4. Classroom discourse analysis

This section analyzes two classroom discussions in which kindergarten educators intervene with specific strategies in order to promote oral communication and support children's attempts at self-expression. The discussions come from a research conducted in six randomly selected kindergarten classrooms in Athens, Greece. Due to the size of the sample, the results cannot be extrapolated. The analysis focuses on two questions:


children try to speak their friends' language so that play can occur. On the whole, during play,

The adoption of specific teaching practices is an important issue, given that pedagogues, both as former students and as teachers, come from a text-centered system of developing and teaching language. According to research, classroom time occupied by students' oral discourse is extremely little. Classroom observation and analysis leads to Flanders' [28] law of 2/3, according to which 2/3 of school time are occupied by someone speaking, 2/3 of this time is occupied by teachers speaking, 2/3 of this speaking is a monolog, etc. Educators are role models for oral communication behavior both as listeners and speakers. It does not follow, however, that the teacher's discourse should be the dominant voice in the school classroom. According to Montessori, a good kindergarten teacher remains silent, giving children ample time in order to develop their own thinking and talk. A good teacher knows how to stand in the wings, allowing students to develop their verbal communication with them, and most importantly, with their peers. He or she provides scaffolding to promote learning, gradually passing power, knowledge, and autonomy from themselves to the students [29]. The purpose is to encourage children to build a community and develop communication relationships, rather than participate in teacher-learner communication based on question-response sequences. Educators and other adults in the school environment can serve a significant role

In this respect, teacher effectiveness is associated with the teacher's use of language. In addition, it is related to the educator planning discussions, respecting students' language, and helping them to realize the value of conversation. For any student to express themselves, it is imperative that the school invite them to a learning community through diverse communicative situations. The existence of scenarios is instrumental in engaging students in conversation. In order to express themselves, preschool children must have something to say; they must feel

Being a role model for students, the educator plays a crucial part in the process of communication and dialog. As Friedrich notes, educators can obstruct dialog with their actions. This usually occurs when the educator commands, threatens, preaches, criticizes, makes negative comments, advises too much, swears, ridicules, insults, or forbids. In contrast, the teacher can promote dialog when he knows how to listen and observe, identify and understand emotions, make clear, comprehensible and reasoned announcements, conduct symmetrical dialog with students, and when he or she is genuine in the communication process [30]. According to Fairclough, "the development of children's language capabilities should proceed through bringing together their existing abilities and experiences, their growing critical awareness of

This section analyzes two classroom discussions in which kindergarten educators intervene with specific strategies in order to promote oral communication and support children's attempts at self-expression. The discussions come from a research conducted in six randomly

welcome to participate in conversation and be adequately supported by the teacher.

language, and their growing capacity to engage in purposeful discourse" [31].

children build their linguistic skills [27].

238 New Pedagogical Challenges in the 21st Century - Contributions of Research in Education

in students developing orality.

4. Classroom discourse analysis

The teaching aid used was the 1995 UNESCO poster entitled the United Nations Year for Tolerance (see Appendix A). Selected to introduce children to the concept of diversity and engage them in discussion, the poster is a conceptual representation of tolerance and appreciation of social and cultural diversity. Persons and their facial characteristics are represented by colored shapes, elements which preschool learners are already familiar with. Building on this pre-existing knowledge, the educator aims to communicate the central idea: that, besides differences, there are also similarities between people, and that the latter carry greater significance and are related to universal values. With their teacher's assistance, students are asked to observe, think about and present their ideas on the topic. The analysis of the recorded discussions is presented below, highlighting the communication strategies employed by teachers in order to meet curricular goals (For transcripts of the discussions see Appendix B).

The first educational practice involves the educator presenting the poster and asking the students to observe it. Clear short questions and exclamatory utterances are used to encourage students to actively participate in the learning process: "Which ones are round? Come and show us", "Ah! What's this round thing here?", "Wow! That's a little round nose". The prompt "Come and show us too" results in children's involvement and active participation in the learning process. Children respond, observe, and express themselves, while the teacher reconstructs their responses, communicating the intended meaning: "Although different, they're all little mouths, aren't' they?", "So, kids, we can see that all these little people are different but they're all little people, aren't they? The same way that children are different, as we said, but they're all children". This is an effective educational practice in that learners become actively involved in the process, express themselves, and become acquainted with the concept of respecting diversity.

