What role does ICT play in enhancing children’s talk?

Initially when analysing the data I identified all the examples in which the task of talking at the computer appeared to enhance children’s talk. I then sorted those instances into two groups 1) enhancement due to task, 2) enhancement recognisable as being directly related to the presence of the tool.

Enhancement due to task

The task was for the children to talk about their intentions to write. That learning was scaffolded and supported through the;

Evidence was shown in my research of the children's learning being maximised in the following ways:

Directly related to the presence of the tool

In sorting the examples I kept in my head the thought, “I could achieve that for my students through providing a quality learning experience without the computer”. This allowed the identification of those instances where the enhanced talk could be directly linked to the presence of the tool.

Achieving the task when at the computer allowed students to,

The literature I reviewed was scarce with regard to ICT in a supporting role to children’s talk. It mainly focused on software designed to interact with the writer in oral speech and written forms, or the comparison in impact of software types on learning and thinking. I found that Rupert Wegerif was an author in some of the work that loosely resembled my research. Many of his titles reflected my key word searches of; dialogue, discourse, talk, using computers to support discussion, thinking with ICT and the role of ICT in talk. It was in reading his work that the idea emerged of the tool as being 'not the teacher' and therefore not interacting on the same physical and emotional level.

The computer is not going to have the same interactions with the students based on emotions, stress, time of day, time commitments, curriculum, behaviour, etc. as a teacher would. In my research removing the teacher’s direct contact and Teacher Talk had a positive effect on the students and their learning. Team B were able to change their behaviour and direct it towards their learning when they were given time to do so without the teacher’s regulation of talk and behaviour. Team A developed ways to communicate and interact with each other and increased their amount of talk after I stopped initiating contact with them.

The 'safe context' was strongly reflected in my research in allowing Team A’s development of questioning and discussion, and talk verses silence. In all the teams, each child was able to use a common language of the tool with their partner, providing at the start an equal intellectual community. In using the computer they could proceed at their own pace and level of communication.

Wegerif strongly represented the view in his writing that computers do not judge. They are endlessly patient and can stimulate learners and provide a focus for their talk (Wegerif 2004). The idea of stimulating the learner and providing focus for talk is prevalent in my research as discussed in the following sections.

The computer was a catalyst for talk as a way to stimulate their conversations together, whether organising turns, mouse control, making comment about the computer or physically being the place for talking about their writing. The Tool Talk that arose from their direct interactions with the computer was stimulating to their learning also. It broke the sessions up into different kinds of talk and subjects, as the flow of a playground conversation might. This added to the general feel of play in their learning experience. Here in front of the computer they were able to use talk that would not be possible in initate-respond-evaluate (IRE) learning situations.

The Teams commented in their post-interviews about how it was all fun. Adrian commented about it being fun and ‘not work’, the child equivalent to saying they understood the task and found it easy to achieve. I do like the term ‘not work’ because it means that as a learning experience it has achieved the high standards of relevant, real, responsive and relational with which the generation Y.com need to engage in their learning (McCrindle 2005).

In the class survey I did before working with my teams, all the children surveyed could give details of when they last worked on the computer, the program, the task, the purpose and name the teacher scaffolding that experience. There was excitement and pride in the voices of those I asked to explain their experiences further. For those children in the class who had worked with me previously they were openly boasting about the work we had done together to others and myself. Forming Intentions through talk using the computer has been a very memorable experience for my Teams also, a term later, they are still initiating conversations with me about our experience together and their use of those skills now.

The physical presence of the computer was influential in their ability to focus themselves on the task. It was there, visible and substantial. There were no animations, moving images or sound bleeps to recall the children to task, however they returned to it as their task focus. This is demonstrated in the time they allocated to their in-depth conversations, in the beginning they talked for 30 minutes, dropping down to 20 minutes in the final sessions. Within a classroom context the time allocated by the majority of children had been shorter and was of lesser depth.

