2. Purpose/objectives

It is within this kaleidoscopic cultural context where we consider the ways in which teachers and students communicate. The students that schools must serve have changed markedly in terms of their world experiences, first languages, readiness for school, and range of learning needs. The teaching population, however, has not. While the actual number of teachers in the workforce has steadily increased over the past 10 years, the demographics of the teacher population have remained essentially homogeneous and unchanged. They are overwhelmingly White (82%), female (77%), monolingual English-speaking, and middle class [5]. Although teachers and administrators have acquired specialized knowledge of curriculum, assessment, pedagogy, data-driven decision-making, and learning theory, researchers note that they remain ill-equipped to address the manifest rift in understanding between school-home and teachers-students [6]. Today, educators have less in common than ever with the students, parents, and communities they

In an attempt to address the causative conditions for the aforementioned rift, researchers have studied the effects and significance of the teacher-student relationship [7–13]. One genre of studies focuses on understanding communication and interactions between teachers and their students. Nearly 20 years ago, Howes et al. [10] found that positive teacher-student relationships promote engagement in learning tasks and assist students in coping with the demands of school. Research has repeatedly confirmed that a positive teacher-child relationship is fundamental to a child's healthy development and academic success [14]. Effective communication is a key component of positive teacher-student relationships—essential for young children's healthy development and academic success [8, 9]. Roorda et al. [12] inform this study's focus in its aim to understand teacher-student interaction and communication and improve the quality of relationships in the classroom.

Effective communication is a key component of productive relationships. Researchers have identified several areas in which communication between teachers and students can be compromised. First, misunderstanding between teachers and students is unsurprisingly widespread as teachers filter their interactions with students through the lens of their own culture values, beliefs, and practices [15, 16]. Miscommunication and misunderstanding is the result of differing cultural norms and reference points, linguistic norms, and norms of engagement with schools or what could be identified as what is valued or positioned as significant [17] Heath [15, 16] found that student cultural or subgroup norms may differ widely from institutional values of the school or personal values held by staff and faculty. Other families may hold active or passive views with respect to their participation in their child's education. Parents or caregivers may have a mistrust of authority and institutions or incomplete knowledge about how best to help their child [18]. Finally, incongruences may exist between school expectations and values and home realities [18]. The school or teacher may assume or expect a home to have a computer, Internet access, quiet time for and adult help with homework, and bedtime stories read by a parent. Those conditions may or may not exist. When schools fail to understand the students they serve, research notes that communication breakdown, disengagement, and school failure may result [18]. As such, researchers continue to call for research that explores discourses critical to enhancing relevance in the classroom: those of teachers, students, family, community, and

serve, and more is at stake than perhaps ever before.

1.1 Teacher-student relationships

Early Childhood Education

1.2 Teacher-student communication

170

The purpose of this study was to examine the ways teachers engage in informal conversations with young children who come from different racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds, around the child's own photos of home. Specifically, conversations were interrogated to identify what impacts teacher-student interactions across differences. Using Gee's [1] discourse analysis, this study explored how the teachers built or lessened what the children viewed as significant, how they distributed their social goods—influence, power, or status—and how they created or positioned identities within the conversations. The findings inform the mission of enhancing teacher-student relationships and content relevance through providing new insights into how teachers and young children interact, connect, and change within their conversations.

#### 3. Theoretical framework

This study is framed by a sociocultural approach to teacher-student relationships as understood through the writings of Vygotsky [19] and later neo-Vygotskian researchers such as Kozulin [20] and Wertsch [21]. Because social interactions within conversations, or dialog, are the primary point of investigation, Bakhtin's [22] dialogism was chosen to further inform the research.

