you’re sitting on each other’s lap. ” Analysis across interactions shows that
the purpose of these interactions was to establish one way of sitting in circle.
When this conversation is compared to the social action rules for the Singing
and Talking subevents, what becomes evident is that although it is not okay to sit
in a friend’s lap, it is okay to sit in the teacher’s lap under certain conditions.
These examples demonstrate the complex nature of the social and interactional
tasks facing students. Students must understand and interpret the conditions
under which particular actions are appropriate and those under which a similar
action is not appropriate.
The negotiated and constructed character of classroom discourse and the
-
T)?pofThanr?
ranversationIm;atiar, rtdajorr rbfifnxsodal Tmnsihry.sm;al
Nalking Into room Mxhael What happened to the

gurnea pig?
I
Teacher. Oh, I’ll tell you what happened
I
I
Teacher Come over to the Circle and
1’11tell ou all about it.
r
Michael: .Moves toward the Circle.
Nalking to the cubbres Laura [Hands the teacher a

sweater]
I
Teacher: Oh, you’re hot
I
i.aura I am hot
Laura [Stops and looks at materials
on a table 1
1
Teacher: Laura those mater& are
for later.
Laura: [Moves to cubby and puts

outside thmgs away]
I
tialking to Circle Teacher iaura, you might want to
wash the sand off your hands.
I
l.aura: [Goes to sink and washes hands]
Teacher [Publrc announcement] Let’s find

everyone can find a name tag
and put thmgs away tn your cubby
____ _____I ---- __I--._________
FIGURE 3. Conversational themes dunng Miliing subevent
TABLE 4
Frequency of Major, Minor, and Transitory Themes during Milling: Fall (N = 4)a
Major Theme: Minor Theme: Transitory Theme:

Day Instrumental Social Social
3 17 I I
4 18 9 6
5 21 3
IO 16 8 2
“Each number in a column represents a minimum ofonc complete set of turn5 on a sin& subject.
events of classroom life are visible in the transcript segments in Figure 4. Exam-
ination of the pattern of interactions of teachers and students reveal a complex
and overlapping set of themes and interactions. Analysis of the teacher-initiated
interactions associated with the instrumental actions theme shows that theme
construction and development was not continuous or merely linear.
An example of this complex process is found in lines 076-079: the teacher
interacted with students to initiate a change in seating pattern. This set of interac-
tions, however, was not complete; that is, it did not achieve the desired effect. In
transcript lines 096- 101, we see that the topic continued and that students finally
moved. This conversation, then, was ongoing with the teacher visiting and
revisiting the negotiation over time. Additionally, other conversations were initi-
ated while this one was continuing. The teacher, therefore, engaged and re-
engaged with the students in the seating conversation, while simultaneously
engaging in a series of other conversations, for example, the motor room conver-
sation with Adlai (transcript lines 079-093). Thus, in the teacher-controlled
aspect of this event, the teacher was engaging in a series of overlapping conver-
sations that contributed to the construction of group norms for participation in the
class in general (motor room) and in Circle Time in particular (sitting in circle).
Analysis of the student-initiated interactions with the teacher led to the identi-
fication of a second theme, a transitory theme-contacting the teacher. This
theme was social and involved individual students in a brief exchange with the
teacher that was not continued over time, for example, the teacher’s interaction
with Laura in Figure 3 about being hot and her interaction with Adlai in Figure 4
about the paper fish (transcript lines 088-089). What is interesting to note about
these two examples is that in the Laura example, the teacher agrees to “take up”
the topic (Collins, 1986) with Laura whereas in the second example she elects not
to respond to Adlai. These examples indicate that although students had the right
to initiate a conversation, the teacher had the reciprocal right not to be a conver-
sational partner at a particular point in time. Thus, aspects of Milling paralleled
conversational interactions outside of the classroom.
line TatinMenageurits TarJic
5 cl76 SEAN WAS SITTING THERE AND Seating Major
NOW HE IS VERY DISSAPPOINTED
NV [Teacher looks at Jmny, strokes

Jinny’s forehead and hair.1 Trans ; ,P
;,’
077 HE IS ASKING YOU TO MOVE OVEF Seating Mayor
q
NV [Rosre gets up and walks In front of the
teacher to get name tag to put on.] Name Tag \/lajor
076 MAYBE WE COULD SIT NEXT TO Seating Major

EACH OTHER SECOND CIRCLE
079 Adlai: Rebecca Motor Rm Minor

080 Adlar. Rebecca
081 Adlai. Rebecca
082 .Jlnny You can sit m my lap now Seatmg Manor ;am smi1e.s
NV [Sean gets on Jrnny’s lap. Both smile] sets up tron
Donna’s lap
083 Adlai. [holds up 4 fingers] Motor Rm Minor co-teacher)
064 WE HAVE FOUR TEACHERS and shakes
085 I THINK WE COULD OPEN UP THE \dlar’s arm
MOTOR ROOM and then
086 DON’T YOU goes back tc
087 I THINK THATS ENOUGH Donna’s lap
NV [Teacher pins Rosie’s name tag on] Name Tag Mmor
088 Adlar Rebecca Paper Trans