In some interaction between the partners the mouse acted as ‘talking object’, that the child with the mouse was the one talking or physically interacting with the computer. The children recognised when one partner had been in control of the mouse more than the other, and without argument made choices about turns and roles. For Team A in their first sessions the control of the mouse by one partner led to silence and disinterest in the other, however by their second recorded session this behaviour was no longer present.

The computer provided for Team B a way to ignore the undesirable behaviour in their partner without the need to reprimand them or even acknowledge the behaviour. Both Dee and Adrian were able to return each other to task through making comment about the tool or simply turning to the tool or wiggling the mouse.

Team C developed a negative use of the tool in their last recorded session. The reason for their change in behaviour towards each other is covered in Tool Talk and Personal Talk. The data shows Olive using the computer to cut short Jaye’s ideas by stopping the computer recording, turning to ‘do something’ on the screen, talking about the tool over top of her, and physically turning to the tool.

The body language at the tool was fascinating. It carried many of the same messages that looking away, picking up an object or walking away would in conversation. For the Teams physically turning to the computer in conversation acted as a new paragraph would in a sentence, it stopped and changed topic or talk type.

Adam and Tui both commented in their post-interviews that they found forming intentions on the computer easier because their didn’t have to write it down and could come back and listen to the ideas later. As writers with needs, talking about and recording their writing intentions allowed them to successfully access the writing process. The ease with which they then returned to the classroom and wrote reflects this as well as their use and practice of teacher modelling.

Team B’s greatest enhancement was the re-direction of their Personal Unrelated Talk towards the tool and task. They were able to play themselves forward in their learning. The computer gave them most of that sense of play through catering for learning style, personalities and inter-activeness. During the class survey children expressed their personal views of the computer as “fun because you get to play and do things”. Amongst the class there was the view of the computer as the fun way to learn and therefore ‘not work’. This ‘fun’ machine allowed Team B to make changes in their own behaviour and that of their partners without losing the appearance of having fun and playing.

Software

Much of the research I read about explored the software and it’s impact on the children’s learning. In the next sections I will use Wegerif’s work to illustrate my point as his work on computers to support children’s discourse related to my own research. However I read further than his work to find that the majority of research was focused on software.

Wegerif commented, “the use of computers requires both the design of software to encourage discussion and the incorporation of the computers into a larger educational context supportive of exploratory talk” (Wegerif 1996, p 53). In my research I did not focus on the software as having impact on the learner or enhancing their talk. I disagree with Wegerif’s use of ‘design of software’ as being necessary. He was writing in his article about the use of two pieces of software specifically designed to support talk amongst learners.

In a later article he commented “combining preparation for working together at the computer with the right kind of software can draw pupils into talking and learning together within the curriculum” (Wegerif 2004, p 1). In this article he was discussing two educational approaches and their use of computer-supported activities, and one specifically designed piece of software. I support his comment on combining preparation with the right kind of software, in that the teacher is choosing a program to support the learning intentions, rather than designing learning intentions around the program.

My professional opinion here is a reflection of technology development and my development as a teacher. Instead of developing learning experiences around movie making software for children to experience making a movie, and writing learning intentions solely based on the tool. I (and in some aspects my school) have moved towards planning for a learning experience involving, say, development and active practice of strategies for communication, citizenship and a curriculum objective, which will include making a movie. In planning quality teaching and learning experiences the teacher is locating the best tools to scaffold and support the learner towards varied learning intentions.

There are amazing pieces of software on the market today, and when publishing their pieces of writing the children in my research use software involving moving images, animation, sound, music, video clips and writing. In my research it was not necessary to use educational software designed to enhance children’s talk when forming intentions to write. The software commonly used in our school could be applied to the teacher’s learning intentions for her students. I chose Tech4Learning MediaBlender because it fit my criteria, 1) record and play back their voices, 2) visual and physical organisation, and 3) known program to students. Other programs such as KidPix, Hyperstudio, iMovie and Powerpoint also fit the criteria.

I strongly agreed with Wegerif’s comments about the quality of talk around the computer as a reflection of the quality learning experiences prepared by the teacher, that computers can be effective in supporting exploratory talk amongst groups and integration of the curriculum (Wegerif 1996, 2004).

