Pre-print draft of Language for the social construction of knowledge: comparing classroom talk in Mexican pre-schools Rupert Wegerif* , Sylvia Rojas-Drummond** and Neil Mercer* Published as: Wegerif, R., Rojas-Drummond, S. and Mercer, N. (1999) Language for the Social Construction of Knowledge: Comparing Classroom Talk in Mexican Pre-Schools. Language and Education. 13 (2): 133-151 ISSN 0360-1315 Abstract This study compares two sets of matching classrooms in Mexican pre-schools over a period of a year. In one set of classrooms the children improved significantly in independent problem solving. We looked at videotape and transcripts taken over the year to see, retrospectively, if reasons for the improvement in problem solving could be found in the classroom language. Differences in the two sets of data were explored with a method for investigating classroom talk which combines qualitative interpretation with computer-based analysis. This method had been developed to explore peer classroom talk in the UK and was being applied to a new context. A socio-cultural model of how children learn independent problem-solving was also developed and applied to the analysis. This model was found to fit a number of types of teaching and learning exchanges found in the classrooms where problem-solving increased. The method used also enabled us to isolate several specific verbal strategies which carried the social construction of knowledge through scaffolding the pupils' engagement in independent problem-solving and reasoning. As well as these contributions to the theory and practice of education the study illustrates the value and transferability of a new method for investigating classroom talk. Key words: discourse analysis: Mexico: primary education: problem-solving: socio-cultural theory: talk Introduction Findings presented by Rojas-Drummond and Alatorre (1994) show significant improvements in independent problem solving for children in two classrooms in one Mexican state pre-school. Matched children in a very similar school just a few city blocks away improved only marginally in the same period. The two teachers in the classrooms where these improvements were achieved had both recently been trained in the High/Scope method of teaching, a method originating in the USA which emphasises the empowerment of pupils. The focus of this study is not on the High/Scope curriculum but on the language use in the classroom of these teachers: how it differs from the language use in the matched classrooms and how it might

relate to the improved problem solving ability of pupils. To help answer these questions we apply a method for the comparative analysis of classroom talk developed for research in UK primary schools (Wegerif and Mercer, 1997). We also apply and develop a socio-cultural theoretical perspective as to how children can be effectively guided into the process of the construction of knowledge (Drummond and Mercer, 1998). In an article in Language and Education Wegerif and Mercer (1997) argued for the value of a qualitative method of analysing classroom talk which incorporated the use of computer-based analysis of transcripts using a concordancer. For ease of reference this will be called the Dynamic Inverted Pyramid or DIP method. In the paper referred to they argued that this method allowed for systematic comparisons while remaining sensitive to the context of meaning. In this it was claimed to combine some of the strengths of quantitative methods with the strengths of more interpretative methods while avoiding their most noted respective weaknesses. These claims were illustrated with the results of one comparative study of peer talk in UK primary schools. However no evidence was offered for the further claim, which was also made, that the DIP method could be applied effectively to the analysis of classroom talk more generally. As well as exploring classroom talk, this paper explores that large methodological claim through reporting on the application of the same method to a different research problem and a very different context. In this study the DIP method is applied to compare teacher and pupil talk in the Spanish language in Mexican state pre-schools. The data This study, along with the two preceding studies which will be described, is based on data gathered in two state pre-schools in Mexico City. The schools are located close to each other and serve similar communities. In each school two classes, each of twenty children aged 5 to 6, were observed over one academic year. One school used the High/Scope approach after in-service training from the Mexican High/Scope Institute. In the other school teachers had not received this training and used what we are calling the 'Official' approach. We will refer to them respectively as the High/Scope teachers and the Official teachers and the transcripts collected in their classrooms as the High/Scope data and the Official data. Although taking different approaches to teaching both types of teacher had to work within the established state curriculum. Video recordings of teacher-pupil interactions in each of the four classes were made in February and again in June. Sessions about 45 minutes long were recorded as teachers carried out their usual curriculum based activities with the whole class of with groups of children on the topic of arithmetic reasoning. Teachers chose their own classroom arrangements. The two High/Scope teachers put the class in groups of about 6 pupils. The Official teachers both used whole class approaches in the first of the two video-recorded sessions and small group work in the June sessions. More of the Official teacher's lessons were