089 Adlar Rebecca
[Adlai walks to Rebecca, taps her
arm, shows paper fish]
090 June: [June stands in circle holding Name tag major
up name tag]
NV [Teacher glances at him and pins on
his name tagl / (I
092 IT LOOKS LIKE IT FROM HERE Motor r-m minor 18 1:

093 I CAN’T REALLY TELL
094 Adlai: What are we doing? Query minor

0
095 [Teacher gives no response to paper
in form of fish1
Q i
096 WE’RE GOING TO THE CIRCLE Move to major 0 [

097 Adlai: [Goes to Circle, finds seat]
0 i
098 WE TRIED THAT BEFORE AND IT Seating major
REALLY DOESN’T WORK OUT
TOO WELL [to Jinny & Sean1
099 WOULD YOU GUYS SIT NEXT Seating major
TO EACH OTHER
P
100 June: Who’s that? [Holds up a Name tag major
name tagl (I
101 BECAUSE ITS HARD FOR YOU Seating major

TO PARTICIPATE IN OUR CIRCLE b
WHEN YOU’RE SI-I-DNG ON
EACH OTHER’S LAP
NV Jinny & Sean: [ They move]
102 June: Who’s that? [Holds up the Name tag major

name tag in teachers’ face]
103 THAT’S DONNA Name tag major
104 June: Donna Name tag major
r
g FIGURE 4. Slotting in and slotting out of the conversation: Mapping major, minor ond transitory themes, and thematically tied units involving
the teacher and student co-occurring actions
Not all interactions initiated by student or teacher were transitory. The third
theme, talking with teacher, was considered to be a minor but recurrent theme
and involved conversations between the teacher and students. In the transcript
segments in Figure 4, we identified three sets of conversations initiated by
individual students that involved talking with the teacher. These conversations
were initiated by the students: Adlai (lines 079-093). June (090-104+). and by
Rosie (077nv-087nv).
These conversations, like the teacher’s conversation about seating and motor
room. were intermittent; that is. students initiated the conversation, moved away,
reengaged the teacher, and then moved away or closed the conversation. They
could also be nonverbal or verbal and were generally related to school topics
(e.g.. name tags, motor room). These conversations and interaction segments
overlapped each other and the group-level conversation that defined the general
character of this subcven---move students to circle.
Analysis of the three types of themes showed that ma.jor themes were public
and were addressed to the group. Minor and transitory themes. however. could
be public (motor room) or semipublic. that is, said to an individual but not in a
public voice. The latter are considered semipublic because all interactions in the
class are public to some extent, if only in the visual sense.
Analysis showed that the minor themes were generally semipubiici scmipri-
vate: that is. the teacher “slotted out” of the main activity (forming circle)
(Merritt, 1982; Merritt & Humphrey, 1979) and formed a “private“ interaction
with Rosie, June (Figure 4). and Laura (Figure 3). Such themes were generally
related to topics reflecting life in the classroom (see the guinea pig example in
Figure 3). Analysis of the Transitory theme category showed that tranhitorq
conversations initiated by individual students to the teacher focused on both
school-oriented and personal topics. These interactions were parallel to everyday
conversations in other settings. These brief conversations were short. were un-
developed by participants. and did not recur within this subevent tsec the Laura
example in Figure 3 and Adlai in Figure 4).
Although a theme might begin as a minor theme, it could become the focus ot
a more extended interaction as in the case of the teacher’> response to Laura’\
question about the guinea pig in Figure 3. This example illustrates the complexity
of theme identification and that interactions in classrooms often served multiple
purposes. The teacher responded to Laura acknowledging her right to be a
conversational partner, while at the same time signaling that the topic she initi-
ated was one appropriate for the circle. not for the personal conversation with the
teacher. Thus. the teacher moved this topic from a student-initiated minor theme
to an instrumental one, a major theme. The temporal dimension is important
because the same question might have received a different response if asked in
another time and place, for example in, the Circle. As in the case of the seating
rules. the interactions of this topic indicated the conditions under which students
could ask about certain aspects of class life. Thus, the teacher’s actions were
instrumental and not social in this set of interactions.
The analysis of these themes made visible the complex dynamics between
teacher and individual students, and teacher and group in the Milling subevent.
The analysis of the multiple conversations identified in this section showed that
these conversations transcended time and space; that is, they continued as if they
were occurring at a single point in time even though they were separated by time
and actions. The coherence of these conversations is visible when the intervening
talk is removed. When the conversation is compressed in time, it appears to be an
uninterrupted flow of talk about a single topic. For the students, the conversa-
tions were acted on as if they were continuing. For the teacher, the task was more
complex. She had to continue the instrumental conversations with the group and
individual students over time, remember where in the individual-student and
group conversation she and the student(s) were, and reenter these conversations
in ways that continued the topic for the student(s).
Analysis showed that in the actions the teacher took with individual students,
she signaled to the students that they had the right to be her conversational
partners, that the teacher would continue such conversations over time and
space, and that the teacher would act in ways that were expected by the students.
Thus, she signaled that formal and informal conversations were possible and
valued during this subevent. Additionally, in group conversations, she also sig-
naled expectations for action. In these, however, she tended to signal what was
appropriate or inappropriate action at a given point in time given what she was
attempting to construct with the students.
Examination of all types of themes made visible the formal and informal
nature of Milling and the types of discourse associated with this subevent. Mill-
ing was a purposeful period for both the teacher and students. The teacher’s goal
was to help students move from outside activity to inside activity. She did this by
engaging in a conversation in a public voice with the group. She did not expect
verbal responses; rather, she observed the nonverbal actions of the students and
commented on these. This talk was “doing” talk. It served an instrumental
function for the group, the teacher, and the curriculum.
The overlapping personal conversations that the teacher had with individual
students were an ordinary part of this subevent. They provided opportunities for
students to meet their own instrumental needs and to interact in informal ways
with the teacher. These exchanges were also purposeful for the individual. The
coexistence of these types of themes illustrates the complexity of the task facing
the teacher. She was simultaneously a partner with the group and with a series of
individuals. She had to monitor the group, attend to individual students, re-
member what she was talking about to the individuals, and continue her own
actions. (For a parallel set of tasks facing students, see Bloome & Theodorou,
1988)
162 R. Kantor, J. Green, M. Bradley, and I.. Lin
CONSTRUCTING A SCHOOLED DISCOURSE:

ISSUES AND DIRECTIONS
In the discussion of the analysis of Circle Time, several patterns were identified.
First, discourse processes were identified that were situation specific. At the
level of social life, these patterns involved students and teachers in interactions
that differed in content, purpose, discourse strategies, and social organization.
Second, a reciprocal relationship between teacher and student participation was
identified that made visible how the teacher’s pattern of discourse shifted as
student became more appropriate conversational participants in group discus-
sions. This shift in pattern reflected both the construction of discourse norms and
a change in knowledge about discourse demands by students. Third. the analysis
of the discourse demands on teacher and students during informal and formal
instructional periods of classroom life (i.e., Milling and Talking) illustrates the
existence of a range of participation structures in classrooms (Erickson & Shultz,
1981). These structures place differential demands on students and teachers as
conversational partners and participants. Fourth, the conversations between par-
ticipants (e.g., teacher and group, and teacher and individual students) may
overlap other conversations and may exist across time. Such conversations are
often noncontiguous yet continuing; that is, they involve brief interchanges,
movements away to engage in other tasks, and return to the conversation. Fifth,
analysis of Circle Time showed how discourse processes in this preschool were
both the vehicle for accomplishing classroom tasks and the instructional purpose
of such tasks.
The schooled discourse developed at Circle Time illustrates one set of patterns
of classroom interaction that contributed to the schooled discourse repertoires
needed to participate and learn in this classroom. Other events and contexts in
this classroom provided additional opportunities for such discourse to be con-
structed; that is, each event and context had distinct configurations of members.
roles and relationships among members, and communicative demands and pro-
cesses that led to distinct discourse demands and outcomes. Across events, then,
students and teacher constructed the norms and expectations, roles and rela-
tionships, and rights and obligations that framed what it meant to be a student
and a group member in this class.
To illustrate how, across events, a more general schooled discourse repertoire
was constructed, a brief discussion of two additional events will be presented:
Small-Group Activity Time for 3year-olds and Small-Group Activity Time for
4-year-olds. These events were selected to illustrate how processes associated
with Circle Time were also present in the discourse patterns of other events but
were situated in the purposes and goals of the new event and not those of Circle
Time. Additionally, these events illustrate how the preschool curriculum was
constructed to adapt to students of differing knowledge and ability. in this in-
stance, 3-year-olds who had not been to school and 4-year-olds who had partici-
pated in the preschool in the previous year.
COMPARING COMMUNICATIVE DEMANDS ACROSS