The focal point in the sociocultural meta-narrative is that social interaction, embedded within social, cultural, and historical contexts and mediated by language and sign systems, is where shared activities are transformed into internalized processes and knowledge, or learning [19] For Vygotsky, semiotic mediation is the foundation for all manner of knowledge construction. Tools such as language, mathematics, diagrams, and works of art are products of the cultural, historical, and social contexts in which they exist. Language, according to Vygotsky, is central to learning as talking precipitates thinking [23]. Wertsch [21] added that these semiotic means comprise the tool kit that shapes individual cognitive development.

The diversity inherent in these tools, the contexts from which they arise, and the manner in which they are brought to bear on new settings is of particular consequence to educators working in diverse settings. The sociocultural approach hinges on the fundamental belief that internalization—that is to say learning—is a process of cognitive development rather than transmission. According to Vygotsky [19], students learn through making connections to new information using their tools within social interactions with teachers and peers.

#### 3.1 Discourses and social language

In addressing the needs of students from diverse backgrounds, researchers have identified an opportunity for dialog and interaction to span the distance between the cultural models (experiences gleaned from everyday life) and Discourses (the socially acceptable use of language) [1] of students and teachers [24–27]. According to Gee [1], "A Discourse is a socially accepted association among ways of using language and other symbolic expressions, of thinking, feeling, believing, valuing, and acting" (p. 154). Language allows individuals to take on socially significant identities as they express who they are, what they are trying to do by saying it, and

who they are trying to be by saying it [1]. A primary Discourse, like one's primary cultural model, functions as a base for future learning. Individuals learn new Discourses throughout their lives and those Discourses, in turn, shape (or re-shape) the primary Discourse. Individuals can, and do, operate across several Discourses, though not all Discourses are used equally.

transcribed conversations between teachers and students at 12 elementary and middle schools. His research demonstrated consistent attempts by teachers to employ monologic patterns of discourse to guide conversation toward normative cultural expectations or achievement and learning expectations. Teacher monologs do not foster student self-expression or identity development. Many researchers have focused on children's talk in the classroom and how this talk, incorporating home and community funds of knowledge [34] opens up third spaces for the student's voice and identity to be heard, explored, and valued

Tourist or Traveler? Unpacking Informal Conversations between Teachers and Young Children…

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.80699

This mixed-method study was conducted in a diverse, at-risk public elementary

school located just outside an urban center. All five of the first-grade teachers, 29–43 years old with an average of 8 years teaching experience, consented to participate in the study. Four teachers self-identified as White, non-Hispanic females. One teacher self-identified as a bilingual (Portuguese and English), multiethnic male. All teachers lived in suburban communities outside the school district bounds, and with no experience living in urban settings. Their cross-cultural experiences were limited to foreign travel. Of the 81 first graders, 68 parents' consents were received and 60 children returned cameras. To garner informal teacher-student conversations while providing the children with the tools to present themselves and converse within their context of expertise, an autophotography method was employed in which the child talked with their teacher about the photos they took of their context outside of school [38–40]. Forty-six children (Black, 32%; White, 23%; Hispanic, 17%; Multi-

ethnic, 28%) were present and able to participate on the days when the autophotography conversations took place. Each student received a disposable camera and verbal instructions for its use. Students were instructed to take photographs of people, things, and places of importance to them. The researchers clarified student questions about the subject of their photos with specific examples such as a photo of family, a pet, a room in the home where the child spends time, or a favorite toy. Cameras were sent home in a bag containing a memo to remind parents that their child was to take photos of people, places, activities, and things the child chose and return the camera within a week. Students took the cameras home to capture images, and several days later returned the cameras to be

Subsequently, each teacher was afforded time outside of the classroom in an informal, quiet space to listen to their students narrate their photos. The expressed goal was to get to know each child better. Each child, without exception, eagerly entered the room to look at their photos spread out on the table in front of the teacher. The child was invited by the teacher to choose photos to talk about with the

The teacher and student then engaged in a conversation about the selected photographs. Each teacher-child conversation lasted an average of 6 min, with some

as brief as 3 min and some lasting nearly 15 min. As the conversations were recorded, two researchers observed and recorded field notes. In all, 46 conversations were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim, noting extraneous noise, pauses, laughter, interruptions, and turn-taking. A follow-up. 30-min focus group with all the participating teachers was also conducted for clarification of the data. For the purpose of this study, the 46 transcripts were stratified by teacher and by

processed. Cameras were processed at a local drugstore.

teacher. No additional protocols were given.

each child's ethnicity/racial background (FRL).