transcribed than of the High/Scope teachers. This was done in order to make the number of exchange sequences roughly equal in both cases (where an exchange sequence was defined as an Initiation, Response Follow-up, or IRF first described by Sinclair and Coulthard, 1975). As there was less talk in the Official classrooms than in the High/Scope classrooms equalising the number of teaching exchanges meant including more video time for the Official teachers than for the High/Scope teachers. All the video-recorded Official sessions were transcribed, a total of 2 hours 24 minutes. The High/Scope sessions were cut, with cuts shared as evenly across sessions as natural changes in the teaching activities would allow, to produce a total of 1 hour 36 minutes of transcript. A comparison of the development of independent problem solving In addition to qualitative video and transcript data, quantitative data from tests of independent problem solving ability was also collected. For this study the four classes of children were each given arithmetic problems and figure-matching puzzles at three points during one academic year and evaluated using methods of ‘dynamic assessment’ developed by Brown and Ferrera (1985). This method assesses how much help the children need to solve each problem through using testers who provide help in stages if required. The findings of this study were that the children in the two classes taught by the High/Scope trained teachers significantly improved in their capacity to solve problems independently when compared with those who were taught by the teachers who had not received training (Rojas-Drummond and Alatorre, 1994). By the end of the year most of the children in the High/Scope classes were able to solve the problems without any type of help. In contrast, the children taught by the more conventional methods still relied a great deal on an adult providing concrete representations of the elements involved in the problem. The socio-cultural hypothesis This significant result led the researchers to explore further the differences in the teaching styles. A second study was designed using the same data. This study developed a schema of types of teacher-pupil interaction in order to compare the teaching and learning in the different classrooms (Rojas-Drummond, Mercer and Dabrowski, 1998). This schema was based on a careful characterisation of a style of teaching which was believed, on the basis of the literature, the principles of socio-cultural theory and the findings of previous studies, could be expected to provide an effective 'scaffolding' (Wood, Bruner and Ross 1976; Maybin, Mercer and Stierer, 1992) for children's intellectual development and to help them improve their independent problem solving abilities. This characterisation will be referred to in this paper as the ‘socio-cultural hypothesis’, where the hypothesis in question is that the described style of teaching and learning contributes importantly to pupils' development of independent problem solving skills and so could explain the different test results between the two conditions. This characterisation of effective teaching and learning, based on a socio-cultural theoretical model

was made on five different dimensions (see Figure 1). For example, dimension one is described as an orientation found in the teaching and learning towards learning as a social process as opposed to as an individual process. The socio-cultural hypothesis on this dimension is characterised through specific actions such as pupils learning collaboratively or being used by the teacher as a support for other pupils learning. A previous study (Rojas-Drummond, Mercer and Dabrowski, 1998) converted this characterisation of effective teaching on a social-cultural model into a type of coding scheme through listing the communicative actions through which each of the five dimensions was realised in the classroom. The results of the coding of the data according to this schema, and of comparing the transcripts from the two curricula, demonstrated that there was a significant difference between the two sets of transcripts with the High/Scope teachers and students engaging more frequently in actions reflecting the socio-cultural hypothesis. Statistical analysis demonstrated that 18 of the 26 actions described by the socio-cultural hypothesis were found significantly more in the High/Scope data than in the Official data. [Insert Figure 1] If we look at Figure 1 we can see that the study by Rojas-Drummond, Mercer and Dabrowski was based in the second level of analysis, that of teaching and learning actions. These actions were performed through the use of spoken language but the actual language used, the base level in the diagram, was not the focus of the study. This paper continues our investigation of the socio-cultural hypothesis but this time we take a different approach focusing on the spoken language in order to explore how language is being used and how this usage differs between the two sets of classrooms. The DIP method described below allowed us to measure differences in language use between the two conditions and to investigate in detail if and how language was used to realise the dimensions of the socio-cultural hypothesis. The DIP method The ‘Dynamic Inverted Pyramid’ or DIP method was first developed to compare the talk of groups of children in England and reported in Wegerif and Mercer (1997). Essentially this method combines detailed interpretation of the way that language is used in context with a computer-based analysis of the transcripts of larger amounts of language use. This enables generalisations to be made from specific examples without any loss of the context of language use. It also enables comparisons between transcripts based on the actual words spoken rather than upon a code or category. Because it operates between detailed interpretation and the analysis of actual words used it is not simply an alternative to the application of a coding scheme but can ground and augment such an application. For example, in this case the video and transcript data has been coded according to an interpretation of the teaching actions

without a detailed analysis of the actual words used to realise the different functions. It is therefore of considerable interest to explore whether the differences in the two sets of transcripts, differences which were first sensed intuitively and then confirmed through the application of a coding scheme, also translate into differences observable through a computer-based analysis of the transcripts. Figure 2: Dynamic Inverted Pyramid: Inter-relating different levels and types of data

The aim of the DIP method is to integrate several levels of abstraction in the data. The most concrete data available to us here is the full video and audio recording. Abstraction is the process of pulling selected features out of this most concrete level. Making an annotated transcription, for example, is the first level of abstraction from the full recording. Pulling lists of Key Words in Context (KWIC) out of this transcript is a further level of abstraction and pulling just a count of words out of that KWIC list goes further still. The DIP method moves from a focus on the qualitative event, the point of the pyramid, out to more general and abstract measures such a count of words or other features of language in use, via a series of stages of the