EVENTS: MEETING THE NEEDS OF DIFFERENT
AGE LEARNERS
The description that follows was obtained from the ethnographic and sociolin-
guistic analysis of these two age-segregated events. On an organizational level,
the difference between these events and Circle Time was self evident-Circle
Time was a whole-group event with mixed-age student composition, whereas
Small-Group Activity Time consisted of two co-occurring events with students
separated by age. The rationale offered by the teachers” as part of the eth-
nographic phase of this study indicated that the teachers planned separate ac-
tivities for different age students to teach the 3-year-olds how to become a group
and to help the older students extend their ability to accomplish academic tasks
through group processes.
The contribution of these events to the construction of a schooled discourse
repertoire was visible in the roles language played and in the focus of the activity
among teacher and students. The goals for the younger group focused on group
actions and not on being a conversational partner. In other words, in this small
group of 10 three-year-olds, the teacher used language and conversation to facili-
tate a first “group-action” experience for the students. Students learned to share
space, materials, and ideas for using the materials, and to construct group in-
teraction around these ideas and materials with teacher facilitation and support.
The individual products were usually displayed together to communicate
“group” in a special area of the room. Teacher talk often focused on making
explicit the rules for being a group, including the rights of the individuals within
the group (e.g., none could destroy your work) as well as the obligations for the
individuals to the group (e.g., each person stays until the group was entirely
finished) (see Williams, 1988, for a full account of this group process). This
small-group activity, then, served to construct the concept of group and to estab-
lish the norms and expectations for participation in small-group activities de-
signed to accomplish academic tasks.
As students worked and explored materials, the teacher commented on each
student’s ideas and asked other students to interact with the speaker. In this
way, the teacher used language to focus students on each other and helped them
see both their uniqueness (e.g., they each had different ways to use the same
open-ended materials) as well as their groupness (e.g., they were all working
together as a group). Through such interaction, the teacher strived to develop a
sense of group membership and ownership among the 3-year-olds that served as
a frame for working cooperatively and collaboratively on group projects. The
164 R. Kantor, J. Green, M. Bradley. and 1,. Lin
primary focus, therefore, was not on talk but on being together in particular
ways.
Analysis of thi\ event over time showed a shift in patterns of discourse that
parallcled those in Circle Time. For example, as in Circle Time. a shift in the
teacher’s explicit comments was identified that was associated with a parallel
shift in student adherence to social action rules. The teacher’s comments shifted
from an explicit focus on the responsibilities of the individuals to the group (e.g..
“William. we need you to be careful of your neighbor’s materials when you
reach to get your own”) to a focus on the social interactions of the group (e.g.,
“We’ll all need to work hard today to clean up these messy materials!“). In turn,
the students’ comments shifted from a focus on themselves and their rights (e.g.,
“Where’s n?~ glue?“) to more inclusive group talk (e.g.. “Look what )~YJdid!“)
and to using each other as resources. This shift reflects the movement from less
to more group-like actions that wab also observed in the Circle Time data.
Although the shift in patterns appears similar. an important distinction must
be drawn between the small-group event and the Circle Time event. Unlike
Circle Time where discourse was the ol?jec/ of the curriculum for the group. in
Small-Group Time, discourse was the \~hic/e for the curriculum of the group.
The demands for group interaction, cooperation. and USCof a schooled discourse
in this event served to focus students’ attention on group process in ways that
helped them to develop the discourse of collaborative action as well as the actions
themselves. Thus, by participating in this event. students were able to develop an
expanded understanding of how to be in group and how to learn through group.
The older group. the 4-year-olds. also had an opportunity to extend their
understanding of group process. The purpose of their small-group activity. how-
ever, was not to teach how to be in group but how to use the knowledge about
being in group that they had developed previously to construct truly collaborative
projects like group murals, group stories. group experiments recorded on a single
chart, and group sculptures. weaving. and mobiles. The teacher and students.
then. were able to focus on usink 7 group process to explore science. math. art.
and literacy pro_jects while continuing to extend the 4-year-olds experiences with
group processes and collaboration. The construction of these joint eKorts were
dependent on an understanding by the 4-year-olds of a schooled discourse associ-
atcd with group effort-for example, negotiation of ideas, planned and coordi-
natcd action. and compromise. Schooled discourse, in such events. was simulta-
neously a vehicle, an object and a resource for the group.
This brief comparison of events illustrates the differentiated nature of the
discourse demands in this preschool discourse community. It also demonstrates
how such demands are constructed in and through the interactions among men-
bers. Across the analyses of Circle Time and the Small-Group Activity Times,
we identified three ways discourse was functioning in the classroom, ways
similar to those dcscribcd by Halliday (1982). In this classroom, students learned
about language by participating in events that made discourse proccssca an ob,jcct
of study, for example, Circle Time. They also learned through discourse about
the social world, for example, Small-Group Time for 3-year-olds. Additionally,
students used social interactions to learn other content areas, for example, Small-
Group Time for 4-year-olds.
ISSUES AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
By using a discourse perspective, then, we were able to systematically and

theoretically examine the constructed nature of teaching and learning and to
make visible the processes by which a schooled-discourse register was con-
structed. Combined with an ethnographic study of the class as a culture, this
approach also provided new understandings about the relationships among learn-
ing, social participation, and language processes that are often invisible or unex-
amined when researchers foreground one of these process over the others.
Although the discourse patterns presented may be unique to this classroom,
we argue that discourse patterns are always constructed in classrooms and that
these patterns help to frame what is worth knowing, what it means to be a
member of the particular group, and how to participate in the everyday life of the
particular classroom. These patterns define what it means to be a learner and a
student in that classroom. Thus, from participating in and across particular
classrooms, students construct repertoires that reflect the range of opportunities
they have to become conversational partners, to present knowledge, and to
acquire academic content.
We argue that if students participate year-after-year in classrooms with the
same types of activities and demands, then, the discourse repertoires they con-
struct will reflect the patterns of expectations for participation in these class-
rooms and not what these same students might do in classrooms with other types
of organizational and interactional patterns. Future research needs to examine in
what ways the use of particular discourse patterns and expectations support
access to schooled knowledge and constrain access to different discourse com-
munities. To examine these issues, research is needed to explore questions such
as: What is the range of discourse options that students have an opportunity to
learn in classrooms, what possibilities and strategies exist for building on the
discourse patterns and resources from one level of schooling to the next level.
and what the consequences are of not building on the discourse patterns students
previously experienced (e.g., patterns from home, peer group, community sub-
groups, and other classrooms).
The two teachers in this classroom had an understanding of discourse from
sociolinguistics and ethnography of communication. These theoretical perspec-
tives combined with their knowledge of developmental and social development
perspectives to provide a broad theoretical and conceptual base that the teachers
brought to the processes of instruction and curriculum planning. As illustrated in
this article. their interactions with students and the curriculum activities reflected
166 R. Kantor, .I. Green, M. Bradley, and I.. Lin
an understanding of discourse as process and as object. Future research is needed