173

[35–37].

4. Method

A critical component of every Discourse is its associated social language. Social languages are the various registers that speakers employ to negotiate the identities and goals of the discourse in a given context [28]. Each person uses different social languages depending on the occasion, location, or context. These variations allow a speaker to switch between (or blend) Discourses. In some instances, the social languages among various Discourses are successfully blended, and in others the social languages are compartmentalized for use in specialized locations and contexts. Some primary Discourses underpin and inform all the secondary Discourses acquired later in life. As Heath and Street [29] emphasized, social language is germane to education settings because the research demonstrates that fluency and breadth in language use, styles, and modes translates to later academic and professional achievement. Students acquire this knowledge and skill through social interaction and language practice.

Therefore, informing this study is Gee's Discourse Analysis [1], which suggests that in every dialogue speakers and listeners build significance, politics, and identity. To explore significance building, one examines the cues in language that build or lessen significance which are based on what is explicitly stated or what is implied by the speaker/writer or inferred by the listener/reader. Politics building within dialogs involves examining how influence, power, acceptance, and status (social goods) are distributed or withheld during the dialog [1]. Identity building is the third focus. Language in dialogs also exhibits which identities are being identified, attributed to or built for others, and/or how a speaker or writer defines his or her own identity in relation to others and in a given context [1].

#### 3.2 Student identity and voice

Classroom conversation research also touches on children's perceptions of self and others [30]. Children's perceptions of their social position in the classroom, the nature of their relationships with others, and their expressions of personal identity are all tied to communication. Dialog promotes children's self-expression in their interaction with adults [31], but, according to Mannion and I'Anson [32], that adult interaction must be complementary and dialogic.

#### 3.3 Dialogic discourse

Dialogic discourse is a critical component of teacher-student relationship building and student expressions of personal identity and voice. Several studies that are focused on dialogic classroom interaction inform this study. Christoph and Nystrand [33] found that the potential for dialog between teachers and students is largely dependent on the relationships between the teacher and class and the willingness of the teacher to take a risk in engaging in dialogic talk, with its inherent unpredictability, with students.

Hayes and Matusov [26] work illuminates the need for teachers to share power within teacher-student conversations by balancing teacher and student talk. Further, Hayes and Matusov [26] found that children participate more readily in conversations when they initiate the topic and when the conversations are personally relevant. Baraldi's [31] research on the conditions of selfexpression in classroom interactions drew from nearly 100 h of videotaped and Tourist or Traveler? Unpacking Informal Conversations between Teachers and Young Children… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.80699

transcribed conversations between teachers and students at 12 elementary and middle schools. His research demonstrated consistent attempts by teachers to employ monologic patterns of discourse to guide conversation toward normative cultural expectations or achievement and learning expectations. Teacher monologs do not foster student self-expression or identity development. Many researchers have focused on children's talk in the classroom and how this talk, incorporating home and community funds of knowledge [34] opens up third spaces for the student's voice and identity to be heard, explored, and valued [35–37].

## 4. Method

who they are trying to be by saying it [1]. A primary Discourse, like one's primary cultural model, functions as a base for future learning. Individuals learn new Discourses throughout their lives and those Discourses, in turn, shape (or re-shape) the primary Discourse. Individuals can, and do, operate across several Discourses,