analysis of words in context (see Figure 1). Looking at the use of key words in context and exploring their collocations (the other words they occur with or the company that they keep), can be done quickly with computer based concordancers using electronic transcripts. This method has been adapted from procedures used to explore large amounts of language data in corpus linguistics (Baker et al. 1994; Stubbs, 1996). We use software called KwicTex specially designed by David Graddol for the analysis of discourse (Graddol, 1998). This software is not commercially available. However, there are many commercially available concordancers which can also be used effectively. The method is said to be ‘dynamic’ both because it is based on the rapid iterative movements between specific context and larger texts and because its findings are drawn from the interplay between several levels of data rather than upon the reduction of the meaning of the text to one level of analysis. Applying the DIP method The starting point of the DIP analysis was the two sets of video recordings and transcripts described earlier, one set for the two High/Scope trained teachers and one set for the Official teachers. It was known, through test results describe above, that in the one set of two classrooms the children had done much better on independent problem solving exercises than in the other set of two classrooms. The overall research question motivating the analysis was ‘were there differences in the two sets of data which could help explain why one set of children had improved in problem solving?’. From the socio-cultural theoretical perspective it was hypothesised that improved independent problem solving should be associated to an approach to teaching and learning outlined in Figure 1. In summary this approach claims that effective teaching and learning is a social activity in which knowledge is jointly constructed, the focus is more on the process of learning than on the product alone and the teacher scaffolds the acquisition of new skills. Looking at the videos and transcripts it seemed clear that the kind of teaching suggested by the socio-cultural approach was being applied more by the two High/Scope teachers that the Official teachers. Results from the study by Rojas-Drummond, Mercer and Dabrowski (1998) confirmed these predictions through analysing teacher-student interactions, but not through an analysis of the actual spoken language used. Edwards and Westgate (1994) point out that to carry out an analysis centred in the classroom talk requires something more convincing than a narrative description of these intuitions illustrated with short transcript extracts. Such stories are not convincing. A researcher's desire to see a certain result could distort this kind of analysis and untypical extracts could easily be selected to support whatever case was being made. The DIP method attempts to solve this problem of providing persuasive evidence through working with observable and, in some cases, measurable, differences in the language used while rooting these differences in a qualitative assessment of particular episodes.

The following four micro-studies of language use illustrates a part of this analysis. Each micro-study incorporates the following four steps: 1. an episode of talk in the High/Scope data reflecting the socio-cultural hypothesis selected

and commented upon; 2. language features which seem significant in this episode are extracted and all instances of

the use of this feature, usually a word or phrase, in both sets of data are examined in their immediate linguistic context

3. the educational context of the use of these features in the Official data is explored in more detail and compared to the educational use of the same linguistic features in the High/Scope data

4. quantitative differences in use between the two sets of data are abstracted out from the full transcript evidence.

1. Learning as a social process: ‘vamos a ver’ In exploring the videos and transcripts of the High/Scope trained teachers we looked for evidence to support the socio-cultural hypothesis. The first two dimensions given in Figure 1 represent two linked sub-hypotheses: that teaching will be most effective when teachers (a) treat learning as a social process; and (b) conceive of knowledge as a jointly constructed phenomenon. The following extract was selected to illustrate a teacher using an approach which is in accord with these statements. In this extract High/Scope trained teacher Sara is working with pupils Raphael, David and Claudia using a balance each to help them understand the idea of equivalence. At the beginning of the task, they select a certain number on one side, and then have to come up with a certain combination of numbers on the other side to achieve balance/equivalence (e.g. 5 = 3 + 2).

Note. In all the following transcript extracts: names have been substituted; the transcripts have been punctuated for readability with stops in parentheses, (...), used to indicate inaudible talk; and translations appear in the right hand column.

Transcript extract 1: 'Vamos a ver' in High/Scope data

D: Mira, permite... T: Es más. mira. ¿Cuál se sigue pasando? Está muy pesado. Busca un mas chico. D: El sie-, el ... och- ... C: ¿5? T: A ver, el 5. Éste es el 5. Ya no la mueves, Raphita. Ahorita vamos a ver. T: Muy, muy bien, David.Muy bien. A ver nada más vamos a esperar a Claudia. Otro numero chico para que pese igual. Este es bien. Pero ... busca otro numero chico. R: (...). T: Pero aquí ya pesa igual. ¿Cómo ves?. R: (...). T: Muy bien, Claudia. Ahora, vamos a ver nuestras básculas. Fíjense. Raphita, tiene su 8, y de este lado puso un 5 y un tres ¿Quién - o puso igual?

D: Look, allow... T: Is is more, look. Which one is still higher? It seems very heavy. You need to look for a smaller one. D: The seven...., the eight...... C: ¿5? T: Let's see, the 5. This is the 5. Don't move it any more, Raphita. Now let’s see... T: Very well, David, very well. Let’s see, let’s just wait for Claudia. Another small number so that it can weigh the same. That one is all right. But, look for another small number. R: (...). T: But here it weighs the same. What do you thuink? R: (...). T: Very good, Claudia. Now let’s look at our balances. Look carefully now. Raphita has his 8 here, and on this side he put a 5 and a 3. Did he put the same?