to examine how teacher knowledge about discourse influences the ways in which
teachers engage students in learning and how such knowledge influences what
students have an opportunity to learn. what is learned, what counts as knowledge
and learning, and how participation ib defined within and across classroom
events.
The discussion in this article also illustrates the contributions to both lin-
guistics and educational theory of a interactional sociolinguistic perspective to
the study of classrooms. This study shows, that by combining an ethnographic
study of the life of a group with sociolinguistic analysis of key events, we can
identify factors that support the construction of particular types of speech com-
munities in classrooms. Such indepth studies of the discourse worlds of class-
rooms provide the basis for future comparative work across classrooms to
explore how the discourse worlds of individual classrooms support and constrain
what members have an opportunity to learn, and how the social and linguistic
processes children bring to school arc supported by their participation in thcae
worlds as students.
Endnotes
I Golden ( 1988). Green, Weadc. & Graham ( 1988),and Harkcr ( 1%X) engaged in a
comparative analysis of teachers who had participated in an 18 month inscrvicc in theil
own school and who taught the same lesson to students from their own classroom. The
groups were cquivalcnt in age and ability. and the tasks were the same in physical
organization and content, yet these researchers identified sy\tcmatic differences in social
interactions, task presentation. and text. They concluded that the social interactions
among teachers led to differences in the nature of the task (Green. Weadc. 8~ Graham.
19X8). the nature of the cognitive demands (Harkcr. 1988). and the story prcsentcd
(Golden. 1988).
Erickson and his colleagues (set Green, 19X3)and Maldonado-Gunman ( 1992) also
found that teachers with differing organizational and philosophical structures used similar
ways of engaging hispanic students in Icssons. This research also shows that cor~u~w~~
ways of interacting may override diffcrcnccs in structure to provide a common framework
for students.
These two sets of studies show that the relationship of language and Icarning m
classrooms is complex and not simply a language issue. a structural issue. or an instruc-
tional problem. Rather, the relationship of language and learning is more complex and
requires an understanding of both the linguistic resources that members bring and how
discourse requirements constructed in the moment-by-moment actions of daily lift infu-
ence what is Icarncd. how members participate. and what is accomplished.
2. Heap ( 1980, 1991) argues that the teacher signals to students what ahc or hc
“counts” as an appropriate response from all possible responses that arc semantically
equivalent. For example, in asking a question about the story Rumplestiltskin (Heap.
1980). the teacher showed students that she wanted a particular rcsponsc. the little man.
and not the name of Rumplestiltskin.
3. There is a vast body of research on this topic: adequate representation of this

research is not possible in this article. For a representative \ynthcsis see Ca~dcn ( 19X6.
1988). Readers are referred to the Annual Review @‘Applied Linguistics (e.g., Grabe.
1991) for additional synthesis articles on particular aspects of this issue.
4. Tannen (1989) defines discourse as language above the level of the sentence. We
use discourse in this sense. We use discourse in the oral mode to refer to connected bits of
interaction. These interactions may take the form of sentences or may be connected
utterances by an individual speaker or among speakers. The need to use a unit other than
sentence in oral speech stems from the fact that speakers often speak in units smaller than
a sentence. For our purpose, the minimal unit is called a message unit (Green & Wallat,
1979, 1981) which is defined as a minimal unit of socially acknowledged meaning. This is
not a semantic definition but a definition derived by observing how members deliver and
act upon their own messages and those of others. An expanded definition is presented in
the section on analysis.
5. Hymes (1974) has argued that there are two ways of framing the questions of
language in the study of a group. One focuses on what is the nature of language and asks
questions about the linguistic aspects of the situation. The other focuses on social life and
asks how such life is accomplished through language. This distinction is useful in seeing
the differences in focus of previous research and in understanding the way in which some
perspectives on the social construction of knowledge view language.
6. Other interactional perspectives that contribute to this work include ethnomethodol-

ogy (e.g., Heap, 1991; Mehan, 1979) and discourse theories grounded in literary perspec-
tives (e.g., Bakhtin, 1986; Golden, 1990).
7. For synthesis articles associated with the sociocommunicative setting see Bloome
(1991). Bloome and Green (1984. 1992) Cazden (1986). Erickson (1986). and Green
(1983).
8. By preschool, we refer to those school situations that occur prior to kindergarten or

