Extract from Berlin, Laura J., Marion Blank, and Susan A. Rose. “The language of instruction: The hidden complexities.” Topics in language disorders 1.1 (1980): 47-58.
Language is such a critical feature of all human interaction that it is difficult to conceive of what our lives would be like in its absence. Further, in all societies the basic components of this extraordinarily complex system are acquired without conscious instruction. Children experience verbal interaction from the earliest days of their lives and gradually begin to master this intricate symbolic system. Much of the acquisition process takes place in the informal network of the home and the neighborhood and little explicit concern need be expended to ensure that the learning occurs.
In contrast to the early language skills, written language and the more complex oral language skills are not readily acquired in everyday life. As a result the formal institution of the school has been assigned a special responsibility for transmitting these components of our verbal system. Ironically, oral language itself has proven to be the chief tool for teaching these more complex skills: that is, verbally based teaching is the medium of instruction through which all other learning is to be fostered.
Given the reliance upon oral language in teaching, clearly a fuller understanding of the language of instruction is necessary if this tool is to be used with maximum effectiveness. A number of studies have been conducted recently on the language of instruction to understand the way in which it functions. Bellack, Kliebard, Hyman, and Smith (1966) have initiated some of the major work. They have shown that classroom dialogue is constrained in the following ways.
1. Teachers dominate conversation by speaking most of the time and by initiating most of the exchanges.
2. When teachers speak, they do so in a limited number of ways. They tend to
a. Ask questions designed to solicit responses (e.g., “What were the factors responsible for the war?”);
b. Structure material so as to set the context for a lesson (e.g., “Remember, yesterday we were speaking about the economic shifts in the past decade. I’d like to begin today by illustrating this further…”);
c. React to the student’s behavior so as to provide feedback (e.g., “That’s almost right”); and
d. Elaborate on a previous exchange (e.g., “Now Ann offered these two causes. We would term these ‘precipitating events’ “).
3. When pupils speak, they usually are limited to the single pattern of responding and, of course, responding appropriately to the solicitations of the teachers. For example, when the teacher asks “What was the major point of the chapter?” the pupil is supposed to summarize the major points. Other responses are tolerated only if they occur occasionally (e.g., “I’m sorry, I didn’t have a chance to read it” or “I really didn’t understand it”). Thus children who do not respond in expected and desired ways are labeled “disinterested,” “lazy,” or “learning disabled.”
The following exchange concerning a history lesson (Peshkin, 1978, p. 102) typifies the teacher’s patterns of soliciting, structuring, and reacting and the pupil’s pattern of responding.
Teacher: OK, current events. Glen?
Student: Pablo Casals, the well-known cellist, died at age 96.
Teacher: OK, shush! Jim?
Student: The war in the Middle East is still going on.
Teacher: Is it going in the same way? Frank?
Student: Egypt asked Syria to intervene. They want a security meeting or quick meeting of the U.N. Security Council.
Teacher: OK, for what reason? Do you know? Anyone know why Egypt has called a meeting of the Security Council of the U.N.? What has the Security Council just initiated?
Student: A cease-fire.
Teacher: A cease-fire. So what is Egypt claiming?
Student: Israel violated. . . .
Teacher: Israel violated the cease-fire. And what is Israel claiming?
Student: Egypt violated the cease-fire.
Considerable controversy exists about the language patterns of the classroom such as the ones shown previously and the meaning they hold for the learning situation. The verbal interactions clearly differ from those of other settings. In less formal exchanges (between parents, friends, or siblings) the conversation is organized so that all participants can initiate ideas as well as respond to the ideas of others. For example, in a parent-child dialogue, the adult might say “It’s about time to clean up ’cause we’re going to have supper.” In responding, the child is generally free to offer several responses. Thus he or she might acknowledge the idea and offer a counter suggestion (“Okay, but give me 5 minutes because I want to finish something”), request further information (“What are we going to have for dinner?”), or request permission for an alternative activity (“Is it okay if I miss supper tonight? I wanted to go to Danny’s house”).
Conversation involving equal rights of participation is rare in school. The constraints that the child experiences in classroom dialogue have aroused concern (Cazden, John, & Hymes, 1972; Mishler, 1978). Many researchers have argued that children must be permitted to have more control over the verbal interchange if the instructional process is to be effective.
References
Peshkin, A. Growing up American: Schooling and the survival of community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978.
Cazden, C.B., John, V.P., & Hymes, D. Functions of language in the classroom. New York: Columbia University Teacher’s College Press, 1972.
Bellack, A.A., Kliebard, H.M., Hyman, R.T., & Smith, F.L., Jr. The language of the classroom. New York: Columbia University Teacher’s College Press, 1966.