In this episode we can see the teacher leading the children in the joint construction of knowledge. All are engaged together in finding out the answer to the problem. The teacher does not tell the children the answers directly but guides them to finding out through involving them in a process of hypothesis-testing and problem solving. This idea of joint construction is signalled by the use of verbs in the first person plural and particularly the use of the verb phrase ‘vamos a ver’ ('let's see' or 'let's look'). Using our concordancer we selected ‘vamos a ver’ and pulled out a Key Word in Context (KWIC) list of all uses of this phrase in both sets of data. Our discourse analysis software allowed us to move quickly between the lines in the KWIC list and the full transcript context. Through this analysis it became apparent that ‘vamos a ver’ was being used very differently in the High/Scope data than in the Official data. The many uses of 'vamos a ver' by the High/Scope teachers (30) were nearly all similar in function to the two uses illustrated. They were used to emphasise the shared nature of the exploration and discovery of knowledge. The fewer uses of 'vamos a ver' by the Official teachers (3) were all very different in function, 'vamos a ver' being used to control (wait until I tell you what to do) and direct (look at the blackboard). To illustrate the method, below is a KWIC list of all the 3 uses of ‘vamos a ver’ in the Official data where the parameters of the list were set to one turn at talk: KWIC list 1. ʻVamos a verʼ in Official data

1. T: Ahorita, vamos a ver en el pizarrón, ¿sí? 2. T: A ver, Manuel, haz para acá tu trabajo. Ahora, sí, ya vamos a ver acá el pizarrón. Los ojitos acá. A ver, todos van a levantar su crayola color rojo. 3. T: Ese. Ahora, relacionalo con el número 2. Eso.A ver, José Luis. No estamos pintando. Vamos a ver.

T: Just a moment. let’s see here in the blackboard, O.K.? T: Let’s see, Manuel. Move your work over here. Now we’re ready, let’s all look here at the blackboard. All your little eyes here. Let’s see, you’re all going to lift your red crayon. T: This. Now, relation with number 2. This. Look Jose Luis. We are not drawing. Wait and see.

Two of the uses of ‘vamos a ver’ occurred close together. In extract 2 they are presented in their linguistic context. The teacher (Yuridia) has a piece of paper on the blackboard with sets of animals on one side and numbers on the other. With different crayon colours, the children have to draw a line joining the sets to the corresponding numbers, in the way she tells them to. Transcript extract 2. ʻVamos a verʼ in Official data M: ¿Cómo se hace, maestra? T: Ahorita, vamos a ver en el pizarrón, ¿sí?. T: A ver, Manuel, haz para acá tu trabajo. Ahora, sí, ya vamos a ver acá el pizarrón. Los ojitos acá. A ver, todos van a levantar su crayola color rojo. E: ¿El color rojo?. T: Rojo. Muy bien. Éste. Van a relacionar ... a ver qui_n no tiene el color rojo. A ver, Àqui_n no tiene el rojo?. José Luis. ¡mmm! ¿Quién me dice que no tiene rojo?.

M: How do you do it, miss? T: Just a moment. let’s see here in the blackboard, O.K.? T: Let’s see, Manuel. Move your work over here. Now we’re ready, let’s all look here at the blackboard. All your little eyes here. Let’s see, you’re all going to lift your red crayon. E: The red colour? T: Red, very well. This one. You are going to relate ... Let’s see, who doesn’t have a red crayon. Let’s see, who does not have red?. José Luis. ¡mmm! Who says he does not have a red crayon?

In this episode we can see that the teacher uses the phrase ‘vamos a ver’ to direct the children to the blackboard. In place of the joint construction of knowledge we have an illustration of the transmission model of teaching with emphasis placed on the children following of precise instructions to carry out prescribed tasks.

2. Knowledge constructed by pupils: ‘mira’ In the preceding micro-study we saw how the High/Scope teacher’s use of language emphasised that learning was a social rather than only an individual process and involved a joint construction of knowledge. This implies encouraging the pupils also to engage in the learning process. This micro-study focuses on the pupil’s contribution to the joint construction process. The following episode comes from the same transcript as Extract 1, where High/Scope teacher Sara is working with several students (in this segment Raphael, Lily and David) to make the two sides of a balance equivalent by combining different sets of numbers. Transcript extract 3: 'Mira' in High/Scope transcripts T: (Nodding). 7. Muy bien, Lily. A ver, tú, Raphita, ya pusiste un 4. L: No, ése va a pesar mucho. T: A ver, yo creo que sí, sí, mira, Lily tenía razón. Se pasó. Está muy grande el número. L: Él sale, mira, mejor pon el 6 y luego le pones el (...). T: A ver, pero déjalo. (Tenía) un 4. Mira, éste es muy interesante, el de Raphita, porque, puso el 4, está bien. Deja el 4. Ahora, busca otro número, que junto con el 4 pese igual al 7. L: (Va a) buscar el 5. T: A ver, tú David, tú ¿cuantos llevas?. L: ¡Se pasó!

T: (Nodding). 7. Very good, Lily. Let's see, you, Raphita, you have put a 4. L: No, that one is going to weigh too much. T: Let’s se, Y think you are right, yes, look, Lily was right. It has too much. The number is too big. L: His turn, look, you’d better put number 6 and then you put (...). ˙ T: Let’s see, but let’s leave him alone. He had a 4. Look, this is very interesting, Raphita’s, because he put the 4 and it is fine. Leave the 4. Now, look for another number, that together with 4 it will weigh the same as 7. L: He is going to look for the 5. T: Let’s see now, you David, how many do you have already? L: He has already got too many!