any other initial point of formal school. This designation also includes institutions such as
nursery schools. It does not include child-care or home-care situations at this time.
9. A group discourse repertoire contrasts with an individual’s discourse repertoire. At
group level patterns are constructed and become stable over events. These patterns arc
part of the group discourse norms for participation. Individuals may or may not read,
interpret, use, or display these norms. A group discourse repertoire consists of those
patterns that members learn to expect or see as appropriate at group level.
IO. Whether individuals will or will not participate and how they elect to participate
depends on many factors including the subject position of the student (Davies, 1982;
Fernie et al., in press) and peer-group demands (Bloome & Theodorou, 1988). Reading
and interpreting a context appropriately is necessary but not sufficient to insure that a
person will participate in a particular way. Participation is complex and can be examined
from a whole-group level, a subgroup level, and an individual level. In the past, most
analyses of interactions have focused on the point of view of the individual. This perspec-
tive argues for multiple perspectives given the overlap of these levels. As Bloome &
Theodorou (1988) showed, students often must attend simultaneously to peer demands
and to teacher-group demands for participation.
I I. A transcript can be viewed as a theoretically constructed text that represents the

researchers view of the nature of the process (Baker, 1991; Ochs, 1979). The ways in
which researchers construct transcripts reflect their assumptions about the nature of dis-
course, the relationship among units, and the relationship among actors. Thus, the way in
which a transcribed text is constructed influences what can be “read” and interpreted.
12. In the Green and Wallat (19X1) system. this unit was called an instructional
sequence unit. This designation limited the units to instructional contexts. The unit is not
defined by instructional purpose but by topic. Thus. a change in the label was needed to
reflect the nature of the unit and to reflect the content and purpose of these units. By
adopting this label. we have made this approach more adaptive to conversations across
multiple contexts. The value of this approach in law is reflected in the work of Butler
( 1990). in medical settings by the work of McClelland (1990). and in physical education
settings by the work of Graham (Graham, Green. 81 Earls. 1986).
13. Two teachers were co-teachers. One was the lead teacher who was responsible for
the overall program and for teaching the 3-year-old group. One teacher taught the 3-year-
old group at small-g,roup time and worked collaboratively with the lead teacher in plan-
ning and implcmcntlng the general curriculum and program. The two teachers formed a
team that worked with this group of students: each had diff‘ercntiated roles. The analysis ot
Circle Time focused on the interactions of the lead teacher; the comparison of Circle Time
with Small-Group Activity Time requlrcd consideration of both teachers.
REFERENCES
Alton-Lee. A.. & Nuthall. G. (1992). Childrcn’a learning in classrooms: Chullcnge\ m developing a
methodology to explain “opportunity to learn ” ./oIII.~~N/cfC/u.s.woom Intcrc~c~ion. ?7(2). I -8.
Baker. C. (1991). Literacy practices and wc~al relations in classroom reading events. In C. Baker &
A. I.ukc (Eds. ). 7b~twd tz wiricul .soc~io/o,yv of wufing pdr~o~~ ( pp. 161~ 190). Phila-
dclphia: John BenJamins.
Bakhtm. M.M. (19X6).Spwdzgmw.~md othrr-I&r c~cs~q~.

Austin:The Unlver\ity of Texas Prcsa.
Barr. R. (1987). Classroom interaction and curricular content. in D. Bloomc (Ed.), Li~rtrcv cir~d
schooling (pp. IS- 168). Norwood. NJ: Ablcx.
Bloome. D. (1987). Lirrrucv rend dwdin~. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bl~mc. D. ( 1989). School cold lireruq. Norwood. NJ: Ablcx.
Bloome. D. C1991). Anthropology and research on teachmg the English language arth. In J. Flood.
D. Lapp, J.M. Jensen. & J.R. Squire (Eds.). T/w handhoofi fiw rrseurch rn t/w Enz/r.sl!
lo~quuge urr.\ (pp. 46-56). NW York: Macmillan.
Bloome. D., & Bailey, F. (1992). Studying languapc and literacy through events. particularity.
intertcxtuality. In R. Beach, J. Green. M. Kamil, & T. Shanahan (Eda.). Mu/lirfi.\c,i/,/inclr\
p~~npe~~~irc.~on /~fuuc~ resrctrd~ (pp. IX I-2 IO). Bloommgton. IL: National Council of
Teacher& of English.
Bloome. I).. & Green, J. (1984). Dircctlona In sociolingutstic study of rcadmg. In II. Pearson,
R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, & P. Moscnthal (Ed\. ), Hnndhook for- wudiq r-c.wrrrclr. Vd. I t pp.
395-422). New York: Luqman.
Bloome. D.. 8.~Green. J (1902).Educational contexts ot litcracy. In W. Grabc (Ed.). Annrrul rrwe\<
of q~plied lirtpisrics ( pp. 49-70). New Yorh: Camhridgc University Preab
Bloome. D., Puro. P , & Thcodorou. E. (19X9). Procedural display and classroom lccsons. C‘ur-ricII-
/WI Inquir:v, IY(3). 265-29 I.
Butler. C. ( 1990). A ctud~ of c$cc/iw Appdltrtr trrf~w~u~v. I:npublihhcd doctoral disertation. The
Ohio State UniverGty. Columbus. OH
Carlcon. W. (1992). Closing down the convetwtion: Dwouraging student tall\ on unfamiliar hcwncc
content. .lourtd of Classroom Inrcrtwtion. -77(2 ). 15-X.
Cazden, C. (1986). Classroom discourse. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), The handbook ofresearch on

