Analysis of an Oral Language Interaction
Integrating Language & Clinical Practice, Semester 2 - September 2020
This transcript (appendix A) was taken from a recording of a lesson designed for Year Eight Visual Arts focusing on Contemporary Indigenous Art. This theory based lesson provided an overview of the history of Indigenous art post 1970 and exposed students to a range of Indigenous artists working today. The learning intention was for students to use the knowledge presented in the class in an exploratory discussion of particular artworks presented. These discussions employed a modulated tone to become conversational rather than didactic. This transcript focuses on artwork analysis and occurs within the Transformation stage of the Learning and Teaching cycle (Love, Baker & Quinn, 2009). The teacher has used strategies such as questioning, IRE (initiate / response / evaluation) and turn taking to assist the student in interpreting and analysing the presented text.
The Learning and Teaching cycle (Love et al, 2009) involves the gradual release of responsibility from the teacher to the student through stages of scaffolded activities (Luke, 2014, p. 1). In the Transformation stage, students are given the opportunity to apply the knowledge they have learnt in the Building the Field stage. In the transcript, the teacher did this by facilitating an exploratory discussion surrounding the artwork Headhunter by Tony Albert (2009) in lines 5-6. This discussion is guided and supported by the teacher, allowing the student to work within their zone of proximal development (ZPD) (Vygotsky, 1978). Texts selected within the Transformation stage are typically beyond what a student would be able to read independently. Headhunter (Albert, 2009) allowed for a discussion where the teacher was able to scaffold and shape student’s responses in various ways such as prompts, questions, paraphrasing, elaborating and thinking aloud to promote further clarification, examination and elaboration (lines 9-10, 13, 59-60). During this stage, the student is further exposed to the metalanguage of the focus area through paraphrased responses and questions by the teacher (lines 1-4, 17, 41-43). This stage of the Learning and Teaching cycle further contributes to building knowledge, as the student is guided on how to do the task as well as linguistic knowledge that will develop their thinking and ready them for the Presentation stage, where they will have to present the knowledge independently.
In Visual Arts and Design subjects, the range of texts studied are often non-linguistic or multimodal. Visual Arts in a literacy context allows students to think about problems and texts in a different way. This means that readers must use different strategies rather than the cognitive strategies utilised in English and Science in order to construct meaning (Serafini, 2001). In typical literacy classes, literature texts such as anthologies or novels are the primary source from which students and teachers work (Zoss, 2009). In this case, the emphasis on reading is on linguistic text. Non-linguistic texts in Visual Arts allow for multiple meanings and interpretations to be valued and accepted. Literacy practices of reading, writing, speaking and listening allow for a discussion of semiotics within artworks, as students bring their own meaning to the work. Close reading, as defined by Snow & O’Connor (2016, p.1) as “an approach to teaching comprehension that insists students extract meaning from text by examining carefully how language is used in the passage itself”, is parallel to visual reading in the Visual Arts classroom. Visual reading consists of five thematic groups: interpreting, analysing and understanding; visual perception; evaluation; knowledge of grammar and syntax; and translation (Kedra, 2018). Interpreting refers to the ability to read and identify meanings within different aspects of the text. These visual literacy skills are taught, learned and are capable of being developed and improved.
The primary literacy practices present in this transcript are reading, speaking and listening. Active and close reading have been used to allow the student to understand and find meaning within the visual text presented. The student has then used speaking as a method of problem solving and reflecting upon the text, while the teacher is able to gain a deeper understanding of the student’s knowledge. Finally, and most importantly, listening has been used within the conversation, where both the student and teacher have converted the other’s spoken word into meaning in their mind in order to expand their own knowledge through other opinions.
In order to scaffold and develop the student’s understanding of the visual text Headhunter (Albert, 2009) throughout this discussion, the teacher has used a combination of speaking strategies such as questioning and the IRE (initiate / response / evaluation) method. By prompting the student to describe what they see in the artwork (lines 5-6), the student begins to develop an associative vocabulary for the text. Lewis (1990) explains that by naming things, we then call them into being. The student naming the visual elements (lines 7-8) allows for initial comprehension that can then be questioned and developed.
The speaking turns between the teacher and the student in the transcript are even, reflecting a more conversational form of talk. This discussion is dialogic rather than monologic, as both parties are able to discuss their views and ideas (Alexander, 2010). Throughout the discussion, the teacher questions and elaborates on the student’s suggestions, while also offering their own thoughts and analogies (line 28-34, 50-51). No party takes on the role of the expert as both the teacher and the student and able to discuss and negotiate their point of view while learning from each other. The student’s response begins to mimic the teacher’s questioning in lines 54-55 and 57-58, as it shifts from observations and questions to an interpretation that they are able to back up with evidence. This shows that the student is moving away from observing and describing and is beginning to generate their own analysis of the visual text.
Encouraged by the teacher’s open questions, the student uses exploratory language while thinking out loud to find information within the visual text presented (lines 14-16, 19-24, 38-40). This is evidence of self-talk and further positions the transcript within the Transformation stage of the Learning and Teaching cycle (Love et al, 2009). The questions directed at the student were open, with no predetermined answer in mind. These questions aimed to promote thinking and further the discussion. In order for these questions to arise, the teacher must be actively listening to the student’s responses and use those as a basis for pushing the student to elaborate or clarify their thinking (lines 9-10, 13, 17, 26) (Ritchhart, 2000).
In order to challenge the student’s thinking and responses even further, the teacher could have used the process of socratic dialogue. The socratic method is often considered a good tool for developing critical thinking skills (VCAA, 2020) which are crucial for analysing and interpreting texts in a Visual Arts context. It allows students to come to an understanding about why they think a certain way and helps pull apart certain complex ideas by questioning where those ideas come from. Instead of presenting the student with the opportunity to further explore their response, the teacher has instead used the IRE method and elaborated on the student’s response themselves. In lines 11-12, the student associates plates with hunting. There was an opportunity here for the teacher to respond using socratic dialogue to question this linkage and encourage the student to further explore this idea. Instead, however, the teacher has elaborated and described the linkage between these two ideas themselves (line 13). Similarly, in lines 19-24, the student explains how these objects appear to come from different cultures and do not appear to be from Australia. Instead of asking the student to explain how they appear different, or to explore what cultures they remind them of, the teacher simply notes this statement as “interesting” (line 25). This method of constantly questioning the student’s responses helps the student to recognise what knowledge they do not have, and aids in developing a better understanding of the text and their thinking.
Throughout the transcript, the student’s understanding and analysis of the visual text Headhunter (Albert, 2009) has developed due to the strategies used by the teacher. Both the teacher and student have used the literacy practices of reading, speaking and listening to guide their understanding and expand their knowledge throughout the dialogic discussion. The student has used speaking to present their knowledge and thought process, while the teacher has successfully scaffolded the student’s understanding of the visual text through their use of open ended questions and the IRE method. The teacher has presented opportunities to further develop their teaching strategies, such as by employing the use of socratic dialogue to further question responses. Overall, the teacher’s scaffolded strategies allowed the student to shift from observing and describing the text to generating their own analysis.