In this episode the teacher draws pupils into participation in the task of finding out answers to maths problems. The students predict outcomes of experiments with the balance (that will weigh too much) and put forward hypotheses (better put the 6 ...). The teacher encourages their reasoning and responds to their contributions building on them in guiding the children’s activities. Both teacher and students seem to use 'mira' (look) in this context to mark and validate these contributions, and to co-ordinate a shared focus, thus enabling the group as a whole to move forward in constructing joint solutions to the problems posed. Exploring further uses of 'mira' by students in the High/Scope data showed us that they mostly served a similar function. Here, for example, is another use of ‘mira’ in joint problem solving between pupils, for the same balance activity:

R: El 5 ... mira...(the 5 ... look). L: Aquí no está el 1.(Here it is not 1) T: Tienes que pesar nuestra báscula, igual. (Make sure the scales are balanced). There were a total of 16 uses of "mira' by students in the High/Scope transcripts (39 by teachers). In contrast, a KWIC analysis of the use of "mira" in the Official data showed only 4 uses by students and 5 by teachers. Here is the KWIC list for student uses with the parameter set to include the preceding and the following turn at talk: KWIC list 2: ʻMiraʼ used by students in Official data 1. T: Cyntia. A ver, me vas a buscar una figura que tenga la forma de un círculo. Cynthia. No, círculo.¿Sí,Eduardo? St: Mira... T: No, este no es redondo. (...).Si no puede, una persona que lo ayude. ¿Cuál es la forma de un c’rculo? esa, Muy bien. 2. T: (Shakes head no). Son, son plantitas. St: Student Mira, mira maestra. T: Son plantas. 3. T: Sí quiere quedar en moda, lo pintas, para, para que se vea diferente. St: Mira, maestra, esos (...) pero, (...) sombreros (...). T: ¿Ya?. Tú, ¿sí termimaste tu trabajo, Luis?

1. T: Cyntia. Let’s see, you’re going to look for a figure which has the shape of a circle, Cynthia. No, circle.¿Yes, Eduardo? St: Look... T: No, this one is not round.(...). If she cannot, one person try to help her. Which is the shape of a circle? [Another student picks up a new figure]. That one, very good. 2.T: (Shakes head, no). They are little plants. St: Look, look, miss. T: They are plants. 3.T: If you want it to look fashionable, you paint it to look different. St: Look, teacher, those(...) but(...) hats (...). T: Finished?. You, did you finish your work, Luis?.

In the first KWIC example the teacher asks the pupils to find a circle in a group of shapes. A child holds up a shape saying ‘look’ and the teacher says ‘no’. In the second the pupil draws attention to something and the teacher names them as plants. In the third the pupil seems to be pointing out something which was unfortunately largely inaudible. The teacher appears to ignore this pupil input moving directly into classroom management mode ‘Have you finished?’ .

These uses of ‘mira’ by pupils in the Official data contrasts with the uses of mira by pupils in the High/Scope data. In the High/Scope data the use of 'mira' by pupils attracts the attention of pupils and teachers to ideas and actions in the joint construction of knowledge in turns that are responded up by the teacher or other pupils. In the Official data 'mira' is used twice by pupils to attract the attention of the teacher to an object where the teachers response (a correction in one case and a label to the object on the other) instantly closes down the exchange. On the one occasion where a pupil used 'mira' to draw attention to an idea, perhaps a hypothesis, the teacher ignored this input and moved to close down the activity. Using a computer to follow the use of this word in the electronic transcripts has shown not only a difference between the two conditions but also one way in which pupils in the one set of classes are learning how to engage in problem solving. In the High/Scope trained teacher's classes the teacher’s focus is not just on the 'correct' answer but also on encouraging the pupils to engage in the process of knowledge construction and problem solving, and the pupils increased use of 'mira' seems to reflect this increased participation. 3. Focus on process: ‘porque’. Another dimension of the socio-cultural hypothesis was that improved problem solving would be helped by a focus on the processes of learning and of problem solving as opposed to a focus exclusively on outcomes or on facts. This has already been illustrated through our exploration of the student use of mira. The following episode in the High/Scope data was also taken to illustrate this aspect of the socio-cultural hypothesis. In the following extract a group of 6 children are playing a memory game with the teacher (Hortensia), which focuses on number correspondence. The game consists of matching two sets of cards, a first set with numbers, to the corresponding card from a second set with dots representing different numbers. After they lift a card from the first set containing a particular number, they try to lift a matching card with that same number of dots on it.

Transcript extract 4: 'Porque' in High/Scope transcripts. T: No. A ver, ella solita a ver si se acuerda. / Vamos a ver si ella se acuerda. Allí. M: No. C: 3. T: ¿Piensas que sea? B: (Shakes head). T: ¿Porqué? B: Porque éste tiene mas que 3. T: (Nods). Éste tiene mas y ese y este (Shakes head) y no. No fue. Este, ni modo. A ver, Glis. O: Porque (...). M: A ver. T: A ver. G: 7. Este ya sali–. T: Éste ya también salío, a ver ¿dónde estará? O: (laughing). No. T: No fue ¿verdad? O: Que lastima.