teaching, Vol. 3 (pp. 432-463). New York: Macmillan.
Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language ofteachiq and learning. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Cazden, C. ~& Michaels. S. (1983). Final report: Oral preparation for writing in elementary school
classrooms: Children’s discourse styles and teachers’ instructional strategies. Cambridge,
MA: Spencer Foundation.
Chandler, S. (1992). Learning for what purpose‘? Questions when viewing classroom learning from a
socio-cultural curriculum perspective. In H. Marshall (Ed.), Redefining /earning: Roars of
educational restructuring (pp. 33-58). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Cochran-Smith, M. (1984). The making ofa reader. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Collins, J. (1986). Differential instruction in reading groups. In J. Cook-Gumperz (Ed.). The social
construction of literacy (pp. I 17- 137). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Collins, J. (1987). Using cohesion analysis to understand access to knowledge. In D. Bloome (Ed.).
Literacy and Schooling (pp. 67-97). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Collins. E., & Green, J.L. (1992). Learning in classroom settings: Making or breaking a culture. In
H. Marshall (Ed.), Redefining learning: Roots of educational restructuring (pp. 59-86).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Cook-Gumperz, J. (Ed.). (1986). The social construction of literacy. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Davies, B. (1982). Life in the classroom andplayground: The accounts of primuty school children.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Dorr-Bremme, D. (1982). Behaving and making sense: Creating social or,yanization in the cluss-
room. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Edwards, A.D., & Furlong, V.J. (1978). The language of teaching. London: Heinemann.
Edwards. D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knovvledgr: The development of understanding in the
classroom. New York: Falmer Press.
Elgas. P. (1988). The construction of a preschool peer culture: The role of objects and play styles.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University. Columbus, OH.
Elgas, P.. Klein, E., Kantor, R., & Femie, D. (1988). Play and the peer culture: Play styles and
object use. Journal ofResearch in Childhood Education. 3(2), 142-153.
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative research. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), The handbook of reseurch on
teaching. Vol. 3 (pp. Il9-161). New York: Macmillan.
Erickson, F., Florio, S., & Shultz. J. (1979). Where’s the floor? Aspects of the cultural relationships
in communication at home and in school. In P. Gilmore & A. Glatthom (Eds.). Children in
and out of school: Ethnography and education (pp. 8% 123). Washington, DC: Center for
Applied Linguistics.
Erickson, F.. & Shultz, J. (198 I). When is a context? Some issues and methods in the analysis of
social competence. In J. Green & C. Wallat (Eds.), Ethnography and language in educational
settings (pp. 147- 160). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Femie. D. (1988). Becoming a student: Messages from first settings. Theory In/o Pracrice. 27(l), 3-
10.
Femie, D.. Davies, B., Kantor, R., & McMurray, P. (in press). Becoming a person: Creating
integrated gender, peer and student positionings in a preschool classroom. In International
Journul of Qualitative Research in Education.
Femie, D., Kantor, R., Klein, E.. Meyer. C., & E&as, P. ( 1988). Becoming students and becoming
ethnogmphers in preschool. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 3(2), 132-
141.
Femie, D.. Kantor, R., Scott, J., McMurray, P.. Kesner, J.. & Klein. E. (1990, April). The Honq-
mooners: Teachers and children co-construct the school culture qf a preschool. Paper pre-
sented the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
Fishman, J.A. (1974). The relationship between Micro- and Macro-Sociolinguistics in the study if
170 R. Kantur, J. Green, M. Bradley, and I,. Lin
Harker, J.O. (1988). Contrasting the content of two story-reading lessons: A propositional analysis.
In J. Green & J. Harker (Eds.), Multiple perspective ana/wc.s oj’classroom discourse (pp. 49-
70). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Heap, J. (1980). What counts as reading’? Limits to certainty in assessment. Curriculum Inquiry,
/O(3), 265-292.
Heap, J. (1991). A situated perspective on what counts as reading. In C. Baker & A. Luke (Eds.).
Towards a critical sociology of reading Pedagogy (pp. IO3- 139). Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Heap, J. (1992). Seeing snubs: An introduction to sequential analysis of classroom interaction.
Journal of Classroom Intcrwtion. 27(2), 23-28.
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations qf sociolinguisrics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania Press.
Hymes, D. (1982). What is ethnography? In P. Gilmore & A. Clatthom (Eds.), Children in and ow
qf school (pp. 2 l-32). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Hymes, D., & Gumperz. J.J. (1972). Direcrions in sociolirzKuistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Kantor. R. (I 988). Creating school meaning in preschool curriculum. Theory Into Pracrice, 27(l),
25-35.
Kantor, R., El&as, P., & Femie, D. (I 989). First the look and then the sound: Creatmg conversations
at circle time. Early Childhood Research QuarterIF, 4(4), 433-448.
Kantor. R.. Miller, A.M., & Femie, D. (1992). Diverse paths to literacy in a preschool classroom: A
sociocultural perspective. Reading Research Quarrerl~. ?7(3), 1844201.
Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science. Norwood. NJ: Ablex.
Maldonado-Guzman, A.A. (1992). Theoretical and methodological issues in the Ethnographic study
of teachers’ differential treatment of children in bilingual bicultural classrooms. In M.
Saravia-Shore & S.F. Arvizu (Eds.), Cross-culturul literacy: Erhnographies qf communica-
tion in multiethnic classrooms. New York: Garland.
Marshall, H.H., 81Weinstein, R.S. (1988). Beyond quantitative analysis: Recontextualization of
classroom factors contributing to the communication of teacher expectations. In J. Green &
J. Harker (Eds.), Multiple perspective unalxws of classroom discourse (pp. 249-280). Nor-
wood, NJ: Ablex.
McClelland, M.I. (1990). The discourse of inrerdisciplinar\ health cure assessment: Towards a
hiosocial mode/. Unpublished doctoral Dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus,
OH.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Umversity Press.
Merritt, M. (1982). Distributing and directing attention in primary classrooms. In L.C. Wilkinson
(Ed.). Communicating in rhe classroom. New York: Academic.
Merritt, M., & Humphrey, F. (1979). Teacher, talk and task: Communicative demands during
individualized instruction time. Theory Into Practice. 18(4). 298-303.
Michaels, S. (1981). Sharing time: Children’s narrative styles and differential access to literacy.
Language in Sociq. 10(3), 423-442.
Michaels, S., & Cook-Gumperz, J. (1979). A study of sharing time with first grade student: Dis-
course narratives in the classroom. In Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Socie/y, 5.87-
103.
Miller, S. (1991). Diverse paths to literacy in a preschool classroom: A socioculrural perspective.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus. OH.
Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. In E. Ochs & B. Scheiffelin (Eds.). Developmental
pragmarics (pp. 43-72). New York: Academic.
Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse Group. (1992a). Constructing literacy in classrooms: Literate
action as social accomplishment, In H. Marshall (Ed.). Red@i’ning Learning: Roots of Educa-
tional Restructuring (pp. I I9- 150). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
172 K. Kantor, .J. Green, M. Bradley, and I,. Lin