The second educational practice involves a different educational event. The teacher makes a rather abrupt introduction, which fails to offer additional input and create a positive learning setting. The educator asks: "What can you see in this poster?". The students respond each in turn and often repeat each other's response. S1: "I can see funny faces", S2: "I can see funny faces", S3: "I can see funny masks", S4: "I can see funny masks". The teacher goes on by asking: "Who can tell me how this masks are made, what do these funny faces have, what do these faces have, and can you imagine how they're made?" This is a long, complex question with ambiguous subjects and multiple desiderata. As a result, children respond hesitantly, uttering one-word responses and copying one another. The teacher's next question contradicts a previous statement: "…to begin with, have we all agreed they're faces?" This causes uncertainty and perplexes students, who do not respond at all. The teacher continues to perplex children by posing an unclear, rather vague question: "What makes you think these are faces and not something else?" Then, she proceeds from the description of the shapes to that of real children, in an unclear manner, further confusing her students: "Kids, guys, REAL kids" and once again she resorts to a double question: "Real kids, what do they have in common and what don't they?". The students fail to respond. Evidently, subjecting preschool children to unclear, complex, or long questions is not an effective practice. Such questions do not facilitate learners' thinking or expression.

verbal communication skills in discussion II meant that the cognitive objective of the activity

Oral Communication Skills and Pedagogy http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.70831 241

Constructive interventions include implementation of the interactive communication model, the initiation–response–feedback (IRF) rule, a child-centered approach, credit time for children and a positive classroom climate. In addition, the zone of proximal development (ZPD) is

perceived as a pedagogical phenomenon and not as an individual quality of learners. The discouraging interventions in discussion II include the following characteristics:

• The zone of proximal development is perceived as an individual property of children.

• The educator mainly introduces ideas without successfully applying initiation–response–

• Communication among students occurs as a means of emotional support and solidarity

• The zone of proximal development is perceived as a property of the pedagogical event.

• Delegation of authority, and therefore, delegation of ability is applied from the school to

To sum up, this work attempted to establish how children learn to construct an understanding of the world around them. It was suggested that, in their effort to construct meaning and learn,

• The transmission model of communication is implemented.

• The educator's authority is more evident.

within a negative pedagogical climate.

• The teacher fails to transfer ability to students.

• The educator applies "Yes, but…" reasoning.

• A positive pedagogical climate is promoted.

• Ability, and thus, learning, is transferred to students.

• Negative comments cause children's self-correction.

• The dialogic model of communication is implemented.

• The initiation–response–feedback pattern of discussion is applied. • Child-centered traits are evident in the development of discourse.

• Strategies for attracting and keeping students' attention are used.

• Credit time is provided for students to think and express themselves.

• The educator poses clear, short open-ended, and closed-ended questions. • The educator recognizes, confirms, and reconstructs the students' words.

• Teacher-centered traits are found in the development of oral discourse.

The constructive interventions in discussion I have the following characteristics:

was not achieved.

feedback.

children.

During this educational practice, the teacher rejects the "yes, but…" strategy, which promotes child activation. Instead, she implements negative discouraging strategies. By repeatedly using expressions such as "Of course not", "No", etc., she interferes with any attempt made by the students to think and express themselves. Another discouraging strategy is asking preschoolers 'how do you feel' questions. Children at this age rarely use words to express their emotions; it is much easier for them to do so with actions. By observing child behavior, we came to realize that children cannot describe how they feel. It is also highly inappropriate to draw attention to one student's diversity. The reasoning behind respecting diversity dictates that we handle it as if it did not exist, rather than stressing its existence ["How do you feel about Nakis having difficulty, little Nakis is different…", "Nakis is different from you"]. As a general rule, children do not respond to such questions. When one of the students responds "I feel good", the teacher says: "Good. Why do you feel good about Nakis being in our class?". The students do not respond. The teacher goes on: "Does it make things hard for us, does it make us feel good, what, what do we feel?", resulting in students responding "We feel bad". Evidently, the personalization of diversity is pedagogically inappropriate. In this example, such an approach leads to a negative conclusion. In such cases, discussion proves ineffective both in terms of process and in terms of cognitive goals.