T: No. Let’s see, let her do it on her own, see if she remembers/ Let’s see if she remembers.... There. M: No. C: 3. T: Do you think that one is (3)? B: Student (Shakes head). T: Why? B: Because this one has got more than 3. T: (Nods). This one has got more and this one has not (Shakes head). So it was not. Well, never mind. Letís see, Glis. O: Because (...). M: Let's see. T: Let's see. G: 7. This one has already been shown before. T: Yes, it has been shown before, letís see, where can it be? O: (laughing). No. T: It was not (7), was it? O: What a shame.

In this episode there is an evident focus on process. The teacher sets the problems and encourages the children to try to solve them. She questions the children as to why a possible hypothesis might work or not, and the pupils give explanations and also ask questions. The shared involvement in the process of problem solving is enacted through the use of 'porque' both as a question (why?) and as the beginning of an explanation (because) used by the teacher and by students.

A search of all the data showed that 'porque' was used 38 times in the High/Scope data and 26 in the Official data. More interestingly an exploration of the occurrences of 'porque' in context showed that it was used in different ways. In the High/Scope data the pupils used it to ask for reasons and to give explanations as in the extract above. There were a total of 12 student uses of 'porque' in this way. In contrast, in the Official data there were only 6 student uses of 'porque', all of which are presented below with the response from the teacher: KWIC list 4: ʻPorqueʼ used by students in Official data 1 St: Porque una es diferente. T: Una es diferente. ÀQu_ tiene diferente? 2 St: Porque no hay una flor. T: (Pause). Porque no tiene flor. ¿Qué más? 3 St: Porque .... T: Sshh. A ver, acá no están escuchando. 4. St: Porque esa no tenia (...). T: Esos no tienen, son cincos, pero ¿cómo se llaman esos cincos? 5 St: Porque acá hay un alto. T: ¿En dónde hay mas? 6 St: Porque una es diferente. T: Una es diferente. ¿Qué tiene diferente?

1 St: Because one is different. T: One is different. What is different about it? 2 St: Because there is no flower. T: (Pause). Because it does not have a flower. What else? 3 St: Because .... T: Sshh. Letís see, here people are not listening. 4. St: Because this one did not have (...). T: This one did not have-, they are five, but what are these five called? 5 St: Because over here there is a tall one. T: Where are there more? 6 St: Because one is different. T: One is different. What is different about it?

The students' use of 'porque' here represent mostly answers to teachers questions for specification or justification of their previous answer. 'Porque' as 'because' is associated with cases where the student's original answer did not satisfy the teacher. Focusing in on two of the occurrences of 'porque' by children in the Official data can give a clearer idea of this use, as can

be shown in the following episode. In this segment, children have been asked by their teacher (Elisa) to compare pairs of figures to establish whether they are the same or different. Transcript Extract 6. Student's use of 'Porqueʼ in Official data. T: ¿Son iguales o no son iguales? J: (...). T: ¿Porqué no? J: Porque .... T: Sshh. A ver, acá no están escuchando.... A ver ¿porqué? J: Porque esa no tenia (...). T: Esos no ten-, son cincos, pero ¿cómo se llaman esos cincos? Dedos, ¿verdad? ¿un guante tiene muchos dedos y uno tiene, tiene, tiene? Students: Uno. T: Uno, nada mas.

T: Are they the same or are they not? J: (...). T: Why not? J: Because .... T: Sshh. Let’s see, people here are not listening. ...Let's see, why? J: Because this one did not have (...). T: These do not -, they are five, but, what are they called those five? Fingers, right? One glove has got a lot of fingers and one has got, has got, has got? Students: One. T: One, only.

Here, the Official teacher asks the student to be more precise in establishing why she thinks the two figures are different. The student offers two incomplete answers with 'because' , so the teacher cues the correct answer by pointing at the different number of fingers in each glove: one has a lot and one has got----?, and the student finally offers the answer 'one'. The focus seems more on achieving correct answers to teacher's questions, rather than on engaging in more 'genuine' shared problem solving types of reasoning, as seems to be the case for the High/Scope exchanges observed. 4. Scaffolding: ‘a ver’ Dimension 5 of our scheme of analysis (Figure 1) referred to the way in which teachers can 'scaffold' the learning of pupils. By 'scaffolding' is meant the process of reducing the degrees of freedom involved in a problem to help children solve it themselves but with support. We draw here on the specific meaning of this concept as originally developed by Wood, Bruner and Ross (1976) and later elaborated by Maybin, Mercer and Stierer (1992) . By this definition, an essential requirement of scaffolding as a teaching is that the teacher gradually removes their intellectual support as the learner demonstrates increased competence, until the learner is able solve the problem alone. Rojas-Drummond, Mercer and Dabrowski (1998) and Mercer (1998)