A critical component of every Discourse is its associated social language. Social languages are the various registers that speakers employ to negotiate the identities and goals of the discourse in a given context [28]. Each person uses different social languages depending on the occasion, location, or context. These variations allow a speaker to switch between (or blend) Discourses. In some instances, the social languages among various Discourses are successfully blended, and in others the social languages are compartmentalized for use in specialized locations and contexts. Some primary Discourses underpin and inform all the secondary Discourses acquired later in life. As Heath and Street [29] emphasized, social language is germane to education settings because the research demonstrates that fluency and breadth in language use, styles, and modes translates to later academic and professional achievement. Students acquire this knowledge and skill through social inter-

Therefore, informing this study is Gee's Discourse Analysis [1], which suggests that in every dialogue speakers and listeners build significance, politics, and identity. To explore significance building, one examines the cues in language that build or lessen significance which are based on what is explicitly stated or what is implied by the speaker/writer or inferred by the listener/reader. Politics building within dialogs involves examining how influence, power, acceptance, and status (social goods) are distributed or withheld during the dialog [1]. Identity building is the third focus. Language in dialogs also exhibits which identities are being identified, attributed to or built for others, and/or how a speaker or writer defines his or her

Classroom conversation research also touches on children's perceptions of self and others [30]. Children's perceptions of their social position in the classroom, the nature of their relationships with others, and their expressions of personal identity are all tied to communication. Dialog promotes children's self-expression in their interaction with adults [31], but, according to Mannion and I'Anson [32], that adult

Dialogic discourse is a critical component of teacher-student relationship building and student expressions of personal identity and voice. Several studies that are

Nystrand [33] found that the potential for dialog between teachers and students is largely dependent on the relationships between the teacher and class and the willingness of the teacher to take a risk in engaging in dialogic talk, with its inherent

Hayes and Matusov [26] work illuminates the need for teachers to share power within teacher-student conversations by balancing teacher and student talk. Further, Hayes and Matusov [26] found that children participate more readily in conversations when they initiate the topic and when the conversations are personally relevant. Baraldi's [31] research on the conditions of selfexpression in classroom interactions drew from nearly 100 h of videotaped and

focused on dialogic classroom interaction inform this study. Christoph and

own identity in relation to others and in a given context [1].

interaction must be complementary and dialogic.

though not all Discourses are used equally.

Early Childhood Education

action and language practice.

3.2 Student identity and voice

3.3 Dialogic discourse

unpredictability, with students.

172

This mixed-method study was conducted in a diverse, at-risk public elementary school located just outside an urban center. All five of the first-grade teachers, 29–43 years old with an average of 8 years teaching experience, consented to participate in the study. Four teachers self-identified as White, non-Hispanic females. One teacher self-identified as a bilingual (Portuguese and English), multiethnic male. All teachers lived in suburban communities outside the school district bounds, and with no experience living in urban settings. Their cross-cultural experiences were limited to foreign travel. Of the 81 first graders, 68 parents' consents were received and 60 children returned cameras. To garner informal teacher-student conversations while providing the children with the tools to present themselves and converse within their context of expertise, an autophotography method was employed in which the child talked with their teacher about the photos they took of their context outside of school [38–40]. Forty-six children (Black, 32%; White, 23%; Hispanic, 17%; Multiethnic, 28%) were present and able to participate on the days when the autophotography conversations took place. Each student received a disposable camera and verbal instructions for its use. Students were instructed to take photographs of people, things, and places of importance to them. The researchers clarified student questions about the subject of their photos with specific examples such as a photo of family, a pet, a room in the home where the child spends time, or a favorite toy. Cameras were sent home in a bag containing a memo to remind parents that their child was to take photos of people, places, activities, and things the child chose and return the camera within a week. Students took the cameras home to capture images, and several days later returned the cameras to be processed. Cameras were processed at a local drugstore.

Subsequently, each teacher was afforded time outside of the classroom in an informal, quiet space to listen to their students narrate their photos. The expressed goal was to get to know each child better. Each child, without exception, eagerly entered the room to look at their photos spread out on the table in front of the teacher. The child was invited by the teacher to choose photos to talk about with the teacher. No additional protocols were given.

The teacher and student then engaged in a conversation about the selected photographs. Each teacher-child conversation lasted an average of 6 min, with some as brief as 3 min and some lasting nearly 15 min. As the conversations were recorded, two researchers observed and recorded field notes. In all, 46 conversations were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim, noting extraneous noise, pauses, laughter, interruptions, and turn-taking. A follow-up. 30-min focus group with all the participating teachers was also conducted for clarification of the data. For the purpose of this study, the 46 transcripts were stratified by teacher and by each child's ethnicity/racial background (FRL).

For this study, a random sample of 25 conversations—5 transcripts from each of the 5 participating teachers—were analyzed, guided by Gee's discourse analysis [1] three building tasks: significance, politics/social goods, and identity. These three building tasks were positioned as initial nodes for the first round of coding using Dedoose software. Demographics data, including ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status, and gender were entered for all participants. Frequency counts and categorizations of language use and grammatical structures were employed to add richness of understanding and "layering of meaning" [29] (p. 93) to the qualitative analysis.

themes that emerged were Kinship and Amusement, reflecting their affective

Within the teacher utterances, topics were distinctly different. In descending order, the most common topics were: teacher knowledge; living arrangements; rules and roles of the home; and how time is spent. A preponderance of teacher statements included "I don't know," "I didn't know that," or a variation thereof

Tourist or Traveler? Unpacking Informal Conversations between Teachers and Young Children…

(Table 2). The topic associated with these statements is teacher-owned knowledge. All teachers within the study steered the conversations to discussions of what they knew or did not know about the children and their families. All teachers queried the children on living arrangements. This is noted in such statements as, "Is it just you and your mom in the house, then?" and "Who sleeps here?" Roles and rules of the home were also prevalent within these conversations. Teachers shifted the children's affective topics about cuteness of their puppies to discussions of the particulars of pet care and nutrition, including: how many animals are living in the house, and if the pet is fed properly. Teachers also asked about chores and responsibilities noted in such statements as: "Do you clean up?" and "Do you change diapers?", as well as adult roles in the home seen in such statements as: "Does Mommy read to you?" and "Does your Dad play the Xbox a lot?" Teachers also asked about how the children spent their time outside of school. Therefore, the themes that emerged

According to Gee [1] when speakers build significance in dialogs, they may use grammatical devices or words to achieve their goals. After the first cycle of initial coding revealing the topic and themes, the following three grammatical devices emerged as markers for significance building or lessening: emphatic auxiliary verbs,

When a speaker or writer uses emphatic auxiliaries, that is to say, adding vocal emphasis to an auxiliary verb, significance building or lessening can take place. Auxiliary verbs include all forms of do, is, am, be, will, and have and are followed by another verb in order to form a question, a negative sentence, or passive voice. When a speaker or writer stresses an auxiliary verb, it indicates that he or she is attempting to assert a position, correct someone else's understanding, or contrast a position with something else. Auxiliary stress can also be employed for affective emphasis when using, for example, do, is, has, and can, to show enthusiasm or to confirm something a speaker or writer already knows by following the statement

Throughout the conversations, teachers used emphatic auxiliary verbs most often to lessen significance by repeatedly questioning the truthfulness of a student's story. Table 3 presents the incidence of teacher emphatic auxiliary verb usage by student ethnicity and socioeconomic status across all 25 transcribed conversations. Of all instances of auxiliary verb usage, 56.4% were found within conversations with students identified as Multiethnic. Seventy-eight percent of emphatic auxiliary

Speaker Topics Themes Stance

Knowledge Examination Cognitive

stance toward interpersonal relationships and play.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.80699

from the teachers' topics were knowledge and examination.

5.1.1 Lessening significance with emphatic auxiliary verbs

with a question tag such as "You did make your bed, didn't you?"

intensifying adverbs, and downtoners.

Teacher Teacher knowledge

Table 2.

175

Living arrangements Rules and roles of the home How time is spent

Common topics within teacher-child conversations, teacher topics in descending order.
