DA Blog post for 8.22.13 - Words and Minds - Mercer

Discourse Analysis

8.20.13

Words and Minds – Neil Mercer

            I am not sure where to start talking about this book…I loved it, and have recommended it to several people I work with.  It is completely connected to both of my research interests of teacher/student interaction and teacher professional development.

            This quote on page 6 was one I underlined … “Language is designed for doing something much more interesting than transmitting information accurately from one brain to another: it allows the mental resources of individuals to combine in a collective, communicative intelligence which enables people to make better sense of the world and to devise practical ways of dealing with it.”  This made me think of what we are trying to accomplish in Reading Recovery – with students and with teachers.  In lessons with students, the teacher and student engage in literacy activities (reading books, writing stories, manipulating letters to make words).  There is a great deal of conversation about the text being constructed and about the actions required to do the construction.  RR students are invited into a new literate world by the teacher, and they learn to engage in a new medium.  In Reading Recovery professional development, teachers think and talk about a student and teacher as they engage in a live lesson.  Together, the teachers are trying to make sense of what they see the student doing, how the teacher is instructing, and what else might be tried.   In both kinds of interactions (student/teacher, or teachers discussing) there is no direct “transmission” … the power in what is happening lies in the interaction of all those involved.  The term “interthinking” is perfect for describing what occurs in Reading Recovery interactions – “joint, co-ordinated intellectual activity which people regularly accomplish using language” (p.17).   The term “cumulative talk” also connects to these interactions, particularly those between teachers (p. 31).  In their conversations behind the one way mirror, the teachers try to make sense of what is occurring in the lesson by building “on each other’s contributions, add(ing) information of their own, and in a mutually supportive, uncritical way construct shared knowledge and understanding” (p.31).   In my experience, it takes a while for teachers to come to this point where they are sharing and building on talk of one another.  And, over time as teachers become more comfortable with one another, there is a “criticalness” that begins – not in a bad way, but in a supportive way.  Teachers become better practitioners when they have honest conversations about teaching interactions and think through the results of their teaching decisions.  Sometimes, this involves a “critical” comment from a peer. 

            The section on “The Given and the New” was particularly interesting for thinking through Reading Recovery student/teacher interactions.  Clay, the creator of Reading Recovery, talked a great deal about helping to connect new information to known information.  The entire lesson structure/procedures is built upon this premise. The student reads familiar books first in the lesson and gradually builds to a new book at the end of the lesson.  When working with words and letters, new letters are introduced in an array of known letters.  New words are built from the base of known letters.  This is very empowering for struggling readers, who often experience everything as NEW and have become passive learners because of the overwhelming nature of so much new.  Over time, students begin to look at new info and think, “What do I know about this?”.  Most of the time, there is ‘known’ within the ‘new’.  In RR, we do “recaps”, “elicitations”, “repetitions”, “reformulations”, and “exhortations” (p. 52-55) – we try to think through the HOW something is done, rather than just the WHAT of doing (p. 55). 

            I underlined this quote on page 60 – “ A third way in which we create community is by creating grammatical links between phrases or sentences, so that the meaning of a long stretch of language is achieved by the relationship between these smaller units, and not just the meaning and organization of words within them”.   Though I know the author means this is a completely different way, it reminded me of what we do in lessons with kids to help them control new language patterns.  Often, kids come into RR with home language that is very different from “book language”.  I haven’t met a 6 year old struggling reader who says “What shall we do?” and yet, they are confronted with that kind of language in early reader text.   We do a great deal of language rehearsal in RR so the child can begin to control the language orally before they are expected to pick it up from the print.  We also chose books to build on patterns.  If “Here comes” is a new phrase for a child, we pick books that have that phrase. Each book the child reads in the lesson has that phrase so that it becomes familiar, controlled, and understood.  In this way, the new becomes the given and the child is able to move on to other unfamiliar phrases.   I like the quote by Bakhtin (p. 66) – “we do not learn words from dictionaries, we take them from other people’s mouths”.  This is absolutely what we are doing with RR kids by introducing them to new book structures.

            On page 98, the author discusses “exploratory talk” – “that in which partners engage critically but constructively with each other’s ideas.  Relevant information is offered for joint consideration.  Proposals may be challenged and counter-challenged, but if no reasons are given and alternatives are offered.  Agreement is sought as a basis for joint progress.  Knowledge is made publically accountable and reasoning is visible in the talk”.   Reading Recovery talk among teachers (and sometimes students) involves exploratory talk too.  Teachers are often asked questions about why they made a particular decision and they are asked to provide their rationale.  Teachers may explore a particular line of thought and find evidence in the actions of the student, and then may consider an alternative explanation and find evidence to support that view point.   This quote connects too (p.99) “In exploratory talk, control is a matter of constant negotiation, as speakers offer contributions which may, if partners are persuaded, determine the subsequent direction of collective thinking.”   This happens in conversations behind the glass – teachers argue and support their arguments, teachers disagree, and teachers are challenged.  Out of these arguments come new understandings.  More is said about exploratory talk on pages 102 and 103 – “a dialogue happens in which differences are treated explicitly, as matters for mutual exploration, reasoned evaluation and resolution.  To engage in exploratory talk, with its explicit reasons, criticisms and evaluations, participants must not be primarily concerned with protecting their individual or joint identities and interests, but instead with discovering new and better ways of jointly making sense.”

            The section on Community also describes RR (p. 106).  The resources the author describes are available within the RR community – a history, a collective identity (local, national, international), reciprocal obligations, discourse (“technical language … is of immense value to people who share the relevant knowledge” – p. 108)).   The discussion of Communities of practice (p. 116) was a nice review.  On page 117, the author talks about how new members are “apprenticed” into the community by exposure to models and their use of the technical discourse.  This happens for both RR teachers and children.

            I will post this now, and may post more about Development through Dialogue later!