suggest that one important way in which scaffolding is achieved through classroom discourse is through a particular use of IRF sequences (Initiation by the teacher, Response by the student, Follow-up by the teacher) . They describe sequences of IRF exchanges in which the teacher took up and built upon earlier input from a pupil, thus creating a cohesive and cumulative dialogue related to a particular sub-task or theme. These 'spiral' IRF sequences, in contrast to the 'closed' or 'loop' IRF exchanges with transmissional style teaching, helped draw the pupil into the process of constructing knowledge together with the teacher and with the class. The following sequence is one identified by Drummond and Mercer as a spiral IRF. In it, the teacher (Hortensia) is playing a game with the children where they all have to go up certain number of steps of a ladder to climb up a tree, according to the number obtained in a dice, and then climb those steps to collect apples at the top. Transcript extract 7: 'A ver' in High/Scope data T: A ver, ponte tus 6 manzanas, Omar. O: Maestra, ¿así? T: A ver, espérense nada más a que Omar ponga las suyas, que todavia no. Ya Omar, ¿ya tiene Omar bien todas puestas? A: No (...). T: A ver, pero que tenga, ¿cuántas manzanitas tiene que ser? O: 6. T: A ver, ¿cuántas tienes Omar? A ver, cuéntalas, Omar. O: 7. T: Te sobra, entonces, ¿cuántas te sobran? O: Uno. T: Uno, muy bien, Omar.

T: Let’s see, put up your 6 apples, Omar. O. Like this, Miss? T: Let’s see, wait just so that Omar puts his, because he has not...Ready, Omar? Has Omar got all his (apples) up? A: No (...). T: Let’s see, but we have to have, how many apples do we have to have? O: 6. T: Let’s see, how many do you have, Omar? Let’s see, count them, Omar. O: 7. T: You then have more, how many more do you have? O: One. T: One, very good, Omar.

In this episode, the teacher keeps returning to Omar and each time her response builds on Omar’s response so that they are working to build knowledge together. Within this sequence of exchanges it is noticeable that the teacher does not judge Omar’s responses directly but gives him time to reflect and change his response. When he is clearly wrong she calls upon the rest of

the group to help him and then asks him to find out for himself by counting out the apples one by one. Different phrases are used to guide Omar in this episode, among them 'a ver'. This is a common phrase in Spanish which can be used in several different ways, particularly to mark a new turn at talk or a new start in the conversation. Here we can see the phrase ‘a ver’ being used to create a joint context for guidance and to signal the presentation by the teacher of scaffolds for Omar to focus on and use. The teacher uses 'a ver' to get the rest of the group to join in helping Omar achieve this aim. Here, and throughout, it seems to function as a short form of 'vamos a ver', in other words it is not just a neutral 'look' but a more inclusive 'let us look together'. For this use of 'a ver' as a support for scaffolding it is used at the beginning of a turn at talk. Searching the data for similar uses found 98 occurrences in the High/Scope data and 23 in the Official data. Exploring these occurrences in the whole corpus revealed that they had two main functions. One was the function we have seen to support the scaffolding of a joint engagement in reasoning, characterised by the continuity with the previous utterance. The other was simply as a turn marker when the teacher took over from the previous utterance by a student without any continuity. The former function was found to predominate in the High/Scope teacher's uses of 'a ver', while the later function predominated the Official teacher's occurrences. Below is an episode from the Official data that illustrates this second function The children each have a piece of paper each in front of them, with drawings of different vegetables, and with crayons of different colours. They are given instructions by the teacher (Yuridia) to form sets of particular types of vegetables and draw a circle of a certain colour around each set. In this episode they have just been given instructions to form a circle around the set of onions and draw a circle around it with a 'strong colour'. Transcript extract 8: 'A ver' in Official data.

T: Ya terminaron todos (el conjunto de las cabollas)? Students: Ya. T: Bueno, a ver, van a contar cuantos elementos hay en el conjunto de los chicharos. R: 7. T: Muy bien, Raphael. Students: 7. T: 7. Van a formar su conjunto y encerrar con un circulo. Forman su conjunto con un diferente color.

T: Have you all finished (with the set of onions)? Students: Yes. T: Well, let's see, you're going to count how many elements there are in the set of peas. R: 7. T: Very good, Raphael. Students: 7. T: 7. You're going to form a set and enclose it in a circle. Form your set with a different colour.

Here, 'a ver' is used as a signal to go on to the next part of the activity. There is no sense of continuity with the previous exchange. This type of use of 'a ver' simply as a marker for change of activity was more typical of the use of 'a ver' by the Official teachers, who rarely engaged in any spiral IRF (Drummond and Mercer, 1998, report that only 8% of exchanges were Spiral IRF in the Official data in contrast with 50% for the High/Scope data). General differences between the two sets of transcripts These four micro studies have compared the two sets of data on specific ways of using words drawn from episodes where the educational affect of these ways of using words can be seen. In addition the two sets of data can be compared using more de-contextualised measures of the difference in the use of language. Table 1. Overview of quantitative differences in transcripts Total time Total words Total turns

at talk Teacher turns %

Pupil turns %

H/Scope 1h 36m 10834 1363 47 53 Official 2h 24m 8353 800 52 48 This table shows that there were more words spoken and more turns at talk in the High/Scope classrooms than in the Official classrooms. It also shows that there were more pupil turns at talk than teachers turns in the High/Scope classrooms and that this was the reverse in the Official classrooms.

Table 2. Quantitative findings of the four micro-studies ‘Vamos a

ver’ 'Mira' Teacher

'Mira' Student

'Porque' Teacher

'Porque' Student

‘a ver’ as first phrase

H/Scope 30 39 16 38 12 98 Official 3 5 4 26 6 23 Table 2 shows that there were noticeable quantitative differences in the number of times that the specific words and phrases selected were used in the two conditions: the classrooms were the teachers had had High/Scope training and those where they had not. These words were selected because they were seen to function to support a socio-cultural model of teaching and learning. The fact there are these measurable differences in the language use between the two conditions is interesting but could not stand alone without the further analysis provided by the micro-studies. Conclusions We began this study with a mystery, two sets of video data and a hypothesis. The mystery was why children in two classes improved their ability to solve problems independently when compared to children in matching classes. One obvious possible answer was provided by the fact that the teachers of the children who had made most progress had been training in the methods of the High/Scope approach. But that on its own did not tell us enough. The form and quality of the teaching and learning exchanges that we observed in their classrooms could not be predicted from what was written in the High/Scope training manual. We therefore hypothesised that High/Scope training in Mexican state primary schools was generating a kind of teaching-and-learning which, by being more interactive and shaped to the intellectual needs of children, was providing a better 'scaffolding' for the development of their independent problem solving than the more traditional transmission methods of teaching used by the teachers of the other, 'official curriculum' classes. Using a basis of socio-cultural theory to underpin an analysis of discourse, we were able to isolate certain teaching strategies, associate these with a set of 'dimensions' for describing teaching in practice, and relate these to what went on in the classes. This revealed that certain strategies were used significantly more in classes where children's problem solving improved the most. A computer-based quantitative analysis confirmed the existence of significant differences between the discourse recorded in High/Scope classes and that recorded in the 'Official' classes. This supports the claim that the methods used by the High/Scope teachers help children develop independent problem solving skills.

The methods we used were open, exploratory, interpretative analysis of discourse and computer-based quantitative analysis to test a specific hypothesis. As a result the conclusion is not just a simple confirmation of our hypothesis. We have also shown how 'scaffolding' can be provided through the language of the classroom, and how teachers can use specific discursive strategies to effectively support the shared construction of knowledge and the development of children's intellectual abilities. We can now more confidently suggest to teachers that certain ways of using language will be useful for drawing students into joint activity, focusing them on the process of learning and helping develop their ability to solve problems alone. Our study also has some implications for methodology, through its application of the Dynamic Inverted Pyramid or DIP method for investigating classroom talk. One aim of the study was to test this method (originally used in a study of peer group talk in British primary school: Wegerif and Mercer, 1997) with data in a different language and from a different cultural context. Our findings here support the general applicability and value of this method as a way of combining qualitative and quantitative analyses of the communicative process of teaching and learning. References Baker, M., G. Francis, and E. Tognin-Bonelli, eds. (1993) Text and Technology. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamin's. Brown, A., and R. Ferrera. 1985. 1985. In Culture, Communication and Cognition: Vygotskian Perspectives, edited by J. Wertsch. Cambridge: Cambridge University press. Edwards, A., and D. Westgate. (1994) Investigating Classroom Talk. London: Falmer Press. Graddol, D. (1995) !KWICTex – a computer-based tool for discourse analysis. In Occasional Paper: Centre for Language and Communication, Open University. Maybin, J., Mercer, N., and Stierer, B. (1992). Scaffolding in the classroom. In K. Norman (ed.), Thinking voices: the work of the national oracy project, . London: Hodder and Stoughton. Mercer, N. (1998). Development through dialogue: A socio-cultural perspective on the process of being educated. In A. Quelhas and F. Pereira (eds.), Cognition and Context, . Lisbon: Instituto Superior de Psicologia Applicada. Rojas-Drummond, S., and J. Alatorre. 1994. The development of independent problem-solving in pre-school children. In Explorations in Socio-cultural Studies. Volume 3., edited by N. Mercer and C. Coll. Madrid: Infancia y Aprendizaje. Rojas-Drummond, S., N. Mercer, and E. Dabrowski. (1998) Teaching strategies and the development of problem solving in Mexican classrooms: Centre for Language and Communications, Open University. Sinclair, J. M., and R. M. Coulthard. (1975) Towards an Analysis of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stubbs, M. (1996) Text and Corpus Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. Wegerif, R., and N. Mercer. (1997) Using computer-based text analysis to integrate quantitative and qualitative methods in the investigation of collaborative learning. Language and Education 11 (3). Wood, D., Bruner, J., and Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology, 17, 89-100.

* School of Education, Open University, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA. ** Faculty of Psychology, University National Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico D.F.