The computer and the software enabled the children to record and play back sound, and visually and physically organise it. For the learner the computer played the same role as my car does for me. It allows me to enjoy my morning rides to work amongst the rush-hour traffic. I confess a love for driving, stereo blaring, three hours up the coast road. I have learned and developed terminology for it and can converse with others about it. Friends and family teach me new ways to care for it, and I ask questions until I can internalise that knowledge. My mechanic corrects my behaviour towards it and helps me set goals. If I need a way to enter a conversation I might recount the funny thing I saw while driving my car. I am not required to talk about it all the time, in fact ‘normal’ conversation would not flow easily if I did. The hitchhikers I pick up know to converse with me when entering, the journey is not in silence. The children who ride in the back are learning and practicing the social skills of enclosed small spaces and safety in the car and on the road.

In my research the computer provided the environment, excuse, direction and opportunity to talk about their writing. The teacher taught the necessary social and collaborative skills, provided quality teaching and learning experiences, the model of forming intentions and the writing process, and a positive learning environment. I provided the time, space, direction and permission to talk. The major key to the success of the ICT in enhancing the children’s talk was their view of the computer. The class viewed the computer as ‘fun’, remembered many successful learning experiences as ‘not work’, and knew it to be collaborative through discussion, grouping or asking for support. The students acknowledged the computer as a tool in which you engage in talk about, at and around. In my research it became an ideal tool to enhance talk towards the desired outcomes of the learning intentions.

Teacher’s Role

In Atkin’s (1994) model of effective teaching she states that the learning environment plays a major role in maximising and enhancing student learning. The conditions within the learning environment require motivation; challenge, sense of achievement, appropriate resources and emotional involvement. Motivation is enhanced by an environment that fosters ownership through self-direction and metacognition, is non-judgemental, encourages continual improvement and honours approximations. These conditions combined with supportive relationships and scaffolding of learning time allowed the children to achieve learning at their own levels.

Achieving the learning intentions when at the computer allowed myself as researcher to,

The quality teaching and learning experiences provided by the classroom teacher is the key to the enhanced learning in the students in my research. Without the quality environment of the classroom and school wide practice the students would not have achieved as much as they did. Effective learning starts with effective planning by the teacher for their learners.

In wanting my students to talk when forming their intentions to write I was asking them to talk in a way they had not done before. I was also asking myself as their teacher to teach in a way I had not easily done before. For the children the task of forming intentions was to talk, for me it was to teach by letting them talk. I can visualise while writing this Dee sneaking looks over at me to see if I was going to moderate their talk, and the time it took for her team to adapt to my new style of teaching.

Just wanting my children to talk in a different way was not enough to achieve this new talk. Through teacher modelling of IRE forming intentions discussions the children were shown ways to talk about their writing. By scaffolding the time to do, the space to explore and control of teacher interaction by the learner, the children developed their own use of talk.

In choosing to provide this variety of learning scaffolding and support outside the ‘normal’ classroom-writing programme, I allowed the children to shift their understanding of writing and talking behaviour.

In choosing the computer as the tool to support their learning I provided them with a child centred approach. A learning approach they comment on as being in control of, knowing lots about, able to focus on task, personal choice in learning, current and relevant to their style of learning and fun. This child centred application of the tool allowed them to take control of their personal learning and that of the team.

This form of innovation was simply another tool to employ in the students’ learning. My vision for the children in my research would be that of movement forward. As the student’s learning develops so should the application of the tool in that learning. All the learners were ready to move on from this application of the tool to their learning. They were ready to apply their new talking skills to the class-writing programme without the tool. Perhaps for Jaye, Adam and Tui returning to the tool when they are ready to internalise new teaching.

My vision would be that time in the normal classroom practice would be given to forming intentions talk after teacher modelling and before the classroom practice of ‘silent writing’. Perhaps in a future vision these children may apply the skills they developed and internalised at the computer to their talk as authors throughout the whole writing process and the ‘silence’ of writing would be humming with meaningful conversations between authors.

Print Version