GREEN - Repertorio Escolar - Sociolingüística

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

GREEN - Repertorio Escolar - Sociolingüística

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

LINGUISTICSAND EDUCATION4, 13I- 172 (1992)

The Construction of Schooled

The perspective developed in this article provides a framework for understanding

when curriculum, content. and structure are the same.’

THE ARGlJMENT IN PERSPECTIVE: EXTENDING THE

The perspective on classroom discourse presented in this article extends prcvioux

not on how social life is accomplished through discourse.4 Although it informs

tions, and assumptions of participants become visible to members and outside

CONSTRUCTING A SCHOOL REPERTOIRE: A VIEW FROM

We elected to focus on preschool data to examine the construction of a schooled

communicative demands on both teacher and students: and (5) it is part of an

CIRCLE TIME: CONSTRUCTING A PATTERN

Analysis of Part-Whole Relationships and Patterns of Interaction

social interaction, discourse strategies. content, and points of frame-clash within

SOCIAL ACTION RULES: THE LOOK AND THE

The comparative analysis led to the identification of expectations for social

The Look of the Circle

Put things in cubby before commg to arde

Get teacher’s help to put things away

Take turns sittmg on lead teacher’s lap

‘OptionalRules ‘;;; Circle starts with a song

Ixi9mii Leave Circleone at a time

Milling: From Outside to Inside

‘I’ransition: Learning to Sit in a Circle

Dismissal: Leaving the Circle-Going to the Next Event

marked by particular types of social interactions among members, by particular

The Sound of the Circle

Singing: Interacting in a Group

Talking: Learning to Talk in a Group

songs but malonty

Group Tnes as many Ideas as possible

Make public announcements

I law group c0nver5at10nsat Circle

DISCUSS other classroom rules at crcle

Some topics are not appropriate for Crcle

Children Introduce topics

Teacher Introduces topics

Gwe an on topic remark when someone else has floor

Certam bchawors disrupt the group

Walt pahently for a turn to talk

One person talks at a time

Use Inside voices for talking

Everyone gets one speaking turn before anyone gets

a second turn to speak

The Teacher wll help you get Ihe group’s attention

You cav claim the floor for a speakmg turn

lhe Teacher protects your turn

Line up ior turns If the teacher IS dlstnbuhng them by

Don’t repeat someone’s Idea, have your own Idea

Can Intcnupt wth an Important personal need

unitary phenomenon; rather, an event like Circle Time consists of a variety of

THE SHIFTING PATTERNS OF DISCOURSE

Fall Winter Spring

Conversational turns (fz).l 44 I Oh I s-3

aI-$ures are based on an average of four circle\ per seawn

and 63% for teacher). In winter it shifted to approximately a 1: 1 ratio (51% to

Getting the Floor

Strategy for Gaining the Floor Fall Winter Spring

Negotiating and Renegotiating Conversational Rules

Social Action Rules

Subevents Fall Winter Spring Fall Winter Spring

The Look of the Circle

EXPANDING UNDERSTANDING OF SCHOOLED DISCOURSE: